Commander Philosophy Document Discussion

User avatar
bobthefunny
Resident Plainswalker
Posts: 467
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by bobthefunny » 4 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t.
Last edited by bobthefunny 4 years ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Morganelefay
Posts: 87
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Netherlands

Post by Morganelefay » 4 years ago

I do wish that with the new philosophy, they gave a few examples of cards that might be on the "Watch out" list for. Paradox Engine caused a lot of hate partially due to its inflated price, they might want to prevent more of that.
EDH Decks:

Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis - Arise, Lord Hogaak.
Grumgully, the Generous - The wonderful world of Ferngully.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw Cards Tribal.
Pir, Imaginative Rascal & Toothy, Imaginary Friend - Imaginary Superfriends.
Selvala, Explorer Returned - Taxes, Denial and Fatties.
Selvala, Heart of the Wilds - Dinos and Eldrazis, oh my.
Ayara, First of Locthwain - March of the Black Queen.
Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh - Chandra Tribal.
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim - Curious Contraptions

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

Thoughts on the updated philosophy:
At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play.
This for me is the stand out sentence in the entire thing. If you had to boil down the essence of "how do we approach the Commander ban list?", this is what I would say. As such, I think everything that follows in the document should reinforce this ideal.

The rest of the document feels familiar for anyone who has read the previous versions of this philosophy topic/ However, there are two small gripes that I have with the revised verbiage.
1. "As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle..." - One thing I had noticed about the official rules was that it had a dated feel by specifically stating that your commander must be a legendary creature. I asked Sheldon if this was just an oversight that was never updated, or intentional. He replied that it was the latter, so as to not create confusion since planeswalkers as commanders was the exception and not the norm. So my issue with this new wording of "avatar" is that they are being intentionally vague to the point of leaving themselves open for legitimate arguments that an avatar could include a planeswalker.

2. Potential Barrier to Entry is noticeably absent. Again, I (jokingly) asked Sheldon if I should renew my quest to free Library of Alexandria, and he directed me to the fourth bullet, "Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic." My issue here is that what exactly does "problematic" mean to the Rules Committee? because earlier in the document, it means "cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.", none of which mention price or availability. And since the revised document no longer seems to be concerned with the perception of being priced out of the format before you even begin building your first deck, an Underground Sea is just as ubiquitous as a Library, arguably more.
It's not so much that I want to grab my soapbox and start trying to use this change as an argument to unban any cards or change a core rule of the format, but that this updated language gives me fresh ammunition to make these arguments.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
JqlGirl
Arbitrix of the CAG
Posts: 19
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by JqlGirl » 4 years ago

I think you're focusing too much on a single word with the avatar thing, Cryo. I doubt anyone credible will be looking to the philosophy document as a foundation for an argument that all planeswalkers should be allowed as commanders because of a single word.

As for potential barrier to entry, it's no longer called out specifically, but the document makes it clear that the bullet points aren't the only criteria for banning, just the most common ones. Other than cards on the reserve list, it's pretty impossible for me to imagine a situation that would lead another card to meet that criteria. Also, no card is going to be banned just for having a high price. If that were the case, then Tabernacle and Cradle would have been banned for years. At this point, it's a consideration when thinking about unbanning any card on the RL but not one to consider for new cards. Also, Library is gross and should stay banned.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

JqlGirl wrote:
4 years ago
I think you're focusing too much on a single word with the avatar thing, Cryo. I doubt anyone credible will be looking to the philosophy document as a foundation for an argument that all planeswalkers should be allowed as commanders because of a single word.

As for potential barrier to entry, it's no longer called out specifically, but the document makes it clear that the bullet points aren't the only criteria for banning, just the most common ones. Other than cards on the reserve list, it's pretty impossible for me to imagine a situation that would lead another card to meet that criteria. Also, no card is going to be banned just for having a high price. If that were the case, then Tabernacle and Cradle would have been banned for years. At this point, it's a consideration when thinking about unbanning any card on the RL but not one to consider for new cards. Also, Library is gross and should stay banned.
I'm focusing on the trees and not the forest because that is exactly how people approach the philosophy document. I personally don't have confusion with the wording, nor do I see a value to legalizing planeswalkers as commanders. And as innocuous as I think Library is, the real downside feelbad to people not being able to afford one isn't worth the small upside for the 30,000 or so of us that do have one (or allow proxies).

My gripe isn't that the new wording gives me ammo, it's that you appear to have given people an opening for renewed debate.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
bobthefunny
Resident Plainswalker
Posts: 467
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by bobthefunny » 4 years ago

I agree with JqlGirl here. This is a minor correction towards that there are other legal Commanders, but also possibly a nod to the thematic nature of the format.

It could also be a slight nod to the fact that plenty of playgroups have individualized rules, which is entirely in the spirit of the format. We currently have a player using Underworld Cerberus as a Commander, because he's been dying to do it since the card came out and we said yes. I've seen people play Mox Sapphire as a Commander in a different playgroup as well. So long as people are cool with it, that seems to be right up the intent of the format. To talk things through, and have a good time.

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

Post by papa_funk » 4 years ago

cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
1. "As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle..." - One thing I had noticed about the official rules was that it had a dated feel by specifically stating that your commander must be a legendary creature.
It's not talking about the mechanics, but emphasizing the focus on flavor and expression through choice of Commander. I think using "creature," while technically correct, doesn't have the same impact.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Potential Barrier to Entry is noticeably absent. Again, I (jokingly) asked Sheldon if I should renew my quest to free Library of Alexandria, and he directed me to the fourth bullet, "Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic." My issue here is that what exactly does "problematic" mean to the Rules Committee? because earlier in the document, it means "cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.", none of which mention price or availability. And since the revised document no longer seems to be concerned with the perception of being priced out of the format before you even begin building your first deck, an Underground Sea is just as ubiquitous as a Library, arguably more.
I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
cryogen wrote:
4 years ago
Potential Barrier to Entry is noticeably absent. Again, I (jokingly) asked Sheldon if I should renew my quest to free Library of Alexandria, and he directed me to the fourth bullet, "Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic." My issue here is that what exactly does "problematic" mean to the Rules Committee? because earlier in the document, it means "cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.", none of which mention price or availability. And since the revised document no longer seems to be concerned with the perception of being priced out of the format before you even begin building your first deck, an Underground Sea is just as ubiquitous as a Library, arguably more.
I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?
Price tag, although you can make the case that unbanning all five would be as problematic at a turn 1 Sol Ring innterms of fast mana starts.

Personally, off the top of my head only Time Walk/Vault would have actual game play issues. If proxies were legal and actually owning the PBtE cards wasn't the issue then I would like to see almost all of them unbanned. What are they going to affect, 0.001% of games? And it's not like you're going to have droves of players going "oh man they unbanned Brainstorm and now I can't afford it!"

But I understand why they remain banned and can accept that reasoning.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

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

Post by papa_funk » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?
The fact that this is not a checklist or comprehensive.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6235
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

When people finally realized that timetwister was pretty good and on the reserved list it went apeshit.

There are more Twisters than Libraries by a lot (~10x).

Library goes in at least 2x as many decks as twister.

Library could top Black Lotus if it was unbanned in commander. That'd be a damned crime.

I'd rather they just ban anything over the cost of a month's median rent in san francisco personally than ever think about having a $10,000 card legal.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

papa_funk wrote:
4 years ago
MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
I think that lands on Moxen a lot harder than Library. Very few people think those are a good idea, but what keeps them banned?
The fact that this is not a checklist or comprehensive.
I was speaking in more of a hypothetical without PBtE factoring at all.

I absolutely think PBtE is great for the format, I specifically remember when I saw EDH the first time. Someone cast a Demonic Tutor with a Sol Ring in play, and I asked about Power. People were like 'oh you can't even play it', and the rest is glorious history.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”