The Banned List for Commander is designed not to balance competitive play, but to help shape in the minds of its fans the vision held by its founders and Rules Committee. That vision is to create variable, interactive, and epic multiplayer games where memories are made, to foster the social nature of the format, and to underscore that competition is not the format’s primary goal. This is summarized as “Create games that everyone will love to remember, not the ones you'd like to forget.”
A player who wishes to break the format will find many tools available to them, and taking those tools away means they move onto the next tool. Taking sufficient cards away from them to achieve a semblance of balance simply removes many, many cards from the pool that casual players enjoy and diminishes the games the format is intended for. Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where an individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format.
It is easier to build decks designed to maximize fun than it is to pull punches while playing the game. The Banned List is a part of defining that approach.
The Banned List contains the worst of the offenders for games being played in the spirit described above, those which to us are obvious choices in steering the format towards the general style of games we’d like to promote. While we’ve tried to make it fairly objective, there will always be a measure of subjectivity since different people evaluate cards and their impacts differently. We’d like the Banned List to be as small as possible to make it easily understandable for the players, meaning we’re not going to ban every card that someone finds unpleasant to play against. It is not a problem that some cards are strong.
There are several criteria which carry weight in Rules Committee discussions on individual cards:
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
Additionally, other Commander styles (such as 1v1, Duel Commander, or more competitively-oriented groups) are not taken into consideration when evaluating how problematic a card is. Groups who seek a different experience are encouraged to discuss local changes to optimize their play experience. This Banned List is for players who are looking for the traditional Commander experience when they're not interacting with their local social groups.
Quote from Sheldon »
The Banned List for Commander is designed not to balance competitive play, but to help shape in the minds of its fans the vision held by its founders and Rules Committee. That vision is to create variable, interactive, and epic multiplayer games where memories are made, to foster the social nature of the format, and to underscore that competition is not the format’s primary goal. It sets out to define the parameters of Official Commander while recognizing that local groups may wish to modify things to suit their own needs.
The Rules Committee's goal for Commander is for it to be different than other Magic games. Where competitive formats seek to balance the playing field for all styles and strategies, we want to encourage a style of game that is more open and directed towards all players having a good time regardless of who wins. This is summarized as “Create games that you’d love to remember, not the ones others would like to forget.”
While the Banned List helps to define what can be played, Commander is unique to Magic formats in that it seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players ever start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. It recognizes that due to the Eternal nature of the format, there are too many cards to try to shape it via only the Banned List, but that infusing the decklist construction approach with these philosophies is important; it is easier to build decks designed to maximize fun than it is to pull punches while playing the game.
This is the direction of the format, with full understanding that it’s not for everyone. We recognize that without drastic measures (like a 200 card Banned List), we can’t actually prevent an individual from breaking the format. What we can do is create a social environment where that individual doesn’t want to, or at the very least, is discouraged from doing so.
The Banned List contains the worst of the offenders for games being played in the spirit described above, those that to us are obvious choices in steering the format towards the general style of games we’d like to promote. While we’ve tried to make it fairly objective, there will always be a measure of subjectivity since different people evaluate cards and their impacts differently. We’d like the Banned List to be as small as possible to make it easily understandable for the players and manageable for us, meaning we’re not going to ban every card that someone finds unpleasant to play against. It is not a problem that some cards are strong.
In creating the Banned List, there are several factors that are only taken into small consideration, if at all:
Competitive balance. There are Commander tournaments, but this philosophy simply doesn’t take them into account. We feel that to do so violates the ideal of the social format.
One on one play. A 1v1 community exists (and the French community has created a Banned List for it), but Commander is designed as a multiplayer format.
While we’d like to maintain a measure of consistency (we wouldn’t for example, ban Grizzly Bears and not Balduvian Bears), we want to avoid the minefield of “cascading” bans (“if this is banned, then that should be banned”) because it inevitably leads to an unmanageable list.
There are several criteria that carry weight in Rules Committee discussions on individual cards. It is sometimes the intersection of these criteria that lead a card to be banned, not a single unified rule. Common criteria include:
Creates Undesirable Games/Game Situations. Some cards produce the kinds of games we’d like to avoid and we see them as creating a negative experience for a majority of the player base. They tend to be anticlimactic wins out of nowhere, unexpected combos that end an otherwise enjoyable game, or creating situations which completely take play of the game away from the other players. This does include some cards that have a casting cost far too low for their effect, or whose abilities simply break the format at any cost.
Warps The Format Strategically. Commander decks are about variety, and if a strategy becomes sufficiently omnipresent that the games become very similar even across different playgroups, we may need to try to rein in the presence of that deck.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format about epic plays, but the Turn 10 epic play happening on Turn 3 is deflating. Limited acceleration is good, but we don’t want the format to turn into “Who can go off earliest,” so we rein in large quantities of early mana.
Interacts Badly With the Structure of Commander. Magic is not designed with Commander in mind, and the different rules, especially the presence of the Commander in the Command Zone can create degenerate or unfortunate situations.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Because it’s a non-competitive format, we don’t want players to feel as though they need to spend a great deal of money to be able to play. It is not sufficient for a card to simply be expensive - expected ubiquity and the availability of suitable replacements are also considered. This rule is mostly invoked for cards fifteen or more years out of print and is unlikely to impact the list further.
Local Groups
We believe that both Official Commander and local variants can successfully co-exist. What works in the broader audience may not resonate around your local game shop or kitchen table. We encourage you to modify both philosophy and Banned List locally to suit your own needs while being aware that when you travel outside your local area, perhaps even on the other side of town, you’ll need to be ready to play with the Official rules, including the appropriate spirit. Likewise, when new players enter your playgroup they may have expectations closer to this Official Philosophy and it will usually help the transition to discuss why they/you do things a particular way.
So a thought occurred to me regarding "balancing the format". Many people here as well as elsewhere around the Internet have made the claim that the format is unbalanced and have offered various fixes: banning fast mana, lowering life totals, changing the way we muligan, etc. Sheldon has asked numerous times for people to define balance, to varying degrees of responses.
But what exactly is balance? In a Wotc spoiler article for EMA, it was explained that the goal for balancing during design and development is to ensure that many different strategies are playable, that is, there isn't one overarching strategy which creates a "play this or lose" situstion. If we look at sets with high praise for their drafting environments, one of the common themes is that you have a wide variety of draft archetypes to choose from, rather than having to force colors early on. Now, this doesn't always translate into a win, and as is seen in major events, there are (hopefully) aways a variety of decks that show results. Some are better than others, but there is always the capability of pulling out their fair share of wins.
Bringing this back to EDH, how can we measure balance? Obviously we can't data mine tournament results, but we do have a plethora of deck lists at our disposal. Scrolling through them, you see decks of all walks of light: aggro, combo, midrange, stax, and lots of different generals and colors being represented. And the logical conclusion I draw from them is that either these decks are all capable of winning in their respective groups, or the decks fail and get abandoned (I suspect the former, especially looking at the primers which have been played long enough to become projects and loves for their owners).
So the conclusion I draw is that EDH actually is balanced in its own way and where it matters. So what do you all think? How do you measure the balance of the format?
I think it is probably pretty hard to measure balance of a format like this. The vast majority of players who participate in commander probably don't look up the commander "metagame" and try to build decks to compete that. This is a format meant to be played in small groups between friends or people at the local shop.
Thst being said, balance of the decks probably occurs if the other players in the group or even the pilot identifies a card or strategy as being oppressive. In regards to this, player experience (as in how long they have been playing magic for) can be a large factor. For example if you're playing a card like Winter Orb or Sphere of Resistance, newer players might find that oppressive and unfun, while people that have been playing a little longer will know that they need to be prepared for a situation like that.
The thing that I think balances the format is just communication between players. Telling other players what you think (in a respectful, calm, not salty manner) is an important tool to learn to use. But to answer your overarching question, I agree with you, I think EDH is balanced.
This is pretty much the exact way it's defined to me.
Basically I ask myself "If I come up with a reasonable deck that I want to play, will it have a chance?"
This basically defines which formats I play, and EDH answers this question with a Yes.
If there are only a few decks or 1-2 archetypes that's dominating, so that you either build those or build to beat them, THAT is when things get unbalanced.
To put it simply, balance is the illusion of fairness.
Very few games are perfectly fair, and most individuals don't want to play perfectly fair games because perfectly fair games tend to be predictive and unexciting. Players do, however, want to play reasonably fair games. Whenever players complain about a game being imbalanced, they're upset with how unfair that game feels.
Bringing this back to EDH, how can we measure balance?
Fairness does not need to be measured because the community largely does not value fairness. This is what I'm presuming when you use the word balance here. What the community would rather measure is the illusion of fairness — whether Commander feels fair or not. To most players, whether Commander is actually a fair game or not is irrelevant. What most players want is for Commander to feel fair.
Honestly, I believe the best way to do this is to continue gauging the community's response to the format. If a large volume of players are upset with how fair the game is, chances are that the illusion isn't holding and something should change. Players are remarkably good at perceiving imbalance in games even if their diagnoses for why a game is imbalanced are a bunch of crock.
Bringing this back to EDH, how can we measure balance? Obviously we can't data mine tournament results, but we do have a plethora of deck lists at our disposal. Scrolling through them, you see decks of all walks of light: aggro, combo, midrange, stax, and lots of different generals and colors being represented. And the logical conclusion I draw from them is that either these decks are all capable of winning in their respective groups, or the decks fail and get abandoned (I suspect the former, especially looking at the primers which have been played long enough to become projects and loves for their owners).
So the conclusion I draw is that EDH actually is balanced in its own way and where it matters. So what do you all think? How do you measure the balance of the format?
In my opinion there is a problem with your assessment. You briefly mention it yourself. Namely that these decks are able to win in their respective groups. Balance should be defined by the diversity, but that diversity should be weighed with the success against the entire playing field. You can argue that EDH is extremely diverse but as soon as you begin mixing different groups, that diversity falls apart and gives way to so-called oppresion where some decks are stronger than others, to the point that neither side's pilots find the game enjoyable anymore. This discrepancy between decks is made even more complicated, since different people have different ideas of what a strong or weak deck is (for instance, someone might deem his Jeleva Storm deck "weaker" because it doesn't have Candelabra of Tawnos and Imperial Seal, while someone might be very proud of his Stonebrow, Krosan Hero deck because it plays scary killers like Krosan Cloudscraper). This problem is very real and currently being "solved" by very impractical means, namely by enforcing a group segregation narrative ("if you can't convince someone to stop playing something, just don't play with them") masquerading as some kind of a gentleman's agreement.
I can't really say that I have a solution for the problem, but I think fostering a general environment of tinkering and interaction would be better than the current "big spells, big games" Battlecruiser idea that the format still has. The advantage of the former is that it would actually make a larger quantity of decks viable in an open field, since the main problem with "oppression" is lack of interaction in my opinion. The problem however is that the Battlecruiser mentality is pretty heavily ingrained in the community and many people are actually unwilling to tackle problematic scenarios through deckbuilding (partly the reason why cards like Panoptic Mirror and Prophet of Kruphix are banned).
To sum up, I think that EDH is deifinitely not balanced in a general sense, but local areas are often balanced (although the balancing is often done in a *****ty way). This might be fine and make the format sustainable in the future as well, but I think it is not ideal.
I think Kahno said it best. Over the years I have played in many different playgroups with even more differences in their decks. My colorless deck is a great example, I built it while I was living somewhere else and it did great. When I moved back to my hometown and brought it to the local card shop, it got destroyed by decks made to combo out.
I feel the format has an almost 2 head coin approach to it. On one side you get Combo decks, on the other you get Cruisers. Of course there are some the don't met either of those. But combo's and cruisers seem to be more popular depending on location and player base. With that in mind, I find more often than not players with choose to play in groups where their deck type is more commonly played. Cruiser decks tend to like to play with/against other cruisers, as where combo's like to out combo each other. Which I feel give the game its "Fairness" attribute considering when combo decks and cruiser decks fight it out, it seems to usually be a landslide victory in either player's favor. The same could be said for aggro and control, however those deck types tend to like to play against each other more so than combo and cruiser types.
EDH has a certain duality to it from my standpoint. Yet I still feel the game has its "fairness" to it, yet really it depends on what you are playing and what everyone else is playing during that specific game otherwise it does seem to feel "unfair" at times. Of Course its all depends on the player to as well as house rules which may say certain cards are banned and ones that are banned are not banned (Which is a different case during FNM, when whats banned is banned and nothing else).
Perhaps there are just too many variables to EDH as it stand to really get a cemented yes or no about the balance and fairness of the game due to its mostly casual players as well as its large and unique player style and playgroups?
As my sig says, cards are only as unfun or degenerate as the person playing them allows them to be. Since both are subjective terms, each playgroup comes to a different definition. I always ask myself: "If my opponent played this deck against me, would I still have fun?". If the answer is no, then I change the deck. I make it as strong as possible, but it must remain fun to play against above all else.
I think ArrogantAxoloti worded it well: it's about the illusion of fairness. As long as I still think I can win, I can enjoy to continue a game I'm losing . Once my loss is secure, then the fun stops very quickly (I can appreciate being outplayed, but not if takes another umpteen turns to finish).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Maybe Sheldon's "secret" about the format should be worked into the philosophy in either a direct and clear manner or more wordy and lofty way. For those who have sigs turned off :
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But what exactly is balance? In a Wotc spoiler article for EMA, it was explained that the goal for balancing during design and development is to ensure that many different strategies are playable, that is, there isn't one overarching strategy which creates a "play this or lose" situstion. If we look at sets with high praise for their drafting environments, one of the common themes is that you have a wide variety of draft archetypes to choose from, rather than having to force colors early on. Now, this doesn't always translate into a win, and as is seen in major events, there are (hopefully) aways a variety of decks that show results. Some are better than others, but there is always the capability of pulling out their fair share of wins.
Bringing this back to EDH, how can we measure balance? Obviously we can't data mine tournament results, but we do have a plethora of deck lists at our disposal. Scrolling through them, you see decks of all walks of light: aggro, combo, midrange, stax, and lots of different generals and colors being represented. And the logical conclusion I draw from them is that either these decks are all capable of winning in their respective groups, or the decks fail and get abandoned (I suspect the former, especially looking at the primers which have been played long enough to become projects and loves for their owners).
So the conclusion I draw is that EDH actually is balanced in its own way and where it matters. So what do you all think? How do you measure the balance of the format?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Thst being said, balance of the decks probably occurs if the other players in the group or even the pilot identifies a card or strategy as being oppressive. In regards to this, player experience (as in how long they have been playing magic for) can be a large factor. For example if you're playing a card like Winter Orb or Sphere of Resistance, newer players might find that oppressive and unfun, while people that have been playing a little longer will know that they need to be prepared for a situation like that.
The thing that I think balances the format is just communication between players. Telling other players what you think (in a respectful, calm, not salty manner) is an important tool to learn to use. But to answer your overarching question, I agree with you, I think EDH is balanced.
BGGRock
Modern
BRGJund
BBGRock
Basically I ask myself "If I come up with a reasonable deck that I want to play, will it have a chance?"
This basically defines which formats I play, and EDH answers this question with a Yes.
If there are only a few decks or 1-2 archetypes that's dominating, so that you either build those or build to beat them, THAT is when things get unbalanced.
No longer staff here.
Very few games are perfectly fair, and most individuals don't want to play perfectly fair games because perfectly fair games tend to be predictive and unexciting. Players do, however, want to play reasonably fair games. Whenever players complain about a game being imbalanced, they're upset with how unfair that game feels.
Fairness does not need to be measured because the community largely does not value fairness. This is what I'm presuming when you use the word balance here. What the community would rather measure is the illusion of fairness — whether Commander feels fair or not. To most players, whether Commander is actually a fair game or not is irrelevant. What most players want is for Commander to feel fair.
Honestly, I believe the best way to do this is to continue gauging the community's response to the format. If a large volume of players are upset with how fair the game is, chances are that the illusion isn't holding and something should change. Players are remarkably good at perceiving imbalance in games even if their diagnoses for why a game is imbalanced are a bunch of crock.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I can't really say that I have a solution for the problem, but I think fostering a general environment of tinkering and interaction would be better than the current "big spells, big games" Battlecruiser idea that the format still has. The advantage of the former is that it would actually make a larger quantity of decks viable in an open field, since the main problem with "oppression" is lack of interaction in my opinion. The problem however is that the Battlecruiser mentality is pretty heavily ingrained in the community and many people are actually unwilling to tackle problematic scenarios through deckbuilding (partly the reason why cards like Panoptic Mirror and Prophet of Kruphix are banned).
To sum up, I think that EDH is deifinitely not balanced in a general sense, but local areas are often balanced (although the balancing is often done in a *****ty way). This might be fine and make the format sustainable in the future as well, but I think it is not ideal.
I feel the format has an almost 2 head coin approach to it. On one side you get Combo decks, on the other you get Cruisers. Of course there are some the don't met either of those. But combo's and cruisers seem to be more popular depending on location and player base. With that in mind, I find more often than not players with choose to play in groups where their deck type is more commonly played. Cruiser decks tend to like to play with/against other cruisers, as where combo's like to out combo each other. Which I feel give the game its "Fairness" attribute considering when combo decks and cruiser decks fight it out, it seems to usually be a landslide victory in either player's favor. The same could be said for aggro and control, however those deck types tend to like to play against each other more so than combo and cruiser types.
EDH has a certain duality to it from my standpoint. Yet I still feel the game has its "fairness" to it, yet really it depends on what you are playing and what everyone else is playing during that specific game otherwise it does seem to feel "unfair" at times. Of Course its all depends on the player to as well as house rules which may say certain cards are banned and ones that are banned are not banned (Which is a different case during FNM, when whats banned is banned and nothing else).
Perhaps there are just too many variables to EDH as it stand to really get a cemented yes or no about the balance and fairness of the game due to its mostly casual players as well as its large and unique player style and playgroups?
I think ArrogantAxoloti worded it well: it's about the illusion of fairness. As long as I still think I can win, I can enjoy to continue a game I'm losing . Once my loss is secure, then the fun stops very quickly (I can appreciate being outplayed, but not if takes another umpteen turns to finish).
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg