Adding Ban Tiers to Commander - A Possible Solution to Power Levels

[Guardman]

So every couple of months I see a new discussion on figuring out power levels for decks. Some have fancy formulas. Some more nebulous criteria. But what it usually comes down to is that it is either impractical, overly tedious, too subjective, or some combination of the three to be truly useful. While in the shower one morning, I had an idea (because all the best ideas come in the bathroom). Figuring out power levels is never going to be an exact science, and even if it was, it is too cumbersome for most people. Instead it would make a lot more sense to have a scaling ban list. Something easy to reference to. Here is sort of how I see the tier lists being constructed.

Tier 0 - No bans.
Tier 1 - Current ban list.
Tier 2 - Ban extremely strong cards and strong combo pieces. Might also be a place to ban cards that are too generally good, but not outright too strong. (i.e. Korvold, Fae-Cursed King, Basalt Monolith, Thassa's Oracle, etc.)
Tier 3 - Ban problematic classes of cards. (i.e. all two mana value and less ramp noncreature spells that can fix color mana - so Rampant Growth, Wayfarer's Bauble, Growth Spiral, and Arcane Signet, but not Sol Ring, Llanowar Elves, Kodama's Reach, and Midnight Clock)

This isn't a perfect solution to power level disparities. But it is much more practical and doable, which is the main problem with other ideas of figuring out power levels. And it gives people a chance to play commander in more the style they wish by saying they would like a Tier 2 game, for example, without getting in discussions/arguments with other players about what is the "correct" way to play commander.

This is a rough, shower idea, but I would like to hear what other people think of it.

[void_nothing]

This is not unreasonable at all imo. The biggest implementation problem seems to be tier 3 - a written ban list for such a large number of cards would be impracticable, while making just "ban rules" as you imply is an invitation to many arguments over what kinds of cards are problematic and where the cutoff is.

[Guardman]

This is not unreasonable at all imo. The biggest implementation problem seems to be tier 3 - a written ban list for such a large number of cards would be impracticable, while making just "ban rules" as you imply is an invitation to many arguments over what kinds of cards are problematic and where the cutoff is.

I figure for Tier 3, it would be more like you have a list of the problematic classes and then in a spoiler under each class is the specific cards in that class, so that it is manageable to read, but there isn't need to discuss what exactly constitutes as a card in one of those classes.

Also, since a lot of people like to put their lists online, I figure it wouldn't be hard for a program to say your list is Tier 2 and then highlight what the banned cards for Tier 3 are in your list. That is a little higher level, but its something to be built upon.

[DirkGently]

What insane moon logic says that Wayfarer's Bauble is ban-worthy but sol ring isn't?

I suspect there are also a ton of cards that don't really fit into an easily definable category but are nevertheless problematically powerful. Cyclonic Rift for example, or Smothering Tithe - I can't really think of any broad categories that they belong to that are problematic. You can ban 2 cmc ramp and slow down ramp decks, but I suspect that if you want to achieve a fairly low overall power level even for people who are trying to minmax their power within it, you're going to need to bad a ton of stuff, including a ton of stuff that is often used and enjoyed fairly, like Animate Dead which is part of some combos and other nastiness but is also just a fine card that people play. I don't think there's any way for the banlist to do what you want to do without being incredibly unwieldy.

Not to mention that splitting up the banlist fragments the format and makes it harder for people to find games and likely drives down interest overall.

I vote no.

[BeneTleilax]

I think EDH has gotten too large, and can handle some fragmentation. I think tier 2 is going to be the hardest to manage, because you can't really control the tempo of the game without mass bans, so you really have to think about what archetypes you want to take out. I'd say wins on the stack (Oracle, Expropriate, Doomsday, etc) and lolvalue generals like Korvold would be a good place to start establishing a more "conventional" banlist.

[Guardman]

What insane moon logic says that Wayfarer's Bauble is ban-worthy but sol ring isn't?

The two-mana ramp was more an example then what I believe 100% should be one of the categories. But I do have my reasons behind the way I worded it:

1. There should be low mana value ramp available, just not at the power-level and density currently played.
2. Creature based ramp is vulnerable to removal, creating the right risk/reward.
3. Color-fixing is as important as the ramp itself in 3+ color decks. Allowing things like Mind Stone that can tap for mana, but not fix it, gives an edge to decks playing fewer colors.
4. Sol Ring is baked into the format at this point. And I don't think it is a bad thing. It provides the chance for every deck to have a high moment if they can get online early, but Sol Ring doesn't win the game by itself, and it is a one of that doesn't have redundancy with other cards.

I suspect there are also a ton of cards that don't really fit into an easily definable category but are nevertheless problematically powerful. Cyclonic Rift for example, or Smothering Tithe - I can't really think of any broad categories that they belong to that are problematic. You can ban 2 cmc ramp and slow down ramp decks, but I suspect that if you want to achieve a fairly low overall power level even for people who are trying to minmax their power within it, you're going to need to bad a ton of stuff, including a ton of stuff that is often used and enjoyed fairly, like Animate Dead which is part of some combos and other nastiness but is also just a fine card that people play. I don't think there's any way for the banlist to do what you want to do without being incredibly unwieldy.

Stuff like Cyclonic Rift and Smothering Tithe would be handled under tier 2 for either being too powerful or too generally good.

Also I see the Tier 1 list as the sleek thing it is now. Tier 2 as larger, but manageable. And Tier 3 as very large, but managed by the fact that the bans will fall under categories.

Not to mention that splitting up the banlist fragments the format and makes it harder for people to find games and likely drives down interest overall.

I vote no.

First off, I strongly believe commander has a problem which is negatively affecting the format, which is commander decks are becoming faster, more streamline, and more homogeneous. And two, the format is already fragmented among those who are looking for higher power level and those who want the lower power level commander games of days of old. This is just giving players a way to talk about it and quantify it without causing arguments about what commander should be. Also if your deck is Tier 2, there is nothing stopping you from playing it in a Tier 1 game if you want.

[DirkGently]

2. Creature based ramp is vulnerable to removal, creating the right risk/reward.

Does artifact removal not exist? Show me creature removal more efficient than Vandalblast.

3. Color-fixing is as important as the ramp itself in 3+ color decks. Allowing things like Mind Stone that can tap for mana, but not fix it, gives an edge to decks playing fewer colors.

Disagree. We have access to virtually every land in existence. Fixing is trivial.

Also Mind Stone is stronger than Fire Diamond. Is a mono-color rock "fixing" anyway? Isn't that like calling a basic land fixing?

If you leave the colorless 2 cmc rocks, maybe people run a bit more fixing lands, they run all the approved "non fixing" 2 cmc rocks instead of the fixing ones, and not much changes tbh.

4. Sol Ring is baked into the format at this point. And I don't think it is a bad thing. It provides the chance for every deck to have a high moment if they can get online early, but Sol Ring doesn't win the game by itself, and it is a one of that doesn't have redundancy with other cards.

It's still wildly more powerful than any 2 cmc ramp. And it's not a 1-of either thanks to Mana Crypt.

You can leave it as an exception if you want, but absent sentimentality there's no reason it would remain unbanned if the goal is to tamper down power levels.

Stuff like Cyclonic Rift and Smothering Tithe would be handled under tier 2 for either being too powerful or too generally good.

Those are particularly egregious examples, but if the power limit (excluding sol ring) is supposed to be Rampant Growth there are about a million cards in that category and most of them aren't going to fit into easy categorization. For example, most people would say Demonic Tutor, Imperial Seal, and Vampiric Tutor are problematically powerful. Do you ban generic tutors including non-problems like Diabolic Tutor? Do you limit the cmc to 2 and allow Grim Tutor? or set it to 3? How "unconditional" is unconditional - does Tainted Pact count, or Infernal Tutor? What about Eladamri's Call?

Also I see the Tier 1 list as the sleek thing it is now. Tier 2 as larger, but manageable. And Tier 3 as very large, but managed by the fact that the bans will fall under categories.

I think you're way too optimistic about things falling into categories.

Tier 2 being manageable remains to be seen but I guess it depends on how much you want to slow things down.

First off, I strongly believe commander has a problem which is negatively affecting the format, which is commander decks are becoming faster, more streamline, and more homogeneous. And two, the format is already fragmented among those who are looking for higher power level and those who want the lower power level commander games of days of old. This is just giving players a way to talk about it and quantify it without causing arguments about what commander should be. Also if your deck is Tier 2, there is nothing stopping you from playing it in a Tier 1 game if you want.

Is there a problem? Kinda. Is there a way to get out of it by making rules? I really doubt it.

Trying to draw lines based on specific cards is not a good solution imo. For example, my beloved Sorrow's Path Golos, Tireless Pilgrim deck - Golos is/was unquestionably a very strong commander, but within the context of that deck, he's relatively fair. By defining the power level simply by the cards themselves, you remove the nuance of the decklist - I've seen plenty of terrible decks that included powerful cards. I've built quite a few myself. Now those decks are effectively forced to play against significantly more powerful decks because of a few cards in them. On the flip side, building competitively isn't an attitude that can be removed by tweaking the banlist. cEDH players won't all migrate to tier 0 or 1, they'll exist at every strata of the banlist. There will guaranteed be people who try to push the tier 3 banlist as hard as they can, unless you can somehow iron out every single wrinkle, which I really really doubt is possible, and certainly not without tons of collateral damage. Now that you're defining competitiveness simply by the cards themselves, the tier 3 cEDH decks have a free pass to play against whatever junk a new player has thrown together. Hell, a precon could very easily inadvertently become tier 2 or tier 1 by virtue of having a couple offending cards in it.

At the end of the day, while this could be an interesting experiment among an established playgroup of people who know what they're doing, and want to try to experiment with a "new" format, I really don't think that it's a philosophy that is going to resolve the problem out in the field, which is where the primary source of the problem is. As long as there are new players, experienced players, casual players, and competitive players all playing the same format, there's going to be clashes over power level, and no banlist is going to fix that.

Sorry, you can't rule yourself out of this. You're going to just have to talk it out.

[kirkusjones]

So, Dirk, when are you announcing your candidacy for the RC? 'Cause you've got my vote.

[Venedrex]

I'll just drop my two cents here, and maybe I'm biased because I don't get out much but I've been seeing a ton of chatter from people about the importance of Rule 0, and then others trying to circumnavigate it by saying it's too tough or annoying.

Personally, I don't get why it's a big deal to say a couple sentences before the game starts. For example: "Hey this is my Talrand spellslinger deck. It has a couple extra turn spells, but no ways to go infinite and my main wincon is hitting people with an army of buffed up drakes." Boom now you know the rough powerlevel of my deck. IMHO, it's that simple. Just say what your deck wants to do and how it plans to win. I like talking about my deck, and why I built it. In doing so, I get the added benefit of helping keep the game balanced.

Do you know exactly how strong it is? Of course not. But I'd bet that little description helps ensure that you grab a deck that is quite close in power to mine.
So yeah I guess I'd agree with Dirk.

[DirkGently]

So, Dirk, when are you announcing your candidacy for the RC? 'Cause you've got my vote.

My first act will be to replace Gifts Ungiven with Expropriate.

[Guardman]

2. Creature based ramp is vulnerable to removal, creating the right risk/reward.

Does artifact removal not exist? Show me creature removal more efficient than Vandalblast.

In my mind you could either have two mana artifacts that produce colored mana or creatures that produce colored mana, but not both. Creatures are more interesting, most can't be used the turn they come into play, and all colors have ways of dealing with them, unlike artifacts which only has red, green, and white really.

3. Color-fixing is as important as the ramp itself in 3+ color decks. Allowing things like Mind Stone that can tap for mana, but not fix it, gives an edge to decks playing fewer colors.

Disagree. We have access to virtually every land in existence. Fixing is trivial.

Also Mind Stone is stronger than Fire Diamond. Is a mono-color rock "fixing" anyway? Isn't that like calling a basic land fixing?

If you leave the colorless 2 cmc rocks, maybe people run a bit more fixing lands, they run all the approved "non fixing" 2 cmc rocks instead of the fixing ones, and not much changes tbh.

I would also expect that Tier 3 would take a page from Pioneer and ban Fetchlands (along with the ABUR Duals). But I know from experience that without things like Fetchlands, Land Search, and mana rocks that can be paid with colorless mana, 3+ color decks do take a hit to their consistency. The change isn't to make them a whole lot less consistant, just a small hit to make mono-colored and two-colored decks more attractive.

4. Sol Ring is baked into the format at this point. And I don't think it is a bad thing. It provides the chance for every deck to have a high moment if they can get online early, but Sol Ring doesn't win the game by itself, and it is a one of that doesn't have redundancy with other cards.

It's still wildly more powerful than any 2 cmc ramp. And it's not a 1-of either thanks to Mana Crypt.

You can leave it as an exception if you want, but absent sentimentality there's no reason it would remain unbanned if the goal is to tamper down power levels.

I think you are missing the point of the Tier ban list. It isn't to tamper down power levels as much as it is to bring a playstyle closer to commander before everything became streamlined. Most of the people I know who enjoy playing commander like that would be disappointed if Sol Ring was banned for them. Mana Crypt would probably be a Tier 2 ban for power level reasons.

Stuff like Cyclonic Rift and Smothering Tithe would be handled under tier 2 for either being too powerful or too generally good.

Those are particularly egregious examples, but if the power limit (excluding sol ring) is supposed to be Rampant Growth there are about a million cards in that category and most of them aren't going to fit into easy categorization. For example, most people would say Demonic Tutor, Imperial Seal, and Vampiric Tutor are problematically powerful. Do you ban generic tutors including non-problems like Diabolic Tutor? Do you limit the cmc to 2 and allow Grim Tutor? or set it to 3? How "unconditional" is unconditional - does Tainted Pact count, or Infernal Tutor? What about Eladamri's Call?

Also I see the Tier 1 list as the sleek thing it is now. Tier 2 as larger, but manageable. And Tier 3 as very large, but managed by the fact that the bans will fall under categories.

I think you're way too optimistic about things falling into categories.

Tier 2 being manageable remains to be seen but I guess it depends on how much you want to slow things down.

If a card needs to be banned, but it doesn't fall neatly into a category, it probably should be banned at Tier 2 since it most likely falls into one of the Tier 2 ban criteria. Also I am under no delusions that the Tier 2 ban list would probably be longer than most would like given the fact that long ban lists are a burden, but when you have almost three decades of cards, the ban list is going to be relatively short in comparison. It is cost, but one I believe is worth the payoff.

First off, I strongly believe commander has a problem which is negatively affecting the format, which is commander decks are becoming faster, more streamline, and more homogeneous. And two, the format is already fragmented among those who are looking for higher power level and those who want the lower power level commander games of days of old. This is just giving players a way to talk about it and quantify it without causing arguments about what commander should be. Also if your deck is Tier 2, there is nothing stopping you from playing it in a Tier 1 game if you want.

Is there a problem? Kinda. Is there a way to get out of it by making rules? I really doubt it.

Trying to draw lines based on specific cards is not a good solution imo. For example, my beloved Sorrow's Path Golos, Tireless Pilgrim deck - Golos is/was unquestionably a very strong commander, but within the context of that deck, he's relatively fair. By defining the power level simply by the cards themselves, you remove the nuance of the decklist - I've seen plenty of terrible decks that included powerful cards. I've built quite a few myself. Now those decks are effectively forced to play against significantly more powerful decks because of a few cards in them. On the flip side, building competitively isn't an attitude that can be removed by tweaking the banlist. cEDH players won't all migrate to tier 0 or 1, they'll exist at every strata of the banlist. There will guaranteed be people who try to push the tier 3 banlist as hard as they can, unless you can somehow iron out every single wrinkle, which I really really doubt is possible, and certainly not without tons of collateral damage. Now that you're defining competitiveness simply by the cards themselves, the tier 3 cEDH decks have a free pass to play against whatever junk a new player has thrown together. Hell, a precon could very easily inadvertently become tier 2 or tier 1 by virtue of having a couple offending cards in it.

At the end of the day, while this could be an interesting experiment among an established playgroup of people who know what they're doing, and want to try to experiment with a "new" format, I really don't think that it's a philosophy that is going to resolve the problem out in the field, which is where the primary source of the problem is. As long as there are new players, experienced players, casual players, and competitive players all playing the same format, there's going to be clashes over power level, and no banlist is going to fix that.

Sorry, you can't rule yourself out of this. You're going to just have to talk it out.

I am sure that there will be some people that try to push the bans really hard, especially in Tier 3. The key there is to have a clear theory of why certain cards will be banned and a ban committee that can work well together, understand the needs of each Tier, is willing to discuss it, test it, and adapt it as need be. It isn't going to be perfect. It isn't going to be easy. It might be too lenient or too punitive, especially at first. And it might accidently include a group of cards that shouldn't be banned, or include a group of cards that were initially overlooked. It will never be perfect. But perfect should never be the enemy of good.

Also this isn't about competitiveness per se. I think of it more like the difference between modern, standard, and pauper. Modern is tier 1. Standard is tier 2. And pauper is tier 3. Pauper games play completely different from modern and standard due to the restrictions in the format, but that doesn't make it any less competitive.

Also, this ban list isn't for the established playgroups, but for amorphous groups and games between strangers. This doesn't really fit into the rest of the discussion per say, and I'm not going to debate it here, but I do want to just give you my view on "talk it out" and Rule 0 in general so you understand where I am coming from. In short, Rule 0 is doing way too much heavy lifting and it is hurting commander because of it.

I don't have a fixed commander group really. I have some regulars I play with (in that its a rotating cast of 20 to 30 different players) along with always the new person in town wanting to join for the night. Rule 0 just doesn't work in my scenario and talking it out has led to many an argument. And this was before COVID. I haven't played much since, but I can tell you that newcomers have gotten more prevalent, not less.

The RC has even admitted recently (if I remember right from one of Sheldon's article) that Rule 0 only works for established playgroups. They also admitted that they don't really want people to default to non-established playgroups. It's a nice idea, but clashes with reality. And me and the people with amorphous playgroups need more structure than to Rule 0 it. I think commander would be in a much healthier place if the RC added more rules, more structure, and more cards to the ban list, but then said, if your playgroup doesn't want to play with certain rules and/or bans, you can Rule 0 it. Rule 0 should be subtractive, not additive like it currently is.

People misrepresent their decks power level or fun level or whatever else you ask them all the time. And it's not that most are trying to be mean or intentionally lie. They really believe what they are saying. But we don't share a common language. Codifying something like my ban tier list or something else, anything else that will weaken Rule 0, will go a long way to making sure everyone is talking the same talk and that you can play with strangers without having to worry that your interpretation & description of your deck is the same as what the people you are playing with are.

If you have a deck like Golos, Tireless Pilgrim/Sorrow's Path deck, don't let the fact that it is banned dissuade you from playing it in an established playgroup with people you know and can discuss it on the same page. But please, for the love that is all that is holy, don't try to rule 0 it in a game with someone you only kind of know. I have too many bad memories of things like that and talking about it only causes pain, grief, and yelling when other people's idea and experience of a deck doesn't jive with your idea and experience of your deck. It's why I have a strict no Rule 0 policy when playing with people unless I know them and their style of decks well.

[kirkusjones]

So, Dirk, when are you announcing your candidacy for the RC? 'Cause you've got my vote.

My first act will be to replace Gifts Ungiven with Expropriate.

[Legend]

I do wish there was a way to slow down the format. I live in a bustling hub. I've seen hundreds if not thousands of players over the years. And in recent years, more and more of them give up Commander if not Magic faster than ever because complexity creep plus power creep equals losing games before they even knew what happened, which obviously isn't fun so they quit and find another hobby.

So, Dirk, when are you announcing your candidacy for the RC? 'Cause you've got my vote.

Haven't you heard? He isn't qualified. I know you're half joking (as was I), but Sheldon actually said anyone seeking a seat on the RC will be sure to not get it.

[DirkGently]

In my mind you could either have two mana artifacts that produce colored mana or creatures that produce colored mana, but not both. Creatures are more interesting, most can't be used the turn they come into play, and all colors have ways of dealing with them, unlike artifacts which only has red, green, and white really.

I don't think anyone should be using targeted removal on minor mana ramp (which nearly all 2cmc ramp is) anyway so it's kind of irrelevant imo. The issue isn't that ramp can't be killed, the issue is that it's just not worth doing it. Though creatures are admittedly more likely to get wiped up at some point than artifacts.

I would also expect that Tier 3 would take a page from Pioneer and ban Fetchlands (along with the ABUR Duals). But I know from experience that without things like Fetchlands, Land Search, and mana rocks that can be paid with colorless mana, 3+ color decks do take a hit to their consistency. The change isn't to make them a whole lot less consistant, just a small hit to make mono-colored and two-colored decks more attractive.

ABU duals are only barely better than shocklands. Feels like a pretty arbitrary line tbh.

5c might be a bit tougher but I'd be surprised if I couldn't create a 3c manabase that was very reliable without fetches (or abu duals I guess). Even 5c we've got a lot of rainbow lands. I don't think it'd be that bad. The vast majority of players aren't playing fetches or abu duals anyway, and they do fine with their crappy budget manabases.

Anyway I don't think making it inconsistent in its manabase is a very fun way to nerf something that's overperforming.

I mostly play 1c and 2c decks myself, but it's because I think they're more fun to build. 3c is too open-ended unless I have a really specific plan.

I think you are missing the point of the Tier ban list. It isn't to tamper down power levels as much as it is to bring a playstyle closer to commander before everything became streamlined. Most of the people I know who enjoy playing commander like that would be disappointed if Sol Ring was banned for them. Mana Crypt would probably be a Tier 2 ban for power level reasons.

If they want to play sol ring, couldn't they just play tier 1? I was under the impression that these formats would be existing simultaneously, so sol ring isn't banned outright for commander players. They can still play it all they want, they just have to cop to the fact that it's a very powerful card.

If you want to go back to "the good old days" then just play reverse-modern commander or something. Seems a lot easier to track the banlist. Neither thing will ever actually happen on any scale outside of (generously) a few isolated playgroups anyway.

If a card needs to be banned, but it doesn't fall neatly into a category, it probably should be banned at Tier 2 since it most likely falls into one of the Tier 2 ban criteria. Also I am under no delusions that the Tier 2 ban list would probably be longer than most would like given the fact that long ban lists are a burden, but when you have almost three decades of cards, the ban list is going to be relatively short in comparison. It is cost, but one I believe is worth the payoff.

I think I want to see more than 1 example category of cards in tier 3 before I entertain it being viable as a way to define a banlist. I suspect you're going to end up with a 500+ card banlist for Tier 2, and it'll still be broken. That seems unreasonably unwieldy, especially since wotc is printing new abominations all the time.

I am sure that there will be some people that try to push the bans really hard, especially in Tier 3. The key there is to have a clear theory of why certain cards will be banned and a ban committee that can work well together, understand the needs of each Tier, is willing to discuss it, test it, and adapt it as need be. It isn't going to be perfect. It isn't going to be easy. It might be too lenient or too punitive, especially at first. And it might accidently include a group of cards that shouldn't be banned, or include a group of cards that were initially overlooked. It will never be perfect. But perfect should never be the enemy of good.

What you're describing sounds like an incredible amount of overhead, both from whatever-multiheaded-hydra the RC becomes, and from the players keeping track of it. That overhead is the enemy of the "good". And I'm incredulous that there's much good to be gained here anyway.

Also this isn't about competitiveness per se. I think of it more like the difference between modern, standard, and pauper. Modern is tier 1. Standard is tier 2. And pauper is tier 3. Pauper games play completely different from modern and standard due to the restrictions in the format, but that doesn't make it any less competitive.

I think that comparison shows the fundamental problem with this idea. Standard is relatively homogenous in power level - and thus generates good-ish games - not simply because of the cards available but because everyone who plays standard - actually plays standard, not the new guy who cracked 7 booster packs to make his deck and barely knows how to play - is playing with basically a spike mentality. They're not going to intentionally self-limit their power because that's not how standard, or modern, or legacy, or pauper, is played.

You can create a huge unwieldly banlist to attempt to create the commander equivalent of standard (didn't we already try that?) but it's not going to solve the vast majority of problems that arise within games because the problem is the diversity of players and attitudes, not the diversity of cards.

Also, this ban list isn't for the established playgroups, but for amorphous groups and games between strangers. This doesn't really fit into the rest of the discussion per say, and I'm not going to debate it here, but I do want to just give you my view on "talk it out" and Rule 0 in general so you understand where I am coming from. In short, Rule 0 is doing way too much heavy lifting and it is hurting commander because of it.

I don't have a fixed commander group really. I have some regulars I play with (in that its a rotating cast of 20 to 30 different players) along with always the new person in town wanting to join for the night. Rule 0 just doesn't work in my scenario and talking it out has led to many an argument. And this was before COVID. I haven't played much since, but I can tell you that newcomers have gotten more prevalent, not less.

The RC has even admitted recently (if I remember right from one of Sheldon's article) that Rule 0 only works for established playgroups. They also admitted that they don't really want people to default to non-established playgroups. It's a nice idea, but clashes with reality. And me and the people with amorphous playgroups need more structure than to Rule 0 it. I think commander would be in a much healthier place if the RC added more rules, more structure, and more cards to the ban list, but then said, if your playgroup doesn't want to play with certain rules and/or bans, you can Rule 0 it. Rule 0 should be subtractive, not additive like it currently is.

I'm in roughly the same situation as you, and have been for some time. I haven't had a closed commander group since 2013 or so. I've migrated through quite a few different groups with roughly similar situations as you describe.

Rule 0, as a way to say "hey, we should change X rule for the entire group" doesn't work for an open group, at all. I'm in agreement on that. But that's not the only way to figure things out. Everywhere I've been, people are generally open to someone playing an un commander or other silver-border promo, for example, if permission is asked first. It's also pretty common practice to try to hash out where the power levels lie before the game so that they can be balanced out. That's not always perfect, of course, but I have way way more reasonable games than terrible games.

Let me tell you about a problem I DO have though - coming into a playgroup alone, especially when relatively new, can be a %$#% horrible experience. I've had a lot of times where I come into an LGS, there's a game or 2 or 3 going on, and they're all well-underway. And so I sit and wait and hope that someone will finish a game so I can jump in. And then a table finishes a game and I eagerly bound over and ask if I can join the next one. "No, sorry, we only want to do a 4 person game" or "Sorry, we just want to play with each other". So I go back to my spot and sit, and wait, and wait, and wait. Sometimes I just give up and go home.

Now it's true that commander is very popular and in a lot of places (not all!) it's easy to find somewhere that could, in theory, divide into a tier 1 and a tier 3 game, or whatever. But in practice, that's going to make the business of finding an appropriate game to join all the more difficult, especially if your deck is being judged solely on a black-and-white model of "do you have any of these cards in it?" And then you say "yes" and they say "sorry, we only want to play tier 3" and so you go sit in the corner because you had the audacity to play a precon with Rampant Growth in it or whatever.

People misrepresent their decks power level or fun level or whatever else you ask them all the time. And it's not that most are trying to be mean or intentionally lie. They really believe what they are saying. But we don't share a common language.

That, as they say, is life.

To me this seems like a problem that sort of fixes itself. When you're new and stupid, you get rolled by people who say they're playing a 7 because a 7 to you means "I picked the GOOD precon" but for them means "I can't afford alpha duals", but you're mostly too dumb to realize what's going on. When you're more experienced, you know the right questions to ask and the right signposts to determine power levels a lot more accurately, and can play accordingly - whether that's busting out an appropriate-power deck, or holding up your combo-breaker even though you wanted to develop.

Codifying something like my ban tier list or something else, anything else that will weaken Rule 0, will go a long way to making sure everyone is talking the same talk and that you can play with strangers without having to worry that your interpretation & description of your deck is the same as what the people you are playing with are.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy into the idea that individual cards are a reliable signpost for the power level of a deck.

If you have a deck like Golos, Tireless Pilgrim/Sorrow's Path deck, don't let the fact that it is banned dissuade you from playing it in an established playgroup with people you know and can discuss it on the same page.

Yeah I don't have that. Everyone who played against it found it to be fun, though, I've gotten loads of compliments on it. Same for my Kaervek deck that sports mana crypt, a couple fetches, dtutor vtutor etc. Why is my using dtutor to find Deadly Wanderings or golos to find Sorrow's Path being lumped into the same category as people using dtutor to find Thassa's Oracle or golos to find gaea's cradle? We are not the same.

But please, for the love that is all that is holy, don't try to rule 0 it in a game with someone you only kind of know. I have too many bad memories of things like that and talking about it only causes pain, grief, and yelling when other people's idea and experience of a deck doesn't jive with your idea and experience of your deck. It's why I have a strict no Rule 0 policy when playing with people unless I know them and their style of decks well.

These days, if I want to play Golos, I'm ready with a backup if someone doesn't want to play against a banned commander. But it doesn't hurt to ask. I'm not sure why you think this is an exchange that's going to result in wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Of course, this is helped by experience. I know the power levels of my decks pretty objectively, and I'm good at judging other people's power level, because I've built and played a lot of decks, and I'm pretty good at magic (no apologies). So maybe it's harder for other people to make an honest accounting of their own power level or to judge others at a glance. I think the oft-repeated wisdom covers a lot of ground - bring decks of varying power levels to ensure you have something appropriate. And if sometimes you're gonna have a bad game, despite trying to talk it out, then it's really not the end of the world. Recalibrate and try against next time.

Really, the easiest criticism of this idea, though, is that it's simply never going to happen. It's a somewhat interesting hypothetical, but I don't think anyone whose being honest actually thinks that anything remotely like this will ever actually be implemented.

Haven't you heard? He isn't qualified. I know you're half joking (as was I), but Sheldon actually said anyone seeking a seat on the RC will be sure to not get it.

Perfect since I'm not seeking it, at all. Although the other criteria would presumably exclude me (not to relitigate that argument).

[Sporegorger_Dragon]

This is a rough, shower idea, but I would like to hear what other people think of it.

I had a similar idea, but with regards to the commanders in the "Changing the Commander Tax" and borrowing the usage tiers from unofficial competitive Pokemon.

I do agree that the difficult part is deciding which criteria to define whether a card is Tier 2 or 3.

Part of what Smogon (said unofficial Pokemon battling community) uses quite a varied methodology: mostly usage percentages/prevalence, but also individual Pokemon, items, and even abilities and specific combos/strategies are subjected to community votes.

For example, the combination of Shell Smash + Baton Pass on a single Pokemon is banned in a certain tier. Any Pokemon in this tier have either Shell Smash or Baton Pass, but not both simultaneously.

Perhaps instead of specific criteria for banning cards, what about banning specific combos? Like Tier 2, no infinite combos, period. Nada. Nope. Like if you put Pemmin's Aura in your Tier 2 deck, you can't have any creature that taps for 2+ mana, and you're also not allowed to animate any of your artifacts that tap for 2+ mana for that purpose either.

[pzbw7z]

There are a few vectors along which something could be done: Card availability - the Reserved List, other formats (e.g. "Modern" Commander, "Legacy Commander"), separately maintained lists of cards (e.g. EDHREC's 100 Saltiest Cards).

Some of the most egregious power creep has come along recently, so perhaps some new, inverted format is in order. "Pre-MH2 Commander" ROFL! Also, Commander-only sets have produced many of the saltiest cards, so perhaps "Modern" Commander could exclude Commander-only cards. The only cards I play on the EDHREC list are Cyclonic Rift and Doomsday. I suppose I could do without them. In fairness though, Doomsday is pretty far down that list!

The "No Reserved List" track would ban some fairly innocuous cards, and it would not do that much to combat power creep. It would produce a slightly more level field in budgetary terms. I personally play only a few RL cards - Tithe, Tombstone Stairwell and Yavimaya Hollow are the only ones that come to mind. They don't add up to the value of a ABU dual land.

In the end, play groups will probably have to fend for themselves.

[duducrash]

The idea that the average person gets to go to an LGS and find multiple pods with multiple well estabilished power levels its so out of my reality I cannot understand that. And I live in a big city with several LGSs.

With the popularity of the format stores began to run tournaments with prize support, from that moment on many many many games of commander became competitive commander. And I think that has grealy diminished the space for trully casual play. I dk how this is fixable

[pokken]

There are two "simple" things that get bandied about to slow down the format stop playing so many ramp Spells and stop playing so many tutors.

Unfortunate side effect of that is that the natural reaction to that is to play better individual cards.

What they don't tell you on the tin is that if you stop playing overpowering finishers ramp and tutors are fairly awful. Ramping into hoof is different than decimation of provinces.

So as much as I think avoiding signets is an attractive idea if you scratch the surface and you will find that the bombs are the things that make playing a deck that's 30% ramp viable.

[Guardman]

There are two "simple" things that get bandied about to slow down the format stop playing so many ramp Spells and stop playing so many tutors.

Unfortunate side effect of that is that the natural reaction to that is to play better individual cards.

What they don't tell you on the tin is that if you stop playing overpowering finishers ramp and tutors are fairly awful. Ramping into hoof is different than decimation of provinces.

So as much as I think avoiding signets is an attractive idea if you scratch the surface and you will find that the bombs are the things that make playing a deck that's 30% ramp viable.

While this could just be wishful thinking, but the thought behind the ramp ban would be the lower density of it (and general clunkiness of it) would delay bombs by a few turns which could, in turn making them more fair. And a ban on tutors (or at least some tutors) would lower consistency. If there are still overpowered outliers then maybe they should be Tier 2 banned for being too format warping. Though, in that case, the this might be more whack-a-mole than anyone would like or could handle.

[pokken]

I think it would be easier to ban all the sylvan primordials than try to constrain ramp. Just my two pence tho.

[BeneTleilax]

I think it would be easier to ban all the sylvan primordials than try to constrain ramp. Just my two pence tho.

You'd have to hit the repeated draw effects as well, as I've seen ramp+draw decks win off just spamming mediocre random value creatures. I like this theory though.

[pokken]

You'd have to hit the repeated draw effects as well, as I've seen ramp+draw decks win off just spamming mediocre random value creatures. I like this theory though.

Nailing some of the bridge good stuff would be possible needed but I think you'd see a lot of change in the meta with a first step? Not sure tho.

I think an advisory list that says just don't play these things if you want to play longer games would be useful to some people.

[duducrash]

So, Dirk, when are you announcing your candidacy for the RC? 'Cause you've got my vote.

My first act will be to replace Gifts Ungiven with Expropriate.

I think the 1-2 extra turns are faster than the ammount of time the average person tutors for 4 different cards. It takes so loooooong.

[RxPhantom]

I think I like the goal that this idea is striving toward, but there isn't any conceivable way to execute it elegantly or coherently, at least not for the format at large. Having different ban lists/tiers would add so much logistical gridlock to the format, and you'd have to get four people on the same page before you can even start playing, and then maybe have a rule 0 discussion too? It would suck the fun out of the game before we even start.

Look, I too miss the good old days when the format was exciting, when you made cool/weird cards work in this glorious clusterf**k of a format. Now, low-cost, game-wrecking bombs warp the format every few months. I don't enjoy the format as much as I used to, but trying to reclaim those halcyon days is impossible, I'm afraid.

[BeneTleilax]

I think it would provide guidance towards curating groups, which I think is the end state of EDH, if it is to continue. Coming from RPGs, it is expected that you meet with people before playing and establish shared expectations, and that no-one owes you a game of your preferred style.