One of the biggest current problems is that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt creates a skewed advantage to games in general, where in starting hands, they determine the outcome of games far more than anything else.
In my close to 12,000 commander games I've played, without a doubt the experience that ruins it the most is frequency of games that are determined by a couple of cards in a players starting hand.
I've never encountered anybody online who doesn't think Sol Ring and Mana Crypt shouldn't be removed from the format to make the play experience more fun. Does this not just scream a desire from a community to make changes!?
Hundreds of conversations about this subject through the course of games, and everybody is in agreement.
The failure to ban Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
You seem really hung up on Sol Ring. You also threw around "fail," "failings," and "failure" an awful lot. To me, this indicates a huge misunderstanding on your part. Commander was created primarily as a casual multiplayer format. While it may have been co-opted by people wishing to play for an entirely different purpose (competitive duels), any rule or banning decisions that don't translate well are not a failing of the RC. I feel the RC has done rather well for their intended purposes. And if I could ban one card, it would not be Sol Ring.
Competitive duel and casual multi-player are completely different beasts and should not have the same ban lists. Look at Sol Ring as the poster child for this - in a fast-paces duel it can upset the balance so strongly that you never recover, yet in multi-player, anyone with too fast a start will have to face down approximately three loosely allied enemies who will generally make sure the advantage doesn't spiral out of control. I too have played thousands of games and have built close to fifty different decks now, and I find Sol Ring to be one of the most over-rated cards in the format. I can't even remember the last time I ran it in a deck.
That being said, if you want to hurl accusations of failure around, you should do it at Wizards, the very people you want to control the format, for not also providing an online version of duel commander. I wonder if they don't support that format because it conflicts too much with their interests in other duel formats or if they just haven't paid attention to the players who support it. In either case, these are the people you want in charge? As opposed to the group who created and popularized the format?
I don't want to get into an argument, I don't how or what you play or who you play against. But from my perspective Sol Ring and Mana Crypt have always been overpowered and always will be. This whole business of players will team up and rectify the advantage, just assumes that the players haven't already got a foot hold of the game. Sure sometimes you'll have an answer, or the fast mana will not result in much. But the huge percentage of the time that it does is where the problem lies. Too many times is the problem.
There are plenty of posts already on casual vs competitive, so what is true is that because there is this topic, means that there is a forum for both clearly. Look at the primers.
Like it or not, more numbers mean greater diversity in approach and demand.
What commander was created for and what is now a wider forum, is where the problems are arising. RC approach seems to be, lets just leave it in the hands of the players, let them do house rules to rectify any problems. This just hasn't worked as we need official stuff for online and for a general consensus when going to other locations, etc.
Maybe it'll hold together for a couple more years, but eventually there will be a threshold and people will want to have a more balanced platform. Its a failure..ahh psyche..
I have some bad news that i'm unable to find a direct quote for, but online play isn't a factor in the banning or unbanning of cards and WotC has said or at least has been implied to want nothing to do with taking over the format.
Why would Wizards want to take over? Again, there is no reason for them to waste resources on something that gets done for free by a competent and experienced team. It's not an actual competitive format so the ban list is really only a guideline. When it comes to competitive formats there is tournament data to justify banning cards and Wizards can point to that when making decisions. If they were to take over the Commander ban list they would have no better justification for taking action than the existing Rules Committee. There is every sign that Commander is gaining in popularity under the status quo, so it makes absolutely no sense for Wizards to spend money and take on the headache of maintaining the ban list for a casual format.
aaron just answered my tweet, he said he has no interest in taking over. obv doesnt speak for the company as a whole, but still means something
Thanks for asking. I can understand why. Taking on an extra role is something no individual (or company) wants to do. However wanting to, and needing to become two different things.
His exact reply was:
I'm not. Impossible to make everyone happy.
Is this what the problem is with the approach to commander, in that its just impossible to make everybody happy, so why bother? I feel like RC has also taken on this approach as well.
I feel that the future of the commander format will require a more pro-active governing body. What shape that comes in I'm not too sure.
The problem with keeping it with RC, is that they have proven that they don't have the inclination to do R&D into how metas are formed.
MTG Salvation does polls for bans. Things like this are what is required. Deeper analysis of the meta. Is competitive play governing commander deck designs? What does this mean for the future of bannings and rules? All these things need a more professional approach in my opinion. At the moment I feel we are being left in the wild west too much. As stated the flaws in rules and bannings are supposed to be left to groups at game time. So then what are they actually good for? Seriously why bother with their ban and rules list at all going forward? Well annoyingly WotC use it as a means to program MTGO. It also seems that when it comes to universal deck design as a whole, we use it as well. I know my local play group uses and abuses it and every primer and deck list posted on the internet certainly adheres to it. So to just say its a guideline and change accordingly, is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of how commander decks are made and played by the community as a whole.
RC vision of commander is potentially not the vision for everyone. Rather than go, bugger everyone else, we made it for our own philosophy, so everybody else doesn't matter, there needs to be a step-back and reassessment on peoples needs and wants. What these are, well that is what its all about. You have to be gathering information from the greater community and know how to analyze it correctly and make changes accordingly. I feel that its just not being done at all right now.
Not sure if I'm a bad person for thinking in this direction. I definitely don't want to accuse anybody for anything...
...but...
there is always the possibility to gain personal profit from changes.
Do we know, or care, if somebody cheap copys of cards of the banned list because they know it would be unbanned (and spike in price) shortly after.
I'm not sure if prices spike that much and I guess it is relatively unlikely that anybody did this... but... I would think that the slight chance of this should be enough to hand these decisions to a company.
Atleast the staff there should have signed some contract saying that they are not doing this.
Very far fetched. Maybe...
Wow that is actually a real problem potentially while not under contract. Never thought of that. Obviously give them the benefit of doubt, but when it comes to money for nothing and being "legal", anything is possible right? Man I would. I just would. That is why I shouldn't be on the RC
But you are right, while Wizards are printing cards and branding for the format, an outside group also shouldn't be deciding what makes cards potentially profitable or not.
While I will admit Sol ring is a card that should no be played WIt the fact that at this point we have had 25 EDH precons released, every single set had sol ring. It is not like Sol ring is a hard card to come by at this point. In fact there are 13 sets with sol ring in it. It is not hard to find. Prior to the first precons, Sol ring was >$10, now is is legal in 2DH. (mana crypt should be banned)
With sol ring being so readily available i do not thing it needs to be banned. (though if it was I would not complain, I would be annoyed for a day)
Now that said, there are certain cards that should be looked at
-Academy Rector: This is a game changing card. While it is true you can go for something small. When you play this card, you have targets which make teh board state very powerful and can even make it boring for other players. You can get it out as early as turn 2 (without sol ring or mana crypt in effect) and can sac it just as early or a turn later. Getting an Omniscience turn 3 is game breaking. The card is also $25+ not exactly the most budget friendly. Even if you find one for sale, it is quite a bit of money.
-Tooth and Nail: this card has been adressed by the RC and tey have said (i will quote) "Yea well you can just go find a Birds of Paradise and Llonwar elves" While it is true you cam, Who is going to do that? NO ONE! When you pay Tooth and nail, it is a game changer. It is enough to make a situation in which you had worked your way to teh top be completely useless. A two and half hour game, which has been a struggle for all players as everyone is playing a great game, to have Tooth an nail chnage everything in a matter of just a few seconds. (Massacre wurm + Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, Gray Merchant of Asphodel + kiki-jiki, mirror Breaker (i could find more examples)
-Iona, Shield of Emeria: This is not ever a question. Effectively being able to shut down mono colored decks, be able to hinder or even mortally wound 2 or 3 color decks. It is just not a fair or fun card.
-Derevi, Empyrial Tactician: WotC has said they made a mistake, and this little guy is banned in duel for a reason. Don't get me wrong, he is a good commander, but just a little too good. Having his Put into play" ability is what make him game breaking. He effectively makes all removal for him virtually useless. The tax does not add up. 4 mana he is back, during any players turn. Flash speed, it is just not fair. If they were to remove his ability an give him, flash, that would be fine. reasoning for this is that when you remove a general, they can bring it back but it costs more. I have played games where my general had 14 general tax. I still cast him but it was EXPENSIVE. Dervei's "put into play" is even cheaper or as much as generals being cast for the first time. You could have killed the guys ten times and e still is going to cast 4. Board wipes, Spot removal, fights, Blocking. It all proves to be useless in the end as it does not raise his cost at all. His second ability, tap when you deal damage with ANY creature. You can break through defenses with trample, unblockable or flying overhead. Not even needing to but Derevi into harm's way and still getting a benefit from it. (Some can argue he is not that great. But i would simply ask where they buy their pot and if I can get some.) The fact is, Derevi is by far the most abusable general in the game. There are others that are abusive or oppressive (Leovold, Emissary of trest) but not on the level Derevi is. Not even close. (though when Derevi is banned, Leovold may quickly follow. As there are quite a few ways to abuse him. While Wheel effects may be the easiest way, but if you get out Teferi's puzzle box, you may have very well just shut down the game. If you have Teferi, mage of Zhalfir out as well, game lock.)
i know this is more for the Rules discussion, but i figured I would give an example of 4(5) cards that the RC has not addressed like they should. Cards we have wanted banned for a while. Maybe they should listen to the community more than themselves. If you never play a card, how can you know how powerful it is? I don;t know how hard Dark souls is because I have ever played it. But others have told me it is very difficult, I believe them but i do not know form experience. If you do not see a card played but other have and seen its power. You have to take Their word for it. They are 4 people, they need more input.
In all I have read over years in how the RC views Commander and what has become I just don't see them abusing this power to trade with foresight. It feels like commander is their creation of which they are (rightfully) very proud of how far it's come and I just can't see them ruining their credit by doing such a thing.
Community takeover is not an option. Just look at the sheer amount of disagreement on what is and is not banworthy. I for example, do not think any of the cards the poster above wants banned should be banned. You need a non-democratic authority to settle this. And Wizards has already made their stance that they will not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
In all I have read over years in how the RC views Commander and what has become I just don't see them abusing this power to trade with foresight. It feels like commander is their creation of which they are (rightfully) very proud of how far it's come and I just can't see them ruining their credit by doing such a thing.
Community takeover is not an option. Just look at the sheer amount of disagreement on what is and is not banworthy. I for example, do not think any of the cards the poster above wants banned should be banned. You need a non-democratic authority to settle this. And Wizards has already made their stance that they will not.
Do you play against those cards?
Iona and T&N have been discussed by the community quite a few times and the RC has even spoke about T&N (even if they used a really bad example for use)
Derevei is just broken and Academy recto is really good and easy to abuse. But at the same time not as ban worthy as the other 3.
Wizards will never touch EDH. They make their money on boosters, not on old obscure cards. Limited is where they make the most money, second is standard. They are even pushing type 1 and 1.5 players to adopt modern. So no. They won't "take over" EDH. They will keep printing stuff for EDH because that makes money, but the rules are community based and will stay that way. If you don't like the rules, change them. If MODO is getting you upset, ask them to code duel. If you want competitive old school, play type 1 or 1.5.
In all I have read over years in how the RC views Commander and what has become I just don't see them abusing this power to trade with foresight. It feels like commander is their creation of which they are (rightfully) very proud of how far it's come and I just can't see them ruining their credit by doing such a thing.
Community takeover is not an option. Just look at the sheer amount of disagreement on what is and is not banworthy. I for example, do not think any of the cards the poster above wants banned should be banned. You need a non-democratic authority to settle this. And Wizards has already made their stance that they will not.
Do you play against those cards?
Iona and T&N have been discussed by the community quite a few times and the RC has even spoke about T&N (even if they used a really bad example for use)
Derevei is just broken and Academy recto is really good and easy to abuse. But at the same time not as ban worthy as the other 3.
As my sig says: "Cards are only as unfun and/or degenerate as the person playing them allows them to be". If someone uses T&N to get their infinite kill combo then I don't feel that's much fun, but that's because of how they use it. If someone can recover from a board wipe by topdecking T&N and immediately putting two threats into play then there's nothing wrong with that. My own Derevi deck centers around evasive creatures to get untap triggers to use for stuff like Spectral Force, Lux CannonPhyrexian Colossus and Reveka, Wizard Savant. It's nowhere near oppresive. And yes, Sol Ring and Mana Crypt can lead to explosive starts but topdecking one in turn 10 is making noone happy. Academy Rector is a good card yes, but not OP. It's the rarity of the card on the market that causes it to be an expensive card. Good and powerfull are not neccesarily diametric opposites of fun
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
aaron just answered my tweet, he said he has no interest in taking over. obv doesnt speak for the company as a whole, but still means something
Thanks for asking. I can understand why. Taking on an extra role is something no individual (or company) wants to do. However wanting to, and needing to become two different things.
His exact reply was:
I'm not. Impossible to make everyone happy.
Is this what the problem is with the approach to commander, in that its just impossible to make everybody happy, so why bother? I feel like RC has also taken on this approach as well.
I feel that the future of the commander format will require a more pro-active governing body. What shape that comes in I'm not too sure.
The problem with keeping it with RC, is that they have proven that they don't have the inclination to do R&D into how metas are formed.
MTG Salvation does polls for bans. Things like this are what is required. Deeper analysis of the meta. Is competitive play governing commander deck designs? What does this mean for the future of bannings and rules? All these things need a more professional approach in my opinion. At the moment I feel we are being left in the wild west too much. As stated the flaws in rules and bannings are supposed to be left to groups at game time. So then what are they actually good for? Seriously why bother with their ban and rules list at all going forward? Well annoyingly WotC use it as a means to program MTGO. It also seems that when it comes to universal deck design as a whole, we use it as well. I know my local play group uses and abuses it and every primer and deck list posted on the internet certainly adheres to it. So to just say its a guideline and change accordingly, is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of how commander decks are made and played by the community as a whole.
RC vision of commander is potentially not the vision for everyone. Rather than go, bugger everyone else, we made it for our own philosophy, so everybody else doesn't matter, there needs to be a step-back and reassessment on peoples needs and wants. What these are, well that is what its all about. You have to be gathering information from the greater community and know how to analyze it correctly and make changes accordingly. I feel that its just not being done at all right now.
How do you do deep analysis of a casual kitchen table format with almost nothing in the way of meaningful data? MTGS posters are a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater Magic community. The vast majority of players do not post on forums. There are somewhere between 20-30 million Magic players worldwide and MTGS has a total of 340,000 registered users. The number of active users is probably less than 15,000. The number of active posters is likely less than 2,000. You think that's going to represent the greater community?
People tend to be far more vocal when they are upset about something than when they are happy with the status quo. If you try to base ban decisions on what a tiny vocal minority of players thinks you're going to have a situation where anything even remotely powerful gets banned once enough people complain.
Despite your assertions, there is no universally agreed upon idea of what should be banned and there is no way to get accurate data about a casual format without a large scale data collection effort, and that's expensive.
Wow that is actually a real problem potentially while not under contract. Never thought of that. Obviously give them the benefit of doubt, but when it comes to money for nothing and being "legal", anything is possible right? Man I would. I just would. That is why I shouldn't be on the RC
But you are right, while Wizards are printing cards and branding for the format, an outside group also shouldn't be deciding what makes cards potentially profitable or not.
Definitely a conflict of interests there.
No, there is not "definitely a conflict of interests." It's only a conflict of interests if they stand to gain financially by making decisions, and your entire point in this thread is that they're too reluctant to ban cards. Which is it? You really need to stop using such definitive statements for your subjective opinions. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the majority of posters here don't.
As my sig says: "Cards are only as unfun and/or degenerate as the person playing them allows them to be".
The problem with this sentiment is that every individual has a different concept of fun and/or degenerate. My play group consists of people who enjoy slogging through the most degenerate stuff we can come up with, while the other edh group at my LGS appears to hold the position that a card is only fun if it isn't ending the game.
Sure, there is a chance of spending $4 on a booster and getting the Mythic Rare $30 super card. There is also a chance of surviving putting your tongue in a light socket.
Moved to the Commander Rules Discussion Forum
I can't really think of another group I'd want to see in charge of the format. I may not agree with a lot of decisions the RC makes, but I do think they do a good job overall, and they do their best to do good by the format.
A community driven list seems like it would be a disaster. This subforum is proof enough that there is a very wide opion of what should and shouldn't be legal. At best, we accomplish nothing because it always goes to bickering, at worst, mob mentality happens and things are banned or unbanned without much actual reasoning.
Even if we elected a few people on our own, who do we pick? Everyone has a different idea of what this format should be, it's a strength and a weakness because of how diverse the players are. Even WoTC I wouldn't want to see take it over, because I doubt they'd find people more willing to put in the time and care that Sheldon and Co. do.
This subforum is proof enough that there is a very wide opion of what should and shouldn't be legal. At best, we accomplish nothing because it always goes to bickering, at worst, mob mentality happens and things are banned or unbanned without much actual reasoning.
So you're saying we're a special group of people in this subforum?
And to be clear, this post has been way more bickering/mob mentality than we've been lately lol...
So you're saying we're a special group of people in this subforum?
And to be clear, this post has been way more bickering/mob mentality than we've been lately lol...
Well, yes. Take a look at a few of the SCD threads (let's use Sol Ring as the easy example) and we see a bunch of differing opinions on whether or not it is ban worthy (NOTE: I'm not arguing this either way in this thread, it'seems just an example of a controversial card).
The second part directly referred to a scenario where we were using a community driven list, rather than any current discussion here.
In all I have read over years in how the RC views Commander and what has become I just don't see them abusing this power to trade with foresight. It feels like commander is their creation of which they are (rightfully) very proud of how far it's come and I just can't see them ruining their credit by doing such a thing.
Community takeover is not an option. Just look at the sheer amount of disagreement on what is and is not banworthy. I for example, do not think any of the cards the poster above wants banned should be banned. You need a non-democratic authority to settle this. And Wizards has already made their stance that they will not.
Do you play against those cards?
Iona and T&N have been discussed by the community quite a few times and the RC has even spoke about T&N (even if they used a really bad example for use)
Derevei is just broken and Academy recto is really good and easy to abuse. But at the same time not as ban worthy as the other 3.
As my sig says: "Cards are only as unfun and/or degenerate as the person playing them allows them to be". If someone uses T&N to get their infinite kill combo then I don't feel that's much fun, but that's because of how they use it. If someone can recover from a board wipe by topdecking T&N and immediately putting two threats into play then there's nothing wrong with that. My own Derevi deck centers around evasive creatures to get untap triggers to use for stuff like Spectral Force, Lux CannonPhyrexian Colossus and Reveka, Wizard Savant. It's nowhere near oppresive. And yes, Sol Ring and Mana Crypt can lead to explosive starts but topdecking one in turn 10 is making noone happy. Academy Rector is a good card yes, but not OP. It's the rarity of the card on the market that causes it to be an expensive card. Good and powerfull are not neccesarily diametric opposites of fun
You have to keep in mind, Some people see a card they can abuse and are driven to do so. if you attempt to make a "fun deck" or a "nice deck" Some cards just cannot do it nicely. Derevi is one of those cards. He is a great card and that is what makes him so annoying to play against. In fact Derevi decks leave a bad taste in my mouth now. When i first saw Derevi I was okay with him, but after seeing him in practice, not card I enjoy seeing. My buddy even used Derevi to build bird/Flying creatures Tribal, and that much flying became an issue for blocking.
No, there is not "definitely a conflict of interests." It's only a conflict of interests if they stand to gain financially by making decisions, and your entire point in this thread is that they're too reluctant to ban cards. Which is it? You really need to stop using such definitive statements for your subjective opinions. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the majority of posters here don't.
Buy up as many Primeval Titans as you can. Unban it in commander with some BS about the game has changed enough that it is not a "traditional problem". Watch the price soar.
I think the way to go forward is for the http://mtgcommander.net/ to remain as the founding EDH (Elder Dragon Highlander) format with their own set of rules and bannings. Their policy is more we don't want to ban anything and that's fine keep that for the kitchen table format, whatever I don't care, they are not doing anything to improve that format, so leave it be. This is EDH.
Then Wizards have their own format Commander. It is actually their name and branding. It will get to a point where demand will reach a threshold where decisions will have to be made, and can be done separately to the RC.
Will this happen? It all depends on demand. If the demand is there for change, then it becomes a reality. If the demand is not there, then it won't. Time will tell.
The biggest problem I have that no one seems to talk about is... this format killed casual 60-card Magic, a format with no banlist and only social contract. If I showed up to an LGS with a Sol Ring in my 60-card tabletop deck, I'd get laughed out. And in fact, this happened to me the very first time I went to an LGS. Even my college friends wouldn't let me play if I ran that card.
Now if I show up to an LGS with a powerful EDH deck, it's possible people may complain but I can point to the banlist and say "what I'm doing is in the rules". Yes, there are certainly cases where people would accommodate, I don't mind borrowing decks, but it would just be nice to know I could play a legal deck wherever I went. Basically, 60-card tabletop was regulated only by accommodating for power level, whereas EDH says it should be regulated by power level but also has a banlist that allows the highest power level of any format, perhaps more than vintage. It's easier to follow a list than a subjective spirit of fun.
My point is: we can't just pretend EDH exists in a vacuum. To say "if you don't like the spirit of EDH go play something else" doesn't work because the only other option now is tournament Magic. There are still a lot of people who want to play serious games in a casual multiplayer format and the ONLY option now is EDH.
No, there is not "definitely a conflict of interests." It's only a conflict of interests if they stand to gain financially by making decisions, and your entire point in this thread is that they're too reluctant to ban cards. Which is it? You really need to stop using such definitive statements for your subjective opinions. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the majority of posters here don't.
Buy up as many Primeval Titans as you can. Unban it in commander with some BS about the game has changed enough that it is not a "traditional problem". Watch the price soar.
Complete nonsense. Yes, the RC could do that, but so could anyone in a position to know which cards are about to become unbanned, including Wizards employees or whatever community democratic council you're imagining. And would you mind addressing any of the other points I've brought up? You're conveniently cherry picking things to respond to while posting the same arguments over and over despite having your assertions challenged.
No, there is not "definitely a conflict of interests." It's only a conflict of interests if they stand to gain financially by making decisions, and your entire point in this thread is that they're too reluctant to ban cards. Which is it? You really need to stop using such definitive statements for your subjective opinions. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the majority of posters here don't.
Buy up as many Primeval Titans as you can. Unban it in commander with some BS about the game has changed enough that it is not a "traditional problem". Watch the price soar.
Complete nonsense. Yes, the RC could do that, but so could anyone in a position to know which cards are about to become unbanned, including Wizards employees or whatever community democratic council you're imagining. And would you mind addressing any of the other points I've brought up? You're conveniently cherry picking things to respond to while posting the same arguments over and over despite having your assertions challenged.
I'd assume Wizard employees have to sign as part of their contract that there is no conflict of interest in investment with insider knowledge of development and bannings. Does insider trading happen in businesses? Of course it does, but at least legally they can be accountable. In this instance the RC can do whatever they want. No repercussions.
How do you do deep analysis of a casual kitchen table format with almost nothing in the way of meaningful data? MTGS posters are a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater Magic community. The vast majority of players do not post on forums. There are somewhere between 20-30 million Magic players worldwide and MTGS has a total of 340,000 registered users. The number of active users is probably less than 15,000. The number of active posters is likely less than 2,000. You think that's going to represent the greater community?
People tend to be far more vocal when they are upset about something than when they are happy with the status quo. If you try to base ban decisions on what a tiny vocal minority of players thinks you're going to have a situation where anything even remotely powerful gets banned once enough people complain.
Despite your assertions, there is no universally agreed upon idea of what should be banned and there is no way to get accurate data about a casual format without a large scale data collection effort, and that's expensive.
Now that I've read through people responses, I think the way to go is to over time divide the format into the original EDH and keep that forum for rules and bannings, so that there is room for the free-for-all wild west of the format. But Wizards should take their own direction with their branding and format Commander. Commander is still their casual format, but with its popularity the need to create some semblance of a fair game is still paramount. You will find that eventually when you get a enough people playing a game, the problems rise to the top and something has to give.
You could say the same thing about Vintage, Legacy, Modern and Standard, that there are just so many players that its impossible to understand the metas. But the hard decisions are made and the formats are tackled. There is always controversy within those decisions, but at least some progress is made on trying to fix the format to keep it more balanced. This is just not happening at the moment with EDH. I think its fair to say under the current RC, that they never will seek to make it more balanced. They are just not interested, nor have the time, resources, etc.
Eventually Commander (not EDH, they can keep that format for those that like over-powered/unfair play) will need to be under the same fold of creating a game that is more fair and fun for more players.
I don't know why people think this such a special or hard thing to do. Its just inevitable, so my debate is why wait?
Because it will get a lot worse when another entity takes over? People like you always have complaints, and never have answers. If you cant get your playgroup to change, I would bet the ideas are not super popular.
Banning to make it Duel popular and/or tournament friendly will only make it worse. Lets delay that as long as possible.
RC vision of commander is potentially not the vision for everyone. Rather than go, bugger everyone else, we made it for our own philosophy, so everybody else doesn't matter, there needs to be a step-back and reassessment on peoples needs and wants. What these are, well that is what its all about. You have to be gathering information from the greater community and know how to analyze it correctly and make changes accordingly. I feel that its just not being done at all right now.
No there does not need to be a reassessment. It is popular, gets more popular every day, and is different than every other format for a reason. They do get a TON of feedback, and if you read what they had to say you would know that. You would know they take other people into account, and like it was said in the tweet 'You cant make everyone happy', they know that and dont bother to try.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
The biggest problem I have that no one seems to talk about is... this format killed casual 60-card Magic, a format with no banlist and only social contract. If I showed up to an LGS with a Sol Ring in my 60-card tabletop deck, I'd get laughed out. And in fact, this happened to me the very first time I went to an LGS. Even my college friends wouldn't let me play if I ran that card.
Now if I show up to an LGS with a powerful EDH deck, it's possible people may complain but I can point to the banlist and say "what I'm doing is in the rules". Yes, there are certainly cases where people would accommodate, I don't mind borrowing decks, but it would just be nice to know I could play a legal deck wherever I went. Basically, 60-card tabletop was regulated only by accommodating for power level, whereas EDH says it should be regulated by power level but also has a banlist that allows the highest power level of any format, perhaps more than vintage. It's easier to follow a list than a subjective spirit of fun.
I've played 60-card casual too, and you know what? It's just as degenerate and far more consistent than Commander, and doesn't have a set of format-specific rules to abide by. Trying to play my tribal Myr deck against a blue/white Omniscience deck or monogreen ramp/Eldrazi is miserable. Even in 60-card casual, there are people who think nothing of stomping your fun into the dirt. After all, why wouldn't they? Their decks are designed to win as fast and consistently as possible. Why should I pit my casual decks against theirs? At least there's some variance and politics in Commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are plenty of posts already on casual vs competitive, so what is true is that because there is this topic, means that there is a forum for both clearly. Look at the primers.
Like it or not, more numbers mean greater diversity in approach and demand.
What commander was created for and what is now a wider forum, is where the problems are arising. RC approach seems to be, lets just leave it in the hands of the players, let them do house rules to rectify any problems. This just hasn't worked as we need official stuff for online and for a general consensus when going to other locations, etc.
Maybe it'll hold together for a couple more years, but eventually there will be a threshold and people will want to have a more balanced platform. Its a failure..ahh psyche..
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
His exact reply was:
Is this what the problem is with the approach to commander, in that its just impossible to make everybody happy, so why bother? I feel like RC has also taken on this approach as well.
I feel that the future of the commander format will require a more pro-active governing body. What shape that comes in I'm not too sure.
The problem with keeping it with RC, is that they have proven that they don't have the inclination to do R&D into how metas are formed.
MTG Salvation does polls for bans. Things like this are what is required. Deeper analysis of the meta. Is competitive play governing commander deck designs? What does this mean for the future of bannings and rules? All these things need a more professional approach in my opinion. At the moment I feel we are being left in the wild west too much. As stated the flaws in rules and bannings are supposed to be left to groups at game time. So then what are they actually good for? Seriously why bother with their ban and rules list at all going forward? Well annoyingly WotC use it as a means to program MTGO. It also seems that when it comes to universal deck design as a whole, we use it as well. I know my local play group uses and abuses it and every primer and deck list posted on the internet certainly adheres to it. So to just say its a guideline and change accordingly, is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of how commander decks are made and played by the community as a whole.
RC vision of commander is potentially not the vision for everyone. Rather than go, bugger everyone else, we made it for our own philosophy, so everybody else doesn't matter, there needs to be a step-back and reassessment on peoples needs and wants. What these are, well that is what its all about. You have to be gathering information from the greater community and know how to analyze it correctly and make changes accordingly. I feel that its just not being done at all right now.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
But you are right, while Wizards are printing cards and branding for the format, an outside group also shouldn't be deciding what makes cards potentially profitable or not.
Definitely a conflict of interests there.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
With sol ring being so readily available i do not thing it needs to be banned. (though if it was I would not complain, I would be annoyed for a day)
Now that said, there are certain cards that should be looked at
-Academy Rector: This is a game changing card. While it is true you can go for something small. When you play this card, you have targets which make teh board state very powerful and can even make it boring for other players. You can get it out as early as turn 2 (without sol ring or mana crypt in effect) and can sac it just as early or a turn later. Getting an Omniscience turn 3 is game breaking. The card is also $25+ not exactly the most budget friendly. Even if you find one for sale, it is quite a bit of money.
-Tooth and Nail: this card has been adressed by the RC and tey have said (i will quote) "Yea well you can just go find a Birds of Paradise and Llonwar elves" While it is true you cam, Who is going to do that? NO ONE! When you pay Tooth and nail, it is a game changer. It is enough to make a situation in which you had worked your way to teh top be completely useless. A two and half hour game, which has been a struggle for all players as everyone is playing a great game, to have Tooth an nail chnage everything in a matter of just a few seconds. (Massacre wurm + Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, Gray Merchant of Asphodel + kiki-jiki, mirror Breaker (i could find more examples)
-Iona, Shield of Emeria: This is not ever a question. Effectively being able to shut down mono colored decks, be able to hinder or even mortally wound 2 or 3 color decks. It is just not a fair or fun card.
-Derevi, Empyrial Tactician: WotC has said they made a mistake, and this little guy is banned in duel for a reason. Don't get me wrong, he is a good commander, but just a little too good. Having his Put into play" ability is what make him game breaking. He effectively makes all removal for him virtually useless. The tax does not add up. 4 mana he is back, during any players turn. Flash speed, it is just not fair. If they were to remove his ability an give him, flash, that would be fine. reasoning for this is that when you remove a general, they can bring it back but it costs more. I have played games where my general had 14 general tax. I still cast him but it was EXPENSIVE. Dervei's "put into play" is even cheaper or as much as generals being cast for the first time. You could have killed the guys ten times and e still is going to cast 4. Board wipes, Spot removal, fights, Blocking. It all proves to be useless in the end as it does not raise his cost at all. His second ability, tap when you deal damage with ANY creature. You can break through defenses with trample, unblockable or flying overhead. Not even needing to but Derevi into harm's way and still getting a benefit from it. (Some can argue he is not that great. But i would simply ask where they buy their pot and if I can get some.) The fact is, Derevi is by far the most abusable general in the game. There are others that are abusive or oppressive (Leovold, Emissary of trest) but not on the level Derevi is. Not even close. (though when Derevi is banned, Leovold may quickly follow. As there are quite a few ways to abuse him. While Wheel effects may be the easiest way, but if you get out Teferi's puzzle box, you may have very well just shut down the game. If you have Teferi, mage of Zhalfir out as well, game lock.)
i know this is more for the Rules discussion, but i figured I would give an example of 4(5) cards that the RC has not addressed like they should. Cards we have wanted banned for a while. Maybe they should listen to the community more than themselves. If you never play a card, how can you know how powerful it is? I don;t know how hard Dark souls is because I have ever played it. But others have told me it is very difficult, I believe them but i do not know form experience. If you do not see a card played but other have and seen its power. You have to take Their word for it. They are 4 people, they need more input.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Community takeover is not an option. Just look at the sheer amount of disagreement on what is and is not banworthy. I for example, do not think any of the cards the poster above wants banned should be banned. You need a non-democratic authority to settle this. And Wizards has already made their stance that they will not.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Do you play against those cards?
Iona and T&N have been discussed by the community quite a few times and the RC has even spoke about T&N (even if they used a really bad example for use)
Derevei is just broken and Academy recto is really good and easy to abuse. But at the same time not as ban worthy as the other 3.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
As my sig says: "Cards are only as unfun and/or degenerate as the person playing them allows them to be". If someone uses T&N to get their infinite kill combo then I don't feel that's much fun, but that's because of how they use it. If someone can recover from a board wipe by topdecking T&N and immediately putting two threats into play then there's nothing wrong with that. My own Derevi deck centers around evasive creatures to get untap triggers to use for stuff like Spectral Force, Lux Cannon Phyrexian Colossus and Reveka, Wizard Savant. It's nowhere near oppresive. And yes, Sol Ring and Mana Crypt can lead to explosive starts but topdecking one in turn 10 is making noone happy. Academy Rector is a good card yes, but not OP. It's the rarity of the card on the market that causes it to be an expensive card. Good and powerfull are not neccesarily diametric opposites of fun
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
How do you do deep analysis of a casual kitchen table format with almost nothing in the way of meaningful data? MTGS posters are a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater Magic community. The vast majority of players do not post on forums. There are somewhere between 20-30 million Magic players worldwide and MTGS has a total of 340,000 registered users. The number of active users is probably less than 15,000. The number of active posters is likely less than 2,000. You think that's going to represent the greater community?
People tend to be far more vocal when they are upset about something than when they are happy with the status quo. If you try to base ban decisions on what a tiny vocal minority of players thinks you're going to have a situation where anything even remotely powerful gets banned once enough people complain.
Despite your assertions, there is no universally agreed upon idea of what should be banned and there is no way to get accurate data about a casual format without a large scale data collection effort, and that's expensive.
No, there is not "definitely a conflict of interests." It's only a conflict of interests if they stand to gain financially by making decisions, and your entire point in this thread is that they're too reluctant to ban cards. Which is it? You really need to stop using such definitive statements for your subjective opinions. Not everyone agrees with you. In fact, the majority of posters here don't.
The problem with this sentiment is that every individual has a different concept of fun and/or degenerate. My play group consists of people who enjoy slogging through the most degenerate stuff we can come up with, while the other edh group at my LGS appears to hold the position that a card is only fun if it isn't ending the game.
I can't really think of another group I'd want to see in charge of the format. I may not agree with a lot of decisions the RC makes, but I do think they do a good job overall, and they do their best to do good by the format.
A community driven list seems like it would be a disaster. This subforum is proof enough that there is a very wide opion of what should and shouldn't be legal. At best, we accomplish nothing because it always goes to bickering, at worst, mob mentality happens and things are banned or unbanned without much actual reasoning.
Even if we elected a few people on our own, who do we pick? Everyone has a different idea of what this format should be, it's a strength and a weakness because of how diverse the players are. Even WoTC I wouldn't want to see take it over, because I doubt they'd find people more willing to put in the time and care that Sheldon and Co. do.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
And to be clear, this post has been way more bickering/mob mentality than we've been lately lol...
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
The second part directly referred to a scenario where we were using a community driven list, rather than any current discussion here.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
You have to keep in mind, Some people see a card they can abuse and are driven to do so. if you attempt to make a "fun deck" or a "nice deck" Some cards just cannot do it nicely. Derevi is one of those cards. He is a great card and that is what makes him so annoying to play against. In fact Derevi decks leave a bad taste in my mouth now. When i first saw Derevi I was okay with him, but after seeing him in practice, not card I enjoy seeing. My buddy even used Derevi to build bird/Flying creatures Tribal, and that much flying became an issue for blocking.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Then Wizards have their own format Commander. It is actually their name and branding. It will get to a point where demand will reach a threshold where decisions will have to be made, and can be done separately to the RC.
Will this happen? It all depends on demand. If the demand is there for change, then it becomes a reality. If the demand is not there, then it won't. Time will tell.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Now if I show up to an LGS with a powerful EDH deck, it's possible people may complain but I can point to the banlist and say "what I'm doing is in the rules". Yes, there are certainly cases where people would accommodate, I don't mind borrowing decks, but it would just be nice to know I could play a legal deck wherever I went. Basically, 60-card tabletop was regulated only by accommodating for power level, whereas EDH says it should be regulated by power level but also has a banlist that allows the highest power level of any format, perhaps more than vintage. It's easier to follow a list than a subjective spirit of fun.
My point is: we can't just pretend EDH exists in a vacuum. To say "if you don't like the spirit of EDH go play something else" doesn't work because the only other option now is tournament Magic. There are still a lot of people who want to play serious games in a casual multiplayer format and the ONLY option now is EDH.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
Complete nonsense. Yes, the RC could do that, but so could anyone in a position to know which cards are about to become unbanned, including Wizards employees or whatever community democratic council you're imagining. And would you mind addressing any of the other points I've brought up? You're conveniently cherry picking things to respond to while posting the same arguments over and over despite having your assertions challenged.
Now that I've read through people responses, I think the way to go is to over time divide the format into the original EDH and keep that forum for rules and bannings, so that there is room for the free-for-all wild west of the format. But Wizards should take their own direction with their branding and format Commander. Commander is still their casual format, but with its popularity the need to create some semblance of a fair game is still paramount. You will find that eventually when you get a enough people playing a game, the problems rise to the top and something has to give.
You could say the same thing about Vintage, Legacy, Modern and Standard, that there are just so many players that its impossible to understand the metas. But the hard decisions are made and the formats are tackled. There is always controversy within those decisions, but at least some progress is made on trying to fix the format to keep it more balanced. This is just not happening at the moment with EDH. I think its fair to say under the current RC, that they never will seek to make it more balanced. They are just not interested, nor have the time, resources, etc.
Eventually Commander (not EDH, they can keep that format for those that like over-powered/unfair play) will need to be under the same fold of creating a game that is more fair and fun for more players.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Banning to make it Duel popular and/or tournament friendly will only make it worse. Lets delay that as long as possible.
No there does not need to be a reassessment. It is popular, gets more popular every day, and is different than every other format for a reason. They do get a TON of feedback, and if you read what they had to say you would know that. You would know they take other people into account, and like it was said in the tweet 'You cant make everyone happy', they know that and dont bother to try.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
I've played 60-card casual too, and you know what? It's just as degenerate and far more consistent than Commander, and doesn't have a set of format-specific rules to abide by. Trying to play my tribal Myr deck against a blue/white Omniscience deck or monogreen ramp/Eldrazi is miserable. Even in 60-card casual, there are people who think nothing of stomping your fun into the dirt. After all, why wouldn't they? Their decks are designed to win as fast and consistently as possible. Why should I pit my casual decks against theirs? At least there's some variance and politics in Commander.