MTG Salvation

Quote from Hermes_ »

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.

The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level [...]

Quote from Muspellsheimr »

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.

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.

Quote from schweinefett »

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).

Quote from JqlGirl »

Uh, that article is from 2017.

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.

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.

The Philosophy of Commander

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.