|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 1:29:32 GMT
I've done a lot of research, looked a lot of places and heard nearly every complaint there is. The fact remains that Commander as a format isn't appealing to nearly as many people as has been expected. One could chalk that up to a vocal minority, as is mostly the case with anything in today's world. But it is not difficult to realize that Commander, while eminently awesome, could use some adjustments. The official commander group says "make house rules", players say "make your own format" and others say "commander is healthy". The fact remains that the commander banned list and rules are based upon a casual format called EDH. In an effort to change some of the problems plaguing the format (unless you think it works as people insist it always does.) I'm here to break new ground on a new format tentatively titled "Commander 2.0". Step 1. Fix the color identity rules. 1. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. The Commander's colour identity restricts what cards may appear in the deck.
2. A deck may not generate mana outside its colours. If an effect would generate mana of an illegal colour, it generates colourless mana instead. Why do you need the first rule with the second one in the game? You want to stop people from playing cards with other colored mana symbols on them—but they won't be able to produce the color to use them anyway. A deck SHOULD be allowed to play Hybrid cards because they are not gold cards. Decks SHOULD be allowed to play Obelisk of Alara for only the abilities they can pay for, because it's a card who's other abilities they cannot utilize. If you want to use Ancient Grudge in your mono-red deck, by all means, but you won't be able to pay its flashback cost.
Step 2. Ban cards unhealthy for the format, not for the casual "fun" of game.
Fun is extremely subjective concept. What may be fun for some players may not be for others. Thus is life, and so it goes with Magic. The very idea of a casual format is counter-intuitive to begin with. You simply cannot ban enough cards to keep the game still "fun". Players come in all shapes and sizes, all looking to experience different things from their games. Magic has always had a kitchen table for this reason. There was never a reason to write "make house rules" for a casual format, because it is implicit. Any banned list for a format should include cards that unhealthy for the format, degenerative, or just down right break the format. You can then sit with your friends and decide what isn't "fun" with your house rules. Imagine that Wizards banned Acidic Slime when it was standard legal because it wasn't "fun" to have lands blown up. Worldfire is one of those cards for Commander. You can say what you want "just counter it", but it is a symmetrical spell that essentially defeats the purpose of playing the game. There are ways to cheat it out early, ways to make it uncounterable and ways freeze the entire table until it finally comes out. The format should not become Vintage/Legacy where Force of Will is required for every single deck, to keep degenerative cards honest. Trade Secrets is not that card. Just because players conspire together to draw a bunch of cards defeats the purpose of a casual "fun" game, not the format. The only thing a rules committee can actually be in control of is banning format breaking cards, not dictating the amount of "fun" people can have.
Step 3. The Nephilim are now playable Commanders.
Yore-Tiller Nephilim
Glint-Eye Nephilim
Dune-Brood Nephilim
Ink-Treader Nephilim
Witch-Maw Nephilim
Step 4. Lower the life total to 30.
This may be the more controversial rules change I will be introduction here, it's also one I believe in very much. For those play Standard or other formats know that 20 life games are rarely that quick. That is just in a 1v1 environment. Now you double the life total and add 2 other players, it lengthens games, significantly. The original reason for having 40 life was to presumably allow for MANY turns of players ramping up for an explosive finish. The format as it stands now does none of those things (unless its strictly casual). Lets look at some other positives:
- •Cards that care about how much life you have (Serra Ascendant) function better as a result (if you've taken any damage whatsoever before it is dropped).
- •It lowers the inevitability some decks require to combo to a finish. If it takes at least 5 rounds away from someone hoping to Entwine Tooth and Nail.
- •Red, which deals a lot with glass cannon decks and direct damage can make otherwise less useful cards like Searing Spear into somewhat of a weapon. It now deals 1/10th of your total life damage to someone. Also global spells like Earthquake with the right amount of damage can be downright devastating.
- •Forces combo/control decks to interact earlier in the opening rounds, because aggressive creature strategies are viable.
- •Makes shocklands, fetchlands, pay life spells, Dark Confidant, Phyrexian Arena and other "use life as a resource" cards slightly more damaging as it now represents a larger amount of damage dealt.
- •Lessens the amount of game times thus making a poor hand into more of a fighting chance
Step 5. Change the Mulligan rules.
The Partial Paris mulligan is a colossal failure. It makes games completely degenerate. It makes mulliganing the correct decision 95% of the time, and it vastly favors combo decks by allowing them to dig for pieces without card disadvantage. An overwhelming amount of combo players prefer the Partial Paris for that exact reason. It also encourages poor deck building and less then optimal curves. A way to fix this is by either employing the standard Paris mulligan (7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1.) or playtesting an alternative:
British Mulligan
Because Commander games are long and usually not played in multi-game matches, the format uses a custom mulligan rule that allows some flexibility and reduces shuffling. This is also known as the two-shuffle mulligan.
- 1. In turn order, each player may take one free mulligan by shuffling his or her hand into his or her deck and drawing a new hand of seven cards.
- 2. Continuing in turn order, each player who did so may then take any number of “exile” mulligans, setting aside his or her hand face-down and drawing a new hand with one fewer card each time.
- 3. Once all players have kept opening hands, players shuffle all set aside cards into their decks.
I am looking forward to anyones help in this matter. Any comments/suggestions/ideas feel free to post them here. This idea could take mtgcommunity.boards.net into being the flagship for Commander 2.0. We could have Wizards knocking on our door any day now. 
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 1, 2014 2:03:21 GMT
I totally agree with everything you've said here. Do you already have an idea of what the ban list ought to look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 2:23:23 GMT
TENTATIVE BANNED LIST
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Channel
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
Gifts Ungiven
Hermit Druid
Karakas
Library of Alexandria
Limited Resources
Metalworker
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Oath of Druids
Painter's Servant
Panoptic Mirror
Protean Hulk
Shahrazad
Sundering Titan
Sway of the Stars
Time Vault
Time Walk
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Upheaval
Vampiric Tutor
Worldfire
Yawgmoth’s Bargain
Cannot be used as a commander
Griselbrand
Braids, Cabal Minion
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
Dexterity/Ante Cards
Amulet of Quoz
Bronze Tablet
Chaos Orb
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Falling Star
Jeweled Bird
Rebirth
Tempest Efreet
Timmerian Fiends
I would add that I'm up for debate about just about all of these ban choices. Some things like Karakas I would have considered unbanning, except it kind of breaks the format (as Commanders represent Legendary creatures) and with the new color-identity rules I'm proposing, it would essentially make it an auto-include.
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 1, 2014 4:06:34 GMT
Why is {mind twist} on your banned list?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrEggman on Apr 1, 2014 5:52:57 GMT
I especially agree with the first one. My casual commander deck is BG and there are some things I'd like to put it that I could play but can't because of hybrid mana, especially Nightveil Specter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 10:51:18 GMT
Why is {mind twist} on your banned list? Fixed |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 13:47:24 GMT
I love the first rule and hope desperately that it is made official (yes i know house rules etc. etc., but it would be nice if I knew any ne wplay group would accept hybrid mana cards).
Please go into more detail on the second point. I have my own ideas on a ban list for comander, but I don't understand your distinction at all on what should be banned.
are you saying we redact the nephilim into legends? or that we have a list of non-legends that can be comanders? Either one seems a little arbitrary, though I am tired of having to use {cromat} for my four color comander (and ignore one of his colors on principal}
Do you think the life change is needed if all "high life total maters" cards were banned? There are other reasons to lower the total, but would that tip the scales to keep it at 40?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 16:32:43 GMT
I love the first rule and hope desperately that it is made official (yes i know house rules etc. etc., but it would be nice if I knew any ne wplay group would accept hybrid mana cards). Please go into more detail on the second point. I have my own ideas on a ban list for comander, but I don't understand your distinction at all on what should be banned. Cards that are bad for the multiplayer format are banned for now. Cards that are just broken (power 9) and other cards appearing on the Vintage list. It is yet to be determined but I would like the banned list to include cards that break the format (Worldfire, Coalition Victory) and not cards that break the fun (Sylavian Primordial, Trade Secrets, Primeval Titan). The thing that has to be understood about ban lists are they cannot fundamentally be used to promote a certain play style. Because you want players to get along and have a blast doesn't mean they otherwise can't. You see, it's much better to have a healthy format then it is to have a fun format. A healthy format free of cards that degenerate the way the game is actually played is important. I believe the Rules Committee has done an admirable job in that department. However banning Primeval Titan because it is in "too many decks" is not a ban worthy card. Then Sol Ring should be banned also for that reason. The goal is not to make Commande competitive with it's banned list, the goal is to make it a format with rules just like standard is. Then you can take the format as it stands, and play with a competitive or casual twist on it. Wizards does a ton of research before banning cards, they look at tournaments (which is lacking in Commander, but previlent on MTGO) and really weight their options as far as what is breaking the format. See with a top-down redesign of Commander and a banned list that reflects what cards people are using to win games makes it easier for casual players to make their own house rules (which they're already doing) and the rest of us to build at our own digression. Forcing everyone under a casual umbrella is as bad as forcing everyone to be competitive. I came here with a fresh idea for fixing a format I love. I also choose here instead of iMtG because some of the people I would like to help me defected. This is an attempt to have a strong philosophical debate, and not have me tyrannically rule a banned list for a format that doesn't exist yet. I'm open to all arguments. Iare you saying we redact the nephilim into legends? or that we have a list of non-legends that can be comanders? Either one seems a little arbitrary, though I am tired of having to use {cromat} for my four color comander (and ignore one of his colors on principal} The Nephilim will have a special rules clause that will errata them to be considered Legendary creatures. There are only 5 of them, and it is reasonable to assume this errata won't be difficult to grok. IDo you think the life change is needed if all "high life total maters" cards were banned? There are other reasons to lower the total, but would that tip the scales to keep it at 40? "Life total matters" cards will not be banned, because they do not break the format in any significant way. If one does become too degenerate it can be considered for banning. The point of lowering the life total isn't to adjust the power level of "life total matters" cards, it is to adjust a myriad of problems I feel the format is having. I do not feel that "life total matters" cards currently ruins commander, it was just a small bonus for lowering the life total that balances those types of cards slighly. |
|
|
|
Post by DrEggman on Apr 1, 2014 18:20:32 GMT
I'm also unsure that emrakul should be banned as a card overall. Obviously it's a broken commander, but I don't have a problem with it being one of the 99.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 18:43:38 GMT
Another thought on color identity...It would complicate things, but I would want it so that, as you point out, Grisslebrand can't be cheated out in a mono-red deck. Maybe say that every colored card must share a color with your commander (so that Boros reconer can be played in a mono red deck, but Grisslebrand cannot). This has the down side of not being able to play 0 mana kabolds in a mono blue deck (this could be seen as good or bad) and you can't play {spider spawning} in a mono black deck (I think that is an unfortunate cost...I love the idea of including cards that you don't know how to play but you do know how to flashback). What do you all think?
Specific cards on your ban list: I have always hated that Yawgmoth’s Bargain is on the list but {greed} and {necropotence} arn't. It seems inconsistent. Maybe I'm wrong and it's much more powerful, but they seem like they should be all in or all out. I also think that {diabolic tutor} and{vampiric tutor}/{cruel tutor}/etc. should either be all in or all out.
As for a ban list in general, I am still a little fuzzy on what you mean by "breaking the format." Your list has some cards that are just strong. Some that are universally useful enough that every deck would want it. Some that are super niche but would lead to a single deck becoming easily prevelant. I understand your critisisms of the current list (honestly, I think sol ring should be banned from the currently active ban list....I think any card that literally goes in every deck should be a high contender for banning as it makes the game play more repetitive and makes the secondary market difficult for new players); I just can't figure out a cohesive rule that would guide a new list.
I have a suggestion though, that all tutors (except for basic land tutors) are banned (or, as I once heard as a house rule, any card that says "search your library for X" instead can find and can only find basic lands). I honestly have no problem with most "broken" cards if you have to draw into them honestly. If there are no tutors at all, then I think "problematic" combo cards like {Protean Hulk} can be unbanned. I see repetitiousness and degenerate/oppressive combos as the worst things for the format, both in theory and in practice. I had to make my sliver deck worse and my firend had to make his Scion deck worse because they were boring, "do I get a tutor? ok I win." Removing tutors cuts down on repetitiousness, allows for cards that would otherwise be "broken." What do you think? Would that be good or bad for the format? Would it change the rest of the ban list?
I would say that all "life totals matter" cards would be banned too, since this is almost the definition of "breaking" the format (I know you mean breaking like the metagame would be bad, but I mean where you find the weak spot in the setup and push there). Even with 30 life, Sierra Ascendant is still a 6/6 for one mana, and if there was a card that was just 6/6 for one mana...we would call that the most broken, format warping card ever. Some cards, their names escape me, use terminology of "if you life is X more than your starting life" and this must have been with commander in mind....I'm fine if sierra acrendant was legal and was errata'd to read "ten more than starting life" instead of 30. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 18:46:49 GMT
I'm also unsure that emrakul should be banned as a card overall. Obviously it's a broken commander, but I don't have a problem with it being one of the 99. I sort of agree that the power difference between him and Darksteel Colossus/the other eldrazi lords isn't enough to ban one and not the other, and then you get down to the nitty gritty on where to draw the line. See my coment above ^^. If you can {burried alive} and then {reanimate} him, in a deck with every tutor in magic, then I don't like him as legal....if you have to draw/mill him "honestly" then I would unban him. |
|
|
|
Post by Testset on Apr 1, 2014 19:05:09 GMT
Completely agree regarding life-total cards.
I remember the first time running my 5-color Commander against a stranger. Called me to the carpet for using Coalition Victory (I wasn't aware of the restriction, and my playgroup didn't mind). This guy ran Felidar Sovereign, Serra Ascendant, and Test of Endurance.
Clearly, alternate-win and format-breaking cards weren't his issue. Coalition Victory is hardest to get in 100-card singleton, IMO. Was he just dogmatic, or is there a valid argument to be made?
|
|
|
|
Post by Testset on Apr 1, 2014 19:05:47 GMT
By the way... Great to see you again, DC!
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 19:14:39 GMT
Completely agree regarding life-total cards. I remember the first time running my 5-color Commander against a stranger. Called me to the carpet for using Coalition Victory (I wasn't aware of the restriction, and my playgroup didn't mind). This guy ran Felidar Sovereign, Serra Ascendant, and Test of Endurance. Clearly, alternate-win and format-breaking cards weren't his issue. Coalition Victory is hardest to get in 100-card singleton, IMO. Was he just dogmatic, or is there a valid argument to be made? I wouldn't call it "dogmatic" that he stuck to the published rules (yes, I know thats sort of the definition of dogmatic, but dogmatic has a negative connotation...and yes I know that in a casual format the rules shouldn't mater, but you need a common starting point when playing with new people). But you are right in my opinion.....{chance encounter} is harder I think than {coalition victory} with all the mana fixing available is easier than the life gain alternate wins. People hate coalition victory and i understood it being banned (i used to run it in my five color deck) but irt's not worse than test of endurance in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 19:16:28 GMT
I'm also unsure that emrakul should be banned as a card overall. Obviously it's a broken commander, but I don't have a problem with it being one of the 99. I believe Emrakul to be a very broken card from almost every other format he is available in so far. If Emrakul were to be unbanned decks would almost instantly turn the format into "Legacy +". Unbanning Emrakul would require that most decks have Force of Will to stop you from cheating him out, or have access to Karakas (which is currently banned from the format tentatively). I also believe that most games will become a race to cast him, he has an unprecedented amount of value. Value that similar Eldrazi do not have, or Progenitus for that matter. It is not as though we shouldn't look to other formats for their problems. 100-card Singleton does not provide enough solid answers to such a difficult problem as Emrakul. The problems Emrakul causes, in my opinion, do not warrant having it around. As always, I would appreciate a counter argument. Another thought on color identity...It would complicate things, but I would want it so that, as you point out, Grisslebrand can't be cheated out in a mono-red deck. Maybe say that every colored card must share a color with your commander (so that Boros reconer can be played in a mono red deck, but Grisslebrand cannot). This has the down side of not being able to play 0 mana kabolds in a mono blue deck (this could be seen as good or bad) and you can't play {spider spawning} in a mono black deck (I think that is an unfortunate cost...I love the idea of including cards that you don't know how to play but you do know how to flashback). What do you all think? There are still plenty of ways to cheat out Griselbrand with Quicksilver Amulet in any deck. My point was admittedly based on a shaky foundation. If you want to build a deck, include a bunch of creatures you cannot pay for on the off-chance you draw and stick an Amulet, just to cheat out Griselbrand (with no certainty)? I guess one should be allowed to take a risk like that for a reward. Griselbrand can be unbanned. Not playable as commander? Sound like a fair compromise? The 0 mana kabold things is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, there are other 0 mana artifacts and such that do that type of thing already. Specific cards on your ban list: I have always hated that Yawgmoth’s Bargain is on the list but {greed} and {necropotence} arn't. It seems inconsistent. Maybe I'm wrong and it's much more powerful, but they seem like they should be all in or all out. I also think that {diabolic tutor} and{vampiric tutor}/{cruel tutor}/etc. should either be all in or all out. Bargain allows you to draw without restrictions, and at any time, which is insane. Necropotence adds an 'exile whatever you discard' clause, as well as adding a restriction that you only get the card at your end step. Necropotence is extremely powerful, and somehow Yawgmoth's Bargain is vastly superior. I disagree with the all-in / all-out philosophy. Vampiric Tutor is an instant speed, and that is important to its overall power level. I don't believe any of the other Tutors should be banned, as they either require you reveal the card to the whole table, or are at least at sorcery speed. As for a ban list in general, I am still a little fuzzy on what you mean by "breaking the format." Your list has some cards that are just strong. Some that are universally useful enough that every deck would want it. Some that are super niche but would lead to a single deck becoming easily prevelant. I understand your critisisms of the current list (honestly, I think sol ring should be banned from the currently active ban list....I think any card that literally goes in every deck should be a high contender for banning as it makes the game play more repetitive and makes the secondary market difficult for new players); I just can't figure out a cohesive rule that would guide a new list. There are no hard and fast rules for stabilizing a format. In some instances banning a card that makes games incredibly repetitive and decks/games all similar could be up for banning. Finding a good jumping off point is important also. Commander has a lot of cards in it, 99-card singleton also helps things become less repetitive then the reactionary, meta driven Legacy/Vintage formats. The secondary market is a problem for people wanting to join the format. As the designers and committee working on a newer format, we cannot control those things. What we can control is trying to have a stable environment that people can play in, free of cards that reduce games to the fastest to get that card out. I should clarify: Coalition Victory is not the hardest instant-win to get off in Commander. I meant it is less effective in Commander than it would be in any other format, since you can only have 1 of each shockland, and it's harder to get them in a 100-card singleton, etc. I agree. I would consider unbanning Coalition Victory for sure. It is difficult to achieve, and any deck running it would have to be pretty specifically catered to achieving it. Let the meta find out how to deal with those decks, from where I stand it isn't that broken. On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it. I only believe the 1 tutor is broken. Limiting a certain type of card that someone can include in a deck is arbitrary. It adds few reasons to even play the format because it restricts something that all colors can do, all players want to do, and isn't all that broken in the grand scheme of things. There will always be a list of best cards to play. There are lots of huge effects in EDH and part of the format is dealing with ridiculous things. I believe it is a good idea to keep the banned list as small as possible. Making it too large is essentially telling a casual play group how to have fun. That being said, a casual play group is also expected to bear some of the responsibility of deciding what belongs on their house rules ban list. If you think that Tutors aren't fun and is leading to degenerate plays, then it is worth sharing with your particular group. Then, your group can begin deciding what cards just aren't worth using for the sake of enjoyment. |
|
|
|
Post by Testset on Apr 1, 2014 19:26:50 GMT
I should clarify: Coalition Victory is not the hardest instant-win to get off in Commander. I meant it is less effective in Commander than it would be in any other format, since you can only have 1 of each shockland, and it's harder to get them in a 100-card singleton, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by adestructiveforce on Apr 1, 2014 21:24:45 GMT
On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 21:44:48 GMT
On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it. Not to be confrontational, but in all seriousness why should you be able to? If a person wants consistency, 100 card singleton isn't the right format. |
|
|
|
Post by Testset on Apr 1, 2014 21:51:20 GMT
I totally sympathize with the desire for a timely response (i.e. Oblivion Ring), but yeah, I interpret the "100 card singleton" requirement as a nudge toward random chance and a little frivolity. Tutoring totally undermines that aspect. That's why my Zur deck isn't very fun...
|
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 1, 2014 21:51:59 GMT
On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it. I don't think tutors need to be limited at all, especially if the life total is lowered. Even {Vampiric Tutor}, easily the best one, costs card advantage and a bit of life. Most tutors' cost lies in tempo, however: would you rather spend turn 4 casting {diabolic tutor} or ramping into your commander? |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 1, 2014 22:00:42 GMT
On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it. I don't think tutors need to be limited at all, especially if the life total is lowered. Even {Vampiric Tutor}, easily the best one, costs card advantage and a bit of life. Most tutors' cost lies in tempo, however: would you rather spend turn 4 casting {diabolic tutor} or ramping into your commander? It's not that they are too strong, it's that they are boring.......In my sliver deck I tutor for one of my combo pieces and make infinite mana/slivers/car ddraw/etc. I cut the infinite combo just because every game played out the same. My friend's {scion of the ur-dragon} deck had to keep cutting the good ragons because he always "tutored" for the same two dragons every game....its not just consistent, it's repetitious. Tutors arn't overpowered, but they allow you to always get the same broken cards every game. |
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 1, 2014 22:53:54 GMT
I don't think tutors need to be limited at all, especially if the life total is lowered. Even {Vampiric Tutor}, easily the best one, costs card advantage and a bit of life. Most tutors' cost lies in tempo, however: would you rather spend turn 4 casting {diabolic tutor} or ramping into your commander? It's not that they are too strong, it's that they are boring.......In my sliver deck I tutor for one of my combo pieces and make infinite mana/slivers/car ddraw/etc. I cut the infinite combo just because every game played out the same. My friend's {scion of the ur-dragon} deck had to keep cutting the good ragons because he always "tutored" for the same two dragons every game....its not just consistent, it's repetitious. Tutors arn't overpowered, but they allow you to always get the same broken cards every game. The point of a ban list should not be to enforce fun, but to stop the format from breaking. I understand if you want to ban tutors within your playgroup so the games don't all end up the same way, but that doesn't mean they should be banned as a whole. Tutors are only broken if there's something broken to tutor for. |
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 1, 2014 23:13:42 GMT
The Commander format as it stands right now is also unsanctioned. That presents a few immediate problems: How many truly broken decks do we not know about?
Because professional players and homebrewers alike have not been incentivized to break the format for monetary gain, some of the truest format breaking decks may not have revealed themselves. It is quite possible every broken combination has been thought up, but it is also likely a Draw-Go deck is somewhere under the surface. I would never underestimate the power levels of some decks that top teams could devise, and they currently have no reason to devote their full attention to breaking this format. We do not have access to deck lists.Which causes groups like us, and the official Commander RC, to be banning cards in a vacuum. Magic Online can be used to pull data from, but I am unaware of any such way to do so. Having access to experimental data can give us all the chances we need to know what we're dealing with. If we see certain cards routinely being played, it could be more then possible it represents those degenerative cards we're looking to stop. Prize support.There is little to no incentive to play currently unless you are one of those casual players the format was designed for. No Pro Points, no DCI rankings, no player rewards. If anything, this new format is being designed to help push sanctioning. The current Commander RC insists on it being casual fun, it will not be sanctioned as long as the "social contract" is in place and harmless cards are banned, while degenerative ones are not. Again, this isn't to make the format competitive, it is to make it not casual. Designing a format catered to casual players is picking sides. Having a format any type of player can do any type of thing in is the goal. Wizards/Independent groups lack cohesive resourcesThere is no overarching umbrella site that can make these things possible. But I believe there is a lot of money in it for someone who can put it all together. A Commander 2.0 website with deck lists, articles, cards for sale, and collected data from tournaments/MTGO (like MTGO-stats.com is for MTGO Standard) that puts certain archetype cards into a "package" based upon its frequency of appearance. Even an app that ties all of these things together. Magic has a multi-million dollar secondary market, and if someone had the resources to tie it all together into a cohesive package to help push a new format for sanctioning - they could be rich because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by adestructiveforce on Apr 2, 2014 0:38:13 GMT
On ieatfood's comment on tutoring: I don't think tutors are broken in all scenarios, maybe limit the number of tutors in a deck? Because if you just really need some enchantment removal right then, you should be able to tutor for it. Not to be confrontational, but in all seriousness why should you be able to? If a person wants consistency, 100 card singleton isn't the right format. Fair enough, but I still feel like tutoring isn't inherently broken, but people tutor for things that are degenerate. Like Zur. |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 2, 2014 14:12:20 GMT
Not to be confrontational, but in all seriousness why should you be able to? If a person wants consistency, 100 card singleton isn't the right format. Fair enough, but I still feel like tutoring isn't inherently broken, but people tutor for things that are degenerate. Like Zur. My point would be that it is impossible to ban every degenerate thing people could tutor for. Why ban Painter's servant but not {intruder alarm} or {mana echos}, either of which combo with EVERYTHING.  |
|
|
|
Post by abstractapathist on Apr 2, 2014 22:50:41 GMT
Fair enough, but I still feel like tutoring isn't inherently broken, but people tutor for things that are degenerate. Like Zur. My point would be that it is impossible to ban every degenerate thing people could tutor for. Why ban Painter's servant but not {intruder alarm} or {mana echos}, either of which combo with EVERYTHING. I don't think everything is equally degenerate, however. {Painter's Servant} is part of a 2-card combo with {Grindstone} which starts killing people as early as turn 3 without fast mana, while the two you named cannot pull off such a feat. |
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 3, 2014 12:59:16 GMT
My point would be that it is impossible to ban every degenerate thing people could tutor for. Why ban Painter's servant but not {intruder alarm} or {mana echos}, either of which combo with EVERYTHING. I don't think everything is equally degenerate, however. {Painter's Servant} is part of a 2-card combo with {Grindstone} which starts killing people as early as turn 3 without fast mana, while the two you named cannot pull off such a feat. absent mana acceleration, painter's servant is a turn three win (if you draw both halves of it or have a one mana tutor for the missing piece). I can't find a two card, turn three win with intruder alarm (without fast mana) but i expect it exists, and there are DOUSENS of turn four infinites with it or turn three three card combos. I almsot want to make a five color deck, fill it with nothign but intruder alarm, every tutor that can find/dig for intruder alarm, and every card the goes infinite with it. I expect ti to have a decent win rate against a deck running the painter's servant combo. |
|
|
|
Post by Dudecore on Apr 3, 2014 20:22:50 GMT
So are you of the opinion that a multiplayer format cannot have a adequate banned list, or exist without the wholesale removal of tutors?
I would also say that any deck with access to so many tutors, could theoretically tutor for answers to intruder alarm. With 4 other players the meta can figure out how to stop that deck. Unless it is theoretically impossible to stop, then it should be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieatfood7 on Apr 3, 2014 20:48:20 GMT
So are you of the opinion that a multiplayer format cannot have a adequate banned list, or exist without the wholesale removal of tutors? I would also say that any deck with access to so many tutors, could theoretically tutor for answers to intruder alarm. With 4 other players the meta can figure out how to stop that deck. Unless it is theoretically impossible to stop, then it should be banned. I think that any format can adjust to almost anything, especially since the main people the list is for is casual players. No draft list at all wouldn't "break" the format as people would just not run decks that are boring and not fun....we have to do that now with Zur, for example (either don't play zur or play a deck that is super weakened, or have everyone hate on you). I feel like the idea for a banned list is either A-make it so that the same cards arn't used in every deck, becaus ethat is boring (sol ring), B-make sure the field is wide open and there are not overly dominant decks (there are enough answers to everything, and as casual people will play what is fun to them....French 1v1 has its own list for more competitive people who want to combo out turn 4 every game). C- keep it fun (winter orb maybe?) |
|
|
|
Post by DrEggman on Apr 3, 2014 22:24:45 GMT
I think his point was that a case can be made to ban tutors based on the idea that commander decks should be more random since it's 100 card singleton. That is the nature of a format being singleton, but tutoring circumvents that.
|
|
