Wizards R&D to take over 1v1 Commander
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on July 13, 2017, 8:55 p.m. by sylvannos
In this announcement, WotC has stated they will be officially taking over the format for 1v1 Commander, particularly due to managing MODO. I also speculate this is so they can develop the format to work with MtG: Next (the replacement for MODO and MtG: Duels) the same way there are various tournaments for other formats.
Also note, the EDH Rules Committee will still be in charge of multiplayer EDH.
I'm actually excited for this and may consider getting back into EDH if it means R&D is involved. They're better at managing formats, I think, than the RC. I stopped playing EDH when the RC banned Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and unbanned Metalworker at the same time. Meanwhile, auto-win cards like Tooth and Nail continue to run rampant, alongside cards like Mana Crypt and Demonic Tutor, which ensure games are often linear and punish decks that don't have fast mana and tutors.
I hope going forward we see the format diversify and become similar to how Prismatic was played (i.e. "battle cruiser" Magic with longer games that had complex decisions). As stated, I've become frustrated with how the RC approaches their decisions and with their general philosophy. That's especially considering their choices have financial impact on players' wallets who invest into the format. I've felt their choices have been arbitrary, at best. Hopefully, R&D can show the format's competitive side while still fostering the spirit and community surrounding EDH and Commander.
DrukenReaps says... #3
I mean to paper players the ban list is really more of a suggestion and unless I go to anything official I ignore it... I do let people know if I'm playing something banned though before the game. It would be rude not to give a heads up.
July 13, 2017 9:29 p.m.
The ban list has some unfair bans (Prophet of Kruphix for example) but I actually think that ROFLellos is actually a pretty fair ban and most of them seem to be understandable.
A lot of the cards on the ban list really create unfair situations. For example, Panoptic Mirror becomes an force to be reckon with with any field wipe or extra turn spell. Primeval Titan and Sylvan Primordial ramp too hard and fast (not to mention is a turn based free tutor for the Titan) that becomes unfair over time.
A lot of players can't find answers to these unfair situations, which is how they got banned in most cases. Or in some cases everyone tried to respond to it.
The two cards you mention as being banworthy don't do that in most cases and are also pretty expensive for most players. Not to mention they have other versions in the game which could do similar for cheaper, Vampiric Tutor being the clear example.
July 13, 2017 10:03 p.m.
Winterblast says... #5
It's good that they only do this online and don't interfere with the normal commander format. As it is now, commander is a slightly cheaper vintage and it's the only place where you can play a lot of top vintage cards without having to buy into the P9 (which is quite a lot of investment if you do it now). I'd rather not have Wizards get too much into commander because their overall policy seems to be constantly downgrading the formats with bans and they always weaken combo and control with that.
Having a look at some top tier decks for duel commander already shows that the format suffers a lot from making the cheap acceleration and best tutors unavailable - most of it is just a blunt "in your face with creatures" approach. I just hope this won't ever happen with normal commander and I do have some faith that Sheldon sticks to banning only a few legendary creatures that wreck casual groups if played as a commander and leaves the rest of the cards alone. Wizards printed a lot of cards for especially for vintage and commander in eternal masters and as masterpieces and put them into standard sets and it would be a really bad idea to make all these cards only relevant for vintage by banning them out of commander. In duel commander they have already done it and you can see how it sucked the fun out of the decks.
July 14, 2017 4:34 a.m.
dbpunk, what makes you think banning Prophet of Kruphix was an unfair ban? I only have competitive casual as a reference point, but I was thrilled when it was banned as it basically gave the creature control player all the turns.
July 14, 2017 4:58 p.m.
Mainly cause it was super easy to get rid of, whether through countering, permanent removal, etc. It isn't any worse than Seedborn Muse in a Yeva, Nature's Herald deck. And it is very easy to remove from play, even in casual circles.
July 14, 2017 5:17 p.m.
And Prophet doesn't nearly warp gameplay as much as Iona, Shield of Emeria or Chaos Moon both of which are much harder to get rid of and literally cripple decks.
July 14, 2017 5:19 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #10
In a competitive casual environment PoK players got gangbanged. Their dude gets stolen, killed, reanimated, copied etc until the cows come home. It is warping in the way that allows every player with access to any of the above effects to play their deck at instant speed. I love me some Leyline of Anticipation or Vedalken Orrery, but the untapping makes it hard to recover if the table can't deal with it, and you have to deal with it.
July 14, 2017 6:45 p.m.
This is a first step from WotC in a process that I believe will eventually lead to WotC taking over Commander completely. I can't judge how well Sheldon wants or is able to keep his position against or with WotC... time will tell. But I hope the independant state as it is now will continue for as long as it lasts.
July 14, 2017 7:46 p.m.
Is it just me or is this announcement very stupid? Several reasons:
0/ To OP, R&D has been involved in EDH since the very first commander product. Those products are largely the ones shaping the meta of EDH(more on that in number 4). The announcement has almost nothing to do with EDH and everything to do with 1-1 commander.
1/ The bans are already pretty stupid. Banning Ponder, Preordain and Brainstorm is extremely bad for the format. Increasing consistency in 100 singletons deck is even more important than a deck with 60 cards and playsets.
2/ There are better people than R&D to manage the format. The french commander players already have an pretty exhaustive banlist (http://www.duelcommander.com/banlist/) based on copious amounts of games over more than a decade. I highly doubt that R&D will devote people to 1v1 Commander that even have 10 years of playing magic under their belt to this task.
3/ Commander products produced by Wizards, while fun and popular, are extremely warping to the metagame of Commander as a whole, as anything in those sets is largely extremely powerful. For example, just a week after the printing of the new 4-color commanders, on MTGGoldfish Atraxa was the most popular commander, followed by Breya and Yidris in the top 5. That is unprecedented, until last time it happened with Meren.
EDHREC records thousands of CMDR decks and their all time top 20 of commanders has a total of 4 legendaries from normal sets. The commander products are usurping the format of EDH and the committee has little to no control over it.
Given R&D's track record with EDH products, I do not trust them with 1v1 commander.
4/ From the French EDH website: "Going from multiplayer to duel prove to require numerous adjustments (like the starting life totals or the way to mulligan) that were done thanks to infinite hours of playtesting". I doubt Wizards will do that in any shape or form, not to mention how far behind they are compared to the rest of the community who have done this for years.
5/ There are other great 100 singleton formats like Highlander (German, Australian or Canadian) that are infinitely better curated and much more fun to play.
For example, Canadian highlander is played twice a week in tournaments with 20+ people and members of the committee regularly playing in those. I highly doubt that anyone from R&D will devote that much to the format.
TL;DR: Wizards have history of unbalanced products for commander and have no experience with 1v1 commander. I plan to ignore their take on the format and play by French EDH rules, if ever doing a tournament.
July 15, 2017 7:35 a.m.
They should stay away from paper commander. The can not even manage mtgo commander (really poor meta tbh). They did not give a shit about all the experience that existed with French commander and made the same mistakes french has already gone through....
July 15, 2017 9:34 a.m.
Winterblast says... #14
In another town a shop actually holds tournaments with the mtgo 1 vs 1 EDH banlist...I think these events aren't even held half of the time because who the fuck builds a paper deck according to the banlist exclusive for online play. If you think about it, it's really stupid if Wizards wanted to implement their online rules for paper commander. First they want to sell their commander products and then they'd ban half of the staples included in these boxes? I don't think this is going to happen.
July 15, 2017 6:36 p.m.
Yeah my playgroup will probably do a custom banlist in the future if wizards continues to fuck up EDH
July 16, 2017 3:20 a.m.
Winterblast says... #16
Boza I think it has to be pointed out that popularity of a commander doesn't equal strength. I've seen so many weak builds with the commanders of the preconstructed decks and while this drives up the popularity of a certain commmander it's just a result of new EDH players getting into the format with the preconstructed decks.
And these preconstructed decks indeed have some value for their retail price but in general their power level and strategy are really bad compared to what is possible in the format. These boxes are neither unbalanced nor broken, they simply show what you can get for around 40 bucks in EDH, while a top deck for the format may cost several thousands of dollars. How many tier 1 commanders did really come out of the commander precons and were exclusively produced in the precons? I think that's only Teferi if I'm not mistaken.
July 16, 2017 11:11 a.m.
I'm not sure I would care if Wizards took over EDH. The RC is garbage anyway, banning stupid stuff like Prophet of Kruphix. That was a necessary ban? Sure, maybe for new players, but are those players really following a ban list anyway?
The 1v1 ban list isn't necessarily bad. It makes sense that tournaments are using that ban list because that is the official list from WotC.
Would they do a bad job with multiplayer? I'm not convinced they would.
To the comments of Atraxa being the most popular Commander, I only need to say, she wasn't even the best Commander released that year. She is most popular because of Casual players.
WotC taking over EDH isn't really a bad thing, look at the Atraxa precon price if you want evidence. Casual players are the majority of the player base which typically means they aren't very good.
WotC can release products that are going to get sales, like Atraxa. People will buy it up, but at the end of the day, those decks don't have much of an effect on Competitive/Tournament play. I would much rather face Atraxa than Breya or Yidris lol.
July 16, 2017 1:02 p.m.
I don't really understand why people are saying the Prophet of Kruphix ban was unfair. It was near impossible to remove if you were playing against a hard control deck and it was a constant target of cloning and reanimation. In general if you weren't playing it games were unfun.
July 16, 2017 1:35 p.m.
The ban wasn't justified because Prophet of Kruphix isn't a problem except to the most Casual of players. It's new people or people with uncompetitive decks that have issues with it.
I've always said the ban list should reflect Competitive play because Competitive players are those that are required to follow the ban list. Casual players typically don't follow the ban list or have their own version, often making house rules on cards to play.
As Prophet isn't a problem for Competitive, and only Casual players have an issue with it, they could easily say it isn't fun and ask people not to play it.
Cards shouldn't be banned for all players when it is really just your beginners that have issues with it. The ban list should be reserved for the cards that are truly degenerate.
July 16, 2017 4:38 p.m.
Wolfsbane706 says... #20
Neither the ban list nor the format were designed for competitive play. That's why we have the French list and rules.
July 17, 2017 11:46 a.m.
iAzire that's far from accurate. I toe the line between cEDH and normal, but to say that casual players (that is to say most players) don't follow the banlist is rediculous. I'd estimate maybe 10 percent of playgroups houserules bans, and that assumes you're even part of a standing playrgroup. the banlist has to reflect a unified experience, because in reality House Rules is rarely an option
July 17, 2017 11:53 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #22
It may not be accurate to say that most casual players use house rules, but it is accurate to say that competitive players are more likely to be bound by the official rules.
I've long been of the opinion that the banlist and management philosophy (for multiplayer) needs to create the most open experience for all players and not be so heavily focused on the most casual environments.
July 17, 2017 12:15 p.m.
LordMithos says... #23
I do feel that Wizards getting more involved with directing where EDH is going has upsides and downsides. One of the things that makes Commander special is that it's a player made format with most of the creativity in it originating with players rather than Wizards pointing us where to go. In recent years they have obviously been riding the hype train that has created and obviously would love to take control of it.
I strongly agree with the ban of Prophet of Kruphix and feel that the people disagreeing above are using very weak arguments. The kind of deck that Prophet wants to be in is a combo/control shell that has no problem shrugging off and protecting against the kind of removal that most decks not running counterspells have as their tools. Especially once the turn has passed and they have all their resources back. The Seedborn Muse and Yeva, Nature's Herald is a terrible counter example as that pairing loses access to blue and a 2 card combo is far easier to disrupt meaning it's a completely different situation. And saying that only "casual and new" players are the only ones unable to deal with it is as insulting as it is wrong.
July 17, 2017 2:58 p.m.
LordMithos that is what I wanted to get at but couldn't think how to say it. Prophet is a card in colours ripe to abuse its abilities.
July 17, 2017 3:04 p.m.
ibstudent2200 says... #25
The RC doesn't typically ban cards based on pure power level (otherwise Sol Ring would be pretty high on the list of cards to ban). They tend to ban cards that are oppressive in virtually all scenarios. If a card is overpowering when built competitively, but reasonable in a more fair deck, the RC is unlikely to ban it. For example, there's no real way to make even a semi-decent Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary deck without it ramping way too fast. On the other hand, Hermit Druid can end games on turn 3 if not killed immediately, but I run it in my Azusa, Lost but Seeking list because it provides a steady stream of lands and lets me reset the top card of my library.
That said, the RC has some very clear biases. For example, Sheldon Menery has mentioned that Tooth and Nail is unlikely to be banned because he's had hilarious experiences where the card backfired on the person who played it. I absolutely disagree with this mentality, but all applications to join the Rules Committee are currently being forwarded to an entirely different organization, so there's very little I can do to change things.
LordMithos, According to Sheldon Menery, colors aren't a consideration when the RC decides whether to ban a card. I don't think he's being entirely honest in that regard, but that's what he said on a podcast earlier this year. In that episode of Commanderin', he claimed that Leovold, Emissary of Trest would have been banned even if the card was mono-white instead of BUG.
July 17, 2017 11:27 p.m.
To be fair, I did also mention people playing uncompetitive decks. I guess we could include unoptimized decks.
I feel this issue is really easy to solve. What players/games had issues with Prophet of Kruphix? It was your Casual/New players. The RC even said it themselves.
The point is simply not debatable. The more competitive players, and people with more optimized decks did not have issues with this card.
I also neglect to see how you "lose access to Blue" as Prophet isn't Legendary and won't be used as a Commander. Prophet could only be included in the 99 so the replacement cards should only be included in the 99, you only lose out on Blue if you choose too. Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir is, in my opinion, the better replacement card over Yeva, Nature's Herald.
Regardless, my original point still stands, Competitive players are REQUIRED to follow the ban list, the more casual players are not required. Banning Prophet is simply an example of unnecessary bans. Unnecessary bans creates a cluttered ban list, and such a banning shows that the RC isn't quite up to the job.
WotC taking over the Multiplayer ban list would force the list to be more tournament focused. Casual players, (those not playing in tournaments), can and will play by whatever rules they desire.
I especially like the comment about how Commander wasn't created to be competitive and the ban list reflects that. That is EXACTLY the reason it is time for WotC to take control. Regardless of how you feel about cEDH, it exists and needs better regulation. Simply put, the RC has outlived its usefulness, the format has evolved and the RC has not evolved with it.
Note, the RC does not "ban cards that are oppressive in virtually all scenarios," the RC bans cards based on Casual playgroups. To my knowledge they haven't changed their mission statement and that remains their focus. What we have now is a group of players forced to follow a list made for players that can choose whether or not to follow it.
July 17, 2017 11:53 p.m.
ibstudent2200 says... #27
iAzire, Commanderin' did an interview with Sheldon Menery that laid out how the RC approaches bans. Assuming that he wasn't lying during that interview (an assumption that I am hesitant to make, since my "cognitive dissonance" alarm was blaring at a couple points), the main criterion used in the Leovold banning was whether the card could be used without being broken.
July 18, 2017 12:05 a.m.
SwiftDeath says... #28
As someone who was greatly affected by the Prophet of Kruphix ban, it was needed. As a card it is to good for the effect. I used it in a bant build and in combination with Reveillark I made sure it never left the board even after a board wipe. If it wasn't so easy to recover then I would've been more upset but overall in a casual setting it impacted the game so much that it was considered whoever lands a Profit of Kruphix first has a 20% better chance of winning. To note we didn't always play casual decks as my playgroup played strong EDH decks and commanders using both expensive and powerful cards and combos.
July 18, 2017 12:13 a.m.
EDH is a casual social format first. The founding Elder Dragons designed it that way. If there is going to be a ban list for EDH, it should stay a ban list for the casual social EDH player base. If cEDH needs their own banlist they should have it, but it should be separate. The format did not evolve into cEDH as much as a large and growing group of highly competitive players created an offshoot of it which is a new, though similarly named, tournament level format that should have it's needs met separately from the casual format it was inspired by. If they're not addressed separately whoever is in charge is going to be doing a poor job for both sides. Both player bases need their own banlist they can refer to. While it's true that casual players can choose not to abide by a banlist, it needs to be there for the people who want to. I think this comment stream is some proof of that.
July 18, 2017 1:35 a.m.
Winterblast says... #30
Wolfsbane706 if French commander was that cool, there wouldn't be something like cEDH. Whenever we talk about other variants of commander in our playgroup, the most often voiced opinion is that everything other than the normal EDH banlist seems to remove the balls of the format. I can't say it often enough, EDH is the only format in which you can play a power level close to Vintage but with a slightly lower budget. This fact alone is appealing and makes all other variants of singleton formats look worse in comparison.
maxon it's a social format for sure, no matter how you play it, but the term "casual" is so subjective that it has absolutely no defining value. Does casual mean that there are no DCI sanctioned tournaments available? What if a shop holds a torunament then, does that immediately strip the "casual" off that format? Does it need weekly official events to be considered non-casual?
Or is casual just a synonym for low budget for some people? What is considered a low budget in such a wide format that extends back to 1993? Is it non-casual to play single cards with high value or is the total value of a deck making it not casual anymore?
However you put it, it's not something that people can aggree on consensually, so what's the point of trying to describe a format that way? Casual players have always managed to play together with no format restrictions and still have fun. New players often just put a random sol ring in any big creature deck (not talking about EDH), or even more than one, just because it's cheap and easy to get...does it make their decks any more competitive? Absolutely not.
ibstudent2200 as for your assumption that certain cards can't be played "wrongly" to lower their power on purpose, I think that's wrong. Even the best cards can be played in a way that makes them literally useless or at least far less powerful as they would be in the right deck. Let's take Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary for example. put him in a two or three coloured deck and it's just as bad as the Hermit Druid you use for non-combo purposes. It is definitely possible to build weak decks with cards that have a high power level, just look at the precon decks. They show pretty much what happens when a casual player wants to build an underwhelming deck on purpose, with at least some absolutely great cards. For reference, compare the original Teferi deck to a Chain Veil Teferi list...if you absolutely want to, you can even make top tier commanders NOT work. That's why balancing the format by bans is quite unnecessary for casual players. They do not get to feel the full power of the cards they play anyway, because they play them in the "wrong" context.
July 18, 2017 3:30 a.m.
"I can't say it often enough, EDH is the only format in which you can play a power level close to Vintage but with a slightly lower budget. This fact alone is appealing and makes all other variants of singleton formats look worse in comparison."
Canadian Highlander is much closer, for two reasons - it is 1 on 1, and it follows the vintage banlist. Heck you are allowed to use gold-bordered cards to lower costs even.
"but the term "casual" is so subjective that it has absolutely no defining value." - basically, in MTG if there is prizes involved, it is competitive and not casual.
"WotC taking over EDH isn't really a bad thing, look at the Atraxa precon price if you want evidence. Casual players are the majority of the player base which typically means they aren't very good." - you are actually proving my point - Wizards have been printing these commanders that are totally OP that sell well and shape what the format looks like. The format and its meta is what the majority of players are doing. Going by this list:
[List - Multiplayer] EDH Generals by Tier
5/7 commanders are precon commanders in tier 1. With nearly 700 legendary creatures there are about 50 that are precon exclusive. Less than 10 percent of commanders are from precons, yet they represent more than 2/3s of the top tier decks. I have no problem with the precons themselves, but the commanders that helm them are too op.
Taking that mentality and that R&D to 1v1 Commander or WOTC taking the reins from the RC and running the format into the ground is what is worrying me.
July 18, 2017 9:20 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
@maxon: Commander was created as a social format. One of the defining qualities of such a format is that the players engaged in any given game are the ones who determine how casual or how competitive that game will be. To say that Commander was established as a casual social format is to make a mockery of the concept. To manage the format as though it's a casual format is, likewise, to make a mockery of the concept.
July 18, 2017 10:06 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #33
I think if the DCI takes over the format we're going to have just as many complaints. Do they come in and gut the power, catering to competitive and looking at things like;
"100% of tier one decks run Sol Ring, so in the interest of diversity, Sol Ring is banned."
Be careful what you wish for...
July 18, 2017 1:42 p.m.
I don't think prophet was warping or too strong for the format, I think RC caters the banlist to "Casual" players, and in "Casual" Commander people complained
July 18, 2017 4:42 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik: I don't know if it's accurate to say that calling EDH/Commander a casual format mocks anything. Here's what I found on the topic.
From Wizards themselves: "The Commander format is all about picking your hero and building a deck around them. In this casual, multiplayer format, you choose a legendary creature to serve as your commander and build the rest of your deck around their color identity."
From Gamepedia: "Created and popularized by fans,[3] the Commander variant is usually played in casual Free-for-All multiplayer games, although two-player games are also popular"
From MTGCommander.net: "The Banned List for Commander is designed not to balance competitive play, but to help shape in the minds of its fans the vision held by its founders and Rules Committee. 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 formats primary goal"
From MTGSalvation "While the format itself is strictly casual, as it is primarily a multiplayer format (although you can play one-on-one easily), there are set rules that are essential." (This particular source is from 2007 and is the closest thing I could find as far as the original intention of the format.)
From Some guy who supposedly has been verified as being one of the original EDH players.: "EDH was originally a casual format, more social than anything."
If my opinion that EDH was meant to be a casual social format is wrong, it is at least backed up pretty well.
July 18, 2017 9:48 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
Note that the statement published by the RC in their rules/philosophy section makes no mention of Commander being casual, instead focusing on the social aspect of the format. The social element is the core of Commander: the entire format is structured around a respect for the playgroup as a self-governing body. I wrote an article about this very topic.
The other descriptions, while common enough in substance, are misrepresentations of the format. None of them are published by the format's governing body, and they betray a long-standing misconception that Commander is casual by design (it is not; it is, however, social by design).
They may be partially forgiven, perhaps, given the way the RC manages the format in practice. My main issue with the RC is that they espouse the autonomy of the playgroup, yet detract from exactly that same autonomy by exercising a governing philosophy that doesn't align with their stated vision for the format.
July 18, 2017 10:10 p.m.
I don't want to have wizards making the banlist. Simply because printing and creating the cards plus managing the format is a conflict imho. You can see it in modern with eldrazi winter and you can furthermore see how ridiculous the mtgo 1vs1 banlist is. There is no diversity. Imho the banlist should be the moxen , black lotus,time vault and time walk, and that's it. Plus maybe a list for casual play that gives a recommendation on what to house rules away ...
July 19, 2017 12:48 a.m.
Winterblast says... #39
Absolutely aggree with you AlexoBn (except I'd love to Play Tezzeret/Time Vault myself lol)...the only problem with black lotus and moxen is that they would be extrmely expensive must plays though, not the power itself. Everything else is not that expensive that it forces people to pay or lose or at least it's never such a universally good card that you have to play it in every deck. For example it's cool that I can Play Mishra's Workshop and The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale but no one is forced to buy these cards to have a chance against someone playing them because they aren't good in every deck.
Boza I didn't know about canadian highlander and had a look at the rules yesterday. I don't think that this format is really for people who want to play most of their powerful stuff, because the point system is very restrictive. If it was 20 Points or 25, then maybe. I rather have no access to tolarian academy or tinker than having to add up points for every stupid tutor and end up having nothing left for acceleration. Or use one random black lotus and be left with a wildly inconsistent rest of the deck. Without having a look at popular decks for that format I guess that the point system and the 2 starting life probably favour aggro decks a lot while the EDH rules enable great combo strategies and make it very hard to win with a simple "in your face with creatures" approach.
July 19, 2017 3:02 a.m.
Winterblast actually having watched a few CanHighlander games on YouTube, mostly from LoadingReadyRun, the format is fairly diverse. I've seen decks from aggro to control to storm. There was even a deck that won with Hidetsugu's Second Rite. So while I'm not an expert on the format I don't think the point system actually does that much damage.
July 19, 2017 8:53 a.m.
Winterblast,
You are doing exactly what wizards are doing with 1v1 commander. Taking over a format and deciding arbitrarily "i think this is better", without considering the years of development the format took.
Btw, being unable to play all the best stuff out there is exactly what makes the format good.
Restrictions breed creativity :)
July 19, 2017 11:23 a.m.
Even Sheldon Menery calls it a social format
"The Banned List for Commander is designed not to balance competitive play, but to help shape in the minds of its fans the vision held by its founders and Rules Committee. That vision is to create variable, interactive, and epic multiplayer games where memories are made, to foster the social nature of the format,"
July 20, 2017 5:16 p.m.
That does not mean I agree with what sheldon menery says just FYI
July 20, 2017 5:28 p.m.
Dyll, yeah I kinda was actually thinking social was the best description especially after reading epoch's article. Just cause the first games may have been casual doesn't mean it was only meant to be played that way. My original comment when I called it casual was not meant to define the format as much as offer a way to satisfy casual and competitive players with regard to the banlist. After thinking about it though, it makes more sense for the ban list to reflect competitive play, since casual players can house rule bans. My playground has just never done that so it seemed unusual and overly complicated to me to have each playgroup making their own bans and rules, but I suppose that's the whole point of the social format.
July 20, 2017 5:32 p.m.
I think this line is a big issue
"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.
July 20, 2017 6:08 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #46
"...makes no mention of Commander being casual, instead focusing on the social aspect of the format. The social element is the core of Commander: the entire format is structured around a respect for the playgroup as a self-governing body."
For starters, if the RC takes over control of Commander, that would remove the core value of the format as you describe. It would no longer be a self governed format, it would be RC governed. Inherently invalidating the core design.
Secondly, as a Social game governed by its play-group(player base) on the world wide sized figurative table, what do the players of the internet say? According to all the definitions provided by Maxom, the 'Play group of the world' seems fairly united in their definition as a casual format. Many of these sites directly represent the people who play the game. So if the game has "evolved", as some people here have said, then it seems to me that it has evolved from a Social format to a Casual format, as that is the general consensus of the definitions garnered online.
"The other descriptions, while common enough in substance, are misrepresentations of the format. None of them are published by the format's governing body, and they betray a long-standing misconception that Commander is casual by design ..."
All the thousands of people who play commander thinking of it as a casual format, all the people who write for sites; from official WotC to MtGSalvation and define it as casual, to the people who design the very cards for the format, all of these people are suffering from a "misconception" of what you believe the format should be? If it is a social format, governed by its player base, then I can say with certainty that by an incredibly large degree its players are casual, and they do not consider it a competitive format. I bet 19/20 games of commander that get played are 'casual' by the players own definition. You seem to discount the legitimacy of multiple credible sources on the account that Sheldons(whose opinion you apparently question to begin with) description says it in every way but using the exact word "Casual". Seems like grasping at straws.
On a side note: Why be mad about Sheldons bans? As you said, its a social game, so ignore the bans if you want. Cant say its self governed and then complain about bans. If you dont like em, dont play with them, thats the self governing part of self governing. :P
July 25, 2017 8:34 a.m.
IF the RC takes over control of Commander?????? The RC DOES have control of Commander.....
This is the argument I have been giving, but I'll say it again as something has been missed.
Commander is a Social format, there are Casual players in every format. The issue with the Commander ban list is that the Casual players are dictating the bans.
A ban list should be made with Competitive players in mind. This is because the Competitive players are REQUIRED to follow the ban list in a tournament setting, and like you just laid out so elegantly, the Casual players can and will self govern.
It really is that simple. A ban list is necessary for tournament play because it allows a bunch of people to follow the same deck building guidelines. Casual players can ban or unban whatever cards they wish in their own playgroups. They can use a Basic Land for a Commander if they so desired.
I made a deck with Genju of the Realm as the Commander. It isn't a legal Commander, but in a Casual game, as long as my opponents agree, I can play the deck.
Casual should not dictate Competitive play.
July 25, 2017 9:01 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
I've already explained much of this, RoarMaster.
First, the RC not only already manages Commander, they have done so since the day they invented the format. They are the only official governing body for Commander; even WOTC does not have rulemaking authority over the format. Anybody who claims to know a great deal about the format yet does not know this basic fact should be immediately challenged.
Second, I would love to know where your evidence is for the claim that some "play group of the world" exists and that it's casual. As far as I'm aware, no such playgroup exists, and Commander enjoys regular play among all points on the casual-competitive spectrum.
Note that many forums (in particular, this one) are visited primarily by casual players. It should come as no surprise that these individuals experience Commander from a casual perspective. Whether they describe it as such does not change the simple fact that the format is social by design. The playgroup is an instrument of social governance; it is neither competitive nor casual. Its very purpose for existence is to allow the players to decide among themselves how they would like to experience the game. That your experience reflects a majority-casual application of this mechanism is in no way conclusive proof that the format is casual and that we can toss away the social design. This goes well beyond how the RC chooses to describe the format; it extends into the operation of the format and the fact that playgroups are self-regulating.
Let's apply your logic to some other scenarios:
I've never seen a homeless individual in my hometown. I haven't heard anything from the area's actual homeless people speaking out about their plight. Ergo, homelessness is not a problem. Is this true? If it is, it's strictly on a micro scale; obviously, the same claim cannot be made on a macro scale.
The vast majority of my peers in college were staunchly liberal. Ergo, America is largely liberal. Is this true? Again, obviously not beyond this sample size.
If you wanted to approach this scientifically and prove (rather than claim) that Commander is a casual format in practice, you would need to survey Commander players and ascertain their opinions. Beyond that, you would need to do so according to the casual-competitive spectrum and not as a simple binary measure. Take what you see around you at face value, and don't assume that it's automatically representative of the whole.
And to address the matter of house rules in competitive environments (yet again):
Competitive players are the least able to define house rules. They tend to play according to the format's actual rules and play in environments where those rules are used to organize a tournament structure. Whereas casual players may be able to determine among themselves what to allow, competitive players who travel to regional events (e.g., PTQs or SC Opens) are dealing with people whom they've never met and in an environment where they have less opportunity for customization.
That last set of points is also important. The format's official rules set the expectations for players who are coming together for the first time. They create a standard, default structure for the format. While players may be able to customize that structure after coming together, the decks they bring to the table the first time are very likely going to be based on that shared expectation.
Imagine going to a new playgroup at another LGS. Before the game starts, how likely are you to warn them that your deck contains Primeval Titan (which is banned) and ask whether that's okay? Or would you just play the game without any forewarning? If the latter, how do you expect they'll respond once they find out? If there's any worry that they might be surprised or displeased, that's a clear indication that what you're doing has violated the shared expectation of the format and has sidestepped the social governance structure of their playgroup by means of avoiding participation in group decision making.
July 25, 2017 9:37 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #49
I'll add to that a conclusion: it's precisely because the RC continues to promulgate the idea and mechanism of a social format that they have a responsibility to manage the format as such. Lauding the autonomy of the playgroup and the customizability of the format in your preachments—yet catering specifically and exclusively to a subset of the playerbase in practice—is duplicitous and an insult to both the players and the potential of the format.
July 25, 2017 9:56 a.m.
I personally like the concept that the RC is making ban list decisions from a social vice a competitive view point. It helps grow the format. The more players that play EDH, the happier I am. I believe that is what the RC is aiming for with their ban list.
Banning PoK has not ruined the game for me. It has not diminished the fun to be had. I would argue the opposite is true. In my personal experience, I have seen more variety in the games we play.
Is the RC ban list perfect? No, but it is a solid foundation for the game. The current status quo of WotC creating content and an outside organization hedging them in with rules and their ban list is working very well. The number of EDH players continues to grow. Having WotC take over the ban list and rules would be different, and I am not sure in a good way. WotC would react to fast to their online data. Online play represents a very small portion of EDH players. Making decisions based on such a small subset of the whole is not where I want to see the game head.
MindAblaze says... #2
The 1v1 (Duel Commander) format was never managed by the RC, and Wizards is sounding like they want to officially get involved for their digital purposes. It sounds like multiplayer will be unaffected.
July 13, 2017 9:12 p.m.