Then they could have taken their own advice and house-ruled it for their insulated group, not forced it on everyone else.
As you're clearly well informed about the RC's playgroup, could you shed some light on it? What can you tell us about it? Where are the RC all located?
While you're here, care to explain this change (for 45 days no less)?
Not going to answer my question? You speak with such authority on these things.
We did it because we think it'll be fun and an appropriate celebration of the new set. Try it!
It's 45 days because it's a celebration and we felt that was long enough for people to get a chance to play and short enough not to wear out the welcome. It's also a fairly obvious date.
Then they could have taken their own advice and house-ruled it for their insulated group, not forced it on everyone else.
As you're clearly well informed about the RC's playgroup, could you shed some light on it? What can you tell us about it? Where are the RC all located?
I'm not seeing anything that problematic, honestly. Spike would be a huge problem if Rule 13 didn't exist, but nothing makes me go "oh holy crap no" like, say, Richard Garfield.
I was answering under the assumption that they'd agreed to make the card legal. Rule 13 still applies, though. (Of course, any conversation involving "hey, can I run Spike?" almost certainly involves setting parameters)
to your #3, errata. This is a legacy format, if your not familiar with errata your not playing the cards right. To that end wizards up to the modern scene would typically have to rewrite the more powerful cards post printing with errata to balance them.
This is not how errata works in Magic. Aside from the Grand Creature Type Update, errata is used for one of two things:
1) To make cards work the way they were printed with modern templating
2) To fix errors, of which I can think of three, none of which see any Legacy play (Hostage Taker, Marath, Walking Atlas)
Balancing is not done through errata. The primary goal of errata is so that players can look at an old card and still play *what the card already says* correctly, even though the text on it isn't functional Magic text.
Beyond that, I think the fact that you're already having to come up with arbitrary lines as to what should and shouldn't receive Commander designation is a sign that this is maybe a bad idea.
Is it possible that means that their design team plans to break our format a little less? Nobody likes new cards that have to be banned immediately after all (stares at G Brand).
While your point has some validity, it's worth noting that Griselbrand is 5 1/2 years old now.
I could just as easily ask you to give me a reason that its a bad idea as you could ask me for a reason that it is a good idea.
It adds an additional rule, and associated cognitive load. It requires another "except" to a rule that is otherwise easy to explain ("You can't have mana symbols on your cards that aren't on your commander").
That's a downside.
(Also, it's a change. That's not disqualifying, but it means you need to overcome an inherent barrier.)
(Example of what wording could be used) 903.4d Hybrid mana is playable so long that either side of each hybrid mana fits the colors of your commander's color identity.
Sure, you could do this. (Well, this text has all sorts of problems, but you could write a rule that worked.) But why? You've just added a rule - one that is clearly very arbitrary, as it tries to dodge all the other "intended to be flexible in casting" cards - for no reason other than you want to play with a couple extra cards above those eight thousand or so you can already throw in a deck.
People who want to play with some specific cards start from trying to define rules that get them what they want (but no more). That's bad design. Write good rules, then see where the chips fall on what cards are available. Only add exceptions when you must. Trying to argue "designer intent" is pointless - why is how easy the designer meant to cast it the relevant point? Color identity isn't defined, even philosophically, by how you're able to cast something.
This discussion isn't going to go anywhere until someone provides an explanation as to why it's important that hybrid be called out specially in the rules. "I want to play them off-color" is not important, especially in a format defined by restrictions.
Last but not least, the current color identity rules already deviate from the game rules that define color, since Memnarch is considered blue and Bosh, Iron Golem is considered red while the rules of the game say they are colorless. So the fact that hybrid cards count as both colors ruleswise is not a valid argument to support the claim that they should therefore also be coloridentitywise, as the current rules already prove this is not a 1 on 1 relation.
That is correct. Color identity is not color.
So why is a color argument (and a gameplay one rather than a deckbuilding one) being used to try to justify a change?
I will admit that I was a bit puzzled about Selvala suddenly being on the RC's radar.
It's not sudden - it's been on our radar since the day it was spoiled, there've been multiple threads about it in various places, and it certainly does things that we tend to take a close look at.
That being said, lots of cards end up on our radar, so I wouldn't treat a mention as predictive.
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.
Not going to answer my question? You speak with such authority on these things.
We did it because we think it'll be fun and an appropriate celebration of the new set. Try it!
It's 45 days because it's a celebration and we felt that was long enough for people to get a chance to play and short enough not to wear out the welcome. It's also a fairly obvious date.
As you're clearly well informed about the RC's playgroup, could you shed some light on it? What can you tell us about it? Where are the RC all located?
By default, you can't pull anything.
This is not how errata works in Magic. Aside from the Grand Creature Type Update, errata is used for one of two things:
1) To make cards work the way they were printed with modern templating
2) To fix errors, of which I can think of three, none of which see any Legacy play (Hostage Taker, Marath, Walking Atlas)
Balancing is not done through errata. The primary goal of errata is so that players can look at an old card and still play *what the card already says* correctly, even though the text on it isn't functional Magic text.
Beyond that, I think the fact that you're already having to come up with arbitrary lines as to what should and shouldn't receive Commander designation is a sign that this is maybe a bad idea.
While your point has some validity, it's worth noting that Griselbrand is 5 1/2 years old now.
So why necro it?
It adds an additional rule, and associated cognitive load. It requires another "except" to a rule that is otherwise easy to explain ("You can't have mana symbols on your cards that aren't on your commander").
That's a downside.
(Also, it's a change. That's not disqualifying, but it means you need to overcome an inherent barrier.)
Sure, you could do this. (Well, this text has all sorts of problems, but you could write a rule that worked.) But why? You've just added a rule - one that is clearly very arbitrary, as it tries to dodge all the other "intended to be flexible in casting" cards - for no reason other than you want to play with a couple extra cards above those eight thousand or so you can already throw in a deck.
People who want to play with some specific cards start from trying to define rules that get them what they want (but no more). That's bad design. Write good rules, then see where the chips fall on what cards are available. Only add exceptions when you must. Trying to argue "designer intent" is pointless - why is how easy the designer meant to cast it the relevant point? Color identity isn't defined, even philosophically, by how you're able to cast something.
This discussion isn't going to go anywhere until someone provides an explanation as to why it's important that hybrid be called out specially in the rules. "I want to play them off-color" is not important, especially in a format defined by restrictions.
That is correct. Color identity is not color.
So why is a color argument (and a gameplay one rather than a deckbuilding one) being used to try to justify a change?
Commander rules predate hybrid, though they were obviously a lot less formal back then, and it was mostly the province of judges.
It's not sudden - it's been on our radar since the day it was spoiled, there've been multiple threads about it in various places, and it certainly does things that we tend to take a close look at.
That being said, lots of cards end up on our radar, so I wouldn't treat a mention as predictive.
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.
That data exists right now. Nothing changes.
On June 5, multiplayer commander goes back to being the way it always has been. The difference is that there'll be a more supported 1v1 format.