Your commander should never, under any circumstance, be permanently lost if you don't want it too.
I disagree. Because most decks at the very least have significant synergy with their commander, getting rid of the commander should be an acceptable strategy. We used to have tuck, but that was taken from us. Now our best options are Song of the Dryads and Imprisoned in the Moon (with honorable mention to Lignify and Darksteel Mutation, but creatures are easy to get off the board and an indestructible blocker is useful).
You shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket, and when it comes to EDH that means that, in part, you should still be able to win if you lose access to your commander. Whether that means it's been exiled forever, it's in your graveyard when you have no means of getting it back, an opponent steals it, or the commander tax has just risen too high for you to pay, if you've built your deck in such a way that you need your commander to be in the game at all, you should reconsider your decklist.
It was "taken" because it was unintented in the first place. Any way to permanently remove a commander from its owner is an outlying issue at this point.
As far as the rules on this, I am pretty sure that gaining control of a player does not mean that that player gets to decide where the commander goes when it dies, etc. As ErtaiPlaneswalker already stated, the owner of the commander will always be the one to make this decision.
Edit: To double-check this, I created a thread in the rules forum of this site to make sure of the ruling. (Please see below for official ruling and why.)
Update: I was incorrect in my initial thoughts, and Mindslaver-ing a player does allow that player to put the commander wherever he or she chooses upon it moving to a non-command zone zone. All I can do at this point is agree that this kind of interaction is lame at best, and would hope for a way to prevent this issue.
Your commander should never, under any circumstance, be permanently lost if you don't want it too.
I disagree. Because most decks at the very least have significant synergy with their commander, getting rid of the commander should be an acceptable strategy. We used to have tuck, but that was taken from us. Now our best options are Song of the Dryads and Imprisoned in the Moon (with honorable mention to Lignify and Darksteel Mutation, but creatures are easy to get off the board and an indestructible blocker is useful).
You shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket, and when it comes to EDH that means that, in part, you should still be able to win if you lose access to your commander. Whether that means it's been exiled forever, it's in your graveyard when you have no means of getting it back, an opponent steals it, or the commander tax has just risen too high for you to pay, if you've built your deck in such a way that you need your commander to be in the game at all, you should reconsider your decklist.
I can see where you're coming from but I think we have to agree to disagree then. Imo, the very format is based on the idea that you build your deck around your commander and all the rules to prevent it from being put into the graveyard/exiled/tucked make it clear to me that the intention is to always keep your commander able to return.
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.
It was "taken" because it was unintented in the first place.
[citation needed]
EDH came together in what, 2006? Tuck was removed in 2015. So, 9 years of tuck being "fine", or at least not so bad in the RC's eyes that a change was warranted. Further, the reasons given for the change were:
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
2) The presence of tuck encourages players to play more tutors so that in case their commander gets sent to the library, they can get it back—exactly the opposite of what we want (namely, discouraging the over-representation of tutors).
3) While we are keenly aware that tuck is a great weapon against problematic commanders, the tools to do so are available only in blue and white, potentially forcing players into feeling like they need to play those colors in order to survive. We prefer as diverse a field as possible.
4) It clears up some corner case rules awkwardness, mostly dealing with knowing the commander’s locationin the library (since highly unlikely to actually end up there).
I don't see "it was unintented in the first place" on that list.
And yet, one of the core rules of the format (commander tax) is quite unambiguously designed to punish players for depending on their commander TOO much. For a deck that falls apart without the commander on board, the difference between reaching, say, Commander Tax 10 and permanent exile is negligible. This suggests that the initial design of the format doesn't actually support building on the assumption that you will never ever lose access to your commander.
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
I don't see "it was unintented in the first place" on that list.
But I do see the quoted part, which exactly proves the OP's point. The commander tax is a mechanism that, as the cost increases, allows players to temporarily get rid of opposing commander until their opponents can once again afford to cast them. Permanently getting rid of someones commander is obviously (as your own quote shows) something unwanted by the RC. That makes the Mindslaver issue a loophole in the rules that should be closed.
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.
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
I don't see "it was unintented in the first place" on that list.
But I do see the quoted part, which exactly proves the OP's point. The commander tax is a mechanism that, as the cost increases, allows players to temporarily get rid of opposing commander until their opponents can once again afford to cast them. Permanently getting rid of someones commander is obviously (as your own quote shows) something unwanted by the RC. That makes the Mindslaver issue a loophole in the rules that should be closed.
You realize the conversation you're quoting is a tangent about tuck, right?
Right, but it's a tiny loophole which happens only under somewhat rare and specific conditions--and those aren't the things you write rules for.
A tiny loophole, when closed, would have a negligible impact on the format as a whole? I mean, its a total fun-suck for this to happen, why let it exist?
This sounds like the guy with a nail in his tire. He could get it plugged/patched, but sees no difference in just filling the tire with air when it gets low...
Right, but it's a tiny loophole which happens only under somewhat rare and specific conditions--and those aren't the things you write rules for.
A tiny loophole, when closed, would have a negligible impact on the format as a whole? I mean, its a total fun-suck for this to happen, why let it exist?
This sounds like the guy with a nail in his tire. He could get it plugged/patched, but sees no difference in just filling the tire with air when it gets low...
It's a total fun-suck(I will agree with that) WHEN IT HAPPENS. This sounds like something that people should be prepared for, as the preparations can help against other things as well. Answers to this are not niche(hexproof, Stifle effects, preemptiveexile, etc), so you should have something available to stop this from happening...unless it's your first time playing against the deck, or you have a bum draw.
The 'nail in the tire' analogy is not quite accurate. I would equate it more to a pothole on a highway, that when you hit it, you throw your axle out of alignment. This pothole only shows up VERY rarely, and few find it to be a problem. Now, you have three choices: pre-emptively avoid the hole, hit it anyway each time and get your axle re-aligned, or bug someone else to fix it.
Besides, it doesn't sound like WotC will make another such card, so why make an entirely new ruling for ONE card that so rarely is an issue?
Right, but it's a tiny loophole which happens only under somewhat rare and specific conditions--and those aren't the things you write rules for.
A tiny loophole, when closed, would have a negligible impact on the format as a whole? I mean, its a total fun-suck for this to happen, why let it exist?
This sounds like the guy with a nail in his tire. He could get it plugged/patched, but sees no difference in just filling the tire with air when it gets low...
It's a total fun-suck(I will agree with that) WHEN IT HAPPENS. This sounds like something that people should be prepared for, as the preparations can help against other things as well. Answers to this are not niche(hexproof, Stifle effects, preemptiveexile, etc), so you should have something available to stop this from happening...unless it's your first time playing against the deck, or you have a bum draw.
The 'nail in the tire' analogy is not quite accurate. I would equate it more to a pothole on a highway, that when you hit it, you throw your axle out of alignment. This pothole only shows up VERY rarely, and few find it to be a problem. Now, you have three choices: pre-emptively avoid the hole, hit it anyway each time and get your axle re-aligned, or bug someone else to fix it.
Besides, it doesn't sound like WotC will make another such card, so why make an entirely new ruling for ONE card that so rarely is an issue?
What is the downside? There isn't one as far as I can tell. You protect a player from this sort of thing, and the format as a whole is better off for it.
Answers are niche, about as niche as combating tuck. Had tuck not been eliminated, I wouldn't see a problem, but as it stands, leaving this loophole open is just nonsense. At the very least, a tucked general can be drawn. What do you use to remove a Commander from exile?
Emrakul, the Promised End I guess isn't a card. The effect will be rare, but as was tuck along with being tied to very specific colors. Both effects that lead to this scenario are colorless, with a pair in B, and the recovery options mirror the same card count.
I haven't been critical of the RC of late, but this is just one of those things that seems like a "no-brainer". I can assure you there won't be an overwhelming outcry over its removal like there was when tuck was reworked.
Right, but it's a tiny loophole which happens only under somewhat rare and specific conditions--and those aren't the things you write rules for.
Commander format rules already supersede general magic rules where they contradict. You wouldn't even have to change the rules, just the interpretation of your own rules you already have: the owner decides what happens with commander, not the controller. If i Mindslaver someone and then cast Unsummon on one of their creatures while I control the player it doesn't go to my hand, it goes to the hand of the player I control because he/she remains the owner. Why would this rule work different?
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.
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
I don't see "it was unintented in the first place" on that list.
But I do see the quoted part, which exactly proves the OP's point. The commander tax is a mechanism that, as the cost increases, allows players to temporarily get rid of opposing commander until their opponents can once again afford to cast them. Permanently getting rid of someones commander is obviously (as your own quote shows) something unwanted by the RC. That makes the Mindslaver issue a loophole in the rules that should be closed.
You realize the conversation you're quoting is a tangent about tuck, right?
So? It's the best analogy availabe and proves my point exactly?
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.
You wouldn't even have to change the rules, just the interpretation of your own rules you already have: the owner decides what happens with commander, not the controller. If i Mindslaver someone and then cast Unsummon on one of their creatures while I control the player it doesn't go to my hand, it goes to the hand of the player I control because he/she remains the owner. Why would this rule work different?
Because that's not how the rule works. You don't just get to "interpret" this. The owner is choosing where the commander goes. But the rules say that the opponent dictates all choices that are made. You would have to add an exception to the CR that says "the opponent cannot make this choice for commander replacement".
Can this be done? Of course. Should it? Much more debatable. Rules to cover corners aren't great. We're in a place where you get to have access to your commander 99% of the time, and that's probably good enough.
Frankly, someone who thinks consistently using the Mindslaver loophole to get rid of your commander is a good way to play is someone who I'd avoid playing with regardless of the existence of that rule or not.
...
What is the downside? There isn't one as far as I can tell. You protect a player from this sort of thing, and the format as a whole is better off for it.
Answers are niche, about as niche as combating tuck. Had tuck not been eliminated, I wouldn't see a problem, but as it stands, leaving this loophole open is just nonsense. At the very least, a tucked general can be drawn. What do you use to remove a Commander from exile?
Emrakul, the Promised End I guess isn't a card. The effect will be rare, but as was tuck along with being tied to very specific colors. Both effects that lead to this scenario are colorless, with a pair in B, and the recovery options mirror the same card count.
I haven't been critical of the RC of late, but this is just one of those things that seems like a "no-brainer". I can assure you there won't be an overwhelming outcry over its removal like there was when tuck was reworked.
1. I think papa_funk covered that better than I could, so I'll just direct you to check out his post.
2. Hexproof is niche? Um...I think we've got different interpretations on that. I'll grant you the pre-emptive exile, but hexproof is pretty much a cornerstone idea for successful strategies, both on creatures and you. Sure, you can win without it, but it's not a bad or rare idea to include it.
3. Pull From Eternity is, unfortunately, the only option, but it IS an option.
4. I will admit that I forgot about Emmy 2.0, but as you said, it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway). Not sure that it's easier to cast her repeatedly anyway, as opposed to Mindslaver, so I'm not entirely sure how similar the two really are in that respect.
5. Probably not...but it's not like there's an overwhelming outcry to stop it now either. In fact, how many of us REALLY knew about this ahead of time? Show of hands. It's not format warping, and while it may lead to YOUR game state being undesirable, unless the person in question planned for a combo with it, they will be dealt with accordingly by the rest of the table...if not in that game, than most certainly in others.
I give props to the person again for coming up with this idea...but I do agree that it is NOT fun to have happen. A lesson learned, in the end.
...
What is the downside? There isn't one as far as I can tell. You protect a player from this sort of thing, and the format as a whole is better off for it.
Answers are niche, about as niche as combating tuck. Had tuck not been eliminated, I wouldn't see a problem, but as it stands, leaving this loophole open is just nonsense. At the very least, a tucked general can be drawn. What do you use to remove a Commander from exile?
Emrakul, the Promised End I guess isn't a card. The effect will be rare, but as was tuck along with being tied to very specific colors. Both effects that lead to this scenario are colorless, with a pair in B, and the recovery options mirror the same card count.
I haven't been critical of the RC of late, but this is just one of those things that seems like a "no-brainer". I can assure you there won't be an overwhelming outcry over its removal like there was when tuck was reworked.
3. Pull From Eternity is, unfortunately, the only option, but it IS an option.
I mean, there's also Mirror of Fate and Riftsweeper, one of which is realistically also a really quirky combo machine that can be a ton of fun to use. Solutions to permaexiled Commanders do exist, even if they're sparse. One of the solutions is even colorless, going in any deck.
Pull From Eternity is, unfortunately, the only option, but it IS an option.
Riftsweeper and Mirror of Fate also exist (although Mirror is not likely to be something you'd run just to get a commander back from exile).
If your opponent were to exile your commander face-down when no player is given permission to look at it (eg, place commander on top of library, then activate Pyxis of Pandemonium), the only way to get it out of exile is with an opponent's Processor (or Karn's ultimate), but that's not a quirk of Mindslaver, it's a quirk of face-down exile. (If any player it allowed to look at the face-down exiled card, it has to be revealed if it's any player's commander, so something like Praetor's Grasp wouldn't be an option.)
I will admit that I forgot about Emmy 2.0, but as you said, it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway). Not sure that it's easier to cast her repeatedly anyway, as opposed to Mindslaver, so I'm not entirely sure how similar the two really are in that respect.
Worst Fears is difficult to re-use and Sorin would be extremely slow to re-use (although Doubling Season + Brago would do it...), but Emrakul is as reusable as any other cast trigger (hello, Erratic Portal) and Cruel Entertainment is as reusable as any other sorcery.
...
What is the downside? There isn't one as far as I can tell. You protect a player from this sort of thing, and the format as a whole is better off for it.
Answers are niche, about as niche as combating tuck. Had tuck not been eliminated, I wouldn't see a problem, but as it stands, leaving this loophole open is just nonsense. At the very least, a tucked general can be drawn. What do you use to remove a Commander from exile?
Emrakul, the Promised End I guess isn't a card. The effect will be rare, but as was tuck along with being tied to very specific colors. Both effects that lead to this scenario are colorless, with a pair in B, and the recovery options mirror the same card count.
I haven't been critical of the RC of late, but this is just one of those things that seems like a "no-brainer". I can assure you there won't be an overwhelming outcry over its removal like there was when tuck was reworked.
1. I think papa_funk covered that better than I could, so I'll just direct you to check out his post.
2. Hexproof is niche? Um...I think we've got different interpretations on that. I'll grant you the pre-emptive exile, but hexproof is pretty much a cornerstone idea for successful strategies, both on creatures and you. Sure, you can win without it, but it's not a bad or rare idea to include it.
3. Pull From Eternity is, unfortunately, the only option, but it IS an option.
4. I will admit that I forgot about Emmy 2.0, but as you said, it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway). Not sure that it's easier to cast her repeatedly anyway, as opposed to Mindslaver, so I'm not entirely sure how similar the two really are in that respect.
5. Probably not...but it's not like there's an overwhelming outcry to stop it now either. In fact, how many of us REALLY knew about this ahead of time? Show of hands. It's not format warping, and while it may lead to YOUR game state being undesirable, unless the person in question planned for a combo with it, they will be dealt with accordingly by the rest of the table...if not in that game, than most certainly in others.
I give props to the person again for coming up with this idea...but I do agree that it is NOT fun to have happen. A lesson learned, in the end.
I think you are missing my point.
I don't have some vendetta against locks with slaver, just the fact that a loophole exists to permaexile ones Commander.
Just to set things straight, in the tuck discussion thread(as well as the rules change announcement)Sheldon/Papa_Funk/etc. had stated numerous times that one shouldn't need to include tutors to fetch a Commander that had been tucked, and that creature/card tutors weren't available/playable to all colors(paraphrasing here). Therefore, any of the ~5 ways to pull a card from exile also fall into that tutor category. Players shouldn't be expected to run them for the off chance their Commander is exiled.
Why you'd want a loophole to exist like this is beyond me, you're only going to have more cards printed that control opponents, so sooner or later, this is bound to impact more than a handful of individuals. Beyond the exile, it also allows that player to tuck the commander as well.
I don't argue that it's niche, it just doesn't seem right to exist in the first place.
Edit: No rules guru here, but, a sample of what I'm thinking is "If your Commander is exiled, it is moved to the Commander zone instead. If your Commander were to enter the battlefield from exile, it enters from the command zone instead." I'm all ears for how this won't work, like I said, no rules guru. But it's better than, "Eh, 99% is good enough".
I will admit that I forgot about Emmy 2.0, but as you said, it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway). Not sure that it's easier to cast her repeatedly anyway, as opposed to Mindslaver, so I'm not entirely sure how similar the two really are in that respect.
Worst Fears is difficult to re-use and Sorin would be extremely slow to re-use (although Doubling Season + Brago would do it...), but Emrakul is as reusable as any other cast trigger (hello, Erratic Portal) and Cruel Entertainment is as reusable as any other sorcery.
And after a refresher on the banned list, I feel kind of stupid. *facepalm* You're right, Emmy 2.0 isn't banned(in EDH), and I was sure there would be SOME degeneracy in casting and recasting Emrakul, just wasn't sure how easy it would be.
As for your other points, granted...but most people never run Sorin 1.0 for his ult(though as you say, you easily could), and the other cards aside from Emrakul lock you into black. Not a bad color, but it minimizes the potential impact, and thankfully most of them have downsides to being used, so again; get hit once, lesson learned.
Also, not intending to cut out yours and Ebline's additions to Pull from Eternity...it always struck me as weird that there was only ONE(as far as I knew) card to interact with 'from exile', so it's good to know that there's more.
I don't have some vendetta against locks with slaver, just the fact that a loophole exists to permaexile ones Commander.
Just to set things straight, in the tuck discussion thread(as well as the rules change announcement)Sheldon/Papa_Funk/etc. had stated numerous times that one shouldn't need to include tutors to fetch a Commander that had been tucked, and that creature/card tutors weren't available/playable to all colors(paraphrasing here). Therefore, any of the ~5 ways to pull a card from exile also fall into that tutor category. Players shouldn't be expected to run them for the off chance their Commander is exiled.
Why you'd want a loophole to exist like this is beyond me, you're only going to have more cards printed that control opponents, so sooner or later, this is bound to impact more than a handful of individuals. Beyond the exile, it also allows that player to tuck the commander as well.
I don't argue that it's niche, it just doesn't seem right to exist in the first place.
Edit: No rules guru here, but, a sample of what I'm thinking is "If your Commander is exiled, it is moved to the Commander zone instead. If your Commander were to enter the battlefield from exile, it enters from the command zone instead." I'm all ears for how this won't work, like I said, no rules guru. But it's better than, "Eh, 99% is good enough".
Closing loopholes would be tedious work in the first place even for the whole community, and likely would dominate a great deal of the RC's time between ban announcements. I don't know what they're doing in the meantime(well, I've glanced at what they do, but I don't 'know'), but I can't imagine wanting them to devote time to each minutiae of how cards can degenerate, particularly when 99% is pretty damn good.
Do I like this loophole? No...but I don't feel that such a specific ruling should come down on such a rare slice of EDH when there are so few cards that do this(less than 'tuck cards', depending on how specific we get with tuck...I got to 10 with those that put the creature on top).
Now, to the emphasized text in your quoted post: players also shouldn't expect that their commander will always be available. In truth, perma-denying a player their commander is a valuable lesson: no different than having the commander in question constantly get counterspelled, kill-spelled, or what-have-you(I've had it happen, both to my opponents and me). It's a growth lesson, both by learning to protect yourself from something unexpected(degnerate and loop-holey as it might be), and to make a functional deck sans commander.
The only thing I like here is the out-of-the-box thinking from the guy who did this. If the shenanigans were done to me, my reaction would be similar, but I would note that I'd better have protection up next time, hopefully before Mindslaver hit.
As for the fear of more 'control' cards hitting the game later...well, let's worry about it then. Focus on the here and now, not what MAY(not) be.
Also, not intending to cut out yours and Ebline's additions to Pull from Eternity...it always struck me as weird that there was only ONE(as far as I knew) card to interact with 'from exile', so it's good to know that there's more.
Yeah, Pull and Riftsweeper were designed to hose Suspend, but in EDH they tend to get used completely differently.
Let's put it this way. They wouldn't close loopholes until it happens to them. That's the nature of human behavior. Until then, "99%" works for them.
It wouldn't happen to my playgroup, coz we agreed it's kinda douchebaggery cept for Sorin. But that doesn't mean I can't sympathize with others who are trapped in some Dr Strange loop...
I understand what you are saying, but it has no value when the RC eliminated tuck for the reasons you say they shouldn't close this loophole. That's my problem. Fixing one issue, an issue that is arguably infinitely easier to deal with, while leaving a scenario open that is infinitely harder to deal with makes little, to no sense.
Sound idiotic to say "Eh, if it becomes a problem, we'll fix it then." Thats just folks begging for the dam to break.
Full disclosure, I haven't had this happen to me, I've never done it to someone else. It's just the fact that it is allowed to exist for no other reason than "Well, yeah".
But tuck was also ubiquitous, to the point of having a default expectation in the format that defined deckbuilding in a common and widespread way. Tuck wasn't a corner case, and wasn't anything like as limited in access, it was the go-to premier removal for commanders. Turn control permaexile is not even remotely any of that, it's a niche gimmick that almost HAS to be built around to ever be seen.
But tuck was also ubiquitous, to the point of having a default expectation in the format that defined deckbuilding in a common and widespread way. Tuck wasn't a corner case, and wasn't anything like as limited in access, it was the go-to premier removal for commanders. Turn control permaexile is not even remotely any of that, it's a niche gimmick that almost HAS to be built around to ever be seen.
Ok, let's try this again...
I understand these points, 100%. That isn't my issue. Build-around or not, it's something that can happen, and that it creates a worse outcome than that of a tucked Commander.
My feeling is it won't be corner case for long. There will be more cards printed with similar effects, as it's been roughly every other block that has gotten one, as well as a supplementary product. My gripe is instead of waiting to address it when it becomes a real issue, just do away with it now. Before it starts infiltrating casual tables, close the loophole. It doesn't neuter those cards at all, like the rule change did to tuck.
I know many people want to just say "Losing your Commander shouldn't mean you lose the game", but at that point, you lose the difference between this game and 100-card singleton. 99% of my decks feature the Commander as either a win-con or an engine driving the deck forward, it's kind of the point of the format. While I doubt it'd ever be an "auto lose", I'd still be at a permanent disadvantage compared to the other ~3 players.
Take Karlov of the Ghost Council for instance. He's a unique "build-around Commander", lifegain isn't a premier strategy in EDH, so immediately you are looking for deck options that synergies with him, straying from a strict Orzhov goodstuff build. Turn 5 rolls around and a player hits you with a Mindslaver, not even to loop, and then proceeds to Path to Exile your commander with your own removal spell, tosses it into exile, and for the next 10+ turns you sit and wait to die because that's the way your decks built. You may not see the difference between a Commander tax of 10 and permanent exile, but I sure do. If the game resets at some point due to some mass removal or something that puts everybody back on equal footing, I still have the chance to cast Karlov for 12, but no chance to bring him from exile...
It's just something I'd rather never encounter, even if it's bound to happen once every hundred games.
I don't think a rules change is going to solve the issue. If you want to grief by deny people their commander permanently, you'll just move on to the next card, be it Pyxis of Pandemonium, Declaration of Naught, or Nevermore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was "taken" because it was unintented in the first place. Any way to permanently remove a commander from its owner is an outlying issue at this point.
As far as the rules on this, I am pretty sure that gaining control of a player does not mean that that player gets to decide where the commander goes when it dies, etc. As ErtaiPlaneswalker already stated, the owner of the commander will always be the one to make this decision.Edit: To double-check this, I created a thread in the rules forum of this site to make sure of the ruling. (Please see below for official ruling and why.)
Link: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/776620-commander-mindslaver-commander-death
Update: I was incorrect in my initial thoughts, and Mindslaver-ing a player does allow that player to put the commander wherever he or she chooses upon it moving to a non-command zone zone. All I can do at this point is agree that this kind of interaction is lame at best, and would hope for a way to prevent this issue.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
EDH came together in what, 2006? Tuck was removed in 2015. So, 9 years of tuck being "fine", or at least not so bad in the RC's eyes that a change was warranted. Further, the reasons given for the change were:
I don't see "it was unintented in the first place" on that list.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
A tiny loophole, when closed, would have a negligible impact on the format as a whole? I mean, its a total fun-suck for this to happen, why let it exist?
This sounds like the guy with a nail in his tire. He could get it plugged/patched, but sees no difference in just filling the tire with air when it gets low...
It's a total fun-suck(I will agree with that) WHEN IT HAPPENS. This sounds like something that people should be prepared for, as the preparations can help against other things as well. Answers to this are not niche(hexproof, Stifle effects, preemptive exile, etc), so you should have something available to stop this from happening...unless it's your first time playing against the deck, or you have a bum draw.
The 'nail in the tire' analogy is not quite accurate. I would equate it more to a pothole on a highway, that when you hit it, you throw your axle out of alignment. This pothole only shows up VERY rarely, and few find it to be a problem. Now, you have three choices: pre-emptively avoid the hole, hit it anyway each time and get your axle re-aligned, or bug someone else to fix it.
Besides, it doesn't sound like WotC will make another such card, so why make an entirely new ruling for ONE card that so rarely is an issue?
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
What is the downside? There isn't one as far as I can tell. You protect a player from this sort of thing, and the format as a whole is better off for it.
Answers are niche, about as niche as combating tuck. Had tuck not been eliminated, I wouldn't see a problem, but as it stands, leaving this loophole open is just nonsense. At the very least, a tucked general can be drawn. What do you use to remove a Commander from exile?
Emrakul, the Promised End I guess isn't a card. The effect will be rare, but as was tuck along with being tied to very specific colors. Both effects that lead to this scenario are colorless, with a pair in B, and the recovery options mirror the same card count.
I haven't been critical of the RC of late, but this is just one of those things that seems like a "no-brainer". I can assure you there won't be an overwhelming outcry over its removal like there was when tuck was reworked.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Because that's not how the rule works. You don't just get to "interpret" this. The owner is choosing where the commander goes. But the rules say that the opponent dictates all choices that are made. You would have to add an exception to the CR that says "the opponent cannot make this choice for commander replacement".
Can this be done? Of course. Should it? Much more debatable. Rules to cover corners aren't great. We're in a place where you get to have access to your commander 99% of the time, and that's probably good enough.
Frankly, someone who thinks consistently using the Mindslaver loophole to get rid of your commander is a good way to play is someone who I'd avoid playing with regardless of the existence of that rule or not.
1. I think papa_funk covered that better than I could, so I'll just direct you to check out his post.
2. Hexproof is niche? Um...I think we've got different interpretations on that. I'll grant you the pre-emptive exile, but hexproof is pretty much a cornerstone idea for successful strategies, both on creatures and you. Sure, you can win without it, but it's not a bad or rare idea to include it.
3. Pull From Eternity is, unfortunately, the only option, but it IS an option.
4. I will admit that I forgot about Emmy 2.0, but as you said, it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway). Not sure that it's easier to cast her repeatedly anyway, as opposed to Mindslaver, so I'm not entirely sure how similar the two really are in that respect.
5. Probably not...but it's not like there's an overwhelming outcry to stop it now either. In fact, how many of us REALLY knew about this ahead of time? Show of hands. It's not format warping, and while it may lead to YOUR game state being undesirable, unless the person in question planned for a combo with it, they will be dealt with accordingly by the rest of the table...if not in that game, than most certainly in others.
I give props to the person again for coming up with this idea...but I do agree that it is NOT fun to have happen. A lesson learned, in the end.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
I mean, there's also Mirror of Fate and Riftsweeper, one of which is realistically also a really quirky combo machine that can be a ton of fun to use. Solutions to permaexiled Commanders do exist, even if they're sparse. One of the solutions is even colorless, going in any deck.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
If your opponent were to exile your commander face-down when no player is given permission to look at it (eg, place commander on top of library, then activate Pyxis of Pandemonium), the only way to get it out of exile is with an opponent's Processor (or Karn's ultimate), but that's not a quirk of Mindslaver, it's a quirk of face-down exile. (If any player it allowed to look at the face-down exiled card, it has to be revealed if it's any player's commander, so something like Praetor's Grasp wouldn't be an option.)
Sorin Markov, Worst Fears, Emrakul, the Promised End, and Cruel Entertainment were all printed after Mindslaver. Emrakul 2.0 isn't banned in EDH either, so I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not a card(not in EDH, anyway)".
Worst Fears is difficult to re-use and Sorin would be extremely slow to re-use (although Doubling Season + Brago would do it...), but Emrakul is as reusable as any other cast trigger (hello, Erratic Portal) and Cruel Entertainment is as reusable as any other sorcery.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I think you are missing my point.
I don't have some vendetta against locks with slaver, just the fact that a loophole exists to permaexile ones Commander.
Just to set things straight, in the tuck discussion thread(as well as the rules change announcement)Sheldon/Papa_Funk/etc. had stated numerous times that one shouldn't need to include tutors to fetch a Commander that had been tucked, and that creature/card tutors weren't available/playable to all colors(paraphrasing here). Therefore, any of the ~5 ways to pull a card from exile also fall into that tutor category. Players shouldn't be expected to run them for the off chance their Commander is exiled.
Why you'd want a loophole to exist like this is beyond me, you're only going to have more cards printed that control opponents, so sooner or later, this is bound to impact more than a handful of individuals. Beyond the exile, it also allows that player to tuck the commander as well.
I don't argue that it's niche, it just doesn't seem right to exist in the first place.
Edit: No rules guru here, but, a sample of what I'm thinking is "If your Commander is exiled, it is moved to the Commander zone instead. If your Commander were to enter the battlefield from exile, it enters from the command zone instead." I'm all ears for how this won't work, like I said, no rules guru. But it's better than, "Eh, 99% is good enough".
And after a refresher on the banned list, I feel kind of stupid. *facepalm* You're right, Emmy 2.0 isn't banned(in EDH), and I was sure there would be SOME degeneracy in casting and recasting Emrakul, just wasn't sure how easy it would be.
As for your other points, granted...but most people never run Sorin 1.0 for his ult(though as you say, you easily could), and the other cards aside from Emrakul lock you into black. Not a bad color, but it minimizes the potential impact, and thankfully most of them have downsides to being used, so again; get hit once, lesson learned.
Also, not intending to cut out yours and Ebline's additions to Pull from Eternity...it always struck me as weird that there was only ONE(as far as I knew) card to interact with 'from exile', so it's good to know that there's more.
Closing loopholes would be tedious work in the first place even for the whole community, and likely would dominate a great deal of the RC's time between ban announcements. I don't know what they're doing in the meantime(well, I've glanced at what they do, but I don't 'know'), but I can't imagine wanting them to devote time to each minutiae of how cards can degenerate, particularly when 99% is pretty damn good.
Do I like this loophole? No...but I don't feel that such a specific ruling should come down on such a rare slice of EDH when there are so few cards that do this(less than 'tuck cards', depending on how specific we get with tuck...I got to 10 with those that put the creature on top).
Now, to the emphasized text in your quoted post: players also shouldn't expect that their commander will always be available. In truth, perma-denying a player their commander is a valuable lesson: no different than having the commander in question constantly get counterspelled, kill-spelled, or what-have-you(I've had it happen, both to my opponents and me). It's a growth lesson, both by learning to protect yourself from something unexpected(degnerate and loop-holey as it might be), and to make a functional deck sans commander.
The only thing I like here is the out-of-the-box thinking from the guy who did this. If the shenanigans were done to me, my reaction would be similar, but I would note that I'd better have protection up next time, hopefully before Mindslaver hit.
As for the fear of more 'control' cards hitting the game later...well, let's worry about it then. Focus on the here and now, not what MAY(not) be.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It wouldn't happen to my playgroup, coz we agreed it's kinda douchebaggery cept for Sorin. But that doesn't mean I can't sympathize with others who are trapped in some Dr Strange loop...
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Sound idiotic to say "Eh, if it becomes a problem, we'll fix it then." Thats just folks begging for the dam to break.
Full disclosure, I haven't had this happen to me, I've never done it to someone else. It's just the fact that it is allowed to exist for no other reason than "Well, yeah".
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Ok, let's try this again...
I understand these points, 100%. That isn't my issue. Build-around or not, it's something that can happen, and that it creates a worse outcome than that of a tucked Commander.
My feeling is it won't be corner case for long. There will be more cards printed with similar effects, as it's been roughly every other block that has gotten one, as well as a supplementary product. My gripe is instead of waiting to address it when it becomes a real issue, just do away with it now. Before it starts infiltrating casual tables, close the loophole. It doesn't neuter those cards at all, like the rule change did to tuck.
I know many people want to just say "Losing your Commander shouldn't mean you lose the game", but at that point, you lose the difference between this game and 100-card singleton. 99% of my decks feature the Commander as either a win-con or an engine driving the deck forward, it's kind of the point of the format. While I doubt it'd ever be an "auto lose", I'd still be at a permanent disadvantage compared to the other ~3 players.
Take Karlov of the Ghost Council for instance. He's a unique "build-around Commander", lifegain isn't a premier strategy in EDH, so immediately you are looking for deck options that synergies with him, straying from a strict Orzhov goodstuff build. Turn 5 rolls around and a player hits you with a Mindslaver, not even to loop, and then proceeds to Path to Exile your commander with your own removal spell, tosses it into exile, and for the next 10+ turns you sit and wait to die because that's the way your decks built. You may not see the difference between a Commander tax of 10 and permanent exile, but I sure do. If the game resets at some point due to some mass removal or something that puts everybody back on equal footing, I still have the chance to cast Karlov for 12, but no chance to bring him from exile...
It's just something I'd rather never encounter, even if it's bound to happen once every hundred games.