I'm just going to post here the official format philosophy document that was posted at the same time as the new ban announcements. I think it might enlighten some people about why certain cards will be banned and others won't.
Quote from Sheldon »
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.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sorry for my possible english mistakes, I'm not a native speaker.
It will also allow some new janky interactions with stuff like Douse or Pentarch Paladin
In combination with Painter's Servant, one of the cards allows you counter any spell that you want to counter (assuming it can be countered) and the other allows you to destroy any permanent you want. Those are not what I would call "janky" applications.
Yeah, except that, individually, the cards suck Maybe "janky interactions" wasn't a proper choice of words, it should be closer to "janky inclusions". I like them, and maybe I'll build a deck with them in the future. But I can't see a deck like that doing well in anything but the most casual groups. (and my group is already fairly casual)
EDIT: It works well with the shards dragon fromInvasion though. That's nice!
I think unbanning Painter's Servant is fine. There's already so many possible combos in EDH, it doesn't make sense to keep a card of that level on the banlist for that reason only. It will also allow some new janky interactions with stuff like Douse or Pentarch Paladin and I'm perfectly happy with that!
I also like the banning of Iona, Shield of Emeria. Like you said, she was mostly an oppressor for monocolored decks which do not really need it.
I'm a bit sad to see Paradox Engine go but it was certainly too good of an enabler.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sorry for my possible english mistakes, I'm not a native speaker.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, except that, individually, the cards suck Maybe "janky interactions" wasn't a proper choice of words, it should be closer to "janky inclusions". I like them, and maybe I'll build a deck with them in the future. But I can't see a deck like that doing well in anything but the most casual groups. (and my group is already fairly casual)
EDIT: It works well with the shards dragon from Invasion though. That's nice!
I also like the banning of Iona, Shield of Emeria. Like you said, she was mostly an oppressor for monocolored decks which do not really need it.
I'm a bit sad to see Paradox Engine go but it was certainly too good of an enabler.