An Open Response to the Commander RC
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on March 27, 2015, 1:38 p.m. by Epochalyptik
Introduction
As I'm sure many of you know, I'm an avid fan of Commander. When I get a chance to play, I normally play Commander. I've also dedicated several articles to explaining the theory of Commander deckbuilding as well as the format's identity as a social format (and not, as many would argue a casual or competitive format).
I've also been fairly vocal about past RC decisions, so it should come as no surprise to you that I've been following the most recent change to come down the pike. I've been following it, and I can't say that I like it. At all.
The Change
The RC has recently decided to eliminate "tucking," or putting commander cards into libraries, from the format. The replacement effect that allows a player to return his or her commander card to the command zone if it would go to exile or to a graveyard has been expanded to cover the hand and library as well. Four reasons were given for this decision, and we'll examine them all below.
Reason #1: Player experience
1) We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game.
This point is fair; players do often get upset if they indefinitely lose access to their commander card. However, the counterargument to this is that tucking is (or was, at this point) a legitimate answer to commander cards. It's true that tucking may feel like quite a loss for the receiving player, but it's not radically different from having your commander destroyed when you're thin on resources or having someone else gain control of your commander. If you're relying on your commander to help make a difference in the game, any threat to or loss of that commander is going to be an issue. Perhaps tucking, as a more permanent solution, walks a bit closer to the edge than other removal options, but the stance thus far has been that it's a legitimate form of removal for commanders. Those who believe otherwise have been free to institute house rules against tucking.
Reason #2: Tutor representation
2) The presence of tuck encourages players to play more tutors so that in case their commander gets sent to the library, they can get it backexactly the opposite of what we want (namely, discouraging the over-representation of tutors).
This reason may have some grain of truth buried within it, but it's largely divorced from the reality of the format. Players run tutor effects to find any of a number of significant staples or combo pieces in the format. Some tutors are also able to find a commander card should that card be tucked, but that's a secondary use; unless you know that someone in your playgroup is going to try to tuck your commander, you generally don't include a tutor for the express purpose of finding your commander. This reason reads more like a "correlation equals causation" than a legitimate assessment of the format.
Further, what's the issue with tutors? The RC claims to be against the "over-representation" of tutors (this is something that will be addressed later in an article by Sheldon Menery), but why is it bad to include cards that help you find answers or staples in a 99-card singleton deck?
Reason #3: Color representation
3) While we are keenly aware that tuck is a great weapon against problematic commanders, the tools to do so are available only in blue and white, potentially forcing players into feeling like they need to play those colors in order to survive. We prefer as diverse a field as possible.
Once again, the RC's assessment of the format misses the mark. Players are, by and large, not forced to play blue or white in order to use tuck effects. While it may be true that most good tuck effects are in these colors, correlation still does not equal causation. The impetus for playing blue is typically the superior card advantage, countermagic, and artifact interaction it offers. Blue is a utility color, through and through. It also comes with a number of tuck effects, but the tuck effects alone are not enough to make blue worth including. White, on the other hand, is famous for its cheap and efficient removal effects. These effects, however, are not limited to Oblation; if asked to name white's best removal, most players would immediately reply with Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile, Oblivion Ring, and other exile effects that don't beat the original command zone replacement effect. Now, that's not to say that Oblation wasn't played or that it wasn't good. Rather, the point is that Oblation is not the be-all end-all of white removal; it's one weapon in a fairly extensive arsenal.
The reality of white and blue inclusion in Commander decks is something that is perhaps best summarized by quoting the RC themselves: "None of them individually was the silver bullet; the combination of factors got us to where we ended up." The same logic used to support the change is easily used to oppose it.
And (I'd have liked to have ended on the above quote if only for the literarian in me, but alas) what's said of red? Nothing, in this case. Red is that awkward cousin at the Commander pool party. Compared to the other colors, it lacks a lot of utility. It's widely considered to be the worst color in the format because its greatest strengths in the color pie, namely direct damage and efficient aggro, are ineffective in the battlecruiser style of game the RC wants so badly to promote. Red's removal is, to put it bluntly, quite bad. Lightning Bolt and other burn spells offer some solace against smaller utility creatures and small-frame commanders, but the number of commander-playable red removal spells is dwarfed by the number of commander-playable white and black removal spells. Green is in the same situation as red as far as removal goes, but its extraordinary creature- and land-oriented utility make it a very viable color. Blue has countermagic to make up for a relative lack of permanent removal, but it still has bounce-based sweepers for tight situations.
My intent here is not to make red players sad. It's to point out that red is in a very precarious position concerning its ability to deal with incoming threats. Chaos Warp, perhaps one of the best red cards in EDH, was red's enduring answer to commander cards. It bought red decks some time against powerful commanders and helped to even the playing field somewhat. That's no longer an option. It may still work as advertised against other cards, but against commanders it's now just a less permanent Murder with a dangerous downside.
Reason #4: Rules complexity
4) It clears up some corner case rules awkwardness, mostly dealing with knowing the commanders location in the library (since highly unlikely to actually end up there).
I find this to be the least convincing of any of the arguments advanced by the RC. First, I'd like to know why tucking is such an issue if a commander is "highly unlikely to actually end up there." But putting that aside for a moment, the gist of this reason is that the players can't be trusted to deal with the rules of the game. And this change only shortly after "banned as a commander" was thought to be too confusing a concept! If you'll forgive me some slightly acidic language there, you'll see the point. What the RC calls "rules awkwardness" is actually quite routine and quite simple for Commander players; the format is nothing if not brimming with weird and exciting interactions, complex board states, and crazy plays. Players have dealt with all of that quite well. As for the "awkwardness" of having to explain the rules regarding knowing commander location, there's not much of it. The RC summarized everything quite nicely in three short sentences on their rules page:
"Being a Commander is not a characteristic [MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card and tied directly to the physical card. As such, "Commander-ness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects. The card retains it's commanderness through any status changes, and is still a commander even when controlled by another player."
Because the physical card is always a commander, and because a commander's location is always public knowledge, players must know where any commander is in any zone at any time. And what do we need to do in order to put this rule into practice? Use a different colored sleeve for your commander. That's it. That's all you need to do. One sleeve and your commander is instantly identifiable in the library, in your hand, or in whatever other zone enters. And many players already use a unique sleeve to help prevent them from shuffling their commander into their deck when the game is done. Awkward? Hardly.
First responses
Given that these four reasons were all that was originally offered in defense of the change, the RC can hardly be surprised about the backlash. They did expect some resistance, but the Magic community has been aggressively polarized over the issue. Ultimately what we have here is one "legitimate" observation and three phoned-in reasons that smell of confirmation bias. And the applicability of the first reason is subject to debate. Yes, it is true that tucking is often a low point in the game for the receiving player, but the RC must be cautious about legislating on a format level just to preserve a feel-good atmosphere. I'll discuss this later in more detail.
The Follow-Up
Today (26 March), Sheldon Menery published an article on StarCityGames.com with the intent to shed more light on the decision and its impact. As before, we'll examine the arguments advanced by the RC in defense of their decision.
Reason #1: Player experience
We want to engender as positive an experience as we can for players. Nothing runs the feel-bads worse than having your commander unavailable to you for the whole game. In a format called Commander, we want the commander to be more significant than just determining colors. This is a further step in that direction. Will some commanders become more difficult to deal with? Sure. Will they become impossible to deal with? Not by a long shot. Magic players are very smart and creative at answering threats in new and creative ways. I don't believe this will lead to a surge in particular decks getting played just to answer the lack of commander-tuck. We recognize that this may change how people approach the format or how particular cards impact it. The bottom line is that if certain commanders become problematic, we'll deal with them.
This is mostly a rehash of Reason #1's original wording. It's fair to say that commanders should play an important role in the actual game and not just in deck composition, but we have to be careful about that argument here. Tucking is an answer to commanders, and there will always be answers in any game. Tucking doesn't obliterate a commander's function within the game. It may make the commander unavailable, but it doesn't reduce the significance of the commander card in deckbuilding and game theory. Learning how to play around answers is a fundamental component of Magic's complexity. I realize that this counterargument is not the definitive conversation-ender when it comes to improving the health or balance of any format, but it's a legitimate observation and it needs to be taken seriously. There will always be an answer somewhere, if not by virtue of a card or strategy's inherent weaknesses then by virtue of the metagame and other players' desire to mitigate the threat you pose. You can't create a healthy format by banning or rendering obsolete all answers to commander cards.
Reason #2: Tutor representation
We like to discourage the over-representation of tutors, believing that the singleton nature of the format is best enjoyed when you don't have the same kind of repeatability and regularity that you have in other Constructed formats. The whole idea of this format is to be different, not just a variant version of the same. I never wanted this format to be alt-Vintage, and as long as I'm part of the decision-making process, I'll try to keep that from happening. I get that some folks simply can't wrap their heads around that, that the only way they see things is to optimize their efficiency. That's just not the direction we want to head. We think the presence of tuck encourages players to play more tutors than they might otherwise so that in case their commander gets sent to the library, they can get it back-exactly the opposite of what we want. Some people have misinterpreted this as us thinking that the primary reason people play tutors is tuck. That's not the case at all. We considered it an additive/contributing factor, and a little extra discouragement is worth the effort.
Some folks have responded with "well, if you're so worried about tutors, then ban them all." This isn't sawing the board, this is sanding the cut. We're not panicky about tutors; this explanation was a nudge in the direction of getting players thinking about running them in great numbers. Discrete use of tutors is generally fine, but there definitely isn't a method of being objective about it. I can't tell you "two tutors is okay, but three isn't." My general rule, which is confessedly pretty broad, is don't tutor to just win, tutor to do something cool, deal with a threat, or to survive. I swear to you that I'm having more fun with the format the fewer tutors I play. I get that your mileage is certain to vary.
I will be the first to say that I see where Sheldon and the RC are coming from on this matter. But I will also be the first to say that this is the worst precedent on which to manage your format.
The RC is completely aware, I would assume, that Commander is built on player experience and promoting the enjoyment of the game regardless of how it is played. They often reiterate this sentiment on their rules resources and in their posts. However, they then take an action that is completely counterproductive to this goal: they legislate for the entire format based on how they think the format ought to be enjoyed. To some extent, their vision for the Commander is the driving force for the format's development. I don't begrudge them that, and it's good to have a strong driving force encouraging format development. What isn't good is claiming to prioritize player experience and format diversity and then turning around and saying "by the way, your experience isn't allowed to include this."
Yes, I know that they didn't ban tutors, but to even suggest that the representation of tutors in the format is legitimate grounds for a rules change that tangentially impacts the viability of tutors is hogwash. The fact of the matter is that some players enjoy playing commander more competitively than other players, and that some players like to build decks around certain combos, interactions, or cards. Tutoring allows that to be viable despite the 100-card singleton rules. Many players certainly do like an higher degree of uncertainty or randomness to the game, and that's good for them. Others don't. To effectively say to your constituents, "Look, I know that tutoring helps you put together these interactions and find good cards, but we don't like it because it doesn't fall within our definition of 'fun,'" is a little more than vaguely elitist.
Reason #3: Color representation
While we are keenly aware that tuck is a great weapon against problematic commanders, the tools to do so are mostly available only in blue and white (apologies for the original oversight, Chaos Warp), potentially forcing players into feeling like they need to play those colors in order to survive. We prefer as diverse a field as possible. While we didn't make this change in order to specifically nerf certain cards (and I'll disagree with you if you think "Terminus is now worthless"), sometimes little shakeups bring unexpected changes. If the change exposes commanders which are more problematic than we believed, as I said above, then we'll deal with them. Again, we're focusing on the idea of net positives. Yes, there are a few commanders, like Derevi and Purphoros, which we'll pay attention to. Although we don't like the idea of an official Watch List, it would be disingenuous of us to say that we don't keep our eyes open for danger spots and/or cards that we know folks are talking about.
We believe this change will open opportunities for deckbuilders and players, not shut them down. I've been very happy to read over last several days folks saying things like "Now I feel like I can dust off that janky deck I've been wanting to play." I find they're more representative of our target player base than those who predict gloom and doom because of commander-tuck's disappearance. A few players have threatened that they're going to go out and build oppressive decks just to demonstrate how bad they think this change is. Although I suspect that's mostly wind, I'll argue that it's not the change or any card which makes oppression in this case, it's the player making a conscious choice to be oppressive. I've long said that it's not difficult to break this format. The secret is in not breaking it.
I have two main issues with this selection.
First, this is a rehash of the same piffle that players feel compelled to play blue and white in order to gain access to tuck. The reality is that no one feature of a color is that "silver bullet," as the RC is fond of saying about their own logic. I've covered this topic above, so I'll spend less time on it here, but the idea that you're compelled to play a color just to gain access to a small subset of removal spells out of all of the utility offered by that color is nonsense, and it's a discredit to the deckbuilding sensibility of the players.
Second, it seems that the RC are less concerned about the other repercussions of the change. It's fine to say that you'll watch the format for unhealthy changes; we expect you to do that. But it seems like much more thought could have been given to the negative outcomes of the change and too much thought has been given to the "positives." I worry that the decision was more tunnel vision than cost vs. benefits. And, in general, it's better to make few changes to the format. There's a possibility now that one change in the way you can interact with generals will mean that several generals have to be watched and potentially banned. It's an overly complicated "solution" to something that was arguably not a problem.
Further, players building new and more oppressive decks is only part of the concern. What happens to the commander-centric decks that were already very good and don't even need to change in order to become oppressive? Tuck effects were a critical answer to voltron and commander-combo decks and forced players to think of backup plans in order to round out their decks. Without the threat of enduring removal, there's little incentive remaining for these decks to include those backup plans. Their resources can now be wholly dedicated to a "protect the president" style of play, and there's not as much to be done in response to that kind of focus.
Reason #4: Rules complexity
One of the significant arguments for this change was that tuck (and bounce, although that's kind of a non-factor here since it's generally better for you for your commander to go into your hand instead of the command zone because then you won't have to pay the command tax) wasn't in line with going to exile and graveyard. Tuck and bounce worked one way; exile and graveyard worked differently. We thought it was worthwhile to provide consistency across the board. This also clears up some corner case rules awkwardness, mostly dealing with knowing the commander's location in the library (since it's highly unlikely to actually end up there).
A few folks have asked about a simple rule that says that any time the commander would change zones, you can put it in the command zone instead of specifically pointing out which zones apply. That came up during our discussions, and we realized that stack to battlefield is a zone change. Toby and Matt Tabak had some chats about it and we realized that we just didn't want to mess with that. This means that Gather Specimens still works on someone else's commander. What's important to remember is the destination zone: graveyard, exile, library, hand. Again, I can't see too many cases where you'd want to go to the command zone instead of hand (I suppose if there's Black Vise on the battlefield you might need to save the damage), but the option is all yours.
With this announcement, we also discussed what it means to be a commander, a conversation which started back when we first found out about manifest. On this, after exploring multiple possibilities, we decided to stay the current course. Your commander is always your commander, regardless of where it is or its status. This means that if your commander is face down and you're dealing damage with it, you have to tell the other player that it's commander damage. You can't hit them twelve times then go "surprise! You're dead!"
This is the first time it was thought to mention consistency with the existing rules (I'd have thought that would be a more attractive reason than the one originally given in the change announcement). Consistency is fine. Consistency is good. However, consistency also poses problems once you allow the format to develop around a certain set of interactions. To use a simple analogy, this is much like building a cake with layers of different thickness and then going back after the decoration to replace some of them.
That's not to imply that players won't be able to adjust or that the game isn't allowed to change; rather, it's an observation that a great deal of careful thought is due prior to enacting such a change. In this case, we have two observations that should weigh on the decision.
First, the original situation was not wholly inconsistent. If we look at how the zones were divided (graveyard and exile versus hand and library), we'll see that the command zone replacement effect applied only to zones from which it could be reasonably expected that you'd be unable to recover your commander. Not every deck plays a graveyard recursion effect (indeed, some decks just lack access to them at all), and there are very few cards that even interact with exiled cards, but every deck gets a draw step, and a card in your hand is obviously still available. Because of the prevalence of draw, shuffle, and tutor effects, it can be said that fatesealing doesn't even necessarily mean you need to deck out before reaccessing your commander. (Of course, this sort of logic also applies to recursion effects and the yard, but the basic distinction between "generally still available" and "generally no longer available" still holds.)
Second, the inconsistency (to the degree that it was considered one) was not extraordinarily difficult to explain. It's no less obvious than, say, the idea of a card that can always be around. And preserving the idea of "commanderness" being inherent and unalterable is sensible because there are still situations in which a commander may end up in another zone or may lose its original characteristics, but it doesn't at all speak to the original articulation of this reason, which was that it may be confusing that a commander is always a commander in all zones and at all times. Argumentative consistency is just as important as rules consistency, Sheldon.
Second responses
The SCG article goes on to catalog most of the top tuck effects in the format in order to set up for the summation, "My main point here is that this rules change impacts a small percentage of cards which actually get played with any frequency, and it doesn't ruin the playability of any of them." The reality is that most rules changes, including bans, directly concern a small percentage of cards, but they impact a great deal more. This change will affect tuck effects, commanders, decks, playgroups, and the Commander meta as a whole. It's not a matter of reducing the effectiveness of a small subset of cards. There's a ripple effect.
Further, the playability of tuck effects has certainly been impacted. Whether or not they've been completely ruined (they haven't) is less relevant than how exactly they've changed. You can technically play any legal card you want to play, but that doesn't mean they're equally viable. Tuck effects were used primarily to deal with problematic and oppressive commanders, and they could also be used on other permanents. Now, we've lost the primary functionality of tuck effects and the only one that consistently impacted the game. You can still tuck a combo piece or a threat, but that card will either be retutored or replaced. You're still buying time, but you can no longer do that with commanders, which are now instantly reavailable and at little additional cost. Tucking was the bridge between no removal and too much removal. The graveyard/exile formulation of the 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 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.
And I don't think the assumption should be made that a general must always be 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.
A Reflection
Overall, I'm simply disappointed with the RC's reasoning behind the change and with the change itself. I'm not irate. I'm not threatening to build the ultimate, unanswerable deck to demonstrate the error of the RC's ways. I'm not calling for the RC to be sacrificed to a murder of Storm Crows. I'm disappointed. Commander is an amazingly open format in both depth and breadth, and there are a number of interactions and reactions for most things. But I view this most recent change as a step toward a padded playpen environment rather than the multiverse-trekking battlecruiser Magic I fell in love with.
There's an answer for everything. That's a fundamental reality of Magic, and a large part of your skill as a deckbuilder and a player is tested by how well you understand the need for flexibility and resilience in your deck. Once we start removing the need for or effectiveness of answers, we trend toward that padded playpen model I mentioned. We're put into an environment where we're protected, unnecessarily, against anything that might prevent us from experiencing the preferred way to play the game. Everyone's given the same toys and anyone who wants Timmy to put his dinosaur away so he can't bludgeon anyone with it is sternly reminded that it's Timmy's toy and you can't tell him not to.
That model's not meant to demonize the Timmies of the Magic world, but it seems like where we're headed. Feel-good legislation is simply not a format-level concern. I've talked extensively in other posts and articles about how Commander is, first and foremost, a social format. The playgroup is the first and most intimate level of regulation. If the intent of the format is to allow everyone to experience the format in a fun and exciting way, why not emphasize the role of the playgroup and propose that house rules be instituted in order to help players get the most out of their Commander experience? I don't mind if other people want to institute a house rule against tucking (many already did if they found it that troublesome), but I'd like for those players not to tell me I can't tuck a commander because me not dying to a 15/15 voltron makes them sad. Given the strength (or rather, the weakness) of the arguments adduced by the RC for their recent decision, I can't help but think that this is that kind of feel-good ruling being perpetuated at a format level such that it affects all players. And yes, the competitive playgroups can pass house rules to ignore the change. But that doesn't alter the fact that the format rules are what tend to govern games outside of your typical playgroup, and it certainly doesn't alter the precedent being set by the RC. It shouldn't be the burden of the players to repair the format.
I don't know what the RC's prevailing stance on overturning previous changes is, or what their timetable for considering such overturns is, but I urge them to reconsider what they've done before we head too far down the path. Let the playgroups handle the interactions, and let the RC ban only the most egregious threats to format health.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Feel free to share links to this article through whatever venues you choose.
March 26, 2015 4:37 p.m.
TheBanlist says... #4
What he said.
Not sure if this was said, but did you mention (that by the same color-specific, feel-bad rationalization) banning land destruction?
Getting Armageddoned sucks WAY more than getting a commander tucked, and that play style is pretty much exclusive to white and red.
March 26, 2015 4:42 p.m.
TheBanlist says... #6
I can't tell if that's a negative remark or a friendly suggestion.
March 26, 2015 4:43 p.m.
MAGESTIC_LLAMA says... #7
A strong point for this article would be to talk about player responsibilty for tuck effects. If somebody wants to play Zur, Derevi, Maelstrom Wanderer etc etc they should fully expect their commander to get tucked.
March 26, 2015 4:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@MAGESTIC_LLAMA: I'll take constructive comments, but you're welcome to dispose of the other stuff.
"Player responsibility for tuck effects" makes it sound as though you expect the player using the tuck effect to be accountable, but the rest of your post seems to indicate that you think the player using a strong commander is the one responsible, so I'm not sure which you mean to address.
I did say, multiple times in fact, that removal is a reality of the game and that players must get used to it if they want to advance themselves and their decks to higher levels of play. Implicit in that idea is the idea that you understand the threat posed by removal and the likelihood of encountering removal.
March 26, 2015 4:54 p.m.
"Once we start removing the need for or effectiveness of answers, we trend toward that padded playpen model I mentioned"
Doesn't the very fact that exile and destroy effects are already neutered counterbalance this point a bit? I'm more curious than argumentative, but I can't see a way to argue that tuck should be a tool against commanders, while destroy/exile effects should not. Is there a reason why destroy/exile should be replaced, but tuck should not?
March 26, 2015 4:59 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@raithe000: Destroy and exile already didn't work against commanders, and the replacement effect regarding the graveyard and exile was reasonable. It provided a good balance between answers and the availability of your commander. Tucking was one of the few remaining ways to answer commanders in a more enduring way, and, with that gone, we're now trending toward a model in which there's really very little to hold commander-centric decks accountable for their glaring weakness.
March 26, 2015 5:05 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #12
Quick question: How long have you tested out the rules? How many games have you played with them?
Seems like pretty important information to know before we can understand that you've gone beyond simple theory making. (Video game critics play the game extensively rather than just look at the information about the game to develop a rating and/or critique.)
March 26, 2015 5:06 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #13
Very well said. You gave a straight up middle finger to the committee, and, unlike some people I know, you have excellent proof to back it up.
"I'm not calling for the RC to be sacrificed to a murder of Storm Crows." Beautifully formulated.
March 26, 2015 5:08 p.m.
nerdydolly says... #14
Thank you so much for writing this. As a solely EDH player, on Tuesday when I read this new ruling, I was a little infuriated. My fiance and I run the EDH league in a local game store here, and now it allows for certain Commanders to just dominate the league. A lot of the same points you made here were the same I was making when discussing this with another player (a player who believes EDH is not social but casual) and it was like beating a dead horse with a club. I'll be linking your article to our EDH league group on Facebook in hopes to start a discussion.
Also, the RC's response on tutors makes me think of a few children playing basketball. The one child who brought the ball is losing and says, "I don't like playing anymore so I'm taking my ball with me and leaving"; leaving the rest of the children without a ball because the other kid is too sour to handle losing.
March 26, 2015 5:10 p.m.
Vergil_Redgrail says... #15
It should also be pointed out that Commander decks do not have to be built around or require their Commanders to function. Take, for example, Jenara, Asura of War. Fairly nice creature. Pretty decent all around. Definitely don't need to ever even play her in a game. I've been researching her for use in EDH lately, and I have found that to be the general consensus. While she has a nice ability, it is most certainly not the end of the world if she gets tucked, and might even work out in your favor, as everyone else won't be worried about the impending threat of Commander Damage. Depending on the deck, I would maybe rather my opponent tucked her, because that is one less tuck spell they will have ready for when I play my really scary creatures.
March 26, 2015 5:10 p.m.
Epochalyptik couldn't have ended the article better. I've stated to everyone about the change that it should be a house rule. I'm for the change and even I consider this a bad ruling to enforce on the whole format. House rules need to be house rules. Actual rulings need to be focused towards clarification and balancing purposes, and the RC clearly did not take this approach with this ruling. I would like to vote Epoch for president of the RC. I know I have no voting right, but frankly my dear, I don't give a tuck... Quite literally; flipping stupid rule change.
March 26, 2015 5:11 p.m.
Sorry, unclear in my wording, I meant that the destroy/exile effects are replaced within the game.
I get that they already didn't work against commanders, what I was trying to ask is if there is an argument for "destroy/exile effects should be replaced, but tuck effects should be left alone."
Am I correct in saying that your argument for that is that it plays better to have destroy and exile effects be less effective?
March 26, 2015 5:14 p.m.
MAGESTIC_LLAMA says... #19
Sorry if that came off a little unclear; I meant its the person running Zur to expect that their commander will get tucked. In competitive, it's not "soulcrushing", It's something you should Anticipate.
March 26, 2015 5:16 p.m.
cosmicteapot says... #21
Sorry that my question is not in rail with the articles main point:
I'd like to understand more about the public knowledge of commanders location. If the commander is in the deck, should people be able to tell where exactly it is? And what ruling actually states this?
If all the players knew the exact location of ones commander, it would change a lot in their playstyles. And having a different colored sleeve makes shuffling the deck quite awkward, since the knowledge of the commanders position can affect on shuffling.
And if this has always really been the case, I have played EDH wrongly for 3 years :D So this is why I'm interested on the ruling in this case.
Also, great article! I must respect that you made time to write this, and hopefully it gets the recognition it deserves.
March 26, 2015 5:27 p.m.
You aren't the first person to write an open letter to Sheldon Menery and I'm sure you aren't the last. Both this open letter and your article here have some of the same points, even if you go into a little bit more depth.
As per the tutors bit, it's almost painfully clear where Sheldon stands when it comes to tutors. Sheldon prefers a more causal play style, which allows him to run less tutors because he values the increase variance over the consistency. While he would like to encourage you to run less tutors, you aren't beholden to do so. I think he would tend to agree that if you are of a competitive mindset you should run more tutors for increased consistency.
Also I agree that running tutors does not equal wanting to find your Commander should they get tucked/shuffled away. I'm not sure where that point came from and why Sheldon thought it was valid.
March 26, 2015 5:27 p.m.
Beautifully written Epochalyptik. I'm a little more upset with the RC than most, so I would've been fine with Storm Crow sacrifices.
March 26, 2015 5:31 p.m.
@cosmicteapot The rule in question is 903.3. Each deck has a legendary creature card designated as its commander. This designation is not acharacteristic of the object represented by the card; rather, it is an attribute of the card itself. Thecard retains this designation even when it changes zones.
And yes, according to this rule, one should be able to tell where a commander is in a deck. I don't know how this impacts shuffling.
March 26, 2015 5:32 p.m.
cosmicteapot says... #28
It could theoritecally impact on shuffling, as the person knows where his commander is in the deck, and this way shuffle until the commander could end up, for example, on top of his deck. This is only of course on a more meta level, but still something worth noting. It is not very practical.
I knew the rule you are referring to, but first I thought it lacked the reason behind the public knowledge. I think it should be stated more clearly as I have never met anyone who knew or actually played by this rule. But I guess it makes sense. Interesting, this definitely puts a new aspect on the game for me. Or would put if the RC had not made this change :/
March 26, 2015 5:42 p.m.
Hickorysbane says... #29
Well everytime I thought of a point I read it in the next paragraph so very well written. I guess I'll just reiterate that in the places it was most frowned upon (casual play) if someone didn't wanna play with it then they didn't have to. House rules already dealt with this.
Basically I think some commanders need to be dealt with, and if someone disagrees then they have the option to play differently. That's why house rules are such a big thing in EDH. The way I see it the rule is only a huge deal in competitive when you can't change the rules, but that's where this particular ruling is most needed.
March 26, 2015 5:42 p.m.
One point that I haven't seen mentioned yet, in here or the mega thread, nor in any of Epoch's articles, is the role of format rules for players who don't belong to a playgroup. I understand that the playgroup is meant to be the most flexible basic structure of the format, but that is not the reality for many players. For instance, I am able to get a night off to play Commander once a month or two, either at one of three different shops. Sometimes I play a game or two on Cockatrice. So I have no "playgroup" that would regulate playstyles, commander choices, tuck rules, or whatever other things a playgroup is "intended" to do.
That being said, I (and everyone in a roughly similar situation as myself) have to go by the format rules. Those rules, this one included, are the default state for play. And while Commander can be played competitively, it most certainly is not the intended goal of the format nor the most popular. With the format's rising popularity and exposure there are more tournaments and competitive-minded players, but by and large EDH is not something like Modern that caters fairly exclusively (even at the LGS level) to the competitive crowd.
But the point is that you should be able to take your deck anywhere and have roughly the same experience. The format rules are what define that experience. Playgroups can alter that, tournaments can alter that, but the default should be for players who fall more on the casual side because they have no other framework to adjust their play experience in.
My two cents.
March 26, 2015 5:49 p.m.
"I never wanted this format to be alt-Vintage, and as long as I'm part of the decision-making process, I'll try to keep that from happening. I get that some folks simply can't wrap their heads around that, that the only way they see things is to optimize their efficiency. That's just not the direction we want to head."
"My general rule, which is confessedly pretty broad, is don't tutor to just win, tutor to do something cool, deal with a threat, or to survive."
"I've long said that it's not difficult to break this format. The secret is in not breaking it."
I know the RC explains commander is a social format, but these phrases are not ones I would expect anyone to use about a format that is meant to cater to competitive games (much less the creator and caretaker of that format).
There is also a slight misquotation the first time you reference reason #4. The actual quote (which you quoted correctly) is "(since highly unlikely to actually end up there)." and your version of the quote in the following paragraph is "highly likely to actually end up there." I'm unsure if you changed it for emphasis or if it's just a slight typo but in confused me. Otherwise I thought this was a well-written article with a lot of thought behind it.
Ultimately, I think the format has grown further than the creators ever intended. They created and continue to play it as a break from truly competitive magic. The 100-card singleton format was intended to build decks that never play out the same way twice. The Elder-Dragon General was a ridiculously large creature meant to lead your army into battle. It makes sense for the flavor of the game that tucking a Commander goes against the real inspiration for the command zone, so the change makes sense to me. I think they gave as many reasons as they could think of, even though some are obviously stronger points than others.
It's possible to play commander competitively, and I don't fault those who do. Regardless of the level of competition, it feels as bad for me to lose because my general was tucked as it does to lose to a huge haymaker of a spell. Losing sucks. But the format was created and is managed by a playgroup with a specific vision of how they want to play their format, and I don't see them changing their minds because others want more competitive structure. They aren't the ones selling packs or singles or hosting sanctioned events, so there's not much incentive for them to care how others want to play, if it doesn't line up with their ideal format.
March 26, 2015 6:09 p.m.
@shuflw Their incentive is that of remaining the authority for commander. No they won't lose authority over this one change, but if their changes go against the overall consensus of the player base repeatedly than another group will become the "official" rule site, or WotC may take over themselves since they DO make money from this. They're in charge of something larger than themselves now, and regardless of this and future decisions you must understand that means they have a certain level of responsibility to do their best to take other players into consideration.
March 26, 2015 6:18 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #39
@MagicalHacker: I may not have been playing for as long as the RC, but I've played enough games to have a sense for what is and what isn't beneficial for the format, and know a bad argument when I see one. The RC's defense of the rules change was a bad argument, and the experience of players in the format is something that should have been given more weight in the discussion.
You're welcome to tell me that any of my contentions are wrong; experience isn't the final say there.
@Vergil_Redgrail: A valid point, but there are some decks that do rely on their commanders for one reason or another. It's an inherent weakness in some decks, and it's unavoidable. It must be mitigated by other design choices.
@raithe000: Yes. I believe that the exile/graveyard replacement effect is fair because it allows commanders to remain available through a large amount of very common removal, but it leaves options open in tuck and bounce.
@MAGESTIC_LLAMA: That's basically what it comes down to. Commanders are already fairly present and available. I really don't think it's unfair to expect players to have to deal with some removal given that most removal is somewhat mitigated by the old replacement effect. Players shouldn't have the expectation that there won't be any resistance at all.
@cosmicteapot: I would have to find all of the relevant posts. The RC's position on this matter seems to have gone back and forth; at some points, Sheldon and the others were of the opinion that commanders retained their commanderness in the library, but that this didn't allow players to know where in the library the commander was. At other times, the prevailing opinion seems to have been that the location could be known, but not manipulated in an unfair way (e.g., you couldn't shuffle your deck until your commander card was on top).
See Genomancer's reply in this thread and the quotes in this thread for examples of inconsistency.
@JWiley129: I don't begrudge him the right to play as many or as few tutors as he likes and in the way he likes. But his explanation for Reason #2 in the SCG article makes it sound as though an ulterior motive for the ban was to cut some of the functionality from tutors because it didn't fit his vision of how tutors should be used in the format. That is not acceptable.
@Gruss029: Certainly a valid point. I address playing outside of the playgroup in my article on Commander as a social format, but not in the sense to which you allude.
The issue is that the official format rules should not be used in an overly restrictive or harmful way. While it's true that they set the expectations for out-of-playgroup play, they must do so with an emphasis on what is healthy for the format. I don't believe that removing one of the better kinds of remaining answers to commanders is healthy for the format (and it's certainly not doing red any favors at any rate).
@shuflw: It was a typo; the context of the sentence (talking about how it wasn't a major problem) should give that away. Fixed; thanks for the catch.
It must be clarified that I'm not proposing a reversal of the ruling because I think it harms the competitive environment. Rather, I'm proposing the reversal (or at least voicing my opposition to the ruling) because I genuinely think it's harmful to the balance of the format. There need to exist answers to commanders. Blue, which has very few answers to permanents, and red, which has terrible removal economy, are the most hurt by this change. White still has effective removal, as does black. Green remains somewhat unaffected if only because it lacked tuck. Red in particular is hurt because it simply doesn't have enough good and efficient removal spells to continue to answer commanders. Most of its good removal is actually colorless -- cards like Oblivion Stone have to pick up the slack.
I am also of the opinion that less restrictive format rules are better because they allow the maximum number of possibilities for the players and also allow playgroups to regulate what is and isn't acceptable at the local level. Highly prescriptive top-down management is a bad thing for an open, social format.
@dagan94: I highly doubt WOTC would make the call to ask for or inherit the role of the RC. I can already picture splinter committees forming a more traditional EDH variant, though. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We'll see.
That said, the point both of you made is legitimate; the RC is managing something that's larger than themselves. I think I attest to that in the article. They need to legislate with a conscious consideration for the nature of the format as a whole.
@everyone: Please stay on topic.
March 26, 2015 6:31 p.m.
My bad for bad puns, 'tis a guilty pleasure, and it was off topic.
With that said you mentioned splinter groups. If that were to happen would you be in support, or would it be better to continue pressing the RC for a reversal, and I'm not just directing this epoch.
March 26, 2015 7 p.m.
cosmicteapot says... #45
Epochalyptik Well this is actually really damn confusing. I'm starting see what RC was thinking in their fourth argument, although I definitely don't think that changing tucking rulings was the best answer.
I don't want to start a new discussion on this thread, so I try to keep myself from opening this subject too much. I just get irritated that the rules are not coherent with eachother, and that this is a subject that should be fixed. Even with the new tucking rules, you are still allowed to put your commander into your library, and then this problem comes up.
March 26, 2015 7:09 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #46
@dagan94: I'd like to see the RC remain tied to the format they created, but they cannot afford to keep losing the trust of the players. They've made a number of poorly-reasoned and unnecessary changes, and I'm starting to notice a negative shift in attitude toward them in the community.
March 26, 2015 7:10 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #47
@cosmicteapot: That's part of the issue. The rulings are kind of inconsistent, but some of them are functional. RC has announced this change in what they state is an attempt to make the rules more consistent, but they still have artifacts left over that counteract that goal, and the decision itself is hardly a good one.
March 26, 2015 7:13 p.m.
@ Epochalyptik Understandable. It'd be a shame, especially sine it's these guys' passion that brought about commander in the first place. However as someone who has been in a position of leading a group (though currently not, thank god I don't have to navigate this bullet) these past changes have led to mixed reactions then, and while I won't be meeting with any my playgroups again until after I ship out and finish my basic training, I doubt a lot of people are happy right now.
My biggest frustration were decks like Tajic, Blade of the Legion in my play group that ran no other creatures despite the fact he clearly benefits for the sake of voltron. It's terrible deck building, and deserves to be punished. My favorite voltron was Rafiq of the Many because he not only worked as voltron but encouraged enough creatures that tucking him was not the end of the world. In addition all voltron had the potential to solve this weakness by including some basic creatures that provided a benefit to one attacker or protected their commander. By including these it left you blockers for defending and a back up against tuck. Now I'm worried I'm going to see more of these poorly constructed voltrons, and there is jack I can do about them besides running an excessive amount of artifact hate for the swords.
March 26, 2015 7:29 p.m.
KindredDiscovery says... #49
I think what I found most enlightening is that the RC is actively trying to mold the format to a particular play experience. I was legitimately surprised that Sheldon did not proffer a more objective defense for the rules change.
Now, I happen to agree with his philosophy on what constitutes a "fun" experience, but such ideology is best left to dictate how things operate amongst a play group. Personal preference should not steer the format as a whole.
Nice work Epochalyptik. It's good to see a well-reasoned, articulate rebuttal.
March 26, 2015 7:49 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #50
Out of curiosity, has the RC given any response to the open letters and the obvious mixed feelings about this change in rules yet?
Ender666666 says... #1
Well said.
March 26, 2015 4:36 p.m.