A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on 7/8 Banlist
    Quote from Macabre »
    The issue it causes players is when the pilot is slow at math, not what the card adds to the game. The fix to this problem is helping your friend, not banning a card.

    I don't think most people are slow at math. Paradox Engine does a lot of things, and in a giant game of Commander, there are going to be a lot of moving parts. And a lot of it will include unknown information, such as drawing cards, and pre-planning actions gets harder.

    To simplify things down to "people are bad at math" is quite honestly rather insulting, and a serious oversimplification of this game.

    I have yet to see or hear a single good excuse for unbanning painter. There are other cards on the banlist that can be set free. The before mentioned panoptic mirror, which is terribly slow compared to what kefnit+turns is capable of doing now. If they want to keep the list short, then unban braids, because banning a card using mtgo as an excuse was silly. Why not gifts ungiven (because intuition isn't), biorhythm when we have shaman of forgotten ways, or coalition victory which fails to a creature removal spell or strip mine and we have approach the second sun which is far easier to control?

    Really why did they choose painter when there are multiple other safer options.


    Do any of these 'safer' options actually add anything to the game though? I don't know about you, but none of those seem exciting to me to build up, compared to the danger they add.

    Painter's seems to have some added danger to being let loose, notably Ugin and All is Dust, but in that sense it compares to Enchanted Evening and Mycosynth Lattice. On the flip side though, it's been something a lot have been wanting, for some kooky color-matters shenaningans. Time will tell if it gets to be problematic, but it should likely be ok.

    That said, I see no way in which Biorythm is a 'safe' unban. Shaman requires a lot more set up (haste, and a lot more creatures/power) to even come close to having the same effect.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on I hope Emminence comes back for C19. Roast me :D
    I like that they explore design space and ideas, so to that end I don't mind commanders that have a bit of an emblem attached. It gives you another unique way to build your deck and play the game. I do feel that some of them have been a bit stronger than I'd like though.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Commander is looking for new Moderator Applicants.
    As several senior staff have moved on to their new project, MTGSalvation is looking for some volunteers to help shape the vision of Commander discussion on this site.

    Moderators are an important facet of the site's life and keeping the forum and community going. Moderators are responsible for helping shape the forum's vision, and adapting to current trends in the Commander world. We also help engage the community, and improve upon the site's features - For example, the Commander Primers were a moderator-led initiative that started with Viperesque and ISB Pathfinder. Finally, moderators are here to help keep discussions civil, and ensure that everyone can have a voice and be heard.

    Ideal Candidates Will
    • Be active on the forums and in good standing in the community.
    • Be innovative and seek to expand Commander offerings, and have ideas to improve the site and Commander discussion and engagement.
    • Be able to keep a civil tone and help ease tensions in heated discussions. Preferably with discussion first and foremost, but not afraid to make quick impartial judgments as needed, and uphold and explain the site policies and rules.
    • Be an ambassador to the site and put forth a good foot forward in all public and private dealings.

    If you feel that you are ready to help shape one of the longest lasting Commander communities, place an application in the Moderator Applications forum.

    https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/community-discussion/staff-inbox/moderator-applications
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on New Website - MTGNexus
    Quote from cyberium_neo »
    I'm sure it's legal to advertise new forums in this forum, but it still feels kind of wrong. You could've advertise this on EDHREC, which I'm sure many of us visit anyway, at least then it would be a neutral ground for people to pick and decide. Posting it here, alongside with a negative outlook, you're actively contributing to the "last gasp" by luring people away, while benefiting your new home.


    Prior to Nexus coming online, Magic Find had expressed willingness to let the Nexus staff permission to say a few words in parting to promote the new site. What the details of that were, are rather vague.

    At this time, I believe the message has been said, and this thread will be closed from here.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    Quote from Hermes_ »
    so, I couldn't figure out where this fit perfectly:

    It seems to me that the cEDH group wouldn't be happy unless a clear cut statement like "We don't take into consideration competitive EDH because that's not what we're into" or something to that effect to put out there. I understand the following "Competitive balance is not our mission." to be an explanation but others do not.


    You mean, something like:
    The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level [...]


    I mean, the philosophy has always had something to that nature, that Competitive games aren't the target, and aren't what's being balanced against. People are just still going to miss it.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    Quote from Muspellsheimr »
    Wow, that update to the philosophy list is a ******* mistake. The entire thing essentially reads 'I do not like this card, and so no one is permitted to use it'.

    Discussing the 'wins out of nowhere' clause, their first invocation of it is in error. Not only does the card they have chosen to ban reportedly because of it not fit, they are ignoring the painfully obvious example of what does qualify.

    I think the difference here remains that while you can break T&N, there are equally large numbers of games where people simply don't do that, and it's a card that can still lead to positive and memorable experiences. Unlike Worldfire or Coalition Victory, T&N isn't only ONE thing. You have a choice to how to build to use it, and while some people may build and use it in that manner, it's the responsibility of the players and the playgoup to build to the experience everyone wants:
    Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere.

    To that end, I feel that the Hulk Unban and T&N remaining off makes more sense. While they can be used to auto-win, that is a CHOICE to use them in that manner, and if that's what your group finds fun - why stop you.

    On the other hand, they seem to have decided that Paradox Engine is the opposite - sure, as you point out, it can be a dead card. However, anytime it's NOT a dead card, it's simply insane. There's really no middle ground. If you run mana rocks in your deck (most decks), it immediately becomes a potential include. Hell, if you even have only one mana rock out, it's practically a Stone Calendar already at a fair cost, but even a single Sol Ring turns PE into an absurd amount of mana.

    I will admit to not having seem PE played often, but every time it's been absolutely Kill On Sight, or the game ends. One game was a Sisay deck which tutored it up, and with the manarocks out would have been able to cast most of the deck, one was a Jhoira (historic version) deck that would have been able to draw and play the entire deck, and the last one was actually just a pile of jank that happened to have Sol Ring and Endbringer out. While strong doesn't need to be bad or banned, that seems a bit more than "strong". Obviously two of those decks are built to abuse it, but both work their gameplan without it either. It's simply the catalyst that takes that gameplan, and expands it into wincon. In the first weeks of PE being out, we had a few small decks that ran it, and getting 3-5 extra mana and maybe a card or 2 per card cast gets pretty nuts fast. One of the first decks we saw was a green/white token elfball jank, which happened to run a few mana artifacts, a few mana elves, Lifecrafter's Bestiary and other draw on creature effects like Guardian Project and Elemental Bond. No where near optimized, and not built around PE, it was just an easy card to slot in that looked cool, but had a huge immediate impact.

    My group has not had an issue with Paradox Engine, simply because no one really ran it (outside the first few weeks), but I can easily see how it can quickly take over a game from nowhere. My group didn't need it banned, but I can see where they are coming from.


    Quote from schweinefett »
    I think the philosophy should really emphasise the local meta being more active in determining how they want to play the game. Sorta like setting a local vision in the grand scheme of EDH-ness. I've been testing painter for a while, and it's really not been a problem at all, but every time i mention that it's in a deck to people outside my playgroup (and even on MTGS), people act like i've said something sacrilegious.

    It seems like by shortening the philosophy, and reducing specifics, i guess it's the intention of the RC to give local groups a larger ability to interpret what the vision is (and therefore be more inclusive to cutthroat competitive and chuck-in-draft-fodder-types).

    This seems like a fair assessment, and really playing up what it is that's different about this format that made it popular in the first place.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    Quote from JqlGirl »
    Uh, that article is from 2017.


    Well, color my face red.

    In that case, with the official site being down, I can't find any current source for this. This will be update when I find a better source, and stop being a goof.

    My apologies everyone!
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Banning Criteria discussion: Allow players to win out of nowhere
    I fear that too much emphasis and scrutiny will be placed on the banning criteria. For me, the single most important line in the Philosophy document is this one:

    Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format).


    The banning "criteria" list is merely a guideline to help identify things which go against this spirit. It isn't a ruleboard. A card could in theory hit every single category, but still not be banned because it doesn't fundamentally impact the enjoyment or social aspect of the game. That's what's important, not the bullets. The bullets are there to help identify, not to measure.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    In reading the document, I feel what stood out to me the most was the reiteration of the vision statement that is provided:
    That vision is to create variable, interactive, and epic multiplayer games where memories are made, to foster the social nature of the format, and to underscore that competition is not the format's primary goal.


    This really differentiates this format from others, and emphasizes that while Competitiveness is something that happens, that it is also not the only, or primary goal of the format. I feel that these quotes are far more important than the "ban criteria" sections, which I fear will garner the larger scrutiny of the piece instead.

    Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format).
    (...)
    Additionally, other Commander styles (such as 1v1, Duel Commander, or more competitively-oriented groups) are not taken into consideration when evaluating how problematic a card is.


    How do you feel that this philosophy document measures up against the perceived ban notions currently held?
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Commander Philosophy Document Discussion
    The REAL Philosophy Document Update!

    http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19170

    The Philosophy of Commander

    Commander is for fun. It’s a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic. As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.

    The rules of Commander are designed to maximize these experiences within a game of Magic. The addition of a commander, larger life total, and deck building restrictions emphasize the format’s flavor; they increase deck variance and add more opportunities for participation and expression.

    The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level, which are decisions best left to individual play groups. The ban list seeks to demonstrate which cards threaten the positive player experience at the core of the format or prevent players from reasonable self-expression. The primary focus of the list is on cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.

    No single rule can establish criteria for a ban; there are many mitigating or exacerbating factors. Some cards will represent an extreme on a single axis; others are a confluence of multiple smaller issues. The following list isn’t exhaustive, nor is it a checklist, but it represents ways in which cards challenge the positive experiences players look for in commander games. It includes cards which easily or excessively

    • Cause severe resource imbalances
    • Allow players to win out of nowhere
    • Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
    • Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
    • Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
    • Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
    • Lead to repetitive game play.

    Cards which are banned likely meet a few of these criteria in a significant way; not all cards which meet some of the criteria need to banned.

    We prefer to be conservative with what goes on or comes off the ban list. Commander players often become emotionally attached to their decks through play and personalization, and we value that experience highly. We only want to disrupt that bond when necessary.

    Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t.



    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Sheldon's Thoughts on infinite combos
    Contrary opinion here... but... Do we NEED to take combo down a peg?

    I say this as a non-combo, non-CEDH, player. I get that combo is getting stronger, but this discussion is generally focused on the non-CEDH side of things, and combo has always been powerful there, but under-represented. Generally and by-in-large because Combo is simply not the type of game most non-CEDH players wish to play.

    So... If it's already been strong, but non-CEDH chooses not to play it, does it really matter to us that it gets stronger?

    If anything, banning certain pieces could send the wrong message of "These were the culprits, but other combo is clearly OK because we haven't banned it" instead of sending the message of "Play games that your playgroup will enjoy, no matter what that type of game might be?"
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Let's speculate on Monday's announcement
    Clearly an unfortunate oversight. Maybe they'll correct it on the next ban update.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on July 2019 Ban List Update
    That's what I was thinking - Paradox Engine requires so much outside the box thinking to work. You'd need to be playing it in a deck that ramps, for example. Given that high cost of inclusion, the ban caught me off guard as well. Now that Paradox Engine is banned, there's really no point in playing cards like Sol Ring or Birds of Paradise anymore, which'll please the folks who don't like fast mana.
    I don't see it that way. It requires a deck that runs mana-artifacts. I generally tend to stay truer to land ramp, (since artifacts are sometime collateral damage), but many non-green decks will run at least a handful of artifact ramp.

    From there, it's not hard to see how any sort of tap ability, especially if your Commander has a tap ability, could lead to a powerful amount of value.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Let's speculate on Monday's announcement
    Quote from cryogen »
    Quote from DirkGently »
    Lol, if it turns out there are no changes, I'm going to be so salty.

    It's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that this happens. They could be taking baby steps with the CAG: introduce them, formalize their charter, solidify their vision and philosophy, and THEN start banning and/or unbanning things and making rules changes.
    I would even go so far as to expect this. (The baby steps approach, not the no changes announcement). Considering the size, age, and stability of the format, there's no need for racing off on anything. Taking things slow and thorough with the CAG would be a solid gameplan.

    I personally expect a revision of the Commander Philosophy to go along with the Banlist announcement.

    As for the banlist announcement itself, there's nothing that really stands out to me of recent sets, and older cards have not gotten any huge new prominence to drastically need changing, however some cards may get shifted around based on the clarifications of the Philosophy.
    • Iona I feel is the most likely potential candidate, as I personally feel she creates those undesirable gamestates where someone, or multiple someone's can't play - as well as that I personally feel she interacts poorly with the format and rules of Commander (despite having a quote from the RC somewhere that they generally feel she does not break the interacts poorly with format rule).
    • Cyclonic Rift is one I can always dream about - I feel its effect is clearly incorrectly costed, but further than that it actually makes it fairly high up on the Salt Index from EDHrec that was recently posted somewhere around here. So I hold out a tiny but of hope, though no expectations.
    • Looking at unbans, I don't see anything that needs to come off - but potentials could be Panoptic Mirror (other 2 card combos have been removed of late, and there are 'fair' and 'fun' ways to use it, and there's plenty of ways for people who want to loop time magic to do so already).
    • Painter's Servant is an often-requested item, and again, seems a fairly safe 'casual' unban, because if someone is trying to abuse it... well then it's not accidental anymore. I think I would probably be annoyed at the unbanning, simply because of all the people who would start running those interactions just to show that they could... but hopefully that would die down fairly quickly.
    • Coalition Victory is the last that I could see as a 'potential,' in that while Commander makes it easier to cast it to win... there are plenty of existing "I Win" cards, many of which actually take less setup, or even interact the same manner as the format, such as Felidar Sovereign being easier to trigger in Commander.

    Overall though, I expect a clarification of the philosophy, and I'm not holding my breath on any changes to the Banlist. Iona's got the highest chance, but she's been around since forever, and I know that in my playgroup at least that ban would be a resounding "meh", because none of us run her anyways. Not even our Tribal Angel fanatic currently, and that's saying something.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on 40 Life
    Quote from WizardMN »
    Stuff like Lightning Bolt isn't good in EDH because you need to deal 120 damage instead of 20.
    I wish people would stop saying this. It's downright wrong. You're not killing three other goldfish all alone. You have two other people helping you kill any specific individual player.

    I don't know how many ways there are to say this - but while you might end up doing the majority damage in a game, there will be plenty of games where you won't need to bother with several players, or might even win by doing the minority damage. That actually can happen surprisingly often, as those that try to take the lead early get defensively allied against as they over-utilize all their resources, allowing an enterprising individual who bided their time to come in fresh.

    You are (almost) never alone in killing everyone off, unless you take such a commanding lead that you actually make it Archenemy, at which point, the only one to blame for that is yourself.

    Quote from WizardMN »
    Changing that to 90 won't magically make Lightning Bolt playable.
    Lightning bolt is actually very playable. It's pretty good removal vs. utility creatures, and I've finished off a number of players who thought they'd managed to stabilize just short of dead with it.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.