Should banned as commander come back?

[DirkGently]

I did, it was about what I expected But interestingly he confirmed my point which is that the only reason to bring back BAAC is to ban more liberally.

I guess you could interpret it either way:

The reason that we'd pick them although we haven't done so already is that we've taken a more liberal view of banning cards, which is the whole reason we've reintroduced the category in the first place.

In the hypothetical, is BaaC simply a signal that they want to get more ban-happy and would have otherwise banned cards completely? Or does its existence allow them to ban cards, and they choose to reinstate it to allow them to ban more cards? Bit ambiguous from the wording, but either way it's mostly irrelevant since the hypothetical liberal view of card-banning is, well, hypothetical.

It's irrelevant to you. Not to the people impacted.

I'm "impacted". There are cards on the banlist I'd like to play - some of which I legitimately think ought to be unbanned, like Gifts Ungiven. I'd slot that into Phelddagrif in a nanosecond. I'd be thrilled. I've even got a copy ready to go, should it get the unban-hammer.

But it's banned, so I don't. It doesn't really bother me. I just play something else.

Sure, it's more of an impact to people who lose their deck, but it still sucks.

Some would say 100x the impact.

In my opinion it might suck even more in some ways (for that small audience) because there's zero justification for it other than "we don't think it's worth an infinitesimal amount of work to let you keep playing your card in the 99." If Golos gets banned as a commander you can at least see the reasoning for it.

It's not more work for the RC. It's work for new players to understand the banlist. Especially if BaaC got to be a long list (which imo would be kinda required to justify it existing).

Again we're talking about cards no one has played legally in half a decade. Nothing has even been taken away. Even the minor complaint you could make - that it forced you to replace a card - isn't real. Are you actually still hung up about being forced to replace one card five years ago?

[onering]

[Quote}I agree that I wish they wouldn't print cards that are so difficult to interact with in the command zone, but that's because I don't like cards that limit interaction in general - not because there's anything sacred about commander tax that can't be experimented with, design-wise[/quote]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I don't have reasons behind considering commander tax a fundamental part of the format. Thinking that I oppose these things because its "sacred" is foolish, and ignores the points I've been making.

Its fundamental because it provides a necessary limitation on commanders. Having access to a commander is obviously a fundamental part of the format, there is no format without it, but it is a very powerful tool that can easily get out of hand. Commander tax is an innate limitation on commanders that allows opponents to meaningfully interact with commanders. Without it, you can just repeatedly cast your commander and homogenize the game. The tax means that removing the commander makes it progressively more difficult to just spam the commander, and forces the pilot to have a plan B. Abilities that skirt commander tax, like Derevi or that dumb ninja, remove one of the primary safety valves of the format. I'd argue that commanders like Golos that functionally make the tax weaker by helping you pay for it do the same to a lesser degree, as do eminence commanders (though at least with eminence not all of the abilities are good enough for it to be a big deal). These abilities fundamentally reduce interaction by making it more difficult to interact with the opponents primary game plan, and that is unhealthy for the format as it promotes solitaire gameplay.

WotC experimented with it because they were looking for ways to design FOR commander and wanted to mess with core aspects, of which the commander and its related rules are the easiest to mess with. But just because you CAN mess with it, doesn't mean you SHOULD. When its something like commander tax that is in the rules to serve as a limiting factor, its a bad idea to mess with it. When deciding to mess with it, there should be a better reason than "its there, lets screw around with it." Look at Partner for example. Having more than one commander is also a limiting factor, and partner screws with it. That makes partner a dangerous mechanic, and one that WotC should not have introduced without a good reason. But unlike Derevi or other command zone matters screws, Partner actually DID have a reason to be used, to fix the issue of 4 color decks as there weren't options for creativity there. The logic was that 4c commanders were too difficult to design well and had limited space, so the partner design space needed to be tapped. Then they were very cautious with how they implemented it (so far the only problems have arisen from commanders that were pushed and would have been pretty strong on their own). With Derevi and others, there was no caution, no attempt to mitigate the effects of how it screwed with commander tax (or how eminence screws with the CZ).


Also, dismissing concerns about the 99 as "just your opinion" is a dumb argument, and beneath you. Yes, BaaC cards being available to run in the 99 matters, because there are people who care about it. You may not personally care, and the RC may not value that highly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. All factors matter, and decisions get made because in the end some factors are valued over others. When you dismiss things like this out of hand, rather than just arguing they have less significance than other factors, you get into a rhetorical trap where you only assign value to the most salient factors, when what you should be doing is considering you even less significant factors can add up. Of course a smaller section of the player base being annoyed about not being able to run cards in the 99 isn't as significant as a larger portion being annoyed that their decks got killed (or, more accurately, some of their decks got killed and some modified, which matters less than all the decks getting killed). But combine that concern about the 99 with the increased ability to target problem commanders, increased consistency and clarity in the ban list by demonstrating clearly that things like Rof are only not acceptable in the CZ (and thus why things like Priest of Titania aren't banned alongside him), and the value of a public signal to WotC about what sort of cards are a bad idea to print for commander, these add up. Disagree on how much each piece matters, but don't dismiss it.

I could very easily say that the players upset about losing their decks don't matter, because the number who really care is smaller than the number of players who would be happy to never have to play against Tegrid or Golos again, but I would be wrong. No doubt you believe that the harm caused to those players matters more than the harm their decks cause to everyone else. The simple truth is that all of these groups and concerns matter, and we only disagree over how much each one matters.

[UnfulfilledDesires]

I'd support banned as commander returning if it just allows us to play Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary & Braids, Cabal Minion in the 99. I don't like the idea of a bunch of newly banned commanders.

[pokken]

Are you actually still hung up about being forced to replace one card five years ago?

No, but I can imagine how it would impact people if they banned Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and then everyone had to pull them out of their decks as well in addition to banning the commander.

[onering]

In the hypothetical, is BaaC simply a signal that they want to get more ban-happy and would have otherwise banned cards completely? Or does its existence allow them to ban cards, and they choose to reinstate it to allow them to ban more cards? Bit ambiguous from the wording, but either way it's mostly irrelevant since the hypothetical liberal view of card-banning is, well, hypothetical.

A signal to WotC to be more cautious with commander designs, and that they are willing to be more liberal with banning legendary creatures than in the past. Not having to ban them outright would enable them to be a bit more liberal in dealing with problem commanders. You disagree, because you personally don't care about BaaC legends being available in the 99, which is a separate part of the discussion. Given that being important, BaaC gives the RC the ability to be more liberal with banning commanders SPECIFICALLY. If you don't buy the argument that these cards being available in the 99 is important, sure, then this doesn't matter and you have to assume that this would only happen in concert with a more liberal ban policy generally. But for those of us to whom still being able to play cards in the 99 is significant (and the very fact that people care about non legendary cards getting banned shows that this group is probably a lot larger than you think), being more liberal with banning cards as commanders does not have to translate into being more liberal with banning cards generally.

And really, how can thus be confusing? If BaaC ever comes back, it means that either the RC believes that it enables them to deal with problem commanders without banning them in the 99, or that they responded to a community push for the same reason. That implies that they wouldn't be getting more liberal with banning generally, as then (as you imply) they would just ban the cards outright. Of course, it seems that currently the RC doesn't believe that its worth it, but they once did for fewer cards than are being suggested currently, and Sheldon's article lets us know that its in the conversation even if its not likely right now, and thus could change again in the future. Its correct to argue that, given the RC's current statements, BaaC isn't coming back right now, but incorrect to argue that this won't change. Plenty of people, myself included, made that mistake with Flash potentially being banned, then the RC changed their minds about cEDH related bannings. They could just as easily change their minds about this, if consistently presented with the same sort of outcry for it. It would need a change in how they see problem commanders, but that's it, and the impact of these problem commanders is much larger today than it was when BaaC was nixed, as is the number of cards that would reasonably fall into this list rather than the regular ban list.

But it's banned, so I don't. It doesn't really bother me. I just play something else.

Cool. Same can be said for a deck.

Some would say 100x the impact.

Some would say 10x the impact. Some would say that even IF it is 100x the impact of banning a card in the 99, the impact of getting rid of these commanders on everyone who DOESN'T play them is 100x greater than that, so we're back at "the people who lose decks don't matter." See, if you're going to argue that the loss of those decks matter to those players, and thus should be taken into account and weighed against the benefit of getting rid of these problem commanders for everyone else, then you have to also take into account the impact of banning in the 99. The logic is pretty straightforward here.

It's not more work for the RC. It's work for new players to understand the banlist. Especially if BaaC got to be a long list (which imo would be kinda required to justify it existing).

Nah, it really wouldn't though. BaaC is extremely easy to understand. Ban list: you can't play these cards. BaaC: you can't use these cards as your commander. To suggest that this is a problem for new players is to severely underestimate the ability of new players to understand basic concepts. It's less difficult to grasp than the color identity rules, and about on par with the idea of having a commander in the first place.

Again we're talking about cards no one has played legally in half a decade. Nothing has even been taken away. Even the minor complaint you could make - that it forced you to replace a card - isn't real. Are you actually still hung up about being forced to replace one card five years ago?

No, we're talking about a handful of cards that haven't been played in 5 years AND about 10 cards, give or take depending on who is being asked, that are defining the format RIGHT NOW.

[DirkGently]

If I may make a suggestion, onering, at least take a quick look at your posts when you're done to make sure the formatting isn't screwed up.
You seem to have a pretty high frequency of borked posts.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I don't have reasons behind considering commander tax a fundamental part of the format. Thinking that I oppose these things because its "sacred" is foolish, and ignores the points I've been making.

Tbh I think you prove my point for me later in this post, when you say that they should have been more cautious with their designs, as they were for partner. Doesn't that imply that, while perhaps Derevi was an irresponsible design, that such a design COULD exist?

Off the top of my head, let's talk about Narfi, Betrayer King. Is he a problem? Does he break the fundamentals of the format? Sure, there are some differences between them, but in practice he's pretty damn close to Derevi. For that matter, we've got cards like The Scarab God or the theros gods that are also very hard to get rid of in different ways. I see all these things, and Derevi, as part of a general continuum of limited interactivity. Derevi isn't unique, nor is he impossible to answer - I pack cards like Imprisoned in the Moon in Phelddagrif for just such a reason. Or you could go with Pithing Needle.

I think WotC does need to be cautious when making a commander difficult to interact with, but simply being hard to interact with isn't sufficient to make the card a problem. While I think eminence is extremely dangerous design space, I'm not exactly bothered by Arahbo, Roar of the World. Because it's only really a problem if the ability is too good.

You could argue that Derevi is a combination of too hard to interact with + too strong of an ability. I don't think I agree, but I think that's a reasonable position to take. Saying that command zone tax avoidance could NEVER be done in an acceptable way, though, I think is a bit dogmatic.

BaaC cards being available to run in the 99 matters, because there are people who care about it. You may not personally care, and the RC may not value that highly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

For those who feel that way, I still don't see any reason to take that concern at more than 1/100th the importance of banning a commander.

I don't think that's sufficient justification for having a split banlist. That's just my opinion.

When you dismiss things like this out of hand, rather than just arguing they have less significance than other factors

That's exactly what I've been arguing.

When people keep saying the same thing over and over, eventually I'm going to stop being so precise. Does it matter actual zero? No, fine. I'll give you your 1/100th. Can we move on?

even less significant factors can add up.

Okay, let's add 'em up.

But combine that concern about the 99 with the increased ability to target problem commanders

But it wouldn't do that, though. The thing preventing the RC from banning commanders - as Sheldon says in his article - is that the RC doesn't want to throw out a bunch of peoples' decks. That's just as true with or without BaaC. Even if BaaC existed, how much additional ease do they have in banning a commander? I'd argue, again, 1/100, since that's the fraction of player stress that they avoid by only BaaCing a card (if you wanted to get technical, I guess it'd be 1/100 x [number of decks playing it in the 99]/[number of decks playing it as a commander], with some mitigating factor for people who don't mind modifying instead of destroying...but let's not overcomplicate things, it's still a really small number).

increased consistency and clarity in the ban list by demonstrating clearly that things like Rof are only not acceptable in the CZ (and thus why things like Priest of Titania aren't banned alongside him)

While it's not particularly relevant, I'd say priest is much weaker than Rof regardless, since priest only works in elfball and pushes you into a wide, easy-to-sweep board, whereas Rof is pretty amazing in any mono-green (or even green-heavy with good manabase) deck. Cards with setup costs are not as problematic as cards without setup costs.

If we tried to make a perfectly consistent banlist we'd be here all day. BaaC isn't the thing preventing that from happening. There are so many factors beyond simple power level that determine the banlist. One of the many, of course, is that cards which can be commanders are particularly dangerous. That's not inconsistent, it makes perfect sense. Just because one could circumvent it doesn't mean it's not consistent within a normal banlist.

and the value of a public signal to WotC about what sort of cards are a bad idea to print for commander

Okay, again, the thing preventing the RC from banning commanders isn't the lack of BaaC - it's that they don't want to ban commanders.

If the RC wanted to ban commanders aggressively, they might reinstitute the BaaC list. But reinstituting the BaaC list wouldn't make the RC want to ban commanders aggressively.

If you want commanders banned, just argue for them to be banned. It probably won't happen, but trying to get BaaC reinstituted isn't going to help.

Also if the RC wanted WotC to dial it back with commander design, it'd probably be a lot better to just, y'know, talk to them about it. Rather than trying to communicate via banlist like it's morse code or something.

I could very easily say that the players upset about losing their decks don't matter, because the number who really care is smaller than the number of players who would be happy to never have to play against Tegrid or Golos again, but I would be wrong. No doubt you believe that the harm caused to those players matters more than the harm their decks cause to everyone else. The simple truth is that all of these groups and concerns matter, and we only disagree over how much each one matters.

I agree with that. But it's relatively easy to compare the annoyances of replacing a card with the annoyances of replacing a deck, but it's harder to compare either of those to something as nebulous as "the degree to which these commanders make the format worse for everyone".

However, that group isn't really relevant to whether BaaC should return because the lack of BaaC has little impact on whether these cards are banned. If the RC felt Golos was bad for the format, they could just ban it. The lack of BaaC isn't preventing them from doing that, as Sheldon explicitly said, so reinstituting BaaC would accomplish nothing for those who feel the format is worse with Golos in it.

A signal to WotC to be more cautious with commander designs, and that they are willing to be more liberal with banning legendary creatures than in the past. Not having to ban them outright would enable them to be a bit more liberal in dealing with problem commanders. You disagree, because you personally don't care about BaaC legends being available in the 99, which is a separate part of the discussion. Given that being important, BaaC gives the RC the ability to be more liberal with banning commanders SPECIFICALLY. If you don't buy the argument that these cards being available in the 99 is important, sure, then this doesn't matter and you have to assume that this would only happen in concert with a more liberal ban policy generally. But for those of us to whom still being able to play cards in the 99 is significant (and the very fact that people care about non legendary cards getting banned shows that this group is probably a lot larger than you think), being more liberal with banning cards as commanders does not have to translate into being more liberal with banning cards generally.

It doesn't really matter what I think, or for that matter what you think, what matters is what the RC thinks. If cutting out a card from the 99 was a significant weight that the RC wanted to avoid, to the extent that it was stopping them from banning commanders, then it would matter, but I don't see evidence to that claim. From what I've seen, it seems like their primary concern for banning commanders is that it would destroy a lot of peoples' decks, which remains true with or without BaaC.

If BaaC ever comes back, it means that either the RC believes that it enables them to deal with problem commanders without banning them in the 99

If the RC wants to ban commanders more liberally, then they will reinstitute BaaC.
If we reinstitute BaaC, the RC will want to ban commanders more liberally.

The second does not follow from the first. Your goal is to make the RC want to ban commanders more liberally. So just pressure them to ban those cards.

As a sidebar, having Derevi legal in the 99 only would be hilarious. He'd have text on him that literally does nothing in any format, the new Steamflogger Boss. Unless there's some sort of insanity you could do with mutate and Leadership Vacuum, but he can't be in the 99 for any of the mutate commanders. Ah well.

the impact of these problem commanders is much larger today than it was when BaaC was nixed, as is the number of cards that would reasonably fall into this list rather than the regular ban list.

And I think that's why it's becoming less and less likely that the RC will pivot to a liberal banning philosophy. Much like with easy infinite combos, if there was just one or two, then it's easy enough to ban them. But when there's a ton of them, it becomes a lot less desirable and a lot less practical. The RC has always had a light touch with the banlist and trusted people to manage their own fun for the most part. It's not impossible that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Especially if you're expecting them to suddenly ban 10 of the format's most popular commanders.

But it's banned, so I don't. It doesn't really bother me. I just play something else.

Cool. Same can be said for a deck.

Yes, but with 100x the impact.

Some would say 10x the impact.

And where is that number coming from?

Some would say that even IF it is 100x the impact of banning a card in the 99, the impact of getting rid of these commanders on everyone who DOESN'T play them is 100x greater than that, so we're back at "the people who lose decks don't matter."

These are apples and oranges. But see my response somewhat up above, I don't want to repeat myself more than I already am.

Nah, it really wouldn't though. BaaC is extremely easy to understand. Ban list: you can't play these cards. BaaC: you can't use these cards as your commander. To suggest that this is a problem for new players is to severely underestimate the ability of new players to understand basic concepts. It's less difficult to grasp than the color identity rules, and about on par with the idea of having a commander in the first place.

I would weigh the value of a rule by its utility divided by its complexity. The CI rules, and the commander rules, are both complex, sure. But they have enormous utility. They literally define the format. Having BaaC adds comparatively very little utility, by any reasonable standard. So accordingly, I don't weigh it's value very highly.

No, we're talking about a handful of cards that haven't been played in 5 years AND about 10 cards, give or take depending on who is being asked, that are defining the format RIGHT NOW.

Again, we're conflating two different things. If you want cards banned, petition for them to be banned. This BaaC thing is an unnecessary middleman.

No, but I can imagine how it would impact people if they banned Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and then everyone had to pull them out of their decks as well in addition to banning the commander.

Yes it would be terrible to add a drop to a bucket.

[Dunharrow]

I think we are a little hyper-focused on Derevi.
The fact remains that BaaC would allow people to play cards they like. I really like Braids. I would 100% welcome the ability to play her in the 99 if that's all I can get.
Other people would love to play Rofellos.
Some people are tired of seeing Golos in the command zone but would like to still be able to play it in the 99.
BaaC may cause people to dismantle decks, but if they like the card, they can still play it, and that's a big plus.

I love Prophet of Kruphix and Paradox Engine. I built standard decks around both cards. Those were also the only times I actively enjoyed Standard. It really bums me that I can't play them in Commander. If I ever play Pioneer, it will be to build around one of these cards. Not being able to play a card you really like in the 99 really sucks.

Furthermore, the RC is really reluctant to ban cards. Many of us are pro BaaC because it makes it a bit easier to ban a card. Maybe that is only 1% better as Dirk says, but I disagree. Many of us like our commanders so much that we are willing to play them in the 99 of another deck, so long as we get a chance to play them.

My first and favourite commander is Karador, Ghost Chieftain. If Karador ended up BaaC, I would slot him into another deck's 99. Or change the commander and put him in the 99. Whatever. I know it wouldn't be as strong, but I would still get to enjoy playing with the card.
So - I don't buy that it's not worth having a BaaC list. It is if you love the card and want to play with it.


So ya - as much as banning a card as a commander may kill 90% of decks playing the card, many people who like the card will slot the card into the 99. So instead of only having 10% of Golos players still playing Golos, it would probably be closer to 25% of the original number. Obviously, these numbers are just gut feelings.
And yes, banning Derevi would probably kill 99% of the decks playing Derevi. They wouldn't even play it in the 99, because their decks wouldn't work. I have decks like that too. If Rakdos, Lord of Riots were banned I would dismantle the deck. Maybe that is reason enough not to ban Derevi - because it enables unique deck building.

But Chullane and Kinnan can bite it. They are card + mana advantage engines. If you like those cards, you can put them in the 99 and pick another commander in the same colors. Your deck would need tweaks and woudn't be as good, but you can still play them and enjoy them.

To be specific - I think this is better than outright banning the cards, should the RC feel they needed to be banned.
I am not advocating for the return of BaaC specifically to get these cards banned. I just recognize that if the RC wanted to ban these cards, the BaaC list would make it less of a blow to the fans of these cards.
Being able to play your pet card in the 99 is a huge PRO.

And the only pro for having a single banlist is that it's easier for new players to deal with. That's it. The only benefit. Literally, the most complicated game, a format with a million cards, hugest barrier to entry compared to any game out there... but we are worried about new players getting mixed up and building illegal decks, as if they would be breaking a law to show up with an illegal commander.

[DirkGently]

BaaC may cause people to dismantle decks, but if they like the card, they can still play it, and that's a big plus.

BaaC won't cause people to dismantle decks because BaaC won't, in itself, cause more commanders to be banned. It's not BaaC you want - it's BaaC AND a bunch of additional commander bannings.

I guess I just have a different relationship with my cards that other people in this thread. I like cards, sure, but I'm not devoted to the things. I like them exactly as much as they're useful to me, and it's pretty rare for a single card in the 99 to be a "big plus".

Also, while you're ofc welcome to play whatever you like so long as people are having a good time, I don't think braids creates fun experiences in or out of the command zone tbh. As long as we're saying "doesn't the fun of all the people who hate Golos matter?" I'd say "doesn't the fun of all the people who don't like playing against Braids - in any zone - matter?"

I'm in favor of keeping the banlist short for simplicity, so if you want to fully unban Braids I'm not necessarily against it. Baacing her doesn't simplify anything, though, it just complicates it. As I don't think she's a fun card for the format, I see no upside to baacing her.

Not being able to play a card you really like in the 99 really sucks.

If you say so, but at least to me it feels like a very minor inconvenience. And both those cards were miserable to play against so I don't feel very much sympathy, to be brutally honest.

Many of us like our commanders so much that we are willing to play them in the 99 of another deck, so long as we get a chance to play them. My first and favourite commander is Karador, Ghost Chieftain. If Karador ended up BaaC, I would slot him into another deck's 99. Or change the commander and put him in the 99. Whatever. I know it wouldn't be as strong, but I would still get to enjoy playing with the card.
So - I don't buy that it's not worth having a BaaC list. It is if you love the card and want to play with it.

Just my opinion, of course, but it would mean pretty much nothing to me if Zirilan, Kaervek, and Phelddagrif were 99-legal if they got baaced. I like them because they're interesting to build a whole deck around, and I can't really do that when they're in the 99. Without that utility, they're worthless to me. I don't "love" any cards. I just like what I can do with them.

Am I a MtG pickup artist? Oh god.

But Chullane and Kinnan can bite it. They are card + mana advantage engines. If you like those cards, you can put them in the 99 and pick another commander in the same colors. Your deck would need tweaks and woudn't be as good, but you can still play them and enjoy them.

I mean, Rakdos is just a mana engine too (well, and a decent beater I guess).

The more commanders that get brought up just proves how scattershot this whole thing is. There are at least a dozen commanders that people mention in these threads, and most have been printed in the past couple years. What you're effectively arguing for is a massive ongoing expansion of the banlist. I don't think that's healthy for the format. You know how everyone hates the instability in standard? I don't really think bringing that home to commander is a good look.

Being able to play your pet card in the 99 is a huge PRO.

As a MtG pickup artist, your pleas fall on deaf ears. Love 'em and leave 'em, that's my motto.

Obviously this is purely opinion (on both sides). I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, making this a waste of time. But just to state my opinion one last time - I really don't give much of a crap about any card in the 99. As their utility is small, so is my giving-a-crap small. If y'all want to have a deep personal relationship with your cardboard, that's your business.

And the only pro for having a single banlist is that it's easier for new players to deal with. That's it. The only benefit.

I think there's also aesthetic value in having a simple ruleset.

Obviously MtG as a whole has very complicated rules, but they only matter if/when they come up in a game, and most of them are irrelevant for 99% of games. The basic rules aren't simple, but they aren't THAT complicated. As much as it annoys me, Commander is the onboarding format for a lot of new players. Understanding the banlist is of fairly high importance, since it could result in someone building a deck they can't use. So I don't think complicating and elongating is a good experience for those new players.

And if we're trying to reinstitute baac as a springboard to increasing bans, it's REALLY not a good experience to get all ban-happy and ban all the newest commanders WotC is obviously designing for commander, and which new players are likely to play. If one of my commanders got banned tomorrow, I'd be very upset, but I'd get over it. If a new player's only deck got banned, I think the chances that they just ditch the whole game are pretty significant.

For me personally, though, I think the main reason I don't see value in the idea of baac is simply that I don't see any real upside to legalizing a card, outside of shortening the banlist, which baac doesn't do. Even if I liked one of the banned legends, I'd rather they stayed fully banned rather than add even the tiniest complication to the ruleset.

[onering]

"Some would say 10x the impact.
And where is that number coming from?"

The same place your 1/100th number is coming from. Based on nothing but opinion, just like your number, and just as valid.

And at this point Dirk, I have to stop engaging with you for awhile. You've hit that point where you start asserting your opinions as authoritative while being dismissive of other's. This snip is just indicative of it. You aren't a dick, but its the point where I know you aren't really receptive to considering the other side's argument.

Your entire argument against BaaC comes down to your assessment of the value of being able to still play cards in the 99. Its pretty obvious that the pro BaaC side wants to see a more liberal applications of bans to commanders, and feel the harm to the format being done by the most problematic ones exceeds the harm that would be caused by killing some popular decks. You spent a lot of words explaining the point to the people making it. Pretty much everyone in this thread has posted in other threads calling for the outright banning of these commanders, which you already know because you've also posted there, so telling us to call for banning those cards isn't constructive. We have, and also suggested that BaaC should be brought back as the means to do that. Welcome to the conversation, continue to assert made up numbers at your leisure and act like they make your point.

[DirkGently]

I thought my 100x number was pretty self-explanatory - if you ban 1 card, you lose 1% of the deck. If you lose the commander and thus the whole deck, you lose 100% of the deck.

Obviously that's an oversimplification in a lot of ways, but I think it approximates the difference we're talking about.

I'm open to the 10x number but idk what the logic is.

I think I've been pretty clear that everything we're talking about is ultimately opinion - in my previous post I was pretty explicit about it.

I'll reiterate what I said in a more serious fashion - from as best I can tell, I think the crux of why some people want baac is because they have personal attachment to cards beyond simply functional, so they value getting to run a banned commander in the 99 since it fulfills that attachment. And by that token, they expect that people should be significantly less wounded by having their commander baaced than full banned, and thus that banning commanders (an outcome they desire) would be easier for the RC to do by baacing them instead of banning, and thus more likely.

So to me, the root disagreement is "is the value of a card solely it's function, or do we assume emotional attachment as a factor?" Personally, I don't feel the attachment other people seem to, but that's not to say I'm right - there is no right answer.

(That said I think getting attached to your cards is silly...but I'm a cold fish so perhaps take that with a grain of salt)

[Dunharrow]

BaaC may cause people to dismantle decks, but if they like the card, they can still play it, and that's a big plus.

BaaC won't cause people to dismantle decks because BaaC won't, in itself, cause more commanders to be banned. It's not BaaC you want - it's BaaC AND a bunch of additional commander bannings.

I guess I just have a different relationship with my cards that other people in this thread. I like cards, sure, but I'm not devoted to the things. I like them exactly as much as they're useful to me, and it's pretty rare for a single card in the 99 to be a "big plus".

Also, while you're ofc welcome to play whatever you like so long as people are having a good time, I don't think braids creates fun experiences in or out of the command zone tbh. As long as we're saying "doesn't the fun of all the people who hate Golos matter?" I'd say "doesn't the fun of all the people who don't like playing against Braids - in any zone - matter?"

I'm in favor of keeping the banlist short for simplicity, so if you want to fully unban Braids I'm not necessarily against it. Baacing her doesn't simplify anything, though, it just complicates it. As I don't think she's a fun card for the format, I see no upside to baacing her.

Braids outside of the command zone is less powerful than Smokestack and much easier to kill (though easier to reanimate). In the 99, it is just another card. Nobody had an issue with it when it was just BaaC.

Not being able to play a card you really like in the 99 really sucks.

If you say so, but at least to me it feels like a very minor inconvenience. And both those cards were miserable to play against so I don't feel very much sympathy, to be brutally honest.

Many of us like our commanders so much that we are willing to play them in the 99 of another deck, so long as we get a chance to play them. My first and favourite commander is Karador, Ghost Chieftain. If Karador ended up BaaC, I would slot him into another deck's 99. Or change the commander and put him in the 99. Whatever. I know it wouldn't be as strong, but I would still get to enjoy playing with the card.
So - I don't buy that it's not worth having a BaaC list. It is if you love the card and want to play with it.

Just my opinion, of course, but it would mean pretty much nothing to me if Zirilan, Kaervek, and Phelddagrif were 99-legal if they got baaced. I like them because they're interesting to build a whole deck around, and I can't really do that when they're in the 99. Without that utility, they're worthless to me. I don't "love" any cards. I just like what I can do with them.

Am I a MtG pickup artist? Oh god.

I specifically mentioned how some commanders cannot be effectively replaced in the CZ and that I understand not wanting to ban commanders that lead to unique decks. That being said, some commanders are more replaceable than others and if they are already in consideration for banning (like Golos per Sheldon) then BaaC is less of a blow to fans of those cards.

I get that you don't have an emotional connection with cards, but many players do. There is a whole demographic of players (Timmy/Tammy) who enjoy the feeling of playing powerful cards.

I also want to say that yes, I am advocating for the return of BaaC to help the RC make bannings of popular cards like Golos, since it mitigates the bad feeling of people who still want to play with the cards in the 99. Even though you do not care about being able to play a card in the 99 vs banned, many players do.

But Chullane and Kinnan can bite it. They are card + mana advantage engines. If you like those cards, you can put them in the 99 and pick another commander in the same colors. Your deck would need tweaks and woudn't be as good, but you can still play them and enjoy them.

I mean, Rakdos is just a mana engine too (well, and a decent beater I guess).

Rakdos is not a card advantage engine. He is a hard to cast general that gives a mana discount. Kinnan ramps and cheats creatures into play and has no downsides. Comparing these is really... out there.

The more commanders that get brought up just proves how scattershot this whole thing is. There are at least a dozen commanders that people mention in these threads, and most have been printed in the past couple years. What you're effectively arguing for is a massive ongoing expansion of the banlist. I don't think that's healthy for the format. You know how everyone hates the instability in standard? I don't really think bringing that home to commander is a good look.

I mean cards are brought up for banning every day - it doesn't mean they have to be banned. BaaC is two things: 1)makes it so that we can play these cards in the 99; 2) makes it so that it is more tolerable to ban problematic commanders. I get it - banning 10 commanders in one shot would be an issue. But do you think that they could ban 2-3 of them? It's really not that bad.

Being able to play your pet card in the 99 is a huge PRO.

As a MtG pickup artist, your pleas fall on deaf ears. Love 'em and leave 'em, that's my motto.

Obviously this is purely opinion (on both sides). I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, making this a waste of time. But just to state my opinion one last time - I really don't give much of a crap about any card in the 99. As their utility is small, so is my giving-a-crap small. If y'all want to have a deep personal relationship with your cardboard, that's your business.

Right - but there are many players who have emotional connections to cards and you can't just dismiss their wants as being 100x less important.

And the only pro for having a single banlist is that it's easier for new players to deal with. That's it. The only benefit.

I think there's also aesthetic value in having a simple ruleset.

I don't care for your aesthetic value. Functional value is more important.

Obviously MtG as a whole has very complicated rules, but they only matter if/when they come up in a game, and most of them are irrelevant for 99% of games. The basic rules aren't simple, but they aren't THAT complicated. As much as it annoys me, Commander is the onboarding format for a lot of new players. Understanding the banlist is of fairly high importance, since it could result in someone building a deck they can't use. So I don't think complicating and elongating is a good experience for those new players.

I agree that it is not a good format for onboarding new players. When I taught my wife the game, I realized how difficult it was for her to learn keywords and abilities and understand how they worked. A commander deck, being singleton and 100 cards, is just that much harder for new players to Grok. But let's say someone misunderstands the banlist and shows up with a Rofellos commander deck. You could just point out he isn't a legal commander and see if there is another commander in the deck that can be used, or you can just let the new player play with the illegal commander. It is a casual format, after all.

And if we're trying to reinstitute baac as a springboard to increasing bans, it's REALLY not a good experience to get all ban-happy and ban all the newest commanders WotC is obviously designing for commander, and which new players are likely to play. If one of my commanders got banned tomorrow, I'd be very upset, but I'd get over it. If a new player's only deck got banned, I think the chances that they just ditch the whole game are pretty significant.

Nobody is recommending that we get banhappy a ban all the new commanders. Making this argument is kinda infuriating. While we may list 10 or so cards, few of them can be considered new, and really we don't want to ban 10 cards at once, we just want it to be easier for the RC to ban cards (and BaaC is easier, not by 1%, but by a lot). Based on Sheldon's article, it seems Golos is the best candidate for banning right now.

For me personally, though, I think the main reason I don't see value in the idea of baac is simply that I don't see any real upside to legalizing a card, outside of shortening the banlist, which baac doesn't do. Even if I liked one of the banned legends, I'd rather they stayed fully banned rather than add even the tiniest complication to the ruleset.

I understand your opinion, but it is not the only opinion, and you cannot dismiss other people's opinions just because you don't share them. Your opinion is that it is not worth having a card in the 99 for a slightly more complicated ruleset. My argument is that the ruleset is insanely complicated and adding a small complication is 100% worth allowing players to put their favourite cards in the 99. You say you do not see any real upside to legalizing a card in the 99, but that is being willfully stubborn. You may not care, but you can see that there is upside - people who are really big fans of cards can still play them.

For something like Rakdos, Lord of Riots or Zirilan of the Claw or Phelddagrif, BaaC does not help. They will be just not be played. But if the RC was considering banning one of these cards, it would not change the end-result if they were banned or BaaC.
However, for cards like Rofellos, Braids, Golos, and Chullane, BaaC makes a big difference. A lot of people do not want Golos to be banned. BaaC would really make it more palatable by allowing people to still play it in their decks.
I only see a positive for BaaC. Minor rules complications, but really, is it harder to understand than the color identity rule? I have played against seasoned commander players who thought Birthing Pod was legal in every color combo.
Never played someone who didn't understand what Banned as a Commander meant.


I also want to mention another idea - sometimes the card you wanted to build around is not a legendary creature. I wanted to build a card around Tainted Aether and Panharmonicon. I figured out the best general for the deck and packed a whole bunch of tutors.
If you want to build around a specific general and it is BaaC, you can still build around it. It is not as efficient or resilient, but we are talking about people being able to do what they enjoy.
You may not care about this - but yours is not the only valid opinion. Please recognize that there are other valid opinions, and avoid arguments that are 'I don't care about that'.

[pokken]

(That said I think getting attached to your cards is silly...but I'm a cold fish so perhaps take that with a grain of salt)

I've been hemming and hawing about responding to this but I just can't understand what you think it achieves to toss out this value judgment.

The distinction between "I think getting attached to your cards is silly" and "I don't get attached to my cards" is the difference between an value judgment and an opinion. e.g. "my opinion is that your opinion is stupid" vs. "my opinion is different than yours."

Right - but there are many players who have emotional connections to cards and you can't just dismiss their wants as being 100x less important.

Philosophy document:
As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience

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.

Commander is about expression and feelings and flavor. Let's not forget that it *is* an emotional journey for a lot of people. Feelings are real and they matter.

[onering]

BaaC may cause people to dismantle decks, but if they like the card, they can still play it, and that's a big plus.

BaaC won't cause people to dismantle decks because BaaC won't, in itself, cause more commanders to be banned. It's not BaaC you want - it's BaaC AND a bunch of additional commander bannings.

I guess I just have a different relationship with my cards that other people in this thread. I like cards, sure, but I'm not devoted to the things. I like them exactly as much as they're useful to me, and it's pretty rare for a single card in the 99 to be a "big plus".

Also, while you're ofc welcome to play whatever you like so long as people are having a good time, I don't think braids creates fun experiences in or out of the command zone tbh. As long as we're saying "doesn't the fun of all the people who hate Golos matter?" I'd say "doesn't the fun of all the people who don't like playing against Braids - in any zone - matter?"

I'm in favor of keeping the banlist short for simplicity, so if you want to fully unban Braids I'm not necessarily against it. Baacing her doesn't simplify anything, though, it just complicates it. As I don't think she's a fun card for the format, I see no upside to baacing her.

Braids outside of the command zone is less powerful than Smokestack and much easier to kill (though easier to reanimate). In the 99, it is just another card. Nobody had an issue with it when it was just BaaC.

Not being able to play a card you really like in the 99 really sucks.

If you say so, but at least to me it feels like a very minor inconvenience. And both those cards were miserable to play against so I don't feel very much sympathy, to be brutally honest.

Many of us like our commanders so much that we are willing to play them in the 99 of another deck, so long as we get a chance to play them. My first and favourite commander is Karador, Ghost Chieftain. If Karador ended up BaaC, I would slot him into another deck's 99. Or change the commander and put him in the 99. Whatever. I know it wouldn't be as strong, but I would still get to enjoy playing with the card.
So - I don't buy that it's not worth having a BaaC list. It is if you love the card and want to play with it.

Just my opinion, of course, but it would mean pretty much nothing to me if Zirilan, Kaervek, and Phelddagrif were 99-legal if they got baaced. I like them because they're interesting to build a whole deck around, and I can't really do that when they're in the 99. Without that utility, they're worthless to me. I don't "love" any cards. I just like what I can do with them.

Am I a MtG pickup artist? Oh god.

I specifically mentioned how some commanders cannot be effectively replaced in the CZ and that I understand not wanting to ban commanders that lead to unique decks. That being said, some commanders are more replaceable than others and if they are already in consideration for banning (like Golos per Sheldon) then BaaC is less of a blow to fans of those cards.

I get that you don't have an emotional connection with cards, but many players do. There is a whole demographic of players (Timmy/Tammy) who enjoy the feeling of playing powerful cards.

I also want to say that yes, I am advocating for the return of BaaC to help the RC make bannings of popular cards like Golos, since it mitigates the bad feeling of people who still want to play with the cards in the 99. Even though you do not care about being able to play a card in the 99 vs banned, many players do.

But Chullane and Kinnan can bite it. They are card + mana advantage engines. If you like those cards, you can put them in the 99 and pick another commander in the same colors. Your deck would need tweaks and woudn't be as good, but you can still play them and enjoy them.

I mean, Rakdos is just a mana engine too (well, and a decent beater I guess).

Rakdos is not a card advantage engine. He is a hard to cast general that gives a mana discount. Kinnan ramps and cheats creatures into play and has no downsides. Comparing these is really... out there.

The more commanders that get brought up just proves how scattershot this whole thing is. There are at least a dozen commanders that people mention in these threads, and most have been printed in the past couple years. What you're effectively arguing for is a massive ongoing expansion of the banlist. I don't think that's healthy for the format. You know how everyone hates the instability in standard? I don't really think bringing that home to commander is a good look.

I mean cards are brought up for banning every day - it doesn't mean they have to be banned. BaaC is two things: 1)makes it so that we can play these cards in the 99; 2) makes it so that it is more tolerable to ban problematic commanders. I get it - banning 10 commanders in one shot would be an issue. But do you think that they could ban 2-3 of them? It's really not that bad.

Being able to play your pet card in the 99 is a huge PRO.

As a MtG pickup artist, your pleas fall on deaf ears. Love 'em and leave 'em, that's my motto.

Obviously this is purely opinion (on both sides). I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, making this a waste of time. But just to state my opinion one last time - I really don't give much of a crap about any card in the 99. As their utility is small, so is my giving-a-crap small. If y'all want to have a deep personal relationship with your cardboard, that's your business.

Right - but there are many players who have emotional connections to cards and you can't just dismiss their wants as being 100x less important.

And the only pro for having a single banlist is that it's easier for new players to deal with. That's it. The only benefit.

I think there's also aesthetic value in having a simple ruleset.

I don't care for your aesthetic value. Functional value is more important.

Obviously MtG as a whole has very complicated rules, but they only matter if/when they come up in a game, and most of them are irrelevant for 99% of games. The basic rules aren't simple, but they aren't THAT complicated. As much as it annoys me, Commander is the onboarding format for a lot of new players. Understanding the banlist is of fairly high importance, since it could result in someone building a deck they can't use. So I don't think complicating and elongating is a good experience for those new players.

I agree that it is not a good format for onboarding new players. When I taught my wife the game, I realized how difficult it was for her to learn keywords and abilities and understand how they worked. A commander deck, being singleton and 100 cards, is just that much harder for new players to Grok. But let's say someone misunderstands the banlist and shows up with a Rofellos commander deck. You could just point out he isn't a legal commander and see if there is another commander in the deck that can be used, or you can just let the new player play with the illegal commander. It is a casual format, after all.

And if we're trying to reinstitute baac as a springboard to increasing bans, it's REALLY not a good experience to get all ban-happy and ban all the newest commanders WotC is obviously designing for commander, and which new players are likely to play. If one of my commanders got banned tomorrow, I'd be very upset, but I'd get over it. If a new player's only deck got banned, I think the chances that they just ditch the whole game are pretty significant.

Nobody is recommending that we get banhappy a ban all the new commanders. Making this argument is kinda infuriating. While we may list 10 or so cards, few of them can be considered new, and really we don't want to ban 10 cards at once, we just want it to be easier for the RC to ban cards (and BaaC is easier, not by 1%, but by a lot). Based on Sheldon's article, it seems Golos is the best candidate for banning right now.

For me personally, though, I think the main reason I don't see value in the idea of baac is simply that I don't see any real upside to legalizing a card, outside of shortening the banlist, which baac doesn't do. Even if I liked one of the banned legends, I'd rather they stayed fully banned rather than add even the tiniest complication to the ruleset.

I understand your opinion, but it is not the only opinion, and you cannot dismiss other people's opinions just because you don't share them. Your opinion is that it is not worth having a card in the 99 for a slightly more complicated ruleset. My argument is that the ruleset is insanely complicated and adding a small complication is 100% worth allowing players to put their favourite cards in the 99. You say you do not see any real upside to legalizing a card in the 99, but that is being willfully stubborn. You may not care, but you can see that there is upside - people who are really big fans of cards can still play them.

For something like Rakdos, Lord of Riots or Zirilan of the Claw or Phelddagrif, BaaC does not help. They will be just not be played. But if the RC was considering banning one of these cards, it would not change the end-result if they were banned or BaaC.
However, for cards like Rofellos, Braids, Golos, and Chullane, BaaC makes a big difference. A lot of people do not want Golos to be banned. BaaC would really make it more palatable by allowing people to still play it in their decks.
I only see a positive for BaaC. Minor rules complications, but really, is it harder to understand than the color identity rule? I have played against seasoned commander players who thought Birthing Pod was legal in every color combo.
Never played someone who didn't understand what Banned as a Commander meant.


I also want to mention another idea - sometimes the card you wanted to build around is not a legendary creature. I wanted to build a card around Tainted Aether and Panharmonicon. I figured out the best general for the deck and packed a whole bunch of tutors.
If you want to build around a specific general and it is BaaC, you can still build around it. It is not as efficient or resilient, but we are talking about people being able to do what they enjoy.
You may not care about this - but yours is not the only valid opinion. Please recognize that there are other valid opinions, and avoid arguments that are 'I don't care about that'.

Thank you. You put it better than I could in my frustration with his bad faith arguments. 1/100th is such a facile butt pull masquerading as a logical assessment, when its clearly obvious that cards in the 99 are not all equal. Oversimplified to be worthless as anything more than a gut opinion, and deserving of no more consideration than anyone else's gut check opinion. All to back up dismissing other opinions as silly, which Pokken succinctly points out is a value judgement, and is intended not to merely state Dirk's own personal opinion but to minimize the opinions he disagrees with.

Personally, I think caring about the aesthetics of the banlist is silly. I think that if a player gets turned off by one of their decks getting banned and leaves the game, that's a silly reaction and the community is better off without them. Seriously, if you're going to leave the game because you don't get to play an oppressive deck any longer, bye, get ye gone, everyone else will be better off without you. That player is the sort who makes the game worse for everyone else. They're the player who will grow up to pub stomp. They're the player who will respond to the playgroup being tired of their deck by continuing to play it every game. They're the player who will prioritize an ounce of their own enjoyment over a pound of the group's. That player can pound sand.

[DirkGently]

@Dunharrow I'm going to keep this response relatively short because I think I've summed up what I see to be our primary differences of opinion in my previous post in what I think is a fair and accurate way (kind of a sidebar, but I do find it a bit frustrating when someone responds to an earlier post without reading the later ones). As such, I'm not going to address all the various points where we clearly disagree on whether/how emotional connection to a card should be considered, as I don't think there's realistically any ground to be gained for either side.

Smokestack isn't fun either, but if we banned everything that wasn't fun we'd have a thousand card banlist. Also it's not strictly better - Braids triggers immediately, smokestack needs a turn to charge up. That said, I'm not against fully unbanning braids. Anyone building a braids list probably wasn't going to build a (traditionally) fun deck anyway.

I don't Golos think is trivial to replace, especially when focusing on lands. Most land-based 5c commander I can think of is Child of Alara, but that's a very different strat. Not that being hard to replace is necessarily something I agree should be a major consideration for banning. What matters to one person/deck might not matter to another, it's hard to say what can and can't be easily replaced.

Someone showing up with a full Rofellos deck seems pretty unlikely, even though I think it would be pretty disastrous and would prove my point. More likely people don't include baaced cards because they've heard that they're banned and didn't actually check online - a minor problem, but still a problem. And just generally having a longer banlist increases the risk that someone might include something accidentally. I like my banlists nice, tight, and simple. #mtgpickupartist

Golos is less than 2 years old, I guarantee there are new players who only have Golos lists (actually I think there's one at my LGS). Kinnan, Chulane, and Korvold are even newer. Without wanting to dig through a bunch of old posts, most commanders I see getting suggested for bans are pretty new. I know a lot of the ones listed in Sheldon's article are old, but that's part of what's so ridiculous about it - no one is seriously wanting to ban Hokori, least of all as a commander. Derevi seems to be the main old-ish commander I see getting bandied about for banning most of the time - otherwise it's mostly new stuff, and frequently precon commanders which are particularly likely to be used by new players.

I've built a few decks that used a not-the-commander-commander in the 99 and never found it remotely fun. Packing a deck with a million tutors usually gets really stale really fast, plus slots dedicated to protecting/recurring it. Just my opinion. But I think that's a very rare deckbuilding technique for most people and wouldn't give it much credence tbh.

This is pure pointless spite, but imo if your favorite, still-can't-get-over-it-after-six-years BFF card is Rofellos or Braids, I'm glad you don't get to play them. Rofellos is just a souped-up mana dork, boring. Braids is poster girl for stax and having fun at other peoples' expense. And both are trivial to replace with a similar effect. This doesn't contribute anything remotely useful or positive to the conversation. I just wanted to say it. :D

Please recognize that there are other valid opinions, and avoid arguments that are 'I don't care about that'.

I don't care for your aesthetic value.

I'm kind of surprised you made it that easy to quote mine yourself.

@pokken"Judgment" is right there in the definition of opinion, at least when I google it. Maybe there's some philosophy class I missed where they explained how those two things are totally different, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the same thing. Is it productive for me to say "my opinion is that your opinion is silly"? Probably not. But is it true? Yes. You're allowed to say you think my opinion is silly too. I don't mind. Let's be honest with each other.

Also I think it goes some ways towards explaining why there's been so many pages of arguing. It took me that long to understand what y'all were saying, because the idea that someone would have an emotional attachment to a card never occurred to me. It sounded too silly.

As far as the philosophy document - I consider deckbuilding to be an art form. I 100% agree that commander has opportunities for participation and expression. But the words are pretty vague tbh. I don't see anything you've quoted (or in the rest of the document) that implies to me anything about personal attachments to cards. It could apply to anything, really. You could tell me that the way you like to express yourself in commander is getting your decklist tattooed on your face. I guess that's...valid? But you can't stop me from thinking you're a lunatic.

@onering Never one to take the high road, eh? That's alright, I don't mind slinging some mud.

I think it's incredibly generalizing to assume that anyone playing, say, Golos, is only in it to stomp pubs. If you're new to the format, you've got one deck, and it gets completely destroyed by a ban, I think it's pretty damn reasonable to bail, no matter who the commander is. New players are going to pick commanders that look powerful, that's just how most people operate. Practically every other card game and format is play to win, 100%.

For that matter, if someone is playing Golos in a high-powered meta, it's hardly pub stomping. A lot of people I see these days play pretty high powered, both at the LGS and with their friends. If someone new builds to play against their friends who are all playing Kykar, Chulane, Animar, etc, I can imagine it being pretty disheartening to get your deck shredded when you were on an even playing field.

I think many players go through a journey in commander - they start off assuming they should build for maximum power, because that's how the vast majority of games work. Most people will come around. Feels pretty dismissive to just say "they're all going to grow up to be dicks, so screw 'em".

Not that I'm particularly attached to Golos or anything (despite the Sorrow deck...if he's gonna get banned, he better at least wait until I get a few sessions with that bad boy). I'm just using him as an example that banning a popular commander is going to cause some instability in the format that hurts new players the most. Personally I've got zero interest in building (or playing against) a typical Golos build. But I don't think he's wildly divergent in power from other obnoxious commanders.

Are you guys 100% sure you want onering on your team? Y'all over here saying "feelings are real and they matter" while onering is saying "screw new players who reasonably pick powerful commanders that WotC clearly targeted towards this format - they can eat dirt". Bit of a mixed message imo. Plus we've got onering getting mad at people putting their own fun ahead of their groups, while dunharrow is clearly trying to build the nastiest stax decks he can...

Oh, and one last pet peeve as long as I've already pissed everyone off apparently - quoting a huge comment chain just to add 2 paragraphs at the bottom is silly. If there's something specific you want to respond to, clip it out. Nobody is reading that comment chain and it makes the thread pointlessly long and annoying to scroll through. If you're on a phone or something and it's hard to clip quotes, then just don't quote it at all. Use the @ if you need to make it clear who you're addressing. Much cleaner.

[Dunharrow]

@DirkGently Your response is really frustrating.

I don't care for your aesthetic value was the first part of an idea. You can't just cut out the rest of it. I argued that aesthetic value is way less important than functional value. That was an argument. You can't just cut out the argument and accuse me of using your argument which still seems to be based on 'I don't care about people who have emotional connections to cards'.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you can't use your opinion as an argument without backing it up. 'I don't put value on the thing you put value on' isn't exactly an argument for keeping things as is. It sounds like you don't care. We care. The only value you put on keeping things as they are is streamlining of the rules of the most complex game in the world. At a certain point, streamlining rules can't detract from the fun of playing the game, and we argue that this is the case.

I don't Golos think is trivial to replace, especially when focusing on lands. Most land-based 5c commander I can think of is Child of Alara, but that's a very different strat. Not that being hard to replace is necessarily something I agree should be a major consideration for banning. What matters to one person/deck might not matter to another, it's hard to say what can and can't be easily replaced.

But banning Golos would be more restrictive than making it BaaC. Why do you make weird arguments like this. I didn't say it was trivial to replace Golos. But banning Derevi would be more impactful to how much it is played compared to banning Golos (in so far as BaaC goes). People would put Golos in the 99 in very high numbers.

This is pure pointless spite, but imo if your favorite, still-can't-get-over-it-after-six-years BFF card is Rofellos or Braids, I'm glad you don't get to play them. Rofellos is just a souped-up mana dork, boring. Braids is poster girl for stax and having fun at other peoples' expense. And both are trivial to replace with a similar effect. This doesn't contribute anything remotely useful or positive to the conversation. I just wanted to say it. :D

Thank you for explaining how your responses have been motivated by spite. Really embracing discourse, aren't we.
My favourite card is Viscera Seer.
I like Braids a lot. I know stax isn't fun and almost never play my Karador stax deck, but it would be nice to have access to Braids.
Liking a card and wishing I could play it is not the same as I want to play Braids in every game of magic ever. The Social Contract still exists. Braids was banned because it is not fun when it is played on turn 2 off of Sol Ring or Dark Ritual. It's literally stated every time Sheldon discusses Braids. And I agree with that view. Nobody is saying it should be banned as a card in the 99. If it wasn't legendary it would be legal.

Whatever. I am quite annoyed with talking with you. I addressed all your arguments in your reply to my post last night. I took 12 hours to respond because I sleep and had a dentist appointment. Wow. So now you get to tell me that you don't like it when people response to an earlier post? Get off your high horse. We are having a conversation. You can't tell me not to respond to your post yesterday because of other posts that happened since.
And what do you do to response to my well-written argument that addressed everything you wrote? "I don't feel like talking about this anymore, but I will attempt to insult you out of spite and misconstrue one thing you wrote because that means I win the internet".

Done.

[onering]

Sorry Dirk, I'm just turning your own argumentation against you. This is what it looks like to be as dismissive and judgmental as you have been. Its ugly, yes, but my post was just holding up a mirror for you to look into. You dismiss concerns you disagree with as silly, right back at ya. You don't seem to like it very much, perhaps consider that in the future.

"Oh my god, onering is so terrible that he doesn't care about players who only want to play broken nonsense!" he says, while making damn sure to dismiss out of hand opposing arguments. Lacking the self awareness to realize when his own rhetorical style is being mocked, he takes umbrage at the mocked tone of unearned superiority and smug dismissiveness of others' experiences meant to display how easily it can be applied to those with whom he sympathizes. Thus, he has the gall to accuse others of taking the very low road he took such pains to pave, even if done so as to demonstrate why that road sucks.

[DirkGently]

@DirkGently Your response is really frustrating.

I don't care for your aesthetic value was the first part of an idea.

And the second part was "functional value is more important". That's not an argument, that's a statement. To have an argument, you'd have to back up your statements with some sort of reasoning, not just another statement.

I don't think we can realistically advance this element of the conversation because there really is nowhere to go. You don't see the value is aesthetics. Fine. I don't see the value in emotional connection with cards. Fine. These are statements of pure, 100% opinion. This argument is a waste of both our times.

But banning Golos would be more restrictive than making it BaaC. Why do you make weird arguments like this. I didn't say it was trivial to replace Golos. But banning Derevi would be more impactful to how much it is played compared to banning Golos (in so far as BaaC goes). People would put Golos in the 99 in very high numbers.

Well, you said it was "easier to replace than others". Perhaps I extrapolated that further than you meant it. I agree he's probably more replaceable than Derevi, but that does vary from person to person. Someone who built Derevi as bird tribal could probably make a relatively easy switch, for example. I'm just saying that replaceability isn't an easy to derive value.

Personally I don't think Golos should be banned, but I don't have a strong opinion about it either way.

Thank you for explaining how your responses have been motivated by spite. Really embracing discourse, aren't we.

Well, mostly that one part. But who knows, the brain is a mysterious beast. Who knows why we do anything, really. I've been up all night trying to finish editing this chapter yet here I am arguing pointlessly against a brick wall.

Whatever. I am quite annoyed with talking with you. I addressed all your arguments in your reply to my post last night. I took 12 hours to respond because I sleep and had a dentist appointment. Wow. So now you get to tell me that you don't like it when people response to an earlier post? Get off your high horse. We are having a conversation. You can't tell me not to respond to your post yesterday because of other posts that happened since.

1) Idk why you're taking this so personally. I said it because, when something I've already written addresses a lot of the points you're bringing up, it makes it hard to advance the conversation because I'm obliged to repeat myself, and I'm tired of doing that. I felt I wrote a very even-handed analysis of the differences between our perspectives. Not thrilled about you ignoring it and repeating the same pointless arguments (on both sides) that I was trying to break us away from.
2) I know that when you post something and new posts have been added since you started typing, it pops up and tells you about those replies before it publishes your post. I know this because it happens EVERY. DAMN. TIME. I try to post something on this thread. So I read through those new posts to see if it changes anything, to make sure I address the current conversation as accurately as possible. So I know you had the opportunity to modify your post after seeing my response, and chose not to. And I find that frustrating.

(hey look it happened on this post too...)

And what do you do to response to my well-written argument that addressed everything you wrote? "I don't feel like talking about this anymore, but I will attempt to insult you out of spite and misconstrue one thing you wrote because that means I win the internet".

Hey, at least I actually read it.

(also jesus christ I can't make a joke even if I lampshade it twelve damn times)

@onering When did I say I didn't like it? I explicitly said I was happy to roll around in the mud with you. How much more clear can I get?

Btw I do enjoy how you all "like" all of each others' posts. It's pretty cute.

[onering]

@onering When did I say I didn't like it? I explicitly said I was happy to roll around in the mud with you. How much more clear can I get?

Btw I do enjoy how you all "like" all of each others' posts. It's pretty cute.

Oh, you did make it clear, particularly when you initiated the mudslinging. What you don't understand is that is the reason you're getting heat, and the reason I quit trying to have a real conversation with you. Or, apparently, when someone is mocking your style and showing you how your own bs can be turned around. You're mad, because when your mad you get super passive aggressive. And I think you're mad because you failed to reframe the conversation on your terms. You want to define and place value on the topics being discussed, and treat them like hard facts until called out on in, then your briefly retreat into "its just my opinion man" before again asserting it as truth.

Frankly, you come off as smug and dismissive, and casually so. I could continue to discuss the merits of your arguments, but I got tired of the attitude and no longer care to. I do still want to discuss the merits of the topic with other people in this thread. Part of having such a discussion is conceding that the other point of view has merit, and you can't resist the urge to denigrate the other side's point of view. I showed you what that looks like when applied to your side, and predictably you whined about it.

[DirkGently]

Honestly the bulk of your ire didn't seem directed at me, so much as some theoretical Golos pubstomper. That's what I find wrongheaded, and I'm not even the target of that. I don't mind (and don't even really disagree) with your analysis of my 1/100 number - it was definitely a major oversimplification - but I do think it was a bit performative to pretend like you didn't know what my logic behind it was.

I feel like I pepper in about a million "imo"s into these things, but I'm open to criticism. Do you have some examples of where I stated one of my opinions as fact?

To me, it feels like everyone here WANTS to feed their rage. Post 128993 was my attempt to resolve this conversation peaceably, by laying out where our opinions differ as best as I could tell, so that we could move the conversation forward or even maybe possibly resolve it........and nobody responded to it, except pokken, who picked out the last, semi-serious sentence (where I denigrate my own opinion) and blew it out of proportion. Everyone jumped right over it, because trying to reach a resolution based on mutual understanding is boring I guess.

[pokken]

Judgment" is right there in the definition of opinion, at least when I google it. Maybe there's some philosophy class I missed where they explained how those two things are totally different, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the same thing. Is it productive for me to say "my opinion is that your opinion is silly"? Probably not. But is it true? Yes. You're allowed to say you think my opinion is silly too. I don't mind. Let's be honest with each other.

Also I think it goes some ways towards explaining why there's been so many pages of arguing. It took me that long to understand what y'all were saying, because the idea that someone would have an emotional attachment to a card never occurred to me. It sounded too silly.

What I'm telling you is there's a distinction between judging someone's opinion and saying your opinion is different.

Me: I like cheesecake.
You: I don't like it, I think it's too heavy.
--> You having a different opinion.

Me: I like cheesecake
You: I think liking cheesecake is stupid.

--> You making a judgment about my opinion.

[DirkGently]

What I'm telling you is there's a distinction between judging someone's opinion and saying your opinion is different.

Me: I like cheesecake.
You: I don't like it, I think it's too heavy.
--> You having a different opinion.

Me: I like cheesecake
You: I think liking cheesecake is stupid.

--> You making a judgment about my opinion.

Sure, I agree with that. Why'd you make it confusing by using synonyms (or at least subsets) and saying they're different?

Personally I think it's pretty low impact to tell someone their opinion is silly. Lots of my opinions are silly. It might not be the most productive thought, but I think there's some value in knowing where people are coming from so long as they're not hostile about it. I figured "silly" was about the tamest word choice I could use to describe my perspective. I thought about saying "stupid", but decided that sounded too confrontational, and a bit unfair.

Also, c'mon man, I said right there that my opinion was probably not worth taking seriously. How soft do I have to shoot, here?

[pokken]

Also, c'mon man, I said right there that my opinion was probably not worth taking seriously. How soft do I have to shoot, here?

I'd say keep going until you stop having to ask

[DirkGently]

I think at the point where 100% of the argument is over the form of the argument rather than the actual content, it might be time to let this topic die.

[BaronCappuccino]

I suspect that if BaaC were reinstated, it would create more bans, not less, so I'm not for it. I'm already of the opinion that the ban list is too big.

[Sinis]

<extensive list of commanders that cause repetitive and generally unfun play patterns>

"All those arguments made, I'm going to upend them. As it stands right now, bringing back BaaC still isn't worth the effort. It might (stress on the "might") lead to a healthier environment in the long term, but the short-term pains would be extreme."

I guess that's a position one is permitted to have.