Don't think this has been asked before:
With the recent (March) rules update the "Banned as Commander" list was abolished, relegating the 'problematic' commanders to the general ban list. Will you guys be examining the banned list for any cards that may come off? Some cards are insanely broken and should rightfully be on there, but others seem less so and may be manageable for multiplayer commander such as Braids, Cabal Minion or Upheaval. Thanks!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH:ShatterStax, Only The Strong Survive
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
I felt this question was answered but skirted for sure in the article. So I' rephrase it:
What's the difference between using Hinder to counter and tuck Norin the Wary and casting Nevermore naming Norin the Wary? Tucking spells were banned because they prevented players from using their commander which violates one of the core tenants of the format. Couldn't the same thing be said about spells like Nevermore and Declaration of Naught? Why aren't these cards banned? Are these cards underrated? Yes they can be answered (although some colors have a much more diffident time answering them), but tuck can be answered also through tutors.
Are there any cards that you see as broken that you personally would like to see on the ban list? Or do you think that it is balanced as is?
I think the banned list is in a pretty good place. It's obviously a shared work amongst the members of the committee, and I doubt it specifically reflects the exact vision of any particular member, but I don't think there's anything egregious missing.
One of the important parts about shepherding a format is understanding the boundary between "I hate this" and "This is bad for the format". There are lots of cards I don't like, but it's usually the use of it, rather than the card itself. Mindslaver once is cool. Mindslaver to kill a general permanently, or being recurred, is way less interesting. You have to separate out your own biases in assessing a card.
One question: are there any commanders being specifically watched for potential banning after the tuck rule change?
The list of commanders of concern post-tuck change is pretty much the same as it was before the tuck change. "Oh, tuck will keep that in check" was never a factor beforehand, so the change didn't affect the calculus.
Don't think this has been asked before:
With the recent (March) rules update the "Banned as Commander" list was abolished, relegating the 'problematic' commanders to the general ban list. Will you guys be examining the banned list for any cards that may come off? Some cards are insanely broken and should rightfully be on there, but others seem less so and may be manageable for multiplayer commander such as Braids, Cabal Minion or Upheaval. Thanks!
We always look for cards that can come off. That being said, Braids was kind of borderline in the main even before the streamlining of the lists, and Upheaval is one of the last cards I'd take off the list.
1) Why are the original moxen banned? Anyone who has played with these understand they are not strong draws after turn 5 or so.
There's a certain iconicness to the most famous Vintage cards - the power 10 - that transcend their power level. Basically, when someone sees them in play, their immediate reaction is "oh, this is Vintage, that's not for me". We want to avoid that association. Timetwister gets a pass because, well, it's a much more niche card.
Moxen aren't strong draws after turn 5 or so, but neither is Sol Ring. They'd be ubiquitous.
2) Regarding secondary markets and I'm not implying anything by asking this but you said go for it so here goes. Have you ever bought or sold cards because you had knowledge that was not yet public information?
Nope. It's a fine question to ask.
I've been collecting forever, and have a very specific collection: one of each English card (including foils and promos). As a result, my trading and acquisition efforts are devoted towards that and that's pretty out in the open. Either I need a copy of a card or I don't.
Because I don't play constructed, I don't stockpile constructed-worthy cards, which means selling before a crash is out (plus, I never sell cards beyond store credit) and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the ramifications of upcoming cards outside of judging impact, so buying low/selling high is out. This is my hobby, not my job, so card arbitrage seems like a big hassle.
Honestly, nobody gets to the point where they know stuff without Wizards being very confident that they're not going to take advantage of this information.
I felt this question was answered but skirted for sure in the article. So I' rephrase it:
What's the difference between using Hinder to counter and tuck Norin the Wary and casting Nevermore naming Norin the Wary? Tucking spells were banned because they prevented players from using their commander which violates one of the core tenants of the format. Couldn't the same thing be said about spells like Nevermore and Declaration of Naught? Why aren't these cards banned? Are these cards underrated? Yes they can be answered (although some colors have a much more diffident time answering them), but tuck can be answered also through tutors.
Well, tuck being answered by tutors was one of the inherent problems of tuck.
In general, I think anything on the battlefield is fair game. Everything there exists to get blown up, either directly by you, directly by someone else, or as collateral damage when the world goes boom. The entire point of the battlefield is to change what's happening in the game on a temporary basis.
The black/red-can't-deal-with-enchantments thing is a bit overblown. Answers exist, even if they're suboptimal/artifact, and, frankly, if you make a conscious choice to ignore enchantments, or aren't ready to make deals with other players to take care of them, you're accepting weakness to a much bigger and more conventional part of Magic than tuck.
do you guys discuss trying to fix/improve the colour identity rules at all?
i know i'm a minority in the off-colour hybrids and whatnot, but [colour identity rules discussions] expanded to regard things like extort, flip cards, off-basic-land-type-fetches, the bringers, among other corner cases that the CI deals with?
do you guys discuss trying to fix/improve the colour identity rules at all?
So, the trolly answer here is "of course". But, that's a function of the question structure. The answer to almost every "have you guys discussed" question is "yes".
What you're really asking is "Is there any interest in changing", and the answer there is no. Extort is mildly annoying, but the effort to change it seems unwarranted. Making fetches work with color identity is nice in theory, but far from worth the complexity in practice. Everything seems like it's in the right place.
I don't know if its been discussed but the RC has a direct impact on card costs, is this ever a concern?
Nitpick: we have an indirect impact
It's something we're conscious of, but we can't let it be a concern; we do what we think is best for the format and let the indirect stuff take care of itself. But, yes, we feel bad when someone's foil Primeval Titan suddenly halves in value. Ours did too.
It's something we're conscious of, but we can't let it be a concern; we do what we think is best for the format and let the indirect stuff take care of itself. But, yes, we feel bad when someone's foil Primeval Titan suddenly halves in value. Ours did too.
Followup:
I know that in the past you guys have said that Barrier to Entry is unlikely to affect future cards, but does the ever-raising price of some of the irreplaceable cards on the Reserve List come up in your meetings as a concern?
I know that in the past you guys have said that Barrier to Entry is unlikely to affect future cards, but does the ever-raising price of some of the irreplaceable cards on the Reserve List come up in your meetings as a concern?
No, because it's "perceived barrier to entry" and is about Vintage iconicness (see my answer to shaftedman above). In order for this to become relevant again, a card would have to become strongly associated with Vintage, have a high price, and be potentially ubiquitous in Commander. Price of a card alone isn't sufficient for the criteria. The price of Imperial Seal is largely irrelevant because it has a host of cheaper replacements, so it doesn't represent a card that might keep people from being involved. Nobody is going to watch Commander be played and say "Oh, this format has Imperial Seal in it, it's not for me". The same can't be said for Moxes.
The most "likely" scenario that might get this used again is if Timetwister weirdly became a powerhouse. I'm... not offloading my extensive stash of Timetwisters any time soon.
No, because it's "perceived barrier to entry" and is about Vintage iconicness (see my answer to shaftedman above). In order for this to become relevant again, a card would have to become strongly associated with Vintage, have a high price, and be potentially ubiquitous in Commander. Price of a card alone isn't sufficient for the criteria. The price of Imperial Seal is largely irrelevant because it has a host of cheaper replacements, so it doesn't represent a card that might keep people from being involved. Nobody is going to watch Commander be played and say "Oh, this format has Imperial Seal in it, it's not for me". The same can't be said for Moxes.
The most "likely" scenario that might get this used again is if Timetwister weirdly became a powerhouse. I'm... not offloading my extensive stash of Timetwisters any time soon.
I was thinking more along the lines of stuff like Nether Void, Gaea's Cradle, Mishra's Workshop... I guess that doesn't really change your answer though.
On the vein of the Haakon question from earlier have you ever thought of adding a rule in the vein of "you may add your Commander from the Command Zone to your hand at 1+Current Commander Tax.
Command tax is changed to be whenever Commander is casted from Command Zone or added to Hand from Command Zone"?
On the vein of the Haakon question from earlier, moving your commander from your command zone to your hand only makes Haakon a little less annoying to use. The easiest solution would be a rule to the effect of "You may cast your commander from your command zone, even if an effect printed on your commander would prevent it." Except worded way better than that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rest in RIP My Signature, I guess. 2015-2016, we hardly knew ye.
Total side note but I like how people are discussing running this over itself.
Well, it has to be said that Kolaghan is clearly better than Kolaghan. Considering what BR decks usually want and how stiff the competition in this guild is, there is no way that I would run Kolaghan over Kolaghan! Kolaghan might make it in as the sixth guild card or so. Kolaghan on the other hand ranks several places below that.
It was so funny to me when they described this as a downgrade to the original Zurgo during the Pax East panel. I was thinking if this is a downgrade, they should really "downgrade" all legendary creatures. Haha.
My deck designing is quite concise at this point:
1. Come up with deck idea
2. Realize this idea is somehow fundamentally similar to another deck I have or that is commonly played in my group
3. Decide I don't want to disassemble one of my existing decks
4. Give up and do nothing
I don't see the point of this new shroud mechanic. It's strictly worse than Hexproof. Threshold is pretty bad too, Delirium is a much better mechanic and probably easier to activate.
Otherwise this card is a pretty neat guy. Dodges removal and grows into a Primal Huntbeast. 3/5
On the vein of the Haakon question from earlier have you ever thought of adding a rule in the vein of "you may add your Commander from the Command Zone to your hand at 1+Current Commander Tax.
Command tax is changed to be whenever Commander is casted from Command Zone or added to Hand from Command Zone"?
This change has large impact on how the format plays. Commanders can be discarded and can count to hand size.
These are things that could be considered it it was for a major gain fort he format, but... to make Haakon a playable general?
On the vein of the Haakon question from earlier, moving your commander from your command zone to your hand only makes Haakon a little less annoying to use. The easiest solution would be a rule to the effect of "You may cast your commander from your command zone, even if an effect printed on your commander would prevent it." Except worded way better than that.
That won't do it, since cards override the rules.
You'd need to have a game rule that either blanked commanders while they were in the command zone, or added an ability to move them out of the command zone. I think it's easier to just accept that .2% of the commanders are unplayable!
For the past years we got CMD preconstructed decks and (expensive) Commander Arsenal. Do you have any other ideas about supplemental CMD product, which will be the most useful/fun? (Or: What´s your opinion about something like CMD deck builder toolkit?)
I think they have the right approach currently. I don't see the point of a deckbuilder's toolkit. I'd rather they made cool new cards and then threw key reprints into those decks occasionally.
In the Scars of Mirrodin and Innistrad block we got fewer legends than in the Theros and Khans (original Ravnica was imagined before the commander popularity, so RTR is exception). What´s your opinion about affecting the set story because of commander (like 15 gods for each one and two color combination, like 10 dragons, 9 khans (missing blue one)). Aren´t we oversaturated with commanders?
I think you're looking for a pattern that isn't there. The stories for Theros and Khans were very focused on iconic leaders. That makes them prime territory for lots of legendary creatures. BFZ seems like it'll feature fewer, unless they have a new story structure in mind.
I think Commander has meant they're stuck with the Legendary supertype that they might otherwise have ditched, and they make sure there's at least a few legends in each set, but I think that's the extent to which Commander has impact on story design.
As to the oversaturation of commanders, what would that look like? I mean, there's clearly a point - if every creature in every set were legendary, it'd be meaningless - but I don't think we're anywhere near that. And the questions about Haakon here suggest there's still desire to make more commanders available!
Is it possible to have a more balanced 1v1 commander ban list? would be nice for mtgo most people on there play 1v1. I only play on MTGO so abiding to the french ban list is not an option.
Is it possible to have a more balanced 1v1 commander ban list? would be nice for mtgo most people on there play 1v1. I only play on MTGO so abiding to the french ban list is not an option.
Sure, there are lots of possibilities. The French one is a pretty reasonable stab at it.
That's orthogonal to the question of what's available for MTGO. I don't think making a balanced competitive 1-1 format out of commander is a goal for them.
So there's no chance of Haakon ever becoming a playable general? That sucks. He's my favorite black legend. (also the most interesting black legend to play, imo.)
[Not counting Braids, who I would rather play but that doesn't seem likely]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rest in RIP My Signature, I guess. 2015-2016, we hardly knew ye.
Total side note but I like how people are discussing running this over itself.
Well, it has to be said that Kolaghan is clearly better than Kolaghan. Considering what BR decks usually want and how stiff the competition in this guild is, there is no way that I would run Kolaghan over Kolaghan! Kolaghan might make it in as the sixth guild card or so. Kolaghan on the other hand ranks several places below that.
It was so funny to me when they described this as a downgrade to the original Zurgo during the Pax East panel. I was thinking if this is a downgrade, they should really "downgrade" all legendary creatures. Haha.
My deck designing is quite concise at this point:
1. Come up with deck idea
2. Realize this idea is somehow fundamentally similar to another deck I have or that is commonly played in my group
3. Decide I don't want to disassemble one of my existing decks
4. Give up and do nothing
I don't see the point of this new shroud mechanic. It's strictly worse than Hexproof. Threshold is pretty bad too, Delirium is a much better mechanic and probably easier to activate.
Otherwise this card is a pretty neat guy. Dodges removal and grows into a Primal Huntbeast. 3/5
This format is as popular as ever, and has been around for years now. i have played since late 2007 before there were even forums available to talk about it, just some random articles and threads in casual sub forums. That being said, why is it that the EDHRC is so against producing a comprehensive competitive ban list? I just feel that hiding behind "it's a social format" and even calling the ban list really a "list of cards we suggest you avoid playing" is insufficient. The French came up with their own duel ban list out of the need for such a thing. While I no longer live in the USA, back home all three of our major local shops in Northern California held Multiplayer EDH tournaments, some of which even had the presence of LSV and other pro magic players who live/lived in the area. Competitive play isn't a niche aspect of the format.
A competitive ban lit isn't going to stop people from playing it as a social format, but having a competitive ban list will give the format even more respect. I personally believe in as short as possible and powerful Vintage style ban list. The reason I say a Vintage style list, is when you play vintage, you go in knowing that "broken things happen." I know vintage only bans ante and dexterity cards (and Shahrazad), but I think you get my drift. I am all in favor of having ways to combo out, but the most degenerate combos should get the axe, and some have already with the current ban list:- I'm looking at you Time Vault and Painter's Servant. I am not going to pretend to know all of the cards that should be banned, but even here in in this sub forum is a thread about "solving" the format.
"Playing to Win" by Sirlin, which can be found on his page for free here. Honestly, that book should be mandatory reading for all magic players who post here and everyone on the EDHRC should check it out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Preface this: I play mostly on MTGO, where the client enforces the rules, and there's minimal continuity in opponents - you play someone then by the time you play them again, you've forgotten each other. This makes any 'social contract' unenforceable.
1)Consider the broken tutors (Demonic, Vampiric, etc, basically take this to mean anything presently or historically restricted in Vintage and/or banned in Legacy).
Do you think these add too much consistency to decks that try to do something fundamentally above the format's power curve (Hermit Druid shenanigans, Food Chain Prossh, Ad Nauseum combo, etc)?
2) When playing yourself, would you rather games are decided by tempo battles, an attrition battle over resources (epitomized by cards like Sarkhan the Unbroken that generate value over time), by massive haymaker plays like an X=6 Entreat the Angels, or by synergy/combo plays? Assume 100 games - how many would you want to see end in each of those fashions?
This format is as popular as ever, and has been around for years now. i have played since late 2007 before there were even forums available to talk about it, just some random articles and threads in casual sub forums. That being said, why is it that the EDHRC is so against producing a comprehensive competitive ban list?
Because that's not a format we're interested in (or think is a good idea). Why do you want a group of people who have no interest in creating a competitive format producing rules for it?
The French came up with their own duel ban list out of the need for such a thing.
Yes. Kevin was a member of the RC, realized that what he wanted was leargely unrelated to Commander and put in the many hours required to build his own format. He deserves mad props for it.
Competitive play isn't a niche aspect of the format.
It is indeed a niche aspect, albeit one that's disproportionately vocal online. Hundreds and hundreds of casual games are played for every tournament one.
"Playing to Win" by Sirlin, which can be found on his page for free here. Honestly, that book should be mandatory reading for all magic players who post here and everyone on the EDHRC should check it out.
You do realize that I also write the rules for the competitive formats, right? I may have heard of Sirlin. But since you conveniently linked to it, let's just quote the first line: "Playing to Win has been the competitive gamer's bible since the year 2000."
Commander is not intended to be the competitive gamer's format. Continuous self-improvement is very much the domain of spikes, but there are other players for whom that's not why they play the game. Why can't they have a format?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the recent (March) rules update the "Banned as Commander" list was abolished, relegating the 'problematic' commanders to the general ban list. Will you guys be examining the banned list for any cards that may come off? Some cards are insanely broken and should rightfully be on there, but others seem less so and may be manageable for multiplayer commander such as Braids, Cabal Minion or Upheaval. Thanks!
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Mono-U Control
Ob Nixilis of the Black Oath
Sen Triplets
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Derevi Stax
VolThrun
Marchesa, The Black Rose
Olivia Voldaren, Vampire Tribal
Modern: Fish, JUND/Junk
--------
RIP Twin
What's the difference between using Hinder to counter and tuck Norin the Wary and casting Nevermore naming Norin the Wary? Tucking spells were banned because they prevented players from using their commander which violates one of the core tenants of the format. Couldn't the same thing be said about spells like Nevermore and Declaration of Naught? Why aren't these cards banned? Are these cards underrated? Yes they can be answered (although some colors have a much more diffident time answering them), but tuck can be answered also through tutors.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
I think the banned list is in a pretty good place. It's obviously a shared work amongst the members of the committee, and I doubt it specifically reflects the exact vision of any particular member, but I don't think there's anything egregious missing.
One of the important parts about shepherding a format is understanding the boundary between "I hate this" and "This is bad for the format". There are lots of cards I don't like, but it's usually the use of it, rather than the card itself. Mindslaver once is cool. Mindslaver to kill a general permanently, or being recurred, is way less interesting. You have to separate out your own biases in assessing a card.
The list of commanders of concern post-tuck change is pretty much the same as it was before the tuck change. "Oh, tuck will keep that in check" was never a factor beforehand, so the change didn't affect the calculus.
We always look for cards that can come off. That being said, Braids was kind of borderline in the main even before the streamlining of the lists, and Upheaval is one of the last cards I'd take off the list.
There's a certain iconicness to the most famous Vintage cards - the power 10 - that transcend their power level. Basically, when someone sees them in play, their immediate reaction is "oh, this is Vintage, that's not for me". We want to avoid that association. Timetwister gets a pass because, well, it's a much more niche card.
Moxen aren't strong draws after turn 5 or so, but neither is Sol Ring. They'd be ubiquitous.
Nope. It's a fine question to ask.
I've been collecting forever, and have a very specific collection: one of each English card (including foils and promos). As a result, my trading and acquisition efforts are devoted towards that and that's pretty out in the open. Either I need a copy of a card or I don't.
Because I don't play constructed, I don't stockpile constructed-worthy cards, which means selling before a crash is out (plus, I never sell cards beyond store credit) and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the ramifications of upcoming cards outside of judging impact, so buying low/selling high is out. This is my hobby, not my job, so card arbitrage seems like a big hassle.
Honestly, nobody gets to the point where they know stuff without Wizards being very confident that they're not going to take advantage of this information.
Well, tuck being answered by tutors was one of the inherent problems of tuck.
In general, I think anything on the battlefield is fair game. Everything there exists to get blown up, either directly by you, directly by someone else, or as collateral damage when the world goes boom. The entire point of the battlefield is to change what's happening in the game on a temporary basis.
The black/red-can't-deal-with-enchantments thing is a bit overblown. Answers exist, even if they're suboptimal/artifact, and, frankly, if you make a conscious choice to ignore enchantments, or aren't ready to make deals with other players to take care of them, you're accepting weakness to a much bigger and more conventional part of Magic than tuck.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
do you guys discuss trying to fix/improve the colour identity rules at all?
i know i'm a minority in the off-colour hybrids and whatnot, but [colour identity rules discussions] expanded to regard things like extort, flip cards, off-basic-land-type-fetches, the bringers, among other corner cases that the CI deals with?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Horde of Notions
The main deck I had Tooth and Nail in was Ulasht, and the most common pair retrieved with it was Vigor and Scourge of Kher Ridges.
So, the trolly answer here is "of course". But, that's a function of the question structure. The answer to almost every "have you guys discussed" question is "yes".
What you're really asking is "Is there any interest in changing", and the answer there is no. Extort is mildly annoying, but the effort to change it seems unwarranted. Making fetches work with color identity is nice in theory, but far from worth the complexity in practice. Everything seems like it's in the right place.
Nitpick: we have an indirect impact
It's something we're conscious of, but we can't let it be a concern; we do what we think is best for the format and let the indirect stuff take care of itself. But, yes, we feel bad when someone's foil Primeval Titan suddenly halves in value. Ours did too.
Followup:
I know that in the past you guys have said that Barrier to Entry is unlikely to affect future cards, but does the ever-raising price of some of the irreplaceable cards on the Reserve List come up in your meetings as a concern?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
No, because it's "perceived barrier to entry" and is about Vintage iconicness (see my answer to shaftedman above). In order for this to become relevant again, a card would have to become strongly associated with Vintage, have a high price, and be potentially ubiquitous in Commander. Price of a card alone isn't sufficient for the criteria. The price of Imperial Seal is largely irrelevant because it has a host of cheaper replacements, so it doesn't represent a card that might keep people from being involved. Nobody is going to watch Commander be played and say "Oh, this format has Imperial Seal in it, it's not for me". The same can't be said for Moxes.
The most "likely" scenario that might get this used again is if Timetwister weirdly became a powerhouse. I'm... not offloading my extensive stash of Timetwisters any time soon.
I was thinking more along the lines of stuff like Nether Void, Gaea's Cradle, Mishra's Workshop... I guess that doesn't really change your answer though.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Command tax is changed to be whenever Commander is casted from Command Zone or added to Hand from Command Zone"?
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
This change has large impact on how the format plays. Commanders can be discarded and can count to hand size.
These are things that could be considered it it was for a major gain fort he format, but... to make Haakon a playable general?
That won't do it, since cards override the rules.
You'd need to have a game rule that either blanked commanders while they were in the command zone, or added an ability to move them out of the command zone. I think it's easier to just accept that .2% of the commanders are unplayable!
I think they have the right approach currently. I don't see the point of a deckbuilder's toolkit. I'd rather they made cool new cards and then threw key reprints into those decks occasionally.
I think you're looking for a pattern that isn't there. The stories for Theros and Khans were very focused on iconic leaders. That makes them prime territory for lots of legendary creatures. BFZ seems like it'll feature fewer, unless they have a new story structure in mind.
I think Commander has meant they're stuck with the Legendary supertype that they might otherwise have ditched, and they make sure there's at least a few legends in each set, but I think that's the extent to which Commander has impact on story design.
As to the oversaturation of commanders, what would that look like? I mean, there's clearly a point - if every creature in every set were legendary, it'd be meaningless - but I don't think we're anywhere near that. And the questions about Haakon here suggest there's still desire to make more commanders available!
Sure, there are lots of possibilities. The French one is a pretty reasonable stab at it.
That's orthogonal to the question of what's available for MTGO. I don't think making a balanced competitive 1-1 format out of commander is a goal for them.
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
[Not counting Braids, who I would rather play but that doesn't seem likely]
A competitive ban lit isn't going to stop people from playing it as a social format, but having a competitive ban list will give the format even more respect. I personally believe in as short as possible and powerful Vintage style ban list. The reason I say a Vintage style list, is when you play vintage, you go in knowing that "broken things happen." I know vintage only bans ante and dexterity cards (and Shahrazad), but I think you get my drift. I am all in favor of having ways to combo out, but the most degenerate combos should get the axe, and some have already with the current ban list:- I'm looking at you Time Vault and Painter's Servant. I am not going to pretend to know all of the cards that should be banned, but even here in in this sub forum is a thread about "solving" the format.
"Playing to Win" by Sirlin, which can be found on his page for free here. Honestly, that book should be mandatory reading for all magic players who post here and everyone on the EDHRC should check it out.
1)Consider the broken tutors (Demonic, Vampiric, etc, basically take this to mean anything presently or historically restricted in Vintage and/or banned in Legacy).
Do you think these add too much consistency to decks that try to do something fundamentally above the format's power curve (Hermit Druid shenanigans, Food Chain Prossh, Ad Nauseum combo, etc)?
2) When playing yourself, would you rather games are decided by tempo battles, an attrition battle over resources (epitomized by cards like Sarkhan the Unbroken that generate value over time), by massive haymaker plays like an X=6 Entreat the Angels, or by synergy/combo plays? Assume 100 games - how many would you want to see end in each of those fashions?
Because that's not a format we're interested in (or think is a good idea). Why do you want a group of people who have no interest in creating a competitive format producing rules for it?
We aren't exactly hiding behind that. It's the essence of the format. You're asking us to abandon the format we want in favor of one you want.
Yes. Kevin was a member of the RC, realized that what he wanted was leargely unrelated to Commander and put in the many hours required to build his own format. He deserves mad props for it.
It is indeed a niche aspect, albeit one that's disproportionately vocal online. Hundreds and hundreds of casual games are played for every tournament one.
You do realize that I also write the rules for the competitive formats, right? I may have heard of Sirlin. But since you conveniently linked to it, let's just quote the first line: "Playing to Win has been the competitive gamer's bible since the year 2000."
Commander is not intended to be the competitive gamer's format. Continuous self-improvement is very much the domain of spikes, but there are other players for whom that's not why they play the game. Why can't they have a format?