The folks at WotC really do care, much more than the RC does at least, they just don't always hit the mark.
Careful, your bias is showing. How would you even attempt to backup a statement like this? How do you measure how much one group cares over how much another does?
The answer is "you can't" - this is simply a partisan statement dismissing the party you dislike and favoring the party you do. I mean, you're even willing to openly excuse WOTC with "they just don't always hit the mark," yet in the same breath you extend no such mercy toward the RC.
Personally, I think there are people on both sides who care, but if I had to ask which one cares more, who does the evidence support? There are two choices:
- The RC, who runs the format for no pay or financial incentive, who subjects themselves to online abuse from every keyboard warrior willing to make derogatory statements they would be too scared to say in person, and who is constantly second-guessed and insulted despite managing to run the format from an unknown entity all the way to the most popular format in the game?
- WOTC, who despite the best of intentions, has to answer to a corporation who has repeatedly placed short-term profit over the interest of the game and the players, who constantly makes mistakes and bad judgements leading to record number of bans for cards being played in the format they were designed for, and who only jumped fully on the Commander train after the popularity of the first precons caught them off guard and showed them could literally print more money by tapping into something built up by others.
These are intentionally biased representations, by the way, to make a point. Everything I just said has an element of truth, but it is slanted to make one side look better and the other look worse. And yet you can't honestly say the misrepresentations are factually false.
So, taking the partisan blinders off, who cares more? Nobody can answer that.
The real question is "who would manage it better?" - and that is still a matter of opinion. I look at the track record for the past 12+ years I've been playing EDH/Commander, and I have to side with the RC, as they have made less mistakes than WOTC in that time. I look at failed formats like Brawl, which was merely an attempt to repackage Commander but sell more cards by forcing rotation, and again, I have to side with the RC. I look at the number of broken promises from each side, and again, I have to side with the RC. And finally, I have to ask "If WOTC would be better, then why is Commander healthier than any format they manage?" - and I have to side with the RC. Of course, that's just me and my bias. But I'm not the only one who feels that way.
They dearly want to take over the format, but they're petrified that there will be an enormous backlash from a small but vocal section of the playerbase.
I think the bigger fear is backlash from a very large and vocal majority. Commander is their cash cow right now. Not only are they pumping out record number of products directly marketed for it, but they have had to rethink how they design normal sets and legendaries in particular. Not a single black-border product gets released without consideration for Commander these days. If they took over, it might be fine. Or it might blow up in their face. The fable of the goose that lays the golden eggs comes to mind - in the owner's haste to access more than a steady stream of golden eggs, they cut the bird open to find ...nothing at all. They sacrificed a reliable long-term revenue stream in a short-sighted greedy maneuver that lost them everything. And that should terrify WOTC. Any move to take over, which I don't doubt will eventually happen, needs to be handled delicately. Yes, there will be backlash no matter what, but if they handle it wrong, and especially if they screw up shortly after taking control, it won't just be a small minority.
If you value the financial commitment of people that low (or not at all) you would be surprised how many people get such a hit that they quit the game.
Yep, happens in Standard all the time. if it isn't record number of banning of cards they just bought, it also happens on rotation, when they find that their deck no longer functions. In fact, those who don't quit sometimes migrate to an eternal format like Commander because they want their cards to remain viable after they bought them. And considering commander band less than a quarter of a percent of the cards available for it, it is rare when a banning makes a deck nonviable. Even banning Golos won't invalidate that many decks. All of the mono-color Golos decks that just wanted ramp in the command zone can pick a commander in their color that actually fits their theme. All of the goodstuff Golos decks can pick a different goodstuff commander, like Kenrith, Jodah, or Esika; it may require a few other cards to balance things out, but it's not the end of the world. And all of the decks truly built around Golos, well, it sucks, but they do have 99 still viable cards and can either rebuild or build something new. Decks changing and rotating isn't exclusive to Commander, and if anything, Commander is the most stable format with the least amount of decks being knocked out, all the while with the largest influx of new cards and new deck strategies.
Banning cards should be for MISTAKES that never should exist in a format and for a CASUAL format thats basically never the case, as the people in question have the goal to have fun, not necessarily win a game.
Hard disagree. For a casual format, that's basically every card that runs the risk of appearing to be casual but creating games that aren't. The problem is that the "goal to have fun" is nebulous and cannot be defined. What you find fun, other may hate. One person may think it's hilarious to lock out his opponents from playing spells while he himself lacks a wincon. But his three opponents may think it's fun to be able to play their decks. Another person may think it's fun to include over 20 tutors and always tutor the same three cards, while his opponents may think the fun of 100 card singleton is to play different games each time.
Of course, a tiny banlist that bans less than a quarter of a percent of the available cards isn't going to police everyone's fun. No banlist can, nor should it attempt to. But mistakes happen, even in casual, that can skew how the game is played.
That said, replace the banned list with a salt-score for a bunch of cards and people can browse that list if they want to check their deck against what other people might consider un-fun cards ... then they choose to replace them, or not, its up to them....If a card has a massive salt score chances are that its even unfun if people try to not abuse it in a combo or just accidentally play them, as the effect is oppressive for a game and does so regularly....So it comes down to not having a committee for the banned list, and instead use a properly named "Salty-Card list" that people can still use, but might think about before or after they are aware of it.
Again, some people don't care how their opponents feel. They aren't looking for the same gameplay and will prioritize winning over delivering a game in which everyone can have fun. And a salty card list evaluating 20,000+ cards is a lot harder to keep up on and reference than a clear banlist that you can lookup and see what cannot be played, regardless of your feeling for the card.
You can collect these datas with sites like edhrec , which is much much better than a selected few that make the decision for everyone else.
Yes, the chaos of mob rule and every man for himself sounds so much better than a clear and succinct list of what cannot be run in your deck. It's especially good when you show up to a new LGS and don't know anyone or their preferred playstyle or what may or may not be acceptable in their meta. Granted, this last point is a problem either way, but at least a banlist that can be read in a couple minutes starts everyone off with some small measure of common ground, while the salty list has no starting standard at all.
The casual people overall agree with that, and everyone just takes the banned list as a benchmark and is supposed to have a discussion about what they want from a game ...
But the only format that takes the list and enforces it is cEDH , any casual form will basically ignore the banned list anyway, as it doesnt really work for them in the first place.
This is flat out wrong and illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Commander as a whole. I play casual - I have played regularly at two different LGSs and in three different private groups over the last twelve years, and with very rare exception, we always followed the banlist. Every once in a while someone may ask to play a silver-bordered commander or. Nephilim, but they always have to get permission first, and those account for less than a tenth of a percent of the games I've played. Even casuals enforce the banlist.
Where do you get that "casual people overall agree," "everyone just takes the banned list as a benchmark," "any casual form will basically ignore the banned list"? Got any evidence? Any poll? Or just a poorly formed stereotype?
The only thing that doesn't work is trying to make a banlist that covers both casual and competitive. But that problem isn't the fault of the established list and rules committee who have made it clear they care about casual play; it's a problem made by people wanting to co-opt an existing format and twist it to their own ends at the expense of those it was made for.
Look. We all need to come to terms that the EDH Rules Committee are stuck in their own bubble as they don't care If their decisions are relevant to the vast majority of players let alone the financial / time ramifications of their decisions on the player base. This IS the same EDH Rules Committee who had a knee-jerk reaction (well mainly Sheldon Menery) about Wheel effects (named after Wheel of Fortune) having a negative effect on the format
What a world we live in when merely voicing your opinion is considered having "a knee-jerk reaction" despite not taking action and certainly not taking hasty action after managing a format for what, 15 years?
You people are never happy. If the RC doesn't take action, they're wrong. If they do take action, they're wrong. If they voice an opinion, they're wrong. Apparently they are only right when they agree with you and only you. Because, of course, you and you alone are "the vast majority of players," as opposed to, you know, the actual majority of people who play this casual format.
It's funny that you praise Josh Lee Kwai as "a rare voice of reason" on the CAG, because I find him drifting further and further away from the spirit of the format that I have loved and played for over 12 years now. I used to enjoy Command Zone but find them more and more out of touch.
Do I agree with everything the RC does? No. But I support them because they have kept EDH/Commander from becoming the dumpster fire that is every format managed by WOTC.
Have I lost cards when they were banned out of my decks? Yes, about 12-14 times.
Did I get salty and whine and make ad hominem attacks online because of it? No, because I am a rational adult.
Golos is in the 99 of my Kenrith tribal activated abilities deck, and now I'll have to find a replacement. Which isn't a big deal when we have 20,000+ cards to choose from. For anyone running it as a commander, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their entire deck - often they can either switch to another generic goodstuff commander (Jodah or Esika) or they can find one more specifically tailored to their strategy. In a minority of cases, these solutions may not work, but they still own the cards, which aside from Golos should retain their value.
As for the CEDH subject, I honestly believe that the divide between Commander and CEDH is growing too wide for them to be supported by the same banlist. We just aren't looking to play the same game.
I'm a little bummed about the Golos ban, only because I was converting my Lord Windgrace deck into a 5-color lands deck (mainly to add blue for Tatyova, Benthic Druid and Trade Routes) and Golos was the perfect commander for it. I wasn't even going to take advantage of his activated ability. But I understand the RC's reasoning - having a "colorless" 5-color commander that was so generically powerful that it could lead any deck kind of invalidated too much else.
What good choices are left for 5-color lands? Child of Alara is a natural fit, but I don't like it.
I did four color Vial Smasher and Thrasios landfall deck for a while so I could cram Tatyova, Gitrog, and Angry Omnath all together. Thrasios gave me extra lands and card advantage, while Vial Smasher gave me my other colors and supplemental damage.
Wow, I did not see the Golos ban coming. I just run him in the 99, so it doesn't affect me much, but it's surprising. I get their reasoning, but he never felt insurmountable. I guess I'm apathetic about this one.
If anyone plays Worldfire in one of my games, next game I'm breaking out Baral tribal counterspells and targeting only them. (The deck is literally built for next game retribution, not to win).
The answer is "you can't" - this is simply a partisan statement dismissing the party you dislike and favoring the party you do. I mean, you're even willing to openly excuse WOTC with "they just don't always hit the mark," yet in the same breath you extend no such mercy toward the RC.
Personally, I think there are people on both sides who care, but if I had to ask which one cares more, who does the evidence support? There are two choices:
- The RC, who runs the format for no pay or financial incentive, who subjects themselves to online abuse from every keyboard warrior willing to make derogatory statements they would be too scared to say in person, and who is constantly second-guessed and insulted despite managing to run the format from an unknown entity all the way to the most popular format in the game?
- WOTC, who despite the best of intentions, has to answer to a corporation who has repeatedly placed short-term profit over the interest of the game and the players, who constantly makes mistakes and bad judgements leading to record number of bans for cards being played in the format they were designed for, and who only jumped fully on the Commander train after the popularity of the first precons caught them off guard and showed them could literally print more money by tapping into something built up by others.
These are intentionally biased representations, by the way, to make a point. Everything I just said has an element of truth, but it is slanted to make one side look better and the other look worse. And yet you can't honestly say the misrepresentations are factually false.
So, taking the partisan blinders off, who cares more? Nobody can answer that.
The real question is "who would manage it better?" - and that is still a matter of opinion. I look at the track record for the past 12+ years I've been playing EDH/Commander, and I have to side with the RC, as they have made less mistakes than WOTC in that time. I look at failed formats like Brawl, which was merely an attempt to repackage Commander but sell more cards by forcing rotation, and again, I have to side with the RC. I look at the number of broken promises from each side, and again, I have to side with the RC. And finally, I have to ask "If WOTC would be better, then why is Commander healthier than any format they manage?" - and I have to side with the RC. Of course, that's just me and my bias. But I'm not the only one who feels that way.I think the bigger fear is backlash from a very large and vocal majority. Commander is their cash cow right now. Not only are they pumping out record number of products directly marketed for it, but they have had to rethink how they design normal sets and legendaries in particular. Not a single black-border product gets released without consideration for Commander these days. If they took over, it might be fine. Or it might blow up in their face. The fable of the goose that lays the golden eggs comes to mind - in the owner's haste to access more than a steady stream of golden eggs, they cut the bird open to find ...nothing at all. They sacrificed a reliable long-term revenue stream in a short-sighted greedy maneuver that lost them everything. And that should terrify WOTC. Any move to take over, which I don't doubt will eventually happen, needs to be handled delicately. Yes, there will be backlash no matter what, but if they handle it wrong, and especially if they screw up shortly after taking control, it won't just be a small minority.Yep, happens in Standard all the time. if it isn't record number of banning of cards they just bought, it also happens on rotation, when they find that their deck no longer functions. In fact, those who don't quit sometimes migrate to an eternal format like Commander because they want their cards to remain viable after they bought them. And considering commander band less than a quarter of a percent of the cards available for it, it is rare when a banning makes a deck nonviable. Even banning Golos won't invalidate that many decks. All of the mono-color Golos decks that just wanted ramp in the command zone can pick a commander in their color that actually fits their theme. All of the goodstuff Golos decks can pick a different goodstuff commander, like Kenrith, Jodah, or Esika; it may require a few other cards to balance things out, but it's not the end of the world. And all of the decks truly built around Golos, well, it sucks, but they do have 99 still viable cards and can either rebuild or build something new. Decks changing and rotating isn't exclusive to Commander, and if anything, Commander is the most stable format with the least amount of decks being knocked out, all the while with the largest influx of new cards and new deck strategies.Hard disagree. For a casual format, that's basically every card that runs the risk of appearing to be casual but creating games that aren't. The problem is that the "goal to have fun" is nebulous and cannot be defined. What you find fun, other may hate. One person may think it's hilarious to lock out his opponents from playing spells while he himself lacks a wincon. But his three opponents may think it's fun to be able to play their decks. Another person may think it's fun to include over 20 tutors and always tutor the same three cards, while his opponents may think the fun of 100 card singleton is to play different games each time.
Of course, a tiny banlist that bans less than a quarter of a percent of the available cards isn't going to police everyone's fun. No banlist can, nor should it attempt to. But mistakes happen, even in casual, that can skew how the game is played.Again, some people don't care how their opponents feel. They aren't looking for the same gameplay and will prioritize winning over delivering a game in which everyone can have fun. And a salty card list evaluating 20,000+ cards is a lot harder to keep up on and reference than a clear banlist that you can lookup and see what cannot be played, regardless of your feeling for the card.Yes, the chaos of mob rule and every man for himself sounds so much better than a clear and succinct list of what cannot be run in your deck. It's especially good when you show up to a new LGS and don't know anyone or their preferred playstyle or what may or may not be acceptable in their meta. Granted, this last point is a problem either way, but at least a banlist that can be read in a couple minutes starts everyone off with some small measure of common ground, while the salty list has no starting standard at all.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Where do you get that "casual people overall agree," "everyone just takes the banned list as a benchmark," "any casual form will basically ignore the banned list"? Got any evidence? Any poll? Or just a poorly formed stereotype?
The only thing that doesn't work is trying to make a banlist that covers both casual and competitive. But that problem isn't the fault of the established list and rules committee who have made it clear they care about casual play; it's a problem made by people wanting to co-opt an existing format and twist it to their own ends at the expense of those it was made for.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
You people are never happy. If the RC doesn't take action, they're wrong. If they do take action, they're wrong. If they voice an opinion, they're wrong. Apparently they are only right when they agree with you and only you. Because, of course, you and you alone are "the vast majority of players," as opposed to, you know, the actual majority of people who play this casual format.
It's funny that you praise Josh Lee Kwai as "a rare voice of reason" on the CAG, because I find him drifting further and further away from the spirit of the format that I have loved and played for over 12 years now. I used to enjoy Command Zone but find them more and more out of touch.
Do I agree with everything the RC does? No. But I support them because they have kept EDH/Commander from becoming the dumpster fire that is every format managed by WOTC.
Have I lost cards when they were banned out of my decks? Yes, about 12-14 times.
Did I get salty and whine and make ad hominem attacks online because of it? No, because I am a rational adult.
Golos is in the 99 of my Kenrith tribal activated abilities deck, and now I'll have to find a replacement. Which isn't a big deal when we have 20,000+ cards to choose from. For anyone running it as a commander, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their entire deck - often they can either switch to another generic goodstuff commander (Jodah or Esika) or they can find one more specifically tailored to their strategy. In a minority of cases, these solutions may not work, but they still own the cards, which aside from Golos should retain their value.
As for the CEDH subject, I honestly believe that the divide between Commander and CEDH is growing too wide for them to be supported by the same banlist. We just aren't looking to play the same game.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
If anyone plays Worldfire in one of my games, next game I'm breaking out Baral tribal counterspells and targeting only them. (The deck is literally built for next game retribution, not to win).
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter