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.
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