Commander is for fun. It’s a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic. As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.
The rules of Commander are designed to maximize these experiences within a game of Magic. The addition of a commander, larger life total, and deck building restrictions emphasize the format’s flavor; they increase deck variance and add more opportunities for participation and expression.
The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level, which are decisions best left to individual play groups. The ban list seeks to demonstrate which cards threaten the positive player experience at the core of the format or prevent players from reasonable self-expression. The primary focus of the list is on cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.
No single rule can establish criteria for a ban; there are many mitigating or exacerbating factors. Some cards will represent an extreme on a single axis; others are a confluence of multiple smaller issues. The following list isn’t exhaustive, nor is it a checklist, but it represents ways in which cards challenge the positive experiences players look for in commander games. It includes cards which easily or excessively
• Cause severe resource imbalances
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
• Lead to repetitive game play.
Cards which are banned likely meet a few of these criteria in a significant way; not all cards which meet some of the criteria need to banned.
We prefer to be conservative with what goes on or comes off the ban list. Commander players often become emotionally attached to their decks through play and personalization, and we value that experience highly. We only want to disrupt that bond when necessary.
Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t.
In reading the document, I feel what stood out to me the most was the reiteration of the vision statement that is provided:
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 really differentiates this format from others, and emphasizes that while Competitiveness is something that happens, that it is also not the only, or primary goal of the format. I feel that these quotes are far more important than the "ban criteria" sections, which I fear will garner the larger scrutiny of the piece instead.
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 and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format). (...)
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.
How do you feel that this philosophy document measures up against the perceived ban notions currently held?
(Note: When the official site comes back up, the link to the official document will be added, as well as have the contents pasted into this post for easier reading.)
I am very disappointed in the brevity of the philosophy document.
Honestly, what is meant by '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.' Not all decks are political decks. What is being suggested here? Don't be too competitive? I am sorry, but for the entirety of my experience playing magic, I have never met someone with the same idea of what is too competitive.
Is me assembling a 6-card combo too competitive?
Is playing Winter Orb and Auriok Transfixer too competitive?
I understand the philosophy of commander - but the document itself should be a lot longer if it aims to be a guide for how to build in commander.
Instead, the only specifics in the document are about banning criteria, and we are told not to focus on them. Okay.
Where would you like me to focus? Give me something tangible.
If it were up to me, I would have said: Commander seeks to increase game-to-game variability by being a 100-card singleton format. Cards that lead to repetitive game play, such as tutors, are not in the spirit of the format.
2-card combos that win the game on the spot are also not highly desirable, as it gives the sensation of winning out of nowhere. As such, easy to assemble combos are not in the spirit of the format.
Something similar about stax and MLD
etc.
etc.
With these guidelines in mind, we suggest that prior to every game of commander with players you do not know, you ask if their decks run: Tutors, combos, stax, mld. This is suggested to be part of the social guidelines to make sure that commander games are fun and social experiences.
I think it was a mistake to also ban two cards on the same day as the document was released, since the focus is on the banning criteria and not the philosophy.
The Philosophy document should be the focus, but it isn't, because most of it is about reasons for banning cards. Ban criteria should be a small part of the document. An important part, mind you - not one we should just ignore.
I was very hopeful about the CAG, but right now I am just kinda bummed because I feel like we have gotten the same amount of clarity as we had before (that is, barely any).
Instead of being told I am focusing on the wrong part, I would like to have an interactive discussion. I would like to know why the RC considers T&N fair game but not PE. 'Because the RC said so' is frustratingly unclear.
In that case, with the official site being down, I can't find any current source for this. This will be update when I find a better source, and stop being a goof.
In that case, with the official site being down, I can't find any current source for this. This will be update when I find a better source, and stop being a goof.
My apologies everyone!
My FAQ has the updated (before today) philosophy document that you can quote.
If it were up to me, I would have said: Commander seeks to increase game-to-game variability by being a 100-card singleton format. Cards that lead to repetitive game play, such as tutors, are not in the spirit of the format.
2-card combos that win the game on the spot are also not highly desirable, as it gives the sensation of winning out of nowhere. As such, easy to assemble combos are not in the spirit of the format.
Something similar about stax and MLD
etc.
etc.
With these guidelines in mind, we suggest that prior to every game of commander with players you do not know, you ask if their decks run: Tutors, combos, stax, mld. This is suggested to be part of the social guidelines to make sure that commander games are fun and social experiences.
I completely agree with you. I somehow think that they don't want to rock the boat too hard by mentioning this (because sooo many people uses tutors, for example). I was expecting more from this announcement... any idea when the next "update" will be made?
Wow, that update to the philosophy list is a ******* mistake. The entire thing essentially reads 'I do not like this card, and so no one is permitted to use it'.
Discussing the 'wins out of nowhere' clause, their first invocation of it is in error. Not only does the card they have chosen to ban reportedly because of it not fit, they are ignoring the painfully obvious example of what does qualify.
Not only does it provide easy wins seemingly out of nowhere, it has demonstrated the potential to unintentionally wreck games.
Paradox Enginerequires 1)a board state that actively benefits from untapping and 2) resources to cause the trigger. In addition to being a CMC 5 artifact that does literally nothing without those conditions.
The card can be very strong, but that is the exception, seen in very specific types of decks. It is quite literally impossible for it to 'win out of nowhere', and I have seen it 'unintentionally wreck games' exclusively in groups who think Naturalize effects are 'wasted space' (ie abhor removal).
Easily inserted into any deck, it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play, generating a great deal of mana with virtually no deck building cost.
Paradox Engine is an actively bad card in literally all but one deck I have ever built, and that one was built specifically in such a way to benefit from it. In most decks, it is worse than Gilded Lotus, which is in turn a card I advise most players against including without specific need, due to it's high cost.
I personally play at multiple locations, each with multiple groups that occasionally intermix, of varying levels of play. Including occasionally in other states. I do not recall even seeing Paradox Engine in a game for well over a year. If it did indeed was 'easily inserted into any deck', I would expect to see it on a regular basis.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is a card that has never been particularly strong in Commander, but has long needed to be banned because of the severe, negative warping it creates on any metagame it was seen in, due to the format specific Color Identity rules. This is not something that changed with this updated philosophy document, and so its banning cannot be attributed to the updated philosophy.
Painter's Servant is a card that should never have been banned, regardless of the status of Iona's legality. It did not meet the qualifiers for banning previously, and so again cannot be attributed to the updated philosophy.
I think the philosophy should really emphasise the local meta being more active in determining how they want to play the game. Sorta like setting a local vision in the grand scheme of EDH-ness. I've been testing painter for a while, and it's really not been a problem at all, but every time i mention that it's in a deck to people outside my playgroup (and even on MTGS), people act like i've said something sacrilegious.
It seems like by shortening the philosophy, and reducing specifics, i guess it's the intention of the RC to give local groups a larger ability to interpret what the vision is (and therefore be more inclusive to cutthroat competitive and chuck-in-draft-fodder-types).
@Muspellsheimr; i think what they meant was say i've got 2 rocks in play, 4 lands, total of 6 mana and no solid board position, then drop engine. then cantrip some number of times, floating more and more mana until whatever the payoff is. that initial board state isn't really indicative of 'the end of the game', so in that way, it's sorta like a win out of nowhere.
I'm not convinced that it's a good reason for banning any card, to be honest, but it is what it is, i guess.
Okay, I thought perhaps I should go through the issues I have with this point by point. I will (try to remember to) post another reply later, when I have more time, discussing what I feel the philosophy should be, and why.
• Cause severe resource imbalances
Is Boundless Realms going to be banned? Consecrated Sphinx? Or Mind Twist?
The first and foremost problem, and the start of a trend, is vagueness.
What resource or resources are we talking about? What constitutes a severe imbalance? What about other restrictions on application, or timing?
Is Ad Nauseam meeting this criteria? It has significant usage restraints, either limiting how much it can 'draw', and/or what can be included in a deck that plays it.
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
By far the biggest issue, as I described earlier, is their quoting of this criteria for banning a card that is literally unable to 'win out of nowhere', while ignoring cards that, upon resolution, effectively win the game regardless of the game state.
Again, there is an issue of vagueness. Does this apply to two card combo's? Combo in general?
What about the other resources required to make it work?
If I spent the last three turns sculpting my hand and mana to allow me to win with a combo, it may look like I 'won out of nowhere' to new players, but anyone with experience in the game should know to look at what resources I have, not just what creatures I can attack with. Learning this is a fundamental process of getting better as you play.
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
Another point for vagueness.
This seems to be targeted at Control as an archetype, and is the central aspect of my stance that this looks like them saying "Because *I* do not like this card, no one is permitted to use it". This could apply to anything from Doom Blade to Stasis.
Just because you do not like something, does not make it inherently wrong or in need of regulation, and this game is built on strategy & interaction. Much of that interaction is in how you disrupt your opponents.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
This one I can agree to the general mindset of, but is yet again far too vague. More than that, I do not see why this needed to even be listed separately from other clauses.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
Another one I do agree with, but is meaningless in isolation. Darksteel Ingot happens to be fairly difficult to interact with, but that difficulty is largely irrelevant if the card has no actual impact. This clause is only meaningful when used in conjunction with other aspects that could be problematic for the format.
This, along with the following clause, apply to Iona, Shield of Emeria. But similar to the previous one, it should not be listed as a separate clause.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
No complaints here. This is also not an update to the previous philosophy. Though I would have liked clarification on exactly what the 'fundamental' rules for Commander are, and possibly a clarification that those rules are not necessarily immutable (revisions to improve Color Identity as a practical example).
• Lead to repetitive game play.
Repetitive actions in a single game? Repeating the same line of play across multiple games?
Why exactly is this a problem. A deck that consists of lands and combat-oriented creatures is very repetitive; all it does is attack. That is boring and uninspired, but not a problem.
This feels like something they added explicitly to give them something to point to for Recurring Nightmare.
It is an unjustified and contrived inclusion that serves no actual purpose, other than again the "Because *I* do not like this card, no one is permitted to use it" aspect I have already taken issue with.
Okay, I thought perhaps I should go through the issues I have with this point by point. I will (try to remember to) post another reply later, when I have more time, discussing what I feel the philosophy should be, and why.
Snipped the rest of the post to save space.
I feel the real issue with the bulleted "guidelines" is that some of them are actually secondary consequences of others that act as compounding reasons, rather than factors on their own.
There needs to be a clear distinction between "cause" and "effect" and not just randomly compile both into a bullet-point list to confuse people. Based on the points we currently have, I would divide them like this:
Group A (Causes)
•Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
•Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
Group B (Effect)
•Cause severe resource imbalances
•Allow players to win out of nowhere
•Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
•Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
•Lead to repetitive game play.
Noticed something? Those in group B have terms (like "cause", "allow", "prevent", "lead to") that imply they are an "effect caused by another factor". The focus should really be on those "factors", in which the document only lists 2 probable ones. By mixing the two together, it creates a whole lot more confusion and assumption that the "causes" are "effects" as well and then they end up thinking more often than not that "causes" are merely the existence of a card breaking a rule, like in some of the cases you listed (Boundless Realms for resource imbalance, for example).
Let's use an example - Biorhythm. It isn't banned because it "Allow players to win out of nowhere" PLUS "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander".... it is banned because it "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander" "allowing players to win out of nowhere".
It's specifically because one factor leading to another that got the card banned, not the mere addition of two factors on the list.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is the document presents everything in a "buffet-style" of "reasons" without distinction of causes and effects, so guess what, people have to assume on their own - if a card "Allow players to win out of nowhere" because it can "Cause severe resource imbalances" (e.g. Gaea's Cradle), shouldn't it be considered for banning as well?
Wow, that update to the philosophy list is a ******* mistake. The entire thing essentially reads 'I do not like this card, and so no one is permitted to use it'.
Discussing the 'wins out of nowhere' clause, their first invocation of it is in error. Not only does the card they have chosen to ban reportedly because of it not fit, they are ignoring the painfully obvious example of what does qualify.
I think the difference here remains that while you can break T&N, there are equally large numbers of games where people simply don't do that, and it's a card that can still lead to positive and memorable experiences. Unlike Worldfire or Coalition Victory, T&N isn't only ONE thing. You have a choice to how to build to use it, and while some people may build and use it in that manner, it's the responsibility of the players and the playgoup to build to the experience everyone wants:
Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere.
To that end, I feel that the Hulk Unban and T&N remaining off makes more sense. While they can be used to auto-win, that is a CHOICE to use them in that manner, and if that's what your group finds fun - why stop you.
On the other hand, they seem to have decided that Paradox Engine is the opposite - sure, as you point out, it can be a dead card. However, anytime it's NOT a dead card, it's simply insane. There's really no middle ground. If you run mana rocks in your deck (most decks), it immediately becomes a potential include. Hell, if you even have only one mana rock out, it's practically a Stone Calendar already at a fair cost, but even a single Sol Ring turns PE into an absurd amount of mana.
I will admit to not having seem PE played often, but every time it's been absolutely Kill On Sight, or the game ends. One game was a Sisay deck which tutored it up, and with the manarocks out would have been able to cast most of the deck, one was a Jhoira (historic version) deck that would have been able to draw and play the entire deck, and the last one was actually just a pile of jank that happened to have Sol Ring and Endbringer out. While strong doesn't need to be bad or banned, that seems a bit more than "strong". Obviously two of those decks are built to abuse it, but both work their gameplan without it either. It's simply the catalyst that takes that gameplan, and expands it into wincon. In the first weeks of PE being out, we had a few small decks that ran it, and getting 3-5 extra mana and maybe a card or 2 per card cast gets pretty nuts fast. One of the first decks we saw was a green/white token elfball jank, which happened to run a few mana artifacts, a few mana elves, Lifecrafter's Bestiary and other draw on creature effects like Guardian Project and Elemental Bond. No where near optimized, and not built around PE, it was just an easy card to slot in that looked cool, but had a huge immediate impact.
My group has not had an issue with Paradox Engine, simply because no one really ran it (outside the first few weeks), but I can easily see how it can quickly take over a game from nowhere. My group didn't need it banned, but I can see where they are coming from.
I think the philosophy should really emphasise the local meta being more active in determining how they want to play the game. Sorta like setting a local vision in the grand scheme of EDH-ness. I've been testing painter for a while, and it's really not been a problem at all, but every time i mention that it's in a deck to people outside my playgroup (and even on MTGS), people act like i've said something sacrilegious.
It seems like by shortening the philosophy, and reducing specifics, i guess it's the intention of the RC to give local groups a larger ability to interpret what the vision is (and therefore be more inclusive to cutthroat competitive and chuck-in-draft-fodder-types).
This seems like a fair assessment, and really playing up what it is that's different about this format that made it popular in the first place.
so, I couldn't figure out where this fit perfectly:
It seems to me that the cEDH group wouldn't be happy unless a clear cut statement like "We don't take into consideration competitive EDH because that's not what we're into" or something to that effect to put out there. I understand the following "Competitive balance is not our mission." to be an explanation but others do not.
so, I couldn't figure out where this fit perfectly:
It seems to me that the cEDH group wouldn't be happy unless a clear cut statement like "We don't take into consideration competitive EDH because that's not what we're into" or something to that effect to put out there. I understand the following "Competitive balance is not our mission." to be an explanation but others do not.
You mean, something like:
The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level [...]
I mean, the philosophy has always had something to that nature, that Competitive games aren't the target, and aren't what's being balanced against. People are just still going to miss it.
i find a lot of the philosophy both frustrating and confusing.
it talks about things like wins out of nowhere and resource denial, about wanting games to be fun and different...
...but then it lets things like expropriate exist. a card that ends games by itself every single time it resolves. even in the rare cases it doesn't the sheer obnoxiousness that comes about from extra turns AND stealing peoples ***** makes people scoop. then there's the race to combo using palinchron, or tooth nail into win, or protean hulk into win, or craterhoof. craterhoof. craterhoof. every single ******* game ends in craterhoof. stuff like con sphinx pushes the person miles ahead. every game sees a cyclonic rift eot, maybe two, maybe six. mikaeus who only exists to combo.
like, really? get out of the basement. every game ends the same these days because of cards like these.
i'm sorry, but as has been stated in this thread already, the entire thing reads like 'i don't want to play against that card so we're banning it' while REAL offenders run free.
you can't stop the arms race, and on a long enough timeline you can't stop the combos either... but maybe its time to put in a little bit more ******* effort than a half assed banning with vague rationale that could be applied to any number of more highly offensive cards once a year. he talks about being conservative in what gets banned... but man, you can't have it both ways. you can't ***** about combo, or competitiveness, and then not ban cards that are in literally every single ******* deck that either end the game on the spot or push the caster so far ahead no one can catch back up.
as it stands, a lot of these decisions, and especially the articles and statements, come across as a group of people who aren't actually playing the game in 2019, but are instead caught up in what it was back in 2010. building ***** out of whatever was laying around with no real motive other than to see how many times craw wurm can be cloned and thrown into more craw wurms.
as it stands, a lot of these decisions, and especially the articles and statements, come across as a group of people who aren't actually playing the game in 2019, but are instead caught up in what it was back in 2010. building ***** out of whatever was laying around with no real motive other than to see how many times craw wurm can be cloned and thrown into more craw wurms.
Its too bad you dont have the sort of games many of us enjoy. That must be frustrating. Keep looking, good groups exist where its a lot more than CW's and clones, but you dont see Mike and Trike style junk.
I think if you really look at decks the RC publishes, its a lot more than draft chaff. And they win games with powerful cards. And I think you actually know that.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
@xcric - You're mentioning a bunch of cards that end the game because of it's sheer power. Sure, they end the game. But they're really expensive spells that are answerable by either killing the player beforehand, or the threat itself, or by just coming to an agreement with the other players in your play group as to what an edh game means to you all, and what you expect to get from those games.
...and yes, i know 'dies to removal' isn't a valid argument. But this is EDH, not legacy. It's not supposed to be a format catering to the competitive crowd, nor does it try to be a balanced game.
By ignoring the philosophy of the format, and only focusing on a couple of points about the banlist criteria, there's too much an emphasis on the details of the rules, and not the intent of the rules. The intent is to have a format where every player can play pretend cardboard wizards with each other. And by meeting each other on a happy/acceptable medium, and meeting those expectations, everyone has a good game. that's ALL THERE IS TO EDH.
I play with griselbrand, karakas and recurring nightmare (probably amongst a bunch of other banned cards) because my playgroup deems them to be completely ok, and we all have the same expectations of the game. So we don't adhere to the specific rules of the game, but we adhere to the principles/philosophy of the format; and that, i feel, is far more important than actually following the rules.
...We also allow infinite 0, 1, 2, 7-land hand mulligans. And we have hybrid meaning or, not and colours. And we float between playing 30 and 40 life. Actually, we could be the RC's worst nightmare, and possibly a dream at the same time.
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19170
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
This really differentiates this format from others, and emphasizes that while Competitiveness is something that happens, that it is also not the only, or primary goal of the format. I feel that these quotes are far more important than the "ban criteria" sections, which I fear will garner the larger scrutiny of the piece instead.
How do you feel that this philosophy document measures up against the perceived ban notions currently held?
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Uh, that article is from 2017.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Honestly, what is meant by '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.' Not all decks are political decks. What is being suggested here? Don't be too competitive? I am sorry, but for the entirety of my experience playing magic, I have never met someone with the same idea of what is too competitive.
Is me assembling a 6-card combo too competitive?
Is playing Winter Orb and Auriok Transfixer too competitive?
I understand the philosophy of commander - but the document itself should be a lot longer if it aims to be a guide for how to build in commander.
Instead, the only specifics in the document are about banning criteria, and we are told not to focus on them. Okay.
Where would you like me to focus? Give me something tangible.
If it were up to me, I would have said:
Commander seeks to increase game-to-game variability by being a 100-card singleton format. Cards that lead to repetitive game play, such as tutors, are not in the spirit of the format.
2-card combos that win the game on the spot are also not highly desirable, as it gives the sensation of winning out of nowhere. As such, easy to assemble combos are not in the spirit of the format.
Something similar about stax and MLD
etc.
etc.
With these guidelines in mind, we suggest that prior to every game of commander with players you do not know, you ask if their decks run: Tutors, combos, stax, mld. This is suggested to be part of the social guidelines to make sure that commander games are fun and social experiences.
I think it was a mistake to also ban two cards on the same day as the document was released, since the focus is on the banning criteria and not the philosophy.
The Philosophy document should be the focus, but it isn't, because most of it is about reasons for banning cards. Ban criteria should be a small part of the document. An important part, mind you - not one we should just ignore.
I was very hopeful about the CAG, but right now I am just kinda bummed because I feel like we have gotten the same amount of clarity as we had before (that is, barely any).
Instead of being told I am focusing on the wrong part, I would like to have an interactive discussion. I would like to know why the RC considers T&N fair game but not PE. 'Because the RC said so' is frustratingly unclear.
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
Well, color my face red.
In that case, with the official site being down, I can't find any current source for this. This will be update when I find a better source, and stop being a goof.
My apologies everyone!
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
My FAQ has the updated (before today) philosophy document that you can quote.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Discussing the 'wins out of nowhere' clause, their first invocation of it is in error. Not only does the card they have chosen to ban reportedly because of it not fit, they are ignoring the painfully obvious example of what does qualify.
Paradox Engine requires 1)a board state that actively benefits from untapping and 2) resources to cause the trigger. In addition to being a CMC 5 artifact that does literally nothing without those conditions.
The card can be very strong, but that is the exception, seen in very specific types of decks. It is quite literally impossible for it to 'win out of nowhere', and I have seen it 'unintentionally wreck games' exclusively in groups who think Naturalize effects are 'wasted space' (ie abhor removal).
Paradox Engine is an actively bad card in literally all but one deck I have ever built, and that one was built specifically in such a way to benefit from it. In most decks, it is worse than Gilded Lotus, which is in turn a card I advise most players against including without specific need, due to it's high cost.
I personally play at multiple locations, each with multiple groups that occasionally intermix, of varying levels of play. Including occasionally in other states. I do not recall even seeing Paradox Engine in a game for well over a year. If it did indeed was 'easily inserted into any deck', I would expect to see it on a regular basis.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is a card that has never been particularly strong in Commander, but has long needed to be banned because of the severe, negative warping it creates on any metagame it was seen in, due to the format specific Color Identity rules. This is not something that changed with this updated philosophy document, and so its banning cannot be attributed to the updated philosophy.
Painter's Servant is a card that should never have been banned, regardless of the status of Iona's legality. It did not meet the qualifiers for banning previously, and so again cannot be attributed to the updated philosophy.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
It seems like by shortening the philosophy, and reducing specifics, i guess it's the intention of the RC to give local groups a larger ability to interpret what the vision is (and therefore be more inclusive to cutthroat competitive and chuck-in-draft-fodder-types).
@Muspellsheimr; i think what they meant was say i've got 2 rocks in play, 4 lands, total of 6 mana and no solid board position, then drop engine. then cantrip some number of times, floating more and more mana until whatever the payoff is. that initial board state isn't really indicative of 'the end of the game', so in that way, it's sorta like a win out of nowhere.
I'm not convinced that it's a good reason for banning any card, to be honest, but it is what it is, i guess.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
• Cause severe resource imbalances
Is Boundless Realms going to be banned? Consecrated Sphinx? Or Mind Twist?
The first and foremost problem, and the start of a trend, is vagueness.
What resource or resources are we talking about? What constitutes a severe imbalance? What about other restrictions on application, or timing?
Is Ad Nauseam meeting this criteria? It has significant usage restraints, either limiting how much it can 'draw', and/or what can be included in a deck that plays it.
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
By far the biggest issue, as I described earlier, is their quoting of this criteria for banning a card that is literally unable to 'win out of nowhere', while ignoring cards that, upon resolution, effectively win the game regardless of the game state.
Again, there is an issue of vagueness. Does this apply to two card combo's? Combo in general?
What about the other resources required to make it work?
If I spent the last three turns sculpting my hand and mana to allow me to win with a combo, it may look like I 'won out of nowhere' to new players, but anyone with experience in the game should know to look at what resources I have, not just what creatures I can attack with. Learning this is a fundamental process of getting better as you play.
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
Another point for vagueness.
This seems to be targeted at Control as an archetype, and is the central aspect of my stance that this looks like them saying "Because *I* do not like this card, no one is permitted to use it". This could apply to anything from Doom Blade to Stasis.
Just because you do not like something, does not make it inherently wrong or in need of regulation, and this game is built on strategy & interaction. Much of that interaction is in how you disrupt your opponents.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
This one I can agree to the general mindset of, but is yet again far too vague. More than that, I do not see why this needed to even be listed separately from other clauses.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
Another one I do agree with, but is meaningless in isolation. Darksteel Ingot happens to be fairly difficult to interact with, but that difficulty is largely irrelevant if the card has no actual impact. This clause is only meaningful when used in conjunction with other aspects that could be problematic for the format.
This, along with the following clause, apply to Iona, Shield of Emeria. But similar to the previous one, it should not be listed as a separate clause.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
No complaints here. This is also not an update to the previous philosophy. Though I would have liked clarification on exactly what the 'fundamental' rules for Commander are, and possibly a clarification that those rules are not necessarily immutable (revisions to improve Color Identity as a practical example).
• Lead to repetitive game play.
Repetitive actions in a single game? Repeating the same line of play across multiple games?
Why exactly is this a problem. A deck that consists of lands and combat-oriented creatures is very repetitive; all it does is attack. That is boring and uninspired, but not a problem.
This feels like something they added explicitly to give them something to point to for Recurring Nightmare.
It is an unjustified and contrived inclusion that serves no actual purpose, other than again the "Because *I* do not like this card, no one is permitted to use it" aspect I have already taken issue with.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Snipped the rest of the post to save space.
I feel the real issue with the bulleted "guidelines" is that some of them are actually secondary consequences of others that act as compounding reasons, rather than factors on their own.
There needs to be a clear distinction between "cause" and "effect" and not just randomly compile both into a bullet-point list to confuse people. Based on the points we currently have, I would divide them like this:
Group A (Causes)
•Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
•Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
Group B (Effect)
•Cause severe resource imbalances
•Allow players to win out of nowhere
•Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
•Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
•Lead to repetitive game play.
Noticed something? Those in group B have terms (like "cause", "allow", "prevent", "lead to") that imply they are an "effect caused by another factor". The focus should really be on those "factors", in which the document only lists 2 probable ones. By mixing the two together, it creates a whole lot more confusion and assumption that the "causes" are "effects" as well and then they end up thinking more often than not that "causes" are merely the existence of a card breaking a rule, like in some of the cases you listed (Boundless Realms for resource imbalance, for example).
Let's use an example - Biorhythm. It isn't banned because it "Allow players to win out of nowhere" PLUS "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander".... it is banned because it "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander" "allowing players to win out of nowhere".
It's specifically because one factor leading to another that got the card banned, not the mere addition of two factors on the list.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is the document presents everything in a "buffet-style" of "reasons" without distinction of causes and effects, so guess what, people have to assume on their own - if a card "Allow players to win out of nowhere" because it can "Cause severe resource imbalances" (e.g. Gaea's Cradle), shouldn't it be considered for banning as well?
I think the difference here remains that while you can break T&N, there are equally large numbers of games where people simply don't do that, and it's a card that can still lead to positive and memorable experiences. Unlike Worldfire or Coalition Victory, T&N isn't only ONE thing. You have a choice to how to build to use it, and while some people may build and use it in that manner, it's the responsibility of the players and the playgoup to build to the experience everyone wants:
To that end, I feel that the Hulk Unban and T&N remaining off makes more sense. While they can be used to auto-win, that is a CHOICE to use them in that manner, and if that's what your group finds fun - why stop you.
On the other hand, they seem to have decided that Paradox Engine is the opposite - sure, as you point out, it can be a dead card. However, anytime it's NOT a dead card, it's simply insane. There's really no middle ground. If you run mana rocks in your deck (most decks), it immediately becomes a potential include. Hell, if you even have only one mana rock out, it's practically a Stone Calendar already at a fair cost, but even a single Sol Ring turns PE into an absurd amount of mana.
I will admit to not having seem PE played often, but every time it's been absolutely Kill On Sight, or the game ends. One game was a Sisay deck which tutored it up, and with the manarocks out would have been able to cast most of the deck, one was a Jhoira (historic version) deck that would have been able to draw and play the entire deck, and the last one was actually just a pile of jank that happened to have Sol Ring and Endbringer out. While strong doesn't need to be bad or banned, that seems a bit more than "strong". Obviously two of those decks are built to abuse it, but both work their gameplan without it either. It's simply the catalyst that takes that gameplan, and expands it into wincon. In the first weeks of PE being out, we had a few small decks that ran it, and getting 3-5 extra mana and maybe a card or 2 per card cast gets pretty nuts fast. One of the first decks we saw was a green/white token elfball jank, which happened to run a few mana artifacts, a few mana elves, Lifecrafter's Bestiary and other draw on creature effects like Guardian Project and Elemental Bond. No where near optimized, and not built around PE, it was just an easy card to slot in that looked cool, but had a huge immediate impact.
My group has not had an issue with Paradox Engine, simply because no one really ran it (outside the first few weeks), but I can easily see how it can quickly take over a game from nowhere. My group didn't need it banned, but I can see where they are coming from.
This seems like a fair assessment, and really playing up what it is that's different about this format that made it popular in the first place.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
It seems to me that the cEDH group wouldn't be happy unless a clear cut statement like "We don't take into consideration competitive EDH because that's not what we're into" or something to that effect to put out there. I understand the following "Competitive balance is not our mission." to be an explanation but others do not.
You mean, something like:
I mean, the philosophy has always had something to that nature, that Competitive games aren't the target, and aren't what's being balanced against. People are just still going to miss it.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
it talks about things like wins out of nowhere and resource denial, about wanting games to be fun and different...
...but then it lets things like expropriate exist. a card that ends games by itself every single time it resolves. even in the rare cases it doesn't the sheer obnoxiousness that comes about from extra turns AND stealing peoples ***** makes people scoop. then there's the race to combo using palinchron, or tooth nail into win, or protean hulk into win, or craterhoof. craterhoof. craterhoof. every single ******* game ends in craterhoof. stuff like con sphinx pushes the person miles ahead. every game sees a cyclonic rift eot, maybe two, maybe six. mikaeus who only exists to combo.
like, really? get out of the basement. every game ends the same these days because of cards like these.
i'm sorry, but as has been stated in this thread already, the entire thing reads like 'i don't want to play against that card so we're banning it' while REAL offenders run free.
you can't stop the arms race, and on a long enough timeline you can't stop the combos either... but maybe its time to put in a little bit more ******* effort than a half assed banning with vague rationale that could be applied to any number of more highly offensive cards once a year. he talks about being conservative in what gets banned... but man, you can't have it both ways. you can't ***** about combo, or competitiveness, and then not ban cards that are in literally every single ******* deck that either end the game on the spot or push the caster so far ahead no one can catch back up.
as it stands, a lot of these decisions, and especially the articles and statements, come across as a group of people who aren't actually playing the game in 2019, but are instead caught up in what it was back in 2010. building ***** out of whatever was laying around with no real motive other than to see how many times craw wurm can be cloned and thrown into more craw wurms.
I think if you really look at decks the RC publishes, its a lot more than draft chaff. And they win games with powerful cards. And I think you actually know that.
...and yes, i know 'dies to removal' isn't a valid argument. But this is EDH, not legacy. It's not supposed to be a format catering to the competitive crowd, nor does it try to be a balanced game.
By ignoring the philosophy of the format, and only focusing on a couple of points about the banlist criteria, there's too much an emphasis on the details of the rules, and not the intent of the rules. The intent is to have a format where every player can play pretend cardboard wizards with each other. And by meeting each other on a happy/acceptable medium, and meeting those expectations, everyone has a good game. that's ALL THERE IS TO EDH.
I play with griselbrand, karakas and recurring nightmare (probably amongst a bunch of other banned cards) because my playgroup deems them to be completely ok, and we all have the same expectations of the game. So we don't adhere to the specific rules of the game, but we adhere to the principles/philosophy of the format; and that, i feel, is far more important than actually following the rules.
...We also allow infinite 0, 1, 2, 7-land hand mulligans. And we have hybrid meaning or, not and colours. And we float between playing 30 and 40 life. Actually, we could be the RC's worst nightmare, and possibly a dream at the same time.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom