As for ProfessorWhen's comment, we don't need anyone to agree with us, but we're happy that lots of folks do. If you disagree with how we're implementing what we've said we're trying to do, we're all ears. Sure, we're not going to engage in discussion on something that's outside what we're doing. You might have the best argument ever on how to make Commander a great tournament format, but that's outside our scope. It's in no way reflective of you or the quality of your argument, it's simply not what we're focusing on. Feel free to help us better implement our vision, but please don't get upset if we say no thank you if you're trying to change the fundamental nature of the format.
But my point is that commander has changed as a format (it's not even called EDH anymore). Through WotC's commercialization of your format, it inherits certain standards. I'm not saying that your vision is wrong, period. I'm saying that your methods are wrong given the fact that you now have a corporate entity endorsing your format by acknowledging it. As cryogen has previously mentioned, the commander precons do not come with an outline of your vision. What you present to the largest section of your new players is your banned list as an overview of the format. That is why objectivity and consistency are important aspects now.
But my point is that commander has changed as a format (it's not even called EDH anymore). Through WotC's commercialization of your format, it inherits certain standards.
I'm not sure I'm following you here. What kind of standards are you talking about here? Like, a standard of quality? Are you suggesting that, because Wizards now endorses EDH, that the Rules Committee is now somehow obliged to maintain a higher degree of quality for EDH? If so, could you elaborate? Without clarification, I'm not buying into this.
I'm not saying that your vision is wrong, period. I'm saying that your methods are wrong given the fact that you now have a corporate entity endorsing your format by acknowledging it. As cryogen has previously mentioned, the commander precons do not come with an outline of your vision. What you present to the largest section of your new players is your banned list as an overview of the format. That is why objectivity and consistency are important aspects now.
What methods are you talking about here? I don't see how Wizards endorsing EDH has any bearing on how the Rules Committee decides to sculpt their format. It's their format, not Wizards'. So what if Wizards has started designing cards intentionally for the format and marketing those cards? What does that matter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If you disagree with how we're implementing what we've said we're trying to do, we're all ears.
I agree mostly with how you're implementing what I think you're trying to, the big exceptions being the ban status for Sol Ring and Painter's Servant, but that's assuming I really do understand your vision of the format. It's hard to be sure when you say things like "we put actual thought into our decisions instead of emotion" as though you're not using emotion in decisions. I have to believe emotional response goes into the design decisions of a format meant for people to have fun, and I'd rather the influence of emotion be embraced than denied.
We feel like Commander has found a rather comfortable niche as a Magic format.
I'm less confident Commander has that comfortable niche. When I began playing this format, it was the ideal home for casual players with existing collections to play with what we already owned and hone them in when necessary. But now that the format has spread and the pre-cons have established their place, Commander has become a starter format. People are getting into magic, young and old, and being drawn directly into Commander as they see other people playing it, but they just started playing so they don't have the cards to make a deck and quickly split in two depending on budget and ambition. Half the people are buying pre-cons and trying to spruce them up as best they can while the other half are coming on websites like this to find deck so developed they have names. It's the old friday night magic conflict where one kid owns 3 booster packs and a pre-con while his friend goes to the counter and buys all the singles for caw-blade and then they can't play together anymore.
Ultimately, the vision of the format is the ideal solution to this problem, but implementing a shared vision requires self-regulation, a task which is much more difficult if you don't have the collection or game knowledge a magic veteran has. It's difficult for an inexperienced player to identify what cards are destabilizing their games, especially since enablers tend to be bigger problem cards than threats themselves, and it's just as difficult to convince someone who already needs to buy singles to complete a deck that their games might be better if they build a bit less optimally, and that makes me worry when an anecdotally higher percentage of Commander players entered into magic through Commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
A fair argument, as long as I can change changed to grown (without attempting to be hair-splitty). Even with the the corporate endorsement of the format (and their subsequent recognition of our ownership of it), there's still little to no objective measure to do anything.
The format's growth and popularity doesn't imply that it is required to adapt to anything. This position is unique or at least highly unusual. The governing body has no commercial interest in the product's success, which is quite liberating. Market forces can't impact the artistic vision. It seems like you believe that because WotC sells Commander product, we have a responsibility to yield to said forces; on this (if I'm right on your supposition), then we simply disagree. They pay or otherwise compensate us nothing, and ask nothing of us except advice--although given the people on the RC and our high levels of experience, they might be doing that anyway.
As for ProfessorWhen's comment, we don't need anyone to agree with us, but we're happy that lots of folks do. If you disagree with how we're implementing what we've said we're trying to do, we're all ears. Sure, we're not going to engage in discussion on something that's outside what we're doing. You might have the best argument ever on how to make Commander a great tournament format, but that's outside our scope. It's in no way reflective of you or the quality of your argument, it's simply not what we're focusing on. Feel free to help us better implement our vision, but please don't get upset if we say no thank you if you're trying to change the fundamental nature of the format.
But my point is that commander has changed as a format (it's not even called EDH anymore). Through WotC's commercialization of your format, it inherits certain standards. I'm not saying that your vision is wrong, period. I'm saying that your methods are wrong given the fact that you now have a corporate entity endorsing your format by acknowledging it. As cryogen has previously mentioned, the commander precons do not come with an outline of your vision. What you present to the largest section of your new players is your banned list as an overview of the format. That is why objectivity and consistency are important aspects now.
But my point is that commander has changed as a format (it's not even called EDH anymore). Through WotC's commercialization of your format, it inherits certain standards.
I'm not sure I'm following you here. What kind of standards are you talking about here? Like, a standard of quality? Are you suggesting that, because Wizards now endorses EDH, that the Rules Committee is now somehow obliged to maintain a higher degree of quality for EDH? If so, could you elaborate? Without clarification, I'm not buying into this.
Once it becomes something endorsed by WotC, it is no longer within the realm of a homebrew format. You can run Commander tournaments, you can buy product tailor made for commander. I expect that if they are taking my money, I will receive a product of a certain quality. If I am instead receiving a format that is based on an unwritten social contract to function correctly, I see a problem. Just because you don't see issue outside of your own group, does not mean it doesn't exist. I also have a well-established group. I notice every so often that an outsider comes in with certain expectations based solely on the assumption that he is playing a game of magic, only to be rebuffed by these unwritten rules of what is socially acceptable. It's about an even chance that they get soured on the experience or not. This is largely because of the atmosphere cultivated by the RC's "balance it yourself" attitude. It's the same reason Steam, for example, allows for refunds on games in alpha if they prove to be unplayable. A company has responsibilities to its customers. By accepting Commander as a marketable part of their company, it is given a set of standards.
I'm not saying that your vision is wrong, period. I'm saying that your methods are wrong given the fact that you now have a corporate entity endorsing your format by acknowledging it. As cryogen has previously mentioned, the commander precons do not come with an outline of your vision. What you present to the largest section of your new players is your banned list as an overview of the format. That is why objectivity and consistency are important aspects now.
What methods are you talking about here? I don't see how Wizards endorsing EDH has any bearing on how the Rules Committee decides to sculpt their format. It's their format, not Wizards'. So what if Wizards has started designing cards intentionally for the format and marketing those cards? What does that matter?
You know that quote that started this lane of conversation? That's one of those methods. This is not "their format" anymore, it is now a format of Magic. Tiny Leaders is an example of "someone's format" WotC is not making Tiny Leaders products. If I choose to fold my magic cards into Jenga blocks, that's "my format" up until the point where WotC starts printing Jenga card booster packs. The key point here is the company/customer relationship. I am not buying from the RC, I am buying from WotC.
While ProfessorWhen didn't exactly say this, their post does bring up a set of important points:
Are the Commander precons built towards the RC's vision of the format? Do they end up affecting and/or changing the RC's vision of the format?
Ideally, the answers would be "Yes" and "Not significantly," respectively, but if the answers are, say, "No" and "Majorly," then at the least that doesn't feel good, and one could make an argument for it actively being a bad situation.
------------
On an unrelated note, I see you changed the phrase "these cards and others like them" out for:
"These cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards."
I like that better. Though in that general vein, do you think that Sol Ring is significantly different enough from other Power to be okay, and why? If it had not been printed in the precons, would you still believe that?
Can we please stop talking about Sol Ring? The reason its in every deck while Mana Crypt is less common isn't because its better, but because the kid who bought three boosters and a precon has Sol Ring. You only ban Sol Ring if you also ban Crypt, Vault, and Monolith, because they all serve the same function, fast artifact mana. Are they broken 1v1? Absolutely, which is why they are banned in French Banlist. The Rules Committee only governs multiplayer Commander, and the multiplayer nature of the format means the guy that gets too far ahead becomes the archenemy. Drop Sol Ring into signet, one of them will eat removal, and the blue players will keep counter mana open for you until the board equalizes. Unless and until the Rules Committee decides that fast artifact mana needs to go, Sol Ring will not be banned, and I'd be shocked if the Rules Committee decided to axe fast artifact mana.
As for the Tooth and Nail example Sheldon gave, my take on it is that Tooth and Nail is much better than Protean Hulk when ran fairly, that is not used to combo. T&N tutors two creatures directly to the board, which is very good even when you aren't fetching a two card combo. Protean Hulk requires setup to fetch 6 CMC worth of creatures. When you aren't using it to fetch a combo, that ranges from good to marginal. So T&N is easier to use in a non combo role, making it more likely to contribute to the format, while Hulk is more likely to just be a combo piece. Personally, I hate that T&N is a one card combo, even as expensive as it is to cast, but if the idea isn't to ban out that sort of combo entirely but merely to limit the redundancy, then I get the logic of banning Hulk and keeping T&N, as if you need to cut one you cut the one with fewer fair uses.
Also, until WotC stops deferring to the Rules Committee, it damn well is their format. WotC has the ability to take ownership of Commander, and Sheldon and company has the ability to go right back to calling it EDH and making that a format fit their vision if WotC decides to take it in a different direction. There is nothing stopping this. Despite this option, when WotC officially endorsed the format and changed the name to Commander, they also explicitly and officially decided to leave the banlist and rules to the Rules Committee. They also consult with the RC on each year's Commander set, especially around the legends and new mechanics, like the Planeswalker Commanders and Partner. Until they decide that the Rules Committee is no longer in charge, its still Sheldon and Friend's format.
Do some people think that WotC should take over, rather than simply endorse the fan format? Yes. They are in the minority. Commander is wildly successful, and the fact that its the only fan format that was so popular that WotC supports it speaks volumes. It got to where it is because of the stewardship of the Rules Committee. Having legends designed specifically for the format has helped it grow even further, as has WotC drive to print more legends in standard legal sets, but that wouldn't matter if the Rules Committee wasn't doing a good job. And really, compare how the Rules Committee handles the banlist and how WotC handles modern's. Yeah, there's less controversy over what the Rules Committee does, and more agreement over most of the cards. The only issues are a handful of borderline cards on both sides of the ban line, the poster children being T&N and Hulk. Sheldon et al also actually engage the vocal minority of players that posts here and on other forums and seem to take our opinions into account. The fact that Sheldon started a Karakas discussion to get a feel of community sentiment even though it doesn't seem like the RC intends to unban it shows that they are actively working to get it right, not just sitting on the banlist and writing every card off. The sheer stability of this format compared to Modern is amazing, and this is a format that WotC releases yearly products designed specifically to shake it up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Once it becomes something endorsed by WotC, it is no longer within the realm of a homebrew format. You can run Commander tournaments, you can buy product tailor made for commander. I expect that if they are taking my money, I will receive a product of a certain quality. If I am instead receiving a format that is based on an unwritten social contract to function correctly, I see a problem.
You know that quote that started this lane of conversation? That's one of those methods. This is not "their format" anymore, it is now a format of Magic. Tiny Leaders is an example of "someone's format" WotC is not making Tiny Leaders products. If I choose to fold my magic cards into Jenga blocks, that's "my format" up until the point where WotC starts printing Jenga card booster packs. The key point here is the company/customer relationship. I am not buying from the RC, I am buying from WotC.
Ah. Now I feel as though I better understand where you're coming from.
While I agree with you that companies ought to be held responsible for the quality of their products, the Rules Committee isn't a company. They're not selling anything, and they don't have an obligation to change EDH if they don't want to. Wizards of the Coast is the one selling Commander products. If you have beef with the product Wizards is selling you, take it up with them, not the Rules Committee. They're the ones making the product.
I also disagree that Wizards of the Coast capitalizing off of EDH's popularity somehow invalidates EDH as a homebrew format. What Wizards does is, well... whatever they want. If Wizards wants to design cards for avid EDH fans, they can do that. If Wizards wants to run sanctioned Commander events, they can do that too. Doing those things doesn't suddenly make EDH any less of a homebrew format. Yes, it has helped give EDH more exposure, but Wizards doesn't own EDH, the Rules Committee does. They're independent of Wizards, indifferent to their support, and they have every right to be.
Just because you don't see issue outside of your own group, does not mean it doesn't exist. I also have a well-established group.
Woah there. I never claimed any of this.
First off, it goes without saying that I am not omniscient. I am obviously not aware of the state of EDH games beyond my own experiences and what I hear/read about from other sources. Second, I don't know what made you think I have a well-established group. I do not. I just play pickup games at my LGS.
I notice every so often that an outsider comes in with certain expectations based solely on the assumption that he is playing a game of magic, only to be rebuffed by these unwritten rules of what is socially acceptable. It's about an even chance that they get soured on the experience or not. This is largely because of the atmosphere cultivated by the RC's "balance it yourself" attitude. It's the same reason Steam, for example, allows for refunds on games in alpha if they prove to be unplayable.
If you'd like to propose an alternative way to manage the format, I'll listen. Social regulation just seems to be the only way of successfully managing the format to me though.
Things would be different if Wizards usurped EDH from the Rules Committee or if the Rules Committee were capable of making their own cards. As it stands though, EDH is a mod of Magic. As such, EDH has a ton of limitations baked into it. The Rules Committee can't manage EDH the same way Wizards would manage one of their formats. If they could, social regulation likely wouldn't be necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The problem is that Social Regulations work for very few groups in the end. Only those that rarely have any mutations and aren't too big can reliably do things like house bans/unbans with everyone agreeing and nobody getting caught off guard. Me, I'm in a student city that sees a new influx of players every half a year, on top of having a rather sizeable core with players on both ends of the spectrum of competitiveness. While we mostly make it work by having decks of multiple tiers and adjusting our deck picks based on that, this also makes house bans/unbans highly unwieldy. If a new player moved to our city and comes to join us for a round of EDH, only to be told "Sorry pal, can't use cards X, Y and Z but you can use D and E here", they'll have a rather poor impression of our local group, which might lead to them not coming back. We do get around this, as said before, by having decks of multiple power levels (most of us, not everyone has the resources/skill to pull that off), but it also means we're reliant on a solid well-managed banlist.
And that's why I'm pretty vocal in my desire to have a few things swapped around. Too often do I see games end up ruined by Tooth and Nail - especially the ones where we pull out lesser powered decks, mind - that causes me to believe it should get the axe. In the same vein, I don't believe Protean Hulk would be anywhere close near as problematic due to it's fair uses being decently strong but far from broken and requiring work to actually break. At the same time I also believe Banned as a Commander should be reinstated, Iona should probably get the axe for the feelbads it produces and Gifts Ungiven and Recurring Nightmare should at least be granted a test period.
However, those are only 5 cards of which I don't agree with their placement, and one rule that I believe should've never been added. As such I don't have a major problem with the banlist, just small nitpicks. But at some points, Sheldon's quotes make the hair on my neck rise, most notably his comment about Tooth and Nail earlier (I run it in one deck) and the one on Protean Hulk, where several users had spoken about testing it and nobody reporting anything truly broken, and him responding, and I quote " it's a closed case for now."
Those kind of responses to large ongoing discussions makes one feel not taken entirely seriously, might be due to how they're posted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I suppose I'll be a little more careful in the future to explain the difference between "this is an example of how a card might be used fairly" and "this is a reason for why a card is/isn't banned." And if we've made a decision on a card, it doesn't mean we're not listening to the people who disagree with the decision--since no matter what decision we make on an individual card, we're going to "not have listened" to someone. Once a decision is made, it doesn't make sense to revisit the card until some new evidence arises. Occasionally reviewing decisions is one thing, but rehashing the same arguments over and over again is another.
A fair argument, as long as I can change changed to grown (without attempting to be hair-splitty). Even with the the corporate endorsement of the format (and their subsequent recognition of our ownership of it), there's still little to no objective measure to do anything.
The format's growth and popularity doesn't imply that it is required to adapt to anything. This position is unique or at least highly unusual. The governing body has no commercial interest in the product's success, which is quite liberating. Market forces can't impact the artistic vision. It seems like you believe that because WotC sells Commander product, we have a responsibility to yield to said forces; on this (if I'm right on your supposition), then we simply disagree. They pay or otherwise compensate us nothing, and ask nothing of us except advice--although given the people on the RC and our high levels of experience, they might be doing that anyway.
I disagree here, obviously. You may not have to adapt, but I think it would be better to do so. I know you're not on WotC's payroll for this, but Commander is deeply entrenched in MTG at this point. I don't think you guys have the obligation to yield to the market, I think WotC has the obligation to make you yield to the market. But it's more reasonable to discuss this matter with you directly. As a pragmatist, I know it makes no difference arguing on the internet.
I suppose I'll be a little more careful in the future to explain the difference between "this is an example of how a card might be used fairly" and "this is a reason for why a card is/isn't banned." And if we've made a decision on a card, it doesn't mean we're not listening to the people who disagree with the decision--since no matter what decision we make on an individual card, we're going to "not have listened" to someone. Once a decision is made, it doesn't make sense to revisit the card until some new evidence arises. Occasionally reviewing decisions is one thing, but rehashing the same arguments over and over again is another.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the banned list is horrible. I think I most agree with cards like Worldfire/Sway of the Stars which have a fundamentally different interaction with the format. I also agree with the banning of the moxen and Library of Alexandria, but not really the reason behind it (i.e. - it's not about the cost/infamy of the cards). I feel that cards like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt (but not Mana Vault) should fall under a similar ban because they are cards that become realistically required in decks.
I honestly believe that it would make a better format if you took a step back in your banning process and first established a set of uniform, concrete banning criteria, rather than the more feel-based approach that you seem to use. I do understand the wish to give your creation a proper "feeling" and it does often affect my deck building, but that isn't a great way to run something as far-reaching as Commander.
Once it becomes something endorsed by WotC, it is no longer within the realm of a homebrew format. You can run Commander tournaments, you can buy product tailor made for commander. I expect that if they are taking my money, I will receive a product of a certain quality. If I am instead receiving a format that is based on an unwritten social contract to function correctly, I see a problem.
You know that quote that started this lane of conversation? That's one of those methods. This is not "their format" anymore, it is now a format of Magic. Tiny Leaders is an example of "someone's format" WotC is not making Tiny Leaders products. If I choose to fold my magic cards into Jenga blocks, that's "my format" up until the point where WotC starts printing Jenga card booster packs. The key point here is the company/customer relationship. I am not buying from the RC, I am buying from WotC.
Ah. Now I feel as though I better understand where you're coming from.
While I agree with you that companies ought to be held responsible for the quality of their products, the Rules Committee isn't a company. They're not selling anything, and they don't have an obligation to change EDH if they don't want to. Wizards of the Coast is the one selling Commander products. If you have beef with the product Wizards is selling you, take it up with them, not the Rules Committee. They're the ones making the product.
I also disagree that Wizards of the Coast capitalizing off of EDH's popularity somehow invalidates EDH as a homebrew format. What Wizards does is, well... whatever they want. If Wizards wants to design cards for avid EDH fans, they can do that. If Wizards wants to run sanctioned Commander events, they can do that too. Doing those things doesn't suddenly make EDH any less of a homebrew format. Yes, it has helped give EDH more exposure, but Wizards doesn't own EDH, the Rules Committee does. They're independent of Wizards, indifferent to their support, and they have every right to be.
At the root it is that independence from WotC that I think causes my problem. Look at how WotC was handling stores running proxy Legacy tournaments. Proxies are not a copyright violation, they are not trying to be passed off as original creations or sold for profit, but WotC will remove you from the WPN if your store runs these. Calling Proxy Legacy a "homebrew format" does not somehow excuse it from WotC policy. The same should apply to Commander. WotC should encourage the RC to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience.
Just because you don't see issue outside of your own group, does not mean it doesn't exist. I also have a well-established group.
Woah there. I never claimed any of this.
First off, it goes without saying that I am not omniscient. I am obviously not aware of the state of EDH games beyond my own experiences and what I hear/read about from other sources. Second, I don't know what made you think I have a well-established group. I do not. I just play pickup games at my LGS.
I'm confused here, so you do see problems but don't think the RC could help them by changing the way they manage the format?
I notice every so often that an outsider comes in with certain expectations based solely on the assumption that he is playing a game of magic, only to be rebuffed by these unwritten rules of what is socially acceptable. It's about an even chance that they get soured on the experience or not. This is largely because of the atmosphere cultivated by the RC's "balance it yourself" attitude. It's the same reason Steam, for example, allows for refunds on games in alpha if they prove to be unplayable.
If you'd like to propose an alternative way to manage the format, I'll listen. Social regulation just seems to be the only way of successfully managing the format to me though.
Things would be different if Wizards usurped EDH from the Rules Committee or if the Rules Committee were capable of making their own cards. As it stands though, EDH is a mod of Magic. As such, EDH has a ton of limitations baked into it. The Rules Committee can't manage EDH the same way Wizards would manage one of their formats. If they could, social regulation likely wouldn't be necessary.
As you'll see above, I think it would be better for the RC to come together and establish a set of concrete criteria for banning cards, then move on to the individual problem cards.
As Lou often points out, there is a big inconsistency between the Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk having a separate fate. Additionally, no one ever talks about how Boonweaver Giant will function exactly like Hulk with regards to combos (it even requires the same G/W or G/W/B to combo). The only thing that Hulk does better than Boonweaver is have a fair value use, and that is the argument to keep T&N unbanned. In my mind, a good format would not need the weird jumps in logic in order to have this outcome on 3 similar cards.
It’s amazing how many intellectual property attorneys we must have in here. Everyone so sure that EDH belongs to the Rules Committee.
Interestingly, I was going to add a bit to my response that was something like "...but it's WotC's IP, so I suppose they can do whatever they want whenever they want," but it didn't seem to add to the discussion. Guess we were on the same page.
WotC should encourage the RC to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience.
I suspect WotC is actually fine with how the RC has done that already, and it is my opinion that the RC has already done a pretty good job of explaining their philosophy to a pretty broad audience. That's part of why the format has been a success.. The problem is, some people don't like that the RC's philosophy differs from what those people think it should be. Said philosophy is already fairly pretty clear to a pretty broad audience, but a more narrow audience isn't cool with it, and wants the RC's philosophy to change in a manner reflecting that narrow audience's narrow desire that things be more in line with competitive needs and/or more in line with some consistency principle that narrow audience can't even agree upon.
It’s amazing how many intellectual property attorneys we must have in here. Everyone so sure that EDH belongs to the Rules Committee.
So long as the owners of the IP say it's theirs, it's theirs. WotC has chosen to keep then in charge. It is the RC's format so long as WotC wants it to be the RCs format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Out of curiosity Sheldon, hypothetically speaking if there was a falling out between the RC and Wizards, which parent would get control of the format?
WOTC
Per USPTO:
Word Mark MAGIC THE GATHERING COMMANDER
Goods and Services IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Card games, trading card games. FIRST USE: 20110601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85155389
Filing Date October 18, 2010
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition March 22, 2011
Registration Number 4347124
Registration Date June 4, 2013
Owner (REGISTRANT) WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 1027 Newport Avenue Pawtucket RHODE ISLAND 02862
Prior Registrations 1919923;2834808;3190575;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
The only live trademark for "EDH" is "Exclusive Door Handles", and nothing for Elder Dragon Highlander.
Out of curiosity Sheldon, hypothetically speaking if there was a falling out between the RC and Wizards, which parent would get control of the format?
WOTC
Per USPTO:
Word Mark MAGIC THE GATHERING COMMANDER
Goods and Services IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Card games, trading card games. FIRST USE: 20110601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85155389
Filing Date October 18, 2010
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition March 22, 2011
Registration Number 4347124
Registration Date June 4, 2013
Owner (REGISTRANT) WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWARE 1027 Newport Avenue Pawtucket RHODE ISLAND 02862
Prior Registrations 1919923;2834808;3190575;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
The only live trademark for "EDH" is "Exclusive Door Handles", and nothing for Elder Dragon Highlander.
Yes, Wizards would get control of Commander. The Rules Committee could then revert to Elder Dragon Highlander and make a few rules tweaks (like banned as a commander) and it would be an unsupported home brew format again.
There is also, obviously, Duel Commander, which uses a somewhat different rule set and a significantly different ban list. That format has no affiliation with WotC whatsoever. No support, no products developed for it, etc. Tiny leaders also exists.
Basically, WotC can't do anything to stop the Rules Committee from maintaining a homebrew format if they split ways, just like Parker Brothers can't stop people from giving alternate rules to make Monopoly less soul crushingly monotonous. They can stop them if the RC decided to continue calling it Commander. Whether the RC would feel inclined to continue to promote an alternate format, that would probably depend on why they parted ways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
That's a hypothetical in which there's no value to me in exploring. If someday we have to cross the bridge, so be it. Life is finite, and I'll spend my time thinking about other stuff.
I don’t know what it is about the law that everyone believes that unqualified speculation counts for something.
The key fact that has changed between pre-Commander EDH years and now is that WOTC is now deriving commercial benefit from goods sold under a registered Trademark. So even with no competing claims on the IP directly, there are all sorts of grounds for a possible injunction against someone co-opting that property – tortious interference, trademark tarnishment, various conversion theories, etc.
Broadly speaking, the law is not favorable toward a third party deriving commercial benefit (direct or indirect) by telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner. Those are not very common grounds for suit, but it shouldn’t really be that hard of a call from gut-feeling standpoint. WOTC is highly interested in the safekeeping of the Commander format.
I don’t know what it is about the law that everyone believes that unqualified speculation counts for something.
The key fact that has changed between pre-Commander EDH years and now is that WOTC is now deriving commercial benefit from goods sold under a registered Trademark. So even with no competing claims on the IP directly, there are all sorts of grounds for a possible injunction against someone co-opting that property – tortious interference, trademark tarnishment, various conversion theories, etc.
Broadly speaking, the law is not favorable toward a third party deriving commercial benefit (direct or indirect) by telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner. Those are not very common grounds for suit, but it shouldn’t really be that hard of a call from gut-feeling standpoint. WOTC is highly interested in the safekeeping of the Commander format.
I don’t know what it is about the law that everyone believes that unqualified speculation counts for something.
The key fact that has changed between pre-Commander EDH years and now is that WOTC is now deriving commercial benefit from goods sold under a registered Trademark. So even with no competing claims on the IP directly, there are all sorts of grounds for a possible injunction against someone co-opting that property – tortious interference, trademark tarnishment, various conversion theories, etc.
Broadly speaking, the law is not favorable toward a third party deriving commercial benefit (direct or indirect) by telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner. Those are not very common grounds for suit, but it shouldn’t really be that hard of a call from gut-feeling standpoint. WOTC is highly interested in the safekeeping of the Commander format.
Is anyone suggesting that they're not?
Just saying that from the years of EDH to now, the thing that's changed is that WOTC is now financially interested in Commander. Which is to rebut Onering's statement above that if the RC and WOTC were ever to part ways, things would go back to the way they were, specifically EDH being an unsupported home brew outside WOTC radar, and Commander as separate from EDH going forward under WOTC ownership. I'm saying not so, WOTC has grounds to keep the whole format under their own safekeeping from now on.
But my point is that commander has changed as a format (it's not even called EDH anymore). Through WotC's commercialization of your format, it inherits certain standards. I'm not saying that your vision is wrong, period. I'm saying that your methods are wrong given the fact that you now have a corporate entity endorsing your format by acknowledging it. As cryogen has previously mentioned, the commander precons do not come with an outline of your vision. What you present to the largest section of your new players is your banned list as an overview of the format. That is why objectivity and consistency are important aspects now.
What methods are you talking about here? I don't see how Wizards endorsing EDH has any bearing on how the Rules Committee decides to sculpt their format. It's their format, not Wizards'. So what if Wizards has started designing cards intentionally for the format and marketing those cards? What does that matter?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I agree mostly with how you're implementing what I think you're trying to, the big exceptions being the ban status for Sol Ring and Painter's Servant, but that's assuming I really do understand your vision of the format. It's hard to be sure when you say things like "we put actual thought into our decisions instead of emotion" as though you're not using emotion in decisions. I have to believe emotional response goes into the design decisions of a format meant for people to have fun, and I'd rather the influence of emotion be embraced than denied.
I'm less confident Commander has that comfortable niche. When I began playing this format, it was the ideal home for casual players with existing collections to play with what we already owned and hone them in when necessary. But now that the format has spread and the pre-cons have established their place, Commander has become a starter format. People are getting into magic, young and old, and being drawn directly into Commander as they see other people playing it, but they just started playing so they don't have the cards to make a deck and quickly split in two depending on budget and ambition. Half the people are buying pre-cons and trying to spruce them up as best they can while the other half are coming on websites like this to find deck so developed they have names. It's the old friday night magic conflict where one kid owns 3 booster packs and a pre-con while his friend goes to the counter and buys all the singles for caw-blade and then they can't play together anymore.
Ultimately, the vision of the format is the ideal solution to this problem, but implementing a shared vision requires self-regulation, a task which is much more difficult if you don't have the collection or game knowledge a magic veteran has. It's difficult for an inexperienced player to identify what cards are destabilizing their games, especially since enablers tend to be bigger problem cards than threats themselves, and it's just as difficult to convince someone who already needs to buy singles to complete a deck that their games might be better if they build a bit less optimally, and that makes me worry when an anecdotally higher percentage of Commander players entered into magic through Commander.
The format's growth and popularity doesn't imply that it is required to adapt to anything. This position is unique or at least highly unusual. The governing body has no commercial interest in the product's success, which is quite liberating. Market forces can't impact the artistic vision. It seems like you believe that because WotC sells Commander product, we have a responsibility to yield to said forces; on this (if I'm right on your supposition), then we simply disagree. They pay or otherwise compensate us nothing, and ask nothing of us except advice--although given the people on the RC and our high levels of experience, they might be doing that anyway.
Once it becomes something endorsed by WotC, it is no longer within the realm of a homebrew format. You can run Commander tournaments, you can buy product tailor made for commander. I expect that if they are taking my money, I will receive a product of a certain quality. If I am instead receiving a format that is based on an unwritten social contract to function correctly, I see a problem. Just because you don't see issue outside of your own group, does not mean it doesn't exist. I also have a well-established group. I notice every so often that an outsider comes in with certain expectations based solely on the assumption that he is playing a game of magic, only to be rebuffed by these unwritten rules of what is socially acceptable. It's about an even chance that they get soured on the experience or not. This is largely because of the atmosphere cultivated by the RC's "balance it yourself" attitude. It's the same reason Steam, for example, allows for refunds on games in alpha if they prove to be unplayable. A company has responsibilities to its customers. By accepting Commander as a marketable part of their company, it is given a set of standards.
You know that quote that started this lane of conversation? That's one of those methods. This is not "their format" anymore, it is now a format of Magic. Tiny Leaders is an example of "someone's format" WotC is not making Tiny Leaders products. If I choose to fold my magic cards into Jenga blocks, that's "my format" up until the point where WotC starts printing Jenga card booster packs. The key point here is the company/customer relationship. I am not buying from the RC, I am buying from WotC.
While ProfessorWhen didn't exactly say this, their post does bring up a set of important points:
Are the Commander precons built towards the RC's vision of the format? Do they end up affecting and/or changing the RC's vision of the format?
Ideally, the answers would be "Yes" and "Not significantly," respectively, but if the answers are, say, "No" and "Majorly," then at the least that doesn't feel good, and one could make an argument for it actively being a bad situation.
------------
On an unrelated note, I see you changed the phrase "these cards and others like them" out for:
"These cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards."
I like that better. Though in that general vein, do you think that Sol Ring is significantly different enough from other Power to be okay, and why? If it had not been printed in the precons, would you still believe that?
As for the Tooth and Nail example Sheldon gave, my take on it is that Tooth and Nail is much better than Protean Hulk when ran fairly, that is not used to combo. T&N tutors two creatures directly to the board, which is very good even when you aren't fetching a two card combo. Protean Hulk requires setup to fetch 6 CMC worth of creatures. When you aren't using it to fetch a combo, that ranges from good to marginal. So T&N is easier to use in a non combo role, making it more likely to contribute to the format, while Hulk is more likely to just be a combo piece. Personally, I hate that T&N is a one card combo, even as expensive as it is to cast, but if the idea isn't to ban out that sort of combo entirely but merely to limit the redundancy, then I get the logic of banning Hulk and keeping T&N, as if you need to cut one you cut the one with fewer fair uses.
Also, until WotC stops deferring to the Rules Committee, it damn well is their format. WotC has the ability to take ownership of Commander, and Sheldon and company has the ability to go right back to calling it EDH and making that a format fit their vision if WotC decides to take it in a different direction. There is nothing stopping this. Despite this option, when WotC officially endorsed the format and changed the name to Commander, they also explicitly and officially decided to leave the banlist and rules to the Rules Committee. They also consult with the RC on each year's Commander set, especially around the legends and new mechanics, like the Planeswalker Commanders and Partner. Until they decide that the Rules Committee is no longer in charge, its still Sheldon and Friend's format.
Do some people think that WotC should take over, rather than simply endorse the fan format? Yes. They are in the minority. Commander is wildly successful, and the fact that its the only fan format that was so popular that WotC supports it speaks volumes. It got to where it is because of the stewardship of the Rules Committee. Having legends designed specifically for the format has helped it grow even further, as has WotC drive to print more legends in standard legal sets, but that wouldn't matter if the Rules Committee wasn't doing a good job. And really, compare how the Rules Committee handles the banlist and how WotC handles modern's. Yeah, there's less controversy over what the Rules Committee does, and more agreement over most of the cards. The only issues are a handful of borderline cards on both sides of the ban line, the poster children being T&N and Hulk. Sheldon et al also actually engage the vocal minority of players that posts here and on other forums and seem to take our opinions into account. The fact that Sheldon started a Karakas discussion to get a feel of community sentiment even though it doesn't seem like the RC intends to unban it shows that they are actively working to get it right, not just sitting on the banlist and writing every card off. The sheer stability of this format compared to Modern is amazing, and this is a format that WotC releases yearly products designed specifically to shake it up.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
While I agree with you that companies ought to be held responsible for the quality of their products, the Rules Committee isn't a company. They're not selling anything, and they don't have an obligation to change EDH if they don't want to. Wizards of the Coast is the one selling Commander products. If you have beef with the product Wizards is selling you, take it up with them, not the Rules Committee. They're the ones making the product.
I also disagree that Wizards of the Coast capitalizing off of EDH's popularity somehow invalidates EDH as a homebrew format. What Wizards does is, well... whatever they want. If Wizards wants to design cards for avid EDH fans, they can do that. If Wizards wants to run sanctioned Commander events, they can do that too. Doing those things doesn't suddenly make EDH any less of a homebrew format. Yes, it has helped give EDH more exposure, but Wizards doesn't own EDH, the Rules Committee does. They're independent of Wizards, indifferent to their support, and they have every right to be.
Woah there. I never claimed any of this.
First off, it goes without saying that I am not omniscient. I am obviously not aware of the state of EDH games beyond my own experiences and what I hear/read about from other sources. Second, I don't know what made you think I have a well-established group. I do not. I just play pickup games at my LGS.
If you'd like to propose an alternative way to manage the format, I'll listen. Social regulation just seems to be the only way of successfully managing the format to me though.
Things would be different if Wizards usurped EDH from the Rules Committee or if the Rules Committee were capable of making their own cards. As it stands though, EDH is a mod of Magic. As such, EDH has a ton of limitations baked into it. The Rules Committee can't manage EDH the same way Wizards would manage one of their formats. If they could, social regulation likely wouldn't be necessary.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
And that's why I'm pretty vocal in my desire to have a few things swapped around. Too often do I see games end up ruined by Tooth and Nail - especially the ones where we pull out lesser powered decks, mind - that causes me to believe it should get the axe. In the same vein, I don't believe Protean Hulk would be anywhere close near as problematic due to it's fair uses being decently strong but far from broken and requiring work to actually break. At the same time I also believe Banned as a Commander should be reinstated, Iona should probably get the axe for the feelbads it produces and Gifts Ungiven and Recurring Nightmare should at least be granted a test period.
However, those are only 5 cards of which I don't agree with their placement, and one rule that I believe should've never been added. As such I don't have a major problem with the banlist, just small nitpicks. But at some points, Sheldon's quotes make the hair on my neck rise, most notably his comment about Tooth and Nail earlier (I run it in one deck) and the one on Protean Hulk, where several users had spoken about testing it and nobody reporting anything truly broken, and him responding, and I quote " it's a closed case for now."
Those kind of responses to large ongoing discussions makes one feel not taken entirely seriously, might be due to how they're posted.
I disagree here, obviously. You may not have to adapt, but I think it would be better to do so. I know you're not on WotC's payroll for this, but Commander is deeply entrenched in MTG at this point. I don't think you guys have the obligation to yield to the market, I think WotC has the obligation to make you yield to the market. But it's more reasonable to discuss this matter with you directly. As a pragmatist, I know it makes no difference arguing on the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the banned list is horrible. I think I most agree with cards like Worldfire/Sway of the Stars which have a fundamentally different interaction with the format. I also agree with the banning of the moxen and Library of Alexandria, but not really the reason behind it (i.e. - it's not about the cost/infamy of the cards). I feel that cards like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt (but not Mana Vault) should fall under a similar ban because they are cards that become realistically required in decks.
I honestly believe that it would make a better format if you took a step back in your banning process and first established a set of uniform, concrete banning criteria, rather than the more feel-based approach that you seem to use. I do understand the wish to give your creation a proper "feeling" and it does often affect my deck building, but that isn't a great way to run something as far-reaching as Commander.
At the root it is that independence from WotC that I think causes my problem. Look at how WotC was handling stores running proxy Legacy tournaments. Proxies are not a copyright violation, they are not trying to be passed off as original creations or sold for profit, but WotC will remove you from the WPN if your store runs these. Calling Proxy Legacy a "homebrew format" does not somehow excuse it from WotC policy. The same should apply to Commander. WotC should encourage the RC to normalize the Commander philosophy to a broad audience.
I'm confused here, so you do see problems but don't think the RC could help them by changing the way they manage the format?
As you'll see above, I think it would be better for the RC to come together and establish a set of concrete criteria for banning cards, then move on to the individual problem cards.
As Lou often points out, there is a big inconsistency between the Tooth and Nail and Protean Hulk having a separate fate. Additionally, no one ever talks about how Boonweaver Giant will function exactly like Hulk with regards to combos (it even requires the same G/W or G/W/B to combo). The only thing that Hulk does better than Boonweaver is have a fair value use, and that is the argument to keep T&N unbanned. In my mind, a good format would not need the weird jumps in logic in order to have this outcome on 3 similar cards.
Interestingly, I was going to add a bit to my response that was something like "...but it's WotC's IP, so I suppose they can do whatever they want whenever they want," but it didn't seem to add to the discussion. Guess we were on the same page.
I suspect WotC is actually fine with how the RC has done that already, and it is my opinion that the RC has already done a pretty good job of explaining their philosophy to a pretty broad audience. That's part of why the format has been a success.. The problem is, some people don't like that the RC's philosophy differs from what those people think it should be. Said philosophy is already fairly pretty clear to a pretty broad audience, but a more narrow audience isn't cool with it, and wants the RC's philosophy to change in a manner reflecting that narrow audience's narrow desire that things be more in line with competitive needs and/or more in line with some consistency principle that narrow audience can't even agree upon.
So long as the owners of the IP say it's theirs, it's theirs. WotC has chosen to keep then in charge. It is the RC's format so long as WotC wants it to be the RCs format.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
WOTC
Per USPTO:
The only live trademark for "EDH" is "Exclusive Door Handles", and nothing for Elder Dragon Highlander.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Yes, Wizards would get control of Commander. The Rules Committee could then revert to Elder Dragon Highlander and make a few rules tweaks (like banned as a commander) and it would be an unsupported home brew format again.
There is also, obviously, Duel Commander, which uses a somewhat different rule set and a significantly different ban list. That format has no affiliation with WotC whatsoever. No support, no products developed for it, etc. Tiny leaders also exists.
Basically, WotC can't do anything to stop the Rules Committee from maintaining a homebrew format if they split ways, just like Parker Brothers can't stop people from giving alternate rules to make Monopoly less soul crushingly monotonous. They can stop them if the RC decided to continue calling it Commander. Whether the RC would feel inclined to continue to promote an alternate format, that would probably depend on why they parted ways.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The key fact that has changed between pre-Commander EDH years and now is that WOTC is now deriving commercial benefit from goods sold under a registered Trademark. So even with no competing claims on the IP directly, there are all sorts of grounds for a possible injunction against someone co-opting that property – tortious interference, trademark tarnishment, various conversion theories, etc.
Broadly speaking, the law is not favorable toward a third party deriving commercial benefit (direct or indirect) by telling everyone that the seller of the IP is doing it wrong, particularly when it’s to the detriment of the IP owner. Those are not very common grounds for suit, but it shouldn’t really be that hard of a call from gut-feeling standpoint. WOTC is highly interested in the safekeeping of the Commander format.
Is anyone suggesting that they're not?
Just saying that from the years of EDH to now, the thing that's changed is that WOTC is now financially interested in Commander. Which is to rebut Onering's statement above that if the RC and WOTC were ever to part ways, things would go back to the way they were, specifically EDH being an unsupported home brew outside WOTC radar, and Commander as separate from EDH going forward under WOTC ownership. I'm saying not so, WOTC has grounds to keep the whole format under their own safekeeping from now on.