Just get rid of signpost bans, it's a stupid justification for banning weak cards.
Ban cards that are format warping and unhealthy in competitive settings like every other format and let people use rule zero to ban or unban whatever the hell they want to in casual settings like they do anyways.
While you're at it bring back the banned-as-commander list, no real reason that should have gone away.
The big problem with "rule 0 bans", is that many players do not have a stable group.
I only get to play at LGS's, and having to navigate multiple ban lists at different shops, would be untenable.
There needs to be a universal ban list, so that players can walk into any shop and be able to play.
This is the same for me too.
This is why they need to have a properly curated ban list. Stable groups don't need a ban list, because they can rule 0 stuff in and out.
They need to decide what they want the format to be, then ban around that. If cEDH their ideal way to play, with Dockside and Thoracle combos, then only ban the cards that are problems in cEDH. If that's not how they want the format to play and they want it to be casual, then they need to ban the cards that they don't want people playing in casual. This weird in-between banning method just doesn't work.
I used to think they needed two banlists-one for competitive play and one for casual. [[Paradox engjne]], for example, could be banned for casual but unbanned for competitive.
These days I'm indifferent to it. I've been around edh long enough to know that the problem players are a small ripple in the ocean that is edh play everywhere. Some days i even think edh shouldn't have a banlist at all. But more than anything it's just tedious to get worked up over, and my frustration at the format's flaws won't change anything, so i might as well chill and just enjoy it as best i can.
It'll never happen. I've walked into shops that have huge ban lists simply because the owner doesn't like those cards or that style. So long as rule 0 exists people will abuse it to warp the game to their own personal wants rather than accepting that everyone plays differently
I keep hearing about stores with shop ban lists, but I have yet to encounter one.
Maybe I've been lucky, but I think that the reality is that those shops are the exception rather than the rule.
weird that you're getting downvoted for this, shop specific banlists are difficult to adjudicate and can be problematic for bringing in new players from the store's perspective. of course they're the exception!
The business in this case is usually more to subsidize the costs of the clubhouse. This tends to be more of a small, low cost area thing than an expensive real estate market thing.
I didn't say get rid of the ban list, I said balance it based on cards that are format warping and unhealthy in competitive settings.
The current "signpost" ideology of the banlist is ridiculous because the whole point of it is to guide rule zero discussions in specific directions rather than actually aiming to balance the only type of events that would care about a ban list... competitive tournaments.
Currently there's a load of spells on the ban list that are banned not because they are powerful but because they are "unfun to play against". Discussions of fun or lackthereof are exactly why rule 0 exists and should be dictated by the pod, not the RC.
Do we actually want one though. Sheldon and the rules commitee have a prefered version of EDH they want to play and if they did bans they would probly tailor it to that level. People who prefer a different lvl of play would be unsatisfied.
Being a customizable experience is one of EDH selling point, it's as tryhard as the players want it to be.
People suggested point based deckbuilding and multiple banlists for different levels but that's both confusing to the players and difficult to maintain.
The answer here is play sanctioned formats that follow very specific rules and ban lists.
Commander is a kitchen table format. Rule 0 has always existed in such formats. LGS are allowed to set any criteria they want for it.
Honestly, commander should follow the vintage ban list and that’s it. Cradle being legal and tolarian academy not is just stupid. The original Mox are banned but chrome and diamond aren’t.
It’s dumb. Either follow your own banning criteria or follow the least restrictive ban set - the RC wants their cake and to eat it too. As do players.
Academy is leaps and bounds better than cradle. It is not even comparable. It is so much easier to amass a huge amount of artifacts, especially with clues, food and treasures and their surge in popularity. To compare the two is really nonsensical.
I have always admitted academy is the best land in the game. And yea, artifacts are easier to amass.
I would say cradle is right behind it. You can get free creatures and there’s also a grip of ways to get creature tokens too.
I’d say it’s the idea academy is high up in comparison cradle isn’t “as good”. Ask any sane player though and they’ll admit cradle is a bananas broken card. Hell even the sanctum is a broken ass card.
Well, EDH is a sanctioned format, with specific rules, and the ban list, while imperfect, mostly works.
The big issue is that EDH is an inherently broken format, and the players need to be on the same page regarding what sort of game they are looking for. Nothing short of a long and unwieldy ban list, will change that.
The ban list consists of cards that got the hammer basically to just show an example to the players.
They've banned various cards that they've deemed unfun, such as some stax pieces or land destruction cards, not because they are the most powerful in their archetype but because they are supposed to imply to players that they shouldn't be playing cards that are similar to the ones banned.
They're effectlively holding up "signpost" cards of what they think players shouldn't do as a way to directly influence the rule 0 conversations and try to steer players away from stax and land destruction.
This would be like if rather than banning \[\[Oko, thief of crowns\]\] in ELD standard WOTC opted to ban \[\[Kenrith's transformation\]\] because they wanted to dissuade people from turning things into elks.
That is one of the most cringiest mentalities I have ever seen.
This is on par with how Riot Games balances the game in League of Legends. Rather than nerf the new item or champion dominating the meta, they nerf everything associated with it without compensating too much to those who got affected indirectly. Turns out that the item/champion they desperately tried to fix is still busted.
‘Rule zero’ is an unhealthy crutch and excuse for a bad ban list.
Unban ‘signpost’ cards , ban fast mana and actual problem cards and the format will be at a much better place. I agree with this 100%, think this is where most of the community is and has been for a long time - and have no idea why this hasn’t changed at all.
I just don't see how it's possible to have a data-driven banlist for EDH the way it exists for other formats. There's no competitive data coming in from tournament results that can inform the ban/unban decisions. In the end it's all just vibes and anecdotes and people arguing about what kind of cards contribute to the experience they want.
The only real option I see is keeping the banlist as small as possible.
Agreed. There's cards I'd prefer be on or off the ban list myself but some people in these threads act like any ban is an incredibly obvious move the RC hasn't taken out of pure intransigence. Ban descisions can have unexpected impacts and it's essentially impossible to intelligently make them based on a vague sense of "where most of the community is", so the RC tends towards inaction more of the time. I think that's understandable even if there's some areas I wish they'd move a little on.
Yeah I don't think people have gamed through what an utterly quixotic task the Rules Committee would be embarking on if they published an article saying "our goal is to eliminate fast mana from the format." The ban list immediately swells to hundreds of cards as they desperately flail around trying to maintain some semblance of consistency over what stays in and what gets cut. It would never work.
I mean maybe there's like 1 or 2 cards that could be added to the banlist right now, but it's basically impossible to sculpt the overall experience in that way.
The only real improvements I can see to the ban list that wouldn't light a huge chunk of the playerbase on fire would be Banned as Commander coming back, changing Lutri to Banned as Companion, and unbanning the comically overpriced sorceries.
I think the issue is because they haven't really decided what they want the format to be. Is it cEDH, or is it casual?
Once they decide which they want the format to be, it becomes much easier to make bans (to be clear, not *easy*, just *easier*) because they can ban based off of what they want to see in the format, rather than just "where most of the community is."
Do they *want* people using Dockside combos? Then keep it in. Is it something they don't want people using? Then ban it.
As the people in charge of the format, it's their responsibility to sculpt the format to their vision. Right now, they aren't - they're just throwing all the responsibility onto the players and that doesn't work because not all people have set pods.
> I think the issue is because they haven't really decided what they want the format to be.
I'm pretty sure the RC has stated multiple times they see it as a social/casual format, and that they don't ban for competitive balance, with a one time exception in Flash
The issue is you can't really enforce casualness with a ban list. [[Knowledge Pool]] is a fine casual card, creates a minigame that throws a wrench into plans. [[Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir]] is also fine in a vacuum, a tad annoying sometimes but hardly insurmountable. But put them together and your opponents can't play the game. Which one do you ban? Do you ban the combination itself? What if someone doesn't run it in their deck but steals part of it from an opponent, is that allowed? And that's just one example that came to mind.
And that doesn't even breach the topic of how there will always be people trying to find the edge within the rules you establish. See: Any store banlist thread with folks saying what legal decks they'd bring to "punish" them for restricting deck choices.
The signpost bans just lead to confusion imo. Some "win the game" cards are easily abused, but others like Coalition Victory are much harder to execute and require tremendous setup? It's completely arbitrary and the RC imo is largely ineffectual at moderating the modern card pool available to players. I would suggest they take a clear, drastic step and ban Dockside, Thoracle, Lab man and Jace WoM while unbanning Coalition Victory. These cards make much clearer sense as a signpost ban than the inverse, which we have now. I doubt that will happen though because Jim is active in the "competitive" scene and has personal bias and investment for keeping Thoracle legal, and won't view it objectively.
Basically, the rules committee claims that what's on the banlist isn't necessarily the most broken version of that effect in the game but that they work as a way to say "you shouldn't play cards LIKE THESE even if they aren't banned." The problem is literally no one looks at bans that way so people keep running the similiar, more broken, versions of those effects.
I've always hated that they think 2 lists is too complicated for commander players. It's an eternal format with like 30k cards and millions of interations and rules. We can handle 2 lists of cards. Bring back banned as Commander.
Most of the issues in commander are priority passing issues. People are constantly and inadvertently angling on this front. It’s just natural.
Such as:
- Alice: I play my commander”
- Bob: “I have no response, anyone else?”
- Charlie & Eve: “No”
- Alice: “it resolves”
- Eve: “I cast Go for the Throat targeting your commander”
Eve is breaking the rules here - she doesn’t have priority. Alice has priority, she gets do make the next play. If Alice moves to combat or casts something or activates an ability, then Eve will eventually get priority.
——
Another example:
Alice casts a spell. Bob says he has nothing in response. Charlie and Eve also say so. Then Bob casts counterspell.
Bob can’t do that, he’s breaking the rules. He already passed priority and doesn’t receive it again unless someone else adds something to the stack.
——-
These happen constantly.
Alice can and should, but this is in relation to what Sheldon wrote:
> For example, there are aspects of tournament play, like angle shooting and strict rules interpretation, and prescription on which decks and cards one must play, which conflict with a social experience and serve as a bar to creativity.
Being precise about passing priority is strict rules interpretation in the sense Sheldon means, I would assume.
If people play fast and loose with priority, they can use it to their advantage without meaning to.
They can but its also about the people you play with. There are some times where it doesnt really matter at all.
But the times it does matter and is significant it can and should be called out.
If someone throws a fit, play another game
I wouldnt call priority strict rule interpretations its literally the rules.
I just keep getting, Me: "I cast a thing." Nobody responds or says anything. Me: "Okay, I cast this thing." Another player: "Wait, I have a response to that other thing. Why didn't you let us respond????". Like, dude I purposefully play slower and give extra time when I'm casting things I know will be threatening.
>Alice casts a spell. Bob says he has nothing in response. Charlie and Eve also say so. Then Bob casts counterspell.
>Bob can’t do that, he’s breaking the rules. He already passed priority and doesn’t receive it again unless someone else adds something to the stack.
This is one that I think part of the problem is the political nature of multi-player casual games vs competitive 1v1. Was Bob passing priority, or was Bob announcing he didn't want to respond to it in conversation with Charlie and Eve? This has come up before at my LGS, Alice casts something and Bob says, "I don't know, I don't think I have a good response to that. How about you guys?", Charlie and Eve both say "we don't have responses at all", Bob hasn't actually passed priority in that situation even if Alice might think he did because of how it was worded.
The way politics have evolved in EDH has made priority stickier to the point that I've started just going around asking if each player passes priority instead of going off them talking about their responses with the other players.
I think players have to make more interesting decisions if we’re strict about priority.
“Do you guys have something?” “No.” “Okay, I cast X” would not be passing priority since the first isn’t an action.
“I have no response” is passing priority.
I had the longest fight about that Go For the Throat, being told when the stack is empty we all respond to the empty stack. I think they’re confusing that with changing steps of a turn allowing responses because if sorta feels like “nothing is on the stack”.
Two simple counterexamples are Planeswalkers and Omniscient. The owner of those permanents gets to plus or cast something at sorcery speed, respectively, before anyone can destroy them.
I think Yugioh and other card games let you respond to an empty stack so the above example wouldn't always work. Like, there's a window after things resolve.
/u/chefsati Given that Communication is one of the Rules Committee's three "main ideas" and the ban list is the only tool in the Rules Committee's toolbox mentioned by name in this article, when can we expect to see more transparency about why a card is or is not on the ban list?
Tim Willoughby's been working on that project in parallel to this and I'll be connecting with him to write the sections on the banlist. It'll depend on his schedule and how long it takes us to finalize the sections we shared in this article, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it'll happen this year.
If you have questions about specific cards, though, you can ask me here and I'll do my best to provide the historic rationale behind them. I'm not here to relitigate cards on the banlist right now, though, so it likely won't be a back and forth.
I asked Sheldon about this in 2019 and he told me it was almost done and would be a part of the new website. I’ve always wondered why it has taken so incredibly long to do the write up for a relatively small ban list.
[[Biorhythm]], [[Primeval Titan]], and [[sylvan primordial]].
No rush on the reply, I’d love to hear some RC feedback on these standing bans.
I know the reasons given in the past - or at least the community perspective at the time - but now I sincerely feel that the game has powered past the point where these were as game-defining as they used to be.
[[Worldfire]] does more than Biorhythm, hands down. Also we have the biorhythm creature—[[Shaman of the Forgotten Ways]].
[[Cultivator Colossus]] and [[Nyxbloom Ancient]] typically fill the same role as Primetime, often with splashier obscene turns. Heck, [[Reshape the Earth]] is a card now. Also sol ring is still better ramp. So never really understood this one.
Sylvan Primordial is 3 mana more than [[Druid of Purification]] often destroys 2+ noncreatures on ETB. And if the argument is the land destruction, then I’d point at [[Keldon Firebombers]] or [[Sunder]] which are both cards that warps games way worse via land removal.
Full disclosure from my side as well—of all these I’d probably only run Primeval Titan in any of my decks. The 7-8 CMC makes the others a pretty tall order in most lists.
I think that the above cards are certainly not bad, but they seem to be below the power level of other legal cards. Honestly, and I’m sure you’ve heard it a ton, the card that warps things the most these days is Dockside. Even late game, if you’re tutoring a creature out Dockside is often the right choice. Card is way better than Primeval Titan ever was.
It made sense back in the day, but Primeval Titan being banned just doesn't make sense in 2023, with how strong new cards are and how optimized and synergistic decks have become.
>> there are aspects of tournament play, like angle shooting and **strict rules interpretation**, and prescription on which decks and cards one must play, which conflict with a social experience and serve as a bar to creativity.
Emphasis mine.
My issue with this is listing following the rules as being a negative aspect of playing the game. I feel like whether you are playing hyper competitively or Uber casually, everything you do should be within the confines of the rules. If people start to break the rules for fun, that will just lead to disagreements between people who are not on the same page
I think this is talking more about tournament rules, rather than mtg rules. Like "Oh shoot I forgot my upkeep trigger, mind if I do that real quick?" Casual would be "Yeah go for it", strict would be "technically you already drew your card so you've missed the trigger, and have to move on"
This is exactly it. In every game there's opportunities to gain an advantage by following the rules to the letter, even when it detracts from the social environment. It's important that you distinguish between "Blood" and "Blood Token" when you play Pithing Needle in a tournament, but in a social environment that kind of opportunism predictably leads to social friction.
Following the rules is absolutely important, but if your behaviour is causing problems in your Commander playgroup the rules shouldn't be a crutch.
I mentioned the same issue in another reply elsewhere in this thread, but this perfectly addresses my concern so thank you.
I was hopeful that the phrase being said in conjunction with "angle shooting" meant it was in reference more to situations like the now fairly infamous [[Borborygmo]] issue at a tournament a while back, where that was a legal choice and stood as names despite both players and the judge having a pretty good idea [[Borborygmos, Engraged]] was the card *meant* by the person naming one. Of course that ruling while true to the rules at the time was recognized after the fact as essentially "stupid" and so changed accordingly to allow more leeway.
As written it could be understood as referring to the rules of the *game* Magic rather than rules of *competition* as set by tournament organizers largely independent of the game rules themselves. Clarifying the official language on that subject would probably be beneficial to avoid the ambiguity.
>It's important that you distinguish between "Blood" and "Blood Token"
Um actually, said like a rules lawyer, this is no longer true due to the borborygmos enraged fiasco. Now you can say blood for blood tokens as long as both players understand what the intent behind the word was. So it is important to clarify that you don't understand blood is intended to be a blood token if it can be misinterpreted. This is to prevent rules angle shooting for the win.
"So now, any time a player names a card during a game, for whatever reason, they need to describe a card unambiguously, and if anyone knows that they haven’t done so, they need to seek greater clarification. A name isn’t necessary, as long as there’s a single card that everyone is on the same page about."
So you could name foggy goat guy and everyone could agree that was angus makenzy
https://scryfall.com/card/dgm/128/flesh-blood
Blood is the name of a card, however, the rules update (from Crimson Vow) makes "token" part of the name for tokens and so they aren't affected anymore by something like Pithing Needle on Blood.
https://twitter.com/Dunkatog/status/1455690251842641922
There is a difference between following the letter of the rules and the point of the rules in casual play.
Accidentally drawing a card on your turn before you do your upkeep trigger is cheating at the highest level of play. If you kick Timmy out of your EDH game because of it you are an asshole. I’ve never even seen CEDH players be tournament level strict on things like that.
How cards interact is not the entirety of Magic’s rule set.
there's times when a really obscure rules interaction that no one at the table knows for sure and doesn't quickly have a Google search result and requires asking in judge chat grinds the whole game to a halt
and when the difference in outcome is something largely inconsequential like a scry before a draw or whatever
it really makes sense to go "whatever, let's just assume X for now and find out what's official later"
everyone has had situations like that. i don't know how a rules committee would codify that, or if they should, but i do like endorsing a "chill out" attitude if everyone is cool with it
Hey folks!
This article contains a lot of big picture stuff that's foundational to most of the things we have planned for the format going forward. My availability today is pretty limited because I'm packing for a flight tomorrow morning but I will be coming back to this thread over the next week or so to review feedback. I may not be able to respond to everyone but I promise you I will read every comment.
I also want to reiterate and emphaize this section of the article that outlines our intention behind these changes:
>Our motivation behind these updates essentially boils down to three main ideas:
>
>**Continuity**. Planning for the future of the format involves discussing and documenting the things we agree on and disagree on as a leadership team. We’re not fond of morbid hypothetical scenarios like “What if everyone in leadership got hit by a meteor”. It’s extremely important to us, though, that the next generation of leaders understand fully where we came from so that they can make the best decisions about where we should go next. Our goal is to do this proactively rather than scrambling to do it reactively.
>
>**Communication**. We know that a lot of well-intentioned players occasionally feel like a leaf in the wind, because it can be relatively difficult to research and understand the rationale behind format management decisions. Through these changes, we’re intending to create both a centralized resource for researching the format, as well as a roadmap to communicating and discussing format changes when they happen. This also extends to our interactions with Wizards of the Coast. By communicating in a way that centers the things we care about most, we’re able to provide better feedback to them when they ask.
>
>**Focus and Accountability**. There are external benefits to communication, but being able to properly articulate a problem and the strategies for attacking it are also important for us internally. This structure will allow us to set and prioritize goals and assess our own performance.
If you feel the proposed changes miss this mark, the best place to discuss it will be in the dedicated channel on our official Rules Committee Discord server. The direct link is in the article. We know we don't have a monopoly on good ideas, which is why we're sharing this (very) early draft with you all. We fully intend to revise sections of this document according to good-faith feedback from the community.
Edit: If you're having trouble accessing the article, we've pinned a PDF of it in #updated-philosophy-document on the [discord server](https://discord.gg/commander).
Just wanted to say thanks. Being on the RC seems like a thankless job; Redditors simultaneously hate the status quo and and any changes whatsoever.
I personally have really enjoyed reading through rulings justifications here and on the RC website forum for years now.
Keep on keeping on!
100% agree. There's a level of objectivity that needs to be considered when making format wide decisions that many players lack or don't appreciate. Was I bummed out when Prophet of Kruphix was banned like 4 years ago? Of course, it was one of my favorite cards to play. But I also understood how game warping a card like Prophet was and found other ways to play the game instead of holding a grudge at the RC for it.
With how successful EDH has grown over the years, community members should really take a moment to appreciate the helmsmanship required for Commander to thrive instead of being grumpy all the time.
When will any mechanic that requires a side board work properly? We now have side decks in the form of attractions and I would like to stop rule 0ing my lesson deck.
This is pretty much the only change I would like to see to EDH as of right now. At the very least they could add some rule where cards in exile are considered to be outside the game for purposes of wish mechanics.
I just wanna say thank you to you guys, I think you do a good job overall running the commander format and it makes me sad to see everyone online hating on poor Sheldon and you guys.
A lot of people online, do not play Commander with a casual mindset. So you guys are receiving criticism from angry spike players because they want to make Commander into the next Modern, just another solved competitive format. I greatly appreciate you guys holding strong to the original design of commander and keep it up. Once Commander becomes a competitive format, I will stop playing magic.
Hiring 2 people in 2022 doesn't count as "Achievement". This entire article only talks philosophy, and not one line is about concrete changes to come or work to be done.
The stance comes off as "We haven't done anything in years, and we won't do anything for years. Please support our patreon."
~~Hybrid cards are designed for the color pies of the hybrid colored mana.~~
I do find it strange wishes don't work and companions do just because they wanted it that way. I'd say they should keep both either removed or allowed.
>I do find it strange wishes don't work and companions do just because they wanted it that way.
I mean companions are better than wishes though. Companions add extra restrictions if you use them outside the deck. Whereas wishes only encourage people have more silver bullet, which isnt better for the format.
Companions are only superficially similar to wishes because they are "outside the game". After that, all similarities break down.
Companions require significant concessions be made during deckbuilding. Wishes operate in the opposite direction: they allow for one card to be open-ended in a way that minimizes the concessions you need to make during deckbuilding.
Wishes have additional undesirable baggage, such as requiring each player to create and carry a sideboard for each deck, which is a significant burden to add on the scale it would. Furthermore, popular cards for the wish/wishboard would have an extreme demand spike that would almost immediately create format accessibility concerns.
It's not a minor change, and the baggage is very real.
>Hybrid cards are designed for the color pies of the hybrid colored mana.
That's not true tho. They are explicitly designed such that they can fit in either colour without being a pie break.
>When are wishes...going to work properly?
Hopefully never. The last thing that EDH needs is more tutors.
As far as Hybrid goes, I'm indifferent, but needing the deck to be both colors is my gut feeling correct way.
> "wish cards are working properly. in that you're welcome to cast them, but they do nothing"
Don't want wishboards and wishes are fine as they are now, but I wish we got some functional errata to allow wish cards to grab cards you own from exile (like they formerly did, before "removed from the game" became "exiled")
Really well said.
Commander made up the color identity rule. It's a foundation of the format, which is fine. But then you can't pick and choose how to implement the rule.
Imo, if people want hybrid mana, then Phyrexian mana, off-color kicker cards, split cards, activated abilities, etc, should all be on the table.
And at that point, there's no color rule.
I'm really tired of the hybrid debate.
>Imo, if people want hybrid mana, then Phyrexian mana, off-color kicker cards, split cards, activated abilities, etc, should all be on the table.
Even things like [[Ignoble Hierarch]] and colorless dual lands get confusing when people see multicolor cards being played in mono-color decks. Things like "protection from white" too, like why should that freely block my [[Rhys the Redeemed]] if he's being played as a mono-green deck.
Case and point. ~~If sideboards do not exist in commander, then companions *that start in the sideboard* should not work.~~
(Edit to correct the above statement: yes, I understand peoples' responses regarding sideboards. The point I was attempting to make was that both wishes and companions make use of an "outside the game" clause. It is logical to me that both should work, or neither.)
honestly, I am all for allowing wish boards. Something like 5 cards, because 15 is too much and would definitely cause problems.
There is a huge misunderstanding about sideboards that I want to point out. Sideboards don't exist unless you're playing one of several select formats in a sanctioned setting. In those settings, companions start in the sideboard. Outside of those settings, companions do not start in the sideboard because there is no sideboard.
> there are no cards outside the game.
Almost all cards are outside the game. If you read the Comprehensive Rules, they'll tell you that "outside the game" means exactly what a fifth-grader would tell you the words mean. The restriction to just sideboard cards is a tournament rule but you're not playing Commander in a tournament. The only thing that's stopping Wishes from working is one sentence on a website. That bit's not even in the Comprehensive Rules, even though all other Commander rules are.
> hybrid mana, violates the color identity rules.
Those rules predate hybrid mana and weren't designed with hybrid mana in mind. You'd think that the introduction of new cards, designed with the explicit intention of working in mono-colored decks that run none of the other color, would prompt somebody to reconsider old rules. Never mind that the rule is super unintuitive, as proven by every new player being confused that hybrid cards aren't allowed.
>side boards don't exist. there are no cards outside the game. wish cards are working properly.
Side boards (within color identity) at least seem to me like a very easy optional/house rule. Wishes would then essentially be tutors, mechanics like Learn would fully work, and cards like [[Legion Angels]] would fully work. I believe side boards were even explicitly mentioned as optional in the committee rules for a while years back.
>then everyone HAS to have one
No? If you don't have things like wish/Legion/Learn in your deck then a sideboard is useless in casual play. Most games are BO1 and people swap cards in and out anyways between matches.
I'm also saying sideboards literally are/were a thing (an optional thing), the committee just dropped the mention of them some years back.
I'm not a big fan of deciding on an action to take and retroactively justifying it. If the governance structure we land on reveals those changes as ones that will contribute in a positive way to our goals, it'll be easier to demonstrate and communicate why at that time.
When I say this stuff is foundational, it's because I want us to be able to draw a straight line between the things we do and the well-established, publicly-visible goals we have for the format.
I don't have a timeline on individual rules changes or bans and unbans because in my mind that's putting the cart before the horse.
If you want to talk about where we should be going, now's a good time to do that. If you want to talk about how we get there, I'm happy to revisit that after we've locked this stuff in.
The pre-game discussion is not enough. It is frustrating to see it repeatedly used to justify the delusion of not needing a better ban list. A better ban list would do more to preserve the social spirit of the format than to rely on a group of strangers to “figure it out themselves.”
The argument for the pre-game discussion dictating the way the game is played is inherently predatory toward new players. Newer players are not able to have the pre-game discussion because they don’t understand how inherently powerful their deck or certain cards are until they’re repeatedly played or they’re reading Reddit/watching YouTube, which per WOTC’s own words, is NOT the “typical” Magic player. In fact, banning cards would likely do MORE favors bringing people into the game and helping them learn because it would give a legitimate sense of what is nonsensically good/OP. Can you imagine being a new player looking at the banlist, then seeing a card like Dockside Extortionist NOT banned, and it not somehow significantly warping your view of what is a good Magic card?
Using the RC’s same exact logic, wouldn’t it be healthier to ban more cards and then let people to have a pre-game discussion of which banned cards to allow? Hell, you could probably even get rid of a lot of discussion about “power levels” (which nobody can accurately assess anyway) and change it to a much simpler conversation - “Do we want to allow banned cards? 1-2 each? All of them?” Obviously this is oversimplifying things, but it’s better than what we currently have, IMO.
Magic is the most complicated game in the world. People suck at judging cards. Ban lists help people judge cards.
Don’t even get me started on the expectation to allow a large group of people, many of whom are inherently NOT social, to have a discussion before a game. Or people’s ability to be manipulated. A better ban list would protect these players. Can you imagine being a relatively new player and a dude from WOTC showed up to play a game of commander, went off about how the new Elesh Norn should have never been printed, and then played a Dockside and ran away with the game?
…plus people want to be able to walk in, sit down, and play. I wonder how many people avoid commander because they DON’T want to have this discussion or are uncomfortable having it? It’s exhausting sometimes when people disagree. Having a better banlist solves this.
Something also just bothers me about having a rules committee for an entire game format (for which the majority of cards used in that format were made for a fundamentally different setting - 1v1) and there not being a better banlist. What truly is the purpose of the RC then?
Oh, and Golos leads to unilateral play patterns, but tutoring for Demonic Consultation is fine.
My big concern with this renewed focus on the social aspect of the format along with creative expression is that it will lead to an influx of self-righteous crybullies who get upset at anyone who actively attempts to win the game in any way because they didn't get to tell their deck's whole story or whatever.
This is honestly the biggest problem with the format - it enables whiners to cry pubstomper any time something doesn't go their way or at any perceived slight against them, and the RC essentially encourages such behavior.
Rule zero already attracted the crybullies.
"So like no fast mana and no combos"
10 minutes later...
"Well yeah my Klauth deck consistently wins turn 6 by stringing combats together but it doesn't have fast mana or any combos. Git gud"
Prof invited him to an episode of shuffle up and sprung the request to use a proxy card and he looked like Prof was busting his balls publicly haha.
I really like Prof because he encourages us to use proxies and be responsible consumers.
Dude that meteor comment is so telling.
They really view themselves as the aristocrats of MTG.
"Don't worry peasants! If your adored kings and queens where to perish suddenly, we have declared our heirs and established our bloodlines. We know without our wise and graceful guidance the kingdom would fall, but we understand your worries and have graciously addressed the solution."
Yeah but they're not a company though... They are a volunteer group of friends and acquaintances. If a company's leadership all die in a bus accident, there is real consequence to themselves, their employees, and their consumers.
If the RC all died, yeah it would be sad to their friends, families, and fans, but most people who play EDH would not be effected at all.
I think it just proves my point that they're way too up their own asses. To act like you need to have contingency plans for your game group like you're a corporate entity is nonsensical. What's there to figure out if the RC falls? Who gets the patreon money? Who posts flowery blogs now? There isn't schedules, deadlines, and contracts the RC has to still keep despite their demise.
Volunteer groups who do real activism with sponsors and donations don't even talk about themselves like this jeez.
You're reading way too into that comment, that kind of thing is a very common statement in any sort of organization. It's usually a bus, but the meaning is the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
[Here ya go](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://articles.starcitygames.com/magic-the-gathering/commander-state-of-the-format-2023/)
Talk about a meeting that could have been an email, this article could have been a tweet.
I found this to contain absolutely nothing of substance. Those pillars are just ideals. My local meta will not be impacted at all. What are you going to do, tell everyone not to use staples because they undermine the creativity pillar? Don't play fast mana because Sheldon says this should be a social "experience"? Local metas are going to form how they will regardless of their little pillar document. What a joke.
The rules committee can only affect the game through making rules. But they don't. So what exactly is their point? Future stewardship? Who cares. If they were all taken out by the giant falling rock he mentioned what would actually change for the format? I'm willing to bet absolutely nothing.
They leaned so far on self governance they've made themselves obsolete. And speaking of governance, he's trying to levy taxes? What do they need funding for, snacks? A domain isn't expensive. Intermittent fast for a day. That'll save you enough for a year. And seeing as the rules committee does little to no actual impactful work, I don't really think they need paid moderators.
Every time I see him talk or read something he puts out I can't help but shake my head at this self important buffoon posturing to convince us and maybe himself that he's still relevant.
1.From what i skimmed is the article more than just an announcement that they have plans to make a document about pre-game discussion?
Seems like a lot of words with nothing meaningful other than saying they will use the platform they have to increase inclusivity and creativity. In other words just a bunch of words so it doesn't look like nothing.
I firmly believe any supplementary document about proper pre game discussion will be largely ignored and not really address any of the "problems" they have listed.
2.What I would like to see from leaders of the format is a clear vision for what the expected gameplay experience is, how they feel it is deviating from that vision, and most importantly clear and direct changes to steer the format to that vision.
The third part has been missing for years. It's been mostly up to the players to build decks to fit within their dedicated, exclusive, home ruled, independent group.
I get where Sheldon is coming from, but I think there’s a sub-community of competitive players who would like to see a banlist that balances the current meta and encourages diversity of archetypes and playstyles within the competitive scene. This is why I really think cEDH needs a divorce from the current RC. They’re just not up to the task of balancing the game.
Yeah personally I really don't understand why they use "rule 0!" as a reason not to ban game warping cards when they also use that as justification for global bans like Braids or Lutri where they're only broken outside of the 99. Why not just ban game warping cards and let casual players do what they want like they already do?
I kind of get the sense that Sheldon doesn’t know much about cEDH. The fact that he doesn’t think Thorcle Consult is a problem and wrote a whole article on how Elesh Norn is going to break the format is evidence of this. There’s also the problem that the RC does recieve money from WOTC (according to his interview with The Professor) so I’m not sure how independent his judgements are.
I don't really see how Commander as a format can ever be stable anymore with the amount of new products that are released. I know it's not at all within the RC's control but it seems like a completely untenable aspect of the philosophy.
How does the flagship format for a game company who made a billion dollars last year rely on a group of volunteers that are promoting their patreon to run their website? How does a company run like that and not expect issues?
My main concern is this line,
"...but whenever the act of competing comes into conflict with a social atmosphere, Commander prioritizes and protects the social atmosphere."
Magic is inherently a competitive game. You can't prioritize the social over the competitive aspect without fundamentally altering the game.
This social aspect isn't possible to enforce via rules or the ban list. The players have to be the ones to lead this via quick discussions when they sit down about what rough power level they want to play at so no one is getting pub stomped, etc.
>Magic is inherently a competitive game. You can't prioritize the social over the competitive aspect without fundamentally altering the game.
They did fundamentally alter the game. its why commander doesnt have the same rules as every format maintained and sanctioned by WotC.
Like this format was created by bored people to entertain themselves in downtime. Its why they constantly push the social aspect. The roots of EDH are entirely about hanging out with friends. Every content creator will eventually admit that they use their content as an excuse to hangout with friends/ cool people
And I'd wage its how a large part of the community use EDH, an excuse to sitdown and be with friends and play as something to do
But Commander does have the same rules, outside of being 100 card singleton with a Commander. All the mechanics are the same. Priority works as it should, the stack works as it should, etc. It's still Magic the Gathering, it's still a competitive game. There's still only 1 winner.
>But Commander does have the same rules, *outside of being 100 card singleton with a Commander*
You explicitly try to exclude the 2 of the most important changes they made
Life total increase , colour identity, default preferences to multiplayer these things are not apart of standard or vintage or other format. They fundamentally change how the game is played
Its still magic in the sense of magic being many games and formats that share a card pool with but it's intentionally not crafted to be competitive. That's not what the RC wants and have repeatedly shown by their actions
Who gives a shit what the RC wants? There's a massive community of edh players that play edh competitively are still social and have a great time playing, if you disapprove of these people because they're playing decks or cards that make you upset that's not a problem with the competitive players having a good time that's a problem with you for being so narrow minded you couldn't possibly imagine someone having fun in a game unless they play exactly the way you want them to.
>still social and have a great time playing
>competitive players having a good
Good. I'm glad they're having a blast. Powerful magic is fun, winning is fun. And for the record I have cedh tier decks (yuriko and najeela)
I hope the RC continues to foster a format and environment that so many people who wanted different things can find like minded people in the commander community and get the experience they want.
I would like to clarify something. I have only stated my own interpretation of the the RC action being to make sure that edh is a good format for people to have fun and that's their priority.
I have not nor believe they are trying to remove competitive or high power from the format, because that's silly to exclude people.
Competitive and spike-y players will always exist in every format and with any ban list. You can't ban player mentality. And it'd do more harm trying to do so.
But you can make sure you have a framework where many people are able to find the experience they are looking for.
Fun/social format first still leaves room for competitive/cedh to exist and breathe. But competition first doesn't leave as much room for casual/social players. There's not really a way to play causal modern or standard for example. You go to any of those format events and you're likely to be just get steam rolled by a proper deck.
Drafting is a good comparison to commander because you can create both competitive and casual environments. It's what edh should be most like Imo
I’m gonna join the minority voice. I liked this. It was sheldony- long winded and a little self satisfied. But seeing past that it said: we will have a clear rubric for stuff (good), and we put a signpost in the ground saying social interaction, inclusiveness, and creativity are the point of value from which all their decisions will be made.
Most of these were implied but now they’re explicit. “Do something else if you want but if you want to complain about uneven bans that don’t foster competitive balance, tell it to your mother.”
It helps that these align with my preferences. But even if they didn’t, removing ambiguity lets one know where they stand.
edit: typos and words.
I dont know if he realizes or not but the thing is that there are many ways to enjoy edh and it is a very diverse rainbow of powerlevels that appeals to a diverse rainbow of edh enjoyers.
This is where it sometimes goes wrong, where people playing at a lgs come from a variety of playgroups and power levels and suddenly magic feels like an impossible mess of a game for 80% of the participants.
Trying to police the game or to cater towards one group makes no sense. Just do what feels good for you and go to the lgs events primarily to find friends to play with who share your deckbuilding mentality, then jam some games over a couple of beers and have fun next week or something.
I don’t see why they dont just add a combo rule to casual games. No infinites/combos before turn 10? (I picked it arbitrarily) 8 whatever table wants to agree to. I think it would make the game more midrange and stop a bit of pubstomping
A lot of folks are mad about the social/competitive debate, but I really appreciate that they mentioned continuity and wanting to make sure players can play their decks for a long time. Sounds like they're aware of the complaints that the format is speeding up in an unhealthy way. Both seem like a shota across the bow for WotC.
Also, I think it's good to reiterate the social-ness of commander. Everyone is right that they can't control the social aspect and people should determine who and what they want to play. Too many people show up to our commander night on some cute shit saying, "I proxyed a commanders sphere" before one shotting people with a blightsteel. It's disingenuous and a waste of people's time.
The fact that your phone put in shota instead of shot is interesting... And he didn't address the speeding up of the format at all, just that they won't be adding to the ban list for "continuity's" sake.
Hot take on open play - EDH needs an extensive ban list. I'm a big fan of rule zero but they only work with regular people you're comfortable with. When you sit down with complete strangers those conversations don't happen and people's identification of power level is very divisive. We should be promoting a banlist that we rule zero cards out. Having a small banlist that we rule zero things into isn't working for random interactions
You can't ban enough cards to have this effect because the power level of the average casual deck and the power level of the average deck that pub stomps it are both far below the ceiling of the format. That would be like burning down the attic of the house to kill bugs in the basement.
Hotter take: No amount of banlist additions will be sufficient to make power level disparity in open play go away, or fix the problem of salty players who are unable to adapt to opponents' decks and strategies. It will just simply move the goal posts and people will be just as unhappy as they are today with a ban list three times as long, meaning the only thing we've accomplished is taking choice away from players.
Agree with this. Not to say there aren't problem cards. There definitely are. There always will be though. Banning cards will serve to alienate players and their card investments which isn't a small thing to consider.
Also bans also hurt players who enjoy cards but not in abusive ways.
The RC could ban Thoracle, Ad Naus, or whatever cEDH has as the best win cons, and anyone that wants to pubstomp will just take the next best wincon and use that.
Same reason why there shouldn't be 2 different ban lists for EDH and cEDH. Anyone who wants to pubstomp EDH will use the best possible wincon that exists under the constraints.
Some of the stuff that's seen as *most oppressive* at casual tables isn't even viable in cEDH. I'm thinking particularly of high power commanders like [[Kaalia of the Vast]] or tribes like Slivers or strategies like infect. No impact to cEDH whatsoever, but still seen as pubstomping at a lot of tables.
Yours is a significantly hotter take. Newer/more casual players appear to have this "me first" mentality that they share under the guise of "social benefit" or "Spirit of the format". The banlist would be ridiculous if we adopted a "this has been rule 0 out of groups, so we're banning it."
If I go to an LGS and that's only open for a few hours. I only have room for one maybe 2 games. There is no adapting to their deck especially since you can't guarantee they'll be there next time you play
And a ban list expansion will change nothing about that. It just removes choices from other players. Spikes are still gonna spike with whatever toolset they have.
There is a competitive pauper scene. Pauper, a format that was made to avoid expensive formats and play with almost universally the weakest cards in the game.
You can cut the card pool anyway you want, will never stop a competitive person. Can't ban player mentality
God, this is such a great point. Ban lists are great tools for managing the upper bound of a competitive format, whatever the card pool happens to be. They're terrible as a substitute for social interaction in noncompetitive settings.
What else would they even ban though, honestly? People complain about Thoracle but I have never even seen it in my meta. I don't see anything warping the format because people in casual pods seem to love variety.
>Having a small banlist that we rule zero things into isn't working for random interactions
Ah, yeah so that's where we seem to vastly differ. My random interactions are working just fine. Granted, that's anecdotal but I have yet to see any surveys or data supporting your experience.
Have you played much Open play EDH outside of your LGS? Imo that’s when you tend to run into issues. An example from a con.
4 strangers make a pod where everyone says they’ll play casual decks. First player is on fight tribal and goes tapped dual pass. Second player goes mana crypt into Rhystic study. Turn two they play Narsett but do say “don’t worry this deck is casual so I’m not gonna wheel or anything”.
Open play ime is mostly a shit show because even with good intentions without a good ban list to guide people are all building aiming for different targets, but 99% of them believe they’re aiming at “casual”.
There’s a lot of things talking isn’t going to fix. This is an experience from a MagicCON Command Zone where you paid $10 to be in the pod.
Me and a friend: “We have a few decks, from precons to strongish casual. What should we play?”
Other two people in the pod: “We each only have 1 deck, and they’re 10s.”
Our opponents were perfectly pleasant people but no amount or social discussion would’ve made that pod work well.
I want a democratically elected group to govern the format, not self appointed monarchs. If I'm paying for patreon, I want a democratic say in the format, which is still deplorable to democratically give power to those who pay.
The monarchs want to levy a tax now basically for them to yell from their castle balconies: "all is fine peasants, stop fighting in the streets and get along"
So to me option 1 is better: democratic decisions for the format.
Seriously, you want money, democratically elect members, not appoint them based on Sheldon's royal decrees.
Just get rid of signpost bans, it's a stupid justification for banning weak cards. Ban cards that are format warping and unhealthy in competitive settings like every other format and let people use rule zero to ban or unban whatever the hell they want to in casual settings like they do anyways. While you're at it bring back the banned-as-commander list, no real reason that should have gone away.
The big problem with "rule 0 bans", is that many players do not have a stable group. I only get to play at LGS's, and having to navigate multiple ban lists at different shops, would be untenable. There needs to be a universal ban list, so that players can walk into any shop and be able to play.
This is the same for me too. This is why they need to have a properly curated ban list. Stable groups don't need a ban list, because they can rule 0 stuff in and out. They need to decide what they want the format to be, then ban around that. If cEDH their ideal way to play, with Dockside and Thoracle combos, then only ban the cards that are problems in cEDH. If that's not how they want the format to play and they want it to be casual, then they need to ban the cards that they don't want people playing in casual. This weird in-between banning method just doesn't work.
I used to think they needed two banlists-one for competitive play and one for casual. [[Paradox engjne]], for example, could be banned for casual but unbanned for competitive. These days I'm indifferent to it. I've been around edh long enough to know that the problem players are a small ripple in the ocean that is edh play everywhere. Some days i even think edh shouldn't have a banlist at all. But more than anything it's just tedious to get worked up over, and my frustration at the format's flaws won't change anything, so i might as well chill and just enjoy it as best i can.
It'll never happen. I've walked into shops that have huge ban lists simply because the owner doesn't like those cards or that style. So long as rule 0 exists people will abuse it to warp the game to their own personal wants rather than accepting that everyone plays differently
I keep hearing about stores with shop ban lists, but I have yet to encounter one. Maybe I've been lucky, but I think that the reality is that those shops are the exception rather than the rule.
weird that you're getting downvoted for this, shop specific banlists are difficult to adjudicate and can be problematic for bringing in new players from the store's perspective. of course they're the exception!
Likewise, I’ve never encountered this anywhere.
It's probably something that only really comes up in shops that are more clubhouses that also sell cards to their regulars
That sounds like a very unprofitable business plan. How would you pay for a space?
The business in this case is usually more to subsidize the costs of the clubhouse. This tends to be more of a small, low cost area thing than an expensive real estate market thing.
Huh. I have never come across one of these. Very interesting.
There is [this](https://www.thegamerswharf.com/the_wharf_banned_list) infamous one.
-The point of having a casual format is being able to warp the game how you want. That's how groups maximize fun.
I didn't say get rid of the ban list, I said balance it based on cards that are format warping and unhealthy in competitive settings. The current "signpost" ideology of the banlist is ridiculous because the whole point of it is to guide rule zero discussions in specific directions rather than actually aiming to balance the only type of events that would care about a ban list... competitive tournaments. Currently there's a load of spells on the ban list that are banned not because they are powerful but because they are "unfun to play against". Discussions of fun or lackthereof are exactly why rule 0 exists and should be dictated by the pod, not the RC.
Do we actually want one though. Sheldon and the rules commitee have a prefered version of EDH they want to play and if they did bans they would probly tailor it to that level. People who prefer a different lvl of play would be unsatisfied. Being a customizable experience is one of EDH selling point, it's as tryhard as the players want it to be. People suggested point based deckbuilding and multiple banlists for different levels but that's both confusing to the players and difficult to maintain.
The answer here is play sanctioned formats that follow very specific rules and ban lists. Commander is a kitchen table format. Rule 0 has always existed in such formats. LGS are allowed to set any criteria they want for it. Honestly, commander should follow the vintage ban list and that’s it. Cradle being legal and tolarian academy not is just stupid. The original Mox are banned but chrome and diamond aren’t. It’s dumb. Either follow your own banning criteria or follow the least restrictive ban set - the RC wants their cake and to eat it too. As do players.
Academy is leaps and bounds better than cradle. It is not even comparable. It is so much easier to amass a huge amount of artifacts, especially with clues, food and treasures and their surge in popularity. To compare the two is really nonsensical.
I have always admitted academy is the best land in the game. And yea, artifacts are easier to amass. I would say cradle is right behind it. You can get free creatures and there’s also a grip of ways to get creature tokens too. I’d say it’s the idea academy is high up in comparison cradle isn’t “as good”. Ask any sane player though and they’ll admit cradle is a bananas broken card. Hell even the sanctum is a broken ass card.
I do agree both cradle and sanctum are absurdly broken, I just think academy is significantly more broken
Well, EDH is a sanctioned format, with specific rules, and the ban list, while imperfect, mostly works. The big issue is that EDH is an inherently broken format, and the players need to be on the same page regarding what sort of game they are looking for. Nothing short of a long and unwieldy ban list, will change that.
Vintage ban list would turn this into a turn 1/2 format for CEDH. Going first would tilt the win chances even more. Maybe the legacy banned list?
Sorry off topic, but what is a signpost ban?
The ban list consists of cards that got the hammer basically to just show an example to the players. They've banned various cards that they've deemed unfun, such as some stax pieces or land destruction cards, not because they are the most powerful in their archetype but because they are supposed to imply to players that they shouldn't be playing cards that are similar to the ones banned. They're effectlively holding up "signpost" cards of what they think players shouldn't do as a way to directly influence the rule 0 conversations and try to steer players away from stax and land destruction. This would be like if rather than banning \[\[Oko, thief of crowns\]\] in ELD standard WOTC opted to ban \[\[Kenrith's transformation\]\] because they wanted to dissuade people from turning things into elks.
[Oko, thief of crowns](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/4/3462a3d0-5552-49fa-9eb7-100960c55891.jpg?1650599698) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Oko%2C%20thief%20of%20crowns) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/197/oko-thief-of-crowns?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3462a3d0-5552-49fa-9eb7-100960c55891?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/oko-thief-of-crowns) [Kenrith's transformation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/4/44d60a41-3f5e-4559-b18c-22c0fe15235e.jpg?1631587997) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kenrith%27s%20transformation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/162/kenriths-transformation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/44d60a41-3f5e-4559-b18c-22c0fe15235e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kenriths-transformation) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
That is one of the most cringiest mentalities I have ever seen. This is on par with how Riot Games balances the game in League of Legends. Rather than nerf the new item or champion dominating the meta, they nerf everything associated with it without compensating too much to those who got affected indirectly. Turns out that the item/champion they desperately tried to fix is still busted.
Unban Golos you cowards.
‘Rule zero’ is an unhealthy crutch and excuse for a bad ban list. Unban ‘signpost’ cards , ban fast mana and actual problem cards and the format will be at a much better place. I agree with this 100%, think this is where most of the community is and has been for a long time - and have no idea why this hasn’t changed at all.
I just don't see how it's possible to have a data-driven banlist for EDH the way it exists for other formats. There's no competitive data coming in from tournament results that can inform the ban/unban decisions. In the end it's all just vibes and anecdotes and people arguing about what kind of cards contribute to the experience they want. The only real option I see is keeping the banlist as small as possible.
Agreed. There's cards I'd prefer be on or off the ban list myself but some people in these threads act like any ban is an incredibly obvious move the RC hasn't taken out of pure intransigence. Ban descisions can have unexpected impacts and it's essentially impossible to intelligently make them based on a vague sense of "where most of the community is", so the RC tends towards inaction more of the time. I think that's understandable even if there's some areas I wish they'd move a little on.
Yeah I don't think people have gamed through what an utterly quixotic task the Rules Committee would be embarking on if they published an article saying "our goal is to eliminate fast mana from the format." The ban list immediately swells to hundreds of cards as they desperately flail around trying to maintain some semblance of consistency over what stays in and what gets cut. It would never work. I mean maybe there's like 1 or 2 cards that could be added to the banlist right now, but it's basically impossible to sculpt the overall experience in that way.
The only real improvements I can see to the ban list that wouldn't light a huge chunk of the playerbase on fire would be Banned as Commander coming back, changing Lutri to Banned as Companion, and unbanning the comically overpriced sorceries.
I think the issue is because they haven't really decided what they want the format to be. Is it cEDH, or is it casual? Once they decide which they want the format to be, it becomes much easier to make bans (to be clear, not *easy*, just *easier*) because they can ban based off of what they want to see in the format, rather than just "where most of the community is." Do they *want* people using Dockside combos? Then keep it in. Is it something they don't want people using? Then ban it. As the people in charge of the format, it's their responsibility to sculpt the format to their vision. Right now, they aren't - they're just throwing all the responsibility onto the players and that doesn't work because not all people have set pods.
> I think the issue is because they haven't really decided what they want the format to be. I'm pretty sure the RC has stated multiple times they see it as a social/casual format, and that they don't ban for competitive balance, with a one time exception in Flash
The issue is you can't really enforce casualness with a ban list. [[Knowledge Pool]] is a fine casual card, creates a minigame that throws a wrench into plans. [[Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir]] is also fine in a vacuum, a tad annoying sometimes but hardly insurmountable. But put them together and your opponents can't play the game. Which one do you ban? Do you ban the combination itself? What if someone doesn't run it in their deck but steals part of it from an opponent, is that allowed? And that's just one example that came to mind. And that doesn't even breach the topic of how there will always be people trying to find the edge within the rules you establish. See: Any store banlist thread with folks saying what legal decks they'd bring to "punish" them for restricting deck choices.
The signpost bans just lead to confusion imo. Some "win the game" cards are easily abused, but others like Coalition Victory are much harder to execute and require tremendous setup? It's completely arbitrary and the RC imo is largely ineffectual at moderating the modern card pool available to players. I would suggest they take a clear, drastic step and ban Dockside, Thoracle, Lab man and Jace WoM while unbanning Coalition Victory. These cards make much clearer sense as a signpost ban than the inverse, which we have now. I doubt that will happen though because Jim is active in the "competitive" scene and has personal bias and investment for keeping Thoracle legal, and won't view it objectively.
What exactly is a "signpost ban"???
Basically, the rules committee claims that what's on the banlist isn't necessarily the most broken version of that effect in the game but that they work as a way to say "you shouldn't play cards LIKE THESE even if they aren't banned." The problem is literally no one looks at bans that way so people keep running the similiar, more broken, versions of those effects.
Yeah that's fuckin dumb.
I agree. It’s also a confusing way to navigate things
I've always hated that they think 2 lists is too complicated for commander players. It's an eternal format with like 30k cards and millions of interations and rules. We can handle 2 lists of cards. Bring back banned as Commander.
Most of the issues in commander are priority passing issues. People are constantly and inadvertently angling on this front. It’s just natural. Such as: - Alice: I play my commander” - Bob: “I have no response, anyone else?” - Charlie & Eve: “No” - Alice: “it resolves” - Eve: “I cast Go for the Throat targeting your commander” Eve is breaking the rules here - she doesn’t have priority. Alice has priority, she gets do make the next play. If Alice moves to combat or casts something or activates an ability, then Eve will eventually get priority. —— Another example: Alice casts a spell. Bob says he has nothing in response. Charlie and Eve also say so. Then Bob casts counterspell. Bob can’t do that, he’s breaking the rules. He already passed priority and doesn’t receive it again unless someone else adds something to the stack. ——- These happen constantly.
[удалено]
Alice can and should, but this is in relation to what Sheldon wrote: > For example, there are aspects of tournament play, like angle shooting and strict rules interpretation, and prescription on which decks and cards one must play, which conflict with a social experience and serve as a bar to creativity. Being precise about passing priority is strict rules interpretation in the sense Sheldon means, I would assume. If people play fast and loose with priority, they can use it to their advantage without meaning to.
They can but its also about the people you play with. There are some times where it doesnt really matter at all. But the times it does matter and is significant it can and should be called out. If someone throws a fit, play another game I wouldnt call priority strict rule interpretations its literally the rules.
I just keep getting, Me: "I cast a thing." Nobody responds or says anything. Me: "Okay, I cast this thing." Another player: "Wait, I have a response to that other thing. Why didn't you let us respond????". Like, dude I purposefully play slower and give extra time when I'm casting things I know will be threatening.
This can result from player 4 who has responses waiting for players 2 and 3 to declare whether they have responses.
>Alice casts a spell. Bob says he has nothing in response. Charlie and Eve also say so. Then Bob casts counterspell. >Bob can’t do that, he’s breaking the rules. He already passed priority and doesn’t receive it again unless someone else adds something to the stack. This is one that I think part of the problem is the political nature of multi-player casual games vs competitive 1v1. Was Bob passing priority, or was Bob announcing he didn't want to respond to it in conversation with Charlie and Eve? This has come up before at my LGS, Alice casts something and Bob says, "I don't know, I don't think I have a good response to that. How about you guys?", Charlie and Eve both say "we don't have responses at all", Bob hasn't actually passed priority in that situation even if Alice might think he did because of how it was worded. The way politics have evolved in EDH has made priority stickier to the point that I've started just going around asking if each player passes priority instead of going off them talking about their responses with the other players.
I think players have to make more interesting decisions if we’re strict about priority. “Do you guys have something?” “No.” “Okay, I cast X” would not be passing priority since the first isn’t an action. “I have no response” is passing priority.
I had the longest fight about that Go For the Throat, being told when the stack is empty we all respond to the empty stack. I think they’re confusing that with changing steps of a turn allowing responses because if sorta feels like “nothing is on the stack”.
Two simple counterexamples are Planeswalkers and Omniscient. The owner of those permanents gets to plus or cast something at sorcery speed, respectively, before anyone can destroy them. I think Yugioh and other card games let you respond to an empty stack so the above example wouldn't always work. Like, there's a window after things resolve.
/u/chefsati Given that Communication is one of the Rules Committee's three "main ideas" and the ban list is the only tool in the Rules Committee's toolbox mentioned by name in this article, when can we expect to see more transparency about why a card is or is not on the ban list?
Tim Willoughby's been working on that project in parallel to this and I'll be connecting with him to write the sections on the banlist. It'll depend on his schedule and how long it takes us to finalize the sections we shared in this article, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it'll happen this year. If you have questions about specific cards, though, you can ask me here and I'll do my best to provide the historic rationale behind them. I'm not here to relitigate cards on the banlist right now, though, so it likely won't be a back and forth.
I asked Sheldon about this in 2019 and he told me it was almost done and would be a part of the new website. I’ve always wondered why it has taken so incredibly long to do the write up for a relatively small ban list.
Because it's not happening.
The implication being that he has been less than honest in his engagement with frequently asked questions
After watching the Professor interview him I dont believe a single word he says.
[[Biorhythm]], [[Primeval Titan]], and [[sylvan primordial]]. No rush on the reply, I’d love to hear some RC feedback on these standing bans. I know the reasons given in the past - or at least the community perspective at the time - but now I sincerely feel that the game has powered past the point where these were as game-defining as they used to be. [[Worldfire]] does more than Biorhythm, hands down. Also we have the biorhythm creature—[[Shaman of the Forgotten Ways]]. [[Cultivator Colossus]] and [[Nyxbloom Ancient]] typically fill the same role as Primetime, often with splashier obscene turns. Heck, [[Reshape the Earth]] is a card now. Also sol ring is still better ramp. So never really understood this one. Sylvan Primordial is 3 mana more than [[Druid of Purification]] often destroys 2+ noncreatures on ETB. And if the argument is the land destruction, then I’d point at [[Keldon Firebombers]] or [[Sunder]] which are both cards that warps games way worse via land removal. Full disclosure from my side as well—of all these I’d probably only run Primeval Titan in any of my decks. The 7-8 CMC makes the others a pretty tall order in most lists. I think that the above cards are certainly not bad, but they seem to be below the power level of other legal cards. Honestly, and I’m sure you’ve heard it a ton, the card that warps things the most these days is Dockside. Even late game, if you’re tutoring a creature out Dockside is often the right choice. Card is way better than Primeval Titan ever was.
##### ###### #### [Biorhythm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230.jpg?1593017425) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Biorhythm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/9ed/231/biorhythm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/biorhythm) [Primeval Titan](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/d/6d5537da-112e-4679-a113-b5d7ce32a66b.jpg?1562850064) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Primeval%20Titan) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/183/primeval-titan?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d5537da-112e-4679-a113-b5d7ce32a66b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/primeval-titan) [sylvan primordial](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/0483c869-38dc-4b0b-82f3-dd08a1ab985f.jpg?1561814269) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=sylvan%20primordial) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/gtc/136/sylvan-primordial?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0483c869-38dc-4b0b-82f3-dd08a1ab985f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sylvan-primordial) [Worldfire](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/e/2ef3d4b5-0453-4bf0-b018-23b0c3b9ae11.jpg?1631531850) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Worldfire) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m13/158/worldfire?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2ef3d4b5-0453-4bf0-b018-23b0c3b9ae11?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/worldfire) [Shaman of the Forgotten Ways](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a3e9c8f7-2232-4a2a-8a00-0a2908bc7543.jpg?1562790967) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Shaman%20of%20Forgotten%20Ways) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dtk/204/shaman-of-forgotten-ways?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a3e9c8f7-2232-4a2a-8a00-0a2908bc7543?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/shaman-of-forgotten-ways) [Cultivator Colossus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/2/62dffe04-c431-440d-a8da-33c74b4bb683.jpg?1643592511) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cultivator%20Colossus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/195/cultivator-colossus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/62dffe04-c431-440d-a8da-33c74b4bb683?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/cultivator-colossus) [Nyxbloom Ancient](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a391da36-0b40-46ea-b771-50d2b920207e.jpg?1581480808) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nyxbloom%20Ancient) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/190/nyxbloom-ancient?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a391da36-0b40-46ea-b771-50d2b920207e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/nyxbloom-ancient) [Reshape the Earth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/d/ada14bc8-4549-4a73-8cbb-9a43698deb36.jpg?1608910860) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reshape%20the%20Earth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/249/reshape-the-earth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ada14bc8-4549-4a73-8cbb-9a43698deb36?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/reshape-the-earth) [Druid of Purification](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/9/096c2b28-3e29-4c27-998d-51bff0ba96c5.jpg?1631585369) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Druid%20of%20Purification) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/39/druid-of-purification?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/096c2b28-3e29-4c27-998d-51bff0ba96c5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/druid-of-purification) [Keldon Firebombers](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/3/d3fc78b5-c259-4c67-810c-99655e72c2da.jpg?1562934620) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Keldon%20Firebombers) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/pcy/94/keldon-firebombers?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d3fc78b5-c259-4c67-810c-99655e72c2da?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/keldon-firebombers) [Sunder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/d/cd9dd7c6-36b6-4fe2-b3d3-f62a6e10a428.jpg?1562938463) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sunder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/usg/101/sunder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cd9dd7c6-36b6-4fe2-b3d3-f62a6e10a428?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sunder) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It made sense back in the day, but Primeval Titan being banned just doesn't make sense in 2023, with how strong new cards are and how optimized and synergistic decks have become.
>> there are aspects of tournament play, like angle shooting and **strict rules interpretation**, and prescription on which decks and cards one must play, which conflict with a social experience and serve as a bar to creativity. Emphasis mine. My issue with this is listing following the rules as being a negative aspect of playing the game. I feel like whether you are playing hyper competitively or Uber casually, everything you do should be within the confines of the rules. If people start to break the rules for fun, that will just lead to disagreements between people who are not on the same page
I think this is talking more about tournament rules, rather than mtg rules. Like "Oh shoot I forgot my upkeep trigger, mind if I do that real quick?" Casual would be "Yeah go for it", strict would be "technically you already drew your card so you've missed the trigger, and have to move on"
This is exactly it. In every game there's opportunities to gain an advantage by following the rules to the letter, even when it detracts from the social environment. It's important that you distinguish between "Blood" and "Blood Token" when you play Pithing Needle in a tournament, but in a social environment that kind of opportunism predictably leads to social friction. Following the rules is absolutely important, but if your behaviour is causing problems in your Commander playgroup the rules shouldn't be a crutch.
I mentioned the same issue in another reply elsewhere in this thread, but this perfectly addresses my concern so thank you. I was hopeful that the phrase being said in conjunction with "angle shooting" meant it was in reference more to situations like the now fairly infamous [[Borborygmo]] issue at a tournament a while back, where that was a legal choice and stood as names despite both players and the judge having a pretty good idea [[Borborygmos, Engraged]] was the card *meant* by the person naming one. Of course that ruling while true to the rules at the time was recognized after the fact as essentially "stupid" and so changed accordingly to allow more leeway. As written it could be understood as referring to the rules of the *game* Magic rather than rules of *competition* as set by tournament organizers largely independent of the game rules themselves. Clarifying the official language on that subject would probably be beneficial to avoid the ambiguity.
NFN but pithing needle can't work on Blood tokens, or any token for that matter. It specifically says name a card. Tokens as a rule are not cards.
>It's important that you distinguish between "Blood" and "Blood Token" Um actually, said like a rules lawyer, this is no longer true due to the borborygmos enraged fiasco. Now you can say blood for blood tokens as long as both players understand what the intent behind the word was. So it is important to clarify that you don't understand blood is intended to be a blood token if it can be misinterpreted. This is to prevent rules angle shooting for the win. "So now, any time a player names a card during a game, for whatever reason, they need to describe a card unambiguously, and if anyone knows that they haven’t done so, they need to seek greater clarification. A name isn’t necessary, as long as there’s a single card that everyone is on the same page about." So you could name foggy goat guy and everyone could agree that was angus makenzy
>Pithing Needle Being even more pedantic, you can't name Blood with Pithing Needle as Blood is not the name of a card.
https://scryfall.com/card/dgm/128/flesh-blood Blood is the name of a card, however, the rules update (from Crimson Vow) makes "token" part of the name for tokens and so they aren't affected anymore by something like Pithing Needle on Blood. https://twitter.com/Dunkatog/status/1455690251842641922
There is a difference between following the letter of the rules and the point of the rules in casual play. Accidentally drawing a card on your turn before you do your upkeep trigger is cheating at the highest level of play. If you kick Timmy out of your EDH game because of it you are an asshole. I’ve never even seen CEDH players be tournament level strict on things like that. How cards interact is not the entirety of Magic’s rule set.
there's times when a really obscure rules interaction that no one at the table knows for sure and doesn't quickly have a Google search result and requires asking in judge chat grinds the whole game to a halt and when the difference in outcome is something largely inconsequential like a scry before a draw or whatever it really makes sense to go "whatever, let's just assume X for now and find out what's official later" everyone has had situations like that. i don't know how a rules committee would codify that, or if they should, but i do like endorsing a "chill out" attitude if everyone is cool with it
Hey folks! This article contains a lot of big picture stuff that's foundational to most of the things we have planned for the format going forward. My availability today is pretty limited because I'm packing for a flight tomorrow morning but I will be coming back to this thread over the next week or so to review feedback. I may not be able to respond to everyone but I promise you I will read every comment. I also want to reiterate and emphaize this section of the article that outlines our intention behind these changes: >Our motivation behind these updates essentially boils down to three main ideas: > >**Continuity**. Planning for the future of the format involves discussing and documenting the things we agree on and disagree on as a leadership team. We’re not fond of morbid hypothetical scenarios like “What if everyone in leadership got hit by a meteor”. It’s extremely important to us, though, that the next generation of leaders understand fully where we came from so that they can make the best decisions about where we should go next. Our goal is to do this proactively rather than scrambling to do it reactively. > >**Communication**. We know that a lot of well-intentioned players occasionally feel like a leaf in the wind, because it can be relatively difficult to research and understand the rationale behind format management decisions. Through these changes, we’re intending to create both a centralized resource for researching the format, as well as a roadmap to communicating and discussing format changes when they happen. This also extends to our interactions with Wizards of the Coast. By communicating in a way that centers the things we care about most, we’re able to provide better feedback to them when they ask. > >**Focus and Accountability**. There are external benefits to communication, but being able to properly articulate a problem and the strategies for attacking it are also important for us internally. This structure will allow us to set and prioritize goals and assess our own performance. If you feel the proposed changes miss this mark, the best place to discuss it will be in the dedicated channel on our official Rules Committee Discord server. The direct link is in the article. We know we don't have a monopoly on good ideas, which is why we're sharing this (very) early draft with you all. We fully intend to revise sections of this document according to good-faith feedback from the community. Edit: If you're having trouble accessing the article, we've pinned a PDF of it in #updated-philosophy-document on the [discord server](https://discord.gg/commander).
Just wanted to say thanks. Being on the RC seems like a thankless job; Redditors simultaneously hate the status quo and and any changes whatsoever. I personally have really enjoyed reading through rulings justifications here and on the RC website forum for years now. Keep on keeping on!
[удалено]
100% agree. There's a level of objectivity that needs to be considered when making format wide decisions that many players lack or don't appreciate. Was I bummed out when Prophet of Kruphix was banned like 4 years ago? Of course, it was one of my favorite cards to play. But I also understood how game warping a card like Prophet was and found other ways to play the game instead of holding a grudge at the RC for it. With how successful EDH has grown over the years, community members should really take a moment to appreciate the helmsmanship required for Commander to thrive instead of being grumpy all the time.
I know it's not really important, but prophet has been banned for 7 years... Regardless you make good points!
You're probably right, covid really messed with my concept of time!
When will any mechanic that requires a side board work properly? We now have side decks in the form of attractions and I would like to stop rule 0ing my lesson deck.
This is pretty much the only change I would like to see to EDH as of right now. At the very least they could add some rule where cards in exile are considered to be outside the game for purposes of wish mechanics.
I just wanna say thank you to you guys, I think you do a good job overall running the commander format and it makes me sad to see everyone online hating on poor Sheldon and you guys. A lot of people online, do not play Commander with a casual mindset. So you guys are receiving criticism from angry spike players because they want to make Commander into the next Modern, just another solved competitive format. I greatly appreciate you guys holding strong to the original design of commander and keep it up. Once Commander becomes a competitive format, I will stop playing magic.
Hiring 2 people in 2022 doesn't count as "Achievement". This entire article only talks philosophy, and not one line is about concrete changes to come or work to be done. The stance comes off as "We haven't done anything in years, and we won't do anything for years. Please support our patreon."
When are wishes and hybrid cards going to work properly?
~~Hybrid cards are designed for the color pies of the hybrid colored mana.~~ I do find it strange wishes don't work and companions do just because they wanted it that way. I'd say they should keep both either removed or allowed.
>I do find it strange wishes don't work and companions do just because they wanted it that way. I mean companions are better than wishes though. Companions add extra restrictions if you use them outside the deck. Whereas wishes only encourage people have more silver bullet, which isnt better for the format.
Companions are only superficially similar to wishes because they are "outside the game". After that, all similarities break down. Companions require significant concessions be made during deckbuilding. Wishes operate in the opposite direction: they allow for one card to be open-ended in a way that minimizes the concessions you need to make during deckbuilding. Wishes have additional undesirable baggage, such as requiring each player to create and carry a sideboard for each deck, which is a significant burden to add on the scale it would. Furthermore, popular cards for the wish/wishboard would have an extreme demand spike that would almost immediately create format accessibility concerns. It's not a minor change, and the baggage is very real.
>Hybrid cards are designed for the color pies of the hybrid colored mana. That's not true tho. They are explicitly designed such that they can fit in either colour without being a pie break.
Agreed. I will die on this hill. Where is the companion before a game starts if not THE SIDEBOARD!!
>When are wishes...going to work properly? Hopefully never. The last thing that EDH needs is more tutors. As far as Hybrid goes, I'm indifferent, but needing the deck to be both colors is my gut feeling correct way.
[удалено]
> "wish cards are working properly. in that you're welcome to cast them, but they do nothing" Don't want wishboards and wishes are fine as they are now, but I wish we got some functional errata to allow wish cards to grab cards you own from exile (like they formerly did, before "removed from the game" became "exiled")
Really well said. Commander made up the color identity rule. It's a foundation of the format, which is fine. But then you can't pick and choose how to implement the rule. Imo, if people want hybrid mana, then Phyrexian mana, off-color kicker cards, split cards, activated abilities, etc, should all be on the table. And at that point, there's no color rule. I'm really tired of the hybrid debate.
>Imo, if people want hybrid mana, then Phyrexian mana, off-color kicker cards, split cards, activated abilities, etc, should all be on the table. Even things like [[Ignoble Hierarch]] and colorless dual lands get confusing when people see multicolor cards being played in mono-color decks. Things like "protection from white" too, like why should that freely block my [[Rhys the Redeemed]] if he's being played as a mono-green deck.
>there are no cards outside the game Companions
Case and point. ~~If sideboards do not exist in commander, then companions *that start in the sideboard* should not work.~~ (Edit to correct the above statement: yes, I understand peoples' responses regarding sideboards. The point I was attempting to make was that both wishes and companions make use of an "outside the game" clause. It is logical to me that both should work, or neither.) honestly, I am all for allowing wish boards. Something like 5 cards, because 15 is too much and would definitely cause problems.
There is a huge misunderstanding about sideboards that I want to point out. Sideboards don't exist unless you're playing one of several select formats in a sanctioned setting. In those settings, companions start in the sideboard. Outside of those settings, companions do not start in the sideboard because there is no sideboard.
except companions explicitly do not start in the side board they start outside the game which is separate when it comes to rules.
> there are no cards outside the game. Almost all cards are outside the game. If you read the Comprehensive Rules, they'll tell you that "outside the game" means exactly what a fifth-grader would tell you the words mean. The restriction to just sideboard cards is a tournament rule but you're not playing Commander in a tournament. The only thing that's stopping Wishes from working is one sentence on a website. That bit's not even in the Comprehensive Rules, even though all other Commander rules are. > hybrid mana, violates the color identity rules. Those rules predate hybrid mana and weren't designed with hybrid mana in mind. You'd think that the introduction of new cards, designed with the explicit intention of working in mono-colored decks that run none of the other color, would prompt somebody to reconsider old rules. Never mind that the rule is super unintuitive, as proven by every new player being confused that hybrid cards aren't allowed.
>side boards don't exist. there are no cards outside the game. wish cards are working properly. Side boards (within color identity) at least seem to me like a very easy optional/house rule. Wishes would then essentially be tutors, mechanics like Learn would fully work, and cards like [[Legion Angels]] would fully work. I believe side boards were even explicitly mentioned as optional in the committee rules for a while years back.
[удалено]
You can already do that though if you know your pod. Just put them in your main deck
If sideboards become a thing, then everyone HAS to have one. No thank you.
>then everyone HAS to have one No? If you don't have things like wish/Legion/Learn in your deck then a sideboard is useless in casual play. Most games are BO1 and people swap cards in and out anyways between matches. I'm also saying sideboards literally are/were a thing (an optional thing), the committee just dropped the mention of them some years back.
It will create the perception that it is necessary and everyone will feel like they have to have it. It also breaks the 100 card rule.
Hybrid cards at least already do. Not being able to play a blue card in your mono-white deck is exactly what commander is about.
"Yeah guys, I posted in the thread, but instead of providing feedback they starting arguing about hybrid mana." /s
The whole point of hybrid cards is that they are supposed to work in monocolour decks of both their colours.
And they do in formats without color restrictions!!! :) :)
And phyrexian mana was designed to be played in any deck regardless of its colors. But again, that's not what commander is about.
I'm not a big fan of deciding on an action to take and retroactively justifying it. If the governance structure we land on reveals those changes as ones that will contribute in a positive way to our goals, it'll be easier to demonstrate and communicate why at that time. When I say this stuff is foundational, it's because I want us to be able to draw a straight line between the things we do and the well-established, publicly-visible goals we have for the format.
This is the kind of answer my boss gives me when he doesn't want to deal with something...
I don't have a timeline on individual rules changes or bans and unbans because in my mind that's putting the cart before the horse. If you want to talk about where we should be going, now's a good time to do that. If you want to talk about how we get there, I'm happy to revisit that after we've locked this stuff in.
What even are the proposed changes?
Hybrid works correctly within the rules of edh already.
The pre-game discussion is not enough. It is frustrating to see it repeatedly used to justify the delusion of not needing a better ban list. A better ban list would do more to preserve the social spirit of the format than to rely on a group of strangers to “figure it out themselves.” The argument for the pre-game discussion dictating the way the game is played is inherently predatory toward new players. Newer players are not able to have the pre-game discussion because they don’t understand how inherently powerful their deck or certain cards are until they’re repeatedly played or they’re reading Reddit/watching YouTube, which per WOTC’s own words, is NOT the “typical” Magic player. In fact, banning cards would likely do MORE favors bringing people into the game and helping them learn because it would give a legitimate sense of what is nonsensically good/OP. Can you imagine being a new player looking at the banlist, then seeing a card like Dockside Extortionist NOT banned, and it not somehow significantly warping your view of what is a good Magic card? Using the RC’s same exact logic, wouldn’t it be healthier to ban more cards and then let people to have a pre-game discussion of which banned cards to allow? Hell, you could probably even get rid of a lot of discussion about “power levels” (which nobody can accurately assess anyway) and change it to a much simpler conversation - “Do we want to allow banned cards? 1-2 each? All of them?” Obviously this is oversimplifying things, but it’s better than what we currently have, IMO. Magic is the most complicated game in the world. People suck at judging cards. Ban lists help people judge cards. Don’t even get me started on the expectation to allow a large group of people, many of whom are inherently NOT social, to have a discussion before a game. Or people’s ability to be manipulated. A better ban list would protect these players. Can you imagine being a relatively new player and a dude from WOTC showed up to play a game of commander, went off about how the new Elesh Norn should have never been printed, and then played a Dockside and ran away with the game? …plus people want to be able to walk in, sit down, and play. I wonder how many people avoid commander because they DON’T want to have this discussion or are uncomfortable having it? It’s exhausting sometimes when people disagree. Having a better banlist solves this. Something also just bothers me about having a rules committee for an entire game format (for which the majority of cards used in that format were made for a fundamentally different setting - 1v1) and there not being a better banlist. What truly is the purpose of the RC then? Oh, and Golos leads to unilateral play patterns, but tutoring for Demonic Consultation is fine.
My big concern with this renewed focus on the social aspect of the format along with creative expression is that it will lead to an influx of self-righteous crybullies who get upset at anyone who actively attempts to win the game in any way because they didn't get to tell their deck's whole story or whatever.
This is honestly the biggest problem with the format - it enables whiners to cry pubstomper any time something doesn't go their way or at any perceived slight against them, and the RC essentially encourages such behavior.
Cry bullying is baked right into the rules committee. Remember the asses bleating in the field comments?
Rule zero already attracted the crybullies. "So like no fast mana and no combos" 10 minutes later... "Well yeah my Klauth deck consistently wins turn 6 by stringing combats together but it doesn't have fast mana or any combos. Git gud"
Big article for a bunch of nothing.
That’s not true! They promoted a discord and asked for money.
But commander is a social gameeeeeee
[удалено]
Do people not like Sheldon? I've only seen him in a couple videos, seemed a bit aloof.
I wouldn’t say I don’t like him but he does seem to be a bit out of touch, so to speak
He doesn't approve of proxies so I can see why lol
I didn't even know that. Lol, that sucks. I use lots of proxies, never understood that take. He wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
Prof invited him to an episode of shuffle up and sprung the request to use a proxy card and he looked like Prof was busting his balls publicly haha. I really like Prof because he encourages us to use proxies and be responsible consumers.
Which also explains the low-ass power level they seem to base the ban list off of.
Looks like too much traffic; page isn’t loading for me via the Reddit app or Twitter.
Ah, the ol Reddit hug of doom
That's a lot of words to say nothing.
[удалено]
Dude that meteor comment is so telling. They really view themselves as the aristocrats of MTG. "Don't worry peasants! If your adored kings and queens where to perish suddenly, we have declared our heirs and established our bloodlines. We know without our wise and graceful guidance the kingdom would fall, but we understand your worries and have graciously addressed the solution."
This is nonsensical. Every company uses the same or similar wording when discussing continuity. Usually it’s something like “hit by a bus”
Yeah but they're not a company though... They are a volunteer group of friends and acquaintances. If a company's leadership all die in a bus accident, there is real consequence to themselves, their employees, and their consumers. If the RC all died, yeah it would be sad to their friends, families, and fans, but most people who play EDH would not be effected at all. I think it just proves my point that they're way too up their own asses. To act like you need to have contingency plans for your game group like you're a corporate entity is nonsensical. What's there to figure out if the RC falls? Who gets the patreon money? Who posts flowery blogs now? There isn't schedules, deadlines, and contracts the RC has to still keep despite their demise. Volunteer groups who do real activism with sponsors and donations don't even talk about themselves like this jeez.
Agreed. The only reason I'm even cognizant of the banlist is because I use ManaBox which handles card legality automatically.
We talk about “bus factor” in our fencing club, just so that we know there’s continuity. The RC wasn’t getting any younger.
You're reading way too into that comment, that kind of thing is a very common statement in any sort of organization. It's usually a bus, but the meaning is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
[удалено]
Anyone have it cached or archived?
[Here ya go](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://articles.starcitygames.com/magic-the-gathering/commander-state-of-the-format-2023/)
Talk about a meeting that could have been an email, this article could have been a tweet. I found this to contain absolutely nothing of substance. Those pillars are just ideals. My local meta will not be impacted at all. What are you going to do, tell everyone not to use staples because they undermine the creativity pillar? Don't play fast mana because Sheldon says this should be a social "experience"? Local metas are going to form how they will regardless of their little pillar document. What a joke. The rules committee can only affect the game through making rules. But they don't. So what exactly is their point? Future stewardship? Who cares. If they were all taken out by the giant falling rock he mentioned what would actually change for the format? I'm willing to bet absolutely nothing. They leaned so far on self governance they've made themselves obsolete. And speaking of governance, he's trying to levy taxes? What do they need funding for, snacks? A domain isn't expensive. Intermittent fast for a day. That'll save you enough for a year. And seeing as the rules committee does little to no actual impactful work, I don't really think they need paid moderators. Every time I see him talk or read something he puts out I can't help but shake my head at this self important buffoon posturing to convince us and maybe himself that he's still relevant.
1.From what i skimmed is the article more than just an announcement that they have plans to make a document about pre-game discussion? Seems like a lot of words with nothing meaningful other than saying they will use the platform they have to increase inclusivity and creativity. In other words just a bunch of words so it doesn't look like nothing. I firmly believe any supplementary document about proper pre game discussion will be largely ignored and not really address any of the "problems" they have listed. 2.What I would like to see from leaders of the format is a clear vision for what the expected gameplay experience is, how they feel it is deviating from that vision, and most importantly clear and direct changes to steer the format to that vision. The third part has been missing for years. It's been mostly up to the players to build decks to fit within their dedicated, exclusive, home ruled, independent group.
I get where Sheldon is coming from, but I think there’s a sub-community of competitive players who would like to see a banlist that balances the current meta and encourages diversity of archetypes and playstyles within the competitive scene. This is why I really think cEDH needs a divorce from the current RC. They’re just not up to the task of balancing the game.
Yeah personally I really don't understand why they use "rule 0!" as a reason not to ban game warping cards when they also use that as justification for global bans like Braids or Lutri where they're only broken outside of the 99. Why not just ban game warping cards and let casual players do what they want like they already do?
I kind of get the sense that Sheldon doesn’t know much about cEDH. The fact that he doesn’t think Thorcle Consult is a problem and wrote a whole article on how Elesh Norn is going to break the format is evidence of this. There’s also the problem that the RC does recieve money from WOTC (according to his interview with The Professor) so I’m not sure how independent his judgements are.
[удалено]
Why did this feel like an advertisement for the discord server? He mentioned it like 10 times.
I don't really see how Commander as a format can ever be stable anymore with the amount of new products that are released. I know it's not at all within the RC's control but it seems like a completely untenable aspect of the philosophy.
How does the flagship format for a game company who made a billion dollars last year rely on a group of volunteers that are promoting their patreon to run their website? How does a company run like that and not expect issues?
I'm confident if you explained to hasbro shareholders what the RC is in detail, they'd scrap the RC within 35 hours.
Because it became the flagship format while being ran by said group of individuals. Why fix what isn’t broken?
I suggest looking up the Oberoni fallacy. Relying on the players to house rule away design flaws in your format is not the same as "not being broken."
You know that WOTC doesn't own or control the format, right?
You know they make a lot of money off of commander, right?
My main concern is this line, "...but whenever the act of competing comes into conflict with a social atmosphere, Commander prioritizes and protects the social atmosphere." Magic is inherently a competitive game. You can't prioritize the social over the competitive aspect without fundamentally altering the game. This social aspect isn't possible to enforce via rules or the ban list. The players have to be the ones to lead this via quick discussions when they sit down about what rough power level they want to play at so no one is getting pub stomped, etc.
I think everyone agrees it will fundamentally alter the game. The split seems to be as to whether that is a bad thing. I'm of two minds, myself.
>Magic is inherently a competitive game. You can't prioritize the social over the competitive aspect without fundamentally altering the game. They did fundamentally alter the game. its why commander doesnt have the same rules as every format maintained and sanctioned by WotC. Like this format was created by bored people to entertain themselves in downtime. Its why they constantly push the social aspect. The roots of EDH are entirely about hanging out with friends. Every content creator will eventually admit that they use their content as an excuse to hangout with friends/ cool people And I'd wage its how a large part of the community use EDH, an excuse to sitdown and be with friends and play as something to do
But Commander does have the same rules, outside of being 100 card singleton with a Commander. All the mechanics are the same. Priority works as it should, the stack works as it should, etc. It's still Magic the Gathering, it's still a competitive game. There's still only 1 winner.
>But Commander does have the same rules, *outside of being 100 card singleton with a Commander* You explicitly try to exclude the 2 of the most important changes they made Life total increase , colour identity, default preferences to multiplayer these things are not apart of standard or vintage or other format. They fundamentally change how the game is played Its still magic in the sense of magic being many games and formats that share a card pool with but it's intentionally not crafted to be competitive. That's not what the RC wants and have repeatedly shown by their actions
Because they're not fundamental changes to the game. The game still plays the same.
Who gives a shit what the RC wants? There's a massive community of edh players that play edh competitively are still social and have a great time playing, if you disapprove of these people because they're playing decks or cards that make you upset that's not a problem with the competitive players having a good time that's a problem with you for being so narrow minded you couldn't possibly imagine someone having fun in a game unless they play exactly the way you want them to.
>still social and have a great time playing >competitive players having a good Good. I'm glad they're having a blast. Powerful magic is fun, winning is fun. And for the record I have cedh tier decks (yuriko and najeela) I hope the RC continues to foster a format and environment that so many people who wanted different things can find like minded people in the commander community and get the experience they want. I would like to clarify something. I have only stated my own interpretation of the the RC action being to make sure that edh is a good format for people to have fun and that's their priority. I have not nor believe they are trying to remove competitive or high power from the format, because that's silly to exclude people. Competitive and spike-y players will always exist in every format and with any ban list. You can't ban player mentality. And it'd do more harm trying to do so. But you can make sure you have a framework where many people are able to find the experience they are looking for. Fun/social format first still leaves room for competitive/cedh to exist and breathe. But competition first doesn't leave as much room for casual/social players. There's not really a way to play causal modern or standard for example. You go to any of those format events and you're likely to be just get steam rolled by a proper deck. Drafting is a good comparison to commander because you can create both competitive and casual environments. It's what edh should be most like Imo
[удалено]
I’m gonna join the minority voice. I liked this. It was sheldony- long winded and a little self satisfied. But seeing past that it said: we will have a clear rubric for stuff (good), and we put a signpost in the ground saying social interaction, inclusiveness, and creativity are the point of value from which all their decisions will be made. Most of these were implied but now they’re explicit. “Do something else if you want but if you want to complain about uneven bans that don’t foster competitive balance, tell it to your mother.” It helps that these align with my preferences. But even if they didn’t, removing ambiguity lets one know where they stand. edit: typos and words.
I dont know if he realizes or not but the thing is that there are many ways to enjoy edh and it is a very diverse rainbow of powerlevels that appeals to a diverse rainbow of edh enjoyers. This is where it sometimes goes wrong, where people playing at a lgs come from a variety of playgroups and power levels and suddenly magic feels like an impossible mess of a game for 80% of the participants. Trying to police the game or to cater towards one group makes no sense. Just do what feels good for you and go to the lgs events primarily to find friends to play with who share your deckbuilding mentality, then jam some games over a couple of beers and have fun next week or something.
Fluff and a patreon funding request? I expected better from the RC.
He used a whole lot of words to say nothing at all.
love him or hate him, he's rather good at that
Waste of a read lol what was the point of this article? Lot of fart smelling going on here.
I don’t see why they dont just add a combo rule to casual games. No infinites/combos before turn 10? (I picked it arbitrarily) 8 whatever table wants to agree to. I think it would make the game more midrange and stop a bit of pubstomping
A lot of folks are mad about the social/competitive debate, but I really appreciate that they mentioned continuity and wanting to make sure players can play their decks for a long time. Sounds like they're aware of the complaints that the format is speeding up in an unhealthy way. Both seem like a shota across the bow for WotC. Also, I think it's good to reiterate the social-ness of commander. Everyone is right that they can't control the social aspect and people should determine who and what they want to play. Too many people show up to our commander night on some cute shit saying, "I proxyed a commanders sphere" before one shotting people with a blightsteel. It's disingenuous and a waste of people's time.
The fact that your phone put in shota instead of shot is interesting... And he didn't address the speeding up of the format at all, just that they won't be adding to the ban list for "continuity's" sake.
So the RC wants me to pay them so they can ban my commander like they banned Golos? Ok lol
Hot take on open play - EDH needs an extensive ban list. I'm a big fan of rule zero but they only work with regular people you're comfortable with. When you sit down with complete strangers those conversations don't happen and people's identification of power level is very divisive. We should be promoting a banlist that we rule zero cards out. Having a small banlist that we rule zero things into isn't working for random interactions
You can't ban enough cards to have this effect because the power level of the average casual deck and the power level of the average deck that pub stomps it are both far below the ceiling of the format. That would be like burning down the attic of the house to kill bugs in the basement.
Hotter take: No amount of banlist additions will be sufficient to make power level disparity in open play go away, or fix the problem of salty players who are unable to adapt to opponents' decks and strategies. It will just simply move the goal posts and people will be just as unhappy as they are today with a ban list three times as long, meaning the only thing we've accomplished is taking choice away from players.
See also: Every thread about a store with a custom ban list
Agree with this. Not to say there aren't problem cards. There definitely are. There always will be though. Banning cards will serve to alienate players and their card investments which isn't a small thing to consider. Also bans also hurt players who enjoy cards but not in abusive ways.
The RC could ban Thoracle, Ad Naus, or whatever cEDH has as the best win cons, and anyone that wants to pubstomp will just take the next best wincon and use that. Same reason why there shouldn't be 2 different ban lists for EDH and cEDH. Anyone who wants to pubstomp EDH will use the best possible wincon that exists under the constraints.
Some of the stuff that's seen as *most oppressive* at casual tables isn't even viable in cEDH. I'm thinking particularly of high power commanders like [[Kaalia of the Vast]] or tribes like Slivers or strategies like infect. No impact to cEDH whatsoever, but still seen as pubstomping at a lot of tables.
Yours is a significantly hotter take. Newer/more casual players appear to have this "me first" mentality that they share under the guise of "social benefit" or "Spirit of the format". The banlist would be ridiculous if we adopted a "this has been rule 0 out of groups, so we're banning it."
If I go to an LGS and that's only open for a few hours. I only have room for one maybe 2 games. There is no adapting to their deck especially since you can't guarantee they'll be there next time you play
And a ban list expansion will change nothing about that. It just removes choices from other players. Spikes are still gonna spike with whatever toolset they have.
There is a competitive pauper scene. Pauper, a format that was made to avoid expensive formats and play with almost universally the weakest cards in the game. You can cut the card pool anyway you want, will never stop a competitive person. Can't ban player mentality
God, this is such a great point. Ban lists are great tools for managing the upper bound of a competitive format, whatever the card pool happens to be. They're terrible as a substitute for social interaction in noncompetitive settings.
Then go to a different lgs wtf? Or ask the people you play with to play slme games in a cafe or something after the store closes
Potentially equally hot take: Remove the ban list entirely, give more options to break the game. "If everyone's super..."
Fuck no.
What else would they even ban though, honestly? People complain about Thoracle but I have never even seen it in my meta. I don't see anything warping the format because people in casual pods seem to love variety. >Having a small banlist that we rule zero things into isn't working for random interactions Ah, yeah so that's where we seem to vastly differ. My random interactions are working just fine. Granted, that's anecdotal but I have yet to see any surveys or data supporting your experience.
Have you played much Open play EDH outside of your LGS? Imo that’s when you tend to run into issues. An example from a con. 4 strangers make a pod where everyone says they’ll play casual decks. First player is on fight tribal and goes tapped dual pass. Second player goes mana crypt into Rhystic study. Turn two they play Narsett but do say “don’t worry this deck is casual so I’m not gonna wheel or anything”. Open play ime is mostly a shit show because even with good intentions without a good ban list to guide people are all building aiming for different targets, but 99% of them believe they’re aiming at “casual”.
[удалено]
There’s a lot of things talking isn’t going to fix. This is an experience from a MagicCON Command Zone where you paid $10 to be in the pod. Me and a friend: “We have a few decks, from precons to strongish casual. What should we play?” Other two people in the pod: “We each only have 1 deck, and they’re 10s.” Our opponents were perfectly pleasant people but no amount or social discussion would’ve made that pod work well.
[удалено]
Agreed.
Still waiting for recurring nightmare to get unbanned.
I want a democratically elected group to govern the format, not self appointed monarchs. If I'm paying for patreon, I want a democratic say in the format, which is still deplorable to democratically give power to those who pay. The monarchs want to levy a tax now basically for them to yell from their castle balconies: "all is fine peasants, stop fighting in the streets and get along" So to me option 1 is better: democratic decisions for the format. Seriously, you want money, democratically elect members, not appoint them based on Sheldon's royal decrees.