I'm giving away 25 copies of The One Ring to viewers this Tuesday, October 8 at 3pm Pacific on Whatnot! Sign up at www.whatnot.com/invite/tolariancollege for $15 credit towards your first purchase!
~CHALLENGE ACCEPTED~ One unique thing WOTC can do on behalf of the EDH Ban List: WOTC has the budget and WPN Network needed to gather actual EDH Gameplay data
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned, but I appreciate the very clear "This is not meant to be permanent commentary." I mean, everyone's going to be the worst about your words anyway, but at least an attempt was made for you to be an individual with evolving views.
It began with the printing of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf-Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And twenty-five, twenty-five rings were gifted to the whatnot stream, who above all else desire power.
god I hope not. I didn't even want to talk about it here but felt if I was just chatting about other things this video then people would be demanding to know my thoughts. So sick of this situation, its just all bad feels.
"I'm not guessing prices on packs, I don't care." Seemingly neither does WOTC. Its criminal to charge $20-$30 for a pack with $8 worth of cards in it. The fact that these are supposed to be premium packs is amazing.
It sure looks like Wizards has a good idea of what the cards are gonna cost in the secondary market and then making sure they are taking the biggest piece of the pie
I got a collector booster and yeah, ~$8 in cards in it and 3 of them, one being the full art land, were damaged. And not in a 'oh cool misprint!' way, but damage you would typically see on a played card, marred corners and a big dent in the middle of the full art land.
All the serious conversation aside, it did give me a little laugh when Prof proudly declared "7 dollars!" on a 1 dollar card and then didn't bat an eye on the following 10 dollar card
Prof, I just want to let you know what a treasure you are to this game and this community. I've basically given up the game after 30 years of playing, but I still keep up with happenings in the slim hope that something might come along that draws me back in. I still watch your videos and listen to your takes because they are calm, measured and thought out. You've given me a lot of entertainment and a lot of information with a bunch of goodwill and I want to say thank you.
The really scary part of wizards taking over is that now whenever they print the next equivalent of commander tower, jeweled lotus, etc pushed card intended for commander *they* get the last word if a powerful chase card is good for the format (I wonder what they'll decide 😓) I do think it *could* be good but the incentives are just not there for wizards as a company to agree to make the format healthy instead of printing chase cards for each tier and limiting the tiers as to concentrate their playerbase in the power levels they want to print for.
Wizards didn't do anything wrong by taking over, but I can feel that the former RC did the format an unservice by not giving any other course of action a fair shake, or at least that what it seems like from the outside. Perhaps they felt necessitated to get away from their RC roles as soon as possible, which I can empathize with, but I don't really think that it was a rational decision. Just ceding control over the format, with the decision that riled the nutters up still being in effect, can't have done much to stop that vitriol from flowing. The RC, as it was, wasn't really fit for purpose anymore. It was still largely working under the premises of EDH of 15 years ago - A few thousand players at most to manage. The RC was too small, too exposed, and indeed too insular to manage a format that has grown to these proportions, both in terms of ways of sheer number of players and the various ways that people engage with the format. What I think they could've done is go into social media lockdown, perhaps contact Wizards for a bit of help managing the situation and lessening the risks to themselves and their families, and worked out some other solution, to keep the rudder of the format out of the potentially abusive grip of WotC and Hasbro. Perhaps democratize some part of the decision making? Take ban and rules change decisions through online polls, or at least have public votes on adding such suggestions to the docket, and requiring a 60% or 2/3rds majority for them to go through? It would perhaps slow down the decision making some, but it would definitely distribute the blame a hell of a lot more, which was clearly one thing they needed in that situation. And, as said, grow the organisation and offload some responsibility onto the larger team. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to chip in on one aspect or another - Official communications and social media presence, research and data gathering, and so on - in their free time.
25:00 My thoughts here are that in my experience rule zero just has never happened at my lgs. I enjoy playing there, it’s just not something that comes up unless someone’s playing an uncard or whatever, so to me a banlist and a thorough one is very important. This same argument you made could be made against the banlist entirely, but I like and think it’s great for the format. The banlist doesn’t stop people from playing the power 9 in their friend group that always has rule 0 convos, it exists to stop a random guy at an lgs curb stomping a new player whose never heard of rule zero in her life.
I was gonna say it’s kinda always felt like rule zero is to allow something in, not to get 3 people to confront someone and say you can’t play said card. That would be intimidating and upsetting for someone I’m sure and then they’d have to have a backup card on hand to fix it. Ban lists aren’t the end of the world. And you’re spot on about the power 9. Imagine if they unbanned everything and then all of a sudden you have to ask someone not to play a $1000+ card 😂
Every player in the group has the ability to ask beforehand and start the rule zero talk. If even one of them has the competence to do so, you can all find a balance. It’s not a good excuse to ban just because some people are too shy or whatever to initiate the conversation. Those of us who communicate don’t need training wheels.
This is very, very true. The Rule Zero burden *shouldn't* be on the guy who got stomped to be like "how has no one told you that isn't fun to play into," it should be on the power deck player to be like "yeah, my deck has the potential for infinite mana on turn three, but I can't combo a win off that infinite mana until way later." The guidelines are meant to shift the burden onto people wanting to play the most controversial cards, rather than the players who don't want to play against them.
Yeah the bracket system seems extremely simple and not totally effective, but it's just a shorthand for rule 0. It's a way of avoiding the gross word "ban" and softening it to "maybe not for your table without discussion and context" Think of it like a Keyword. Magic players love Keywords
I'm frankly sick of hearing about rule zero. Rule zero may work for some dedicated, relatively static playgroups, but the idea that it could ever be widespread as the normal, go-to way to manage a casual social format seems absurd to me. It's a TCG, not Nomic. People sitting down to play a casual social game want to be able to jump right into the game based on a shared pre-existing understanding of the rules. They can't be bothered to hold a technical discussion about the ins and outs of what's allowed and what kind of game experience they're looking for or whatever beforehand. Checking in real quick about something simple and common like mulligans is one thing, but what specific cards are allowed, out of the tens of thousands in the game? And in what combinations? Whether you can use fast mana or land destruction or infinite loops, and what even counts as any of those things? These are questions that would take too long to address with anything but the broadest of brushes and, depending on the group's answer, might leave you without a deck to play, or require you to rebuild your deck. It baffles me anyone thinks that's a practical way to handle things. At that point, you might as well just make up a new Magic format on the spot, and I'm not even being hyperbolic, because in my two decades of Magic, I've literally played more games where we wound up doing just that and spontaneously inventing a format, than rule zero'd Commander games. For Commander to serve the role it does in the Magic community, it needs to be a proper format, and a proper format needs clear rules everyone can agree to. A banlist is the obvious pragmatic way to manage such a format, and in my personal opinion, the bracket system they're floating seems like the logical next evolution from a binary banned-or-not banlist to something flexible enough to handle variations in deck power level, and without sacrificing clarity or simplicity. As worried as I am that WotC taking over Commander may prove detrimental to the health of the format in the long term (mostly in the form of Hasbro urging them toward more egregious power creep and design mistakes), I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about the direction they seem to want to take it in the near to mid term.
“It’s his boss’s boss’s boss. Who we don’t know the name of by the way.” Yes we do, it’s Chris Cocks. (That is not a derogatory nickname, but his genuine surname. Seriously.) When you look at a timeline, basically all the heaviest controversies and mistakes in WotC’s handling of both magic and DnD happened within a year or two of Chris becoming CEO of Hasbro following Brian Goldner’s death. The 30th anniversary packs, the OGL rework, the Aftermath Pinkertons. And his mishandling extends beyond Wizards to other Hasbro stewarded franchises as well. Power Rangers is basically dead right now. It’s treated internally as a punishment assignment. But Goldner bought PR with a plan, he had a vision for the franchise, he had actual ideas. Unfortunately he took his ideas to the grave with him, and no one at Hasbro knows what to do with the huge IP they sank a bunch of money into now. Who knows, maybe we’ll eventually get a Power Rangers universes beyond as Chris desperately tries to figure out how to recoup the loss of his predecessor by any means necessary.
I feel seen, thank you for shitting on this asshole. They brought him in as a 'digital games expert' because of his "incredible success" with Xbox Live. Meaning, he milked the grip that Halo had on the console to monetize online play. Playing games online used to be free until this douchebag and his $50 a year, first year free scheme started. Now Nintendo and Sony also charge you for playing online as if it were impossible without that cost structure, all pulled straight out of this MBA scum's ass. Arena was his pet project at WotC, and if you feel that monetization sucked then you've experienced his handiwork and complete ignorance of fun and games firsthand.
Having worked for a big global corpo before, the CEO does two things. Jack, and the related product, Shit. He sets the agenda, its the people one or two rungs below him, who actually go about working out how to implement the agenda, who make the godawful decisions. The CEO doesnt really have anything to do with any of the products - theyre busy worrying about increasing share dividends and returns. What they *do* is turn to their business unit directors and demand X amount more revenue and Y amount less in costs. Those directors, who also dont care about the products, then come up with ways to cut corners, and then people like Gavin, and his boss, who *do* care about the product, are left to implement those changes while doing the least damage. Chris Cocks isnt out to ruin your favourite products. Hes just a capitalist. Capitalism is whats out to ruin your products. And quality of life. And future.
@@michaellee1116 I feel like a corporate CEO who made over 9 million dollars in 2022 is the most fair person to put a target on but your moral high ground you stand on is commendable
It felt like a huge internal compromise to continue being invested when they dropped the universes beyond meme into the game but within like a year of "don't worry it will all be mechanically distinct" they tripled the references in main line releases and human players were required to run Rick Grimes, Ten Years Past Relevancy.
@@Koshana ghost vacuum, arabella, half of the survivors look like they're straight out of a sitcom rather than a horror movie. Came Back Wrong also has a shameless reference to the exorcist.
The worst offender to me is the knock off Ghostbusters proton pack within the set. Honestly, I feel like I'd almost respect the set more if it was literally just full of actual secret lair style tie in cards. Something like a quarter of the set feels like "Cards we wanted a Secret Lair Alt Art for and either couldn't get the license or didn't want to spend the money getting it"
23:20 So I disagree with the professor here. I've been playing a lot of magic on TTS and the issue with player accountability and having a conversation is that really only works if you know and play with someone on a regular basis. If you and 3 other randos happen to run into each other at an LGS and sit down for a game of commander each person at the table has a different idea about what is OP and what isn't, about how strong their decks are, pretty much their entire attitude in general. Imo the bracket system will create a set of hard rules that caters to exactly that group of people. If your argument is in support of the current rule zero climate where people just need to talk then does anything really change with the addition of brackets? You can still have all the conversations you want and rule zero whatever you want. This system just creates structure and a level of uniformity among people playing together for the first time.
Its just baffling to me seeing people downplay the WoTC takeover by saying "people just won't follow the bans if they are bad". While seeming to forget that also should have applied to the RC bans. The worst people all seem to have selective memory.
the toxic fan base played themselves. hard to find any sympathy if they're unhappy with the consequences. maybe those people need to stop being so miserable to everybody about everything online
Perhaps one of the most painful things about this, is that unless we just assume WotC will run Commander into the ground and kill all value, this outcome means the people who were going crazy and harassing the RC pretty much unquestionably won. Wizards won't ban their cards, and Wizards will keep balancing the format in a way to ensure MTG cards have a lot of value in the trading market. That's their priorities, the health of the game is secondary. They're getting exactly what they want... unless Commander just falls over.
Nah if you threaten someone at a major corporation there are policies and mandatory reporting that kicks in and you'll be answering to your local cops and/or FBI. Their influence is over forever and wizards is going to do what it needs to for the format. Unlike RC who was easily forced to sleep on Nadu for an extra month compared to wizards, sleep on dockside and lotus for 5 years, sleep on crypt for 30 years.
I wonder if the investors understand this. They want all of their cards to be worth infinite money but if the game is unapproachable, then the game dies, and every card is worth pennies. There is no "victory" at the end of this road.
I completely agree with this sentiment, but unfortunately, as long as these people can make money off of their "investments," they could care less whether the game survives or not, despite how short sighted it is. The culture of "F*** You, Got Mine" is very strong in their world, so as long as they can sell their collection before everyone else, they'll come out on top in their books. After all, NOBODY has ever been burned by that attitude before, right?
To the editor, I like it when you add the celebration when proff guess the correct price🎉. I also like the Lego Yoda death sound on SUAP when they drop their cards or knock their deck over. My pod keeps quoting it when it happens to us 😂
"Fewer bans and more conversations" doesn't work with randoms. People are not responsible enough to go by their own judgements, thats why rules were invented in the first place. "Thats a rule zero conversation why do we need the brackets for" because people are terrible at conversations and the brackets serve as an easy to access/understand guideline and it provides a clear example for those who otherwise would not understand.
This is my hope for the Brackets. I think their presented implementation seems odd. But, the idea seems to be "players are bad at honestly assessing their decks strength. Here are some concrete guidelines for what cards make a strong deck". If the guidelines work, it could be great.
I agree. How long of a conversation does a table need to have before the game starts? (Half an hour?) Is shunning people away because they are playing a card you don’t like good for game? (No). Rule 0 doesn’t work and shouldn’t be a thing. This is why I play competitive 60 card formats or limited. Every knows what the rules are when we sit down to play and if the deck is legal you can’t really complain if you were unprepared to play against it.
I swear this is *the* problem of all commander youtubers, you get to play curated games with people you like all the time, and even the games with strangers you are recognizable enough to end up playing with people who want to make a good impression. Most of us who play randoms at our LGS's/school clubs/etc don't have that luxury. A hard and fast guideline that everyone knows or can reference is the best way to enforce it. I know people say commander is the "casual" format, but it has since become the *default* format and the way in which most people are playing the game. Unsurprisingly, most people play games in general to win. While social intelligence and curated pods can help put everyone in a more chill space, not everyone has that luxury of choosing who they play with so carefully. You either get complete randoms with little incentive to be upfront or play nice, or you don't get to play.
Even with reasonable friends its pretty tough to establish limits as it always gets to a subtle arms race that gets amped up with the power creep in newer sets. Having external and cleary defined tiers would make powerlevel conversations a lot more concrete instead of "i guess my deck is a 7".
I think the best way to think of this new approach is "These brackets are not there to enable you to play whatever combination of cards you want, they are there for you and your opponents to communicate what you DON'T want to play against.". Your Bracket 2 deck with a few Bracket 4 cards in it but you want to play against pure Bracket 2s is still pub stomping, just less egregiously than the guy running 15 Bracket 4 cards in the same situation.
I look forward to the printing of "Bling Lotus" which is a 0 mana artifact that taps and sacs to create 2 mana of any color that must be spent on a commander.
Or they will just unban Jewled lotus now daddy hasbro has the reigns. They specifically said they wouldn’t be banning more when making the bracket and conveniently didn’t say anything about not unbanning cards. I’m all for most cards just slotting into a tier rather than being outright banned.
@@derrickpaulson3093 Considering the scale of the blowback and death threats they likely do not want to give the impression of encouraging harassment printing a new and similar card achieves the same thing with less PR issues, so they'll do that
@@Xmies23Mark my words the infinity stones are going to be mana rocks 2 cost Tap for one mana of a specific color To basically the diamond but better, and then they'll probably be an infinity gauntlet cards that lets you win the game if you have all the stones
The bracket system should almost exclusively exist as a warning system to spark conversation on power outlier cards or cards that can generate more consistently strong games. Stuff that is really strong off the rip like Rhystic Study or Smothering Tithe, and also cheap tutor effects like Vampiric Tutor, which can make even a weak deck have an answer to any given situation based on deck building.
Agreed, like EDHrec's salt score, the bracket seems like a useful tool on how to evaluate individual cards when deck building to help curate the play pattern I want to bring to the table. If my deck is solidly a 2 except for one 4, maybe I look for a similar effect that's a little less efficient or a little more niche to stay in bracket 2. Maybe I swap it out permanently or maybe I keep an alternative in case my playgroup objects to including a 4. I think it's also helpful for LGS's and events to start the table grouping process. Rule 0 still should happen at these tables, but it should help somewhat align expectations. It has its issues, but it feels more concrete than the current nebulous "my deck's a 7". Even today, someone drops an ABU dual in a jank deck and someone will say "I didn't know we were playing **that** kind of game".
@@joshuahowell4785 it doesn't change the fact that someone has to go trhough all cards in MtG history and sort them into brackets. I don't want to spend hours discussing with my playgroup what's a 4 and what's a 2
Yeah I just can't help but feel that this will be used as a hard norm rather than a suggestion or starting point. "No tier 3 or higher" rather than asking what they're playing and how it works.
@@user-et3xn2jm1uI also worry about this. Like ya people saying it’s a frame work is all well and good if that’s actually how it’s used. But we know a lot of players who will just hard stop say no you’re not running that and I don’t care
25:00 - "that's called a rule 0 conversation! why do we need the brackets for?!" To make that conversation easier. It identifies the cards that MUST be discussed instead of letting the players decide what the FEEL like it has to be discussed.
I just want to be able to go to my game shop looking for a non-sweaty commander game without having to sort through players trying to find 3 people who want the same thing as me. I think the bracket system can at least help with this
No, because the conversation will still be about how you FEEL your deck performs. If anything, this will make the conversation harder because it will put the focus on singular cards (because it will very often be that, a conversation to have because of one card, a literal 1% of your deck) instead of performance, synergies and gameplay. And it will eschew the understanding of the game for new players as well because of that.
@@edwarddavidson8949 Yeah it will force you to be more clever instead of loading up your deck with the best cards in each of your colors first and then creating a theme second.
Prof, the problem with your fun theory at the 24:00 mark is that some people's fun is not letting other people enjoy themselves. They play to ego trip, they intentionally avoid or lie in turn 0 conversations so they have an advantage, and that's why they have to play with randoms instead of a consistent play group. Those people exist in the thousands.
One person I refuse to play with now literally said they play edh like rugby, and he should be able to tackle as hard as he wants. This was after we communicated that we play VERY noncompetitively
@@seanedgar164 this is a very NON friendly behaviour, one that I don't wish among my closest ones, even "game-friends". Cast him aside after explaining what he did wrong, let him have to pay the consequences of his actions. Hard lessons, maybe, just for 1 event; might help him become a better person.
I showed up to a local shop a while back. Threw together a sliver deck. Not even a crazy one-missing key cards, no crazy mana ramp, no cards over $5. I was told it was a casual shop and people were friendly players with fun decks. Yeah….I was lied to. My turn one I played a land. Their turn one, they had half a board set up. Like…how? Magic is broken.
23:03 This is effectively that "Players can regulate themselves", which is fine when you have a established pod of people and you only play with them. But a lot of people are only able to get games from their LGS. Anecdotally, I found the CEDH players are much more common at LGS' and the kind of self-regulation that you're hoping for I haven't found. To the point where I gave up Commander because I just want to play casually with an upgraded precon. I don't have the money to be running "7 power level, I swear" decks and something like an established tier list with clear demarcations of power level would greatly benefits casual commander players. I don't think THIS system with a single card determining power level will but like you said things are just in the planning phases and I'm hopeful for what the teams come out with.
To add to this, the brackets are irrelevant to an established pod because they can just “rule 0” the whole thing out and effectively ignore the new bracket system. But for those of us playing with random people most of the time, the brackets will institute some guardrails so that there aren’t crazy power disparities that only get revealed in game and have the result of ruining the experience of playing with random people. Honestly, how realistic is it for people to have the “rule 0” conversation and then each of them proceed to remove a set of cards in their decks in real time and then add in the necessary number of alternative cards that are considered “fair” just so that these four random people will conform to each other’s disparate ideas of what fun is. I just don’t buy that instituting guidelines to keep play more balanced makes for a worse playing experience and nothing I heard in this video convinces me otherwise.
It also relies on the presumption that a group of nerds (myself included) who have never meet before are going to be really good at communicating and articulating grievances with each other.
Can’t wait to bring my cedh deck minus all the banned cards to a casual pod and turn 2 thoracle. Since rule zero doesn’t work anyways. You’re always going to have someone optimize based on the format and will find a way to be a power level above casual players. Banning more and more cards isn’t the answer.
Tbh I’ve avoided other content creators on this topic. I don’t want to be riddled with anxiety in the online panic. You’re the only one I clicked on. Even when you disagree, or are skeptical, or are angry, there’s a way you go about it that I appreciate.
Why even care about the online panic? Not like wotc has been making good decisions for years or been on an upward trend for customer satisfaction, but you still enjoy the game right? Just embrace the fact you can enjoy a game that’s mismanaged.
So today a co-worker who plays CEDH explained to be that a separate ban list is useless, because CEDH will continue to be the most competitive things you can do in the "main" Commander format.
That's what a lot of us have been trying to explain for years now every time the split ban list discussion comes up. People outside of cEDH (and some in the community too for that matter) keep not listening.
There still needs to be better clarity for the format when Rule 0 is just so the HR freaks can get everyone in a group therapy session. Thats it. Its lynching. 2 separate banlists, 1 for cedh and 1 for edh and THEN 1 for in the 99 vs. in the command zone. I hate this mindset that the player base is too dumb to figure these distinctions out.
Honestly the tug of war between casual and competitive has been going on since day 1 of magic in all formats. Literally only commander has ever had a problem handling it. We solved this when I was 14 very easily and with way more players than 4 at the table. If you're struggling it's not the format, it's either you or the group you're in. Try another group and if that never works out you're the problem, get into therapy, use your words to say what you want to play instead of to threaten everyone.
Love how every time some minor drama happens on the internet it's immediately escalated to mass death threats /s As a person who engages with game very casually, the constant drama that I see come from the community at large is exhausting and a huge put off from engaging with it any further than the little bit I currently do. Definitely does not make me want to go out and spend more money on the game.
It's really embarrassing for commander players because pretty much everyone remembers being 13 or 14 starting magic and solving these same problems very easily in way bigger groups. A lot of times even with these exact same cards. So yeah do I want to go to commander night at my local shop knowing that the average person there is probably more unhinged and less able to solve problems than me at 14, no thanks.
I'd like to see more unfiltered Prof discussions like this while opening packs! Good point re the bracket system essentially resulting in soft bans. I wonder if a points system would be better, though getting agreement on quantifying the points would probably be like herding cats.
The only thing unbanning Jeweled Lotus would do is tell the bad guys that whatever horrible things they did to the CAG work and they need to do that more often.
I think it's unlikely they'll unban it anytime soon. The much more likely scenario IMO is that they print something similar and just as broken but technically different.
What a trash opinion. And yes protest should work. As it has done. And if people make decisions that have financial impact on millions of people, don’t be surprised when people make a mistake like they did and lose their temper and threaten them. But again. Threatening is wrong, but everyone is just human
@Visionz9200 There is a difference between protesting and threatening. I recommend not conflating the two. It is good to not negotiate with terrorists.
I'm CACKLING at the jeweled lotus thing 3:20. Imagining the alt world where the prof is giving out banned cards and saying "who knows! maybe they'll be back soon!!"
@@TolarianCommunityCollegeim truly sorry for you and the rcs experience with the MTG community. I play for 3 weeks now and it's honestly really disheartening to see how a small group of psychos speaks so loudly.
Good on the professor to call this out, sucks seeing Josh from Command Zone literally blaming RC and downplaying the threats they got and fanning the flames more.
@@chexmix0101I'm confused by this comment, cause I watched the whole video and the entire time he was calling out the people who making threats bad people pretty much the whole video and that everything they state about being empathetic towards those who were upset about the bans, Cause there is many layers to these bans than just it being cardboard, would exclude that minority of people who are being threatening. They do not deserve sympathy in any capacity and all of Command Zone agrees on that
I had this feeling that things had gone further than anyone was talking about. Whenever WoTC or someone involved talked about it they were both very serious and very vague. And then the Internet just assumed it was just regular, run-of-the-mill, online harassment and not that big deal (as horrible as that is).
@@jb9551 It shouldn't exist within the lore of the world, and instead only exists as a reference to real world horror movies (as opposed to, say, the saw references, which are plausible things to have in duskmourne.) How on earth is there a cheerleader when society basically can't exist in large groups? What is the flavor text referring to? There shouldn't be any cheerleaders on duskmourne, because there almost certainly aren't any schools or major sports, or any of the other prerequisites for a cheerleader's existence to make sense.
I don't usually comment on videos, but I just wanna say that your content is always really valuable to me prof! Your commentary and insights are always really well reasoned and clear, and your empathy to others in the community while still maintaining an objective standpoint is inspiring. Thank you for making such wonderful content!
Everyone has that 1 guy in their group that doesn't have good judgement. Some people work better under guidelands and that's where I see the tier system working. I know the flaw is that anyone can make a bullshit 2 card infinite with tier 1 cards and that's still where rule 0 chats need to still happen. But for some, having that baseline guideline prior to the discussion will come in handy i am sure.
The biggest flaw in something like the tier system as pitched, in my estimation, is going to be a widespread lack of participation from the community. I’ll personally never actually look at the list of cards in each tier. Just as an example. If a store enforced it I’d simply go to a different store or ask the friends I most want to play with to hang with me at my house. I’m not alone in either stance.
@@pluralkumquat and he is right to do so. But not for putting crypt into every deck, but because a deck having access to green ramp makes it infinitely better and consistent than decks without it. The same way a deck gets better when you have access to blue counter spells. Aghhhh, I HATE SIMIC! (and still play 5c decks).
Honestly at times it's me, I don't always catch interactions between cards so having the guidelines would be great :). I don't think I'm as bad as some of the folks mentioned in the replies by any means but I'd feel more comfortable including or excluding cards if I had a good way to judge their relative power levels. My decks often just are as strong as the card pool for a given idea of what I think sounds fun to make.
I can imagine using a version of this "bracket" system to softly define the strength of a deck in a way that's easier to understand and gauge than the current "power level" method, but it absolutely needs to be more flexible than "if you have *one* Bracket 4 card in your jank deck, the whole deck is considered CEDH."
"What do we need the bracket system for if we have Rule 0" The Bracket system is meant to help Rule 0, not replace it. They said that in the Weekly MTG stream.
Yeah, the point of the bracket system (whether or not it works) isn't to replace a Rule 0 talk, it seems to be to force you to acknowledge "some of these cards get wild" with a more codified approach. Ideally, I think it reduces the ability of people that (intentionally or not) underrate their own decks power to walk over someone else.
@@Wolfman112 That's the most maddening part to me about all of this discourse. It's not a ban system, it's a way to have a Rule 0 conversation in an objective manner. Like, if you're a new player and you put together a new commander, how can you even have a Rule 0 conversation about power level? Instead of being a new player having to say "Well this is a 7 because it has cool cards and a combo" they can look at the brackets and say "oh, my deck is a T4 because I pulled a Vampiric Tutor, but all of my other cards are 2 or lower". It's just a language framework to be used in Rule 0 discussions, not a ban list or "you can't play anything from T4 because that's cEDH". Hell, I see people compare it to the Canadian Highlander points system when the brackets is essentially a simplified that. Instead of going "Oh my deck is 150 points, but most of that are 3 cards" you can say "Hey, my deck is T1 outside of these 4 cards from T2, these 3 from T3, and this 1 T4 card". How is that much different?
@@ddalton86ify This is the thing that caught me off guard. I feel like the Professor speaks approvingly of Canlander, but Canlander is more restrictive and a higher knowledge demand than the bracket system, while saying the knowledge burden is part of the problem with brackets. I get that the REAL answer is distrust of WOTC and hating the reactionaries behavior towards the RC/CAG, but I don't see how anyone can think Canlander is less burdensome than this conversation guiding tool.
@@ddalton86ify Totally agree. Bracketing is a framework to have a meaningful Rule 0 conversation. The concern that we are going to have to look up each card in a 100-card pile is rather moot given the prevalence of online deck builders which could easily show you the bracket of your cards and help you search for cards of similar effects at a lower bracket. I'm optimistic.
Way back in the 90s, WotC considered creating a new format based on a card-scoring system. The idea was that your deck could only have a certain number of points, and better cards cost more points. They abandoned it - ostensibly because it's too much work to assign points. (Or perhaps because they realized players will chase power cards and they didn't want to incentivize that. The new bracket system reminds me of that. Different and less onerous, but still a clear similarity.
I think the bracket system can work as a soft-ban list. Putting cards like ancient tomb and the one ring in bracket 4, you can then discuss with your group or a store can set rules for what brackets you will allow
I said it in another comment, but it bears repeating. If you need an arbitrary number system to tell you your deck is too strong rather than listening to your playgroup, you are the issue in your group. Rule 0 exists for a reason: so people are encouraged to communicate.
@@BobNinjaCatOr it's useful for when you're traveling about and you don't have the comfort of your usual playgroup. It's for sanctioned events, not for the kitchen table where you are with familiar friends and decks.
@@BobNinjaCatPeople overreact or underreact to certain cards all the time, so no, the opinions of the strangers you play with is not a good thing to judge your deck power level on. Ironically the brackets themselves sorta show the signs of this, in how Armageddon, which is strong but not that strong, got put in bracket 4 because people constantly overreact to it That said, a points system works just fine for Canlander, no reason it can't work for EDH
@@INTCUWUSIUA If I'm running a demonic tutor, the fast mana rocks, and a cyclonic rift, I'm probably running a high-powered deck designed for cEDH. It's on me to say "hey, this baby spits out a wincon by turn 4 and goes turbo by turn 2. Is this too fast?" People generally dislike mass land destruction because it slows the game to a crawl and can often skew it in one person's favor. People aren't overreacting, but nice assumption. It tells me you've brought MLD to a table and failed to recognize when it made the game miserable.
@@otterfire4712 F2F has two tiers of tables at their events. Competitive EDH and casual. Sitting down and having a dialogue at the casual table is not difficult. If you can't navigate a simple "what's everyone playing at and what is the expectation" then you shouldn't attend sanctioned events.
I think we as a community should explore talking about strategies while talking about specific cards when having rule 0 conversations. I think your strategy or style of deck is much more impactful than specific cards. A deck full of “bracket 4” cards but no strategy won’t do much, but a well built deck, even a budget deck, can run away with the game very quickly. Examples: landfall, storm/spellslinging, grave pact effects, wheels
22:05 I think in your example, the brackets help the Rule 0 conversation. Even long time players don't know every card. So if you come to a play group and say, "Hey this deck is bracket 1, but I'm running a Vampiric Tutor is that okay?" The other players will at least have an idea of what a "yes" answer will mean on the game.
It breaks your immersion since no one would be wearing a pristine cheerleader outfit after living in a demonic hellscape deathworld for the last few years/decade. It would make sense if the set took place when Valggy was devouring the world, but we we're long past the point where he was devouring the plane's suns.
I think it's mechanically wrong too. Why would it permanently gain flying? Like a cheerleader thrown into the sky from her cheer squad and she just never comes down.
cEDH is a mindset, not a format. cEDH can exist in any bracket and will be optimized to win with whatever tools the bracket decides to allow. Competition was never the problem. It's the misrepresentation and pubstomping that's the problem.
I think a Canlander point system would be better from the perspective of accurately and objectively showing the power of a deck, but it would exacerbate the potential baggage for less enfranchised players that the bracket system will likely bring.
Considering what cards would get pointed, I don't think it'd be too big of a deal for new players, since they'd very likely not have access to pointed cards, and if they do, then they're probably in deep enough to be okay with looking up how the points system works. Also, even new Warhammer players have no difficulties looking up the points values for their units when they play, so I think the concerns about a points system are overblown
@@INTCUWUSIUA It would also be relatively easy from a technical standpoint for all the deck-building apps to add each card's point value and apply that to the decks. It depends on how the bracket system actually works in the end for the UI, but technically, it's easy to implement.
The biggest benefit IMO of the bracket system is it gives an objective basis for rule zero discussion. Someone who is used to playing at cEDH tables would look at a deck and think it's mid power, but the same deck looks overpowered to a super-casual kitchen table group. The brackets can lead to a more meaningful rule zero discussion
These have to be my favorite types of videos on the channel. Something about the professor just talking openly and honestly about his feelings plus him going through packs (and always overvaluing them lol) just feels so honest and true. It feels like the video is made for passion, and I love that
Brackets are specifically for pick up games, random games on spelltable, and things like that. Because if you have a static playgroup of friends, you can and SHOULD discuss what is and is not allowed with that group. The brackets are there to prevent pubstomping and the like. Not everyone is comfy talking either to brand new people they are not used to. The brackets are there for people who are not comfy with doing the Rule 0 thing. You may not need it, and you may not want it, but other people can and will use it.
Holding a job requires a minimum of social competence. Family, extra-familial relationships, those require being competent socially. That generally involves having a conversation. What you're basically saying is being honest about your deck is a far more difficult task than being around your family and friends and co-workers and you need an artitrary nunbering system to hold your hand so you can be more honest. I understand if you're still under 12. If you're an adult, grow the eff up. I've seen adults with severe social anxiety ask a simple "is my deck that has a mana crypt too strong" to a half-table of strangers in a noisy gameshop with far greater ease than you apparently possess. Yes, you're asking for an arbitrary numbering system to help you navigate basic social situations that someone with severe anxiety in a noisy area can manage. If someone with a much worse condition than you can manage a simple damn question, then you have no excuses. Be better.
But you'll still need to talk and explain what cards are in what bracket. And imagine if you have a card you didn't realize or forgot was a bracket higher. Then you play it and the table is like WOAAH YOU SAID YOU WERE PLAYING BRACKET 2! This thing is dumb.
Its hard to understate how important knowing your playgroup and knowing exactly what your deck is capable of is. I have a EDH deck that's half prison half wombo-combo, but I knows it's very unreliable and my friends love watching me pop or fizzle
Converse with the same community who made death threats over bans let them dictate your experience I'm sure they will be reasonable! yeah agree rule 0 is just a cop out and has been for years.
I think WOTC's greatest strength is that it has access to more data (or can spend the time/money to get more data) about players and player sentiment. Unfortunately, I have no faith in their ability to manage the format or put gameplay above profit. Just look at how they manage the modern banlist or print modern cards nowadays.
Counterpoint they also manage the Vintage banlist and that's as player-run format as anything. They consult with Vintage "elders" and ban accordingly. Of course bans there reflect league play, so not a perfect comparison! 🙂
@@pierredupont1096 It’s super important to note that vintage doesn’t drive nearly as much of their profit so it’s simply less important to corporate management. Commander is the most played and profitable format so their fingers will be very deep in the pie.
This is why I would not be surprised if Mana Crypt comes off the ban list. In MTGO where it was a $1 card for decades it's heavily played but not complained about at all. It's offline where it's $100 that people whine. People don't resent the power, they resent the jealousy of not owning one. And that shouldn't be a reason to ban a card.
I think this video is incredible, and your content is 100% A+! All of that said, I completely disagree with you on reversing the bans. A reversal of the recent judgment that came down would not mean that the “death threats won the day”. There are literally hundreds of thousands of CE players around the world that did not like the rulings, did not want them, and want to see them reversed! These would be the women and men who would get the victory; the victory would not belong to the small handful of twerps were small enough to issue death threats. so please keep that in mind! A reversal of this egregious ruling would not be game match for those who did the threatening, but rather it would be a magnanimous victory for those of us who really love to play this amazing game the way it was designed to be played: with great wizard and wielding of great magic! For 30 years now it has been a game where the very best mages have discovered the most busted, combos and victory lines! Casual play an absolutely insanely busted play have always coexisted. And they should always coexist! We do not need rules committees, trying to temper the game, and put a governor on things to “slow it down“. we the people are smart enough to figure things out for ourselves! Will there be people out here who take advantage of their local game store meta once in a while? Sure. That is going to happen. But whoever “that guy” is will not get by with his antics for more than one or two games before everyone sniffs that person out. Any average local group of adults, or even teenagers, is able to manage their local situation at hand. We don’t need a rules committee to do all of that for us. I for one vote that we keep the bans at a minimum, and remember that every single card that is ever been printed has a counter measure, printed in some set.
21:30 new to commander and a 4 bracket system is more confusing than a 10 power system? Rather, an UNDEFINED 10 power system... The MAJORITY of commander players can't give you an accurate power level of their decks right now.
What’s so sad is that we just now whenever Gavin or someone else on the forward facing team is forced to announce something awful, people will go after them rather than the executives behind the decision. There’s a deep rot in our community, and we have a lot of work to do to fix things.
yeah no joke. It is exhausting that we have to go after the rot in our community who attack and harass the faces of the corporation while the people with real money and control laugh their way to the bank
But that's okay. When you associate yourself with an organisation that does awful things, you deserve your share of the backlash. At least WotC has the ressources to go after the kind of people who take things too far.
@Arufonsa1 improving affordability across the board, inside and outside of magic the gathering, so that people are broadly less stressed about losing equity in chase mythics
@@CanadaJarod 100% be an awesome thing. Would deal with so much and help incredibly. Would not get rid of all of the problems on the community. Would probably create some more bad actors who liked it better when elitism was quantifiable. It would fix so much but we are talking about issues inherent to human condition.
Hot take: The bracket system is a Trojan horse to have new cedh power cards actually be under-bracketed to improve its value/demand and therefore drive sales.
"This is just a casual format, we can play what we want in my pod" - the guy who invested hundreds of dollar in their decks and its about to commit some crimes against humanity in their lgs/local pod
I mean I just spend multi-hundreds on OG foil Snaps, foil Sunscape familiars, OG foil Preordains for...Pauper Familiars so guilty as charged? LFG Pauper ;-)
@@robinrising1834 thats actually an interesting point to consider. There are a lot of meme decks ( chairs tribal, bald people tribal, breast size tribal ) that need a few high-power staples to even have a chance against a precon.
100%. "Could you take out your dockside? Its not fun" "WELL WHY DONT YOU TAKE OUT YOUR KINSBALE CAVALIER HUH?!?!? I WANT TO HAVE FUN TOOOOOO" "Uh sure ok, fine, i guess any game is a game...not like i can play amywhere else."
Or spent hundreds of dollars on whacky fun cards for a really odd themed deck,.. only to have their teeth kicked in 3 Friday nights in a row. Now,.. didnt win,.. stomped on to the point you were basically a spectator.
Sometimes I get tired of the griping and grousing of this community and I avoid these discussions. But I’m happy I finally watched this. Prof, as always, stays reasonable and compassionate when discussing the real issues within this community and the corporate powers above it. Sending all my love to the RC who didn’t deserve the hate they got, even if mistakes were made. We all need to do better.
One thing I love about him playing the booster box game is no matter what he’s opening, his overall guess is 2x whatever the real price is. It happens almost every time.
I think the bracket system as described is there to help facilitate the rule 0 conversation. As it is now someone can come in and say their deck is a 7, and then come in with all the tutors and turn 2 win cons. With the brackets they can say "hey my deck is mostly bracket 2 with like 2 bracket four cards." and the group can understand it's power a little more than a nebulous "it's a 7" IMO the cards being placed in brackets helps define peoples decks better than just guessing, which is kind of what we do now. If it's easier to quantify, it's easier to talk about, and easier to rule 0 a fun game.
even then, change it to like tier or something rather than bracket. such a weird name. or take the 1-10 scale and further define it. . . no level 7 will have several turn 2 win cons. tier 8's may have one maybe. that's simply someone lying and that will happen regardless. some people just get off pug stomping even if they aren't allowed back afterwards.
@@SilverCyan Yeah unlike the cyber ninja set, or the 1920s crime set, etc. The level of cognitive dissonance people who come out with this rubbish can handle is truly impressive
@@IdlestHands I'm not saying WOTC hasn't been building to this for a while, but Duskmourn is still the moment when they just didn't even bother to pay lip service beyond the multiverse cameos. It's like if OTJ had a creature literally just called Lonesome Cowboy and an equipment called Gunpowder Revolver, and every mount creature was Horse.
I think the hardest part to consider about all this is you need to find a way to focus on the social aspect of rule 0 without punishing people who struggle to socialize. Speaking personally I struggle with that and there are people in my ONLY local playgroup who are really good at talking down powerful decks and using their social skills to manipulate the table. I don't think bans are the solution nor is the suggested system, but I do think they should find SOME way to make rule 0 conversation easier and more enjoyable for people who aren't as naturally skilled at speech.
Bans are the only real solution. You can’t make people more or less social to accommodate everyone. Not to mention that people that travel or move should be able to expect some consistency from the game.
I feel like all of this is moot for casual commander with friends. But playing at LGS or with strangers will always be a challenge with the variety of power commander can create. Trying to simplify with brackets won’t work. Either you meet people that want to discuss and compromise before play or you don’t. I support bans of cards that are hard to acquire, reserve list, artificially expensive but not for power. If they want to make a tournament commander ban list or bracket system. That might work.
But the recent bans weren't due to the cost but, according to RC, due to the power of cards they banned. That was the whole message they went to send - "This playstyle is not welcomed in this format" and that's why despite it not being unanimous they banned 3 of them at once. To make this message as strong as possible.
I think your take of 'put together whatever and then check the list' is a really bad one. We already have a banned list. People ALREADY need to check a list before making their deck. This just means we have four different banned lists based on power level, which is something Magic ALREADY has for its other formats. It splits Commander into four smaller formats, which I do think might be excessive, but the difference is just 'different ban lists' and not 'Gotta check after assembling my deck to see what tier it's in.' Also, the idea of more open communication between players ONLY works when you have regular groups and freely played games. It is VERY hard to do at larger events, and my local stores both do Commander Nights that encourage shuffling people around so different people play different people regularly. Having a set tier level for that makes everything a LOT cleaner.
I think presenting their idea and listening to the community is the best they can do. It kinda reminds me of how DnD 5e was created and that definitely had been a success. I put my trust in them, even if the business model of selling cards is vastly different from DnD, they still depend on their players being happy.
Seriously. So many people think fun is had in spite of the rules and systems of a game rather than because of it. It's wild. If you don't want to codify fun, why are you using the rigid systems of Magic the Gathering? Attack with lands, draw from your opponent's library, cast shit for free. Who needs rules? Sheesh.
It’s literally not. Rules create game modes. Fun is up to the individual experience and is entirely subjective, which is why it cannot be enforced with rules. It’s a childish idea, that you can somehow come up with a perfect set of rules to enforce “casual” play, or “social” play, or even “power levels”, when all these concepts, like “fun”, are entirely subjective
@@l4l01234 When I first started playing Magic I had no idea what my ideal casual game would look like, but I sat down with a deck someone gave me and had a great time; not an ideal time, but a great time. That's because the game designers had done a great job of making a game which is a base level of fun. From there, I've learned more specifically the kinds of decks I prefer, but the base experience was/is still really good. And that's what game designers do: come up with a rule set which will be a good base level of fun for a majority of people. And that's what the new tier system will do: provide a good base for new playgroups and pick up games at LGSs to be fun for a majority of people. From that base, established groups can greater work out the specifics of what they want using rule 0
@@l4l01234"subjective" and "arbitrary" are different things, just because we all might have different ideas of what exactly we enjoy, doesn't mean it's completely random and that there are no commonalities across large groups of people.
23:35 The issue my lgs has with this is people lying about what kind of cards they're running or how efficient their deck is. Player responsibility is important for everyone to enjoy a good game. Pods are chosen at random for FMN, and people are expected to be reasonable and discuss decks prehand. When a person says "Oh my deck is only $28 worth of cards" but they are working with a deck that turbos out the table by turn 6 its upsetting to people less experienced in deck building. I've been part of that problem and started building decks for all experiences. People in denial with an obsession on winning every game no matter what will do anything to satiate that addiction instead of playing fair. I don't know how best to remedy this issue.
@@ZombieExpert115 that sucks. Find a coffee shop or some other place and invite people who you enjoy playing with. No one is forcing everyone to randomize pods
At an event where I have to pay to play, such as FNM, I'm not going to discuss jack. I'll have my commander face down as per the rules, and be playing my best with what I have.
2:26 I might hold you to your word, but I promise that I’ll never be an ugly monster about it; you are entitled to your opinion, good sir, and I will respect it. Also, nice tie
You know what this bracket talk really reminds me of? I built a dungeons and dragons deck using the Initiative mechanic, because im a dnd nerd. I thought the dungeons were so cool and built the entire thing around the Dungeon Delver background. Its just initiative guys, some blink effects to reactivate their ETBs, and a few huge dudes to hit off of the Throne of the Dead Three room. I was told my deck was a "9" because i played a Displacer Kitten, and the guy jumped down my throat for lying about how strong my deck was. Now, knowing what i know now, Kitten is a crazy card. *I* just put it in the deck because i wanted to blink initiative guys, and Displacer Beasts are dungeons and dragons monsters. Arbitrary restrictions of what is or isnt of a certain power level are going to make new players hesitant to play. It sure as shit did for me.
The difference here is that you will have concrete restrictions to build your deck around ahead of time and you can avoid all those bad player interactions.
The idea that a Displacer Kitten made your deck a 9 was some rando's personal opinion, which you had no way of knowing ahead of time. Brackets would be curated by people with a deep knowledge of the game, and you'd be able to look them up online before building your deck. If implemented well, they should actively help prevent the kind of situation you ran into.
You experienced something that could only happen BECAUSE we didn't have brackets. If that tool was in place already, and if that card was already accurately bracketed, you just wouldn't have included it, or you would have but would know that you're high power. You're actually advocating for my people to jump down each other's throats if you don't even want a tool to account for that kind of thing.
Brackets are the best information in recent years. It's not perfect, but so much better, that "my deck is 7". And if you try to find a fourth guy to play a game and somebody comes saying that they just assembled their first EDH deck, then no Vampiric Tutor will make their deck higher than 1 (unless they are lying).
Unfortunately while this remains true for uniquely incredible cards (Cyclonic Rift, Winter Orb, Dockside Extortionist), most cEDH decks rely on cards that lend consistency rather than salt (such as cheap tutors, fast mana, and free spells). So you'd be missing those cards that are "great" but not salty.
I feel like cEDH is easy to identify by the commanders alone most of the time and certainly by the presence of certain combo cards like Demonic Consultation or Underworld Breach. The salt score is really good for differentiating casual decks by fun level, which is something I'd be interested in if playing with random people.
I like the bracket system in concept. I've played against too many people who claim they have a "casual deck" that completely sweeps the floor. Having an objective way to gauge the power level could be neat if they set guidelines for percentages of the deck that include cards/combos that are a certain power level. That way you can slap in a Vampiric Tutor you opened in a pack but it wouldn't compromise your deck's "bracket standing" unless you had a bunch of other high-power cards thrown in. I don't think it'll be easy to setup, especially with all the nuances that come with the way the thousands of cards interact with each other, but if done right I'm on board. Only time will tell
The biggest obstacle is community engagement with that. I don’t plan to ever check the actual bracket lists and I have literally dozens of commander decks and play at least 5 hours each week of commander. Imagine the average dude that’s got like 2 decks one of which is mostly precon.
110% agree that WOTC is a bad choice to be in charge of future rules. That said, the RC needed to go. Their recent actions, calls and the way they implemented those changes showed they needed to go.
I know you likely wouldn’t want it but I wish they would let you join the team and be the one responsible for communicating with the community on any news. You are the most level headed person in the community, and you always compose your thoughts so well. You being the voice of commander seems fitting. Monthly commander updates from the professor? Class is in session!
so i was invited to play commander years ago and didnt have a deck. somebody lent me theirs until the next game when they wanted it back. the 2nd deck i played with that night was mono black with no instants other than skeletal scrying. i complained that there was no instant removal and was made fun of. id love to hear comments about my situation.
Why did they take it back? I’ve lent out my decks many times and will even give brief rundowns of what they’re about. However, if someone like bridge shuffles, or flicks the cards, or is eating something messy like Cheetos I have taken the deck back and at best told them to make do with my cheapest deck and only after reprimanding them on the behavior so this don’t repeat it.
@@tc5589-1 i came over to hang out, was new to commander but played mtg since revised. the deck i borrowed first was somebodys main, and another person whom i dont get along with very well had the only other decks i could use for the following game. we did wind up playing with generic decks that only had commons i believe and that was much more enjoyable & fair. what got me is that i had no instant removal in a mono black deck and after i complained about it being unfair a couple people laughed at me and said beggars cant be choosers. not very good hosts imo.
Not all decks need instant removal. It really depends on what your game plan is. I've got decks with only a couple of instants, and they're instant just incidentally. (And then I have a deck that only has instants and cards with flash in it.) I think they laughed because it was a bit of a surprising complaint to them, and it might've sounded irrelevant to them. Laughing at that question seems a bit mean-spirited, though.
@@CandlesandLo-Fi black imo is all about instant removal. it was really strange that in 100 cards there are no examples of that. and i cant remember what creatures if any were in the deck. was based around a commander that would wrath the board.
In this video Prof: - has to obviously catch himself from calling Sol Ring "this shit" then later tells his editor "you don't even have to bleep [a-hole]" - makes a "Cats Can Have Little a Salami" reference in 2024 - gets so upset at the sight of Acrobatic Cheerleader that he needs to calm himself down Needless to say it's some of my favorite work from him in the 8 years I've been watching.
The idea that every game with strangers needs a drawn out conversation of what each consider acceptable cards seem a lot worse than the bracket system. I think a lot of people would rather just not play the format. If you a playing with friends, however, you don't need to care about _any_ external rules settings.
I also don't like the idea that if I have just one tier 4 card my deck is considered 'cEHD' that's just insane to me. What if I have a vampiric tutor that I acquired years ago and the best thing I have to search up is a grave titan... that isn't very 'cEHD' but with the bracket systems that hypothetical deck would be.
Bingo. Hence why I mostly stay away from the format. It has been interesting watching the commander players fidget, because we are use to bans in other formats.
@proteincannon Simply change the card or ask the playgroup nicely if they will allow a 'rule 0' adjustment. Why or how you got the card should be irrelevant to this discussion. And If that type of card is integral to the deck then the deck is certainly in a higher tier. It is very easy to fall into hypothetical worst case scenarios, but I must admit that I haven't heard one yet that makes the new system worse than the old one. A lot of the wrinkles can be solved with the exact same methods that were supposed to fix some of the glaring problems that the commander format has always had.
@@proteincannon The problem isn´t your Vamp Tutor for Grave Titan. The problem are the people who are running "just a vamp tutor" but blow you out of the game on turn 4, when you have just five tapped lands after ramping. This happens often in webcam commander. I really like to play my overpowered chase cards too. My foil retroframe Entlightend Tutor is sitting in a budget Rog/Akroma wordsoup deck with 0,5 Eurocent budget per card, because i like Rite of the Raging Storm. But I´d never play my fancy Force of Will, just because it is just not ok in untrusted casual pods, even hardcasted.
@@proteincannon I wanna point out, this whole 'You run one card at tier 4 and your deck is automatically a 4' is still up in the air according to Gavin and Aaron during the weekly mtg video addressing this. Someone specifically asked, what if a deck has a single bracket 4 card in it, one that isn't an auto win, and they specifically said they're still tooling this out, as that is a contentious point. So I don't know why everyone keeps harping on this point that a single card is going to force your deck up to a much higher tier, when even Wizards isn't entirely sure on that yet after they've thought about it for more than a minute.
I think they should make an app that you can put your deck into, and each card has a point value. then the app can tell you the point value of your deck to relate power to other decks, and let you track what is in each deck. This way, if you play for fun, then you can ignore it entirely, but if you play at events, then just scan in your deck to judge its power. Maybe even let the players vote on what a card's points should be to help with the amount of cards in the format.
Some sort of system to get an average power level seems like the way to go yeah, rather than placing the entire deck in a tier. If you have a jank deck with a couple of high tier cards and it ends up being a 1.25 level deck out of 4 that seems plenty understandable and like you'd pair up just fine with other 1-2 level decks.
This still fails to capture the actual power level of a deck because most good cards are not good on their own, they require other pieces to do what makes them broken or even a full build around. You could jam a 5 color deck full of every powerful card you can think of, be told its cedh tier and none of them gel.with your commander and you didnt build a functional manabase. The determination for powerlevel in decks needs to be on the gameplan, the interaction, and the consistency with which it deals those out. And you cant easily determine that or trust people to be honest about it, which is why you have to instead just accept somet8mes youll get pubstomped and figure out how to handle it like a grown up when it happens
I've been saying it for months now. A modified point system derived from Canadian Highlander would balance the game, help prevent bans, and promote creativity.
@@antoniodittman5820 You make a good point, but what such an app could do, is take cards that specifically work well together, and give a higher point value for then collectively. It would be difficult to account for all of these kinds of combinations when an entire card pool is involved, so it might be that kind of combined point value only happens in instances of particularly notable power.
I want to thank you for this off the cuff train of thought. Thank you for your content. Thank you to your wife for the conservation quote. That quote is quite appropriate.
Never been a Commander player but i feel for them. I hope Wizards can focus on their competitive formats for once. I would kill to see Pioneer and Modern get some true love to help people like me get back into the game again.
It's so funny Because personally I feel like modern is in one of the best places it HAS been in awhile (other than the pseudo rotation via horizons sets every 2ish years😅😅) And with these most recent bans I see ZERO reason for me to EVER return to EDH😁😅
@@FalloutFan011 I would agree if most of my decks Pre-MH3 got mostly invalidated. I might return to the format after the next two sets to see if things hold up. I might get all the lands again and build from there. EDH feels too casual for me but I get you.
@@Ornithopter470 yup also the variety of decks is very sad this rotation tbh. Pre-LOTR, I had 9 different decks that had variety but now it doesn't feel the same imo
Personally I am actually excited for the bracket system. I love the idea of having a codified system of power level. This is done for lots of other games and I see no reason it can't work well here. I plan to have multiple decks of all of the different brackets, unlike now where it's subjective and people argue over the power level. This removes that issue. I am really looking forward to it.
What other games do this? Most other games just don't have casual formats like Commander so it's not a problem they have to solve. Curious which ones do have to solve this problem.
May I say, I’m 2:22 into this video, which I’m extremely excited to listen to as i clean my kitchen, and I feel I’ve already found the best part: Profs gesture at 2:23
I'm giving away 25 copies of The One Ring to viewers this Tuesday, October 8 at 3pm Pacific on Whatnot! Sign up at www.whatnot.com/invite/tolariancollege for $15 credit towards your first purchase!
WHATNOT!
~CHALLENGE ACCEPTED~ One unique thing WOTC can do on behalf of the EDH Ban List: WOTC has the budget and WPN Network needed to gather actual EDH Gameplay data
You should have made it 20, to match the number of Rings of Power in the books.
Prof can you sign my acrobatic cheerleader?
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned, but I appreciate the very clear "This is not meant to be permanent commentary." I mean, everyone's going to be the worst about your words anyway, but at least an attempt was made for you to be an individual with evolving views.
It began with the printing of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf-Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And twenty-five, twenty-five rings were gifted to the whatnot stream, who above all else desire power.
But they were, all of them, deceived
@@IronWilliam for the one-of-one one ring was made
😂
@@Yammenkow A master ring. Bought by lord Post Malone, publicly. One ring to rule them all.
Thank you for the laugh this morning 😂
The commander discourse will continue until morale improves
god I hope not. I didn't even want to talk about it here but felt if I was just chatting about other things this video then people would be demanding to know my thoughts. So sick of this situation, its just all bad feels.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
@@TheRUclipsUser69Fresh Never Frozen Secret Lair confirmed
@@Lv5SuperTuba our secret lair is square, unlike every other card.
Also, you would HAVE to print a Rat in that right?
My morale is high
"I'm not guessing prices on packs, I don't care." Seemingly neither does WOTC. Its criminal to charge $20-$30 for a pack with $8 worth of cards in it. The fact that these are supposed to be premium packs is amazing.
It sure looks like Wizards has a good idea of what the cards are gonna cost in the secondary market and then making sure they are taking the biggest piece of the pie
I got a collector booster and yeah, ~$8 in cards in it and 3 of them, one being the full art land, were damaged. And not in a 'oh cool misprint!' way, but damage you would typically see on a played card, marred corners and a big dent in the middle of the full art land.
Packs are just IRL lootboxes. 90% of them are trash, 9% of them you break even, 1% has the chase stuff.
It isn't criminal tho.
They're premium cost to produce for wotc, you see
They do not care about the secondary market lol
Truly my favorite type of non-podcast podcast.
Unban golos
Yes. Would love themed Podcasts of prof :)
Come on man Profcast was right there :p
@@sentientsickness smh it really was
A noncast
All the serious conversation aside, it did give me a little laugh when Prof proudly declared "7 dollars!" on a 1 dollar card and then didn't bat an eye on the following 10 dollar card
That's just me opening literally any booster.
11:23 to 11:48 timestamp for that instance
I don't understand who would want that trash land
@@tomechan5139It's an untapped land that can tap for 2 different colors. Seems good enough to me.
Prof, I just want to let you know what a treasure you are to this game and this community. I've basically given up the game after 30 years of playing, but I still keep up with happenings in the slim hope that something might come along that draws me back in. I still watch your videos and listen to your takes because they are calm, measured and thought out. You've given me a lot of entertainment and a lot of information with a bunch of goodwill and I want to say thank you.
"yes, they should have taken over. No, that is not a good thing."
this is literally been my take all week.
glad we aggre.
hey derron, fancy meeting you here
The really scary part of wizards taking over is that now whenever they print the next equivalent of commander tower, jeweled lotus, etc pushed card intended for commander *they* get the last word if a powerful chase card is good for the format (I wonder what they'll decide 😓)
I do think it *could* be good but the incentives are just not there for wizards as a company to agree to make the format healthy instead of printing chase cards for each tier and limiting the tiers as to concentrate their playerbase in the power levels they want to print for.
Wizards didn't do anything wrong by taking over, but I can feel that the former RC did the format an unservice by not giving any other course of action a fair shake, or at least that what it seems like from the outside. Perhaps they felt necessitated to get away from their RC roles as soon as possible, which I can empathize with, but I don't really think that it was a rational decision. Just ceding control over the format, with the decision that riled the nutters up still being in effect, can't have done much to stop that vitriol from flowing.
The RC, as it was, wasn't really fit for purpose anymore. It was still largely working under the premises of EDH of 15 years ago - A few thousand players at most to manage. The RC was too small, too exposed, and indeed too insular to manage a format that has grown to these proportions, both in terms of ways of sheer number of players and the various ways that people engage with the format.
What I think they could've done is go into social media lockdown, perhaps contact Wizards for a bit of help managing the situation and lessening the risks to themselves and their families, and worked out some other solution, to keep the rudder of the format out of the potentially abusive grip of WotC and Hasbro.
Perhaps democratize some part of the decision making? Take ban and rules change decisions through online polls, or at least have public votes on adding such suggestions to the docket, and requiring a 60% or 2/3rds majority for them to go through? It would perhaps slow down the decision making some, but it would definitely distribute the blame a hell of a lot more, which was clearly one thing they needed in that situation.
And, as said, grow the organisation and offload some responsibility onto the larger team. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to chip in on one aspect or another - Official communications and social media presence, research and data gathering, and so on - in their free time.
@@solsystem1342 They already did this with Jeweled Lotus and it took the RC four years to ban it.
Why not allow new community ppl to take over??
25:00 My thoughts here are that in my experience rule zero just has never happened at my lgs. I enjoy playing there, it’s just not something that comes up unless someone’s playing an uncard or whatever, so to me a banlist and a thorough one is very important. This same argument you made could be made against the banlist entirely, but I like and think it’s great for the format. The banlist doesn’t stop people from playing the power 9 in their friend group that always has rule 0 convos, it exists to stop a random guy at an lgs curb stomping a new player whose never heard of rule zero in her life.
I was gonna say it’s kinda always felt like rule zero is to allow something in, not to get 3 people to confront someone and say you can’t play said card. That would be intimidating and upsetting for someone I’m sure and then they’d have to have a backup card on hand to fix it. Ban lists aren’t the end of the world.
And you’re spot on about the power 9. Imagine if they unbanned everything and then all of a sudden you have to ask someone not to play a $1000+ card 😂
Every player in the group has the ability to ask beforehand and start the rule zero talk. If even one of them has the competence to do so, you can all find a balance. It’s not a good excuse to ban just because some people are too shy or whatever to initiate the conversation. Those of us who communicate don’t need training wheels.
This is very, very true. The Rule Zero burden *shouldn't* be on the guy who got stomped to be like "how has no one told you that isn't fun to play into," it should be on the power deck player to be like "yeah, my deck has the potential for infinite mana on turn three, but I can't combo a win off that infinite mana until way later." The guidelines are meant to shift the burden onto people wanting to play the most controversial cards, rather than the players who don't want to play against them.
Yeah the bracket system seems extremely simple and not totally effective, but it's just a shorthand for rule 0. It's a way of avoiding the gross word "ban" and softening it to "maybe not for your table without discussion and context"
Think of it like a Keyword. Magic players love Keywords
I'm frankly sick of hearing about rule zero. Rule zero may work for some dedicated, relatively static playgroups, but the idea that it could ever be widespread as the normal, go-to way to manage a casual social format seems absurd to me. It's a TCG, not Nomic.
People sitting down to play a casual social game want to be able to jump right into the game based on a shared pre-existing understanding of the rules. They can't be bothered to hold a technical discussion about the ins and outs of what's allowed and what kind of game experience they're looking for or whatever beforehand. Checking in real quick about something simple and common like mulligans is one thing, but what specific cards are allowed, out of the tens of thousands in the game? And in what combinations? Whether you can use fast mana or land destruction or infinite loops, and what even counts as any of those things? These are questions that would take too long to address with anything but the broadest of brushes and, depending on the group's answer, might leave you without a deck to play, or require you to rebuild your deck. It baffles me anyone thinks that's a practical way to handle things. At that point, you might as well just make up a new Magic format on the spot, and I'm not even being hyperbolic, because in my two decades of Magic, I've literally played more games where we wound up doing just that and spontaneously inventing a format, than rule zero'd Commander games. For Commander to serve the role it does in the Magic community, it needs to be a proper format, and a proper format needs clear rules everyone can agree to. A banlist is the obvious pragmatic way to manage such a format, and in my personal opinion, the bracket system they're floating seems like the logical next evolution from a binary banned-or-not banlist to something flexible enough to handle variations in deck power level, and without sacrificing clarity or simplicity. As worried as I am that WotC taking over Commander may prove detrimental to the health of the format in the long term (mostly in the form of Hasbro urging them toward more egregious power creep and design mistakes), I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about the direction they seem to want to take it in the near to mid term.
“It’s a common, Michael. What could it cost, a dollar?”
“It’s his boss’s boss’s boss. Who we don’t know the name of by the way.”
Yes we do, it’s Chris Cocks. (That is not a derogatory nickname, but his genuine surname. Seriously.)
When you look at a timeline, basically all the heaviest controversies and mistakes in WotC’s handling of both magic and DnD happened within a year or two of Chris becoming CEO of Hasbro following Brian Goldner’s death. The 30th anniversary packs, the OGL rework, the Aftermath Pinkertons. And his mishandling extends beyond Wizards to other Hasbro stewarded franchises as well. Power Rangers is basically dead right now. It’s treated internally as a punishment assignment. But Goldner bought PR with a plan, he had a vision for the franchise, he had actual ideas. Unfortunately he took his ideas to the grave with him, and no one at Hasbro knows what to do with the huge IP they sank a bunch of money into now.
Who knows, maybe we’ll eventually get a Power Rangers universes beyond as Chris desperately tries to figure out how to recoup the loss of his predecessor by any means necessary.
I feel seen, thank you for shitting on this asshole. They brought him in as a 'digital games expert' because of his "incredible success" with Xbox Live. Meaning, he milked the grip that Halo had on the console to monetize online play. Playing games online used to be free until this douchebag and his $50 a year, first year free scheme started. Now Nintendo and Sony also charge you for playing online as if it were impossible without that cost structure, all pulled straight out of this MBA scum's ass.
Arena was his pet project at WotC, and if you feel that monetization sucked then you've experienced his handiwork and complete ignorance of fun and games firsthand.
Having worked for a big global corpo before, the CEO does two things. Jack, and the related product, Shit.
He sets the agenda, its the people one or two rungs below him, who actually go about working out how to implement the agenda, who make the godawful decisions.
The CEO doesnt really have anything to do with any of the products - theyre busy worrying about increasing share dividends and returns.
What they *do* is turn to their business unit directors and demand X amount more revenue and Y amount less in costs. Those directors, who also dont care about the products, then come up with ways to cut corners, and then people like Gavin, and his boss, who *do* care about the product, are left to implement those changes while doing the least damage.
Chris Cocks isnt out to ruin your favourite products. Hes just a capitalist. Capitalism is whats out to ruin your products. And quality of life. And future.
if you think creating a boogey man to channel the communties hatred towards is the correct response you havent been paying attention.
I find it hilarious that he says Wizards had to step in and takeover for the sake of safety when Wizards has sicked the Pinkertons on people before.
@@michaellee1116 I feel like a corporate CEO who made over 9 million dollars in 2022 is the most fair person to put a target on but your moral high ground you stand on is commendable
Duskmourn truly feels like it's 50% amazing art and cool themes, and 50% reference slop. The duality of Magic.
yea, this
It felt like a huge internal compromise to continue being invested when they dropped the universes beyond meme into the game but within like a year of "don't worry it will all be mechanically distinct" they tripled the references in main line releases and human players were required to run Rick Grimes, Ten Years Past Relevancy.
Which cards feel like reference slop to you?
@@Koshana ghost vacuum, arabella, half of the survivors look like they're straight out of a sitcom rather than a horror movie. Came Back Wrong also has a shameless reference to the exorcist.
The worst offender to me is the knock off Ghostbusters proton pack within the set. Honestly, I feel like I'd almost respect the set more if it was literally just full of actual secret lair style tie in cards.
Something like a quarter of the set feels like "Cards we wanted a Secret Lair Alt Art for and either couldn't get the license or didn't want to spend the money getting it"
23:20 So I disagree with the professor here. I've been playing a lot of magic on TTS and the issue with player accountability and having a conversation is that really only works if you know and play with someone on a regular basis. If you and 3 other randos happen to run into each other at an LGS and sit down for a game of commander each person at the table has a different idea about what is OP and what isn't, about how strong their decks are, pretty much their entire attitude in general. Imo the bracket system will create a set of hard rules that caters to exactly that group of people. If your argument is in support of the current rule zero climate where people just need to talk then does anything really change with the addition of brackets? You can still have all the conversations you want and rule zero whatever you want. This system just creates structure and a level of uniformity among people playing together for the first time.
Its just baffling to me seeing people downplay the WoTC takeover by saying "people just won't follow the bans if they are bad". While seeming to forget that also should have applied to the RC bans. The worst people all seem to have selective memory.
I don't think the people who were being violent with regards to the Commander bans are the same people downplaying the takeover...
the toxic fan base played themselves. hard to find any sympathy if they're unhappy with the consequences. maybe those people need to stop being so miserable to everybody about everything online
Probably because you're talking about different people with different opinions
Unban golos
If you paid attention to the discourse, people were saying they would disregard the RC bans as well.
Perhaps one of the most painful things about this, is that unless we just assume WotC will run Commander into the ground and kill all value, this outcome means the people who were going crazy and harassing the RC pretty much unquestionably won.
Wizards won't ban their cards, and Wizards will keep balancing the format in a way to ensure MTG cards have a lot of value in the trading market. That's their priorities, the health of the game is secondary. They're getting exactly what they want... unless Commander just falls over.
Or people just don’t play either spikes that run those cards.
@@tc5589-1 It's not about playing, it's about trading
Nah if you threaten someone at a major corporation there are policies and mandatory reporting that kicks in and you'll be answering to your local cops and/or FBI. Their influence is over forever and wizards is going to do what it needs to for the format. Unlike RC who was easily forced to sleep on Nadu for an extra month compared to wizards, sleep on dockside and lotus for 5 years, sleep on crypt for 30 years.
I wonder if the investors understand this. They want all of their cards to be worth infinite money but if the game is unapproachable, then the game dies, and every card is worth pennies. There is no "victory" at the end of this road.
I completely agree with this sentiment, but unfortunately, as long as these people can make money off of their "investments," they could care less whether the game survives or not, despite how short sighted it is. The culture of "F*** You, Got Mine" is very strong in their world, so as long as they can sell their collection before everyone else, they'll come out on top in their books. After all, NOBODY has ever been burned by that attitude before, right?
To the editor, I like it when you add the celebration when proff guess the correct price🎉.
I also like the Lego Yoda death sound on SUAP when they drop their cards or knock their deck over. My pod keeps quoting it when it happens to us 😂
"Fewer bans and more conversations" doesn't work with randoms. People are not responsible enough to go by their own judgements, thats why rules were invented in the first place.
"Thats a rule zero conversation why do we need the brackets for" because people are terrible at conversations and the brackets serve as an easy to access/understand guideline and it provides a clear example for those who otherwise would not understand.
This is my hope for the Brackets. I think their presented implementation seems odd. But, the idea seems to be "players are bad at honestly assessing their decks strength. Here are some concrete guidelines for what cards make a strong deck". If the guidelines work, it could be great.
I agree. How long of a conversation does a table need to have before the game starts? (Half an hour?) Is shunning people away because they are playing a card you don’t like good for game? (No). Rule 0 doesn’t work and shouldn’t be a thing.
This is why I play competitive 60 card formats or limited. Every knows what the rules are when we sit down to play and if the deck is legal you can’t really complain if you were unprepared to play against it.
I swear this is *the* problem of all commander youtubers, you get to play curated games with people you like all the time, and even the games with strangers you are recognizable enough to end up playing with people who want to make a good impression.
Most of us who play randoms at our LGS's/school clubs/etc don't have that luxury. A hard and fast guideline that everyone knows or can reference is the best way to enforce it. I know people say commander is the "casual" format, but it has since become the *default* format and the way in which most people are playing the game. Unsurprisingly, most people play games in general to win.
While social intelligence and curated pods can help put everyone in a more chill space, not everyone has that luxury of choosing who they play with so carefully. You either get complete randoms with little incentive to be upfront or play nice, or you don't get to play.
Even with reasonable friends its pretty tough to establish limits as it always gets to a subtle arms race that gets amped up with the power creep in newer sets.
Having external and cleary defined tiers would make powerlevel conversations a lot more concrete instead of "i guess my deck is a 7".
I think the best way to think of this new approach is "These brackets are not there to enable you to play whatever combination of cards you want, they are there for you and your opponents to communicate what you DON'T want to play against.". Your Bracket 2 deck with a few Bracket 4 cards in it but you want to play against pure Bracket 2s is still pub stomping, just less egregiously than the guy running 15 Bracket 4 cards in the same situation.
I look forward to the printing of "Bling Lotus" which is a 0 mana artifact that taps and sacs to create 2 mana of any color that must be spent on a commander.
It'd probably be named Jewled Petal
Thought of this immediately when J-lo got banned. It will be coming in the Marvel expansion
Or they will just unban Jewled lotus now daddy hasbro has the reigns. They specifically said they wouldn’t be banning more when making the bracket and conveniently didn’t say anything about not unbanning cards. I’m all for most cards just slotting into a tier rather than being outright banned.
@@derrickpaulson3093 Considering the scale of the blowback and death threats they likely do not want to give the impression of encouraging harassment
printing a new and similar card achieves the same thing with less PR issues, so they'll do that
@@Xmies23Mark my words the infinity stones are going to be mana rocks
2 cost
Tap for one mana of a specific color
To basically the diamond but better, and then they'll probably be an infinity gauntlet cards that lets you win the game if you have all the stones
The professor is so good at being genuine and it’s amazing to see nowadays
The bracket system should almost exclusively exist as a warning system to spark conversation on power outlier cards or cards that can generate more consistently strong games. Stuff that is really strong off the rip like Rhystic Study or Smothering Tithe, and also cheap tutor effects like Vampiric Tutor, which can make even a weak deck have an answer to any given situation based on deck building.
Agreed, like EDHrec's salt score, the bracket seems like a useful tool on how to evaluate individual cards when deck building to help curate the play pattern I want to bring to the table. If my deck is solidly a 2 except for one 4, maybe I look for a similar effect that's a little less efficient or a little more niche to stay in bracket 2. Maybe I swap it out permanently or maybe I keep an alternative in case my playgroup objects to including a 4.
I think it's also helpful for LGS's and events to start the table grouping process. Rule 0 still should happen at these tables, but it should help somewhat align expectations.
It has its issues, but it feels more concrete than the current nebulous "my deck's a 7". Even today, someone drops an ABU dual in a jank deck and someone will say "I didn't know we were playing **that** kind of game".
@@joshuahowell4785 it doesn't change the fact that someone has to go trhough all cards in MtG history and sort them into brackets.
I don't want to spend hours discussing with my playgroup what's a 4 and what's a 2
@@enricomassignaniThe vast overwhelming majority of cards will be a 1
Yeah I just can't help but feel that this will be used as a hard norm rather than a suggestion or starting point. "No tier 3 or higher" rather than asking what they're playing and how it works.
@@user-et3xn2jm1uI also worry about this. Like ya people saying it’s a frame work is all well and good if that’s actually how it’s used. But we know a lot of players who will just hard stop say no you’re not running that and I don’t care
25:00 - "that's called a rule 0 conversation! why do we need the brackets for?!"
To make that conversation easier. It identifies the cards that MUST be discussed instead of letting the players decide what the FEEL like it has to be discussed.
I just want to be able to go to my game shop looking for a non-sweaty commander game without having to sort through players trying to find 3 people who want the same thing as me.
I think the bracket system can at least help with this
Are not the arbitrary numbers placed on these bracketed cards based on feelings? 🤦♂️
No, because the conversation will still be about how you FEEL your deck performs.
If anything, this will make the conversation harder because it will put the focus on singular cards (because it will very often be that, a conversation to have because of one card, a literal 1% of your deck) instead of performance, synergies and gameplay.
And it will eschew the understanding of the game for new players as well because of that.
100% agree. I am excited to build decks based on the brackets.
@@edwarddavidson8949 Yeah it will force you to be more clever instead of loading up your deck with the best cards in each of your colors first and then creating a theme second.
Prof, the problem with your fun theory at the 24:00 mark is that some people's fun is not letting other people enjoy themselves. They play to ego trip, they intentionally avoid or lie in turn 0 conversations so they have an advantage, and that's why they have to play with randoms instead of a consistent play group. Those people exist in the thousands.
One person I refuse to play with now literally said they play edh like rugby, and he should be able to tackle as hard as he wants. This was after we communicated that we play VERY noncompetitively
@@seanedgar164 this is a very NON friendly behaviour, one that I don't wish among my closest ones, even "game-friends".
Cast him aside after explaining what he did wrong, let him have to pay the consequences of his actions. Hard lessons, maybe, just for 1 event; might help him become a better person.
Absolutely, I've ended up meeting these kinds of people many times and it really soured my experience with MtG
That's why there needs to be two lists one for EDH and one for CEDH
I showed up to a local shop a while back. Threw together a sliver deck. Not even a crazy one-missing key cards, no crazy mana ramp, no cards over $5. I was told it was a casual shop and people were friendly players with fun decks. Yeah….I was lied to. My turn one I played a land. Their turn one, they had half a board set up. Like…how? Magic is broken.
23:03 This is effectively that "Players can regulate themselves", which is fine when you have a established pod of people and you only play with them. But a lot of people are only able to get games from their LGS. Anecdotally, I found the CEDH players are much more common at LGS' and the kind of self-regulation that you're hoping for I haven't found. To the point where I gave up Commander because I just want to play casually with an upgraded precon. I don't have the money to be running "7 power level, I swear" decks and something like an established tier list with clear demarcations of power level would greatly benefits casual commander players. I don't think THIS system with a single card determining power level will but like you said things are just in the planning phases and I'm hopeful for what the teams come out with.
I swear players hear "Go ahead and play thorracle" when my friends or I tell them we're playing precons
To add to this, the brackets are irrelevant to an established pod because they can just “rule 0” the whole thing out and effectively ignore the new bracket system. But for those of us playing with random people most of the time, the brackets will institute some guardrails so that there aren’t crazy power disparities that only get revealed in game and have the result of ruining the experience of playing with random people. Honestly, how realistic is it for people to have the “rule 0” conversation and then each of them proceed to remove a set of cards in their decks in real time and then add in the necessary number of alternative cards that are considered “fair” just so that these four random people will conform to each other’s disparate ideas of what fun is. I just don’t buy that instituting guidelines to keep play more balanced makes for a worse playing experience and nothing I heard in this video convinces me otherwise.
It also relies on the presumption that a group of nerds (myself included) who have never meet before are going to be really good at communicating and articulating grievances with each other.
Can’t wait to bring my cedh deck minus all the banned cards to a casual pod and turn 2 thoracle. Since rule zero doesn’t work anyways.
You’re always going to have someone optimize based on the format and will find a way to be a power level above casual players. Banning more and more cards isn’t the answer.
If everyone else’s power level seven deck is stronger than yours maybe you don’t have a power level seven deck?
Tbh I’ve avoided other content creators on this topic. I don’t want to be riddled with anxiety in the online panic. You’re the only one I clicked on. Even when you disagree, or are skeptical, or are angry, there’s a way you go about it that I appreciate.
It's almost better disagreeing with the Prof, because he explains himself well and its a great opportunity to see a different perspective. ❤
Why even care about the online panic? Not like wotc has been making good decisions for years or been on an upward trend for customer satisfaction, but you still enjoy the game right? Just embrace the fact you can enjoy a game that’s mismanaged.
Yeah, I was not real thrilled with an 'investor' take on things, and I'm tired of hearing it's another CRAZY day in the world of Magic.
So today a co-worker who plays CEDH explained to be that a separate ban list is useless, because CEDH will continue to be the most competitive things you can do in the "main" Commander format.
That's what a lot of us have been trying to explain for years now every time the split ban list discussion comes up. People outside of cEDH (and some in the community too for that matter) keep not listening.
There still needs to be better clarity for the format when Rule 0 is just so the HR freaks can get everyone in a group therapy session. Thats it. Its lynching.
2 separate banlists, 1 for cedh and 1 for edh and THEN 1 for in the 99 vs. in the command zone. I hate this mindset that the player base is too dumb to figure these distinctions out.
Honestly the tug of war between casual and competitive has been going on since day 1 of magic in all formats. Literally only commander has ever had a problem handling it. We solved this when I was 14 very easily and with way more players than 4 at the table.
If you're struggling it's not the format, it's either you or the group you're in. Try another group and if that never works out you're the problem, get into therapy, use your words to say what you want to play instead of to threaten everyone.
Love how every time some minor drama happens on the internet it's immediately escalated to mass death threats /s
As a person who engages with game very casually, the constant drama that I see come from the community at large is exhausting and a huge put off from engaging with it any further than the little bit I currently do. Definitely does not make me want to go out and spend more money on the game.
It's really embarrassing for commander players because pretty much everyone remembers being 13 or 14 starting magic and solving these same problems very easily in way bigger groups. A lot of times even with these exact same cards. So yeah do I want to go to commander night at my local shop knowing that the average person there is probably more unhinged and less able to solve problems than me at 14, no thanks.
Really makes me want to sell my collection and move on with my life. It was a fun game
Don't. Proxy if you can. Don't give WotC another dime of your cash.
I'd like to see more unfiltered Prof discussions like this while opening packs! Good point re the bracket system essentially resulting in soft bans. I wonder if a points system would be better, though getting agreement on quantifying the points would probably be like herding cats.
The only thing unbanning Jeweled Lotus would do is tell the bad guys that whatever horrible things they did to the CAG work and they need to do that more often.
I think it's unlikely they'll unban it anytime soon. The much more likely scenario IMO is that they print something similar and just as broken but technically different.
What a trash opinion. And yes protest should work. As it has done. And if people make decisions that have financial impact on millions of people, don’t be surprised when people make a mistake like they did and lose their temper and threaten them. But again. Threatening is wrong, but everyone is just human
@@Visionz9200 Why shouldn't your investment carry any risk?
It would also give me my $$ back
@Visionz9200 There is a difference between protesting and threatening.
I recommend not conflating the two.
It is good to not negotiate with terrorists.
I'm CACKLING at the jeweled lotus thing 3:20. Imagining the alt world where the prof is giving out banned cards and saying "who knows! maybe they'll be back soon!!"
That would be the Instructor doing that.
I just got a Jeweled Lotus today. Eh. I'm not stressed about it. I already have one and never put it in a deck.
Honestly I think going ahead and giving away Jeweled Lotus would be incredibly funny.
Hearing 16:52 makes my blood chill. I truly can't imagine how awful it's been for them.
neither can I. its beyond what even I have experienced, and what I have experienced was pretty bad. this whole situation is just awful.
@@TolarianCommunityCollegeim truly sorry for you and the rcs experience with the MTG community. I play for 3 weeks now and it's honestly really disheartening to see how a small group of psychos speaks so loudly.
Good on the professor to call this out, sucks seeing Josh from Command Zone literally blaming RC and downplaying the threats they got and fanning the flames more.
@@chexmix0101I'm confused by this comment, cause I watched the whole video and the entire time he was calling out the people who making threats bad people pretty much the whole video and that everything they state about being empathetic towards those who were upset about the bans, Cause there is many layers to these bans than just it being cardboard, would exclude that minority of people who are being threatening. They do not deserve sympathy in any capacity and all of Command Zone agrees on that
I had this feeling that things had gone further than anyone was talking about. Whenever WoTC or someone involved talked about it they were both very serious and very vague.
And then the Internet just assumed it was just regular, run-of-the-mill, online harassment and not that big deal (as horrible as that is).
15:28 Prof's visceral reaction to Acrobatic Cheerleader was cathartic
Why the hate for the card?
@@jb9551 It shouldn't exist within the lore of the world, and instead only exists as a reference to real world horror movies (as opposed to, say, the saw references, which are plausible things to have in duskmourne.) How on earth is there a cheerleader when society basically can't exist in large groups? What is the flavor text referring to? There shouldn't be any cheerleaders on duskmourne, because there almost certainly aren't any schools or major sports, or any of the other prerequisites for a cheerleader's existence to make sense.
I don't usually comment on videos, but I just wanna say that your content is always really valuable to me prof! Your commentary and insights are always really well reasoned and clear, and your empathy to others in the community while still maintaining an objective standpoint is inspiring.
Thank you for making such wonderful content!
Everyone has that 1 guy in their group that doesn't have good judgement. Some people work better under guidelands and that's where I see the tier system working. I know the flaw is that anyone can make a bullshit 2 card infinite with tier 1 cards and that's still where rule 0 chats need to still happen. But for some, having that baseline guideline prior to the discussion will come in handy i am sure.
The biggest flaw in something like the tier system as pitched, in my estimation, is going to be a widespread lack of participation from the community. I’ll personally never actually look at the list of cards in each tier. Just as an example. If a store enforced it I’d simply go to a different store or ask the friends I most want to play with to hang with me at my house. I’m not alone in either stance.
It should be a two or three tier system at most. Feel like CEDH and regular.
His name is Josh and he runs Crypt in every deck he owns and complains about green ramp.
@@pluralkumquat and he is right to do so. But not for putting crypt into every deck, but because a deck having access to green ramp makes it infinitely better and consistent than decks without it. The same way a deck gets better when you have access to blue counter spells. Aghhhh, I HATE SIMIC! (and still play 5c decks).
Honestly at times it's me, I don't always catch interactions between cards so having the guidelines would be great :). I don't think I'm as bad as some of the folks mentioned in the replies by any means but I'd feel more comfortable including or excluding cards if I had a good way to judge their relative power levels. My decks often just are as strong as the card pool for a given idea of what I think sounds fun to make.
I can imagine using a version of this "bracket" system to softly define the strength of a deck in a way that's easier to understand and gauge than the current "power level" method, but it absolutely needs to be more flexible than "if you have *one* Bracket 4 card in your jank deck, the whole deck is considered CEDH."
This. Exactly this. We have to set that idea up early and often.
"What do we need the bracket system for if we have Rule 0"
The Bracket system is meant to help Rule 0, not replace it. They said that in the Weekly MTG stream.
Yeah, the point of the bracket system (whether or not it works) isn't to replace a Rule 0 talk, it seems to be to force you to acknowledge "some of these cards get wild" with a more codified approach. Ideally, I think it reduces the ability of people that (intentionally or not) underrate their own decks power to walk over someone else.
@@Wolfman112 That's the most maddening part to me about all of this discourse. It's not a ban system, it's a way to have a Rule 0 conversation in an objective manner.
Like, if you're a new player and you put together a new commander, how can you even have a Rule 0 conversation about power level? Instead of being a new player having to say "Well this is a 7 because it has cool cards and a combo" they can look at the brackets and say "oh, my deck is a T4 because I pulled a Vampiric Tutor, but all of my other cards are 2 or lower". It's just a language framework to be used in Rule 0 discussions, not a ban list or "you can't play anything from T4 because that's cEDH". Hell, I see people compare it to the Canadian Highlander points system when the brackets is essentially a simplified that.
Instead of going "Oh my deck is 150 points, but most of that are 3 cards" you can say "Hey, my deck is T1 outside of these 4 cards from T2, these 3 from T3, and this 1 T4 card". How is that much different?
@@ddalton86ify This is the thing that caught me off guard. I feel like the Professor speaks approvingly of Canlander, but Canlander is more restrictive and a higher knowledge demand than the bracket system, while saying the knowledge burden is part of the problem with brackets. I get that the REAL answer is distrust of WOTC and hating the reactionaries behavior towards the RC/CAG, but I don't see how anyone can think Canlander is less burdensome than this conversation guiding tool.
Exactly, it’s a power level communication tool.
@@ddalton86ify Totally agree. Bracketing is a framework to have a meaningful Rule 0 conversation. The concern that we are going to have to look up each card in a 100-card pile is rather moot given the prevalence of online deck builders which could easily show you the bracket of your cards and help you search for cards of similar effects at a lower bracket. I'm optimistic.
9:10 But I love tuning in to watch how out of touch you are with prices... :(
Way back in the 90s, WotC considered creating a new format based on a card-scoring system. The idea was that your deck could only have a certain number of points, and better cards cost more points. They abandoned it - ostensibly because it's too much work to assign points. (Or perhaps because they realized players will chase power cards and they didn't want to incentivize that.
The new bracket system reminds me of that. Different and less onerous, but still a clear similarity.
@notme222 We need that in YGO. It would make having alternate non-GOAT and non-Edison formats more feasible.
Prof, you pulled out the deepest of DS9 references and it made me smile. Thank you sir.
Move along home! ;)
Win what?
Alamarein! Count to 4
@@evilgeek87 Then three more!
I think the bracket system can work as a soft-ban list. Putting cards like ancient tomb and the one ring in bracket 4, you can then discuss with your group or a store can set rules for what brackets you will allow
I said it in another comment, but it bears repeating. If you need an arbitrary number system to tell you your deck is too strong rather than listening to your playgroup, you are the issue in your group. Rule 0 exists for a reason: so people are encouraged to communicate.
@@BobNinjaCatOr it's useful for when you're traveling about and you don't have the comfort of your usual playgroup. It's for sanctioned events, not for the kitchen table where you are with familiar friends and decks.
@@BobNinjaCatPeople overreact or underreact to certain cards all the time, so no, the opinions of the strangers you play with is not a good thing to judge your deck power level on.
Ironically the brackets themselves sorta show the signs of this, in how Armageddon, which is strong but not that strong, got put in bracket 4 because people constantly overreact to it
That said, a points system works just fine for Canlander, no reason it can't work for EDH
@@INTCUWUSIUA If I'm running a demonic tutor, the fast mana rocks, and a cyclonic rift, I'm probably running a high-powered deck designed for cEDH. It's on me to say "hey, this baby spits out a wincon by turn 4 and goes turbo by turn 2. Is this too fast?"
People generally dislike mass land destruction because it slows the game to a crawl and can often skew it in one person's favor. People aren't overreacting, but nice assumption. It tells me you've brought MLD to a table and failed to recognize when it made the game miserable.
@@otterfire4712 F2F has two tiers of tables at their events. Competitive EDH and casual. Sitting down and having a dialogue at the casual table is not difficult. If you can't navigate a simple "what's everyone playing at and what is the expectation" then you shouldn't attend sanctioned events.
I think we as a community should explore talking about strategies while talking about specific cards when having rule 0 conversations. I think your strategy or style of deck is much more impactful than specific cards. A deck full of “bracket 4” cards but no strategy won’t do much, but a well built deck, even a budget deck, can run away with the game very quickly. Examples: landfall, storm/spellslinging, grave pact effects, wheels
22:05 I think in your example, the brackets help the Rule 0 conversation. Even long time players don't know every card. So if you come to a play group and say, "Hey this deck is bracket 1, but I'm running a Vampiric Tutor is that okay?" The other players will at least have an idea of what a "yes" answer will mean on the game.
I need to hear why Prof hates Acrobatic Cheerleader so much. I'm sure I could guess, but I need to hear it from the source haha.
It breaks your immersion since no one would be wearing a pristine cheerleader outfit after living in a demonic hellscape deathworld for the last few years/decade. It would make sense if the set took place when Valggy was devouring the world, but we we're long past the point where he was devouring the plane's suns.
@@Raro404pretty sure it’s a reference to 80s movies like The Midnight Hour.
I think it's mechanically wrong too. Why would it permanently gain flying? Like a cheerleader thrown into the sky from her cheer squad and she just never comes down.
You don't think it's because he dated a cheerleader once, and she broke his heart, and now he's too hurt to talk about it?
I'm also curious hahaha
I love that the Prof. knows Star Trek, and particularly “Move Along Home” well enough to make that reference. Alamaraine!
cEDH is a mindset, not a format. cEDH can exist in any bracket and will be optimized to win with whatever tools the bracket decides to allow. Competition was never the problem. It's the misrepresentation and pubstomping that's the problem.
Yup.
I think a Canlander point system would be better from the perspective of accurately and objectively showing the power of a deck, but it would exacerbate the potential baggage for less enfranchised players that the bracket system will likely bring.
You are probably right but I would hate it. I at least hate the power bracket system less.
That’s just the bracket system with extra steps
Considering what cards would get pointed, I don't think it'd be too big of a deal for new players, since they'd very likely not have access to pointed cards, and if they do, then they're probably in deep enough to be okay with looking up how the points system works.
Also, even new Warhammer players have no difficulties looking up the points values for their units when they play, so I think the concerns about a points system are overblown
@@INTCUWUSIUA It would also be relatively easy from a technical standpoint for all the deck-building apps to add each card's point value and apply that to the decks. It depends on how the bracket system actually works in the end for the UI, but technically, it's easy to implement.
If Canlander and Australian Highlander can make it work with points so can Commander.
The biggest benefit IMO of the bracket system is it gives an objective basis for rule zero discussion.
Someone who is used to playing at cEDH tables would look at a deck and think it's mid power, but the same deck looks overpowered to a super-casual kitchen table group.
The brackets can lead to a more meaningful rule zero discussion
These have to be my favorite types of videos on the channel. Something about the professor just talking openly and honestly about his feelings plus him going through packs (and always overvaluing them lol) just feels so honest and true. It feels like the video is made for passion, and I love that
Brackets are specifically for pick up games, random games on spelltable, and things like that. Because if you have a static playgroup of friends, you can and SHOULD discuss what is and is not allowed with that group.
The brackets are there to prevent pubstomping and the like. Not everyone is comfy talking either to brand new people they are not used to.
The brackets are there for people who are not comfy with doing the Rule 0 thing. You may not need it, and you may not want it, but other people can and will use it.
Holding a job requires a minimum of social competence. Family, extra-familial relationships, those require being competent socially. That generally involves having a conversation. What you're basically saying is being honest about your deck is a far more difficult task than being around your family and friends and co-workers and you need an artitrary nunbering system to hold your hand so you can be more honest.
I understand if you're still under 12. If you're an adult, grow the eff up. I've seen adults with severe social anxiety ask a simple "is my deck that has a mana crypt too strong" to a half-table of strangers in a noisy gameshop with far greater ease than you apparently possess. Yes, you're asking for an arbitrary numbering system to help you navigate basic social situations that someone with severe anxiety in a noisy area can manage.
If someone with a much worse condition than you can manage a simple damn question, then you have no excuses. Be better.
@@BobNinjaCat Social skills are indeed hard.
@@ShiroyWolf Basic social skills are apparently impossible for some.
@@BobNinjaCat apparently basic empathy is hard for some people as well. JUST SAYING.
But you'll still need to talk and explain what cards are in what bracket. And imagine if you have a card you didn't realize or forgot was a bracket higher. Then you play it and the table is like WOAAH YOU SAID YOU WERE PLAYING BRACKET 2!
This thing is dumb.
Its hard to understate how important knowing your playgroup and knowing exactly what your deck is capable of is. I have a EDH deck that's half prison half wombo-combo, but I knows it's very unreliable and my friends love watching me pop or fizzle
Unfortunately, the reaction to the bans shows exactly why we can't just rely on conversation and the judgement of the players.
Converse with the same community who made death threats over bans let them dictate your experience I'm sure they will be reasonable! yeah agree rule 0 is just a cop out and has been for years.
It just showed us that there is a literal mafia running beneath us
I think WOTC's greatest strength is that it has access to more data (or can spend the time/money to get more data) about players and player sentiment. Unfortunately, I have no faith in their ability to manage the format or put gameplay above profit. Just look at how they manage the modern banlist or print modern cards nowadays.
Counterpoint they also manage the Vintage banlist and that's as player-run format as anything. They consult with Vintage "elders" and ban accordingly. Of course bans there reflect league play, so not a perfect comparison! 🙂
@@pierredupont1096 It’s super important to note that vintage doesn’t drive nearly as much of their profit so it’s simply less important to corporate management. Commander is the most played and profitable format so their fingers will be very deep in the pie.
This is why I would not be surprised if Mana Crypt comes off the ban list.
In MTGO where it was a $1 card for decades it's heavily played but not complained about at all. It's offline where it's $100 that people whine. People don't resent the power, they resent the jealousy of not owning one. And that shouldn't be a reason to ban a card.
I think this video is incredible, and your content is 100% A+! All of that said, I completely disagree with you on reversing the bans. A reversal of the recent judgment that came down would not mean that the “death threats won the day”. There are literally hundreds of thousands of CE players around the world that did not like the rulings, did not want them, and want to see them reversed! These would be the women and men who would get the victory; the victory would not belong to the small handful of twerps were small enough to issue death threats. so please keep that in mind! A reversal of this egregious ruling would not be game match for those who did the threatening, but rather it would be a magnanimous victory for those of us who really love to play this amazing game the way it was designed to be played: with great wizard and wielding of great magic! For 30 years now it has been a game where the very best mages have discovered the most busted, combos and victory lines! Casual play an absolutely insanely busted play have always coexisted. And they should always coexist! We do not need rules committees, trying to temper the game, and put a governor on things to “slow it down“. we the people are smart enough to figure things out for ourselves! Will there be people out here who take advantage of their local game store meta once in a while? Sure. That is going to happen. But whoever “that guy” is will not get by with his antics for more than one or two games before everyone sniffs that person out. Any average local group of adults, or even teenagers, is able to manage their local situation at hand. We don’t need a rules committee to do all of that for us. I for one vote that we keep the bans at a minimum, and remember that every single card that is ever been printed has a counter measure, printed in some set.
21:30 new to commander and a 4 bracket system is more confusing than a 10 power system? Rather, an UNDEFINED 10 power system... The MAJORITY of commander players can't give you an accurate power level of their decks right now.
And it's not even a hard cap on power, moreso a warning system for cards that might be problematic for other decks
What’s so sad is that we just now whenever Gavin or someone else on the forward facing team is forced to announce something awful, people will go after them rather than the executives behind the decision. There’s a deep rot in our community, and we have a lot of work to do to fix things.
Unless you want to go visit each of these bad actors personally I don’t see how to fix it. Not that it shouldn’t be fixed I just don’t know how.
yeah no joke. It is exhausting that we have to go after the rot in our community who attack and harass the faces of the corporation while the people with real money and control laugh their way to the bank
But that's okay. When you associate yourself with an organisation that does awful things, you deserve your share of the backlash. At least WotC has the ressources to go after the kind of people who take things too far.
@Arufonsa1 improving affordability across the board, inside and outside of magic the gathering, so that people are broadly less stressed about losing equity in chase mythics
@@CanadaJarod 100% be an awesome thing. Would deal with so much and help incredibly. Would not get rid of all of the problems on the community. Would probably create some more bad actors who liked it better when elitism was quantifiable. It would fix so much but we are talking about issues inherent to human condition.
Hot take: The bracket system is a Trojan horse to have new cedh power cards actually be under-bracketed to improve its value/demand and therefore drive sales.
"This is just a casual format, we can play what we want in my pod" - the guy who invested hundreds of dollar in their decks and its about to commit some crimes against humanity in their lgs/local pod
My deck is tier 2 but I have a tomb and a few 4s in it, do you want me to throw a fit or waste the next 30 minutes of your life.
I mean I just spend multi-hundreds on OG foil Snaps, foil Sunscape familiars, OG foil Preordains for...Pauper Familiars so guilty as charged? LFG Pauper ;-)
@@robinrising1834 thats actually an interesting point to consider. There are a lot of meme decks ( chairs tribal, bald people tribal, breast size tribal ) that need a few high-power staples to even have a chance against a precon.
100%. "Could you take out your dockside? Its not fun"
"WELL WHY DONT YOU TAKE OUT YOUR KINSBALE CAVALIER HUH?!?!? I WANT TO HAVE FUN TOOOOOO"
"Uh sure ok, fine, i guess any game is a game...not like i can play amywhere else."
Or spent hundreds of dollars on whacky fun cards for a really odd themed deck,.. only to have their teeth kicked in 3 Friday nights in a row. Now,.. didnt win,.. stomped on to the point you were basically a spectator.
Sometimes I get tired of the griping and grousing of this community and I avoid these discussions. But I’m happy I finally watched this. Prof, as always, stays reasonable and compassionate when discussing the real issues within this community and the corporate powers above it. Sending all my love to the RC who didn’t deserve the hate they got, even if mistakes were made. We all need to do better.
One thing I love about him playing the booster box game is no matter what he’s opening, his overall guess is 2x whatever the real price is. It happens almost every time.
He’s aspirational. He wants to believe MtG packs still have value, even when he knows (and loudly proclaims) “Just buy singles”
I think the bracket system as described is there to help facilitate the rule 0 conversation. As it is now someone can come in and say their deck is a 7, and then come in with all the tutors and turn 2 win cons.
With the brackets they can say "hey my deck is mostly bracket 2 with like 2 bracket four cards." and the group can understand it's power a little more than a nebulous "it's a 7"
IMO the cards being placed in brackets helps define peoples decks better than just guessing, which is kind of what we do now. If it's easier to quantify, it's easier to talk about, and easier to rule 0 a fun game.
If that is the case then it is perfectly fine
even then, change it to like tier or something rather than bracket. such a weird name. or take the 1-10 scale and further define it. . . no level 7 will have several turn 2 win cons. tier 8's may have one maybe. that's simply someone lying and that will happen regardless. some people just get off pug stomping even if they aren't allowed back afterwards.
@cyborgtemplar1989 someone can easily disagree and say a 7 would have 1 turn 2 win con and an 8 can have 2.
@@prestonmitchell9135 turn 2 wincons don't even exist until 8-10. it's even hesitant if they should be in 8's.
I'm a budding Anthropologist, and your Wifes saying, You only need to lose once; is tragically perfect.
The designer of Acrobatic Cheerleader watching this video: 👁️👄👁️
Honestly whoever designed the card has probably been on Shuffle Up & Play. I think they'll be okay
What's wrong with the card?
@@garrett1433 flavor fail, mechanics fail, emblematic of Duskmourn completely abandoning the fantasy theming of MTG
@@SilverCyan Yeah unlike the cyber ninja set, or the 1920s crime set, etc. The level of cognitive dissonance people who come out with this rubbish can handle is truly impressive
@@IdlestHands I'm not saying WOTC hasn't been building to this for a while, but Duskmourn is still the moment when they just didn't even bother to pay lip service beyond the multiverse cameos. It's like if OTJ had a creature literally just called Lonesome Cowboy and an equipment called Gunpowder Revolver, and every mount creature was Horse.
I think the hardest part to consider about all this is you need to find a way to focus on the social aspect of rule 0 without punishing people who struggle to socialize. Speaking personally I struggle with that and there are people in my ONLY local playgroup who are really good at talking down powerful decks and using their social skills to manipulate the table.
I don't think bans are the solution nor is the suggested system, but I do think they should find SOME way to make rule 0 conversation easier and more enjoyable for people who aren't as naturally skilled at speech.
Bans are the only real solution. You can’t make people more or less social to accommodate everyone. Not to mention that people that travel or move should be able to expect some consistency from the game.
The "moxes being banned"/laugh track/fart noise joke caught me off guard, got a good set of giggles out of me, thank you Prof. 👍 ❤
I feel like all of this is moot for casual commander with friends. But playing at LGS or with strangers will always be a challenge with the variety of power commander can create. Trying to simplify with brackets won’t work. Either you meet people that want to discuss and compromise before play or you don’t. I support bans of cards that are hard to acquire, reserve list, artificially expensive but not for power. If they want to make a tournament commander ban list or bracket system. That might work.
But the recent bans weren't due to the cost but, according to RC, due to the power of cards they banned. That was the whole message they went to send - "This playstyle is not welcomed in this format" and that's why despite it not being unanimous they banned 3 of them at once. To make this message as strong as possible.
I think your take of 'put together whatever and then check the list' is a really bad one. We already have a banned list. People ALREADY need to check a list before making their deck. This just means we have four different banned lists based on power level, which is something Magic ALREADY has for its other formats. It splits Commander into four smaller formats, which I do think might be excessive, but the difference is just 'different ban lists' and not 'Gotta check after assembling my deck to see what tier it's in.'
Also, the idea of more open communication between players ONLY works when you have regular groups and freely played games. It is VERY hard to do at larger events, and my local stores both do Commander Nights that encourage shuffling people around so different people play different people regularly. Having a set tier level for that makes everything a LOT cleaner.
I think presenting their idea and listening to the community is the best they can do. It kinda reminds me of how DnD 5e was created and that definitely had been a success. I put my trust in them, even if the business model of selling cards is vastly different from DnD, they still depend on their players being happy.
"You can't codify fun."
Prof, that's literally what game rules are!
Seriously. So many people think fun is had in spite of the rules and systems of a game rather than because of it. It's wild. If you don't want to codify fun, why are you using the rigid systems of Magic the Gathering? Attack with lands, draw from your opponent's library, cast shit for free. Who needs rules? Sheesh.
It’s literally not. Rules create game modes. Fun is up to the individual experience and is entirely subjective, which is why it cannot be enforced with rules. It’s a childish idea, that you can somehow come up with a perfect set of rules to enforce “casual” play, or “social” play, or even “power levels”, when all these concepts, like “fun”, are entirely subjective
@l4l01234 couldn't have said it better myself
@@l4l01234 When I first started playing Magic I had no idea what my ideal casual game would look like, but I sat down with a deck someone gave me and had a great time; not an ideal time, but a great time. That's because the game designers had done a great job of making a game which is a base level of fun. From there, I've learned more specifically the kinds of decks I prefer, but the base experience was/is still really good. And that's what game designers do: come up with a rule set which will be a good base level of fun for a majority of people. And that's what the new tier system will do: provide a good base for new playgroups and pick up games at LGSs to be fun for a majority of people. From that base, established groups can greater work out the specifics of what they want using rule 0
@@l4l01234"subjective" and "arbitrary" are different things, just because we all might have different ideas of what exactly we enjoy, doesn't mean it's completely random and that there are no commonalities across large groups of people.
Plot twist wizard unbans the commander bans and bans the one ring. RIP sponsor.
When the prof mentions Luigi's Mansion, that was peak professor.
23:35 The issue my lgs has with this is people lying about what kind of cards they're running or how efficient their deck is. Player responsibility is important for everyone to enjoy a good game. Pods are chosen at random for FMN, and people are expected to be reasonable and discuss decks prehand. When a person says "Oh my deck is only $28 worth of cards" but they are working with a deck that turbos out the table by turn 6 its upsetting to people less experienced in deck building. I've been part of that problem and started building decks for all experiences. People in denial with an obsession on winning every game no matter what will do anything to satiate that addiction instead of playing fair. I don't know how best to remedy this issue.
Then don’t play with those players, or find a place that doesn’t randomly assign pods. If there are any rewards for play, expect cedh players
@@nodekapunk small town
@@ZombieExpert115 that sucks. Find a coffee shop or some other place and invite people who you enjoy playing with. No one is forcing everyone to randomize pods
At an event where I have to pay to play, such as FNM, I'm not going to discuss jack. I'll have my commander face down as per the rules, and be playing my best with what I have.
@@nodekapunkdoesn't necessarily mean cedh, but you should still optimize your strategy and deck synergy.
they should keep Cedh tournaments able to use Proxies and regular EDH leagues allowing gold bordered cards
No proxies at a sanctioned mtg event.
@@jessewallace3805* Should *
That’s funny, that first pack you opened the most expensive card was the token 😂
welcome to modern day of booster packs (of whatever type)
2:26 I might hold you to your word, but I promise that I’ll never be an ugly monster about it; you are entitled to your opinion, good sir, and I will respect it. Also, nice tie
''the problem isnt gavin its gavin's boss''
At some point, mouthpieces have consequences. Gavin is earning every cent of his checks, and it isn't by helping players.
Always enjoy the Prof's input on the game. I barely agree most of the time but always watch. Thanks for the work!
You know what this bracket talk really reminds me of? I built a dungeons and dragons deck using the Initiative mechanic, because im a dnd nerd. I thought the dungeons were so cool and built the entire thing around the Dungeon Delver background. Its just initiative guys, some blink effects to reactivate their ETBs, and a few huge dudes to hit off of the Throne of the Dead Three room.
I was told my deck was a "9" because i played a Displacer Kitten, and the guy jumped down my throat for lying about how strong my deck was. Now, knowing what i know now, Kitten is a crazy card. *I* just put it in the deck because i wanted to blink initiative guys, and Displacer Beasts are dungeons and dragons monsters.
Arbitrary restrictions of what is or isnt of a certain power level are going to make new players hesitant to play. It sure as shit did for me.
The difference here is that you will have concrete restrictions to build your deck around ahead of time and you can avoid all those bad player interactions.
The idea that a Displacer Kitten made your deck a 9 was some rando's personal opinion, which you had no way of knowing ahead of time. Brackets would be curated by people with a deep knowledge of the game, and you'd be able to look them up online before building your deck. If implemented well, they should actively help prevent the kind of situation you ran into.
You experienced something that could only happen BECAUSE we didn't have brackets. If that tool was in place already, and if that card was already accurately bracketed, you just wouldn't have included it, or you would have but would know that you're high power. You're actually advocating for my people to jump down each other's throats if you don't even want a tool to account for that kind of thing.
@@fastpuppy2000 one displacer kitten doesn't make a deck higher power
Tell him/her to go touch their hand, then continue playing.
Brackets are the best information in recent years. It's not perfect, but so much better, that "my deck is 7". And if you try to find a fourth guy to play a game and somebody comes saying that they just assembled their first EDH deck, then no Vampiric Tutor will make their deck higher than 1 (unless they are lying).
The commander community expressed its greatest immaturity as a whole. Now they have the nagging babysitter/ helicopter mom!!
I think the "salt score" from various different deck building sites is perfectly fine. The more salty the deck, the more high level
Unfortunately while this remains true for uniquely incredible cards (Cyclonic Rift, Winter Orb, Dockside Extortionist), most cEDH decks rely on cards that lend consistency rather than salt (such as cheap tutors, fast mana, and free spells). So you'd be missing those cards that are "great" but not salty.
I feel like cEDH is easy to identify by the commanders alone most of the time and certainly by the presence of certain combo cards like Demonic Consultation or Underworld Breach. The salt score is really good for differentiating casual decks by fun level, which is something I'd be interested in if playing with random people.
salt score in no way correlates to power
You also need "salty" card in any environment to keep it healthy or otherwise it turns to prue high-rolling.
Prof: ***scrutinizes his own example***
Prof: dont scrutinize my examples!!! 🤷♂️
That DS9 reference made this my favorite box opening to watch so far
Please, please, please make a video explaining why you hate the cheerleader card!
I like the bracket system in concept. I've played against too many people who claim they have a "casual deck" that completely sweeps the floor. Having an objective way to gauge the power level could be neat if they set guidelines for percentages of the deck that include cards/combos that are a certain power level. That way you can slap in a Vampiric Tutor you opened in a pack but it wouldn't compromise your deck's "bracket standing" unless you had a bunch of other high-power cards thrown in. I don't think it'll be easy to setup, especially with all the nuances that come with the way the thousands of cards interact with each other, but if done right I'm on board. Only time will tell
The biggest obstacle is community engagement with that. I don’t plan to ever check the actual bracket lists and I have literally dozens of commander decks and play at least 5 hours each week of commander. Imagine the average dude that’s got like 2 decks one of which is mostly precon.
110% agree that WOTC is a bad choice to be in charge of future rules. That said, the RC needed to go. Their recent actions, calls and the way they implemented those changes showed they needed to go.
I know you likely wouldn’t want it but I wish they would let you join the team and be the one responsible for communicating with the community on any news. You are the most level headed person in the community, and you always compose your thoughts so well. You being the voice of commander seems fitting. Monthly commander updates from the professor? Class is in session!
so i was invited to play commander years ago and didnt have a deck. somebody lent me theirs until the next game when they wanted it back. the 2nd deck i played with that night was mono black with no instants other than skeletal scrying. i complained that there was no instant removal and was made fun of. id love to hear comments about my situation.
Why did they take it back? I’ve lent out my decks many times and will even give brief rundowns of what they’re about. However, if someone like bridge shuffles, or flicks the cards, or is eating something messy like Cheetos I have taken the deck back and at best told them to make do with my cheapest deck and only after reprimanding them on the behavior so this don’t repeat it.
@@tc5589-1 i came over to hang out, was new to commander but played mtg since revised. the deck i borrowed first was somebodys main, and another person whom i dont get along with very well had the only other decks i could use for the following game. we did wind up playing with generic decks that only had commons i believe and that was much more enjoyable & fair. what got me is that i had no instant removal in a mono black deck and after i complained about it being unfair a couple people laughed at me and said beggars cant be choosers. not very good hosts imo.
Not all decks need instant removal. It really depends on what your game plan is. I've got decks with only a couple of instants, and they're instant just incidentally. (And then I have a deck that only has instants and cards with flash in it.) I think they laughed because it was a bit of a surprising complaint to them, and it might've sounded irrelevant to them. Laughing at that question seems a bit mean-spirited, though.
@@tc5589-1 i had to give the deck back because the owner wanted to use it.
@@CandlesandLo-Fi black imo is all about instant removal. it was really strange that in 100 cards there are no examples of that. and i cant remember what creatures if any were in the deck. was based around a commander that would wrath the board.
In this video Prof:
- has to obviously catch himself from calling Sol Ring "this shit" then later tells his editor "you don't even have to bleep [a-hole]"
- makes a "Cats Can Have Little a Salami" reference in 2024
- gets so upset at the sight of Acrobatic Cheerleader that he needs to calm himself down
Needless to say it's some of my favorite work from him in the 8 years I've been watching.
Proxies will always be free if you have access to a printer. That’s always been my mtg philosophy.
I’ll bet money Wizards will get LGS to ban proxies in the near future.
@@chexmix0101 Good luck banning proxies on my kitchen table, though. >:D
yeah right? stopped buying cards last year and just printing cards/decks i want
@@chexmix0101they’re already banned by wotc supported stores
@@madfinnishgamer38 I still play with playgroup that some of us have proxies so I’m all for it
The idea that every game with strangers needs a drawn out conversation of what each consider acceptable cards seem a lot worse than the bracket system. I think a lot of people would rather just not play the format. If you a playing with friends, however, you don't need to care about _any_ external rules settings.
I also don't like the idea that if I have just one tier 4 card my deck is considered 'cEHD' that's just insane to me. What if I have a vampiric tutor that I acquired years ago and the best thing I have to search up is a grave titan... that isn't very 'cEHD' but with the bracket systems that hypothetical deck would be.
Bingo. Hence why I mostly stay away from the format. It has been interesting watching the commander players fidget, because we are use to bans in other formats.
@proteincannon Simply change the card or ask the playgroup nicely if they will allow a 'rule 0' adjustment. Why or how you got the card should be irrelevant to this discussion. And If that type of card is integral to the deck then the deck is certainly in a higher tier.
It is very easy to fall into hypothetical worst case scenarios, but I must admit that I haven't heard one yet that makes the new system worse than the old one. A lot of the wrinkles can be solved with the exact same methods that were supposed to fix some of the glaring problems that the commander format has always had.
@@proteincannon The problem isn´t your Vamp Tutor for Grave Titan. The problem are the people who are running "just a vamp tutor" but blow you out of the game on turn 4, when you have just five tapped lands after ramping. This happens often in webcam commander.
I really like to play my overpowered chase cards too. My foil retroframe Entlightend Tutor is sitting in a budget Rog/Akroma wordsoup deck with 0,5 Eurocent budget per card, because i like Rite of the Raging Storm. But I´d never play my fancy Force of Will, just because it is just not ok in untrusted casual pods, even hardcasted.
@@proteincannon I wanna point out, this whole 'You run one card at tier 4 and your deck is automatically a 4' is still up in the air according to Gavin and Aaron during the weekly mtg video addressing this. Someone specifically asked, what if a deck has a single bracket 4 card in it, one that isn't an auto win, and they specifically said they're still tooling this out, as that is a contentious point. So I don't know why everyone keeps harping on this point that a single card is going to force your deck up to a much higher tier, when even Wizards isn't entirely sure on that yet after they've thought about it for more than a minute.
Did prof ever go into depth anywhere about why he dislikes Acrobatic Cheerleader so much?
WoTC handling any banlist is scary. "We didn't test Nadu oops my bad guys"
“We didn’t read wheel of potential after the initial design phase.”
“Rotation is only nth time away~”
I think they should make an app that you can put your deck into, and each card has a point value. then the app can tell you the point value of your deck to relate power to other decks, and let you track what is in each deck. This way, if you play for fun, then you can ignore it entirely, but if you play at events, then just scan in your deck to judge its power. Maybe even let the players vote on what a card's points should be to help with the amount of cards in the format.
Some sort of system to get an average power level seems like the way to go yeah, rather than placing the entire deck in a tier. If you have a jank deck with a couple of high tier cards and it ends up being a 1.25 level deck out of 4 that seems plenty understandable and like you'd pair up just fine with other 1-2 level decks.
This still fails to capture the actual power level of a deck because most good cards are not good on their own, they require other pieces to do what makes them broken or even a full build around. You could jam a 5 color deck full of every powerful card you can think of, be told its cedh tier and none of them gel.with your commander and you didnt build a functional manabase. The determination for powerlevel in decks needs to be on the gameplan, the interaction, and the consistency with which it deals those out. And you cant easily determine that or trust people to be honest about it, which is why you have to instead just accept somet8mes youll get pubstomped and figure out how to handle it like a grown up when it happens
I've been saying it for months now. A modified point system derived from Canadian Highlander would balance the game, help prevent bans, and promote creativity.
@@antoniodittman5820 You make a good point, but what such an app could do, is take cards that specifically work well together, and give a higher point value for then collectively. It would be difficult to account for all of these kinds of combinations when an entire card pool is involved, so it might be that kind of combined point value only happens in instances of particularly notable power.
Gatherer can’t even tell you what’s standard legal, there’s no chance wotc make able to manage brackets
I want to thank you for this off the cuff train of thought. Thank you for your content. Thank you to your wife for the conservation quote. That quote is quite appropriate.
15:29 damn what did Acrobatic Cheerleader do to you Prof ??? 😂😂
Right? I want that video about why he despises that card so much.
she rejected him in Tolerian High School 😔
He had better be careful. Hating on that card is a good way to get called racist or incel
Never been a Commander player but i feel for them. I hope Wizards can focus on their competitive formats for once. I would kill to see Pioneer and Modern get some true love to help people like me get back into the game again.
It's so funny
Because personally
I feel like modern is in one of the best places it HAS been in awhile (other than the pseudo rotation via horizons sets every 2ish years😅😅)
And with these most recent bans
I see ZERO reason for me to EVER return to EDH😁😅
@@FalloutFan011 I would agree if most of my decks Pre-MH3 got mostly invalidated. I might return to the format after the next two sets to see if things hold up. I might get all the lands again and build from there. EDH feels too casual for me but I get you.
@@FalloutFan011the regular rotations from modern horizons are actively bad for players. And then you have things like bowmasters.
@@Ornithopter470 yup also the variety of decks is very sad this rotation tbh. Pre-LOTR, I had 9 different decks that had variety but now it doesn't feel the same imo
Check out Canadian Highlander
It's because Tolarian Academy has cheerleaders but Tolarian Community College doesn't even have a team!
its amazing how many of these collector cards foils and special treatments ive seen in play boosters
Personally I am actually excited for the bracket system. I love the idea of having a codified system of power level. This is done for lots of other games and I see no reason it can't work well here. I plan to have multiple decks of all of the different brackets, unlike now where it's subjective and people argue over the power level. This removes that issue. I am really looking forward to it.
What other games do this? Most other games just don't have casual formats like Commander so it's not a problem they have to solve. Curious which ones do have to solve this problem.
May I say, I’m 2:22 into this video, which I’m extremely excited to listen to as i clean my kitchen, and I feel I’ve already found the best part: Profs gesture at 2:23
15:49 why so much hate for the cheerleader
My question exactly
I came to the comment section to ask the same question. Such a weird reaction and absolutely no context given.
@@gregwylie3970probably because she feels completely out of place in an mtg set.
I want a full opinion video on this topic. A full dissection. EVERYTHING about the card?
@@mookosh this and i wonder if it includes the nature of the character and negative gender stereotype.