Rule 7 Thoughts

[BeneTleilax]

I'd also note, for the next time someone comes along and says I'm just mad about these from personal experience, I like aristo-adjacent decks. Basically all my decks want to run sac outlets already, because I enjoy that kind of gameplay. Tree effects and theft are dead against me. That does mean, even when I'm ahead, I've seen opponents Kenrith's Transformation someone else's general "just to get the cantrip"/"because I couldn't use it against the guy with a sac outlet so I might as well hit you"/"'cuz vaaaaaalue", which made those wins less enjoyable.

My only possible ulterior motive is maybe compelling people to run sac outlets less would make Altars cheaper for those of us who actually like them.

[RxPhantom]

This whole thread sounds like that, like you lost some games due to theft/transform and now the whole format should pay for it
...
Don't put words in my mouth.

Can you see how I might read that the way I did?

Perhaps, but you took that ball and ran pretty far with it.

I think I've said my piece on this subject, but overall I'd say that not only is this not a problem that needs fixing, it's not a problem at all.

[duducrash]

I see a ton of all classes of this effect; everyone in both of my shops (in phx and PA) views Tree effects as autoinclude goodstuff, and almost every blue deck you see runs some sort of theft. Usually it's one of Blatant Thievery or Gilded Drake or Control Magic type.

I was talking about theft exclusively, enchantment based removal is pretty common I guess, I see it often enough and don't think much of it as a problem tbh

[BeneTleilax]

I'd say that not only is this a problem that needs fixing, it's not a problem at all.

I mean, this is clearly reducing several people's enjoyment of the format. That alone makes it a problem. Now, not all such problems are solvable, or at least have ideal solutions currently (again, see the perennial stax debates), but they are still problems. Just because you may not care about your fellow players' enjoyment of the format doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

[materpillar]

I mean, this is clearly reducing several people's enjoyment of the format. That alone makes it a problem. Now, not all such problems are solvable, or at least have ideal solutions currently (again, see the perennial stax debates), but they are still problems. Just because you may not care about your fellow players' enjoyment of the format doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

I find this argument to be incredibly weak. I find obnoxious commanders like Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow or Yarok, the Desecrated to dramatically reduce my enjoyment of the format. Having tree/theft answers to commanders that untap and win or cheat commander tax greatly increases my enjoyment of the format because I feel I have actual counterplay. So your proposed answer implies you don't care about my enjoyment. *shrug*

To the argument "just don't play against annoying commanders" I respond with "just don't play against decks with theft". I think magic the gathering is better when the answers are better than the threats.

[RxPhantom]

I'd say that not only is this not a problem that needs fixing, it's not a problem at all.

I mean, this is clearly reducing several people's enjoyment of the format. That alone makes it a problem. Now, not all such problems are solvable, or at least have ideal solutions currently (again, see the perennial stax debates), but they are still problems. Just because you may not care about your fellow players' enjoyment of the format doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

Yep. That's what I said. Don't care at all. No exaggeration here. Nope. No siree. No straw men, either, that's for sure.

Repeated for emphasis:

Just because you may not care about your fellow players' enjoyment of the format doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

[BeneTleilax]

I find this argument to be incredibly weak. I find obnoxious commanders like Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow or Yarok, the Desecrated to dramatically reduce my enjoyment of the format. Having tree/theft answers to commanders that untap and win or cheat commander tax greatly increases my enjoyment of the format because I feel I have actual counterplay. So your proposed answer implies you don't care about my enjoyment.

No, and futhermore, you acknowledge that is a problem. Again, just because you don't agree on the solution doesn't mean you aren't aware of a problem. In the post you reference, I was arguing against the denial of any problem.

Yep. That's what I said. Don't care at all. No exaggeration here. Nope. No siree. No straw men, either, that's for sure.

If you're going to make strident points such as claiming the problems raised not only can't be reasonably solved by the solutions we propose, but don't exist, I will assume you meant them. Either make points you can stand behind, or don't be surprised when someone criticizes your weaker arguments for being silly.

Anyway, I'm of the view that answers are not sufficient to create enjoyable gameplay. Also, the presence theft effects and similar are less visible and less informative than a general. At every game, I can see what generals my opponents are playing, and can decide whether I want to play at that table. Even I know ahead of time that someone's running theft/shutdown enchantments, unless they're already playing at a higher consistency level than I care for, there's a fairly low chance they actually draw them.

Also, what do you do when you draw your Gilded Drake or what have you and there isn't anyone playing Yarok/Chulane/etc? Do you let it sit the game out in your hand, or let one of your opponents sit the game out?

[Legend]

How would blue deal with commanders under the proposed rule? EDIT: It seems like blue would be at a disadvantage to the other colors, but I could be mistaken.

[pokken]

How would blue deal with commanders under the proposed rule? EDIT: It seems like blue would be at a disadvantage to the other colors, but I could be mistaken.

Theft effects would be functionally removal and blue actually had some of the most efficient spot removal in commander. Tempo stuff like bounce, hard removal line Pongify, Reality Shift. Transform effects still remove a commander. Counter spells. Etc.

Blue would go from highly advantaged vs commanders to the third best.

Given all blues advantages it seems good to me.

[Gentle Giant]

Before I dive in, I have to say: why the animosity towards each other? Can't we try to be a bit more excellent to one another and not read the worst intentions behind people's words? This is just a thread discussing a play pattern that hinders/stifles fun for a subset of players, not some debate team competition. We've got enough strawmen here to start a farm!

Anyway, I'm of the view that answers are not sufficient to create enjoyable gameplay. Also, the presence theft effects and similar are less visible and less informative than a general. At every game, I can see what generals my opponents are playing, and can decide whether I want to play at that table. Even I know ahead of time that someone's running theft/shutdown enchantments, unless they're already playing at a higher consistency level than I care for, there's a fairly low chance they actually draw them.

Also, what do you do when you draw your Gilded Drake or what have you and there isn't anyone playing Yarok/Chulane/etc? Do you let it sit the game out in your hand, or let one of your opponents sit the game out?

A lot has been said already, but I think this furthers the discussion nicely. Some thoughts/recap:
- Theft and tree effects are effective at nullifying a commander, requiring a specific answer from the player who's commander has been affected. It's relevant to specifically point out that it's the affected player's own job to fix, as there is no incentive for the other players to help them. This is different in most other 'just run more interaction!'-arguments, as those often involve table-broad issues that need to be addressed. This makes these kinds of effects more reasonable to people who play in low trust groups, as they already expect to have to arm themselves against a lot of things (both as receiver and giver of theft/tree effects): they don't want to be dependent on other player's deckbuilding.
- BeneTleilax's quote here illustrates the rub: if you're not coming from the low trust angle, your deck might be less prepared to deal with these effects. As opposed to MLD, stax, discard, grave pact, which are more strategies/playstyles than a small part of deckbuilding, the removal suite of a deck is much more a result of one's expectations of other player's decks, and thus harder to discuss (given that discussions on strategies are already not always welcome/go smoothly). The discussion here surrounding high vs. low powered decks addressed this somewhat too.

I was going to go on a much larger ramble, but life has come up, so I'll have to leave it at this for now: changing rules for these effects has too wide of an impact on the community for them to be made, in my opinion. Thus, you're better off trying to have these discussions and/or look for a higher trust group.

PS. Although at a glacial pace, I'm still working on a piece that dives deeper into the dynamics of play and player preferences. If you're interested in some of the stuff I'll be using (such as the concept of trust in multiplayer games), please read Raph Koster's work on trust: https://www.raphkoster.com/2018/03/16/t ... -spectrum/

[ISBPathfinder]

How would blue deal with commanders under the proposed rule? EDIT: It seems like blue would be at a disadvantage to the other colors, but I could be mistaken.

Just going to throw this out but all the transform and theft are still technically an answer just single shot. If you had some weird theft loop it would still function as removal. Beyond that Pongify / Rapid Hybridization / Cyclonic Rift have always been totally fine cards that disrupt. Vedalken Shackles in my opinion really doesn't loose any power either even if it just kills commanders as it represents a continuous threat even if the rules changed as we are talking about. Blue actually has a lot of completely fine answers if you dig about like Curse of the Swine which while not commonly played is really quite a reasonable card.

[Dunharrow]

If you had a rule that once a turn you could return your commander to your command zone from anywhere, I would suggest a timing restriction, like End Step. Or a cost to return your commander to the command zone (on top of the commander tax itself)

I think it makes sense to use Rule 0 to get rid of problematic commanders and make Theft and transform effects less game winning.

[ISBPathfinder]

If you had a rule that once a turn you could return your commander to your command zone from anywhere, I would suggest a timing restriction, like End Step. Or a cost to return your commander to the command zone (on top of the commander tax itself)

I think it makes sense to use Rule 0 to get rid of problematic commanders and make Theft and transform effects less game winning.

I have zero faith in rule 0 working in larger metas and metas that have lots of in and out players. How do you agree to a rule as a community? How do you get everyone to feel like they have a voice in this? How do you deal with new players who don't know about your rule 0 rules? Rule 0 works if you have a close nit playgroup or play privately. In any other situation you are alienating new players. I always wanted rule 0 to work but after having tried it for something minor we realized we were causing issues with anyone who wasn't there for that discussion. It created a lot of awkward ohhhhh ummmmmm yea I would rather you don't kind of vibes that nobody really felt like they could do anything about.

The best change is when the RC makes changes to make the format as a whole healthier by updating the official rules. Its worth noting that I REALLY hate that social stigma is what is keeping most players from playing stasis / LD effects because as soon as someone casts one not knowing this is the norm it also makes things really awkward. I think the RC should step up and add to the banned list a lot of the holy hell thats not ok kind of cards that most people avoid because of the norms of the format. Newer players don't understand these things and walk right into ruining a lot of games seeing them as legal cards. I had someone Death Cloud for 5 this weekend in a situation that sort of voluntarily gave the game away because he didn't understand how he had to be positioned to win off of the card.

[BaronCappuccino]

Changing rule seven to better reflect its intent is fine by me.

[Dunharrow]

If you had a rule that once a turn you could return your commander to your command zone from anywhere, I would suggest a timing restriction, like End Step. Or a cost to return your commander to the command zone (on top of the commander tax itself)

I think it makes sense to use Rule 0 to get rid of problematic commanders and make Theft and transform effects less game winning.

I have zero faith in rule 0 working in larger metas and metas that have lots of in and out players. How do you agree to a rule as a community? How do you get everyone to feel like they have a voice in this? How do you deal with new players who don't know about your rule 0 rules? Rule 0 works if you have a close nit playgroup or play privately. In any other situation you are alienating new players. I always wanted rule 0 to work but after having tried it for something minor we realized we were causing issues with anyone who wasn't there for that discussion. It created a lot of awkward ohhhhh ummmmmm yea I would rather you don't kind of vibes that nobody really felt like they could do anything about.

The best change is when the RC makes changes to make the format as a whole healthier by updating the official rules. Its worth noting that I REALLY hate that social stigma is what is keeping most players from playing stasis / LD effects because as soon as someone casts one not knowing this is the norm it also makes things really awkward. I think the RC should step up and add to the banned list a lot of the holy hell thats not ok kind of cards that most people avoid because of the norms of the format. Newer players don't understand these things and walk right into ruining a lot of games seeing them as legal cards. I had someone Death Cloud for 5 this weekend in a situation that sort of voluntarily gave the game away because he didn't understand how he had to be positioned to win off of the card.

It's funny, I had spent a few minutes writing about bringing back banned as commander so we didn't need to find permanent ways to deal with problematic commanders. But then I figured Rule 0 would ideally solve the issue.
I am not surprised to hear that people have problems implementing rule 0.

So ya, my take on this is to bring back banned as commander and then ban about 5-10 of the most centralizing and backbreaking commanders. Or make Planeswalkers legal commanders at the same time and ban about 20 cards as commanders. Nobody wants to see Narset Transcendent in the command zone.
Derevi is the posterchild for needing ways to permanently deal with commanders.
And then you could update rule 7 so that commanders are never permanently dealt with (as long as timing restrictions reduce the abuse)

I really feel like the RC needs to be more active with bannings. I don't like this idea that they want to let people do whatever they want as long as it's not everyone doing it. The format changed. The number of new impactful cards every year is so high that obviously problematic commanders are not played enough to warrant a banning. Even Griselbrand could be unbanned and nobody would notice.

[BeneTleilax]

If you had a rule that once a turn you could return your commander to your command zone from anywhere, I would suggest a timing restriction, like End Step. Or a cost to return your commander to the command zone

I feel like sorcery speed is sufficient to avoid most of the potential unintuitive trickery or combos. That said, every rule will be used to fuel some combo, the question is just how janky or negligible they have to get.

[DirkGently]

I dunno, it feels like a game of whack-a-mole. Now Nevermore/Drannith Magistrate is the "you don't get to use your commander anymore" button (albeit with extra steps if you don't preempt).

I guess I don't care either way, really, but I don't think the current rule is a big problem at the moment. Blue does have the most options, but they've given a couple neutralizers to white and green, and black has oubliette and a couple theft effects. Red's the only one I think is pretty SoL, which is kinda surprising given how many temporary theft effects they have. Of course everyone has Helm of Possession.

One big change that modifying the rule would create would be a big boon to etb effect commanders. Like you could just build Gonti, Lord of Luxury with nothing except ramp and just plan to recast him every turn. I'm not necessarily saying that's a deal-breaker but it's definitely something to keep in mind.

Apologies if that's already been said but I'm not reading this whole thread.

Before I dive in, I have to say: why the animosity towards each other?

Oh man, you have no idea how bad it gets sometimes. I groaned when I noticed this subforum had a new thread lol.

[Gentle Giant]

Before I dive in, I have to say: why the animosity towards each other?

Oh man, you have no idea how bad it gets sometimes. I groaned when I noticed this subforum had a new thread lol.

Oh I know, been lurkin' these threads for a decade now (although I remember them being worse on Sally, so that's something I guess!)

Chalk it up to an indirect/polite approach of addressing the unnecessary animosity in hopes of improving the discussion, as this one doesn't seem hardly as entrenched/controversial as something like CEDH split-off, combos, hybrid, or wishes.

[onering]

There are a lot of non aura theft effects unfortunately. Agent of Treachery a menace

Agent of Treachery costs 7 mana and is sorcery speed.


There needs to be ways to remove commanders semi permanently. It adds to the game, and presents an actual risk to building entirely around a commander for lower cost commanders. If your going to be so singularly focused when building your deck, you are going to sacrifice resiliency, and the rules shouldn't be changed to remove this tradeoff.

The gulf between what theft and transform effects do and what tuck did is massive. These effects are significantly easier to interact with, and are more broadly represented across the color pie, as are the answers to them. Additionally, tuck effects were only good when used against commanders, otherwise they were generally just %$#% overcosted removal. This meant that their existence in EDH was entirely to lock people out of their commander. Theft and transformation effects (that actually are good enough to run), are useful against things other than commanders. If there aren't any commanders at the table that you have to lock out, you don't have to use Gilded Drake to steal a commander, you can use it to steal whatever the best creature on the board is. Lignify is fine removal against non commander creatures. Oubliette is at worst an O-Ring for creatures. All of these factors add up to make these effects a good deal different from tuck.

In the end, if you are getting shut out of the game because someone stole your commander with Agent or Lignified it, that's a problem with the deck, not the answer.

[Mookie]

There needs to be ways to remove commanders semi permanently. It adds to the game, and presents an actual risk to building entirely around a commander for lower cost commanders. If your going to be so singularly focused when building your deck, you are going to sacrifice resiliency, and the rules shouldn't be changed to remove this tradeoff.

From a design perspective, I'd appreciate additional removal options in the context of commander. Currently, I would say that there are two primary categories of removal spells for commanders: Imprisoned in the Moon-style 'permanent until dealt with' and actual hard removal like Swords to Plowshares. For the former, a commander is stuck on the battlefield in a useless state until its controller draws the proper answer... which could be forever if an enchantment is locking down a red commander, or it could be less than a turn cycle if the player has a Naturalize in hand. I'd consider theft effects in this bucket too, although in this case you would want a bounce effect (or some spot removal).

On the flip side, spot removal can take out some commanders... until their controller has two extra mana to pay the commander tax. Again, for some decks this could be forever, while other decks can trivially pay the tax a few times. In general, this encourages ramp and big mana strategies and makes access to ramp even more important, which is... a thing to note with regards to broader format implications (I would argue that the existence of commander tax is one of the reasons why historically, white has been weaker while green has been stronger in the format).

For both these styles of removal, they can range from 'trivial speedbump' to 'takes a player out of the game permanently', neither of which seem like an ideal situation. I'd sort of like to see some options that were guaranteed to be impactful, but never backbreaking - something that would take a commander out for a few turn cycles, but would eventually end without requiring additional effort from its controller. Maybe something like 'target creature phases out for 3 turns'? I suppose Suspend (and Sinister Concierge) exists and sees zero play, so would probably need some number adjustments for EDH.

[pokken]

There needs to be ways to remove commanders semi permanently. It adds to the game, and presents an actual risk to building entirely around a commander for lower cost commanders. If your going to be so singularly focused when building your deck, you are going to sacrifice resiliency, and the rules shouldn't be changed to remove this tradeoff.

In the end, if you are getting shut out of the game because someone stole your commander with Agent or Lignified it, that's a problem with the deck, not the answer.

I disagree. It's a quirk of the rules and it presents as a lopsided gimmick that overpowers certain colors (blue, go figure)

I don't think there need to be any semipermanent answers to commanders. It's a net negative for the game. Many decks simply are pointless to be built as anything other than a build around and have no real reasonable ways to get their commander back from many effects.

The idea that a deck needs to have some kind of backup game plan is a dated one. It comes from the age of goodstuff and it hasn't really stood the test of time.

You're welcome to disagree but at this point I think it's purely a matter of taste. You're never going to get me on the need for permanent commander removal - the commander is what I like about the format. I do think there should be limits on busted commanders but I don't think the lopsided color pie advantaging blue is going to fix it.

I don't think your perspective is wrong so much as not for me.

. Maybe something like 'target creature phases out for 3 turns'? I suppose Suspend (and Sinister Concierge) exists and sees zero play, so would probably need some number adjustments for EDH.

It just so happens I have the thread for you. you even posted in it once upon a time.

viewtopic.php?t=36852


Personally I think my solution of returning your commander to the zone at the beginning of the next end step is beautiful shuts off so much %$#%$#% while guaranteeing you can stop a commander for an entire turn cycle by killing it during a players turn (which also solves some issues with dereviand yuriko)

[duducrash]

, hybrid, or wishes.

I kinda understand hybrid mana, but I wish to playtest it one day, just to see how it would work!

Id really love to see wishes working, I think banning the better wishes and letting stuff like learn be enjoyed is fun

[Mookie]

It just so happens I have the thread for you. you even posted in it once upon a time.

Ha, I suspected the point had been raised before. I'm talking more about spot removal options than a full rules change here though. Unfortunately, the rules baggage (and bookkeeping) means we probably won't see any more suspend-like mechanics from WotC in the near future. Although I guess we might if we see more digital-friendly-but-paper-unfriendly mechanics? Hmmm... I've seen pretty good suspend-like mechanics out of other digital games, so could happen.

[RxPhantom]

I'm reticent to participate in this thread again, but...

There needs to be ways to remove commanders semi permanently. It adds to the game, and presents an actual risk to building entirely around a commander for lower cost commanders. If your going to be so singularly focused when building your deck, you are going to sacrifice resiliency, and the rules shouldn't be changed to remove this tradeoff.

This was an excellently stated point. Glass cannons break sometimes, as they should. I really clicked with the rest of your post too, but I singled out this paragraph for the sake of my own post's brevity.

I don't think there need to be any semipermanent answers to commanders. It's a net negative for the game. Many decks simply are pointless to be built as anything other than a build around and have no real reasonable ways to get their commander back from many effects.

Contain your shock and surprise, but I disagree. I don't think it's a negative at all. I'd go as far as to say it's a feature, not a bug. If you don't run any potential answers to enchantments, then you're doing it wrong or you're in mono-red. And sometimes, Magic being what it is, you don't always have an answer for the answer in hand even if you're running them. Sometimes it sticks and I think that's okay.

The idea that a deck needs to have some kind of backup game plan is a dated one. It comes from the age of goodstuff and it hasn't really stood the test of time.

No it's not and yes it has. If a deck cannot function without the commander, then you should work harder to protect it. Using only my experience as a reference, I only have one deck that really craps the bed without the commander: Merieke Ri Berit. If I don't have a way to protect her in my opening hand (or a way to tutor for one), it's a mulligan. I've also cut cool, spicy cards in order to keep her safe. Making those choices has been part of the journey for me with that deck. If the rules were changed in the ways discussed here, it would be like having involuntary training wheels. It would cut off lines of play that I think are legitimate, and in my opinion, aren't causing trouble to the format as a whole.

Personally I think my solution of returning your commander to the zone at the beginning of the next end step is beautiful shuts off so much %$#%$#% while guaranteeing you can stop a commander for an entire turn cycle by killing it during a players turn (which also solves some issues with dereviand yuriko)

I think it seems ok at first blush, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If I cast my commander and it's countered or removed that turn, I should be able to cast it again if I am able. Full stop. A rule that says otherwise would strike me as arbitrary, and I don't think it's as universally grokable as you think.

, hybrid, or wishes.

I kinda understand hybrid mana, but I wish to playtest it one day, just to see how it would work!

Id really love to see wishes working, I think banning the better wishes and letting stuff like learn be enjoyed is fun

My psychological wounds are still healing from the wish thread on this forum. Please no.

[Venedrex]

If I had three wishes, I'd wish to erase the wish thread on this site from existence three times.