Comp. Rule 903.11 vs. Commander Rule 11

User avatar
KitsuLeif
Posts: 204
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by KitsuLeif » 3 years ago

Today, when I explained to someone that Companions work in Commander, but Wishes don't, with the backup of Rule 11 from mtgcommander.net "Abilities which bring other card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Living Wish; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander." , I was corrected by someone that this is contradicted by WotCs official Comp. Rules:
903.11. If a player is allowed to bring a card from outside the game into a Commander game, that player can't bring a card into the game this way if it has the same name as a card that player had in their starting deck, if it has the same name as a card that the player has already brought into the game, or if any color in its color identity isn't in the color identity of the player's commander.

So... which rule is correct now? How is this handled at MagicFests?
Last edited by KitsuLeif 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Segrus
Posts: 184
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Segrus » 3 years ago

KitsuLeif wrote:
3 years ago
So... which rule is correct now? How is this handled at MagicFests?
Rule 11 is the only correct rule, because WOTC isn't in charge of Commander and doesn't design its rules or banlist. Plain and simple.

It does look like the person who penned 903.11 was trying to make a more official sounding rule 11 for the Comp Rules, but then accidentally missed the whole point of rule 11. But on the other hand, 903.11 does start off with "if a player is allowed." Rule 11 is pretty clear that players aren't allowed.

User avatar
KitsuLeif
Posts: 204
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by KitsuLeif » 3 years ago

The only other option I can think of that the "if allowed" means houseruling, but that wouldn't make sense either, because if you play with house rules, why do you need regulations then?
Or maybe, they just forgot to change it? Wouldn't be the first time. When PE and Iona got banned, they didn't update the banlist on their website until I send them a message on FB a week later...
And still the question is: How do Judges handle this in official events? Do they follow the Comp. Rules or the mtgcommander rules?

I messaged WotC on FB and asked them to clear things up. Hopefully I'll get an answer.
Last edited by KitsuLeif 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Segrus
Posts: 184
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Segrus » 3 years ago

KitsuLeif wrote:
3 years ago
And still the question is: How do Judges handle this in official events? Do they follow the Comp. Rules or the mtgcommander rules?
People may not agree with me, but when it comes to the Commander format WOTC isn't in charge. Whatever they put for Commander-specific rules should really only be followed as a guideline, because the only official source for Commander rules is what the RC puts down on their website. If a judge wants to know the official rules for Commander, that's where they should go first.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

KitsuLeif wrote:
3 years ago
The only other option I can think of that the "if allowed" means houseruling, but that wouldn't make sense either, because if you play with house rules, why do you need regulations then?
Or maybe, they just forgot to change it? Wouldn't be the first time. When PE and Iona got banned, they didn't update the banlist on their website until I send them a message on FB a week later...
And still the question is: How do Judges handle this in official events? Do they follow the Comp. Rules or the mtgcommander rules?

I messaged WotC on FB and asked them to clear things up. Hopefully I'll get an answer.
The "if allowed" is for Companions. Rule 11 dictates what is allowed. Rule 903.11 codifies how the "allowed" cards work. Both apply, depending on the situation. In fact, the rule is brand new in Ikoria because of Companions.

Which means that you basically need to get through Rule 11 to make sure it is allowed (Companions are the only things so far that meet the necessary criteria) and then 903.11 says how they work. Since MTGCommander doesn't tell you any of the information that 903.11 does, and the CR is generally meant for during game play, something needed to be written on what is allowed or not. And that is where the CR comes in. There is nothing in the CR that will be contradictory to how the RC wants the format to work and these rules are not contradictory either; they are complementary.

User avatar
lyonhaert
Posts: 641
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 4
Pronoun: they / them

Post by lyonhaert » 3 years ago

Also, regarding part of 903.11 (the 'same name' stuff), the companion technically isn't part of the starting deck (it's not counted in the 100).
Chainer bbb
"Image"
(rebuild after Geth)
Other
r Lathliss
bw Breena
To-Build Pool
rb Obosh Burn
gw Dromoka

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

lyonhaert wrote:
3 years ago
Also, regarding part of 903.11 (the 'same name' stuff), the companion technically isn't part of the starting deck (it's not counted in the 100).
Just because I want to make sure no one walks away with any confusion regarding this, is there a specific situation where this distinction matters? Maybe some corner case that hasn't been thought of? Or is it *just* meant to say that it is the 101st card? If so, that is good to call out.

User avatar
lyonhaert
Posts: 641
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 4
Pronoun: they / them

Post by lyonhaert » 3 years ago

WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
lyonhaert wrote:
3 years ago
Also, regarding part of 903.11 (the 'same name' stuff), the companion technically isn't part of the starting deck (it's not counted in the 100).
Just because I want to make sure no one walks away with any confusion regarding this, is there a specific situation where this distinction matters? Maybe some corner case that hasn't been thought of? Or is it *just* meant to say that it is the 101st card? If so, that is good to call out.
It has to do with the OP, where this other person said that 903.11 contradicted Rule 11.
Today, when I explained to someone that Companions work in Commander, but Wishes don't, with the backup of Rule 11 from mtgcommander.net "Abilities which bring other card(s) you own from outside the game into the game (such as Living Wish; Spawnsire of Ulamog; Karn, the Great Creator) do not function in Commander." , I was corrected by someone that this is contradicted by WotCs official Comp. Rules:
903.11. If a player is allowed to bring a card from outside the game into a Commander game, that player can't bring a card into the game this way if it has the same name as a card that player had in their starting deck, if it has the same name as a card that the player has already brought into the game, or if any color in its color identity isn't in the color identity of the player's commander.
I'm trying to say that there's no contradiction in explicit terms, complementary to the other things that have been pointed out, for these reasons (broken out from 903.11's 'if' clauses):
  • "if it has the same name as a card that player had in their starting deck" -- It can't, because due to Rule 3 it's not in the starting deck, but there also can't be another copy in the 100.
    3. A Commander deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including the commander. If you're playing a companion, it must adhere to color identity and singleton rules. While it is not part of the deck, it is effectively a 101st card.
  • "if it has the same name as a card that the player has already brought into the game" -- It starts outside the game and is only brought in once.
  • "if any color in its color identity isn't in the color identity of the player's commander" -- Rule 3 again.
I suspect this other player was trying to use the first clause and was confused about whether the Companion was part of the starting deck or not.
Chainer bbb
"Image"
(rebuild after Geth)
Other
r Lathliss
bw Breena
To-Build Pool
rb Obosh Burn
gw Dromoka

UnNamed1
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by UnNamed1 » 3 years ago

The correct ruling is the RC's Rule 11, that you cannot pull cards from outside of the game. Therefore, Companions are legal but wishes/sideboards are not. Personally, I still disagree, these two things contradict themselves and just causes issues. You can't purposefully say cards that bring in new cards don't work, while cards that bring in themselves as long as you met restrictions does work.

As long as we aren't playing a strict sanctioned game that must abide by rules, my stance is that you can have companions/wishes/sideboards as a package, or none at all. For example, Rule 3 specifically got changed because of companions. Exactly 100 cards, no more no less. Except if you have "companion" in which case 101 cards is ok....

User avatar
darrenhabib
Posts: 1812
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by darrenhabib » 3 years ago

I've noticed that on https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr903/ they have pulled the 903.11 reference off altogether and then on April 10, 2020 Magic had this in their comprehensive rules changes..

903.11
In a Commander game, many playgroups use the rule that you can't bring cards in from outside the game, so anything that says you can get a card from outside the game just does nothing. In case your playgroup waives that rule and lets cards like Burning Wish search a mini sideboard or something, you should still not be able to violate your color identity and you should still not be able to bring a duplicate card into the game. This rule establishes those as firmer rules than mere suggestions while also making sure that if you have a companion, it'll follow the rules. I mean, your playgroup can still decide to ignore this rule if you all want. I'm the rules manager, not the card police.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

darrenhabib wrote:
3 years ago
I've noticed that on https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr903/ they have pulled the 903.11 reference off altogether and then on April 10, 2020 Magic had this in their comprehensive rules changes..

903.11
In a Commander game, many playgroups use the rule that you can't bring cards in from outside the game, so anything that says you can get a card from outside the game just does nothing. In case your playgroup waives that rule and lets cards like Burning Wish search a mini sideboard or something, you should still not be able to violate your color identity and you should still not be able to bring a duplicate card into the game. This rule establishes those as firmer rules than mere suggestions while also making sure that if you have a companion, it'll follow the rules. I mean, your playgroup can still decide to ignore this rule if you all want. I'm the rules manager, not the card police.
I would chalk that up to more of an oversight than an intentional obfuscation of the rules. First, that site isn't the CR; it is a better way to view it. You can download the CR separately and the rule exists there. Second, there are plenty of other sites that do what that one does. So, removing, or ignoring a rule intentionally is unlikely.

It is much simpler to just realize it is a brand new rule (as the quote above from Eli shows) and it somehow wasn't added properly.

And Eli's comments on adding the rule are simply there to explain why it was added. I am not sure if there is a specific relevance to it though.


User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

It's no surprise to me that there's confusion over this rule, but it does surprise me that a group that thought banned-as-a-commander was too complex went this route :)

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 3 years ago

Segrus wrote:
3 years ago
People may not agree with me, but when it comes to the Commander format WOTC isn't in charge. Whatever they put for Commander-specific rules should really only be followed as a guideline, because the only official source for Commander rules is what the RC puts down on their website. If a judge wants to know the official rules for Commander, that's where they should go first.
I don't know how that is an opinion. Wizards does not control the format they have stated that the RC controls it. Wizards just slowly updates their page to reflect what the rules stated by the RC are. The most up to date rules tend to be on mtgcommander.net as Wizards only slowly updates theirs after changes are reflected on mtgcommander.net.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
KitsuLeif
Posts: 204
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by KitsuLeif » 3 years ago

The thing is, it's even in the Comp. Rules:
903.1. In the Commander variant, each deck is led by a legendary creature designated as that deck's commander. The Commander variant was created and popularized by fans; an independent rules committee maintains additional resources at MTGCommander.net. The Commander variant uses all the normal rules for a Magic game, with the following additions.
But there are still people who think that WotC is in charge of this format, probably because of the flood of products they pump out for it...

User avatar
Segrus
Posts: 184
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Segrus » 3 years ago

ISBPathfinder wrote:
3 years ago
Segrus wrote:
3 years ago
People may not agree with me, but when it comes to the Commander format WOTC isn't in charge. Whatever they put for Commander-specific rules should really only be followed as a guideline, because the only official source for Commander rules is what the RC puts down on their website. If a judge wants to know the official rules for Commander, that's where they should go first.
I don't know how that is an opinion. Wizards does not control the format they have stated that the RC controls it. Wizards just slowly updates their page to reflect what the rules stated by the RC are. The most up to date rules tend to be on mtgcommander.net as Wizards only slowly updates theirs after changes are reflected on mtgcommander.net.
You'd think it isn't an opinion, just stated fact, but this thread was started by "I was corrected by someone that this is contradicted by WotCs official Comp. Rules." So somebody the OP interacted with has implied the Comprehensive Rules trumps/overrides the RC.

User avatar
KitsuLeif
Posts: 204
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by KitsuLeif » 3 years ago

Segrus wrote:
3 years ago
You'd think it isn't an opinion, just stated fact, but this thread was started by "I was corrected by someone that this is contradicted by WotCs official Comp. Rules." So somebody the OP interacted with has implied the Comprehensive Rules trumps/overrides the RC.
Exactly. The person was argumenting with "the Judges at MagicFests are using the official Comp. rules from WotC, not some third party rules".

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

This whole thing is kind of moot anyway, because the two rules don't even contradict each other, and this is a case of several people misreading something. One tells you what cards you're allowed to bring in from outside the game, and the other tells you how the rules work for cards that you do bring in from outside the game.

Commander Rule 11 tells you that the only cards that are allowed to be brought in from outside the game are Companions.

903.11 tells you that for cards you're allowed to bring in from outside the game (only Companions, unless playing with a Wish enabling house rule), then the cards you do bring in can't already be in your main deck, they can't be cards you've already brought a copy of in, and they must be within your commander's colour identity.

That is all.
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

papa_funk
Posts: 49
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by papa_funk » 3 years ago

There is no contradiction. 903.11 provides restrictions on the scope for a Companion while also giving more framework for groups who want to change the definition of Rule 11 to suit their needs. However, 903.11 clearly states that it is only relevant if you have made this decision (or are using a companion).

WotC doesn't want to define the scope of outside-the-game in the CR (this is true of all formats - go find where it says that wishes are limited to your sideboard in games of Standard). It leaves that to other documents, such as the Commander rules.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”