It's the out and out combo decks that will get insane, the ones that give you a narrow window to break them up or you just lose. The best answers to those decks - the ones that actually hit most of them - are mass land destruction cards.
More combos, more MLD - that's what this change will do - assuming your playgroup has at least one or two people who play to win.
A fair point. In my experience in competitive EDH play (I played almost exclusively competitively), tucking wasn't a huge issue. Then again, I didn't play a commander-centric combo. Counterspells and very cheap kill spells have traditionally been better answers in the combo v combo matchup because you can drop one and then win before they get their engine back out. But I don't discount the possibility you describe.
I've been over all of this but:
-Giving one type of zone changing removal special treatment because of rarity seems like sort of a copout to me; you're saying "well, because I think it's rare enough, it shouldn't follow the same structure as the rest of commander."
-Red has plenty of ways to deal with commanders. Most of them can die to blasphemous act or chain reaction or whatever, and the few that can't can be stolen and sac'd or killed with duplicant or all is dust. Red is a little weak with creature removal in the format but Chaos Warp (their one piece of decent creature removal) does not make up for it.
-OK, you don't think generals should be assumed to always be available. Cool. Different opinions with nothing to differentiate them. Saying "answers need to exist" without support is, eh, unsupportable?
Changes don't have to be made to prevent the destruction of the format. It's sufficient for a change to make it better, and that's clearly what the RC thinks it's doing.
1) I never said it should be given special treatment because it's rare. I specifically state in the article that there's a good separation between zones from which commander could be expected not to return and zones in which a commander is still available in some sense. The fact that tuck effects are fairly uncommon does help to balance their power and (former) use, but it's not the reason they should apply.
2) The point here is that Chaos Warp was one of red's enduring responses to commanders. It simply doesn't have enough efficient removal to lose options like that. And it wasn't really even factored into the explanations, at any rate.
3) Answers are a fundamental part of the game. It's fairly obvious to most people who play Magic that there need to be answers to different threats in order to keep those threats in check. Further, it's obvious that changes can be made to improve the health of the format. We're discussing whether the change is necessary and beneficial. I wrote quite a bit in the way of that discussion.
The rules of the game were already changed with respect to exiling and graveyard, so why is it different to change them for tuck? What's one more zone change replacement effect?
Tucking was the bridge between no removal and too much removal. I find that the graveyard/exile replacement effect is a fair and legitimate rule because it helps to mitigate loss from the most common removal effects. It also applied to the two zones from which you were least likely to recover your commander; a commander in a library or your hand is still available, whether immediately so or not.
Tucking was also good in that it helped red and blue cope with permanents in a limited, yet efficient way. Red simply doesn't have the removal economy to deal with commanders all the time; at least black and white have enough good removal to hit most threats even if they're recurred.
Further, I don't think the assumption should be made that a general is always available. While that's true for the most part, answers still need to exist, and I don't find that tucking was as oppressive as the RC seems to believe. Yes, it's more indefinite than allowing someone to pay 2 and recast, but it's not insurmountable, and it's not something that was destroying the format before.
I don't often post here, so I hope you'll forgive me in advance for returning to "advertise." I just didn't want to post the article everywhere.
I've written a response article to the rules change on TappedOut.net. If you're interested, you should check it out. I'm always interested in feedback.
The article goes through each of the points made in the original announcement and in Sheldon's follow-up on SCG and offers an assessment of which ideas are best and worst represented. It also provides a review of the health of the format in light of the change.
The following article is an academic report that I wrote approximately 1.5 years ago. It's based on original research and explores the aspects of Commander tournament organization based on responses to surveys and interviews. I have not reproduced the surveys here.
Introduction
The intent of the research performed is to find a way to introduce Commander format of Magic: The Gathering into formal tournament play. It was inspired by a lack of official support for the format by the games creators, Wizards of the Coast, and growing popularity amongst players. The research will serve as the foundation for an assessment of Commander and its suitability for tournament play.
Background
The following subsections outline Magic: The Gathering as a game and Commander as a format of Magic: The Gathering.
Magic: The Gathering
Information in this section was obtained from the Wizards of the Coast website.
Magic: The Gathering (henceforth Magic) is the first and one of the most popular trading card games in the world. Wizards of the Coast (henceforth WOTC), a subsidiary of Hasbro Games, first released Magic in 1993. Magic is a complex game that includes collecting cards, formulating cards into decks, and using decks in competitive games against another players.
A deck of Magic cards typically contains 60 individual cards, which are chosen based on player preference and deck construction rules. Cards can be broken down into two basic categories: lands and spells. Lands are the primary source of mana, the in-game resource required to play most other cards. Spells are cards that affect the game in different ways in exchange for mana or other resources.
A basic game of Magic consists of two players, each with their own decks and 20 life points. The players each take turns casting spells and attacking with creatures in order to gain the advantage and eventually win. Games are often played in specific formats, each with their own rules. Sanctioned formats can be played in organized tournament settings with the support of WOTC. The majority of sanctioned events are held by local game stores (LGSs), which are the basic level of interaction between the individual player and any formal system. Tournament Organizers (TOs) are responsible for designing and hosting these events, and judges are responsible for executing the events and attending to player needs.
The Commander Format
Information in this section was obtained from the Commander (Elder Dragon Highlander) website.
Commander, a format of Magic: The Gathering, is unique in that it is the first and largest format of Magic created by the players rather than by WOTC. Typically, WOTC creates and maintains the formats of Magic; control of these formats is thus out of the hands of the players. As a result of direct player involvement, Commander is widely popular with many players, and the player community has a special interest in developing, playing, and maintaining Commander. Partly because Commander is a community format, it is not yet sanctioned by WOTC. Therefore, it is impossible to run official tournaments of Commander. Some groups of players opt to host their own events, but these small-scale tournaments lack the organizational structure and prize support systems of sanctioned events.
Casual and Competitive Tendencies in the Commander Format
The following section summarizes observations recorded while watching Commander players and games at an LGS.
Commander is often seen as a casual format, and its validity as a competitive format is disputed. More advanced players tend to treat the low barrier to entry into the format as a detriment because it all allows comparatively inexperienced players to participate. This is often a deterrent because it means that the players receive less of a challenge, and thus cannot further their own skills.
At the center of the debate between the casual and competitive aspects of Commander is the disparity between casual players and competitive players. Colloquially, these terms are relative and refer to loosely defined demographics of players identified by certain tendencies or mindsets. This report will not investigate the causes for these mindsets. Rather, it will only define them and assess the impact they have on the Commander format. This disparity is critical to understanding how players view Commander, and no effective tournament structure can be developed without at least considering the impact these groups have on player experiences.
Casual players tend to emphasize fun over victory games are about the interactions and atmosphere instead of the raw power of any cards or decks. These players are observed to be less likely to invest money in their Commander decks; many consider themselves to have a limited budget to spend on Commander, and the power level of their cards is indirectly curtailed because the strongest cards often have relatively high market values. During games, casual players are more likely to consciously make decisions that result in comedic or unusual situations. Although they do not completely forego the plays that are the most technically correct or advantageous in their contexts, they are less likely to make a choice based on its correctness or advantageousness.
Competitive players exhibit the contrasting qualities. They are more likely to prioritize victory over random, comedic, or unusual experiences. Because winning is a predominant goal of competitive players, they are more likely to build decks by choosing powerful cards; they appear to be willing to spend more than casual players to get the best of what is available. Many competitive players exhibit perceptible seriousness during games; technical correctness and propensity to generate victory are the motivating factors behind their decisions.
Commander players can normally define themselves as either casual or competitive, implying that the demarcation between the two is, at least to some extent, clear to them. Players also exhibit a degree of cliquishness they are likely to hold games with those of the same mindset, but demonstrate a lesser inclination to cross the perceived line between the casual and competitive groups. It can be extrapolated from this observation that players most enjoy games among peers who share the same basic game philosophy.
The issue becomes more complex when it considers not just the alignment of players in regards to casual or competitive nature, but whether players of one group acknowledge the existence or legitimacy of the other. The majority of players seem to acknowledge that Commander is a mixed format they are aware that casual and competitive players exist and are different. However, this does not necessarily imply that they consider the both groups to be legitimate subsections of the format. The logic for denying a groups legitimacy varies by individual, but many players appear to base their conclusions on the perceived trueness of the groups philosophy to the perceived intent of the Commander format. For example, an individual who views Commander as a format aimed at providing fun and interesting games may deny that competitive players have a legitimate stake in the nature and future of Commander because competitive players tend to play to win rather than strictly to have fun.
As a result of this split between casual and competitive groups, players have, whether consciously or unconsciously, developed stereotypes of each demographic. In some cases, this leads to mere aversion. In others, it leads to tense relations and uncomfortable atmospheres. TOs should be aware of the potential impact of the casual versus competitive debate on the organization and execution of Commander tournaments.
Research Methodology
The following subsections offer synopses of the two predominant original research methods utilized: surveys and interviews.
In both methods, it was critical to gauge directly the community opinions of Commander. Surveying and interviewing players provides data from the demographic with the most stakes in Commander and with the most interest in discussing and developing Commander. The players are the first group impacted by changes made to Commander as a format, and it is for them that these changes are made.
Surveys
A two-part survey was distributed online through surveymonkey.com, a website that facilitates user creation and distribution of surveys. Part I focused on player experience with Commander and general opinions about Commander as a format. Part II focused on Commander tournament design. Each survey consists of only multiple-choice questions; some answer choices allowed subjects to input their own answers or descriptions. All of the questions and answers were designed by an experienced Commander player and theorist to accommodate the most likely ranges of answers; please specify options were included to allow for responses outside of the anticipated ones.
Hyperlinks to the surveys were posted on two Magic forums: tappedout.net and mtgsalvation.com. These forums are gathering places for players to discuss Magic decks and game philosophy. Therefore, surveying the users of these websites provided data and opinions directly from the Magic community. The same post content was used to distribute the survey hyperlinks to each website.
Interviews
Interviews provide detailed player opinions to supplement general survey data. Each interview was conducted individually, and each interview subject was chosen because he or she represented a different set of experiences. Interviewees were asked their opinions of Commander, the Magic community, and how Commander could be better organized. The questions were not uniform; each interview began with queries based on the individuals experiences and evolved fluidly with the discussion. Notes were taken throughout the process. Interviewees were asked for consent to be quoted or referenced by name within this document; only the names of those who consented will appear.
The first interviewee is both a judge and a Commander player; the combination of roles allows that individual to make observations from both perspectives. As a player, he offered an in-depth analysis of some ways Commander is typically played. The information from the interview clarified information from the surveys, and it also provided new ideas that were not expressed in the limited survey space. As a judge, he offered a review of some high-level problems that Commander might face in tournament play, and he also submitted feedback on the nature of player interactions across games.
The second interviewee is a game store manager. He offered his thoughts about player interactions and the relevance of a tournament organizer to an events players. This interview is particularly important because it is the LGS that is directly responsible for the organization of small-scale tournaments and events. Except in those instances where players hold their own informal tournaments, LGS events are the most basic examples of organized play in any format. The LGS therefore plays an important role in balancing the demand for tournaments with the need to maintain a welcoming and healthy play environment. The perspective of an individual intimately familiar with the responsibilities and needs of an LGS is invaluable to anyone aiming to develop guidelines for organized play.
Research Results
This section provides an summary of the survey results and interview responses, and it also analyzes the data for implications and relevance to Commander tournament guidelines.
Surveys
Part I of the survey returned 375 response sets and Part II of the survey returned 323 response sets, but due to the freemium design of surveymonkey.com, only 100 response sets from each part are viewable. This report will consider only those 100 response sets.
From the responses to these questions, it can be theorized that the Commander community as a whole is relatively open to the idea of a mixed format. 59.60% of respondents view Commander as a mixed format. By comparison, 37.37% support that Commander is casual and 3.03% support that Commander is competitive.
These results do not correlate to the respondents individual tendencies in Commander games 30% play Commander as a mixed format (meaning those players play both casual and competitive games) while 62% play Commander casually and 8% play Commander competitively. When asked about what they believe of other players, 96% of respondents believed the Commander community is in some way mixed. The survey results indicate that most view that mix as predominantly casual, but it is significant that the vast majority of sampled individuals acknowledge that other players can have their own preferences.
The majority of respondents noted that they either would or might like to participate in a Commander tournament and also that their LGSs would likely host Commander tournaments. However, the data reveals that these individuals are also evenly split on the question of whether Commander should become a sanctioned format with official rules and procedures. This indicates that the respondents may prefer Commander to remain player-operated rather than officially governed, even though they would also like tournaments to be made available to them.
Although the majority of responses to Part I of the survey indicated that the Commander community was likely to be largely casual, the responses to Part II reveal that the community is split on how best to organize a Commander tournament. Most respondents support that tournament design should in some way acknowledge the difference between casual and competitive players. Over half of all responses are in favor of incorporating both casual and competitive players into the tournament, but those responses do not indicate with any certainty whether the two groups should be accommodated separately or within the same games.
The responses to the other questions regarding tournament design signaled large majorities supporting specific elements. As a group, the respondents believe that Commander tournaments should be run with four-player games that each last sixty minutes. Each match should have a single game, and the tournament should run three rounds. Traditional victory is the most popular means of determining a winner, and the event should be structured as a Swiss tournament.
Interviews
The first interviewee, Min Moldover, is a judge and Commander player. He identifies himself as a casual player, but acknowledges that Commander is a mixed format. When asked about the concept of an organized Commander tournament, Moldover expressed disapproval; he supports the format, but he feels that organized play introduces too many uncontrollable issues. Specifically, he believes it is difficult to design any structure that would attempt to separate casual and competitive players. Moldover clarifies that because the notions of casual and competitive, while somehow identifiable to players, are still subjective, it would be impossible to standardize a means of classifying decks. Therefore, it is logistically favorable to support casual and competitive players in the same tournament without differentiating between them.
Moldover argues that a carefully formulated prize structure could be used to discourage competitive players from dominating the casual players. A flat prize payout with relatively low value would indirectly control the competitive players. Moldover argues that this control is necessary to maintain a healthy and satisfying atmosphere for the players as a whole. Smaller prizes would give the competitive players less incentive to aggressively win their games, which would in turn create a more relaxed environment. Although such a structure does necessitate smaller monetary or product rewards, it does emphasize what Moldover believes is the most important aspect of Commander: enjoyability.
Furthermore, Moldovers responses clarified one of the realities of organized Commander play: the demand that Commander as a format places on judges is greater than the demand mandated by other formats. Because the Commander rules allow for almost unlimited freedom to players as they construct their decks, situations arise in Commander games that could almost never be imagined in other formats. Judges must therefore know to a greater extent the rules of both traditional Magic and the Commander format. This presents challenges to judges who might normally be qualified to handle events of other formats.
The second interviewee, William Voight, is an LGS manager. Although he does not play Commander, he does organize tournaments for most other formats of Magic. He offered valuable insight into the relationship between a TO and the players participating in his or her event. Voight explains that the primary purpose of an LGS event should be to ensure the players have fun and enjoy their experience. To that end, it is vital that TOs at the LGS level know their constituents and accommodate them in a democratic way. These sentiments reinforce the stance that a tournament structure must take into account any factors that might influence the experience of the players.
Because Voight is not a Commander player, he stated that he felt he did not have the depth of familiarity required to answer questions specific to Commander itself.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The following tournament structure was developed based on the observations, survey results, and interview responses gathered throughout the research process. It aims to accommodate the opinions and demands of the Commander community while remaining logistically viable enough to implement at the LGS level.
Qualities:
Free-for-all Swiss tournament structure
Three sixty-minute rounds
One game per match
Four players per game
Flat prize payout, low value prize pool
These are the recommended qualities of a Commander tournament based on the available data about player preferences. They may be tailored to suit the individual needs of each LGS, and they are flexible enough to allow reasonable modifications. As the Commander community continues to expand and player opinions changes, these suggestions may become obsolete. At that time, changes should be made to accommodate the current needs of the players.
No. Chasm Skulker is a terrible card in competitive metas. It doesn't have any relevant abilities for a combo deck; +1/+1 counters and tokens aren't significant to an infinite mana/bounce deck, and the creature doesn't really do anything on its own.
I think casual and social tends to get mashed together more often than not. One would think they're one and the same terms. So it's nice you defined them. That said, I think social can be applied for competitive as well. So that leaves the casual VS competitive argument. Which will always be a conundrum.
Casual vs. competitive should be used as the basis for selecting your playgroup. Social is introduced to define the format itself and to end the inane debate about whether Commander as a format is casual or competitive (it's neither).
I don't think you understand competeive players at all. While there are some folks who only like winning, a true competeive gamer values the experience of competetive gaming! The intellectual challenge of teying to outwit and outplay your opponent. Any ameture chess player clearly loves a good competition, but they are not spending all day grinding away chess games because they like the tournemant EV! They like playing chess!
I play Legacy because I enjoy the challenge of trying to win, but I value this challenge more than I value the result. I recently helped a newbie Burn player understand how to beat me in the last round of swiss - costing me a place in the top eight. The tounramnet I nplayed before that I made top eight but (since I had to go soon) dropped out before the top eight was calculated rather than securing my eighth place prize and then dropping.
As I said, being competitive does not preclude anyone from also valuing the experience of the game.
For example, competitive players value the results of the game, which means they value victory. This doesn't mean that competitive players cannot value fun or experience; rather, it means that victory is prioritized before other experiences.
I think it's fair to say that most players place some value on the experience; those who don't typically burn out after a short time playing. I personally play competitive EDH because I find high-tension games appealing, but I also definitely value the result. Once again, casual and competitive are best compared along a spectrum; almost all players have some combination of the two inclinations.
Regardless, we can argue about whether competitiveness in a player really means more emphasis on results than experiences, but it doesn't actually change anything about the rest of the article.
It seems ok, but this hinges heavily on what you assigned to mean casual/social/competitive.
Any theory-based article necessarily hinges on the specified definitions. That's how you standardize the understanding of the topic and prepare the audience for the discussion.
Hey all, long time no see. Some of you may recognize this from TappedOut.net, but it's important that people see this.
This is more of an article, and I'm not sure what the protocol is for article posting on MTGS, but here goes.
Introduction
You've probably heard it before. Every Commander player has.
"EDH is a casual format."
But is it really? There's a lot of debate about whether Commander is a casual format or not. Many people think of it as one, even if they can't articulate why exactly they think it is.
This is intended to be a comprehensive, stand-alone article (although it's still part of the Pandora's Deckbox series).
1.0: Defining Casual, Competitive, and Social
Before we can get any further into the debate, we need to define some terms. Whenever this article references "casual," "competitive," or "social" as terms or ideas, it will be referencing the definitions in this section.
A consistent and established set of definitions will allow us to make sense of the debate as a whole.
1.1: Casual
Casual:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game more than the results
2) (in reference to formats) Not structured or organized so as to prioritize victory or certain results
1.2: Competitive
Competitive:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the results of a game more than the gameplay.
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote a more organized experience; organized around a ranking system that rewards victory
1.3: Social
Social:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game within the context of an inter-player bond
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote interaction and camaraderie between players
1.4: Bringing them together
It's relatively easy to think of casual and competitive as opposites. The Magic community tends to think of them in this way already. For the most part, this assumption is accurate; if we consider casual vs. competitive to be a continuum where "true" casual values only the gameplay experience and "true" competitive values only the results, then most players will fall somewhere between those two extremes. The continuum is perhaps the best representation of the casual vs. competitive debate because almost nobody can be accurately classified by either terminus.
For example, competitive players value the results of the game, which means they value victory. This doesn't mean that competitive players cannot value fun or experience; rather, it means that victory is prioritized before other experiences.
Definitionally, social players appear to be more like casual players than competitive players because of their priorities, but any player can exhibit social qualities. Granted, social qualities tend to coincide with an emphasis on gameplay experience, but remember that experience and results are not mutually exclusive priorities.
Let's make the model more complex: say our casual vs. competitive continuum is represented by an X axis, and "socialness" is represented by the Y axis of the same continuum. In this model, any player at any point on the continuum can demonstrate social qualities. Although casual players are empirically more likely to be social players, socialness must be represented independently because it is still an independent quality.
2.0: The Core Debate
Most Magic players start out as casual players. They get into the game because their friends play around the kitchen table on weekends, or because they think it might be a fun hobby. Generally, new players don't start out by jumping directly into a competitive environment like Standard or Modern.
As players grow more accustomed to the game, they tend to also become more receptive to the idea of participating in events such as FNM. Because FNM, and sanctioned formats in general, are structured according to tournament protocol and organization, they inherently produce a more competitive environment than kitchen table play.
For many, the kitchen table game is the epitome of the social experience. It is a game governed only by the players experiencing it and their mutual understanding of what Magic should be. Perhaps because the tendency is to drift from this self-regulated environment into the more structured competitive environment (although this drift isn't forceful and doesn't preclude someone from enjoying games in both environments), players are often of the opinion that social and competitive are opposites. This is untrue, as was described above.
2.1: "Commander is a casual format."
Commander began as a social format. Regardless of the debate between casual and competitive, this much is true. The intent of Commander is clearly outlined on MTGCommander.net in the Philosophy section:
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
Not only does the RC use "social" as the operative word, its explanation makes perfectly clear their intent for Commander to promote camaraderie through the shared experience of a game of Magic.
The misconception that Commander is a casual format typically stems (1) from the observation that Commander is an informal, non-sanctioned format most frequently played in a kitchen table setting and (2) from the conflation of casual and social. Commander is, at its core, a social format. It can be experienced in casual or competitive ways, but the social aspect remains engrained in the format.
3.0: More Theory
In order to fully understand Commander's identity as a social format, we need to dig deeper into the theory and principles that govern it.
3.1: The playgroup as the basic unit of the social format
The basic "unit" of a social game is the playgroup. Whether it consists of two, four, or more players, the playgroup is the collective that chooses to experience the game together.
Generally speaking, members of a playgroup have a shared understanding of what Magic means to them as an experience. That is what brings the players together in the first place. Social formats as a whole are defined by these playgroups and their collective philosophies. It is the playgroup that defines the range of experiences that are expected and acceptable within the group.
3.2: The centrality of the playgroup in Commander
Because Commander is a social format, and because social formats are defined and governed by the groups that play them, the playgroup is, necessarily, central to Commander. The playgroup defines Commander's form and function according to the players' shared understandings, expectations, and wishes. Part of what makes Commander so appealing as a format is the degree of autonomy afforded to the players themselves. An official ban list exists, but the RC recommends that it be used as a suggestion and not an absolute unless playing outside of your playgroup (we will address that particular situation later). Players are allowed, and even encouraged, to change the ban list and other format rules as they see fit. Why? To provide a more enjoyable experience for those playing the game.
These decisions need to be made collectively. Typically, problems between players in a game of Commander stem from differing philosophies within the playgroup itself. While it isn't strictly necessary for everyone in a playgroup to have an identical perspective on the format and the game in general, it is necessary for everyone in a playgroup to agree on the important aspects of the game.
For example, a playgroup that differs in stance regarding combos or certain other strategies will experience difficulties when these particular topics become relevant in the course of gameplay. However, minor disagreement over topics such as which deck is best or what cards are good is unlikely to fragment a playgroup.
4.0: The Real Issue
The debate about whether Commander is a casual or competitive format is an indication of the real issue that plagues Commander: disharmonious composition of playgroups. When players in a social game have discordant philosophies about how the game should be played and what is or is not acceptable, then the playgroup is bound to encounter severe problems at some point over the course of play.
Take, for example, the one nightmare scenario of casual Commander players everywhere: the rogue competitive player who sits down at the table with a combo deck. The problem in this case is not that the competitive player is using a combo deck, or even that he or she is a competitive player at all. The problem is that the competitive player is playing outside of the accepted bounds of the rest of the playgroup. The situation is effectively the same if the preferences are reversed and the casual player is the minority. Players are more than welcome to hold their own philosophies. What they aren't welcome to do is dictate others' experiences according to their own philosophies.
Often, Commander's "casual purists" get their start when a competitive player sits down for a game with them and, intentionally or not, disrupts their gameplay experience. This is certainly unfortunate, but the blame must be placed on the individual rather than on the entirety of competitive Commander players. Again, Commander is a social format; it is not necessarily casual or competitive as a whole. The playgroup makes that determination on its own. Blaming the entirety of a demographic of players for the fault of one is one of the greatest disservices any player can do to any other player in any game.
4.1: The solution
The solution to this problem is simple enough in theory: play Commander as it was intended to be played. By establishing the terms of the social contract before the game, players can prevent disagreement and soured experiences during the game. The onus is on each player to respect all other players and the situations in which those players are encountered. In essence, the solution is to be a good sport and a decent human.
4.2: What about Commander tournaments?
Perhaps the most notable exception to the collectivist rule of the playgroup is the one that arises in Commander tournaments. When Commander's social structure is nested inside the competitive structure of a tournament, it's likely that disagreement will occur. Done right, Commander events can be a great deal of fun for all involved. Too often, however, organizers and players get too caught up in idealism and fail to address reality.
Tournament structure breeds competitive spirit. When prizes are on the line, they typically encourage players to become more result-oriented. This is the basic premise of incentivization and reward. Organizers and players should expect that a tournament will promote competitiveness, and they should acknowledge that competitiveness is not a bad thing. Unrealistic expectations are the bane of the tournament experience. When casual players feel entitled to have casual games in a competitive environment, or when organizers pressure players, or are pressured by players, into denying the experience to certain demographics on nonsensical grounds, the experience becomes both degraded and degrading.
In organized play, the organization of the many supercedes the desires of the individual. While it should certainly never be the case that a tournament is unfun for all involved, and while tournament organizers should do their best to preserve the fun of the game within logistically feasible bounds, players need to understand that they are neither entitled nor forced to play in these tournaments, and that, should they choose to play, they are consenting to government by the tournament structure. It is a willing contract made by the individual player.
Worth special mention is the tendency of Commander tournament organizers to overcomplicate tournament structure in an attempt to please everyone. It's realistically unlikely that stringent modification and regulation of the tournament and format rules will be beneficial to the vast majority of players. Typically, this is demonstrated when organizers attempt to institute policies excluding certain decks, cards, or strategies on the grounds that they are "too competitive" for the event (which is, at the most basic level, a competition).
I will not discuss the "best" methods for organizing and governing Commander tournaments. That is easily another article unto itself. I will, however, recommend that tournament organizers seeking to host Commander tournaments be well aware of what their player base wants and what rules would be both realistic and fair. Don't try too hard to please everyone. There are several fables about how that doesn't work.
5.0: Why Is It Important to Think of Commander as a Social Format?
5.1: Non-exclusion
Believing that Commander should or shouldn't be casual or competitive is tantamount to arguing that players of the other preference should not be permitted to play Commander as they want to play Commander. This is a flagrantly selfish and narrow perspective for any player because it attempts in the name of self-gratification to deny others the right to enjoy the game. Furthermore, it goes against the principles on which Commander was founded and on which it continues to operate to this day.
Players have a right to enjoy the game in the manner they wish, provided it doesn't detract from the quality of others' experiences. This idea is based largely on an archaic concept called "The Golden Rule," whereby people are encouraged to be mutually civil and respectful. If your preferences don't cause others justifiable distress, then you should be permitted to play according to your preferences. Souring the gameplay experience for someone else is justifiable distress. Holding a different philosophy from someone else is not justifiable distress.
5.2: Depth of experience
Commander derives its depth from allowing players to collectively regulate the group experience according to mutual expectations and values. If the ability of players to experience and experiment is limited, then the format will also be limited. The greatest depth of experience is had when players are enjoying the game. Sometimes, experience is deepened by venturing outside of the playgroup's typical comfort zone, but the critical difference between acceptable and unacceptable digression is, rather simply, whether the playgroup accepts it or not. If the playgroup does not approve, then stay within the mutual limits. If you want to experiment beyond that, find a playgroup that can accommodate you and that you can accommodate in return.
5.3: Guilt-free experience
You should never feel bad about playing a certain card or deck within your playgroup, and you should never feel forced to tune your decks down or up to meet the playgroup's demands. If you find that any of these is the case, you should look for another playgroup or open your current playgroup to discussion about change. Remember, though, that they should not feel compelled to depart from their philosophies just as you should not feel compelled to depart from yours.
The ideal playgroup is one that feels like a close group of friends. That's exactly what it should be. Each player should feel welcomed by each other player, and, in turn, should welcome each other player. If something about the dynamic is missing or off, address it and try to fix it.
6.0: Venturing Outside the Playgroup
In some cases, it may be necessary to venture outside of your existing playgroup (or to find your first playgroup). Perhaps you want to get into the format, or you moved to a new area, or your old playgroup wasn't a good match. Whatever the reason, remember that respect and camaraderie are the foundations for a strong bond with your prospective new playgroup.
In all cases, remember that players should be operating according to the baseline established by the RC unless otherwise specified. That baseline was established precisely so there would be some uniformity and familiarity across expectations. While playgroups are welcome to customize the experience, they need to also make known any differences from the baseline.
6.1: How to approach a new playgroup
Whenever you approach a new playgroup, whether you're asking for a 1v1 game with someone else or looking to join a table of players, the onus is on you to explain what kind of game you'd like to play and to ask whether the other party is interested in that kind of game. Don't assume that the other players will be receptive to your philosophy. It would be nice if they were, but they are welcome to have their own philosophy, and they aren't obligated to change it to accommodate you.
If the other party is interested, propose a game or ask to join the next one. If they aren't, move on politely.
6.2: How to receive a new player
When another player joins your playgroup, make sure you inform him or her of any house rules and other relevant differences between your playgroup and the baseline established by the RC. Remember, you're welcome to customize the format, but the changes need to be made evident to newcomers so they aren't unpleasantly surprised when something happens differently from they might have been expecting it to happen.
Also, you aren't obligated to ask the newcomer for a life story, but you shouldn't be standoffish, either. If you welcomed him or her into the playgroup, then everyone should feel comfortable enough with one another to have an enjoyable game together.
6.3: The setting should inform your expectations
In cases where expectations aren't clearly defined, let the context inform your expectations. You're reasonably able to expect that a tournament will be competitive, and that the table of players using out-of-the-box preconstructed decks might be more on the casual side. When possible, check before making an assumption. It's best to know for sure.
7.0: Conclusion
This article should have, by now, covered the majority of the debate and theory that governs Commander politics. Some things may have slipped through the cracks, so feel free to discuss the article or its premises. I may edit the article accordingly.
Ultimately, Commander is meant to be a means for players to embrace the social experience in a refreshing way. It's intended to promote friendship, fun, and camaraderie, but the players themselves need to work together to make that happen. In many senses, Commander is a utilitarian format; players should govern it based on what they agree is in the best interests of everyone in the playgroup. This means that playgroup selection is the most critical decision any Commander player makes. Players should feel comfortable with one another and with the rules the group sets forth. Play as you want to; there shouldn't be any coercion or heartache over a friendly game.
Remember also that each playgroup operates in its own way, as it should. You are not entitled to enforce your philosophy on any playgroup. You are, however, welcome and encouraged to discuss expectations with one another and reach a mutual agreement, whether that agreement be the terms of a new game or that you will go your separate ways and find a more suitable group.
In some cases, it may not be possible to find or switch to another playgroup. In these situations, you must do the best you can. Play within the existing playgroup if it suits you. There are also online options; some online Magic communities are receptive to like-minded newcomers and might welcome additions to the playgroup. Branch out. In the unfortunate event that you cannot find another playgroup, stay with the format and try again from time to time. Commander is a wonderful experience, and it is wholly worth pursuing if you find that you enjoy it.
If anyone gets some playtesting data against fast combo decks like Hermit Druid, let me know if you think anti-ability spells like Stifle and Trickbind are truly worth maindecking.
Though the question has been sufficiently answered, I'd like to add one thing:
You can always check at the start of the event with a judge - preferably the head judge - about questions related to the game. For example, "are these sleeves suitable for use" or "is this an acceptable amount of time to do X."
If you actually do want to transcribe most of the game, I would highly advise you to check with the head judge about what you can and (probably) can't do within a reasonable amount of time. This will help you avoid penalties and problems during the actual event.
But, if he's already cast a spell, he can't cast a sorcery...so wouldn't that apply to the timing restriction?
Suspend is an ability, and it stops that.
Suspend only gets stopped because you cast the suspended card. It has nothing to do with suspend being an ability.
As for the Birthing Pod, it is unaffected. "Any time you could cast a sorcery" is Magic shorthand for "any time during your main phase when you have priority and the stack is empty." You don't have to have a sorcery to cast, nor do you have to be able to cast a sorcery. Even if you had something like Leyline of Anticipation, which would allow you to cast a sorcery at any time you could cast an instant, you can still only activate Birthing Pod's ability at any time you could normally cast a sorcery.
Basically, anything that has blue. I know that's not much to go on, but non-blue decks rarely, if ever, pose a threat to you.
As far as actual decklists, I lost to Arcum because I didn't have a fast enough start. This list can't really deal with mass attacks (e.g. Arcum Dagsson into Myr Incubator and Coat of Arms) as well as it can deal with combos. Ability-based combos and strategies are also weak point because the deck doesn't currently run many Stifle effects. I thought about Stifle itself purely to help mitigate that weakness, but I haven't been able to test the deck enough to say for certain whether it's a viable route.
Animar, Soul of Elements is another quick deck, and Animar itself can be hard to deal with if it resolves.
A fair point. In my experience in competitive EDH play (I played almost exclusively competitively), tucking wasn't a huge issue. Then again, I didn't play a commander-centric combo. Counterspells and very cheap kill spells have traditionally been better answers in the combo v combo matchup because you can drop one and then win before they get their engine back out. But I don't discount the possibility you describe.
1) I never said it should be given special treatment because it's rare. I specifically state in the article that there's a good separation between zones from which commander could be expected not to return and zones in which a commander is still available in some sense. The fact that tuck effects are fairly uncommon does help to balance their power and (former) use, but it's not the reason they should apply.
2) The point here is that Chaos Warp was one of red's enduring responses to commanders. It simply doesn't have enough efficient removal to lose options like that. And it wasn't really even factored into the explanations, at any rate.
3) Answers are a fundamental part of the game. It's fairly obvious to most people who play Magic that there need to be answers to different threats in order to keep those threats in check. Further, it's obvious that changes can be made to improve the health of the format. We're discussing whether the change is necessary and beneficial. I wrote quite a bit in the way of that discussion.
Tucking was the bridge between no removal and too much removal. I find that the graveyard/exile replacement effect is a fair and legitimate rule because it helps to mitigate loss from the most common removal effects. It also applied to the two zones from which you were least likely to recover your commander; a commander in a library or your hand is still available, whether immediately so or not.
Tucking was also good in that it helped red and blue cope with permanents in a limited, yet efficient way. Red simply doesn't have the removal economy to deal with commanders all the time; at least black and white have enough good removal to hit most threats even if they're recurred.
Further, I don't think the assumption should be made that a general is always available. While that's true for the most part, answers still need to exist, and I don't find that tucking was as oppressive as the RC seems to believe. Yes, it's more indefinite than allowing someone to pay 2 and recast, but it's not insurmountable, and it's not something that was destroying the format before.
I've written a response article to the rules change on TappedOut.net. If you're interested, you should check it out. I'm always interested in feedback.
Article here.
The article goes through each of the points made in the original announcement and in Sheldon's follow-up on SCG and offers an assessment of which ideas are best and worst represented. It also provides a review of the health of the format in light of the change.
Introduction
The intent of the research performed is to find a way to introduce Commander format of Magic: The Gathering into formal tournament play. It was inspired by a lack of official support for the format by the games creators, Wizards of the Coast, and growing popularity amongst players. The research will serve as the foundation for an assessment of Commander and its suitability for tournament play.
Background
The following subsections outline Magic: The Gathering as a game and Commander as a format of Magic: The Gathering.
Magic: The Gathering
Information in this section was obtained from the Wizards of the Coast website.
Magic: The Gathering (henceforth Magic) is the first and one of the most popular trading card games in the world. Wizards of the Coast (henceforth WOTC), a subsidiary of Hasbro Games, first released Magic in 1993. Magic is a complex game that includes collecting cards, formulating cards into decks, and using decks in competitive games against another players.
A deck of Magic cards typically contains 60 individual cards, which are chosen based on player preference and deck construction rules. Cards can be broken down into two basic categories: lands and spells. Lands are the primary source of mana, the in-game resource required to play most other cards. Spells are cards that affect the game in different ways in exchange for mana or other resources.
A basic game of Magic consists of two players, each with their own decks and 20 life points. The players each take turns casting spells and attacking with creatures in order to gain the advantage and eventually win. Games are often played in specific formats, each with their own rules. Sanctioned formats can be played in organized tournament settings with the support of WOTC. The majority of sanctioned events are held by local game stores (LGSs), which are the basic level of interaction between the individual player and any formal system. Tournament Organizers (TOs) are responsible for designing and hosting these events, and judges are responsible for executing the events and attending to player needs.
The Commander Format
Information in this section was obtained from the Commander (Elder Dragon Highlander) website.
Commander, a format of Magic: The Gathering, is unique in that it is the first and largest format of Magic created by the players rather than by WOTC. Typically, WOTC creates and maintains the formats of Magic; control of these formats is thus out of the hands of the players. As a result of direct player involvement, Commander is widely popular with many players, and the player community has a special interest in developing, playing, and maintaining Commander. Partly because Commander is a community format, it is not yet sanctioned by WOTC. Therefore, it is impossible to run official tournaments of Commander. Some groups of players opt to host their own events, but these small-scale tournaments lack the organizational structure and prize support systems of sanctioned events.
Casual and Competitive Tendencies in the Commander Format
The following section summarizes observations recorded while watching Commander players and games at an LGS.
Commander is often seen as a casual format, and its validity as a competitive format is disputed. More advanced players tend to treat the low barrier to entry into the format as a detriment because it all allows comparatively inexperienced players to participate. This is often a deterrent because it means that the players receive less of a challenge, and thus cannot further their own skills.
At the center of the debate between the casual and competitive aspects of Commander is the disparity between casual players and competitive players. Colloquially, these terms are relative and refer to loosely defined demographics of players identified by certain tendencies or mindsets. This report will not investigate the causes for these mindsets. Rather, it will only define them and assess the impact they have on the Commander format. This disparity is critical to understanding how players view Commander, and no effective tournament structure can be developed without at least considering the impact these groups have on player experiences.
Casual players tend to emphasize fun over victory games are about the interactions and atmosphere instead of the raw power of any cards or decks. These players are observed to be less likely to invest money in their Commander decks; many consider themselves to have a limited budget to spend on Commander, and the power level of their cards is indirectly curtailed because the strongest cards often have relatively high market values. During games, casual players are more likely to consciously make decisions that result in comedic or unusual situations. Although they do not completely forego the plays that are the most technically correct or advantageous in their contexts, they are less likely to make a choice based on its correctness or advantageousness.
Competitive players exhibit the contrasting qualities. They are more likely to prioritize victory over random, comedic, or unusual experiences. Because winning is a predominant goal of competitive players, they are more likely to build decks by choosing powerful cards; they appear to be willing to spend more than casual players to get the best of what is available. Many competitive players exhibit perceptible seriousness during games; technical correctness and propensity to generate victory are the motivating factors behind their decisions.
Commander players can normally define themselves as either casual or competitive, implying that the demarcation between the two is, at least to some extent, clear to them. Players also exhibit a degree of cliquishness they are likely to hold games with those of the same mindset, but demonstrate a lesser inclination to cross the perceived line between the casual and competitive groups. It can be extrapolated from this observation that players most enjoy games among peers who share the same basic game philosophy.
The issue becomes more complex when it considers not just the alignment of players in regards to casual or competitive nature, but whether players of one group acknowledge the existence or legitimacy of the other. The majority of players seem to acknowledge that Commander is a mixed format they are aware that casual and competitive players exist and are different. However, this does not necessarily imply that they consider the both groups to be legitimate subsections of the format. The logic for denying a groups legitimacy varies by individual, but many players appear to base their conclusions on the perceived trueness of the groups philosophy to the perceived intent of the Commander format. For example, an individual who views Commander as a format aimed at providing fun and interesting games may deny that competitive players have a legitimate stake in the nature and future of Commander because competitive players tend to play to win rather than strictly to have fun.
As a result of this split between casual and competitive groups, players have, whether consciously or unconsciously, developed stereotypes of each demographic. In some cases, this leads to mere aversion. In others, it leads to tense relations and uncomfortable atmospheres. TOs should be aware of the potential impact of the casual versus competitive debate on the organization and execution of Commander tournaments.
Research Methodology
The following subsections offer synopses of the two predominant original research methods utilized: surveys and interviews.
In both methods, it was critical to gauge directly the community opinions of Commander. Surveying and interviewing players provides data from the demographic with the most stakes in Commander and with the most interest in discussing and developing Commander. The players are the first group impacted by changes made to Commander as a format, and it is for them that these changes are made.
Surveys
A two-part survey was distributed online through surveymonkey.com, a website that facilitates user creation and distribution of surveys. Part I focused on player experience with Commander and general opinions about Commander as a format. Part II focused on Commander tournament design. Each survey consists of only multiple-choice questions; some answer choices allowed subjects to input their own answers or descriptions. All of the questions and answers were designed by an experienced Commander player and theorist to accommodate the most likely ranges of answers; please specify options were included to allow for responses outside of the anticipated ones.
Hyperlinks to the surveys were posted on two Magic forums: tappedout.net and mtgsalvation.com. These forums are gathering places for players to discuss Magic decks and game philosophy. Therefore, surveying the users of these websites provided data and opinions directly from the Magic community. The same post content was used to distribute the survey hyperlinks to each website.
Interviews
Interviews provide detailed player opinions to supplement general survey data. Each interview was conducted individually, and each interview subject was chosen because he or she represented a different set of experiences. Interviewees were asked their opinions of Commander, the Magic community, and how Commander could be better organized. The questions were not uniform; each interview began with queries based on the individuals experiences and evolved fluidly with the discussion. Notes were taken throughout the process. Interviewees were asked for consent to be quoted or referenced by name within this document; only the names of those who consented will appear.
The first interviewee is both a judge and a Commander player; the combination of roles allows that individual to make observations from both perspectives. As a player, he offered an in-depth analysis of some ways Commander is typically played. The information from the interview clarified information from the surveys, and it also provided new ideas that were not expressed in the limited survey space. As a judge, he offered a review of some high-level problems that Commander might face in tournament play, and he also submitted feedback on the nature of player interactions across games.
The second interviewee is a game store manager. He offered his thoughts about player interactions and the relevance of a tournament organizer to an events players. This interview is particularly important because it is the LGS that is directly responsible for the organization of small-scale tournaments and events. Except in those instances where players hold their own informal tournaments, LGS events are the most basic examples of organized play in any format. The LGS therefore plays an important role in balancing the demand for tournaments with the need to maintain a welcoming and healthy play environment. The perspective of an individual intimately familiar with the responsibilities and needs of an LGS is invaluable to anyone aiming to develop guidelines for organized play.
Research Results
This section provides an summary of the survey results and interview responses, and it also analyzes the data for implications and relevance to Commander tournament guidelines.
Surveys
Part I of the survey returned 375 response sets and Part II of the survey returned 323 response sets, but due to the freemium design of surveymonkey.com, only 100 response sets from each part are viewable. This report will consider only those 100 response sets.
From the responses to these questions, it can be theorized that the Commander community as a whole is relatively open to the idea of a mixed format. 59.60% of respondents view Commander as a mixed format. By comparison, 37.37% support that Commander is casual and 3.03% support that Commander is competitive.
These results do not correlate to the respondents individual tendencies in Commander games 30% play Commander as a mixed format (meaning those players play both casual and competitive games) while 62% play Commander casually and 8% play Commander competitively. When asked about what they believe of other players, 96% of respondents believed the Commander community is in some way mixed. The survey results indicate that most view that mix as predominantly casual, but it is significant that the vast majority of sampled individuals acknowledge that other players can have their own preferences.
The majority of respondents noted that they either would or might like to participate in a Commander tournament and also that their LGSs would likely host Commander tournaments. However, the data reveals that these individuals are also evenly split on the question of whether Commander should become a sanctioned format with official rules and procedures. This indicates that the respondents may prefer Commander to remain player-operated rather than officially governed, even though they would also like tournaments to be made available to them.
Although the majority of responses to Part I of the survey indicated that the Commander community was likely to be largely casual, the responses to Part II reveal that the community is split on how best to organize a Commander tournament. Most respondents support that tournament design should in some way acknowledge the difference between casual and competitive players. Over half of all responses are in favor of incorporating both casual and competitive players into the tournament, but those responses do not indicate with any certainty whether the two groups should be accommodated separately or within the same games.
The responses to the other questions regarding tournament design signaled large majorities supporting specific elements. As a group, the respondents believe that Commander tournaments should be run with four-player games that each last sixty minutes. Each match should have a single game, and the tournament should run three rounds. Traditional victory is the most popular means of determining a winner, and the event should be structured as a Swiss tournament.
Interviews
The first interviewee, Min Moldover, is a judge and Commander player. He identifies himself as a casual player, but acknowledges that Commander is a mixed format. When asked about the concept of an organized Commander tournament, Moldover expressed disapproval; he supports the format, but he feels that organized play introduces too many uncontrollable issues. Specifically, he believes it is difficult to design any structure that would attempt to separate casual and competitive players. Moldover clarifies that because the notions of casual and competitive, while somehow identifiable to players, are still subjective, it would be impossible to standardize a means of classifying decks. Therefore, it is logistically favorable to support casual and competitive players in the same tournament without differentiating between them.
Moldover argues that a carefully formulated prize structure could be used to discourage competitive players from dominating the casual players. A flat prize payout with relatively low value would indirectly control the competitive players. Moldover argues that this control is necessary to maintain a healthy and satisfying atmosphere for the players as a whole. Smaller prizes would give the competitive players less incentive to aggressively win their games, which would in turn create a more relaxed environment. Although such a structure does necessitate smaller monetary or product rewards, it does emphasize what Moldover believes is the most important aspect of Commander: enjoyability.
Furthermore, Moldovers responses clarified one of the realities of organized Commander play: the demand that Commander as a format places on judges is greater than the demand mandated by other formats. Because the Commander rules allow for almost unlimited freedom to players as they construct their decks, situations arise in Commander games that could almost never be imagined in other formats. Judges must therefore know to a greater extent the rules of both traditional Magic and the Commander format. This presents challenges to judges who might normally be qualified to handle events of other formats.
The second interviewee, William Voight, is an LGS manager. Although he does not play Commander, he does organize tournaments for most other formats of Magic. He offered valuable insight into the relationship between a TO and the players participating in his or her event. Voight explains that the primary purpose of an LGS event should be to ensure the players have fun and enjoy their experience. To that end, it is vital that TOs at the LGS level know their constituents and accommodate them in a democratic way. These sentiments reinforce the stance that a tournament structure must take into account any factors that might influence the experience of the players.
Because Voight is not a Commander player, he stated that he felt he did not have the depth of familiarity required to answer questions specific to Commander itself.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The following tournament structure was developed based on the observations, survey results, and interview responses gathered throughout the research process. It aims to accommodate the opinions and demands of the Commander community while remaining logistically viable enough to implement at the LGS level.
Qualities:
Free-for-all Swiss tournament structure
Three sixty-minute rounds
One game per match
Four players per game
Flat prize payout, low value prize pool
These are the recommended qualities of a Commander tournament based on the available data about player preferences. They may be tailored to suit the individual needs of each LGS, and they are flexible enough to allow reasonable modifications. As the Commander community continues to expand and player opinions changes, these suggestions may become obsolete. At that time, changes should be made to accommodate the current needs of the players.
I don't even know how I would go about doing this.
No. Chasm Skulker is a terrible card in competitive metas. It doesn't have any relevant abilities for a combo deck; +1/+1 counters and tokens aren't significant to an infinite mana/bounce deck, and the creature doesn't really do anything on its own.
Casual vs. competitive should be used as the basis for selecting your playgroup. Social is introduced to define the format itself and to end the inane debate about whether Commander as a format is casual or competitive (it's neither).
As I said, being competitive does not preclude anyone from also valuing the experience of the game.
I think it's fair to say that most players place some value on the experience; those who don't typically burn out after a short time playing. I personally play competitive EDH because I find high-tension games appealing, but I also definitely value the result. Once again, casual and competitive are best compared along a spectrum; almost all players have some combination of the two inclinations.
Regardless, we can argue about whether competitiveness in a player really means more emphasis on results than experiences, but it doesn't actually change anything about the rest of the article.
Any theory-based article necessarily hinges on the specified definitions. That's how you standardize the understanding of the topic and prepare the audience for the discussion.
This is more of an article, and I'm not sure what the protocol is for article posting on MTGS, but here goes.
Introduction
You've probably heard it before. Every Commander player has.
"EDH is a casual format."
But is it really? There's a lot of debate about whether Commander is a casual format or not. Many people think of it as one, even if they can't articulate why exactly they think it is.
This is intended to be a comprehensive, stand-alone article (although it's still part of the Pandora's Deckbox series).
1.0: Defining Casual, Competitive, and Social
Before we can get any further into the debate, we need to define some terms. Whenever this article references "casual," "competitive," or "social" as terms or ideas, it will be referencing the definitions in this section.
A consistent and established set of definitions will allow us to make sense of the debate as a whole.
1.1: Casual
Casual:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game more than the results
2) (in reference to formats) Not structured or organized so as to prioritize victory or certain results
1.2: Competitive
Competitive:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the results of a game more than the gameplay.
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote a more organized experience; organized around a ranking system that rewards victory
1.3: Social
Social:
1) (in reference to players) Tending to value the experience of a game within the context of an inter-player bond
2) (in reference to formats) Structured so as to promote interaction and camaraderie between players
1.4: Bringing them together
It's relatively easy to think of casual and competitive as opposites. The Magic community tends to think of them in this way already. For the most part, this assumption is accurate; if we consider casual vs. competitive to be a continuum where "true" casual values only the gameplay experience and "true" competitive values only the results, then most players will fall somewhere between those two extremes. The continuum is perhaps the best representation of the casual vs. competitive debate because almost nobody can be accurately classified by either terminus.
For example, competitive players value the results of the game, which means they value victory. This doesn't mean that competitive players cannot value fun or experience; rather, it means that victory is prioritized before other experiences.
Definitionally, social players appear to be more like casual players than competitive players because of their priorities, but any player can exhibit social qualities. Granted, social qualities tend to coincide with an emphasis on gameplay experience, but remember that experience and results are not mutually exclusive priorities.
Let's make the model more complex: say our casual vs. competitive continuum is represented by an X axis, and "socialness" is represented by the Y axis of the same continuum. In this model, any player at any point on the continuum can demonstrate social qualities. Although casual players are empirically more likely to be social players, socialness must be represented independently because it is still an independent quality.
2.0: The Core Debate
Most Magic players start out as casual players. They get into the game because their friends play around the kitchen table on weekends, or because they think it might be a fun hobby. Generally, new players don't start out by jumping directly into a competitive environment like Standard or Modern.
As players grow more accustomed to the game, they tend to also become more receptive to the idea of participating in events such as FNM. Because FNM, and sanctioned formats in general, are structured according to tournament protocol and organization, they inherently produce a more competitive environment than kitchen table play.
For many, the kitchen table game is the epitome of the social experience. It is a game governed only by the players experiencing it and their mutual understanding of what Magic should be. Perhaps because the tendency is to drift from this self-regulated environment into the more structured competitive environment (although this drift isn't forceful and doesn't preclude someone from enjoying games in both environments), players are often of the opinion that social and competitive are opposites. This is untrue, as was described above.
2.1: "Commander is a casual format."
Commander began as a social format. Regardless of the debate between casual and competitive, this much is true. The intent of Commander is clearly outlined on MTGCommander.net in the Philosophy section:
Not only does the RC use "social" as the operative word, its explanation makes perfectly clear their intent for Commander to promote camaraderie through the shared experience of a game of Magic.
The misconception that Commander is a casual format typically stems (1) from the observation that Commander is an informal, non-sanctioned format most frequently played in a kitchen table setting and (2) from the conflation of casual and social. Commander is, at its core, a social format. It can be experienced in casual or competitive ways, but the social aspect remains engrained in the format.
3.0: More Theory
In order to fully understand Commander's identity as a social format, we need to dig deeper into the theory and principles that govern it.
3.1: The playgroup as the basic unit of the social format
The basic "unit" of a social game is the playgroup. Whether it consists of two, four, or more players, the playgroup is the collective that chooses to experience the game together.
Generally speaking, members of a playgroup have a shared understanding of what Magic means to them as an experience. That is what brings the players together in the first place. Social formats as a whole are defined by these playgroups and their collective philosophies. It is the playgroup that defines the range of experiences that are expected and acceptable within the group.
3.2: The centrality of the playgroup in Commander
Because Commander is a social format, and because social formats are defined and governed by the groups that play them, the playgroup is, necessarily, central to Commander. The playgroup defines Commander's form and function according to the players' shared understandings, expectations, and wishes. Part of what makes Commander so appealing as a format is the degree of autonomy afforded to the players themselves. An official ban list exists, but the RC recommends that it be used as a suggestion and not an absolute unless playing outside of your playgroup (we will address that particular situation later). Players are allowed, and even encouraged, to change the ban list and other format rules as they see fit. Why? To provide a more enjoyable experience for those playing the game.
These decisions need to be made collectively. Typically, problems between players in a game of Commander stem from differing philosophies within the playgroup itself. While it isn't strictly necessary for everyone in a playgroup to have an identical perspective on the format and the game in general, it is necessary for everyone in a playgroup to agree on the important aspects of the game.
For example, a playgroup that differs in stance regarding combos or certain other strategies will experience difficulties when these particular topics become relevant in the course of gameplay. However, minor disagreement over topics such as which deck is best or what cards are good is unlikely to fragment a playgroup.
4.0: The Real Issue
The debate about whether Commander is a casual or competitive format is an indication of the real issue that plagues Commander: disharmonious composition of playgroups. When players in a social game have discordant philosophies about how the game should be played and what is or is not acceptable, then the playgroup is bound to encounter severe problems at some point over the course of play.
Take, for example, the one nightmare scenario of casual Commander players everywhere: the rogue competitive player who sits down at the table with a combo deck. The problem in this case is not that the competitive player is using a combo deck, or even that he or she is a competitive player at all. The problem is that the competitive player is playing outside of the accepted bounds of the rest of the playgroup. The situation is effectively the same if the preferences are reversed and the casual player is the minority. Players are more than welcome to hold their own philosophies. What they aren't welcome to do is dictate others' experiences according to their own philosophies.
Often, Commander's "casual purists" get their start when a competitive player sits down for a game with them and, intentionally or not, disrupts their gameplay experience. This is certainly unfortunate, but the blame must be placed on the individual rather than on the entirety of competitive Commander players. Again, Commander is a social format; it is not necessarily casual or competitive as a whole. The playgroup makes that determination on its own. Blaming the entirety of a demographic of players for the fault of one is one of the greatest disservices any player can do to any other player in any game.
4.1: The solution
The solution to this problem is simple enough in theory: play Commander as it was intended to be played. By establishing the terms of the social contract before the game, players can prevent disagreement and soured experiences during the game. The onus is on each player to respect all other players and the situations in which those players are encountered. In essence, the solution is to be a good sport and a decent human.
4.2: What about Commander tournaments?
Perhaps the most notable exception to the collectivist rule of the playgroup is the one that arises in Commander tournaments. When Commander's social structure is nested inside the competitive structure of a tournament, it's likely that disagreement will occur. Done right, Commander events can be a great deal of fun for all involved. Too often, however, organizers and players get too caught up in idealism and fail to address reality.
Tournament structure breeds competitive spirit. When prizes are on the line, they typically encourage players to become more result-oriented. This is the basic premise of incentivization and reward. Organizers and players should expect that a tournament will promote competitiveness, and they should acknowledge that competitiveness is not a bad thing. Unrealistic expectations are the bane of the tournament experience. When casual players feel entitled to have casual games in a competitive environment, or when organizers pressure players, or are pressured by players, into denying the experience to certain demographics on nonsensical grounds, the experience becomes both degraded and degrading.
In organized play, the organization of the many supercedes the desires of the individual. While it should certainly never be the case that a tournament is unfun for all involved, and while tournament organizers should do their best to preserve the fun of the game within logistically feasible bounds, players need to understand that they are neither entitled nor forced to play in these tournaments, and that, should they choose to play, they are consenting to government by the tournament structure. It is a willing contract made by the individual player.
Worth special mention is the tendency of Commander tournament organizers to overcomplicate tournament structure in an attempt to please everyone. It's realistically unlikely that stringent modification and regulation of the tournament and format rules will be beneficial to the vast majority of players. Typically, this is demonstrated when organizers attempt to institute policies excluding certain decks, cards, or strategies on the grounds that they are "too competitive" for the event (which is, at the most basic level, a competition).
I will not discuss the "best" methods for organizing and governing Commander tournaments. That is easily another article unto itself. I will, however, recommend that tournament organizers seeking to host Commander tournaments be well aware of what their player base wants and what rules would be both realistic and fair. Don't try too hard to please everyone. There are several fables about how that doesn't work.
5.0: Why Is It Important to Think of Commander as a Social Format?
5.1: Non-exclusion
Believing that Commander should or shouldn't be casual or competitive is tantamount to arguing that players of the other preference should not be permitted to play Commander as they want to play Commander. This is a flagrantly selfish and narrow perspective for any player because it attempts in the name of self-gratification to deny others the right to enjoy the game. Furthermore, it goes against the principles on which Commander was founded and on which it continues to operate to this day.
Players have a right to enjoy the game in the manner they wish, provided it doesn't detract from the quality of others' experiences. This idea is based largely on an archaic concept called "The Golden Rule," whereby people are encouraged to be mutually civil and respectful. If your preferences don't cause others justifiable distress, then you should be permitted to play according to your preferences. Souring the gameplay experience for someone else is justifiable distress. Holding a different philosophy from someone else is not justifiable distress.
5.2: Depth of experience
Commander derives its depth from allowing players to collectively regulate the group experience according to mutual expectations and values. If the ability of players to experience and experiment is limited, then the format will also be limited. The greatest depth of experience is had when players are enjoying the game. Sometimes, experience is deepened by venturing outside of the playgroup's typical comfort zone, but the critical difference between acceptable and unacceptable digression is, rather simply, whether the playgroup accepts it or not. If the playgroup does not approve, then stay within the mutual limits. If you want to experiment beyond that, find a playgroup that can accommodate you and that you can accommodate in return.
5.3: Guilt-free experience
You should never feel bad about playing a certain card or deck within your playgroup, and you should never feel forced to tune your decks down or up to meet the playgroup's demands. If you find that any of these is the case, you should look for another playgroup or open your current playgroup to discussion about change. Remember, though, that they should not feel compelled to depart from their philosophies just as you should not feel compelled to depart from yours.
The ideal playgroup is one that feels like a close group of friends. That's exactly what it should be. Each player should feel welcomed by each other player, and, in turn, should welcome each other player. If something about the dynamic is missing or off, address it and try to fix it.
6.0: Venturing Outside the Playgroup
In some cases, it may be necessary to venture outside of your existing playgroup (or to find your first playgroup). Perhaps you want to get into the format, or you moved to a new area, or your old playgroup wasn't a good match. Whatever the reason, remember that respect and camaraderie are the foundations for a strong bond with your prospective new playgroup.
In all cases, remember that players should be operating according to the baseline established by the RC unless otherwise specified. That baseline was established precisely so there would be some uniformity and familiarity across expectations. While playgroups are welcome to customize the experience, they need to also make known any differences from the baseline.
6.1: How to approach a new playgroup
Whenever you approach a new playgroup, whether you're asking for a 1v1 game with someone else or looking to join a table of players, the onus is on you to explain what kind of game you'd like to play and to ask whether the other party is interested in that kind of game. Don't assume that the other players will be receptive to your philosophy. It would be nice if they were, but they are welcome to have their own philosophy, and they aren't obligated to change it to accommodate you.
If the other party is interested, propose a game or ask to join the next one. If they aren't, move on politely.
6.2: How to receive a new player
When another player joins your playgroup, make sure you inform him or her of any house rules and other relevant differences between your playgroup and the baseline established by the RC. Remember, you're welcome to customize the format, but the changes need to be made evident to newcomers so they aren't unpleasantly surprised when something happens differently from they might have been expecting it to happen.
Also, you aren't obligated to ask the newcomer for a life story, but you shouldn't be standoffish, either. If you welcomed him or her into the playgroup, then everyone should feel comfortable enough with one another to have an enjoyable game together.
6.3: The setting should inform your expectations
In cases where expectations aren't clearly defined, let the context inform your expectations. You're reasonably able to expect that a tournament will be competitive, and that the table of players using out-of-the-box preconstructed decks might be more on the casual side. When possible, check before making an assumption. It's best to know for sure.
7.0: Conclusion
This article should have, by now, covered the majority of the debate and theory that governs Commander politics. Some things may have slipped through the cracks, so feel free to discuss the article or its premises. I may edit the article accordingly.
Ultimately, Commander is meant to be a means for players to embrace the social experience in a refreshing way. It's intended to promote friendship, fun, and camaraderie, but the players themselves need to work together to make that happen. In many senses, Commander is a utilitarian format; players should govern it based on what they agree is in the best interests of everyone in the playgroup. This means that playgroup selection is the most critical decision any Commander player makes. Players should feel comfortable with one another and with the rules the group sets forth. Play as you want to; there shouldn't be any coercion or heartache over a friendly game.
Remember also that each playgroup operates in its own way, as it should. You are not entitled to enforce your philosophy on any playgroup. You are, however, welcome and encouraged to discuss expectations with one another and reach a mutual agreement, whether that agreement be the terms of a new game or that you will go your separate ways and find a more suitable group.
In some cases, it may not be possible to find or switch to another playgroup. In these situations, you must do the best you can. Play within the existing playgroup if it suits you. There are also online options; some online Magic communities are receptive to like-minded newcomers and might welcome additions to the playgroup. Branch out. In the unfortunate event that you cannot find another playgroup, stay with the format and try again from time to time. Commander is a wonderful experience, and it is wholly worth pursuing if you find that you enjoy it.
You can always check at the start of the event with a judge - preferably the head judge - about questions related to the game. For example, "are these sleeves suitable for use" or "is this an acceptable amount of time to do X."
If you actually do want to transcribe most of the game, I would highly advise you to check with the head judge about what you can and (probably) can't do within a reasonable amount of time. This will help you avoid penalties and problems during the actual event.
Suspend only gets stopped because you cast the suspended card. It has nothing to do with suspend being an ability.
As for the Birthing Pod, it is unaffected. "Any time you could cast a sorcery" is Magic shorthand for "any time during your main phase when you have priority and the stack is empty." You don't have to have a sorcery to cast, nor do you have to be able to cast a sorcery. Even if you had something like Leyline of Anticipation, which would allow you to cast a sorcery at any time you could cast an instant, you can still only activate Birthing Pod's ability at any time you could normally cast a sorcery.
As far as actual decklists, I lost to Arcum because I didn't have a fast enough start. This list can't really deal with mass attacks (e.g. Arcum Dagsson into Myr Incubator and Coat of Arms) as well as it can deal with combos. Ability-based combos and strategies are also weak point because the deck doesn't currently run many Stifle effects. I thought about Stifle itself purely to help mitigate that weakness, but I haven't been able to test the deck enough to say for certain whether it's a viable route.
Animar, Soul of Elements is another quick deck, and Animar itself can be hard to deal with if it resolves.