The Modern Masters 2017 Edition deployment today contained a change which moved the starting life total from 40 to 30 for 1v1 Commander games. (Games with 3 or 4 players remain at a starting life total of 40.)
We have plans to introduce more support for 1v1 Commander. As part of this, R&D determined that format is better off with a starting life total of 30. At one point we had planned to introduce this change as well as league support and a modified banned list today, but later decided to instead introduce it during Amonkhet season.
Unfortunately, in this process the life total change did not get taken out of this build, and so today it is live. Now that it is live, since it is a change we were planning on making anyway in the future, our intent is to simply leave it in place.
Stay tuned for an article about what support we plan to offer for 1v1 Commander leagues moving forward!
- Lee
TL;DR Wizards is creating a 1v1 format, with 30 life and their own banlist.
That we now have an official commander 1v1, probably with a balanced banlist and also aware of how to have a actual diverse meta.
For me it is that, it will be put on MTGO, and its success there, or just its presence there, can and will reflect RL, if it goes well, it will be THE commander 1v1 format.
Commander is one of the most profitable sources Wizards has, behind Standard and slightly Modern, It doesn't surprise me if they try to make it stand out even more than Legacy for example.
I doubt this will have a tailored banlist. Wizards already does not do the commander banlist, nor do they officially test for commander. This will very likely have the DC banlist to start, and might occasionally get attention, similar to Pauper.
Actually, I wonder if they'll take DCs or Leviathan's list as a starting point.
Anyway it doesn't matter much since it'll probably overtake both formats on the long run.
Wizards gives enough attention to Pauper, and I assume that's the attention we'll get. They don't test Commander multiplayer too much because it's casual.
I doubt this will have a tailored banlist. Wizards already does not do the commander banlist, nor do they officially test for commander. This will very likely have the DC banlist to start, and might occasionally get attention, similar to Pauper.
Why would they get a banlist that is made for 20HP when they stated it will have 30HP?
If they get Leviathan's banlist, which I'm almost sure they won't, its something, but getting DC banlist I think is extremely out of the plans.
As long as they keep the Leviathan banlist framework so as to not ignore all the good work DC has done in the past, this is nothing but good news. Rules the majority of us want and the rest of us can easily deal with, and a format to put all the 1v1 Commander formats to bed and unite the playerbase. I would even hope any and all committees would step down provided the banlist and rules end up being sensible, and be obnoxious and belligerent if, on the contrary, WoTC shows no regard or respect for all the good the RC has done in the past by not adhering to the basic framework that's been constructed over the past years.
As much as I don't enjoy playing against Zurgo and Vial/Kraum in DC, I'm not looking forward to having to see Darevi, Zur, Augustin, Narset, Jace, Oloro and Tasigur on the other side of the table at 30lp again.
Guess it also means my Beta Balance is going back to the "never gets to see play" binder.
If I were to guess, initially I'd say the commanders banlist would be the same as the multiplayer list, so Rofellos, Erayo, etc.
The part of me that's happy is the part that sees this as more visibility to 1v1, less attrition with people trying to say that "only Wizards can create formats" and more support. The part of me that's fearful is the part that thinks that this will receive only superficial support since this is not a format that will see big events, only online play.
I would say the banlist will be different. I at least, I realy hope so. Dont want to play games with 1T solring crypt you lose
I also think the banlist will be different than the multiplayers, but we are talking about a quality program that had to have cards like Rofellos and Braids disallowed in the deck because they couldn't work out the kinks of them being banned as commanders, so...
It seems from French forums that Wizards is talking with the leviathan comitee. Its possible the banlist will be similar, we'll see.
I hope they keep a separate "banned as commander only" list, but at least nonesense cards like sol ring crypt and mana vault will probably be the first to go
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGO Username: Tajicyolo
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show Duel Commander:Kess High Tide Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
It seems from French forums that Wizards is talking with the leviathan comitee. Its possible the banlist will be similar, we'll see.
I hope they keep a separate "banned as commander only" list, but at least nonesense cards like sol ring crypt and mana vault will probably be the first to go
Hi, can you please point me to those forums? It is really great news, if it is true intention of Wizards. I guess as Commander is second/third most profitable game for them, it make really sense to start officially support it - as long as they will stop support legacy, as it seems it is what they are doing.
Nevertheless Leviathan is Italian not French .. and I have not found anything on their site.
soullessoni
Paris, Leviathan Commander
Yeah Ma'am
le 23/03/2017 8:22
Nous (comité 30hp) sommes en discussion avec Wizard à ce sujet. La banlist qu'ils bossent est pour du compétitif.
Je rêve du moment où on va laisser notre place à la MotherShip <3
(Translation: we, the 30hp comitee are in discussion with wizards on the subject)
He gives a little more info on later pages. I dont know if soullessoni (he's a french member of the leviathan comitee) posts here but maybe some other member of the leviathan will clarify here
With the amount of testing D&D do for eternal formats(Meaning Zero) I don't have high hopes. The commander rules committee does a way better job and should tell WOTC to keep their hands off of their format.
With the amount of testing D&D do for eternal formats(Meaning Zero) I don't have high hopes. The commander rules committee does a way better job and should tell WOTC to keep their hands off of their format.
No one is interfering with the 20 life format, this is a 30 life format.
Its hard to tellwhat are their ambitions from the info we have now.
I think the most plausible thing is they just make the format available online like pauper and have a minimal management on the banlist, only banning when its absolutely necessary.
The other question, and more fundamental is whether tournament organisers (and the community of paper duel commander) will continue to support the rules comittee (the french one) or follow the "official banlist". Its not a given (some might say unlikely) that the format management will be better. On the other hand the increased support is a good thing. League results will also be interesting to have
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGO Username: Tajicyolo
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show Duel Commander:Kess High Tide Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
If I were to guess, initially I'd say the commanders banlist would be the same as the multiplayer list, so Rofellos, Erayo, etc.
The part of me that's happy is the part that sees this as more visibility to 1v1, less attrition with people trying to say that "only Wizards can create formats" and more support. The part of me that's fearful is the part that thinks that this will receive only superficial support since this is not a format that will see big events, only online play.
They clearly said on the annoucnement that the banlist will be different. I mean, you just need to read there: At one point we had planned to introduce this change as well as league support and a modified banned list today[...]
With the amount of testing D&D do for eternal formats(Meaning Zero) I don't have high hopes. The commander rules committee does a way better job and should tell WOTC to keep their hands off of their format.
You're mixing things up. The fact that Wizards doesn't test Eternal formats is when they're creating new cards. They barely test Modern too. They do give attention to results though, and the last B&R announcement says that very clearly (about Vintage). If you didn't read, here it is:
For Vintage, data is often difficult to gather because the sample size is so small. However, we have a large data set coming with the European Eternal Weekend Vintage Championship at the beginning of April. We'll be watching that tournament closely. For now, we are watching the results, and continuing to listen to feedback from the community.
Its hard to tellwhat are their ambitions from the info we have now.
I think the most plausible thing is they just make the format available online like pauper and have a minimal management on the banlist, only banning when its absolutely necessary.
The other question, and more fundamental is whether tournament organisers (and the community of paper duel commander) will continue to support the rules comittee (the french one) or follow the "official banlist". Its not a given (some might say unlikely) that the format management will be better. On the other hand the increased support is a good thing. League results will also be interesting to have
It seems, for now, they'll keep the format supported like Pauper: online only. Eventually that could migrate to IRL because it's way easier to implement in real life than Pauper - so I don't see why not do it. Anyway, it really seems people from Duel Commander still want to cling onto their format and keep the community divided. That's a shame
Unless Wizards' banlist is clearly dumb (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, etc) which I highly doubt it'll be, I see no reason to keep playing DC. And I'm glad to say everyone in my area agrees (so I really hope the format comes back to life here when Wizards announces the new format).
This news seems to have sparked a lot of conversation among players around here in Brazil, with people that have not been playing 1v1 commander or even caring about the format now talking about it again. Let us just hope that they don't screw up
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For those who cannot open links,:
TL;DR Wizards is creating a 1v1 format, with 30 life and their own banlist.
Is this the sound of trumpets we hear?
This was posted earlier today. 30 life for 1v1? A NEW BANLIST TO GO WITH IT AS WELL! What does everyone think!?
Duplicate thread topics merged. -Jiv
For me it is that, it will be put on MTGO, and its success there, or just its presence there, can and will reflect RL, if it goes well, it will be THE commander 1v1 format.
Commander is one of the most profitable sources Wizards has, behind Standard and slightly Modern, It doesn't surprise me if they try to make it stand out even more than Legacy for example.
Theros Myth Origins Part 1 WUBRG Part 2 GRBUW Born of the Gods
Beta Client Tutorial
Momir Basic Primer
Full article list
Anyway it doesn't matter much since it'll probably overtake both formats on the long run.
Wizards gives enough attention to Pauper, and I assume that's the attention we'll get. They don't test Commander multiplayer too much because it's casual.
Why would they get a banlist that is made for 20HP when they stated it will have 30HP?
If they get Leviathan's banlist, which I'm almost sure they won't, its something, but getting DC banlist I think is extremely out of the plans.
Guess it also means my Beta Balance is going back to the "never gets to see play" binder.
Also I hope they don't ban jace VP now
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm
Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show
Duel Commander: Kess High Tide
Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
The part of me that's happy is the part that sees this as more visibility to 1v1, less attrition with people trying to say that "only Wizards can create formats" and more support. The part of me that's fearful is the part that thinks that this will receive only superficial support since this is not a format that will see big events, only online play.
I also think the banlist will be different than the multiplayers, but we are talking about a quality program that had to have cards like Rofellos and Braids disallowed in the deck because they couldn't work out the kinks of them being banned as commanders, so...
I hope they keep a separate "banned as commander only" list, but at least nonesense cards like sol ring crypt and mana vault will probably be the first to go
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm
Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show
Duel Commander: Kess High Tide
Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
Hi, can you please point me to those forums? It is really great news, if it is true intention of Wizards. I guess as Commander is second/third most profitable game for them, it make really sense to start officially support it - as long as they will stop support legacy, as it seems it is what they are doing.
Nevertheless Leviathan is Italian not French .. and I have not found anything on their site.
Specifically:
(Translation: we, the 30hp comitee are in discussion with wizards on the subject)
He gives a little more info on later pages. I dont know if soullessoni (he's a french member of the leviathan comitee) posts here but maybe some other member of the leviathan will clarify here
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm
Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show
Duel Commander: Kess High Tide
Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
Why? 20 life is awful and I'm glad WotC is showing interest in diversifying.
No one is interfering with the 20 life format, this is a 30 life format.
I think this used to be the case, but no longer. They appear to be flailing.
My 720 Peasant Cube
I think the most plausible thing is they just make the format available online like pauper and have a minimal management on the banlist, only banning when its absolutely necessary.
The other question, and more fundamental is whether tournament organisers (and the community of paper duel commander) will continue to support the rules comittee (the french one) or follow the "official banlist". Its not a given (some might say unlikely) that the format management will be better. On the other hand the increased support is a good thing. League results will also be interesting to have
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm
Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show
Duel Commander: Kess High Tide
Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
They clearly said on the annoucnement that the banlist will be different. I mean, you just need to read there:
At one point we had planned to introduce this change as well as league support and a modified banned list today[...]
You're mixing things up. The fact that Wizards doesn't test Eternal formats is when they're creating new cards. They barely test Modern too. They do give attention to results though, and the last B&R announcement says that very clearly (about Vintage). If you didn't read, here it is:
For Vintage, data is often difficult to gather because the sample size is so small. However, we have a large data set coming with the European Eternal Weekend Vintage Championship at the beginning of April. We'll be watching that tournament closely. For now, we are watching the results, and continuing to listen to feedback from the community.
It seems, for now, they'll keep the format supported like Pauper: online only. Eventually that could migrate to IRL because it's way easier to implement in real life than Pauper - so I don't see why not do it. Anyway, it really seems people from Duel Commander still want to cling onto their format and keep the community divided. That's a shame
Unless Wizards' banlist is clearly dumb (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, etc) which I highly doubt it'll be, I see no reason to keep playing DC. And I'm glad to say everyone in my area agrees (so I really hope the format comes back to life here when Wizards announces the new format).