the whole point of the ban list SHOULD be for people that DON'T have a social contract... It's much easier to talk to your friends and say "Hey im okay if you play hullbreacher in your deck" than it is to say "Hey i really hate your expropriate, can you take it out"
Yeah, deviant behavior is fine with people who are okay with it. If someone goes to a dinner party without clothes on, it's completely expected they'd be kicked out or denied entry; but if a group of people who know each other well get together and decide they collectively want a private nudist dinner party, good for them. Manners are fundamental, and commander doesn't have a properly grounded set of expected manners.
This just isn't how the social contract works in reality. A ban is a ban for virtually every player, social contract or no. That being the case, the RC should maximise the available card pool as much as possible.
@@gamermancrygamer9461 that's really not true, in my Sunday before D&D playgroup we have a person with a Lutri deck (as his commander not as a companion), a person who runs a Learn deck with a wish board, and someone who still plays hullbreacher, and we ignore the 3 mana cost to wish a companion to your hand, because we all agreed to allow these things, that's literally the social contract working the way you said it doesn't.
@@VivBrodock We have wishboards too, hell my LGS has a wishboard, but they don't have a custom banlist. A custom banlist is way more granular as a rules object, which makes it more cumbersome to deal with. Hullbreacher still being legal in your playgroup is pretty interesting. I'd be curious to know, have you made any old banned cards legal retroactively?
@@gamermancrygamer9461 agree with you. the ban list supercedes the social contract virtually all the time. i asked to play worldfire some years ago and it was met with friction at the table. that friction solely came from the ban list and now its not on the ban list I feel looking back now it makes me resent the banlist and the friction it brought into the group for me as a result.
Seth hit it on the head in the beginning of the podcast. Ban lists make sense for people who are playing "pickup" games of commander. That way everyone at least has a common frame or reference.
I think you’re missing the point here. (Granted I haven’t seen the entire podcast yet at time of writing) but I think the point was that the RC’s idea for the purpose of the ban list is backwards and makes no sense for what they’re going for and the expectations of what all would need to be put into a singular game of commander. As opposed to simply making the ban list to be the guideline so that you don’t have to have half an hour of talking for games that could take extremely long points of time as Is without that addition.
Also on like 1/2 of those I agree with you, although with worldfire in my playgroup it kinda just became a mean where somebody would just go “worldfire” or on the one time where somebody did everybody did it
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts? personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
@@Lusk1993 in the case of worldfire, i think even the most casual group can play around a 9 mana spell that wins the game. Is not even that different that craterhoof or a x=7 torment of hellfire
@@Lusk1993 There are a thousand "unfun" cards. Banning cards because they are unfun is a pointless excercise in subjective belief. The banlist should entail only cards which are actively problematic for the format, and Rule 0 should cover groups that want to ban unfun cards.
They want people to self police which is fine, but we are long from the days of old and way more people play are playing commander online or at game stores vs strangers. The ban list needs to be done for the tables that aren't preformed groups. The kitchen table or groups will still self police and change as they always have.
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts? personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
@@robertdarnhofer536 I took a glance, it's funny to have Winota banned but not Zur. I liked seeing stuff like Protean Hulk banned, that card is too simple to combo off with, it's anti-fun to most playgroups so I like seeing that kind of stuff added.
@@mightyone3737 it is no easy task to create or update a sensible banlist as you can see in competetive formats... i think each lgs could come up with a decent one if they work with some players...
I mean, the RC can't stop everyone from playing banned cards in their playgroup if everyone in the group agrees to it. The RC just needs to update the philosophy behind the banlist to be more about pickup games at your LGS with strangers and less about your playgroup that you get together with every week.
Exactly. Regular play groups are very much self balancing. If you play an obnoxious deck or card, people aren't gonna want you to play that. The ban list needs to be for playing with strangers to keep people from getting frustrated at a LGS game.
Honestly the amount of shitty board game night I've had explicitly because no one talked about what they wanted to do is plentiful. Like having a conversation of what kind of game you expect to play whether or not your goals are socialization or the game itself and everything else is very important. No one wants to get drunk and chat with friends and be expected to participate in a high stakes game they barely know the rules of.
Listening to this discussion was SO cathartic for me. You absolutely nailed my feelings of frustration with the ban list, the rules committee, the format as a whole, and Wizards in general.
I’ve literally said a lot of this stuff on the RC discord. I got laughed at for making the same monarchy comparison they did. Sheldon has some really sussy anti-democracy views, at least in terms of commander.
@@soren1803 he’s a despot, who is high on power. His ego is ridiculous and the banlist is just an extension of said ego. Good job, you “created” edh. I doubt the format wouldn’t have been created without him tbh, it just seems like an eventuality.
@@soren1803 lol not surprised. Every time he talks about commander, you can just feel the smugness. Par for the course of the nepotism that overruns WotC.
The point of a ban list is to ensure that any table of random people who have never played together before don’t have to spend as much time talking pregame to play a game that everyone likes. The rules committee is creating a lax excuse that says every group should be cliqueish and have there own rules that they enforce on anyone who plays with them. That’s not in the spirit of the game. I want to play with more people and make more friends by playing, not having a conversation before the game more in depth than a date on what people do and don’t like from among 25k + cards that can basically end up saying someone is not going to be able to play because everything they have has something someone else doesn’t like. It’s poppycock rubbish and pandering to wotc profits. The rc hasn’t done nearly any of the work for the job they “volunteered” for In years. They are just absorbing the clout and see-sawing the opinions to try and draw in attention and followers
To me Seth gave one of if not the biggest problem that I have with the "social contract" thing. If I go to my LGS with my commander deck I have THIS deck and maybe one more and that's it. I can't just talk with people and be like: ok I'll take out the Dockside and the Cyclonic Rift and just create a bunch of cards out of thin air that work in the deck. That's not how it works. I'd have to be prepared with basically a side board to my commander decks just in case cards in the deck are deemed bad by the people at the table. In my eyes the ban list should fight that exact issue. If I came to that same table when Dockside is banned and be like "hey guys is it ok if I play Dockside?" and everyone is cool with it, then it is my responsibility to have the Dockside on hand and know what to take out for it. That kind of side board would be acceptable since it would be my choice and my responsibility to have it and to maintain it and to ask the table if any of those cards are still fine rather than forceing me to have something ready in case the table decides a card that is officially not banned is unacceptable to play. What I do with my friends / regular playgroup is not effected by the RC anyways. We play how we want.
I dont think that's a real scenario though. First off the person who runs dockside, rift and other "unfun" cards has spend so much money that that was a clear decision to make a powerful deck. Second the same thing goes for someone with just a single precon. Sure they are allowed to play but they might as well not if all other players are playing on a higher powerlevel
I'm still baffled why cards like Cradle, Bazaar and Workshop are still legal when there are cards on the banlist that are banned because of monetary reasons.
I run a meet-up group for commander that sees a good number of new players. One thing I really push is that people should always carry a deck that can play at a precon table. It’s an obligation for established players to be able to play at that power level, or to find a different pod.
The RC wants to balance things for games with strong social contracts while random games on MTGO and LGS are the most frustating ones to play. Rule 0 only works with your besties and not everyone have 3 besties to play with every week. The RC really needs to change
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts? personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
It’s hard to tell what you are trying to say. Do we want RC to be less hands on and promote the community to sort out great player experiences? Or do we need RC bans to help that sorting out? In my experience with commander for nearly a decade now, most players in the game will not see eye to eye, nor are they empathetic and care about fun for all. There’s just something about this community that perpetuates self-isolating behavior and desires. Either bans will make those people mad but ensure they don’t create non-games or bad experiences, OR those people magically change their minds with enough rule 0 conversations and reconstruct their decks with a more stable game in mind.
@@VexylObby The rule 0 doesn't work if you aren't playing with friends therefore a harsher banlist would help a lot on random MTGO/LGS games. Instead of using the rule 0 to ban cards we could use rule 0 to unban cards.
@@VexylObby each lgs can come up with a decent ban list if some players think about it carefully... official banlists suck as you can see in legacy, modern etc and is a lot of work to keep it updated...
I agree with Dockside having the problems of Primetime, being a creature devolves everything into a minigame around the one game object. The single pip doesn't help, meaning any deck, not just red-centric ones can abuse it. The multicolored value piles get even more degenerate, flickering, cloning and recurring it easily to jump ludicrously ahead. That being said, while cards like Dockside (and to a smaller extent Jeska's Will) are pointedly broken, I think that an element of the bad beats comes from the way Red Ramp works. You cast it and then use those resources immediately and dramatically. If bad things happen your opponents "remember why", it was that pushed new card that "ruined the game." People forget that red doesn't just impulsive draw, it impulsive ramps, so you don't get the same separation that other ramp has before your opponent buries you. Ignoring the gross problems of in multicolour decks, Dockside and Jeska's Will are going to crop up in every mono-red deck because the next ten best "red" ramp spells are all borderline unplayable. Gauntlet of Might isn't really 2020+ magic. Coffers, Mana Drain, Green as a colour, all cheat way ahead on mana in ways that are pointedly broken for "slower" formats like commander. Goblin matron is an ramp staple in red, not because the -first- Dockside you cast is always that good, but because there isn't a -fair- alternative for red. Rocks don't cut it in an era of Culling Rituals, Farewells and everything having a disenchant mode. I don't care if Dockside gets banned, (I don't really play it, too many clone effects in my playgroup for it to backfire) if it is banned though, it should be banned for being more -degenerate- and splashable than other forms of ramp, not for being more powerful. Red still needs mid-power and even busted high-power ramp cards that are more devoted to it's color identity, instead of being literally the only red card you see tacked into 3C, 4C and 5C decks. Don't like being that long-comment reply-guy, but it came up in the last podcast too, and I didn't feel like the issues with it were addressed beyond "what a mistake, ban it, I hate it."
The 'social contract' and 'rule 0' basically boils down to one player getting upset at the end of the game and telling other people not to play certain cards. This method of banning actually doesn't work well, funnily enough. (Anyways, you can't ban Dockside before they can sell some in a Secret Lair, eh?)
Richard gets close to it; we need effective ways to have efficient rule 0 conversations. Stuff like "power levels" or "no infinites" are attempts at this, but they suck. If the RC wants "Rule 0" to be the standard, they could start showing people how to do that quickly & effectively.
29:33-29:40 "This is how liberty dies..." By successfully paying the RC to mismanage the format for it's best half a decade, the community now asks for their overlord to take full control and ascend to the status of Supreme Rules Committee and to dictate their bannings and restrictions from on high like the financial wizards that they are. Because *THAT* will go well. There won't be financially motivated bannings if WOTC is in charge of the format. Think about the implications of what you're asking for. WOTC always has been unfit to manage the EDH format, and nothing has changed about that. The only thing that has changed is that the Rules Committee has issued a public announcement of the results of their internal vote of no confidence and the results were clear: "The Rules Committee strongly urges players to look elsewhere for guidance in the management of the EDH format."
I agree. The issue is that the RC (Sheldon) wants to play commander like its 2013. That's a small problem compared to the large problems that would be created by WotC absorbing the RC. I also think Sheldon may actually be the best to continue heading the RC. He just needs to get outside his narrow headspace.
I question why the RC even exists if they insist that people just communicate better. It's like going to court to settle something and the judge going "you all be adults and work things out".
@@VexylObby its a catch 22 they made for themselves with the "social contract" approach to the rules. They set themselves up to be that way by making everything they say a suggestion. The RC put themselves in the middle of and focus on established groups that don't need them instead of sheparding new players towards that kind of experience.
@@MrOfTheSea It's a catch 22 from the community, actually. The community asks for more intervention, and the community asks for less intervention. I don't see how that can be confused.
@@VexylObby the problem is that you need to pick a direction. Either provide proper guidance, or get out of the way. As is they just sit there obstructing things without actually providing much.
my favorite part of my playgroup’s social contract is that something is ok to be a surprise once. like if you have an infinite combo, you don’t have to announce it, but going forward, everyone will openly talk about it. Also, we socially police ourselves, if we’re stomping on everyone else consistently, we take apart that deck and make something else. Once the playgroup is in a place where that power level can fit in, then we can bring it back. It helps that we generally work with big budgets though so building a new deck is usually a no brainer
An important lesson about life is to understand that we cannot expect others to think or behave as we ourselves would. It’s nice that you guys make those kinds of choices, but the community at large is not as empathetic nor considerate.
My problem is the discussion of “well games have to end” are happening in my playgroups by turn 6 and it’s incredibly frustrating as wizards prints all these cards specifically for commander making the game faster.
This! I used to love EDH because you could play the higher mana value cards that you can't play in other formats. I would love to go back to an EDH format that is slower and the focus is on finding fun cards to play. We could even spin off cEDH to their own format (call it legacy singleton) so that the format stays slower and more fun card focused
I had to add a great deal of upgrades for the speed of my Darien deck as I was getting blown out by turn four or fie and not even being close to having Darien out and running.
I'm so glad to hear y'all come to these conclusions about the RC. I've been trying to have this conversation with people since Paradox Engine was banned.
Just a question from your podcast. Lets say the RC does become active with the banlist for pickup games and bans a 100 cards or more to get rid of all the 'problem cards' would you support this?
Yes! In a format with something like 25,000 cards, adding a few dozen should be absolutely nothing. That said, I think it would only take around 15-ish bans to really get rid of 99% of the problems. It's almost all related to the fastest mana and some of the most efficient combos, and maybe a few of the hardest prison-style cards.
As an avid cEDH player, I can attest to the fact that dockside is much more problematic for cEDH than thoracle is. Thoracle is a good wincon, but if it gets banned it can be replaced by jace or lab man. A lot of decks run jace already. Dockside is single-handedly pushing certain types of stax strategies, and just artifact and enchantment decks in general, completely out of the format. There's honestly not really even a comparison between the two. Dockside is a much larger problem. Oracle is just a wincon, dockside is an enabler that can also be a wincon. You can use it to get infinite mana, or even play cards like mayhem devil to kill your opponent through sacking the treasures. Decks are all playing phantasmal image just to get their own copies, or second copies, of dockside. Another note about thoracle: I've always been an advocate for banning consultation and tainted pact over oracle. 1 and 2 mana ways to exile your entire library will never be printed again now that wotc knows how potent that type of ability is. Leveler, or the 4 mana blue enchantment that allows you to do it, is a lot more fair. Oracle-type cards will definitely be printed again, and the chances that wizards prints another card as powerful or almost as powerful as thoracle is far less likely than another d-con or tainted pact IMO.
Bro why does dockside trigger off enchantments as well as artifacts like why is the red card including enchantment hate in its artifact hate effect aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I think the point about 'does the social contract conversation happen in other games?' is a little lacking nuance. MTG doesn't need a social contract because it's a competitive game with formats that have clearly defined rules and ban lists (modern, standard, legacy etc). EDH is a fan made format and is neither entirely competitive (traditionally) nor co-op. It's a weird hybrid and because it's essentially table magic those conversations become more necessary. If the RC were to regulate it similar to how WOTC regulate modern/standard it would lose all semblance of being the format it was originally.
As the other person said it isnt what it used to be, its a vast format with the equivalent (but better) of a companion for everyone, arguably the most broken mechanic ever created by wotc. And because of those factors it should be much more regulated.
from the day that it got named commander and got cards printed for it specificly it stopped just being a fan format. and now that it has become the biggest format out of all and gets more special products than any other format it is not even remotely what it used to be.
The rc falls on the rule zero conversation To dictate what is allowed in a game of commander while simultaneously banning cards for "philosophical" reasons which is absurd.
No, they understand not everyone has the ability to ban cards with a rule zero discussion. The ban list is the baseline for people who do not know each other. They literally could not care less if people play with Moxes and Hullbreecher if everyone there wants to .
@@matthoward6130 If it was a base line there should be more cards banned as people are not going to look at it as "hey this shit alt win con card no one likes playing against these types so don't play these" they see it and think "ok so the ban list says to not play that SPECIFIC card got it"
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena thats a fine opinion, the RC doesn't share it. They built the format to what it is, I think they understand the playerbase. You don't get interest when a hundred cards are banned.
@@matthoward6130 If they understand the playerbase they would not have banned golos. Sign post bans are really fucking stupid as it confuses people a lot as you have stuff like Iona 9 cmc banned but other degenerate stuff that does the same thing while being cheaper in mana not banned. Coalition Victory is banned but cards like Halo fountain are not like what the player base really wants is a consistent ban list. And if they are not going to ban cards based on price anymore they should un ban all the ones they banned based on price A lot of people would not complain much if the ban list was consistent or if they switch out the banned cards for the newer versions that are actually easier to play and pull off which would be great for a sign post ban list
Even though I only play ten tix commander, I always just put "Play Whatever" in my MTGO lobby descriptions for that authentic LGS mismatched power level vibes.
I start of a lot cedh lobby’s and see so many people go straight from a cedh lobby without enough people to a “play whatever” lobby. Real LGS vibes from those people
I think the last thing we want is WotC running the RC. You saw what they did with Brawl and almost all the broken cards come from their design team for commander products. WotC doesn’t have healthy gameplay in mind.
WOTC already runs commander though. The RC doesn't do nearly enough to curb that impact from the FIRE design philosophy and the pushed cards that get injected into the format. In my opinion, we are quickly approaching or maybe already reached the point where the RC is effectively useless.
Brawl is actually very well designed as a format, they’re pretty quick to ban anything problematic. The team that handles card design and the team that manages formats are different groups, and the Brawl format is honestly very well managed.
Brawl has been a much better format than commander for it's entire lifespan. At least the one in arena, don't know anything about "real" brawl 4 player multiplayer with standard cards, but it seems cool.
The word I would use instead of “fun” is “enjoyment”. As long as everyone is not in “negative-enjoyment” then it’s a good play experience. When one person pulls ahead, as long as it doesn’t lead to the other three players being in “negative-enjoyment” (Armageddon is a good example) it is relatively ok. Remember that there is a difference between a player being on the back foot during a game(losing) and a player experiencing “negative-enjoyment”.
i completely disagree with Richard, the commander advisory group is made of players because they game is made by players to be free, kind of like DnD. The worst thing that could happen is wizards trying to sculpt the format to their image
I feel like another big problem with the ban list is a lack of a "banned as commander" & "banned in the 99" lists. Grislebrand is a fine card as a commander, and completely disgusting in the 99. Magic players have the ability to distinguish between two slight types of ban lists, and I think it would at least make the format far more interesting to play in, especially if bans were more aggressive.
I feel like with the power levels and going back to the speed of commander after that podcast, the ban list could probably do with a hard reset. A lot of cards on the banlist would be pushed out for better cards. My friends let me try Primeval Titan in a Tatyova deck and my personal option was that it ended up being too slow, which is crazy to me.
Yeah obviously Prime Time is a very strong creature, but there are soooo many better options at this point. I don’t think it would be an autoinclude if unbanned. Just compare it to Nyxbloom Ancient at only 1 more mana lol. Nyxbloom is heaps and bounds and leagues better than any 2 land combo Prime Time gets and I almost never see people complain about Nyxbloom.
@@akimatt "Nyxbloom is... better than any 2 land combo Prime Time gets..." No. Prime Time isn't about ramp, it's about winning the game on the spot with a combo. Sure, it can also ramp your mana, but what it actually does is win the game by fetching two lands and winning, dealing with a problem board state, or flooding the board. Tutoring 2 lands each time over and over is way more powerful than just increasing your mana.
@James Black Hour of Promise happens ONCE, and doesn't have a body attached. Nylea's Intervention puts them in your hand, and isn't remotely comparable, LOL (and it only happens once, and doesn't have a body).
I think its better to ask permission than to ask forgiveness. What, am I supposed to carry around a list of cards I don't like and recite it to every group I play with? Its not like everyone has replacements on them that they can just swap out. But if the RC would just make a more aggressive ban list, it'd be a LOT easier to ASK your group, "Hey, this is the deck I wanna play, it uses this banned card, is that okay with you guys?" and if the answer is a NO, you can have pre-planned to have a card to swap out for it instead. Ultimately, it feels like the RC is just shirking all of the responsibility onto the players to create the banlist on the fly every time we sit down to play the game.
I think it is a catch 22 for the RC. We complain that there are too many rules or bans, then we complain when the RC listens to that complaints and decides to let the players sort out their preferences.
True story: When I built Teferi (TTA), I just jammed it full of cards I've always liked, cards I wanted to play, cards that are generically good with walkers, and some tutors to go get said cards. Thing is, I've been playing Magic since '94, so the cards I've always liked were things like Stasis, Winter Orb, Mana Drain, and Tabernacle, and generically good cards were things like The Chain Veil. I built that right when Teferi was spoiled, well before anyone had any idea the deck was any good. When I told people what was in it, the prevailing opinion was that it was weak and slow (because, "How are you going to protect your commander?"). It was only after several months that attitudes started shifting, and slowly at that, so even after I'd been winning consistently before turn 6, i had people telling me the deck was too slow for a quick game. If there's one thing I've learned over nearly 30 years of play, it's this: Magic players usually don't know what they're talking about.
Agreed that the inconsistency about the bannings is based on either laziness and/or wotc pulling the strings behind the scenes. Because as you well pointed out, the RC should rather ban too many problematic cards, than too few. If you crave to play a banned card and the playgroup agrees, you can indeed rule 0 it. But the other way around, players will more often than not bring problematic cards, without even realizing that they are problematic. The current banlist is not a good "guide line" imo, but almost the exact opposite. A contradictive, confusing, random list of cards, that is ironcally even leaving out some of the most problematic and oppressive cards.
Was every other deck at the table playing green? It's hella hard to ramp without artifacts when not playing green. 90% of the time, it goes mana neutral I would wager. Someone's got their talisman out, or signet.
@@thevp_ssb. austere command, cleansing nova, shattering spree... you're not always going to see rocks all the time. Not saying every game it sits around but it does. Or there's like 2 or 3 artifacts where it just goes mana even or less.
@@Renamawn mana even is still advantage. If a card said, 1R, sorcery, make two treasures, it still likely would see play. Also you suggest some hefty cmc artifact/enchantment board wipes, when Dockside gets enough value turn 2 or 3 really to still fuel future plays.
@@thevp_ssb. yep, can't disagree there. Like I said, I've had it sit in hand before because you don't want to waste it on 2 treasures, no artifacts or you don't have a good enough hand/board that you can't handle the target that it puts on you :P dockside kind of reminds me of the argument about gaea's cradle. Sometimes you play it and it taps for nothing. Sometimes you play it and it taps for 10, everyone wants to steal it or destroy it or untap it and do silly stuff. Only difference is price and only green mana?
My opinion is that the RC has lost legitimacy due to arbitrary rulings and a new authority should replace it. Two main changes should occur: the ban list should be tiered to allow for efficient communication of different power levels in the very diverse format of commander, and 'banned as commander' should be reinstated as a subtype of bans. An example of a tiered ban list would be as follows: Tier 0: Simply would be EDH with no ban list. Tier 1: Would only ban cards that warp the cEDH format, including cards that are overpowered in almost every format and cards that are particularly over-powered or annoying in EDH. (Example: Power 9, Channel, Tinker, Flash, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Lutri, Balancce, Karakas, Shaharazard, etc. are banned; Leovold, maybe Grislebrand, etc. are banned as commander; conversely, Hullbreacher, Upheaval, Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. are unbanned.) Tier 2: Would ban cards that are too powerful outside of cEDH play, including cards that have previously warped the EDH format. The difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 would not be large, but would be closer to the current EDH ban list. (Example: Demonic Consultation, Paradox Engine, Prophet of Kruphix, Grislebrand etc. are banned; perhaps Tymna and Thrasios are banned as paired-partner commanders; but Hullbreacher, Upheaval, Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. remain unbanned). Tier 3: Would ban cards that are the best at providing either ramp, tutor capability, card advantage, or stax. (Example: Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Primeval Titan, Hullbreacher, Dockside Extorntionist, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Rhystic Study, Necropotence, Armageddon, etc. are banned; maybe Golos, Urza, St. Augustine, Tegrid, etc. are banned as commander; yet Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. remain unbanned). Tier 4: Would ban the most powerful combo pieces and other cards that disrupt the ability to play battlecruiser magic, as well as some of the most broken commanders in the format. (Example: Coalition Victory, Thassa's Oracle, Kiki-Jiki, etc. are banned; Korvold, Chulane, Kinnan, etc. are banned as commanders; and everything else is unbanned). Additionally, every card that is banned in a lower tier would also be banned in a higher tier, such that the ban list for Tier 1 is also banned in Tiers 2, 3, 4, etc. I think this would be comprehensible and allow for better pick up games and healthier EDH format for every player.
Rule 0 is the absolute worst facet of Commander. I am happy the boys brought up board games in comparison. In my experience with strangers Rule 0 is lieing about your own deck while pointing out all the broken shit in someone else's deck. It's a sub-game to socially leverage yourself and the major purpose of Rule 0 is to help the Rules Committee be hands off with their format. "Well Rule 0 exists soo..." is the topic I've heard over and over in justifying why commander gets to be the way it is.
I feel like the other time you see a rule 0 aspect is dnd. And similarly to commander it’s a complicated game where you do want to have fun with your friends. And you want both the players and the dm are enjoying themselves.
It’s because both games are incredibly vast and chaotic otherwise. I think the goal is to make ordinary EDH games like a board game. And that requires balancing decks and card choices.
Well thought out and presented. The RC hand-waving and general hiding under Rule 0 really doesn’t work well in venues like MTGO and is generally discouraging. You correctly point out that the Rule 0 is a sliding scale where there stronger the group, the less need for band/rules but this doesn’t protect formats where there isn’t necessarily that kind of group cohesion. The RC should each okay at least 4 blind games a week on MTGO to get a feel for that environment.
The problem with Thassa's Oracle (+Demonic consultaion) is the rate. It's basically just as powerful as Time Vault + Voltaic Key, even costing one less to set off. Vault-Key also doesn't _literally_ win the game, though the 2 colors do make Thoracle a bit tougher than all generic.
Around the time return to ravnica came out I got the chance on a podcast to ask Sheldon how involved they are with sets. I asked him if he was aware of card designs before they released and if they had input on them, at the time bringing up extort because that was a crazy mechanic back then. He told me while they didn't technically have authority or input on card design they were close friends with people at wizards on a personal level so they of course talked about card designs. Just my input and personal story about how much they're really involved with design when you guys were talking about the companion guy
I think there should be multiple banlists that can modally be applied to decks. One banlist for overall balance, one for power, one for fun, etc. That way when you introduce your deck, you can specify which lists it follows AND allows you to discuss in a pickup game which list(s) you want to prioritize. It will also allow players to express their deckbuilding priorities by which rule sets it follows. Additionally for newer players, it IS slightly more complicated and confusing but far less than it currently is. Having a very aggressive cumulative banlist for a deck to qualify for all lists makes decks that are far more beginner friendly.
The problem with Dockside isn't actually Dockside. The problem lies inherently Ina format with Sol rings, Mana crypts, and Rhystic studies. Not to mention, we are already in a Dimir/Simic world in Edh, red is allowed to have one good card if blue gets every other good card.
The RC states that they ban cards that become ubiquitous, but then Sol Ring is given full reign just because it's grandfathered in... That's what the RC is to me... They're like that guy in the office that you never see until there's a mandatory meeting. They'll make a presence and unban a card or two just to keep a paycheck, but then can't be found when any real work needs to be done... So because nobody is working, nothing changes. They feel like they've already done their job, and nothing will be done moving forward unless someone complains enough.
I disagree that WotC should hire the RC, Dockside was printed by WotC. If the RC get paid by WotC, they can be fired and be replaced by other and hurt the format...
Amazing conversation! If you guys invited Sheldon or someone from the CAG, I think it would be great to hear their counterpoints! As one of the biggest podcasts on commander, they would probably accept an invitation
A ban list is a tool to curate a format to reach specific goals, whether that's power level, particular strategies, accessibility etc. With commander as it currently is, banning based on power level is only going to make sense at the cEDH level, otherwise a cards power level is going to be very subjective and based on playgroup to play group. Aside from power level, there aren't clear enough guidelines as to what kinds of strategies or game play the format wants, in order to actually make consistent bans.
And of course, there are other reasons to ban. Like for general player experience. When people go to sit down for hours long games with strangers, do they want to be locked out of the game with regressive stax pieces? In a perfect world, people would consider the experience of the table. But playing with strangers often doesn’t guarantee that.
I mean theres some cards that, objectively, are miles ahead above everything like Sol ring, Mana crypt and Dockside. If you say otherwise, I would say youre in denial. The ban list should be for those cards.
@@MrMarclax I'm a bit confused how this comment connects to my post. To clarify, when it comes to evaluating a cards power I think that they should be evaluated by how they would be used in a cEDH deck. The cards you listed are frequently found in the cEDH format so I agree they are powerful. If you want to change the philosophy of EDH and lower the format's power level, banning those cards would make sense.
RC basically saying: We know pickup groups need a more comprehensive banlist, but we're lazy so you can discuss among yourselves before games and decide for yourselves
I like the analogy of board game night, but everybody's bringing their own portion of the game. My board game nights are *filled* with discussion about what board games we're wanting to play, and it's often a long negotiation. It's like trying to agree on pizza toppings where you want to maximize the toppings you want and minimize the toppings you're meh about while avoiding everybody's dislikes.
Hear me out: Curated ban lists. Imagine the pre-game conversation going something like this: "We're playing with the Commander Clash season 25 ban list", or "hey I'm looking for a pickup game and I'm willing to play any card pool where it's legal like the No fast mana, No mass land destruction and the Crim's No Tutors list". Imagine a website (similar to Cube Cobra) where anyone can create their play group's custom list and then over time some of these (maybe by prominent community members) will become popular for pick up games abd public events.
Here's what I reckon the ban list should be like (the stuff written below here should be exactly how it's written, just with actual lists of cards rather than examples)... "There should be three lists: A - Ban list B - Power/Salt consideration list C - Contentious list A = Power nine, shahrazad, dockside extortionist, etc. B = Cards that typically lead to very powerful play patterns or styles of play disliked by many in the community (e.g. the best fast mana, tergrid, smothering tithe, jeska's will, expropriate). These are cards you should consider not playing more than a couple of in decks, unless you're in an appropriate setting for them. C = Cards that could fall into category B, but are less egregious and more subjective. Do not be surprised if a playgroup chooses to limit their use to cultivate the environment they desire. E.g. chaos cards, 2-mana rocks, extra turn spells, tutors, low effort combo wins etc. (In practice this will be a list that cards get added to that are talked about a lot in the community, with the worst things making it into the B list) Ultimately, commander is a casual format where playgroups can create the experience they want. All three lists are only an advisory platform to voice many of the common concerns within the community. They are especially important when playing with new acquaintances in order to have the best play experience together."
I liked when Seth brought up "do people talk or have the social contract in other games" around 15 minutes in. Honestly, no most of the time because games for the most part have a rule set to follow and the goal in most is to win or advance to a good stopping point. Yes some have some flexibility, Sentinels of the Multiverse for example you can pick your team to combat the enemy deck, but once the game starts there are rules to follow and a goal set. EDH follows the standard MTG rules (mostly) but the idea that it isn't about winning probably takes away more then people realize. Think of this, cEDH tables/pods don't have to have a convo, they know the expectation and what is coming. However, the more casual tables have to have a convo and break down decks/cards in order to "get the desired game". I'm not saying the mind set of players needs to change in EDH, I enjoy all types of games personally, I'm just pointing out what I have seen and heard.
How about having several banlists? One common suggestion is to separate CEDH and casual commander, why not add a third tier to that for beginners. It's commonly accepted that tier 1 & 2 decks basically don't exist unless intentionally built that way, tier 3,4 & 5 can all play together, 6, 7 & 8 can all play together and 9 & 10 are cEDH. To me that sounds like three common tiers of play and therefore three formats. The beginner tier (casual commander) would mostly share the banlist of the upper tier (competitive commander), but also a blanket ban on cards costing more than a set amount (say $25) and further bans based on power that would prevent fair competition against pre-con decks. This would exclude cards like Dockside, original dual lands etc and ensure all casual players can readily define their game. Competitive commander would then be differentiated from cEDH by bans on cEDH staples, such as Moxs, Mana Crypt, a handful of tutors, mass land destruction and Thassa. Then cEDH would have minimal bans, only used to prevent truly format warping mistakes from WotC. I know this would still end up problematic since players would inevitably optimise decks for each tier (as seen with Pauper), but banlists could then be flexible to ensure casual commander remains accessible to new players.
Tomer at 20:00 is right. The best rule 0 is to just play a game or 2 and then adjust. The worst thing is people who only play one single pick up game then complain.
In an LGS context, that’s a bit unreasonable, and takes up most of your time. And I think that’s a big part of all this, we use things like rule 0 or bans to maximize time and enjoyment ratios.
@@VexylObby maybe in a perfect world that would work. I agree that bans should be better though. Really there should really be like 3 types of CMD. FFA - no bans, standard - some bans, strict - heavily banned. That way people can sit down say I have a standard-commander deck and then know what to expect without a useless rule 0 talk.
@@VexylObby Magic as a game already has some of the most complex rules. People that play can handle a simple list. The whole purpose of commander is that it is an eternal format. I think that is enough to unify people.
I've said it before. For almost a decade. Banlists should cater for the masses, for the public. For pub games. Banlists and rules exist to protect the layman. The average player. An established group already have their own set of houserules. Banlists and rules should protect the single individual going into a public space seeking a neutral game. Existing groups are extremely hard to break into; you either fall in love with their philosophy or you are opposite of it. The RC are mostly dinosaurs. Their rules assumes everyone plays at their basement. Social contract should by meaning, disassociate themselves from anti-social cards. AKA taking turns, mass-discard, mass-LD. That should be the starting point.
I think banning for 'Power Level' is really tricky, but fast mana should have an asterisk on it or something so people know it's a step above mass land destruction, which is a step above stasis locks, which is a step above turn 1 win in terms of obnoxious. Obviously Sol Ring can help with all kinds of decks, but it's not something that's adding fun to many decks I'd argue. I run it where I want to see it every opener, so it's in High Power and cEDH decks. I don't run it in my Chaos deck, even though it likes ramping a great deal, I run some Mana Batteries instead, a bit slower but they have upside if you want coloured mana really badly, and want multiple mana sometimes. I like being able to play some bad old cards, can the banlist be designed to accommodate my Pavel Maliki jank Land Hate/Chaos deck? Who knows. It's complicated stuff, but I think there are people that would have fun vs that deck, but most play groups would be salty by the 4th wipe effect. Having a team of volunteers manage the 'rules' of a multi-billion dollar gaming industry seems openly insane. I'm not sure if it helps to have them be WotC employees, but they should be getting funds to at least do more research into both what people actually run/want to be able to run/hate running into in a deep way. They do out-source to other people who also play, IE ask for advice from the advisory group, but they could be casting a wider net with the newfound popularity of Commander.
Like im a newbie and im trying to build a coma deck like on game nights and i was gonna put in a jeweled lotus i pulled randomly and i have no idea if any of those cards r "frowned upon"
I've been really unsure for a while if I really wanted to get into yet another commander pod cast. After watching this video and the insights you guys expressed, there's no turning back now lol. Well done 👏
The RC should just rename the ban list as "suggestions not to include" list which would align with their vision. This would remove the confusion and stigma that a banlist creates where rule zero is constantly a thing in EDH.
You scrap the ban list save cards that LITERALLY don’t work in commander (trade secrets, limited resources) and then create an extensive “Geneva conventions” list that identifies problematic cards.
Is this a hot take? I don’t see thorical as the problem it is cards like demonic consultation and tainted pact. The fact that you can go through your entire deck for 1-2 mana at instant speed is the problem. If any cards should see bans it is those two.
Same, to add to that I also see the wheels as the issues rather than the narsets and the hullbreachers. But they printed so many everyone wheel cards so they target the no extra cards instead.
@@jasonm2245 with wheel effects I see it slightly differently. Hullbreached and Tergrid would still be game breaking with out wheels the amount of value and hate you get from those cards is game braking. wheeling your opponents into having no hand doesn’t advance your game state it is just mean. It is why hullbreacher is band and narset is not and why Tergrid should be.
Min. 28: I strongly disagree with Richard. The nice trait of EDH was exactly that it wasn't controlled by Wizards. In fact, each time Wizards actively take interest in a format, they screw it. Look how it went for Legacy, and then Modern, and then again Standard... Now it's EDH's turn. Handing the ban list to Wizards would only accelerate the decaying process. I mean, do you sincerely think Dockside Extortionist was an "accident"? No. They knew it was busted, they knew it would sell packs, so they put it in. Same for Thassa's Oracle, Underworld Breach, Fierce Guardianship, Drannith Magistrate, Jeweled Lotus, Hullbreacher, Opposition Agent... The list can go forever. I mean, shall we mention the Walking Dead? Are you seriously handing the last decent format left for MtG (besides Old School) to them? 🤨
You don't even know how WRONG you are sir. This hate about wizards is what has ruined the format and people LIKE YOU are to the reason, because people doesn't want wizards to manage edh wizards can just laid back and print whatever shit they want knowing that if the card is busted people are just going to rule 0 it or play it no matter what If wizards controlled the format at least they would start to bother looking at what they print instead of simply using "shit/rule 0" as a shield
@@golem001px I'm not buying any new card since Ikoria, if this appeases you, sir. Also, when saying I'm WRONG (all caps) you also agree they "don't bother and just print whatever shit they want" (almost literal quoting from you, sir). You then go on explaining that, by giving more power to someone who's clearly messing with the format, they will all of a sudden start doing the exact opposite of what they're doing so far. Impeccable logic, man, I'm impressed by your brilliant mind and will retire in loneliness for the rest of my life. 🤣🤣🤣
@@marcellosalis5063 WAO you haven't buy anithing since ikoria 😆😆😆😆 what a strong will 🤣🤣🤣🤣 i didn't know this comment section had a clown, next time don't forget yoyr make up 🤡
Richard at 24:31 is incorrect they are not the same. Dockside scales off your opponents, Titan scales off your deck. You can build around Titan and if you steal/reanimate someone else's you get something you put in your deck. I'm not saying Dockside isn't good, I'm saying everyone constantly comparing them aren't advancing their argument.
32:05 If there is an argument against Dockside Extortionist, the issue isn’t about running Dockside Extortionist and winning too often. The issue is the same as Primeval Titan. These two cards have huge ramp potential and them being on the battlefield (or in the graveyard) overcentralizes the game. Both give a huge advantage when they come into play, sure, but recursion and duplication exacerbate their issues. If I Phantasmal Image or destroy and reanimate Dockside Extortionist the game becomes degenerate… and anyone not doing that is suddenly far behind.
I really think we need like 4 'weight categories' with separate ban lists, each focusing on certain player experience. All of these meant for random strangers which meet at LGS. Within closed playgroups, any rules should be allowed. 1. cEDH - no banlist or minimal banlist 2. Power - something like the current banlist. All crazy combos and salty strategies allowed. 3. Casual - Carefully calibrated ban list of cards and strategies that ensures everyone has fun (no mass discard, MLD, solitaire etc.) - basically following the 'Philosophy of Commander' 4. Junk - precons and decks constructed purely for fun without any chance of winning against Power, or even Casual decks. Underdog tribes, theme decks like 'chair deck' etc.... This is just a rough idea. Of course, it would require an EXTENSIVE research and experimentation to create such categories with working ban lists.
The best way to find out what your playgroup is like is if you play whims of fate if they put all their permanents into one pile. Also, primeval titan is banned and Dockside Extortionist isnt because Dockside is in a precon and the RC isn't totally out of reach of WOTC. WOTC 100% has to influence the RC somehow. Just like when the walking dead secret lairs were released and everyone was calling for those versions of the cards being banned. WOTC probably said something like "hey we are selling this product, if you ban it and reduce our profits, we are going to take over the ban list."
55:36 To Tomer's point, I won a game this very evening with my unaltered AFR Draconic Rage precon. If WotC truly wishes to onboard new players with their preconstructed decks, they need to make all of them as synergistic as that one; full stop.
Hear me out - no ban list. Instead clarify power levels. Archetype examples, card examples, combo examples, game pace examples, all identified as "typically power level (X)". Rather than leave the quick rule zero conversation up to the chance at a disconnect between players in personally identifying power level have a very well defined list of examples of power.
This is what I brought up to my group at the shop, and we designed a rough template of what the power levels are and the shop keep thought it was so cool that the basically made it into a poster and put it on the wall so new players either new to the game or just area know what roughly translates when we say power level 5 or 7.
I think a better baseline definition of the scale would go a long way. Even if it meant saying something like "overall I'm a power level X, but I do have 5 Y level cards and 1 Z level combo, so probably a high X all things given." Knowing what those numbers translated to through an abundance of examples would be fantastic.
I had a heated discussion with my friend who I played with for the first few years of commander. She brought up that wizards dragged their feet to unban blood braid and Jace in modern and to ban Lurrus for years. How would they treat the ban list in commander? And would they go off of casual, semi casual, or competitive needs for bannings? Would they allow dockside in cedh but not casual or just ban Oracle outright because of cedh as examples? Would money become even more of a driving force behind playing or leaving the format?
Groups also police themselves without banning anything. My buddy has changed his one deck several times to de-power it because when he pulls it out he gets ganged up on. And not like, out of the gate. He does something and we deal with it. Or we know what cards let him go off, so we answer those cards before he can go off. Then, as a whole, our LGS is pretty consistently power 5-7 I'd say. No one plays CEDH. If we want that kind of play, we play Canadian Highlander. I've never sat down at a pickup group and had it be a bad experience. Only time I've had bad commander games is when we tried to run competitive tournaments for it, save ones we did where it was 'Everyone plays one of the new precons'.
Dockside does not need to be banned if your meta is a creature based, the real problem is the amount of fast artifacts in the format that dockside feeds off of. If dockside is a problem then your play group should have more artifact and enchantment hate cards to deal with them. You can't get treasure tokens if there are no artifacts or enchantments in play, or simply play more cards that hate on ETB triggers. The problem could be solved with more printing of hate cards that stop or punish ETB triggers.
I completly agree. Why have a banned list at all? Just free the non ante cards and call it a day. If social contracts are the king, everything else should be legal.
Totally agree. Honestly, when I sit down and play with my friends, we ignore typical rules most of the time unless we get into some weird interaction we're unsure about. We've let people play with unconventional commanders, play with decks that don't follow the color identity rules, play with cards that are banned (as long as they're not being obnoxious about it), ect. What the rules people decide has no bearing on my usual play group. The ban list needs to be for when I go to my local game store and I'm playing with total strangers.
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts? personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
a large % of players don't know who sheldon is or whom the rc is, they just see a ban list. edh used to be for the vorthos community which consisted of people with a vast knowledge of the game and they took for granted an understanding that you would do extra research or be part of a steady group. Today we have people learning how to play through commander which is bad for the game in that they will not have the concept of its history as a format. the other issue is we now have all the spikes in casual settings, this format was supposed to be the respite from competitive play. The rc does have access to wizards and they do have a team in the cag. Keeping the ban list as open as possible is good for everyone except spikes/cedh. Dockside is fine if you play something odd with it, but if you reanimate it in some infinite loop then why are you playing in an unbalanced game? It's on cedh players to have the rule 0 convo, and also maybe if you want to play complete junk, the rest of us dont need to spend alot of time but it should be addressed with new to you players. What we need from sheldon is some clarification as to what is considered casual. I recommend a suggested casual list with things like armagedon/expropriate and such. This would allow them to make a large list which will further explain the type of game we should be cultivating. this would also allow a smaller ban list for cards such as biorythem.
The thing about dockside is that it's only as good as your playgroups decklists. I've seen it make 15 treasures in CEDH and 5 or less in regular edh. It's wildly variable in power level, I don't really think it's a problem.
I think there should be more than one banlists based on power level. Then there could be a high power level with all the fast mana like sol ring, mana crypt, etc. legal. It's like 1 on 1 magic with modern, vintage, etc. Than everyone had a simple conversation at the beginning.
I've been listening to the podcast for less than 10 minutes and it looks already like you guys have found an elegant way to say what I'd definitely state in a much less polite fashion... Nice job guys, I'll definitely watch the whole video, I just couldn't wait an hour before upvoting it.
I honestly am fine with the excuse of, "these cards don't need to be banned because people can discuss their use beforehand," because of what Seth was saying about Thassa's oracle and Tegrid. I think there's some decks that will use these cards fairly, and others that will push them to oppressive levels, kind of like the examples Seth gave of oracle being used as another lab man. Even dockside has some decks that are using him fairly, since not every deck is trying to do something broken with those resources, and some need the extra shot to do something fun, but not necessarily powerful. No, my problem is the consistency thing. Primeval titan doesn't need to be on there when dockside is ok, they fill similar roles. Biorhythm doesn't need to be on there when much faster and more consistent finishers exist. What the ban list should be used for is 3 types of cards in my opinion. 1: Cards that artificially elongate the game. Cards like Shaharazad, paradox engine, Leovold, prophet of Krufix, all kinda belong here because they bring games to screeching halts. 2: Cards that are excessively hard to fight against. Again, prophet of krufix and engine, but also cards like Iona, where a player can get locked out of the game pretty easily with no recourse. My problem with that card isn't that it's too powerful, but that even in a fair application it still ends up creating a situation where an opponent can't play the game. Imo, commander and cedh should probably have separate ban lists, since cards like flash could probably have some cool niche applications in casual games, and cards like Iona would be way less feel bad in cedh. 3: Cards that are inaccessible to play with, but create power disparity. Cards like gaea's cradle, or tabernacle, original dual lands, etc. put players on unequal footing through outside resources that don't depend on deckbuilding or play skill. What's worse is that dual lands have near universal utility, and will not be accessible to most players looking to play magic for fun. Not to mention, Gaea's cradle in particular is capable is capable of putting out power similar to a dockside extortionist in the right deck, and even enabling degenerate strategies like the Edric extra turns strategy. I would say that cards on the reserve list over $100 are pretty fair targets. If we saw a b and r list with criteria closer to that, it'd make me happy.
Can you *please* add Phil to these discussions? He's newer to commander AND has a great perspective on the game, I think he'd fit right in and add some fun banter to the group!
Richard is right about the custom set of rules. Expropriate isn’t bad if there is a counter spell influence across your playgroup. And when Seth said that if they banned dockside ppl would play anyways… that’s wrong, they will take it out of their deck even if their friends have decks that can fight back. Thereby ruining dockside for everyone not just the people who thought it was too powerful for their Boris devilboon deck.
the whole point of the ban list SHOULD be for people that DON'T have a social contract... It's much easier to talk to your friends and say "Hey im okay if you play hullbreacher in your deck" than it is to say "Hey i really hate your expropriate, can you take it out"
Yeah, deviant behavior is fine with people who are okay with it. If someone goes to a dinner party without clothes on, it's completely expected they'd be kicked out or denied entry; but if a group of people who know each other well get together and decide they collectively want a private nudist dinner party, good for them.
Manners are fundamental, and commander doesn't have a properly grounded set of expected manners.
This just isn't how the social contract works in reality. A ban is a ban for virtually every player, social contract or no. That being the case, the RC should maximise the available card pool as much as possible.
@@gamermancrygamer9461 that's really not true, in my Sunday before D&D playgroup we have a person with a Lutri deck (as his commander not as a companion), a person who runs a Learn deck with a wish board, and someone who still plays hullbreacher, and we ignore the 3 mana cost to wish a companion to your hand, because we all agreed to allow these things, that's literally the social contract working the way you said it doesn't.
@@VivBrodock We have wishboards too, hell my LGS has a wishboard, but they don't have a custom banlist. A custom banlist is way more granular as a rules object, which makes it more cumbersome to deal with. Hullbreacher still being legal in your playgroup is pretty interesting. I'd be curious to know, have you made any old banned cards legal retroactively?
@@gamermancrygamer9461 agree with you. the ban list supercedes the social contract virtually all the time. i asked to play worldfire some years ago and it was met with friction at the table. that friction solely came from the ban list and now its not on the ban list I feel looking back now it makes me resent the banlist and the friction it brought into the group for me as a result.
Seth hit it on the head in the beginning of the podcast. Ban lists make sense for people who are playing "pickup" games of commander. That way everyone at least has a common frame or reference.
I think you’re missing the point here. (Granted I haven’t seen the entire podcast yet at time of writing) but I think the point was that the RC’s idea for the purpose of the ban list is backwards and makes no sense for what they’re going for and the expectations of what all would need to be put into a singular game of commander. As opposed to simply making the ban list to be the guideline so that you don’t have to have half an hour of talking for games that could take extremely long points of time as Is without that addition.
Also on like 1/2 of those I agree with you, although with worldfire in my playgroup it kinda just became a mean where somebody would just go “worldfire” or on the one time where somebody did everybody did it
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts?
personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
@@Lusk1993 in the case of worldfire, i think even the most casual group can play around a 9 mana spell that wins the game. Is not even that different that craterhoof or a x=7 torment of hellfire
@@Lusk1993 There are a thousand "unfun" cards. Banning cards because they are unfun is a pointless excercise in subjective belief. The banlist should entail only cards which are actively problematic for the format, and Rule 0 should cover groups that want to ban unfun cards.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT: We know these cards are a problem. Talk about it in your group. *Wait that makes the entire banlist void.
They are walking on eggshells… they don’t want to dump the prices of powerful new cards
They want people to self police which is fine, but we are long from the days of old and way more people play are playing commander online or at game stores vs strangers.
The ban list needs to be done for the tables that aren't preformed groups. The kitchen table or groups will still self police and change as they always have.
Yeah, but the currently ban list is incredibly ineffective at this. We need a new one.
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts?
personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
@@robertdarnhofer536 I took a glance, it's funny to have Winota banned but not Zur. I liked seeing stuff like Protean Hulk banned, that card is too simple to combo off with, it's anti-fun to most playgroups so I like seeing that kind of stuff added.
@@mightyone3737 it is no easy task to create or update a sensible banlist as you can see in competetive formats... i think each lgs could come up with a decent one if they work with some players...
@@robertdarnhofer536 WAO SO YOUR SOLUTION IS TO HAVE 1 DECK FOR EVERY GAME STORE YOU GO??? THAT'S SO SMART!!!
🙄🙄🙄
I mean, the RC can't stop everyone from playing banned cards in their playgroup if everyone in the group agrees to it. The RC just needs to update the philosophy behind the banlist to be more about pickup games at your LGS with strangers and less about your playgroup that you get together with every week.
That would require them to not be terminally lazy. Rule Zero/Social Contract is a smokescreen to dodge responsibility to actually manage the format.
That's literally what it says. People want to ignore how the RC says that time and again just to call them names. It's a lazy, untrue, argument.
Exactly. Regular play groups are very much self balancing. If you play an obnoxious deck or card, people aren't gonna want you to play that. The ban list needs to be for playing with strangers to keep people from getting frustrated at a LGS game.
Honestly the amount of shitty board game night I've had explicitly because no one talked about what they wanted to do is plentiful. Like having a conversation of what kind of game you expect to play whether or not your goals are socialization or the game itself and everything else is very important. No one wants to get drunk and chat with friends and be expected to participate in a high stakes game they barely know the rules of.
Listening to this discussion was SO cathartic for me. You absolutely nailed my feelings of frustration with the ban list, the rules committee, the format as a whole, and Wizards in general.
I’ve literally said a lot of this stuff on the RC discord. I got laughed at for making the same monarchy comparison they did. Sheldon has some really sussy anti-democracy views, at least in terms of commander.
@@soren1803 sheldon is an aging relic who will probably die soon, hopefully after he's 6 feet under there would be more progress on the banlist.
@@soren1803 he’s a despot, who is high on power. His ego is ridiculous and the banlist is just an extension of said ego. Good job, you “created” edh. I doubt the format wouldn’t have been created without him tbh, it just seems like an eventuality.
@@hahahafunniness even historically, someone else made the ruleset, he just popularized it
@@soren1803 lol not surprised. Every time he talks about commander, you can just feel the smugness. Par for the course of the nepotism that overruns WotC.
Magic Online should allow for custom
Ban lists when you create a Commander Room to play and see what are the most banned cards
That’s a really cool idea I love this
thats a good idea
Lol, true but that's a lot of work and would lead to people feeling picked on.
The point of a ban list is to ensure that any table of random people who have never played together before don’t have to spend as much time talking pregame to play a game that everyone likes.
The rules committee is creating a lax excuse that says every group should be cliqueish and have there own rules that they enforce on anyone who plays with them.
That’s not in the spirit of the game. I want to play with more people and make more friends by playing, not having a conversation before the game more in depth than a date on what people do and don’t like from among 25k + cards that can basically end up saying someone is not going to be able to play because everything they have has something someone else doesn’t like.
It’s poppycock rubbish and pandering to wotc profits. The rc hasn’t done nearly any of the work for the job they “volunteered” for In years. They are just absorbing the clout and see-sawing the opinions to try and draw in attention and followers
To me Seth gave one of if not the biggest problem that I have with the "social contract" thing.
If I go to my LGS with my commander deck I have THIS deck and maybe one more and that's it. I can't just talk with people and be like: ok I'll take out the Dockside and the Cyclonic Rift and just create a bunch of cards out of thin air that work in the deck. That's not how it works. I'd have to be prepared with basically a side board to my commander decks just in case cards in the deck are deemed bad by the people at the table.
In my eyes the ban list should fight that exact issue. If I came to that same table when Dockside is banned and be like "hey guys is it ok if I play Dockside?" and everyone is cool with it, then it is my responsibility to have the Dockside on hand and know what to take out for it. That kind of side board would be acceptable since it would be my choice and my responsibility to have it and to maintain it and to ask the table if any of those cards are still fine rather than forceing me to have something ready in case the table decides a card that is officially not banned is unacceptable to play.
What I do with my friends / regular playgroup is not effected by the RC anyways. We play how we want.
I dont think that's a real scenario though. First off the person who runs dockside, rift and other "unfun" cards has spend so much money that that was a clear decision to make a powerful deck.
Second the same thing goes for someone with just a single precon. Sure they are allowed to play but they might as well not if all other players are playing on a higher powerlevel
I'm still baffled why cards like Cradle, Bazaar and Workshop are still legal when there are cards on the banlist that are banned because of monetary reasons.
Timetwister is legal and it’s more than those three combined :(
@@MichaelJohnMAGA don't forget is a power 9
I run a meet-up group for commander that sees a good number of new players. One thing I really push is that people should always carry a deck that can play at a precon table. It’s an obligation for established players to be able to play at that power level, or to find a different pod.
The RC wants to balance things for games with strong social contracts while random games on MTGO and LGS are the most frustating ones to play.
Rule 0 only works with your besties and not everyone have 3 besties to play with every week.
The RC really needs to change
Thank god someone with common sense. This ^
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts?
personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
It’s hard to tell what you are trying to say.
Do we want RC to be less hands on and promote the community to sort out great player experiences? Or do we need RC bans to help that sorting out?
In my experience with commander for nearly a decade now, most players in the game will not see eye to eye, nor are they empathetic and care about fun for all. There’s just something about this community that perpetuates self-isolating behavior and desires. Either bans will make those people mad but ensure they don’t create non-games or bad experiences, OR those people magically change their minds with enough rule 0 conversations and reconstruct their decks with a more stable game in mind.
@@VexylObby
The rule 0 doesn't work if you aren't playing with friends therefore a harsher banlist would help a lot on random MTGO/LGS games.
Instead of using the rule 0 to ban cards we could use rule 0 to unban cards.
@@VexylObby each lgs can come up with a decent ban list if some players think about it carefully... official banlists suck as you can see in legacy, modern etc and is a lot of work to keep it updated...
I agree with Dockside having the problems of Primetime, being a creature devolves everything into a minigame around the one game object. The single pip doesn't help, meaning any deck, not just red-centric ones can abuse it. The multicolored value piles get even more degenerate, flickering, cloning and recurring it easily to jump ludicrously ahead.
That being said, while cards like Dockside (and to a smaller extent Jeska's Will) are pointedly broken, I think that an element of the bad beats comes from the way Red Ramp works. You cast it and then use those resources immediately and dramatically. If bad things happen your opponents "remember why", it was that pushed new card that "ruined the game." People forget that red doesn't just impulsive draw, it impulsive ramps, so you don't get the same separation that other ramp has before your opponent buries you.
Ignoring the gross problems of in multicolour decks, Dockside and Jeska's Will are going to crop up in every mono-red deck because the next ten best "red" ramp spells are all borderline unplayable. Gauntlet of Might isn't really 2020+ magic. Coffers, Mana Drain, Green as a colour, all cheat way ahead on mana in ways that are pointedly broken for "slower" formats like commander. Goblin matron is an ramp staple in red, not because the -first- Dockside you cast is always that good, but because there isn't a -fair- alternative for red. Rocks don't cut it in an era of Culling Rituals, Farewells and everything having a disenchant mode.
I don't care if Dockside gets banned, (I don't really play it, too many clone effects in my playgroup for it to backfire) if it is banned though, it should be banned for being more -degenerate- and splashable than other forms of ramp, not for being more powerful. Red still needs mid-power and even busted high-power ramp cards that are more devoted to it's color identity, instead of being literally the only red card you see tacked into 3C, 4C and 5C decks.
Don't like being that long-comment reply-guy, but it came up in the last podcast too, and I didn't feel like the issues with it were addressed beyond "what a mistake, ban it, I hate it."
The 'social contract' and 'rule 0' basically boils down to one player getting upset at the end of the game and telling other people not to play certain cards. This method of banning actually doesn't work well, funnily enough.
(Anyways, you can't ban Dockside before they can sell some in a Secret Lair, eh?)
Richard gets close to it; we need effective ways to have efficient rule 0 conversations. Stuff like "power levels" or "no infinites" are attempts at this, but they suck. If the RC wants "Rule 0" to be the standard, they could start showing people how to do that quickly & effectively.
Seths basketball analogy was spot on for me
29:33-29:40 "This is how liberty dies..." By successfully paying the RC to mismanage the format for it's best half a decade, the community now asks for their overlord to take full control and ascend to the status of Supreme Rules Committee and to dictate their bannings and restrictions from on high like the financial wizards that they are. Because *THAT* will go well. There won't be financially motivated bannings if WOTC is in charge of the format. Think about the implications of what you're asking for. WOTC always has been unfit to manage the EDH format, and nothing has changed about that. The only thing that has changed is that the Rules Committee has issued a public announcement of the results of their internal vote of no confidence and the results were clear: "The Rules Committee strongly urges players to look elsewhere for guidance in the management of the EDH format."
I agree. The issue is that the RC (Sheldon) wants to play commander like its 2013. That's a small problem compared to the large problems that would be created by WotC absorbing the RC. I also think Sheldon may actually be the best to continue heading the RC. He just needs to get outside his narrow headspace.
I question why the RC even exists if they insist that people just communicate better. It's like going to court to settle something and the judge going "you all be adults and work things out".
To build on that analogy, the judge has experienced enough people saying "you pass judgement too much!" It's a catch 22 people put on the RC.
@@VexylObby its a catch 22 they made for themselves with the "social contract" approach to the rules. They set themselves up to be that way by making everything they say a suggestion. The RC put themselves in the middle of and focus on established groups that don't need them instead of sheparding new players towards that kind of experience.
@@MrOfTheSea It's a catch 22 from the community, actually. The community asks for more intervention, and the community asks for less intervention. I don't see how that can be confused.
@@VexylObby the problem is that you need to pick a direction. Either provide proper guidance, or get out of the way. As is they just sit there obstructing things without actually providing much.
@@soren1803 Besides the point. The point is that the community is screaming for both.
my favorite part of my playgroup’s social contract is that something is ok to be a surprise once. like if you have an infinite combo, you don’t have to announce it, but going forward, everyone will openly talk about it. Also, we socially police ourselves, if we’re stomping on everyone else consistently, we take apart that deck and make something else. Once the playgroup is in a place where that power level can fit in, then we can bring it back. It helps that we generally work with big budgets though so building a new deck is usually a no brainer
An important lesson about life is to understand that we cannot expect others to think or behave as we ourselves would. It’s nice that you guys make those kinds of choices, but the community at large is not as empathetic nor considerate.
My problem is the discussion of “well games have to end” are happening in my playgroups by turn 6 and it’s incredibly frustrating as wizards prints all these cards specifically for commander making the game faster.
This! I used to love EDH because you could play the higher mana value cards that you can't play in other formats. I would love to go back to an EDH format that is slower and the focus is on finding fun cards to play. We could even spin off cEDH to their own format (call it legacy singleton) so that the format stays slower and more fun card focused
@@adamfiliatreault3393 Legacy singleton is pretty much already its own format, it's called Canadian Highlander!
I had to add a great deal of upgrades for the speed of my Darien deck as I was getting blown out by turn four or fie and not even being close to having Darien out and running.
work on a banlist with your lgs
@@adamfiliatreault3393 lol are u delusional? People would just play the same broken shit in regular EDH.
I have extreme social anxiety and I’m autistic so “just talk out the rules,” turns magic from an escape into a temporary nightmare for me.
I'm so glad to hear y'all come to these conclusions about the RC. I've been trying to have this conversation with people since Paradox Engine was banned.
Love all the content crew! Appreciate everything you guys do!
Just a question from your podcast. Lets say the RC does become active with the banlist for pickup games and bans a 100 cards or more to get rid of all the 'problem cards' would you support this?
Yes! In a format with something like 25,000 cards, adding a few dozen should be absolutely nothing. That said, I think it would only take around 15-ish bans to really get rid of 99% of the problems. It's almost all related to the fastest mana and some of the most efficient combos, and maybe a few of the hardest prison-style cards.
My issue with the ban list is some of the choices like Prime Time seem to be based more in personal bias versus the broader available data.
As an avid cEDH player, I can attest to the fact that dockside is much more problematic for cEDH than thoracle is. Thoracle is a good wincon, but if it gets banned it can be replaced by jace or lab man. A lot of decks run jace already. Dockside is single-handedly pushing certain types of stax strategies, and just artifact and enchantment decks in general, completely out of the format. There's honestly not really even a comparison between the two. Dockside is a much larger problem. Oracle is just a wincon, dockside is an enabler that can also be a wincon. You can use it to get infinite mana, or even play cards like mayhem devil to kill your opponent through sacking the treasures. Decks are all playing phantasmal image just to get their own copies, or second copies, of dockside.
Another note about thoracle: I've always been an advocate for banning consultation and tainted pact over oracle. 1 and 2 mana ways to exile your entire library will never be printed again now that wotc knows how potent that type of ability is. Leveler, or the 4 mana blue enchantment that allows you to do it, is a lot more fair. Oracle-type cards will definitely be printed again, and the chances that wizards prints another card as powerful or almost as powerful as thoracle is far less likely than another d-con or tainted pact IMO.
Bro why does dockside trigger off enchantments as well as artifacts like why is the red card including enchantment hate in its artifact hate effect aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I think the point about 'does the social contract conversation happen in other games?' is a little lacking nuance. MTG doesn't need a social contract because it's a competitive game with formats that have clearly defined rules and ban lists (modern, standard, legacy etc). EDH is a fan made format and is neither entirely competitive (traditionally) nor co-op. It's a weird hybrid and because it's essentially table magic those conversations become more necessary. If the RC were to regulate it similar to how WOTC regulate modern/standard it would lose all semblance of being the format it was originally.
I dont know what exactly ur going for, but no offense the format already isnt the same it was at its origin nor it will ever be again
As the other person said it isnt what it used to be, its a vast format with the equivalent (but better) of a companion for everyone, arguably the most broken mechanic ever created by wotc. And because of those factors it should be much more regulated.
from the day that it got named commander and got cards printed for it specificly it stopped just being a fan format. and now that it has become the biggest format out of all and gets more special products than any other format it is not even remotely what it used to be.
The rc falls on the rule zero conversation To dictate what is allowed in a game of commander while simultaneously banning cards for "philosophical" reasons which is absurd.
Exactly
No, they understand not everyone has the ability to ban cards with a rule zero discussion. The ban list is the baseline for people who do not know each other. They literally could not care less if people play with Moxes and Hullbreecher if everyone there wants to .
@@matthoward6130 If it was a base line there should be more cards banned as people are not going to look at it as "hey this shit alt win con card no one likes playing against these types so don't play these" they see it and think "ok so the ban list says to not play that SPECIFIC card got it"
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena thats a fine opinion, the RC doesn't share it. They built the format to what it is, I think they understand the playerbase. You don't get interest when a hundred cards are banned.
@@matthoward6130 If they understand the playerbase they would not have banned golos. Sign post bans are really fucking stupid as it confuses people a lot as you have stuff like Iona 9 cmc banned but other degenerate stuff that does the same thing while being cheaper in mana not banned. Coalition Victory is banned but cards like Halo fountain are not like what the player base really wants is a consistent ban list. And if they are not going to ban cards based on price anymore they should un ban all the ones they banned based on price
A lot of people would not complain much if the ban list was consistent or if they switch out the banned cards for the newer versions that are actually easier to play and pull off which would be great for a sign post ban list
Even though I only play ten tix commander, I always just put "Play Whatever" in my MTGO lobby descriptions for that authentic LGS mismatched power level vibes.
What's your username? I'll add you I don't like playing high power stuff
@@Veggie_King MonsterCC :D
@@MonsterCC hahaha of coures!!
I start of a lot cedh lobby’s and see so many people go straight from a cedh lobby without enough people to a “play whatever” lobby. Real LGS vibes from those people
I do find it weird that they have no issue with Thoracle, which wins almost accidentally but coalition victory which takes so much effort is banned
I think the last thing we want is WotC running the RC. You saw what they did with Brawl and almost all the broken cards come from their design team for commander products. WotC doesn’t have healthy gameplay in mind.
WOTC already runs commander though. The RC doesn't do nearly enough to curb that impact from the FIRE design philosophy and the pushed cards that get injected into the format. In my opinion, we are quickly approaching or maybe already reached the point where the RC is effectively useless.
Brawl is actually very well designed as a format, they’re pretty quick to ban anything problematic.
The team that handles card design and the team that manages formats are different groups, and the Brawl format is honestly very well managed.
@@Dragiceoriginal I’m mainly talking about the design of the initial brawl commanders and how they warped the commander format.
@@davidarmstrong3964
That's was just an overall card design issue, not an issue with the format regulation specifically.
Brawl has been a much better format than commander for it's entire lifespan. At least the one in arena, don't know anything about "real" brawl 4 player multiplayer with standard cards, but it seems cool.
The word I would use instead of “fun” is “enjoyment”. As long as everyone is not in “negative-enjoyment” then it’s a good play experience. When one person pulls ahead, as long as it doesn’t lead to the other three players being in “negative-enjoyment” (Armageddon is a good example) it is relatively ok. Remember that there is a difference between a player being on the back foot during a game(losing) and a player experiencing “negative-enjoyment”.
i completely disagree with Richard, the commander advisory group is made of players because they game is made by players to be free, kind of like DnD. The worst thing that could happen is wizards trying to sculpt the format to their image
I feel like another big problem with the ban list is a lack of a "banned as commander" & "banned in the 99" lists. Grislebrand is a fine card as a commander, and completely disgusting in the 99. Magic players have the ability to distinguish between two slight types of ban lists, and I think it would at least make the format far more interesting to play in, especially if bans were more aggressive.
I love how seth's crack theory about the dockside reprint is now a reality
This week on commander clash, we discuss the origin of power.
Great discussion guys.
The RC are using their ban list to target the absolute last people who need a banlist...
Sometimes I wonder "who hurt you crim?" but that kings jersey answered that for me
I feel like with the power levels and going back to the speed of commander after that podcast, the ban list could probably do with a hard reset. A lot of cards on the banlist would be pushed out for better cards. My friends let me try Primeval Titan in a Tatyova deck and my personal option was that it ended up being too slow, which is crazy to me.
Yeah just shows how far the power level has come. But they'd have to ban like 200 cards to get it back where it was lol
Yeah obviously Prime Time is a very strong creature, but there are soooo many better options at this point. I don’t think it would be an autoinclude if unbanned.
Just compare it to Nyxbloom Ancient at only 1 more mana lol. Nyxbloom is heaps and bounds and leagues better than any 2 land combo Prime Time gets and I almost never see people complain about Nyxbloom.
@@akimatt "Nyxbloom is... better than any 2 land combo Prime Time gets..."
No. Prime Time isn't about ramp, it's about winning the game on the spot with a combo. Sure, it can also ramp your mana, but what it actually does is win the game by fetching two lands and winning, dealing with a problem board state, or flooding the board.
Tutoring 2 lands each time over and over is way more powerful than just increasing your mana.
@James Black Hour of Promise happens ONCE, and doesn't have a body attached. Nylea's Intervention puts them in your hand, and isn't remotely comparable, LOL (and it only happens once, and doesn't have a body).
Prime Time sees moderm play. Its never too slow when it can win you the game. Card is nuts
I think its better to ask permission than to ask forgiveness. What, am I supposed to carry around a list of cards I don't like and recite it to every group I play with? Its not like everyone has replacements on them that they can just swap out. But if the RC would just make a more aggressive ban list, it'd be a LOT easier to ASK your group, "Hey, this is the deck I wanna play, it uses this banned card, is that okay with you guys?" and if the answer is a NO, you can have pre-planned to have a card to swap out for it instead. Ultimately, it feels like the RC is just shirking all of the responsibility onto the players to create the banlist on the fly every time we sit down to play the game.
I think it is a catch 22 for the RC. We complain that there are too many rules or bans, then we complain when the RC listens to that complaints and decides to let the players sort out their preferences.
True story: When I built Teferi (TTA), I just jammed it full of cards I've always liked, cards I wanted to play, cards that are generically good with walkers, and some tutors to go get said cards. Thing is, I've been playing Magic since '94, so the cards I've always liked were things like Stasis, Winter Orb, Mana Drain, and Tabernacle, and generically good cards were things like The Chain Veil.
I built that right when Teferi was spoiled, well before anyone had any idea the deck was any good. When I told people what was in it, the prevailing opinion was that it was weak and slow (because, "How are you going to protect your commander?"). It was only after several months that attitudes started shifting, and slowly at that, so even after I'd been winning consistently before turn 6, i had people telling me the deck was too slow for a quick game.
If there's one thing I've learned over nearly 30 years of play, it's this: Magic players usually don't know what they're talking about.
Agreed that the inconsistency about the bannings is based on either laziness and/or wotc pulling the strings behind the scenes. Because as you well pointed out, the RC should rather ban too many problematic cards, than too few. If you crave to play a banned card and the playgroup agrees, you can indeed rule 0 it. But the other way around, players will more often than not bring problematic cards, without even realizing that they are problematic. The current banlist is not a good "guide line" imo, but almost the exact opposite. A contradictive, confusing, random list of cards, that is ironcally even leaving out some of the most problematic and oppressive cards.
I know dockside is powerful, but I've had dockside sit in my hand because there were no artifacts on the field. Its powerful against powerful decks
Was every other deck at the table playing green? It's hella hard to ramp without artifacts when not playing green. 90% of the time, it goes mana neutral I would wager. Someone's got their talisman out, or signet.
@@thevp_ssb. austere command, cleansing nova, shattering spree... you're not always going to see rocks all the time. Not saying every game it sits around but it does. Or there's like 2 or 3 artifacts where it just goes mana even or less.
@@Renamawn mana even is still advantage. If a card said, 1R, sorcery, make two treasures, it still likely would see play. Also you suggest some hefty cmc artifact/enchantment board wipes, when Dockside gets enough value turn 2 or 3 really to still fuel future plays.
@@thevp_ssb. yep, can't disagree there. Like I said, I've had it sit in hand before because you don't want to waste it on 2 treasures, no artifacts or you don't have a good enough hand/board that you can't handle the target that it puts on you :P dockside kind of reminds me of the argument about gaea's cradle. Sometimes you play it and it taps for nothing. Sometimes you play it and it taps for 10, everyone wants to steal it or destroy it or untap it and do silly stuff. Only difference is price and only green mana?
I have multiple commander decks that don't have single targets for dockside and I've made them before dockside was printed
Richard around 48:00 just solidified my opinions on this entire issue. Way to go, Richard!
My opinion is that the RC has lost legitimacy due to arbitrary rulings and a new authority should replace it. Two main changes should occur: the ban list should be tiered to allow for efficient communication of different power levels in the very diverse format of commander, and 'banned as commander' should be reinstated as a subtype of bans. An example of a tiered ban list would be as follows:
Tier 0: Simply would be EDH with no ban list.
Tier 1: Would only ban cards that warp the cEDH format, including cards that are overpowered in almost every format and cards that are particularly over-powered or annoying in EDH. (Example: Power 9, Channel, Tinker, Flash, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Lutri, Balancce, Karakas, Shaharazard, etc. are banned; Leovold, maybe Grislebrand, etc. are banned as commander; conversely, Hullbreacher, Upheaval, Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. are unbanned.)
Tier 2: Would ban cards that are too powerful outside of cEDH play, including cards that have previously warped the EDH format. The difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 would not be large, but would be closer to the current EDH ban list. (Example: Demonic Consultation, Paradox Engine, Prophet of Kruphix, Grislebrand etc. are banned; perhaps Tymna and Thrasios are banned as paired-partner commanders; but Hullbreacher, Upheaval, Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. remain unbanned).
Tier 3: Would ban cards that are the best at providing either ramp, tutor capability, card advantage, or stax. (Example: Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Primeval Titan, Hullbreacher, Dockside Extorntionist, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Rhystic Study, Necropotence, Armageddon, etc. are banned; maybe Golos, Urza, St. Augustine, Tegrid, etc. are banned as commander; yet Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, etc. remain unbanned).
Tier 4: Would ban the most powerful combo pieces and other cards that disrupt the ability to play battlecruiser magic, as well as some of the most broken commanders in the format. (Example: Coalition Victory, Thassa's Oracle, Kiki-Jiki, etc. are banned; Korvold, Chulane, Kinnan, etc. are banned as commanders; and everything else is unbanned).
Additionally, every card that is banned in a lower tier would also be banned in a higher tier, such that the ban list for Tier 1 is also banned in Tiers 2, 3, 4, etc. I think this would be comprehensible and allow for better pick up games and healthier EDH format for every player.
The problem with Sol Ring is if you ban it then every official commander precon is illegal. Then new players suffer quite a bit from that.
Rule 0 is the absolute worst facet of Commander. I am happy the boys brought up board games in comparison. In my experience with strangers Rule 0 is lieing about your own deck while pointing out all the broken shit in someone else's deck. It's a sub-game to socially leverage yourself and the major purpose of Rule 0 is to help the Rules Committee be hands off with their format. "Well Rule 0 exists soo..." is the topic I've heard over and over in justifying why commander gets to be the way it is.
If it's a group you regularly play with you don't need it... if it's with a pickup group it doesn't help.
I feel like the other time you see a rule 0 aspect is dnd. And similarly to commander it’s a complicated game where you do want to have fun with your friends. And you want both the players and the dm are enjoying themselves.
It’s because both games are incredibly vast and chaotic otherwise. I think the goal is to make ordinary EDH games like a board game. And that requires balancing decks and card choices.
Well thought out and presented. The RC hand-waving and general hiding under Rule 0 really doesn’t work well in venues like MTGO and is generally discouraging. You correctly point out that the Rule 0 is a sliding scale where there stronger the group, the less need for band/rules but this doesn’t protect formats where there isn’t necessarily that kind of group cohesion. The RC should each okay at least 4 blind games a week on MTGO to get a feel for that environment.
The problem with Thassa's Oracle (+Demonic consultaion) is the rate. It's basically just as powerful as Time Vault + Voltaic Key, even costing one less to set off. Vault-Key also doesn't _literally_ win the game, though the 2 colors do make Thoracle a bit tougher than all generic.
I don't really get the Golos ban. There are a number of cards with similar or the exact same effect.
Is there another 5-color commander that tutors any land?
"Our rules are targeted at people who are going to ignore the rules anyway"
Thanks, rules committee
Around the time return to ravnica came out I got the chance on a podcast to ask Sheldon how involved they are with sets. I asked him if he was aware of card designs before they released and if they had input on them, at the time bringing up extort because that was a crazy mechanic back then. He told me while they didn't technically have authority or input on card design they were close friends with people at wizards on a personal level so they of course talked about card designs. Just my input and personal story about how much they're really involved with design when you guys were talking about the companion guy
I think there should be multiple banlists that can modally be applied to decks. One banlist for overall balance, one for power, one for fun, etc. That way when you introduce your deck, you can specify which lists it follows AND allows you to discuss in a pickup game which list(s) you want to prioritize. It will also allow players to express their deckbuilding priorities by which rule sets it follows.
Additionally for newer players, it IS slightly more complicated and confusing but far less than it currently is. Having a very aggressive cumulative banlist for a deck to qualify for all lists makes decks that are far more beginner friendly.
The problem with Dockside isn't actually Dockside. The problem lies inherently Ina format with Sol rings, Mana crypts, and Rhystic studies. Not to mention, we are already in a Dimir/Simic world in Edh, red is allowed to have one good card if blue gets every other good card.
The RC states that they ban cards that become ubiquitous, but then Sol Ring is given full reign just because it's grandfathered in... That's what the RC is to me... They're like that guy in the office that you never see until there's a mandatory meeting. They'll make a presence and unban a card or two just to keep a paycheck, but then can't be found when any real work needs to be done... So because nobody is working, nothing changes. They feel like they've already done their job, and nothing will be done moving forward unless someone complains enough.
I disagree that WotC should hire the RC, Dockside was printed by WotC. If the RC get paid by WotC, they can be fired and be replaced by other and hurt the format...
Amazing conversation! If you guys invited Sheldon or someone from the CAG, I think it would be great to hear their counterpoints! As one of the biggest podcasts on commander, they would probably accept an invitation
A ban list is a tool to curate a format to reach specific goals, whether that's power level, particular strategies, accessibility etc. With commander as it currently is, banning based on power level is only going to make sense at the cEDH level, otherwise a cards power level is going to be very subjective and based on playgroup to play group. Aside from power level, there aren't clear enough guidelines as to what kinds of strategies or game play the format wants, in order to actually make consistent bans.
Why ban anything then?
And of course, there are other reasons to ban. Like for general player experience. When people go to sit down for hours long games with strangers, do they want to be locked out of the game with regressive stax pieces?
In a perfect world, people would consider the experience of the table. But playing with strangers often doesn’t guarantee that.
I mean theres some cards that, objectively, are miles ahead above everything like Sol ring, Mana crypt and Dockside. If you say otherwise, I would say youre in denial. The ban list should be for those cards.
@@MrMarclax I'm a bit confused how this comment connects to my post. To clarify, when it comes to evaluating a cards power I think that they should be evaluated by how they would be used in a cEDH deck. The cards you listed are frequently found in the cEDH format so I agree they are powerful. If you want to change the philosophy of EDH and lower the format's power level, banning those cards would make sense.
@@Pintyhet to curate the format to reach specific goals
RC basically saying: We know pickup groups need a more comprehensive banlist, but we're lazy so you can discuss among yourselves before games and decide for yourselves
I like the analogy of board game night, but everybody's bringing their own portion of the game. My board game nights are *filled* with discussion about what board games we're wanting to play, and it's often a long negotiation. It's like trying to agree on pizza toppings where you want to maximize the toppings you want and minimize the toppings you're meh about while avoiding everybody's dislikes.
Hear me out: Curated ban lists.
Imagine the pre-game conversation going something like this: "We're playing with the Commander Clash season 25 ban list", or "hey I'm looking for a pickup game and I'm willing to play any card pool where it's legal like the No fast mana, No mass land destruction and the Crim's No Tutors list".
Imagine a website (similar to Cube Cobra) where anyone can create their play group's custom list and then over time some of these (maybe by prominent community members) will become popular for pick up games abd public events.
Here's what I reckon the ban list should be like (the stuff written below here should be exactly how it's written, just with actual lists of cards rather than examples)...
"There should be three lists:
A - Ban list
B - Power/Salt consideration list
C - Contentious list
A = Power nine, shahrazad, dockside extortionist, etc.
B = Cards that typically lead to very powerful play patterns or styles of play disliked by many in the community (e.g. the best fast mana, tergrid, smothering tithe, jeska's will, expropriate). These are cards you should consider not playing more than a couple of in decks, unless you're in an appropriate setting for them.
C = Cards that could fall into category B, but are less egregious and more subjective. Do not be surprised if a playgroup chooses to limit their use to cultivate the environment they desire. E.g. chaos cards, 2-mana rocks, extra turn spells, tutors, low effort combo wins etc. (In practice this will be a list that cards get added to that are talked about a lot in the community, with the worst things making it into the B list)
Ultimately, commander is a casual format where playgroups can create the experience they want. All three lists are only an advisory platform to voice many of the common concerns within the community. They are especially important when playing with new acquaintances in order to have the best play experience together."
I liked when Seth brought up "do people talk or have the social contract in other games" around 15 minutes in. Honestly, no most of the time because games for the most part have a rule set to follow and the goal in most is to win or advance to a good stopping point. Yes some have some flexibility, Sentinels of the Multiverse for example you can pick your team to combat the enemy deck, but once the game starts there are rules to follow and a goal set. EDH follows the standard MTG rules (mostly) but the idea that it isn't about winning probably takes away more then people realize. Think of this, cEDH tables/pods don't have to have a convo, they know the expectation and what is coming. However, the more casual tables have to have a convo and break down decks/cards in order to "get the desired game". I'm not saying the mind set of players needs to change in EDH, I enjoy all types of games personally, I'm just pointing out what I have seen and heard.
How about having several banlists? One common suggestion is to separate CEDH and casual commander, why not add a third tier to that for beginners. It's commonly accepted that tier 1 & 2 decks basically don't exist unless intentionally built that way, tier 3,4 & 5 can all play together, 6, 7 & 8 can all play together and 9 & 10 are cEDH. To me that sounds like three common tiers of play and therefore three formats.
The beginner tier (casual commander) would mostly share the banlist of the upper tier (competitive commander), but also a blanket ban on cards costing more than a set amount (say $25) and further bans based on power that would prevent fair competition against pre-con decks. This would exclude cards like Dockside, original dual lands etc and ensure all casual players can readily define their game.
Competitive commander would then be differentiated from cEDH by bans on cEDH staples, such as Moxs, Mana Crypt, a handful of tutors, mass land destruction and Thassa.
Then cEDH would have minimal bans, only used to prevent truly format warping mistakes from WotC.
I know this would still end up problematic since players would inevitably optimise decks for each tier (as seen with Pauper), but banlists could then be flexible to ensure casual commander remains accessible to new players.
Tomer at 20:00 is right. The best rule 0 is to just play a game or 2 and then adjust. The worst thing is people who only play one single pick up game then complain.
In an LGS context, that’s a bit unreasonable, and takes up most of your time.
And I think that’s a big part of all this, we use things like rule 0 or bans to maximize time and enjoyment ratios.
@@VexylObby maybe in a perfect world that would work. I agree that bans should be better though. Really there should really be like 3 types of CMD. FFA - no bans, standard - some bans, strict - heavily banned. That way people can sit down say I have a standard-commander deck and then know what to expect without a useless rule 0 talk.
@@KingQuetzal Sure, that's an option. But you also make the rules of the format that much more complex, AND you divide the community.
@@VexylObby Magic as a game already has some of the most complex rules. People that play can handle a simple list.
The whole purpose of commander is that it is an eternal format. I think that is enough to unify people.
@@KingQuetzal We don't need complexity upon complexity. Either we simplify what we have, or eliminate regulations entirely.
For the future could you link the pages your discussing in the description?
I've said it before. For almost a decade. Banlists should cater for the masses, for the public. For pub games.
Banlists and rules exist to protect the layman. The average player.
An established group already have their own set of houserules.
Banlists and rules should protect the single individual going into a public space seeking a neutral game. Existing groups are extremely hard to break into; you either fall in love with their philosophy or you are opposite of it.
The RC are mostly dinosaurs. Their rules assumes everyone plays at their basement.
Social contract should by meaning, disassociate themselves from anti-social cards. AKA taking turns, mass-discard, mass-LD. That should be the starting point.
I think banning for 'Power Level' is really tricky, but fast mana should have an asterisk on it or something so people know it's a step above mass land destruction, which is a step above stasis locks, which is a step above turn 1 win in terms of obnoxious. Obviously Sol Ring can help with all kinds of decks, but it's not something that's adding fun to many decks I'd argue. I run it where I want to see it every opener, so it's in High Power and cEDH decks. I don't run it in my Chaos deck, even though it likes ramping a great deal, I run some Mana Batteries instead, a bit slower but they have upside if you want coloured mana really badly, and want multiple mana sometimes. I like being able to play some bad old cards, can the banlist be designed to accommodate my Pavel Maliki jank Land Hate/Chaos deck? Who knows. It's complicated stuff, but I think there are people that would have fun vs that deck, but most play groups would be salty by the 4th wipe effect.
Having a team of volunteers manage the 'rules' of a multi-billion dollar gaming industry seems openly insane. I'm not sure if it helps to have them be WotC employees, but they should be getting funds to at least do more research into both what people actually run/want to be able to run/hate running into in a deep way. They do out-source to other people who also play, IE ask for advice from the advisory group, but they could be casting a wider net with the newfound popularity of Commander.
Like im a newbie and im trying to build a coma deck like on game nights and i was gonna put in a jeweled lotus i pulled randomly and i have no idea if any of those cards r "frowned upon"
I've been really unsure for a while if I really wanted to get into yet another commander pod cast. After watching this video and the insights you guys expressed, there's no turning back now lol. Well done 👏
The RC should just rename the ban list as "suggestions not to include" list which would align with their vision. This would remove the confusion and stigma that a banlist creates where rule zero is constantly a thing in EDH.
You scrap the ban list save cards that LITERALLY don’t work in commander (trade secrets, limited resources) and then create an extensive “Geneva conventions” list that identifies problematic cards.
Richard is such an excellent speaker. I love how he explains his thoughts.
Commander Ring. 1 mana Tap add 2 mana of any color in your commander’s color identity Use only to cast commander or activate commander’s abilities.
Is this a hot take? I don’t see thorical as the problem it is cards like demonic consultation and tainted pact. The fact that you can go through your entire deck for 1-2 mana at instant speed is the problem. If any cards should see bans it is those two.
Same, to add to that I also see the wheels as the issues rather than the narsets and the hullbreachers. But they printed so many everyone wheel cards so they target the no extra cards instead.
@@jasonm2245 with wheel effects I see it slightly differently. Hullbreached and Tergrid would still be game breaking with out wheels the amount of value and hate you get from those cards is game braking. wheeling your opponents into having no hand doesn’t advance your game state it is just mean. It is why hullbreacher is band and narset is not and why Tergrid should be.
Min. 28: I strongly disagree with Richard. The nice trait of EDH was exactly that it wasn't controlled by Wizards. In fact, each time Wizards actively take interest in a format, they screw it. Look how it went for Legacy, and then Modern, and then again Standard...
Now it's EDH's turn. Handing the ban list to Wizards would only accelerate the decaying process.
I mean, do you sincerely think Dockside Extortionist was an "accident"? No. They knew it was busted, they knew it would sell packs, so they put it in. Same for Thassa's Oracle, Underworld Breach, Fierce Guardianship, Drannith Magistrate, Jeweled Lotus, Hullbreacher, Opposition Agent... The list can go forever.
I mean, shall we mention the Walking Dead? Are you seriously handing the last decent format left for MtG (besides Old School) to them? 🤨
You don't even know how WRONG you are sir.
This hate about wizards is what has ruined the format and people LIKE YOU are to the reason, because people doesn't want wizards to manage edh wizards can just laid back and print whatever shit they want knowing that if the card is busted people are just going to rule 0 it or play it no matter what
If wizards controlled the format at least they would start to bother looking at what they print instead of simply using "shit/rule 0" as a shield
Also: it makes me laugth you hating wizards and still playing magic, please leave the game, nobody is going to miss you, i promise 🙏
@@golem001px Lol we found the bot
@@golem001px I'm not buying any new card since Ikoria, if this appeases you, sir.
Also, when saying I'm WRONG (all caps) you also agree they "don't bother and just print whatever shit they want" (almost literal quoting from you, sir).
You then go on explaining that, by giving more power to someone who's clearly messing with the format, they will all of a sudden start doing the exact opposite of what they're doing so far.
Impeccable logic, man, I'm impressed by your brilliant mind and will retire in loneliness for the rest of my life. 🤣🤣🤣
@@marcellosalis5063 WAO you haven't buy anithing since ikoria 😆😆😆😆 what a strong will 🤣🤣🤣🤣 i didn't know this comment section had a clown, next time don't forget yoyr make up 🤡
The thing is would Wizards ban Dockside, Hullbreacher or Fierce Guardianship or would they rather make more money
Richard at 24:31 is incorrect they are not the same. Dockside scales off your opponents, Titan scales off your deck. You can build around Titan and if you steal/reanimate someone else's you get something you put in your deck.
I'm not saying Dockside isn't good, I'm saying everyone constantly comparing them aren't advancing their argument.
32:05 If there is an argument against Dockside Extortionist, the issue isn’t about running Dockside Extortionist and winning too often. The issue is the same as Primeval Titan. These two cards have huge ramp potential and them being on the battlefield (or in the graveyard) overcentralizes the game. Both give a huge advantage when they come into play, sure, but recursion and duplication exacerbate their issues. If I Phantasmal Image or destroy and reanimate Dockside Extortionist the game becomes degenerate… and anyone not doing that is suddenly far behind.
I really think we need like 4 'weight categories' with separate ban lists, each focusing on certain player experience. All of these meant for random strangers which meet at LGS. Within closed playgroups, any rules should be allowed.
1. cEDH - no banlist or minimal banlist
2. Power - something like the current banlist. All crazy combos and salty strategies allowed.
3. Casual - Carefully calibrated ban list of cards and strategies that ensures everyone has fun (no mass discard, MLD, solitaire etc.) - basically following the 'Philosophy of Commander'
4. Junk - precons and decks constructed purely for fun without any chance of winning against Power, or even Casual decks. Underdog tribes, theme decks like 'chair deck' etc....
This is just a rough idea. Of course, it would require an EXTENSIVE research and experimentation to create such categories with working ban lists.
The best way to find out what your playgroup is like is if you play whims of fate if they put all their permanents into one pile.
Also, primeval titan is banned and Dockside Extortionist isnt because Dockside is in a precon and the RC isn't totally out of reach of WOTC. WOTC 100% has to influence the RC somehow. Just like when the walking dead secret lairs were released and everyone was calling for those versions of the cards being banned. WOTC probably said something like "hey we are selling this product, if you ban it and reduce our profits, we are going to take over the ban list."
55:36 To Tomer's point, I won a game this very evening with my unaltered AFR Draconic Rage precon. If WotC truly wishes to onboard new players with their preconstructed decks, they need to make all of them as synergistic as that one; full stop.
Hear me out - no ban list. Instead clarify power levels. Archetype examples, card examples, combo examples, game pace examples, all identified as "typically power level (X)". Rather than leave the quick rule zero conversation up to the chance at a disconnect between players in personally identifying power level have a very well defined list of examples of power.
This is what I brought up to my group at the shop, and we designed a rough template of what the power levels are and the shop keep thought it was so cool that the basically made it into a poster and put it on the wall so new players either new to the game or just area know what roughly translates when we say power level 5 or 7.
I think a better baseline definition of the scale would go a long way. Even if it meant saying something like "overall I'm a power level X, but I do have 5 Y level cards and 1 Z level combo, so probably a high X all things given." Knowing what those numbers translated to through an abundance of examples would be fantastic.
I had a heated discussion with my friend who I played with for the first few years of commander. She brought up that wizards dragged their feet to unban blood braid and Jace in modern and to ban Lurrus for years. How would they treat the ban list in commander? And would they go off of casual, semi casual, or competitive needs for bannings? Would they allow dockside in cedh but not casual or just ban Oracle outright because of cedh as examples? Would money become even more of a driving force behind playing or leaving the format?
Groups also police themselves without banning anything. My buddy has changed his one deck several times to de-power it because when he pulls it out he gets ganged up on. And not like, out of the gate. He does something and we deal with it. Or we know what cards let him go off, so we answer those cards before he can go off.
Then, as a whole, our LGS is pretty consistently power 5-7 I'd say. No one plays CEDH. If we want that kind of play, we play Canadian Highlander. I've never sat down at a pickup group and had it be a bad experience. Only time I've had bad commander games is when we tried to run competitive tournaments for it, save ones we did where it was 'Everyone plays one of the new precons'.
Dockside does not need to be banned if your meta is a creature based, the real problem is the amount of fast artifacts in the format that dockside feeds off of. If dockside is a problem then your play group should have more artifact and enchantment hate cards to deal with them. You can't get treasure tokens if there are no artifacts or enchantments in play, or simply play more cards that hate on ETB triggers. The problem could be solved with more printing of hate cards that stop or punish ETB triggers.
I completly agree. Why have a banned list at all? Just free the non ante cards and call it a day. If social contracts are the king, everything else should be legal.
It's so weird to see the crew so unified, but I love it because I'm right there with them
I am so glad Golos is gone. Best decision that was made in EDH.
Totally agree. Honestly, when I sit down and play with my friends, we ignore typical rules most of the time unless we get into some weird interaction we're unsure about. We've let people play with unconventional commanders, play with decks that don't follow the color identity rules, play with cards that are banned (as long as they're not being obnoxious about it), ect. What the rules people decide has no bearing on my usual play group. The ban list needs to be for when I go to my local game store and I'm playing with total strangers.
did anyone look at the duel commander / french commander banlist? thoughts?
personally i think at this point it is a waste of effort/time to work on an official banlist for a casual format...
a large % of players don't know who sheldon is or whom the rc is, they just see a ban list. edh used to be for the vorthos community which consisted of people with a vast knowledge of the game and they took for granted an understanding that you would do extra research or be part of a steady group. Today we have people learning how to play through commander which is bad for the game in that they will not have the concept of its history as a format. the other issue is we now have all the spikes in casual settings, this format was supposed to be the respite from competitive play. The rc does have access to wizards and they do have a team in the cag. Keeping the ban list as open as possible is good for everyone except spikes/cedh. Dockside is fine if you play something odd with it, but if you reanimate it in some infinite loop then why are you playing in an unbalanced game? It's on cedh players to have the rule 0 convo, and also maybe if you want to play complete junk, the rest of us dont need to spend alot of time but it should be addressed with new to you players. What we need from sheldon is some clarification as to what is considered casual. I recommend a suggested casual list with things like armagedon/expropriate and such. This would allow them to make a large list which will further explain the type of game we should be cultivating. this would also allow a smaller ban list for cards such as biorythem.
The thing about dockside is that it's only as good as your playgroups decklists. I've seen it make 15 treasures in CEDH and 5 or less in regular edh. It's wildly variable in power level, I don't really think it's a problem.
I think there should be more than one banlists based on power level. Then there could be a high power level with all the fast mana like sol ring, mana crypt, etc. legal.
It's like 1 on 1 magic with modern, vintage, etc.
Than everyone had a simple conversation at the beginning.
I've been listening to the podcast for less than 10 minutes and it looks already like you guys have found an elegant way to say what I'd definitely state in a much less polite fashion...
Nice job guys, I'll definitely watch the whole video, I just couldn't wait an hour before upvoting it.
I feel as WoTC allows the rules committee to remain the face of commander as a gesture of camaraderie and tradition
I honestly am fine with the excuse of, "these cards don't need to be banned because people can discuss their use beforehand," because of what Seth was saying about Thassa's oracle and Tegrid. I think there's some decks that will use these cards fairly, and others that will push them to oppressive levels, kind of like the examples Seth gave of oracle being used as another lab man. Even dockside has some decks that are using him fairly, since not every deck is trying to do something broken with those resources, and some need the extra shot to do something fun, but not necessarily powerful.
No, my problem is the consistency thing. Primeval titan doesn't need to be on there when dockside is ok, they fill similar roles. Biorhythm doesn't need to be on there when much faster and more consistent finishers exist. What the ban list should be used for is 3 types of cards in my opinion.
1: Cards that artificially elongate the game. Cards like Shaharazad, paradox engine, Leovold, prophet of Krufix, all kinda belong here because they bring games to screeching halts.
2: Cards that are excessively hard to fight against. Again, prophet of krufix and engine, but also cards like Iona, where a player can get locked out of the game pretty easily with no recourse. My problem with that card isn't that it's too powerful, but that even in a fair application it still ends up creating a situation where an opponent can't play the game. Imo, commander and cedh should probably have separate ban lists, since cards like flash could probably have some cool niche applications in casual games, and cards like Iona would be way less feel bad in cedh.
3: Cards that are inaccessible to play with, but create power disparity. Cards like gaea's cradle, or tabernacle, original dual lands, etc. put players on unequal footing through outside resources that don't depend on deckbuilding or play skill. What's worse is that dual lands have near universal utility, and will not be accessible to most players looking to play magic for fun. Not to mention, Gaea's cradle in particular is capable is capable of putting out power similar to a dockside extortionist in the right deck, and even enabling degenerate strategies like the Edric extra turns strategy. I would say that cards on the reserve list over $100 are pretty fair targets.
If we saw a b and r list with criteria closer to that, it'd make me happy.
Can you *please* add Phil to these discussions? He's newer to commander AND has a great perspective on the game, I think he'd fit right in and add some fun banter to the group!
Richard is right about the custom set of rules. Expropriate isn’t bad if there is a counter spell influence across your playgroup. And when Seth said that if they banned dockside ppl would play anyways… that’s wrong, they will take it out of their deck even if their friends have decks that can fight back. Thereby ruining dockside for everyone not just the people who thought it was too powerful for their Boris devilboon deck.