Yeah, cryogen got it right. Again, this was a thought experiment, not a plan or even foreshadowing. There is no current plan to bring back BaaC or institute major changes to our Banned List.
I didn't think there was any intention behind the thought excercise, I was just trying to get clarity on what you were saying. Thanks cryogen/Sheldon.
Personally, I'd be a fan of the BaaC list returning and going back to how it was before the list was removed - I think all the legendaries that are banned right now would not be major issues as one of the 99 in a given deck. It was the repeated access to the card as a commander that made them cross over that threshold of being troublemakers.
Well... Griselbrand and Emrakul should stay banned for sure. Probably Erayo too.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
Yeah, cryogen got it right. Again, this was a thought experiment, not a plan or even foreshadowing. There is no current plan to bring back BaaC or institute major changes to our Banned List.
I didn't think there was any intention behind the thought excercise, I was just trying to get clarity on what you were saying. Thanks cryogen/Sheldon.
Personally, I'd be a fan of the BaaC list returning and going back to how it was before the list was removed - I think all the legendaries that are banned right now would not be major issues as one of the 99 in a given deck. It was the repeated access to the card as a commander that made them cross over that threshold of being troublemakers.
Well... Griselbrand and Emrakul should stay banned for sure. Probably Erayo too.
I think Sheldon has said Erayo is similar to Braids in that it is a casualty of the BaaC being gone and not exactly a card that is bad for the format as a whole.
That article was an educational read, Sheldon. I appreciate the bear puns and the candid address of what really is a controversial topic. I hope you are doing well and hopefully on your way to recovery.
I've been a vocal advocate for the return of BaaC since it was removed. This article does change a bit how I feel about that. I miss having Rofellos in my Omnath list, but if I may not even get him back and potentially also lose Narset, TaN, DEN, Vorinclex, Winter Orb, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, etc. in the process of the separate list returning, then it is better off gone.
One thing that did bother me some is that you made the mental leap that just because the list returned meant that it should be used in a larger capacity than its previous incarnation in order to justify its existence. Prossh and Derevi were just as busted before it was removed yet they remained legal. As were Zur and Arcum (I don't think Narset existed yet). GAAIV is taxing, but not that ridiculous. Is there, then, a declared war on Stax effects in this alternate reality? Or is the implication that the list, to bother having it, needs to be more expansive than it was previously? This policy shift seems to be counter to the minimalist approach to banning that the RC has continually stood by.
Are we, in this world of your article, just not allowing things that toe the line any longer? That are strong, but tend to be cards that are run intentionally to be more cutthroat? I agree that there would certainly be a litany of cascading bans that would follow the changed philosophy of the BaaC list to include commanders that are prototypical of the competitive/cutthroat style without many more tame lists.
The crux of my concerns, I believe, is that the additional BaaC bans that you discuss are only seen in the light that they are because the social contract has already done its job with regard to their use in casual circles. Shouldn't bans be reserved for the cards that don't successfully do that?
Also, for the record, I deliberately built a less competitive Narset list that is still good (because I have difficulty deliberately powering down my decks below a certain threshold due to the aggregate strength of my playgroup) and notably runs zero extra turn or extra combat effects.
I think that you failed, in some respect, to address the fact that it is probable that most of these commanders don't have a ton of "casual" decks built around them because when they sit down at a table at a card shop, players are going to go by the commander's reputation for competitive application rather than the individual power level of the player's deck and focus that player out of the game. Ironically, in this situation, the player that builds the casual deck with the stereotypically "competitive" commander is the one that wouldn't get to play the game rather than the alternative that would lead to the hypothetical banning of that same commander.
In the end, though, the pragmatist in me says that begging for the return of the BaaC list, now, is more untenable than just dealing with the fact that I can't play with one of my favorite cards instead of a dozen of them. The adage, "be careful what you wish for," seems to be especially prophetic.
Of course, this could all just be a ruse to get people to stop asking about it for fear that you ban the whole world as a response: real scorched earth policy stuff. I'm not wearing my tin foil hat, though.
If, however, I were to declare a war, it would be against the STAX and related resource denial because it's just miserable to play against. I hate the idea of games in which everyone just sits around watching one person play. If it happens as some sort of unusual side effect or combination of cards from multiple decks, then stuff happens, but dedicating a strategy to not allowing anyone into the game is contrary to the social principle.
Or is the implication that the list, to bother having it, needs to be more expansive than it was previously? This policy shift seems to be counter to the minimalist approach to banning that the RC has continually stood by.
An addendum list with two things on it is unnecessary complexity. To justify it would be to find a way to make the list worthwhile - which basically means more bans. As you observe, that's pretty counter to our approach, which suggests that this is a thought experiment, as noted, and not any kind of plan.
If, however, I were to declare a war, it would be against the STAX and related resource denial because it's just miserable to play against. I hate the idea of games in which everyone just sits around watching one person play. If it happens as some sort of unusual side effect or combination of cards from multiple decks, then stuff happens, but dedicating a strategy to not allowing anyone into the game is contrary to the social principle.
As one of those who've long suspected that this was the feeling with the RC, I really appreciate you putting your name on it.
Maybe a similar article in the future addressing the issues with Combo also?
Yeah, I'm happy to address the difference between "stuff I don't particularly like and why" and "what we'd like to avoid trying to legislate." The short version about dedicated combo is that it's mostly the same as Stax--everyone is reduced to watching one person play. Sometimes, it's fortunately quick and painless--"do this, combo, kill you all," and other times it's the soul drain of watching someone pull off the Commander equivalent of Eggs, which is painful even for the person playing it.
My tastes, however, are merely my tastes. Some styles of music might be unpleasant for me to hear, but I don't want to tell you that you can't listen to them.
I think it is subjective to like or dislike a style of gameplay, what I find problematic is when people take a subjective dislike with something and expand it to be against the idea of Commander as a thing. Especially because a lot of the times stigmas developed about something become more prevalent than actually playing a game against them.
Going into a game with a preconceived notion that this or that is against the spirit or is unfun to play against typically I find does more damage to the thing than a group of people who get along generally and don't act like ********s to people around the table playing whatever they want to.
I think it is subjective to like or dislike a style of gameplay, what I find problematic is when people take a subjective dislike with something and expand it to be against the idea of Commander as a thing. Especially because a lot of the times stigmas developed about something become more prevalent than actually playing a game against them.
Going into a game with a preconceived notion that this or that is against the spirit or is unfun to play against typically I find does more damage to the thing than a group of people who get along generally and don't act like ********s to people around the table playing whatever they want to.
I don't see people bringing stigmas into their games of Commander as being problematic. I think it's only natural. Stigmas are learned. Players have, through their own experiences, learned what they've found to be fun and what they've found to be unfun, and it should be expected for those players to take their experiences and apply them to Commander. It's heralded as the "fun format" after all. Does that give those people the right to be ********s? No, of course not, but expecting players to not bring their preconceived notions to the Commander table about what is and isn't fun would be folly. It's what they signed up for.
I personally fight against stigmas all the time because I play a deck that can loosely be described as a combo or prison deck. In truth, I play a Rube Goldberg machine that wins the game by locking players out with a 17 card combo. When people spread rumors about my deck, people always tend to emphasize how my deck wins because its novel. As a result, players who've never sat down at a table with me before tend to bear negative feelings towards me. Why? Because players know what it feels like to be burned by combo and prison decks. They know how it feels to play against them, and they know they don't have fun doing it. This is all expected. From their perspective, the rumors convey I'm a misguided individual who doesn't understand the nature of the Commander format. What the rumors don't tell them is that I've carefully crafted my deck in such a way that it doesn't play like a typical combo or prison deck; it doesn't create the traditional unfun gamestates associated with those styles of play until the moment it's won. When these new players actually sit down to play a game with me, I then have the opportunity to shatter their preconceived notions about me and my deck. Were they at fault for believing in stereotypes? No, I don't believe so. It's only natural for players to form beliefs based on what they've learned in the past. Sometimes those beliefs are wrong because people don't have perfect information. That shouldn't be considered problematic though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Or is the implication that the list, to bother having it, needs to be more expansive than it was previously? This policy shift seems to be counter to the minimalist approach to banning that the RC has continually stood by.
An addendum list with two things on it is unnecessary complexity. To justify it would be to find a way to make the list worthwhile - which basically means more bans. As you observe, that's pretty counter to our approach, which suggests that this is a thought experiment, as noted, and not any kind of plan.
I feel that "unnecessary complexity" is a not a very good argument to abolish the BaaC list. EDH is a unique format, so it is understandable that there will exist specific additional rules for it to function properly. If we want to abolish BaaC, why not also abolish different life totals, color identity rules or even the tucking replacement effect rule?
The answer is because those rules make the format function as intended. The removal of BaaC achieved two things:
- it saved a few lines on the mtgcommander.com rules page
- it unnecessarily banned additional cards
If anything should be deemed unnecessary, it's the above. I'd even go as far to say it was detrimental to the format.
I fail to see how banning even more cards (and arguably doing even more damage to the format's card pool) is the logical step (as outlined in Sheldon's thought experiment).
If we want to abolish BaaC, why not also abolish different life totals, color identity rules or even the tucking replacement effect rule?
Because there's a difference between fundamental rules and bookkeeping overhead. BaaC did nothing to make the format function "as intended" - it was an additional complexity for a very small difference. You also ignore what removing the list actually did - it simplified things and made it easier to communicate. Sure, to someone who spends their time on message boards, that may not seem like much, but people who don't breathe this stuff are helped by these efforts.
You'll note we have stripped away a lot of rules that weren't fundamentally important over the past few years. Commander is better for it.
Because there's a difference between fundamental rules and bookkeeping overhead. BaaC did nothing to make the format function "as intended" - it was an additional complexity for a very small difference. You also ignore what removing the list actually did - it simplified things and made it easier to communicate. Sure, to someone who spends their time on message boards, that may not seem like much, but people who don't breathe this stuff are helped by these efforts.
You'll note we have stripped away a lot of rules that weren't fundamentally important over the past few years. Commander is better for it.
I admit that those rules are more fundamental to EDH as a whole, but BaaC did indeed serve a functional purpose: it prohibited the use of Commanders that went against the RC's spirit of the format, while not constricting general deckbuilding. I also admit that its positive impact may have been minimal due to its short length, but it did exist.
You mentioned the change simplified things and made them easier to communicate. Could you elaborate on that? Surely you are not referring to stuff like: "Oh, and by the way, there's also a few cards that you can play in your deck, just not as a Commander."
I swear I'm not trying to be facetious here, I just cannot understand what is the value gained from this change. You also mentioned bookkeeping overhead. Were you referring to the maintenance of the banlist or something else? Right now, the only thing that feels remotely logical to me about the whole BaaC thing is that you simply value a few less spoken/written sentences to a few more available cards. Which I don't really agree with, but fine, I guess :/
Also, sorry for rehashing this whole BaaC discussion in the first place. Sheldon's article brought up some old problems I (and some other people) had with the move and I figured it is best that the move itself was addressed and discussed again so people get a wider picture on the subject and the intentions of the RC.
BaaC list
I think it's a great idea. Banning problematic commanders while still allowing them in the 99 is a good tool to eliminate problems in the format. The more options you have for banning cards, the more knobs you get to turn when optimizing the commander experience.
I think a lot of cards Sheldon mentioned get the same response when they are revealed as a person's commander at the start of the game. If you look at a general from an unknown player an think any of the following, then it is not good for the commander experience:
- I need to find an answer to the general in the first 3 turns of the game or I lose
- I hate playing against that type of deck
- Well, I might as well scoop I can't play against that deck
I've often backed out of games against Derevi, because it's always the same experience. Either somebody manages to win in the first 4 turns, or Derevi stalls the game for an hour hitting people for 2 damage at a time. I feel like I'm wasting my time.
I just believe bringing back BaaC also gives a better tool in the case of oppressive generals. Aside from Rofellos and Griselbrand, I cannot think of any legendary creatures right now who are a problem both in the command zone and in the 99. (Emrakul would be fine as commander, IMO. But that's a different can of worms.) Braids and Erayo offer certain decks an interesting tool without being oppressive on their own. Meanwhile Leovold and Derevi are absolutely miserable in the command zone, but in the 99 they're perfectly fine.
So I think that removing the BaaC list actually took away a great tool in dealing with some issues, all for a slightly easier banlist. Anybody who laid their eyes on the original banlist, with the extra bit of "By the way, these cards are not allowed as a commander but feel free to run them in your deck" understood exactly what that meant.
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.
You mentioned the change simplified things and made them easier to communicate. Could you elaborate on that? Surely you are not referring to stuff like: "Oh, and by the way, there's also a few cards that you can play in your deck, just not as a Commander."
Yes. Why add that additional cognitive overhead for a tiny extra banlist? That's an actual cost for a mass-appeal format.
"Don't play these cards as a commander, but they are ok in the 99"
"Don't play these cards in the 99, but they are ok as your commander"
Are we really going to sacrifice a number of gameplay options because some people might not understand these two statements that I would expect your average elementary schooler to grasp easily?
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list? I know I have encountered this a handful of times in my few playgroups, and I would imagine that most people who play at an LGS have at least once. So there were and will continue to be a portion of players who don't full grasp the rules and ban list before they start playing (you can further see this by the number of times a new player will start a thread to ask a basic question like general damage, command tax, etc). And sure, explaining the rules just once should be sufficient to these players, but what Papa Funk is saying (unless I'm mistaken) is that by eliminating these rules like tuck, BaaC, or off-color mana production, you make the format more grokable, which makes the format better from a design standpoint.
(Emrakul would be fine as commander, IMO. But that's a different can of worms.)
Why is that a different can of worms? Surely if you're in favor of BaaC, you should be in favor of BaaNC. Lots of lists!
Now you're just exaggerating and you know it. I personally think Emrakul WOULD be fine in the command zone but I'm also sure that that would be a hotly contended idea.
I'm not in favor of "Lots and lots" of lists. I am, however, in favor of giving a few small tools that help in balancing the format without immediately going for the harshest way. A scalpel instead of a hatchet, so to say. So that people who love Derevi, Braids, Leovold or Erayo can still play those cards without them being fully axed from the format. And I seriously think that the text "The following cards cannot be used as your commander, but they are perfectly fine in the 99" isn't exactly hard to grok as an addendum to the banlist. Everyone who looks up the banlist is invested enough to read the entire thing, and everyone who is that far into it will have no difficulties getting that difference.
Reading back on that sentence it might seem a bit...odd, but yeah English isn't my native language, so forgive me if my prose isn't as easy on the eyes.
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list? I know I have encountered this a handful of times in my few playgroups, and I would imagine that most people who play at an LGS have at least once. So there were and will continue to be a portion of players who don't full grasp the rules and ban list before they start playing (you can further see this by the number of times a new player will start a thread to ask a basic question like general damage, command tax, etc). And sure, explaining the rules just once should be sufficient to these players, but what Papa Funk is saying (unless I'm mistaken) is that by eliminating these rules like tuck, BaaC, or off-color mana production, you make the format more grokable, which makes the format better from a design standpoint.
No, I've never had that issue. Because as noted above, everyone who looked at the banlist will have seen that little bit of the BaaC, which shows they know. The only banlist related things I've had was oddly enough with people well invested in the game who had missed an update or two. (Emrakul being played a few weeks after its banning, same with Prophet of Kruphix, and someone else called me out on using Kokusho at one point and had missed the unban memo)
A new player at my LGS at least gets pointed to the banlist. And on the banlist, you could've always seen which cards were banned as a commander. Its 5 seconds of reading work.
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.
Lol yea I always thought that was a superfluous excuse. If you've kids, or a teacher by trade, and you can find yourself patiently explaining to kids over and over again. I'm sure explaining the BaaC to semi adults/adults is not the hardest thing in the world. If you're not the type to even speak a few words, why play live magic in the first place?
It's at least easier to explain, and a lot faster than explaining someone's vision, I suppose.
To answer Cryo's question, I've had to point out occasionally that a specific card is on the banned list. It's happened most often with Prophet of Kruphix and Primeval Titan, but has also happened occasionally with some other cards, including Yawgmoth's Bargain, Recurring Nightmare and Protean Hulk. Usually it's a matter of someone just not paying close enough attention to the list, or in the case of Prophet, newer players who are trying out the format but who somehow didn't catch that Prophet was on the list. It happens only rarely, though... I think it's been around a year, maybe more, since the last time I encountered something like that.
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list? I know I have encountered this a handful of times in my few playgroups, and I would imagine that most people who play at an LGS have at least once. So there were and will continue to be a portion of players who don't full grasp the rules and ban list before they start playing (you can further see this by the number of times a new player will start a thread to ask a basic question like general damage, command tax, etc). And sure, explaining the rules just once should be sufficient to these players, but what Papa Funk is saying (unless I'm mistaken) is that by eliminating these rules like tuck, BaaC, or off-color mana production, you make the format more grokable, which makes the format better from a design standpoint.
I have never encountered a player that had a banned card because they didn't understand the rules.
I have only encountered players that have banned cards because they missed an update.
Magic is a very complex game. I don't think its rational behaviour to expect people to know the rules of magic but be unable to grasp a banlist with multiple sections.
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list?
I can recall only 2 occurrences of a player not knowing a card was banned. Once was a player just casting Tinker in their esper artifact deck. The second time was when a player just asked us to name off some good blue cards, not saying they were brainstorming for EDH; to which Gift's Ungiven was mentioned. Said player did end up buying a GU but found out it was banned before actually putting it in a deck.
Vintage is a example of a format that has a two type lists that both govern deck construction. I haven't played vintage in many years and I was never hardcore into it, but I've never seen a vintage player play a banned card or 4 copies of a restricted card because of confusion created by having two lists.
Do any of our judges have stories of this happening? I imagine they would be the ones to see it most often.
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list? I know I have encountered this a handful of times in my few playgroups, and I would imagine that most people who play at an LGS have at least once. So there were and will continue to be a portion of players who don't full grasp the rules and ban list before they start playing (you can further see this by the number of times a new player will start a thread to ask a basic question like general damage, command tax, etc). And sure, explaining the rules just once should be sufficient to these players, but what Papa Funk is saying (unless I'm mistaken) is that by eliminating these rules like tuck, BaaC, or off-color mana production, you make the format more grokable, which makes the format better from a design standpoint.
I have never encountered a player that had a banned card because they didn't understand the rules.
I have only encountered players that have banned cards because they missed an update.
Magic is a very complex game. I don't think its rational behaviour to expect people to know the rules of magic but be unable to grasp a banlist with multiple sections.
This
It also when the random card is found in a someones deck that is banned it isn't made into a huge deal, the game ends and they swap the card no harm no foul.
Honest question to everyone: how many times did you run into a player who had a banned card in their deck or told someone a BaaC card in a deck was banned and had to be explained about the BaaC list? I know I have encountered this a handful of times in my few playgroups, and I would imagine that most people who play at an LGS have at least once. So there were and will continue to be a portion of players who don't full grasp the rules and ban list before they start playing (you can further see this by the number of times a new player will start a thread to ask a basic question like general damage, command tax, etc). And sure, explaining the rules just once should be sufficient to these players, but what Papa Funk is saying (unless I'm mistaken) is that by eliminating these rules like tuck, BaaC, or off-color mana production, you make the format more grokable, which makes the format better from a design standpoint.
Like others, the only time I've run into this is when someone misses a ban update and usually fixes the issue right away once they are told. When explaining/teaching the format, I always reference the ban list and explain why it exists and I've never had someone question it much. I don't feel like Tuck, off-color mana production, or BaaC were too difficult to understand, even when explaining to 12 year olds who got it, so I question why it was believed they needed to be removed to make things more simple when it wasn't hard to understand to begin with...
Well... Griselbrand and Emrakul should stay banned for sure. Probably Erayo too.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI think Sheldon has said Erayo is similar to Braids in that it is a casualty of the BaaC being gone and not exactly a card that is bad for the format as a whole.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
I've been a vocal advocate for the return of BaaC since it was removed. This article does change a bit how I feel about that. I miss having Rofellos in my Omnath list, but if I may not even get him back and potentially also lose Narset, TaN, DEN, Vorinclex, Winter Orb, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, etc. in the process of the separate list returning, then it is better off gone.
One thing that did bother me some is that you made the mental leap that just because the list returned meant that it should be used in a larger capacity than its previous incarnation in order to justify its existence. Prossh and Derevi were just as busted before it was removed yet they remained legal. As were Zur and Arcum (I don't think Narset existed yet). GAAIV is taxing, but not that ridiculous. Is there, then, a declared war on Stax effects in this alternate reality? Or is the implication that the list, to bother having it, needs to be more expansive than it was previously? This policy shift seems to be counter to the minimalist approach to banning that the RC has continually stood by.
Are we, in this world of your article, just not allowing things that toe the line any longer? That are strong, but tend to be cards that are run intentionally to be more cutthroat? I agree that there would certainly be a litany of cascading bans that would follow the changed philosophy of the BaaC list to include commanders that are prototypical of the competitive/cutthroat style without many more tame lists.
The crux of my concerns, I believe, is that the additional BaaC bans that you discuss are only seen in the light that they are because the social contract has already done its job with regard to their use in casual circles. Shouldn't bans be reserved for the cards that don't successfully do that?
Also, for the record, I deliberately built a less competitive Narset list that is still good (because I have difficulty deliberately powering down my decks below a certain threshold due to the aggregate strength of my playgroup) and notably runs zero extra turn or extra combat effects.
I think that you failed, in some respect, to address the fact that it is probable that most of these commanders don't have a ton of "casual" decks built around them because when they sit down at a table at a card shop, players are going to go by the commander's reputation for competitive application rather than the individual power level of the player's deck and focus that player out of the game. Ironically, in this situation, the player that builds the casual deck with the stereotypically "competitive" commander is the one that wouldn't get to play the game rather than the alternative that would lead to the hypothetical banning of that same commander.
In the end, though, the pragmatist in me says that begging for the return of the BaaC list, now, is more untenable than just dealing with the fact that I can't play with one of my favorite cards instead of a dozen of them. The adage, "be careful what you wish for," seems to be especially prophetic.
Of course, this could all just be a ruse to get people to stop asking about it for fear that you ban the whole world as a response: real scorched earth policy stuff. I'm not wearing my tin foil hat, though.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
If, however, I were to declare a war, it would be against the STAX and related resource denial because it's just miserable to play against. I hate the idea of games in which everyone just sits around watching one person play. If it happens as some sort of unusual side effect or combination of cards from multiple decks, then stuff happens, but dedicating a strategy to not allowing anyone into the game is contrary to the social principle.
An addendum list with two things on it is unnecessary complexity. To justify it would be to find a way to make the list worthwhile - which basically means more bans. As you observe, that's pretty counter to our approach, which suggests that this is a thought experiment, as noted, and not any kind of plan.
As one of those who've long suspected that this was the feeling with the RC, I really appreciate you putting your name on it.
Maybe a similar article in the future addressing the issues with Combo also?
My tastes, however, are merely my tastes. Some styles of music might be unpleasant for me to hear, but I don't want to tell you that you can't listen to them.
Going into a game with a preconceived notion that this or that is against the spirit or is unfun to play against typically I find does more damage to the thing than a group of people who get along generally and don't act like ********s to people around the table playing whatever they want to.
I personally fight against stigmas all the time because I play a deck that can loosely be described as a combo or prison deck. In truth, I play a Rube Goldberg machine that wins the game by locking players out with a 17 card combo. When people spread rumors about my deck, people always tend to emphasize how my deck wins because its novel. As a result, players who've never sat down at a table with me before tend to bear negative feelings towards me. Why? Because players know what it feels like to be burned by combo and prison decks. They know how it feels to play against them, and they know they don't have fun doing it. This is all expected. From their perspective, the rumors convey I'm a misguided individual who doesn't understand the nature of the Commander format. What the rumors don't tell them is that I've carefully crafted my deck in such a way that it doesn't play like a typical combo or prison deck; it doesn't create the traditional unfun gamestates associated with those styles of play until the moment it's won. When these new players actually sit down to play a game with me, I then have the opportunity to shatter their preconceived notions about me and my deck. Were they at fault for believing in stereotypes? No, I don't believe so. It's only natural for players to form beliefs based on what they've learned in the past. Sometimes those beliefs are wrong because people don't have perfect information. That shouldn't be considered problematic though.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The answer is because those rules make the format function as intended. The removal of BaaC achieved two things:
- it saved a few lines on the mtgcommander.com rules page
- it unnecessarily banned additional cards
If anything should be deemed unnecessary, it's the above. I'd even go as far to say it was detrimental to the format.
I fail to see how banning even more cards (and arguably doing even more damage to the format's card pool) is the logical step (as outlined in Sheldon's thought experiment).
Because there's a difference between fundamental rules and bookkeeping overhead. BaaC did nothing to make the format function "as intended" - it was an additional complexity for a very small difference. You also ignore what removing the list actually did - it simplified things and made it easier to communicate. Sure, to someone who spends their time on message boards, that may not seem like much, but people who don't breathe this stuff are helped by these efforts.
You'll note we have stripped away a lot of rules that weren't fundamentally important over the past few years. Commander is better for it.
You mentioned the change simplified things and made them easier to communicate. Could you elaborate on that? Surely you are not referring to stuff like: "Oh, and by the way, there's also a few cards that you can play in your deck, just not as a Commander."
I swear I'm not trying to be facetious here, I just cannot understand what is the value gained from this change. You also mentioned bookkeeping overhead. Were you referring to the maintenance of the banlist or something else? Right now, the only thing that feels remotely logical to me about the whole BaaC thing is that you simply value a few less spoken/written sentences to a few more available cards. Which I don't really agree with, but fine, I guess :/
Also, sorry for rehashing this whole BaaC discussion in the first place. Sheldon's article brought up some old problems I (and some other people) had with the move and I figured it is best that the move itself was addressed and discussed again so people get a wider picture on the subject and the intentions of the RC.
I think it's a great idea. Banning problematic commanders while still allowing them in the 99 is a good tool to eliminate problems in the format. The more options you have for banning cards, the more knobs you get to turn when optimizing the commander experience.
I am still hopeful that Braids, Cabal Minion will be allowed back into the 99.
I think a lot of cards Sheldon mentioned get the same response when they are revealed as a person's commander at the start of the game. If you look at a general from an unknown player an think any of the following, then it is not good for the commander experience:
- I need to find an answer to the general in the first 3 turns of the game or I lose
- I hate playing against that type of deck
- Well, I might as well scoop I can't play against that deck
I've often backed out of games against Derevi, because it's always the same experience. Either somebody manages to win in the first 4 turns, or Derevi stalls the game for an hour hitting people for 2 damage at a time. I feel like I'm wasting my time.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
So I think that removing the BaaC list actually took away a great tool in dealing with some issues, all for a slightly easier banlist. Anybody who laid their eyes on the original banlist, with the extra bit of "By the way, these cards are not allowed as a commander but feel free to run them in your deck" understood exactly what that meant.
Yes. Why add that additional cognitive overhead for a tiny extra banlist? That's an actual cost for a mass-appeal format.
Why is that a different can of worms? Surely if you're in favor of BaaC, you should be in favor of BaaNC. Lots of lists!
"Don't play these cards in the 99, but they are ok as your commander"
Are we really going to sacrifice a number of gameplay options because some people might not understand these two statements that I would expect your average elementary schooler to grasp easily?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Now you're just exaggerating and you know it. I personally think Emrakul WOULD be fine in the command zone but I'm also sure that that would be a hotly contended idea.
I'm not in favor of "Lots and lots" of lists. I am, however, in favor of giving a few small tools that help in balancing the format without immediately going for the harshest way. A scalpel instead of a hatchet, so to say. So that people who love Derevi, Braids, Leovold or Erayo can still play those cards without them being fully axed from the format. And I seriously think that the text "The following cards cannot be used as your commander, but they are perfectly fine in the 99" isn't exactly hard to grok as an addendum to the banlist. Everyone who looks up the banlist is invested enough to read the entire thing, and everyone who is that far into it will have no difficulties getting that difference.
Reading back on that sentence it might seem a bit...odd, but yeah English isn't my native language, so forgive me if my prose isn't as easy on the eyes.
No, I've never had that issue. Because as noted above, everyone who looked at the banlist will have seen that little bit of the BaaC, which shows they know. The only banlist related things I've had was oddly enough with people well invested in the game who had missed an update or two. (Emrakul being played a few weeks after its banning, same with Prophet of Kruphix, and someone else called me out on using Kokusho at one point and had missed the unban memo)
A new player at my LGS at least gets pointed to the banlist. And on the banlist, you could've always seen which cards were banned as a commander. Its 5 seconds of reading work.
It's at least easier to explain, and a lot faster than explaining someone's vision, I suppose.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I have never encountered a player that had a banned card because they didn't understand the rules.
I have only encountered players that have banned cards because they missed an update.
Magic is a very complex game. I don't think its rational behaviour to expect people to know the rules of magic but be unable to grasp a banlist with multiple sections.
I can recall only 2 occurrences of a player not knowing a card was banned. Once was a player just casting Tinker in their esper artifact deck. The second time was when a player just asked us to name off some good blue cards, not saying they were brainstorming for EDH; to which Gift's Ungiven was mentioned. Said player did end up buying a GU but found out it was banned before actually putting it in a deck.
Vintage is a example of a format that has a two type lists that both govern deck construction. I haven't played vintage in many years and I was never hardcore into it, but I've never seen a vintage player play a banned card or 4 copies of a restricted card because of confusion created by having two lists.
Do any of our judges have stories of this happening? I imagine they would be the ones to see it most often.
This
It also when the random card is found in a someones deck that is banned it isn't made into a huge deal, the game ends and they swap the card no harm no foul.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar