I think the ban is really for strangers at LGS. With that said I have to be open minded and play for a least a month than see how this is really impacting gameplay and having fun
I think we should aspire to a rule zero protocol that does work with total strangers. There are already websites that rate thousands of decks, there is no reason to throw int he towel and say, welp people lie so we need a ban list. We need the RC and content creators to teach the importance of communicating expectations, not say people are anti-social so rule zero only works with your best friends.
You hit it on the head, as someine with no access to an lgs or regular playgroup due to magic not being supported/popular in my country i am verry dependend on online games. With this in mind a more restrictive banlist is better as rule 0 is generally glossed over, especially with people new to commander or the given webside.
LGS and extremely large groups with rotating players. Rule 0 does not work for these players. Rule 0 is even hard for a smaller group of like 8 players oftentimes. In short I hate Rule 0 arguments for a reason for not having a ban list. But for groups that Rule 0 works for, do it.
@@95643 It's much easier to ask people to play with a banned card than it is to ask people to not play with a card. People don't like to be told not to play with their toys, even when they lead to worse games. The ban list just gives people a reasonable starting point to reference towards and doesn't make it so that an individual is asking you not to play with abusable cards, but the a widely agreed on list of norms.
Finally, someone said it. I see so many "why dont you Rule 0 them out of people's deck's" but bawk at the suggestion "why don't you rule 0 them in?". Like it is way easier for the 10% of players that slam these into every deck to ask if they can play them than for the rest of the players always check if the pod is randomly playing Jewled Lotus in their upgraded precon game. Also, it is generally easier to ask for permission to do something than asking for someone not do something.
I agree and IMO the most telling part that completely validates the banning is these are not cards that I suspect most players are going to miss from their games and if asked "hey can I play this busted fast mana piece?" they are likely to be met with a no. It's not like a Coalition Victory or Primeval Titan where people might be like "sure, this card could be fun this time around".
ppl always ask like the "hey can i play these cards" conversation - even with pick-up groups - is some daunting thing you just can't do but i've literally never had issues from it in a decade of playing edh...
People need to understand that Rule 0 is not "game design". It's house rules. House rules don't really work so well when you're with randos at an LGS or a CommandFest. WotC *design games* - they design the cards, the sets, and the precons. They adjust the knobs until they think they've created an enjoyable play experience for the maximum number of players. Rule 0 isn't a global knob you can turn on the game. It's not game design. It's just saying "communicate with your pod" - which is fine, but it works just as well as saying "don't pubstomp" and expecting that to remove all pubstomping from casual games. I encourage you to think outside your own personal play experience/day-to-day interaction with the game.
@@jeferssonpinho Your're right jerks will be jerks which is why we need a ban list. I live in a small town with a small LGS and I can't pick and choose who I play with. Also yes banning cards DOES stop pub stomping or at least mitigating it. Now there is 2 less fast mana bs in every deck.
@@jeferssonpinho If you want to pubstomp but are a decent person, your decency will stop you. If you want to pubstomp and you're *not* a decent person, then the banlist will stop you. I wish we could all be decent, but we are not. (This is boiling it down to Lotus + Crypt == pubstomp, which is a massive oversimplification, but you get me)
@@jeferssonpinho ya that's exactly what happened a toxic card got printed (Nadu) and it got banned like it was supposed to. That's not a bad thing. Are you really saying "oh my god the RC banned a toxic card we should just let all them be legal!" Like no. You could always rule 0 whatever you want in. As far as Mana positive mana rocks are concerned those could all be banned and I highly doubt Wizards would dare to try and print something like those again.
I like that they’re moving from “you have to rule 0 the power outlier cards out” to “rule 0 the power outliers IN if you want to play with them”. It means if you want to use things that a cut above the rest you will have to disclose them and the rest of the pod can decide if they want to move forward with that style of play. Will jerks still be jerks? Probably, but now there’s another way for them to out themselves before we start the game with them and waste our time.
Logistically it is much easier for me to have a replacement for a Jewelled Lotus in the off chance I cannot Rule 0 it in than for everyone at the table to have a back up in case their specific card gets Rule 0'ed out.
I think people are missing that not all decks are built equal and sure a ban list can help but having to rule 0 it in set a bad tone about you when it could be fun to play against that deck.
As if I wasn't already on board with the ban list, you just sold me 100%. A player who would refuse to engage with rule 0 before has no choice now, at least for these cards.
If you view playing Magic as a waste of time ever then you've lost the point. I guess you Commander players aren't as inclusive as I was lead to believe.
@@Aaron-l3l6g Spoken like someone completely out of their element, I'd try to elaborate in a way that might be more relatable to someone who has never played commander but you just reek of bad bait. Try harder.
As someone running a Commander meet-up group the ban list is super useful as a shared starting point for pregame discussions. It’s really good for semi-trusted/ untrusted play.
Not everyone has a dedicated regular playgroup. When that is the recurring basis for the conversation, you are excluding a significant portion of commander players. If the banlist doesn't make sense for a playgroup, it shouldnt matter if it exists or not. The banlist is for those playing at an lgs or convention, or with new/untrusted players/groups. Dismissing the validity of a banlist citing playgroups is disengenuious.
You have a small group of people who don't report to anyone, who just cost the magic community many millions of dollars. Dismissing the validity of their impact on the secondary market is also disingenuous. Even if you're just deckbuilding online there are implications to the ban list - e.g. banned cards don't show up on a search unless you specifically search for that card, and if you're using a service like Moxfield, there's a constant warning that your deck is invalid. And although it's not like these are huge obstacles, they're still obstacles, and dismissing that is also disingenuous. Maybe it shouldn't matter in gameplay whether it exists or not, but they do call it a "ban list". Perhaps instead they should call it an "avoid" list or something to still provide guidance for pickup games, but help limit their impact on the market and other places.
If you have to play with randomers and they pull these cards out when you are on a precon there is two issues; You are joining a table and doing this to yourself You need to address these people are narcissists and stop playing with them. Win win in my eyes.
@lewischan2498 maybe at least give them a moment for correction, which adds to the social element. We go through magic as players in different stages as we grow. Well hopefully most of us. Agreed though, we are sitting our own butts down at the table we choose.
This is exactly what the commander ban philosophy should be about. Focussing on pickup games and banning to hopefully make the experience more fun for the most amount of people
In my opinion Rule Zero is just for my decks. I don't have the right to control other people's deck building. I don't play cards that I find "unfun" but I have no expectation on other players, they can play whatever the hell they want.
other players do have a different opinion on this opinion but that's their opinion. Also, "i play to win in commander" when there is legacy, pioneer, standard and modern... which are COMPETITIVE formats speaks volumes.
@@MarcDize There are people who like the format of commander, none of the formats you listed are highlander with a commander, that want to play it competitevly. Just becasue you don't have a winners mindset, doesn't mean that people who play CEDH are wrong for doing so, they just aren't interested in a casual playstyle like you aren't interested in a competitive one, both can coexist.
Good for you. I'm not that way. While I don't care if you play salty decks with prison locks or mass land destruction, I won't play a game with you if your deck goes off before I even get the chance to cast a spell. If a midpower deck can't develop the mana to interact with your game plan, you're just playing by yourself in most casual pods. It's fine if you ask to play against other decks running similar fast mana. I also have decks with efficient interaction and fast mana, and I'm more than willing to play them if you ask. But don't go up to a casual table and pressure people into playing against your deck that runs underworld breach lines or dockside/time sieve loops while punishing everyone else for playing their gimmicky decks as well as wasting their time.
@@drewhoffmaster2969 Where the hell are you seeing Crypt at a casual table lmao, I've seen more Thoracle at casual tables than crypt, most casual players are not dropping ~$200 on a singular card
@@Robin-vf7oq every time I go to my LGS or one of the random playgroups I go to that meet up maybe once every other month. They didn't spend the money on the card--they just pulled them, or got Dockside in a precon. Every night without fail I see at least one of the banned cards (not Nadu), usually in something like Voja or Ulalek or some other 5+ MV commander.
@@PalPlays 100% demonic consultation. Thassas is a SUPER strong card yes, but jace and lab man also exist. But without demonic thassas combo had to at least work a little bit more
The problem is that it's a half measure. If they're going to go at it with this mentality then take the plunge or leave it as it is. Chrome Mox, Mox Amber, Ancient Tomb, Dark Ritual, The Moxes, Gaea's Cradle, etc should all go if they think that Crypt and JLo are fit for the chopping block.
@@corbinschumm3501My actual gripe tbh is they didn't push hard enough. If you're seeing the exact same cards winning at the tables months or hell, years, after the newest set then maybe they require a ban.
The thing is, having an official banlist doesn't really have a drawback because afterall, if you want, you can always use rule 0 with your playgroup. I think it's better to have a banlist and then rule 0 if you wish, than not having a banlist and make the game even more unbalanced when a rule 0 is not used.
Exactly. In security terms it's a default blacklist that allows people to whitelist when appropriate. If you need to cast a wide net and set a baseline you default to blacklists instead of requiring a new dispute every time someone wants to remove something.
@@ghostofhannibal2587 I would have no problem with that, time to face my 45 black lotus 45 ancestral recall commander deck where I "proxied" all cards with a pencil on white paper!
I only have own one dockside, but you think it is ok if you go to your lgs find a table that need one more player but have to change one card from your deck there and then because it is banned and these players agree with that, even if you probably wont even draw it. In my strongest decks I have non of these cards and in one of my most fun pirate deck I have a dockside. The bann nlist is BS there will always be players who build an unfun deck, no bannes will change that.
I have agreed with almost every opinion you have shared on the philosophy of the format over the years Tomer. Thanks so much for having the integrity to share your opinions during these highly confrontational few days.
Thank you for this!! So many people don’t see the bigger picture and apply everything to their own small ecosystem. I haven’t had a play group for 3 years since I moved, and these bans make me so happy because I have objectively better games without these cards. I play in pods with precons and pub stompers alike and squishing that variance of deckbuilding power is 10/10. Although I do disagree with the “nobody plays it so it doesn’t need a ban”, socially banning cards I think sets a bad precedent because everyone has their own definition of “casual” and “fun”
you should consider not nerfing yourself and play with proxies. i dont understand the badge of honor that comes with budget brews. There's nothing more budget than a $0.30 proxy.
@@hahahafunniness 1) these cards are bad for the format whether they cost $1 or $100. 2) proxies imo are bad for the game as a whole and you won’t be changing my opinion on that 3) “nerfing yourself” makes for a more fun game imo because it allows for more creativity in deckbuilding, using your logic everyone should just play cedh because “why nerf yourself”. You clearly did not understand what I was saying so I shouldn’t even be replying to such a brain dead comment
100% agree and in the same boat as you. If you want to play these cards that are banned, rule 0 them in. But when you play strangers, leave them at home.
@@hahahafunniness I like making budget brews as a sort of challenge to myself, in a similar way that companions confine your deck building. It helps me discover obscure and sometimes powerful cards that I don't see anyone else around me running. That being said, if I show up to an LGS with my $10 mono white deck, I'm not expecting everyone else to play around me. I understand I may be the weakest deck at the table and I'm ok with that. But budget brews aside, players should 100% feel comfortable playing proxies. If you feel like you can't enjoy commander because of the difference in financial investment between you and the player across from you, print out some proxies and level the playing field. In my experience 98% of people are fine with a couple of proxy cards in your deck, and the ones who aren't, you don't want to play with anyway.
@hahahafunniness because it's fun building around restrictions? Because it's fun not being tied to 30 autoinclude staples just because you choose a color combination? Because I like having a deck that I can pick up and play with a friend who has just bought a precon? I'm all for proxying at an appropriate level for the table, but like have you ever even felt joy building a deck if you make a comment like that?
I think a banlist is good for setting a standard. Rule Zero only works when players are ready/want to, and if you are a player who is constantly busy and plays often with players new to you, then it’s harder to keep that in mind.
The banlist is for strangers at an LGS Commander night or event. Not everyone had multiple power decks or cards to swap. The banlist provides a base for what should be allowed. Thats what its for.
@@Belena711 First of all, I didn't say the banlist doesn't AFFECT you, I said it's not FOR you. You can still play whatever you want with your friend group, regardless of if you own the cards or proxy them.
We can sit down and game then. Because you understand that this is a casual format and it's about the social aspect. We're here to have a good time. Cheers
honestly this is the way. I too proxy my cards. I have a LOT of decks and probably had about 12 Docksides between them all. I'd have been furious if I had spent $1,200 on them only for them to be now worthless... but at least for me it was just the annoyance of finding an appropriate card to slot in it's place in every deck that ran it (since it was just run as a 2 mana ramp spell with no comboing or looping)
Honestly i feel that the quickening powercreep of commander is more the reason these cards got banned. So many commanders nowaday have to generate so much value or do literally everything for the deck they are easy to break when they come out early. That and so many commanders having built in protection makes things worse as well.
this change to the design of legendary creatures REALLY has me missing the old "tuck rule" of commander, basically that if I use cards like Terminus, Banishing Stroke, or Spin into Myth to put your commander on the bottom of your library, that's where it stays until you can get it out of there, there was no replacement effect that allowed you to put the commander into the command zone instead. It really would be one of the best ways to deal with some of these commanders that just overwhelm your opponents with value
@@anthonydelfino6171 Ertai's Meddling, too. All they needed to do was fix the wording of the stack being "empty"... but no, they had to make it exile the target outright, instead.
@@PhysicsGamer not sure what you're talking about here.... Etrai's Meddling can't be played at all if the stack is empty. Ertai's Meddling is just a funky worded Delay. "Spells" only exist on the stack
@@anthonydelfino6171 Apologies, I rather mangled my own wording, there! As written, the spell stays on the stack while the delay counts down. Unfortunately, the MtG rules as _they_ are written don't allow the game to progress if the stack doesn't empty. This was easily fixable, in my opinion, and turning Meddling into just a weird version of Delay is a bit sad.
“Casual” doesn’t mean anything anymore - and that isn’t the players fault. We can get through this as a community even if it looks bad right now - I believe 😳
Rule 0 is the most rational approach to combat any bans or lack thereof. People are particularly against the most rational approach at this time because they're still emotional (in my opinion) about losing money on commander "staples".
@@tokertalk9648 If people didn't prefer to play with real cards, we wouldn't have all this bitching from the community. This really isn't that hard to understand.
@@Cybertech134 The bitching is for the ban at all, and the loss kf value for the cards. If no cards have any value then noone will care to buy them and proxy becomes the norm.
This opinion is 100% on point. I played with a new player at my LGS and we all played precons. This guy dropped a Mana Crypt he opened in a LCoI pack and the rest of us were taken back. It was later in the game so it didn't have a big impact but who expects a Mana Crpyt when someone says "I just have this precon" and that was legit the only change the guy made to the deck lol
I think RC should primarily apply their ban list to organized casual events, like command fest, magic con and online play, while CEDH tournaments can have their own ban. Anywhere else, the RC should encourage rule zero and not enforce the ban list. So casual play groups can choose whether to follow the ban or not.
Have you read the RC site? This is what they advocate for. Take the second paragraph of the ban list: "The following is the official banned list for commander games. These cards are not legal without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards. For the underlying philosophy that drives the banlist, see Format Philosophy." Or in their FAQ over Rule 0: "Commander does not have an enforcement arm. Nobody is going to break into your playspace and take away your Commander privileges if you decide to ban some more cards or start at a different life total."
When I played Commander it was a 100% guarantee that the players who complained about the ban list and how no cards should be banned were also the players who complained anytime anyone else played a good card.
I play against people I do not know on a weekly basis. Not having a banlist and needing to banter about whether or not to play certain cards would be terrible. Not everyone has the same play group every game.
100% agree. Rule 0 shouldnt be or have been a catch all reason to avoid updating the banlist as it has been. Expecting players to have a rule 0 convo at an lgs with strangers has always been absurd to me. Like, yes a general power level convo is had, but it never goes deeper than that. And with how much broken stuff there is in the format I think it's great to have more bans than less. I think that would lead to a more interesting olay experience for those who want to include them and a streamlined one for those who stick to the list.
Especially since what that winds up looking like is every player needing to build up a list of cards that they hate seeing, and exchanging lists before a game. "Do you have any of these cards? Do you? What about you?" etc. Which is literally just a slow and tedious ban list.
The rules committee should start thinking outside the box. Create a new type of restricted list, where you can choose one card from the list to put in your deck, but you can’t use any other card on the list. For example, put every broken fast mana card like Jeweled Lotus, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault etc on the list, so you can choose which one to use and they all remain legal and retain some value.
The problem is that there are many player that pay for strong cards like mana crypt, jewelled lotus, smothering tithe, The One Ring, rystic study. When some players owns a card, they just want to play it because they invest in it. When I didn't play a card, there is no need for me to keep it and I will just sell it. So our playgroup didn't have a Rule 0 Ban list. I think an official ban list will make decisions less complecated and everyone know what to play and what not.
It doesn't work in reverse if you rule 0 to ban cards your decks are still legal if the cards aren't included. Rule 0 unbans has people playing illegal decks and a lot of people don't like that.
@@MrMacdaddymcfly That doesn't really make sense. It's way more reasonable to expect someone bringing a banned card to also bring a backup for that slot if Rule 0 doesn't go their way than it is for the rest of the table to memorize all the cards they don't want to play against and sort through everyone's deck to find them.
also another against rule zero: if your LGS is sanctioned and you play in leagues or whatnot, they have to play by wotc's rules. no banned cards, no proxies, no rule 0.
Personal experience...never saw a crypt or lotus in a casual pick up game at my LGS, unless they mentioned high powered fast mana before the game. The way it was supposed to be. I think players that would pubstomp still will, with Thoracle, food chain, ad nauseum etc
I never have seen lotus in play, but I saw my fair share of crypts. I also regularly played dockside, but I would argue "fairly" since I had no bounce back to hand, flicker, or reanimate shenanigans to go alongside it.
We need a ban list. Countless times I’ve had rule zero conversations where people still have no idea how to adjust to power levels. I played a powered up gonti precon into a thoracle combo deck after a rule zero convo. My regular play group moved away north and I mostly only play pick up games at my LGS. I like the new bans and we need a ban list. People who are loud and salty about bans are just much louder than people who are fine with them.
Investors when they get money -> I made money! Investorts when they lose money -> You made me lose money! Maybe it's time to stop treating Magic like stocks and actually use the cards to play and have fun...
This is kinda a dumb take in my opinion. Magic is also a collectible. If all anyone was concerned about was playing the game then every single commander deck would be proxies. Why buy any card when you can get it for cheaper and not have it affect gameplay? Just because people like to collect and trade cards doesn’t make them mtg finance. Is every single person that owns a trade binder a mtg finance guy? This also screws over a lot of local game stores. Aren’t we supposed to support those? That’s where a lot of people go to play magic but they lost a lot of money. Should we say screw them too?
You say that but its not just investors who got hurt here. LGS everywhere just lost thousands of dollars, That include mom and pop shops. Its your average joe who through money at all of the past masters sets trying to get these cards.
I don't know...I have never had a problem asking what's in a deck or describing what's in mine. Communication is at a premium. If someone play a curb-stomp deck with no notice ...no one plays with them again.
6:13 what is a ban slot? Not sure how that’s relevant? That sounds made up and I’m not sure why there’s a limited number of something that was made up?
A ban slot is a concept used to describe the desire to limit the number of bans as much as possible. So for example, Instead of banning Nadu, you could have banned every card with a 0 cost targeted ability. This is a few cards, banning Nadu is only 1.
There shouldn’t be a ban list but a tier list of for cards/examples for cards to not use. Ex: You should not use: P9, ante. You should heavily dicuss: Sol Ring, MD, Ancient Tomb ex cetera. Something like that.
That's literally what the committee said, though. To paraphrase: "These cards are going on the banned list. Now instead of needing Rule 0 conversations to ban the cards from a group, there should be Rule 0 conversations to unban them."
If me and two of my friends went to the ball court for a pick up game of 3v3 basketball and the only people there were of a collegiate or professional level experience, should they be or be not allowed to use crossovers, drive to the goal, layup, or dunk on me and my friends? Magic the Gathering rewards players for their experience and dedication to the game. If I have to continually reduce the power level of my deck(s), is that a good experience for me? If we have local Modern night like we did last night and there was a brand new player to Modern, should the others take out the powerful cards from their decks, or play tier 3-4 decks? I agree that new players having generally good experiences will make them continue to want to play. But, are the beginner and casual players the only ones in mind here?
Basketball might be the worst possible game you could use for this example, since it has a long history of tweaking its rules to break up boring or overly-dominant strategies.
@@PhysicsGamer then insert whatever other game you need to satisfy your requirements. basketball rewards the player for time spent playing the game and studying it, and so does Magic.
Even asking the question is madness. We need a baseline. I say this a lot when questions come up about the banlist, but when I first started playing, if Panoptic Mirror hadn't been banned, I would have made quite a few games absolutely miserable by imprinting a wrath before I got the message and pulled it out. And if you weren't there, you wouldn't believe how many people thought of Iona, Shield of Emeria as a big Timmy angel, when it's actually a vicious stax piece. The number of conversations I had with people at my generally laid-back LGS about Iona was maddening.
> We don't need a ban list to have fun. We figured that out for ourselves. That works when you're already a solid group of players. But think about that sentence outside of card games. "We don't need rules to have fun. We figured that out for ourselves." Again, that works when you're already a solid group of people. But the moment outsiders wanders in, then things change dramatically. Imagine you're playing a game in the park. You're a group of friends playing, you all know the unspoken rules of your game. Someone asks if they can join, and you say yes, assuming that they're going to adhere to those unspoken rules. But instead of just playing football, they're throwing in mixed martial arts and kicks someone in the head. You get upset, because why would you do that?! And they don't get why you're upset - you didn't specify you COULDN'T kick people in the head!
gawd, ALL OF THIS!! ☝🏽☝🏽☝🏽 thanks for completely validating the casual mid-power scene and for calling out everyone who’s ran these cards and claimed all the excuses as to why they run them, good riddance!!
"Also free fastbond!" no. honestly, green has more than enough cheap mana ramp, and with the hit to every color that's not green this week, there's zero reason to push that color ahead unless MAYBE if they unbanned Balance to go alongside it.
"Ruin the fun" Because it sucks sitting down at a table at a LGS and having them play all these expensive fast mana cards against you when you cannot afford them and the LGS doesn't allow for proxies. I think the worst part about the current controversy with these bans, and the seeming validation some people are getting from the community will lead these people to pressure their group or LGS pickup groups to still let them play their cards. Often that pressure is toxic and effective when you're at a store with a lot of shy introverts that just want to be liked, our has them in abundance. Do really hope I'm wrong on this though.
It's time the RC and CAG communicated better with the playerbase. All they had to do was say a year ago - when they started talking to wizards about these cards - that they were looking at the format with an eye on what was happening with the proliferation of fast mana. That would have reduced the upset felt by the player base by a major factor, because it wouldn't have felt so random!
I agree completely with your sentiment. In the group I usually play with, the next consequences were a fifteen-minute chat where the two copies of these cards had their owners go 'oh well' and move on, since they weren't invested enough to push for an exception. But this is NOT the point. A consistent group of people can actually have the good sort of rule zero where it becomes so accustomed that we almost forget what to tell new entrants until they try to play Stasis. This is here for public games, and it is at its most helpful in public games where you can't entirely trust that all players will be realistic or even honest about their power. I have zero sympathy for pubstompers. People who went 'oh well, I just pulled it' and are telling the truth should have no more problem going 'oh well' and taking it back out. People who 'need' busted cards to make their decks work need to lose the crutches and learn to brew. And people in honest, open mega-power games can and should have their own groups with custom rules. My sympathies lie mostly with the independent stores who have lost a decent bit of value if they had bad timing.
I think it's absurd to prioritize magic as a financial vessel over a game. I have 4 one rings and I understand fully that they are wallet-gamer pieces that should probably be banned for pickup games and would not feel bad if they were banned.
@@JuniorOrtiz738 If you're talking about boxes of sets then that's not WOTC they go rid of msrp and now everyone can price boxes at whatever price they want. If this is about secret lair stuff, that's collector's stuff, if you're playing on a budget it's not meant for you.
@@alexmorrison2911 my point still stands because wotc sells their sealed boxes to distributors (aka LGS) and they also need to make a profit. This whole game revolves around a business so to say that magic shouldn’t be financial just doesn’t make sense. In reality yes the prices shouldn’t even be anywhere near where they are now and let people play for the sake of the game but thats not case nor world we live in
So I'll put it this way, since I can understand where it's coming from.... I JUST finished and got a deck I had been crafting for Zhuldok in the mail on Monday. It was my first attempt to build a colorless deck and since colorless ramp options are kind of crap compared to colored ramp, I decided for the first time ever to put Jeweled Lotus and Mana Crypt into the deck. The deck arrived the same day as the cards were banned in the format. Now thankfully... I have all my cards run off from a professional printer as proxies, so while annoying that now I have to replace those two cards, it would have been FAR worse if I had spent $300 on cards that I never got to play with and can't even sell to recoup the costs because the value on these cards is tanking. So there is a point at which you can see someone being out money AND being out fun from being able to play with the cards.
@@anthonydelfino6171 it definitely does suck and trying the method that op was saying to just accept the losses if a ban comes is just outright ridiculous and allows wotc to continue making chase cards with low print runs and hike up prices
The issue with rule zero is that people don’t ask the right questions. People ask “about what power level is your deck” which is meaningless. People should ask “how much fast mana”, “how many free spells”, and “how does your deck win”, and follow up with specifics about they type of game the table wants, like “fast and competitive” vs “slow and durdly”. That would lead to way more clarity about the type of game you are about to play.
I'm usually in the camp of least bans as possible. There are so many cards that people don't want to see in casual, the list would never end. So ban all the cards that are sort of banned like Armageddon, or unban everything and let people play. I'm also thinking a separate ban list with less bans for Cedh would be helpful. If casuals want to play with all the salty cards banned cool but let Cedh players use broken powerful cards. That's my opinion at the moment.
A potentially simple solution for the issue of pre-cons having Sol Ring, if it were banned, is that it would be legal if the deck is unmodified. There is already precedent for this with Faceless Haven being banned in Standard before the release of the 2022 Challenger Decks, where the Mono White Aggro deck contained 3 Faceless Havens. When upgrading the list, Sol Ring would simply be the first card to be swapped out.
Sylvan Primordial? Way too strong, banned. Necropotence, Thassa's Oracle, Catastrophe, Survival of the Fittest? All totally fine. There is no rationale for the unevenness of the banlist.
The number of people who have such idiotic takes astounds me. The RC puts out a detailed explanation of their ban philosophy and people still argue "Why is Sylvan Primordial banned? Sol Ring is more powerful. Checkmate 😏"
Because the policy of the RC is to ban cards based on overall player experience, not power. It's less about balancing the format and more about adhering to their own vision of the format.
@@TheTexasDice That's factually WRONG. Primus hits one thing (2 if it can persist). Primordial hits one thing per player and ramps a land for each one hit... AND Primordial costs less.
Because majority of people play pick up games at game stores or spell table and don't have a dedicated play group, and that's the majority of the player base not the antisocial people that only play with a select few and never venture outside of that little bubble....... So in that case that little bubble can rule 0 these cards in and just play with no ban list while the 80% of the rest need rules regulations and guidelines to play by
honestly.... I think the "power level" discussion was an interesting concept, but ultimately a waste of time since it's all subjective. the better discussion I think is "if left alone to do your thing, by what turn will your deck typically win a game?" for me most of my decks that's around turn 8, but for other people that answer might be 3 or 5 which would be a better determining factor for what power levels the decks are playing.
Exactly, rule 0 is an essential part of the game, and its easier for people wanting to do broken things to ask for permission and/or for organised play to unban cards for their events, than it is for random people to police each other upon meeting each other for the first time. The ban list should help police those casual games and provide guidance to make the average experience fun. I think what most people forget, is that anyone (myself included) that is willing to post a comment online about this, is already not an average mtg player, we are in the top 10%, and you really need to have some empathy for what the real average mtg player experiences.
Rule zero does not work at an lgs. I've played too many games where someone at the table plays a precon, and two other players decide to pull out a legitimately weak deck. But that last players decides it's time to play a "barely upgraded precon" that has combo wins, infinites, and/or a ton of expensive staples. I know rule zero and communication is supposed to try to limit these games, but it happens so often. Even if we tell the pubstomper to change decks or tables, the new player's experience is ruined. And again it happens so often at any lgs I go to
I think Tomer hits the nail on the head here. Rule Zero the banned cards back in if you want to. I had a player ask that question at LGS this week and everyone said sure, keep the Mana Crypt in. The banning just forces players to declare they’re running those cards at the top of the game and helps facilitate the rule zero conversation for pickup games.
Ok, hear me out! What about dropping the balist entirely and making rule 0 helper packages. For example, 5 packages you can just tell everyone which packages are banned before playing Examples 1. cumbersome and extremely poowerful cards: power 9, Shahrazad, tolarian acadamy, lutri, etc (This could be the only package banned in cEDH) 2. Fast mana: All positive mana (not rituals and not sol ring) 3. Problematic commanders: Iona, Nadu, Emrakul, braids and so on 4. Stax cards: Mass land destruction, winter orb, generally cards that rewind the game or slow it down too much ------------- You can encourage all casual players to ban all these 4 packages, and encourage LGS to promote these cards as banned for new players, so that everyone always has a deck that can play without cards from these 4 packages, while still having decks that include ones they like so that they can find matches that are balanced ----------- 5. Powerful and autoinclude cards: Just a last package, not encouraged, but optional to try and play with more variaty. Things like, free counters, rhystic study, smothering tithe, demonic tutor, SOL RING, etc. This way rule 0 conversation just becomes, What packages (or groups) aren't allowed in this game. And new players always follow the same 4 packages so they don't have to learn all packages, you leave that to the more seasoned players. Conversation could be just, Casual or Competitive (and this already assumes that competitive only bans group 1 and casual bans up to 4) and some may answer " I have a casual deck with some Stax in it, is it a problem?" "You can play it, I have one Casual deck with tergrid, so it can balance out" "Cool, I have one with fast mana, but casual otherwise, we can play the same pod"
Once you recommend people to ban a specific part it becomes a banlist as people are naturally competitive even in a casual setting, why do you think people actually treat the RC's list as Gospel despite their protest in sayign it is a suggestion list not a actual banlist? Again naturally Magic at it's core is completely broken and people are just naturally competitive
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena sure, but the moment you show them as suggested groups, rule 0 is easier to handle. If you only make 1 group and say "we recommend not using them, but they aren't banned" people will see it as a banlist, but if there's more than 1 group and you make clear that commander night in your LGS is with groups 1-4 banned, while tournament commander is with group 1 alone banned, you can educate players into seeing them as ways to tune their expectations more than just a banlist
i think the main issue was a lack of communication and the lack of a grace period that said certain things/cards were under revision or consideration , giving people/players the opportunity to consider evaluating the financial impact of a potential ban could do and act accordingly.
I think the tenor of the backlash can be explained by the fact that Commander becoming less-friendly for pubstompers means that pubstompers don't have anywhere else to win. If they show up to 60-card they'll get stomped; if they show up to limited they'll get stomped; you need to actually have friends for kitchen table; and won't someone think of the poor pubstompers? What baffles me is how passionate and resourceful the community is, and how little that is actually put to use. At a minimum, the format should be split into cEDH and casual, with the former having almost-nothing banned and the latter being much more curated. And yes, kick out Sol Ring and implement the challenger/event-deck/trade-secrets rule of 'if you're just playing a precon, it's fine.' The idea that 'I have to memorize an entire deck to make this rule work!!' is nonsense: not only do all the cards in the precon have the same set symbol, but I also don't think most people at a casual table are going to really care if a player genuinely doesn't know it's banned but has swapped out 3-4 cards. Prize-support play would just outright ban sol ring, and if someone really wants to precon there, they'd just replace it with a basic. But you could also have people curate suggestions of cards, such that playgroups can have easy house-ban references. Have someone curate all the cards that count as MLD. Curate all the 'restart' cards (Worldpurge is legal, lol). Curate cards that count as stax, etc. Now individual playgroups - or even stores - can say "we use the casual bans, and we also add in the MLD and Stax cards to that list." Somehow, new players can be trusted to look up complicated netdecks and are expected to meticulously metagame and buy all the munchkin cards, but they can't be trusted to look up a banlist? Safe to say, a better Commander website and UX design would also be helpful here, rather than Wizards just pulling the classic 'mvp' corpo strat.
I agree that banning Sol Ring is a lot easier than some people seem to think. Not so much on some of your other points: The issue is that curated ban lists in-turn create metas where the most powerful cards and decks get played over others, defeating EDH's purpose as a "play anything" format. Doubly so in prize-supported play. It's a lot easier to simply play what you like and be chill about what other people like. cEDH exists as a sub-format of EDH, where a meta does exist and people play as powerfully and optimally as possible, but they play under the rules of EDH . To splinter off and create their own format would defeat the purpose of cEDH in the first place.
Your point about metas is self-defeating. Banning jeweled-crypt-dockside will have a minimal effect in broader, 'casual' commander where many of these cards are already faux-pas... yet they have severely shrunk the realm of possibility in cEDH. The cEDH meta is now far more restricted and far more limited... because of a ban that was aimed exclusively at casual players, in the causal iteration of this ruleset. Which, mind you, is like the division between standard and modern: the same ruleset, with different ban lists. Excluding, say, Assassin's Creed from Standard is simply the same as to say that all Assassin's Creed cards are banned in standard use, unless they are legal within a standard set. When a standard set rotates out, it becomes effectively banned in the format. Now, I'm of the opinion that prize support just shouldn't be offered for EDH and defeats the point of the format. Prize support offered for cEDH is different - there, everyone understands. That's more of an angle-case regarding the sol ring ban - where if it could impact anything with prize support, it's easily resolved; and if it isn't, then it really isn't consequential. The format already has a de facto split between competitive and casual - except that it not being explicit does a disservice to both parties. Competitive players have to contend with a banlist explicitly uninterested in addressing their metagame, and casual players have to contend with obvious pubstompers taking advantage of the social contract to engage in faux pas. Competitive players don't want to play against casual players; casual players don't want to play against competitive players. There's exactly one group who wants the lines to remain blurred, making appeals to an idyllic yesteryear that never really existed.
100% agree with you. I have a regular group since more than 10 years and we have to constantly check house rules to prevent some of our friends to break the meta. They are friends that I love very much, but they still want to win whatever it takes. We need a ban list that prevents Casual commander from breaking. cEDH players can play whatever they want.
This is my issue. I only play at my lgs and I know a fair amount of people but still lots of randoms. My lgs does organize it by generating pods but this also means time limits on a round. Even a decently high powered pod can run to time. A little fast mana isn’t bad. It’s the density at which people play it and luckily price helps here as much of it is insanely expensive. Most people have EITHER a crypt, dockside, or lotus in their deck. Rarely do they have all three
The only thing that gets me is how they dumped Commander Masters and LCI in the festival in a box... Big fan of the ban (despite owning a copy of each of these cards) but talk about a rug pull. :( MTG is not a financial investment. MTG is a card game. Yet, the company /treats/ it as if its a financial investment. They play into the philosophy. But this is a different conversation though. Good ban despite the implications.
My deck can't function without these cards is basically saying you expect to win by a certain turn number and anything short of that is 'nonfunctional'
I do think there's an argument there for a fairly played dockside (not flickered/reanimated over and over) as just a method of saying to the table "I need to keep up with the ramp other colors get" but even then in all my decks, and I did proxy dockside into most my decks with red, none of them needed him for the wincon, and all of them played him as an enter once and be done with it strategy
A great video about Sol Ring was just posted by 3/3 Elk on their channel today. It's only 6 minutes, but it outlines Sol Ring's position in the format and offers some deeper insight as to why it didn't catch a ban like Mana Crypt did. Highly recommended!
Arguing against a ban list existing because you have a group of players who could have responsible discussions amongst themselves feels like advocating for removing seatbelts from cars because you, personally, drive carefully and safely: they’re not for you, they’re meant as safeguards against the people who can’t control themselves.
kind of? I mean it's also the same kind of discussion around if you proxy your decks. People immediately jump to "you're just going to load your deck up with all the broken expensive cards" when in reality (at least in my case) my style of deck building, the power level I want to play at, and the cards I want to play has changed very little from when I was buying all my cards to now that I'm proxying them, just now I get to have more decks to cycle through and enjoy the game. the banned list is there for people who don't understand why they shouldn't play degenerate crap and need a rule to force them not to
Wholeheartedly agree. I think the EDHRECast said it best a few weeks or months ago, when they had the topic of what cards you could/should ban/unban. Those 3 cards in particular just found their way into places, where they shoudln't and people didn't have the discipline to self-regulate, similar to for example Paradox engine. Unfortunately, the playgroup I have does have some... stubborn people, who don't really give a damn about other peoples enjoyment or what powerlevels we want to play, and discussions always lead to 'Well, they are not banned, I bought them, so I am gonna use them.' While this isn't specificly for those banned cards, in this case it is Cyclonic Rift, such a ban solves at least a symptom, even though it doesn't solve the underlying problem. And if you don't have other playgroups, but also don't enjoy getting to know new people by visiting LGSs or using Spelltable... well, what other choice do you have? Honestly, if the community wouldn't instantly misuse it, I would recommend to just ban EVERY card with a salt-score over 1.5. People who want to play with those cards probably will find similar minded people to rule 0 obnoxious cards like Vorinclex or Tergrid, but that way games at LGSs would be way more harmless and comfortable for new players. But like I said, I assume the community would misuse it and EDHREC would see a huge number of new votes next year, where suddenly half the viable cards have a score of 2+ because even though the founder of commander was such a kindhearted person, nowadays people are getting more aggressive and demanding... but thats a problem everywhere really, not just in Magic.
The RC was literally founded to protect the casual philosophy of the format! Simple as that, cEDH players are delusional thinking the RC has any allegiance to them.
I'm anti-ban, but this is completely true... In theory. Banning Flash definitely sends mixed messages. Maybe some consistency from the RC on ONE THING would help with trust.
Don't be surprised when you run into guys looking for games and they ask if you're RC or not and leave the table when you say you're pro RC. Guarantee this is going to fracture commander more than people realize because salty players are going to not participate with pro ban people
@@MustangMike52 Yeah, I can totally see that, and wouldn't even blame them. Every poll I've seen has the community 50/50 anti vs pro these bans. So it's definitely not like the community at large supports them. that's a big problem with the RC imo - they're making decisions for the health of the format... but they're the only ones who determine what's healthy for the format. They didn't even consult with the Commander Advisory Group before making these bans! So in essence, they do whatever they want. Half of players disagree with them? Meh. Yeah, they kinda shot themselves in the foot with this one methinks.
@@Belena711 like in the simplest sense I understand the decision was made to make Commander a more welcoming format for more people,but it's interesting to see the way it actually split the whole player base down the middle and now JLK left the CAG and I bet more will follow suit.
I think it would be cool to experiment with using a point system instead of a ban list. It's a bit more complicated, but I don't think it's that much more complicated than the format already is.
You mean calculating points for every card? Thats much much much more complicated. I have 30 decks and 0 of them are documented online, calculating a score for each of them ? No thank you.
At about 7:00 you're talking about how you should rule 0 in stuff back into cEDH. Which defeats the purpose of cEDH. The whole point of the format is that you DON'T use Rule 0, you just show up and play.
@@PhysicsGamer This isn't about adapting. The top tiers going against the top tiers with no gloves on its the entire point of that style of play. You don't have a rule 0 discussion because the rule 0 discussion was had before you even sleeved up your cEDH deck.
@@aaronwishard7093 And if cEDH players want to have a tournament with a different ban list then that's perfectly allowed. It just has to happen before the actual "game" they're playing, which is the tournament itself.
@@PhysicsGamer You're correct, that's allowed under the rules of Commander. However that's not allowed under the rules of top tier commander. Or Competitive Elder Dragon Highlander. Because if you add extra cards onto the list, you're not playing EDH anymore. If you take stuff off the list. You're not playing EDH anymore. But you're correct, you're right, the established rules that are older than Commander being called Commander magically get to go away because you think it's stupid that people want to play that way.
Completely agree with you here Rule 0ing in cards creates less social friction than rule 0ing out cards. To rule 0 in a card, only 1 player has to ask, and maybe give a bit of context as to why it will be a fun time, and the other players have the ban list as a comfortable default to justify saying no. To rule 0 out cards, every player has to share their opinion on a multitude of cards and card types, and their only justification is personal preference. This can easily lead to strong personalities basicially dictating how everyone else has to play the game, and where non-sense like "no combos" starts. Personally I think the game will be a lot heathier if the ban list is more comprehensive, but everyone knows that it's just a sensible default.
The problem I have with this is that the points are not fixed. They are based on frequent changes to the game. Jewelled Lotus was always powerful but the primary issue is ward on a Commander (such as the example of a turn 2 Voja with ward 3), which affect the points. I would not want to build decks and then constantly have to check whether they remain legal.
@@Dragon_Fyre No system is perfect, and with WotC's release cadence, the power level of everything is constantly in flux. Yes, turn 2 Voja sucks, but its not like Voja players are guaranteed a turn 2 JLo in a 100 card singleton format. Give them the win and play another game. One of the issues with power level discussions is that it's so nebulous. A concrete points system gives a framework so everyone is on the same page. Canlander averages 2-3 points updates a year and cards shift by a point. Only 35 cards have points at all, and truly egregious cards have super high point values (Ancestral recall is 8 points, 10 points is max allowed) Dont want to play at that level? Cap your decks at 6-7.
Tomer is piling on the Ws recently with these videos about the bans and the recent one about basic lands. The one point I'd disagree with is when he said that problematic cards are fine if they're not used very often. It may be the case that a card isn't played often enough to really gauge just how bad it is for the format, but if a card is well known enough as a problem, it should be banned for the same reason of ensuring pick-up games are a good experience. A miserable game is no less infuriating simply because the problematic card(s) that caused it are ones people don't play very often.
@max then why are you mad? your playgroup is not playing for tournament why do you follow RC to begin with.. RC is for people who doesnt have playgroup and just playing with random people
The reason it stays casual is because people play it with a casual mindset and expectation. If the ban list was gone tomorrow, most people wouldn't suddenly start playing CEDH. You could go walk into an LGS right now with a completely legal Rog-Si deck and I can almost assure that you will draw the ire of the entire table who would accuse you of not playing casually. They could make the banlist seriously constrict making playing competitively difficult, but that would take an absolutely massive banlist that almost nobody would be able to agree with. While the banlist absolutely is designed to, and (as much as it can) does, facilitate a casual table, it is not the reason for commander being a casual format.
The ban list hasn't done much for the format until right now. Fast mana except power nine has been ignored while cards like Panoptic Mirror are banned, which nobody has ever heard of. Commander has so many cards and isn't competitive enough for a banlist to be impactful, except for financial reasons.
Casual went out the window once the format went mainstream at the LGS and randos started facing off. If you cannot talk to strangers, these bans will fix nothing. I will still oracle you on turn 4 at the latest.
@@Robin-vf7oq You're right, most wouldn't. But it's the same thing with murder laws: if they went away, most people wouldn't start killing. But a few would. And those people would do tremendous damage around them. So while the banned list doesn't create a casual mindset, it does keep the few who don't have that mindset and are there to pillage in check. Or rather, just like murder laws, a way for the others to deal with that.
@@noahfriedrich4686 I agree that banning expensive cards is actually good for the format, however it's pretty complicated to actually ban a card for just being expensive. If we were to say, ban every card over $100 for instance, then cards that are over that mark that mainly see play in commander you'd think would see their prices fall, but if people know that the card could see play again if it's price were to fall, would its price actually fall, I can't say for sure.
I love how everyone says it's a brewing issue when a deck needs good mana in order to function when some of us are trying to still play Legendaries from forever ago that really just can't keep up with today's cards. Sedris, the Traitor King for example used to keep up. Now, it's likely going to have to be scrapped and reinvented as a different deck just to keep up with the only group I have or even the "local meta," or I just put it down and never play it again
why would you play edh tournament? the best tournament would be 1v1 60card 20life format because thats was how magic dmg and milling was designed for also
Because you either play a lot of these broken cards in vintage, legacy or not at all. I'm not gonna be super hype to bring my mana crypt to a standard tournament.@@indomobilegaming3636
@@indomobilegaming3636 You play edh tournaments because they are offered and you want to compete? It's not really about what the best tournament is, I absolutely agree that commander as a whole is not designed to play in a competitive format simply because of its multiplayer nature. That does not change the fact that there are EDH tournaments and that the prizes (at least the ones near me) are usually like win a dual events or win a cradle/tabernacle events so usually something worth playing for. Fundamentally, the rule 0 for cEDH is to play EDH at the highest level possible within the banlist. If you are going ah the format was so much better with these cards i'm just going to keep playing with them, You are playing EDH, just not cEDH.
@@benflint9926 The way to fix this is to take a page out of the video game tournament playbook: the "Rule 0" conversation is part of the tournament organization. Announce the tournament, including any twists like banned cards, allowed cards, weird extra rules, etc.
I wonder how many pods’ Rule 0 banlist is effectively enforced by play - like, when the table basically gangs up on people playing what the group considers unfun decks and cards until they stop playing them.
Rule 0 should work in reverse only. Not allowing banned cards, but letting a playgroup set the tone by saying what IS. Its a lot easier to to tell someone you don't know that you dont want to play against certain things, than to convince strangers to allow you to use a "banned" card.
"Its a lot easier to to tell someone you don't know that you don't want to play against certain things, than to convince strangers to allow you to use a "banned" card." Well, you don't actually need to play the banned card. Play a legal one and avoid the unnecessary conversation altogether.
I am so happy with these bans!!! Love it. I would love better communication from the RC, but still. People saying “rule 0” don’t play with randos at their LGS. With my friends it’s a very different story. Also, everyone who harassed people can leave the mtg community and never come back, thank you very much.
Tomer, your description of the effectiveness of Rule 0 is perfectly on-target and explains why the RC made a point to mention how they’re working on a way to cover and more effectively communicate Rule Zero discussions. They’re at their best with regular playgroups while an eye-rolling experience to sit through alongside randos, especially if there’s any dissension. Under that logic, the bannings do make sense but would’ve been infinitely more effective with a watchlist discussion like WotC has with rules description. And yeah, someone should’ve made a point to separate cEDH a long time ago. Yes, my Tromokratis deck will lament the loss of the Mana Crypt I’ve owned for a decade but I love bling so not having to worry about finally buying a fancy version of Lotus or Extortionist is a huge sigh of relief for my wallet.
Like if your first reaction to a banlist is "consumer confidence" you're in the game for the wrong reason. The loudest voice isn't necessarily the popular voice. I don't play commander enough to have my few games turn into nongames with fast mana so I'm personally all for these bans., I feel bad for the people that had personal investment but that's card games. Blame the company printing the cards and not the people in a lose-lose situation; where people are going to complain whether or not they do anything.
Yeah the bans themselves aren't the issue. WOTC pumped and dumped sealed product the minute they heard the RC was considering banning the cards. The RC should either disband or keep all communication with WOTC at a minimum.
Thing with this though is at the rate of printing, you're always less than 18months from a chase card being printed. Mana Crypt would have been printed again within 2 years. Rhystic Study was printed in Wilds of Eldraine, no one thinks it wont show up in packs again before 2027. So we can never ban it?... and the longer you wait after a printing, the more the price goes up. So you can't ban something months after its been printed, but if you wait 2 years after its been printed, than you are just killing more theoretical value, and people will bitch about that.
@@dcon1891 I dont think those suggestions would be good for us. its better for us if they exist than if they didn't. Wotc has to communicate with them to ensure they don't lose millions. there needs to be a balance and we need Wotc to be more responsible about not milking money for cards they know might get banned. this could have been a case of its already in production so its too late . But still something they need to try avoid doing if possible.
@@nathand6467 its the lack of trust. "Please buy these expensive packs, it has expensive cards like jeweled lotus and mana crypt, look at the special shiny versions we made just for you"---"should we tell them these are in talks of being banned?" - "nah, keep it a secret until after we sell the products, we will lose too much money if we tell them now, its already in production, so its too late to change the products"
The problem with this logic is that the ban list doesn't actually fix the issue of pub stomping and power mismatches. The funny thing about all this is I haven't faced mana crypt at my LGS but I've absolutely been locked out by winter orb in mono blue Urza.
Yeah all the people saying “”im gonna become the problem now that they banned these cards” you already were. The fact your response to a simple rules change in a card game is to spite build decks so that strangers can’t have fun playing is just a self inditement on your character.
I heard a suggestion on a different video that Rule Zeroing in more powerful cards should be the norm. This moves the needle into that direction. It might be more awkward when trying to convince some randoms at an LGS to play with fast mana or banned commanders, but it doesn't affect groups who play together often as they can rule zero them back in if they want to play those kinds of games. (Made this comment before watching lol didn't realize we thought the same.)
imo, there are cards on there which have no business being there and several cards not there which should be... problem is it's all subjective and who really is to say what is and isn't healthy for the format
I play D&D, and a great DM once said, "Encounter design doesn't stop once the players roll initiative." It's the same here: game design doesn't stop just because the cards have shipped. Ban lists are a necessary lever on keeping a format healthy, and these bans are a welcome breath of fresh air.
I think the ban is really for strangers at LGS. With that said I have to be open minded and play for a least a month than see how this is really impacting gameplay and having fun
I think we should aspire to a rule zero protocol that does work with total strangers. There are already websites that rate thousands of decks, there is no reason to throw int he towel and say, welp people lie so we need a ban list. We need the RC and content creators to teach the importance of communicating expectations, not say people are anti-social so rule zero only works with your best friends.
You hit it on the head, as someine with no access to an lgs or regular playgroup due to magic not being supported/popular in my country i am verry dependend on online games. With this in mind a more restrictive banlist is better as rule 0 is generally glossed over, especially with people new to commander or the given webside.
No dockside is more fun for Sure.
LGS and extremely large groups with rotating players. Rule 0 does not work for these players. Rule 0 is even hard for a smaller group of like 8 players oftentimes. In short I hate Rule 0 arguments for a reason for not having a ban list. But for groups that Rule 0 works for, do it.
@@95643 It's much easier to ask people to play with a banned card than it is to ask people to not play with a card. People don't like to be told not to play with their toys, even when they lead to worse games. The ban list just gives people a reasonable starting point to reference towards and doesn't make it so that an individual is asking you not to play with abusable cards, but the a widely agreed on list of norms.
Finally, someone said it. I see so many "why dont you Rule 0 them out of people's deck's" but bawk at the suggestion "why don't you rule 0 them in?". Like it is way easier for the 10% of players that slam these into every deck to ask if they can play them than for the rest of the players always check if the pod is randomly playing Jewled Lotus in their upgraded precon game.
Also, it is generally easier to ask for permission to do something than asking for someone not do something.
This! 100% agree!
I agree and IMO the most telling part that completely validates the banning is these are not cards that I suspect most players are going to miss from their games and if asked "hey can I play this busted fast mana piece?" they are likely to be met with a no. It's not like a Coalition Victory or Primeval Titan where people might be like "sure, this card could be fun this time around".
ppl always ask like the "hey can i play these cards" conversation - even with pick-up groups - is some daunting thing you just can't do but i've literally never had issues from it in a decade of playing edh...
People need to understand that Rule 0 is not "game design". It's house rules. House rules don't really work so well when you're with randos at an LGS or a CommandFest. WotC *design games* - they design the cards, the sets, and the precons. They adjust the knobs until they think they've created an enjoyable play experience for the maximum number of players.
Rule 0 isn't a global knob you can turn on the game. It's not game design. It's just saying "communicate with your pod" - which is fine, but it works just as well as saying "don't pubstomp" and expecting that to remove all pubstomping from casual games. I encourage you to think outside your own personal play experience/day-to-day interaction with the game.
What causes Pubstomp is not a banned card, it is mentality. Ban whichever card, jerks will be jerks if they want to.
@@jeferssonpinho Your're right jerks will be jerks which is why we need a ban list. I live in a small town with a small LGS and I can't pick and choose who I play with. Also yes banning cards DOES stop pub stomping or at least mitigating it. Now there is 2 less fast mana bs in every deck.
@@PressXtoDoubt until the next toxic card appears, to be banned once again, and the cycle continues.
@@jeferssonpinho If you want to pubstomp but are a decent person, your decency will stop you. If you want to pubstomp and you're *not* a decent person, then the banlist will stop you. I wish we could all be decent, but we are not. (This is boiling it down to Lotus + Crypt == pubstomp, which is a massive oversimplification, but you get me)
@@jeferssonpinho ya that's exactly what happened a toxic card got printed (Nadu) and it got banned like it was supposed to. That's not a bad thing.
Are you really saying "oh my god the RC banned a toxic card we should just let all them be legal!" Like no. You could always rule 0 whatever you want in.
As far as Mana positive mana rocks are concerned those could all be banned and I highly doubt Wizards would dare to try and print something like those again.
I like that they’re moving from “you have to rule 0 the power outlier cards out” to “rule 0 the power outliers IN if you want to play with them”. It means if you want to use things that a cut above the rest you will have to disclose them and the rest of the pod can decide if they want to move forward with that style of play.
Will jerks still be jerks? Probably, but now there’s another way for them to out themselves before we start the game with them and waste our time.
Logistically it is much easier for me to have a replacement for a Jewelled Lotus in the off chance I cannot Rule 0 it in than for everyone at the table to have a back up in case their specific card gets Rule 0'ed out.
I think people are missing that not all decks are built equal and sure a ban list can help but having to rule 0 it in set a bad tone about you when it could be fun to play against that deck.
As if I wasn't already on board with the ban list, you just sold me 100%. A player who would refuse to engage with rule 0 before has no choice now, at least for these cards.
If you view playing Magic as a waste of time ever then you've lost the point. I guess you Commander players aren't as inclusive as I was lead to believe.
@@Aaron-l3l6g Spoken like someone completely out of their element, I'd try to elaborate in a way that might be more relatable to someone who has never played commander but you just reek of bad bait. Try harder.
As someone running a Commander meet-up group the ban list is super useful as a shared starting point for pregame discussions. It’s really good for semi-trusted/ untrusted play.
Not everyone has a dedicated regular playgroup. When that is the recurring basis for the conversation, you are excluding a significant portion of commander players. If the banlist doesn't make sense for a playgroup, it shouldnt matter if it exists or not. The banlist is for those playing at an lgs or convention, or with new/untrusted players/groups. Dismissing the validity of a banlist citing playgroups is disengenuious.
You have a small group of people who don't report to anyone, who just cost the magic community many millions of dollars. Dismissing the validity of their impact on the secondary market is also disingenuous.
Even if you're just deckbuilding online there are implications to the ban list - e.g. banned cards don't show up on a search unless you specifically search for that card, and if you're using a service like Moxfield, there's a constant warning that your deck is invalid. And although it's not like these are huge obstacles, they're still obstacles, and dismissing that is also disingenuous.
Maybe it shouldn't matter in gameplay whether it exists or not, but they do call it a "ban list". Perhaps instead they should call it an "avoid" list or something to still provide guidance for pickup games, but help limit their impact on the market and other places.
@@Belena711 Boo-hoo 😂😂😂
If you have to play with randomers and they pull these cards out when you are on a precon there is two issues;
You are joining a table and doing this to yourself
You need to address these people are narcissists and stop playing with them.
Win win in my eyes.
This❤❤
@lewischan2498 maybe at least give them a moment for correction, which adds to the social element. We go through magic as players in different stages as we grow. Well hopefully most of us. Agreed though, we are sitting our own butts down at the table we choose.
This is exactly what the commander ban philosophy should be about. Focussing on pickup games and banning to hopefully make the experience more fun for the most amount of people
In my opinion Rule Zero is just for my decks. I don't have the right to control other people's deck building. I don't play cards that I find "unfun" but I have no expectation on other players, they can play whatever the hell they want.
other players do have a different opinion on this opinion but that's their opinion. Also, "i play to win in commander" when there is legacy, pioneer, standard and modern... which are COMPETITIVE formats speaks volumes.
@@MarcDize There are people who like the format of commander, none of the formats you listed are highlander with a commander, that want to play it competitevly. Just becasue you don't have a winners mindset, doesn't mean that people who play CEDH are wrong for doing so, they just aren't interested in a casual playstyle like you aren't interested in a competitive one, both can coexist.
pubstomper attitude.
Good for you. I'm not that way. While I don't care if you play salty decks with prison locks or mass land destruction, I won't play a game with you if your deck goes off before I even get the chance to cast a spell. If a midpower deck can't develop the mana to interact with your game plan, you're just playing by yourself in most casual pods. It's fine if you ask to play against other decks running similar fast mana. I also have decks with efficient interaction and fast mana, and I'm more than willing to play them if you ask. But don't go up to a casual table and pressure people into playing against your deck that runs underworld
breach lines or dockside/time sieve loops while punishing everyone else for playing their gimmicky decks as well as wasting their time.
@@MarcDize Even in a group setting, you play to win. If you don't want to win, why don't you just play with rocks in your backyard?
Honesty I'm still shocked that Thassa's Oracle wasn't on the chopping block. Only one color being able to stop the combo consistently feels a bit bad.
It's not a good experience but unlike the cards banned, ThOracle has done a decent job of self selecting out of casual pods.
Do you think they should ban Thassa's Oracle or Demonic Consultation?
@@drewhoffmaster2969 Where the hell are you seeing Crypt at a casual table lmao, I've seen more Thoracle at casual tables than crypt, most casual players are not dropping ~$200 on a singular card
@@Robin-vf7oq every time I go to my LGS or one of the random playgroups I go to that meet up maybe once every other month. They didn't spend the money on the card--they just pulled them, or got Dockside in a precon. Every night without fail I see at least one of the banned cards (not Nadu), usually in something like Voja or Ulalek or some other 5+ MV commander.
@@PalPlays 100% demonic consultation.
Thassas is a SUPER strong card yes, but jace and lab man also exist. But without demonic thassas combo had to at least work a little bit more
It's amazing how people get mad when the banlist starts to actually do it's job and include the obcenely powerful and problematic cards
There's way more egregious cards in the format. Off the top of my head, Thassa's Oracle.
They both deserve a ban. I hope this announcement is just a start to a more aggressive ban list.
@@corbinschumm3501 I agree, lets ban it as well.
The problem is that it's a half measure. If they're going to go at it with this mentality then take the plunge or leave it as it is. Chrome Mox, Mox Amber, Ancient Tomb, Dark Ritual, The Moxes, Gaea's Cradle, etc should all go if they think that Crypt and JLo are fit for the chopping block.
@@corbinschumm3501My actual gripe tbh is they didn't push hard enough. If you're seeing the exact same cards winning at the tables months or hell, years, after the newest set then maybe they require a ban.
The thing is, having an official banlist doesn't really have a drawback because afterall, if you want, you can always use rule 0 with your playgroup. I think it's better to have a banlist and then rule 0 if you wish, than not having a banlist and make the game even more unbalanced when a rule 0 is not used.
Exactly. In security terms it's a default blacklist that allows people to whitelist when appropriate. If you need to cast a wide net and set a baseline you default to blacklists instead of requiring a new dispute every time someone wants to remove something.
Yeah if you remove the ban list im playing leovold and not allowing turn 0 discussion, cause after all who wouldnt press the button when presented
@@ghostofhannibal2587counterspell ggs
@@ghostofhannibal2587 I would have no problem with that, time to face my 45 black lotus 45 ancestral recall commander deck where I "proxied" all cards with a pencil on white paper!
I only have own one dockside, but you think it is ok if you go to your lgs find a table that need one more player but have to change one card from your deck there and then because it is banned and these players agree with that, even if you probably wont even draw it. In my strongest decks I have non of these cards and in one of my most fun pirate deck I have a dockside. The bann nlist is BS there will always be players who build an unfun deck, no bannes will change that.
I have agreed with almost every opinion you have shared on the philosophy of the format over the years Tomer. Thanks so much for having the integrity to share your opinions during these highly confrontational few days.
Thank you for this!! So many people don’t see the bigger picture and apply everything to their own small ecosystem. I haven’t had a play group for 3 years since I moved, and these bans make me so happy because I have objectively better games without these cards. I play in pods with precons and pub stompers alike and squishing that variance of deckbuilding power is 10/10. Although I do disagree with the “nobody plays it so it doesn’t need a ban”, socially banning cards I think sets a bad precedent because everyone has their own definition of “casual” and “fun”
you should consider not nerfing yourself and play with proxies. i dont understand the badge of honor that comes with budget brews. There's nothing more budget than a $0.30 proxy.
@@hahahafunniness 1) these cards are bad for the format whether they cost $1 or $100. 2) proxies imo are bad for the game as a whole and you won’t be changing my opinion on that 3) “nerfing yourself” makes for a more fun game imo because it allows for more creativity in deckbuilding, using your logic everyone should just play cedh because “why nerf yourself”. You clearly did not understand what I was saying so I shouldn’t even be replying to such a brain dead comment
100% agree and in the same boat as you. If you want to play these cards that are banned, rule 0 them in. But when you play strangers, leave them at home.
@@hahahafunniness I like making budget brews as a sort of challenge to myself, in a similar way that companions confine your deck building. It helps me discover obscure and sometimes powerful cards that I don't see anyone else around me running. That being said, if I show up to an LGS with my $10 mono white deck, I'm not expecting everyone else to play around me. I understand I may be the weakest deck at the table and I'm ok with that.
But budget brews aside, players should 100% feel comfortable playing proxies. If you feel like you can't enjoy commander because of the difference in financial investment between you and the player across from you, print out some proxies and level the playing field. In my experience 98% of people are fine with a couple of proxy cards in your deck, and the ones who aren't, you don't want to play with anyway.
@hahahafunniness because it's fun building around restrictions? Because it's fun not being tied to 30 autoinclude staples just because you choose a color combination? Because I like having a deck that I can pick up and play with a friend who has just bought a precon?
I'm all for proxying at an appropriate level for the table, but like have you ever even felt joy building a deck if you make a comment like that?
I think a banlist is good for setting a standard. Rule Zero only works when players are ready/want to, and if you are a player who is constantly busy and plays often with players new to you, then it’s harder to keep that in mind.
The banlist is for strangers at an LGS Commander night or event. Not everyone had multiple power decks or cards to swap. The banlist provides a base for what should be allowed. Thats what its for.
multiple power decks? no no no, sir. All my decks are a 7 :P
Do whatever you want with your playgroup. The banlist is for LGS
Unless you own and purchase cards, that is. Then it affects you wherever you play.
@@Belena711 First of all, I didn't say the banlist doesn't AFFECT you, I said it's not FOR you.
You can still play whatever you want with your friend group, regardless of if you own the cards or proxy them.
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 The fish doesn't really care if the pesticide was FOR the ants.
You can't be so dismissive of collateral damage.
@@Belena711 I'm not dismissing anything, you're just making massive assumptions
@@prestonbeaulieu4379 "Do whatever you want with your playgroup." Definitely doesn't address the concerns. It IS dismissive.
It just reinforces that I will never buy premium sealed product or high dollar singles. I'll stick to bulk rares and proxies.
We can sit down and game then. Because you understand that this is a casual format and it's about the social aspect. We're here to have a good time. Cheers
honestly this is the way.
I too proxy my cards. I have a LOT of decks and probably had about 12 Docksides between them all. I'd have been furious if I had spent $1,200 on them only for them to be now worthless... but at least for me it was just the annoyance of finding an appropriate card to slot in it's place in every deck that ran it (since it was just run as a 2 mana ramp spell with no comboing or looping)
Honestly i feel that the quickening powercreep of commander is more the reason these cards got banned. So many commanders nowaday have to generate so much value or do literally everything for the deck they are easy to break when they come out early. That and so many commanders having built in protection makes things worse as well.
this change to the design of legendary creatures REALLY has me missing the old "tuck rule" of commander, basically that if I use cards like Terminus, Banishing Stroke, or Spin into Myth to put your commander on the bottom of your library, that's where it stays until you can get it out of there, there was no replacement effect that allowed you to put the commander into the command zone instead.
It really would be one of the best ways to deal with some of these commanders that just overwhelm your opponents with value
@@anthonydelfino6171 Ertai's Meddling, too. All they needed to do was fix the wording of the stack being "empty"... but no, they had to make it exile the target outright, instead.
@@PhysicsGamer not sure what you're talking about here.... Etrai's Meddling can't be played at all if the stack is empty.
Ertai's Meddling is just a funky worded Delay. "Spells" only exist on the stack
@@anthonydelfino6171 Apologies, I rather mangled my own wording, there! As written, the spell stays on the stack while the delay counts down.
Unfortunately, the MtG rules as _they_ are written don't allow the game to progress if the stack doesn't empty.
This was easily fixable, in my opinion, and turning Meddling into just a weird version of Delay is a bit sad.
I like the argument of : bans are for people that don't know each other well enough to effectively rule 0.
Most people don't have regular play groups. You can't expect strangers to play by a "rule 0"
“Casual” doesn’t mean anything anymore - and that isn’t the players fault. We can get through this as a community even if it looks bad right now - I believe 😳
It doesn't look bad; these changes were fantastic and make the format even better.
Rule 0 is the most rational approach to combat any bans or lack thereof. People are particularly against the most rational approach at this time because they're still emotional (in my opinion) about losing money on commander "staples".
If commander is such a “casual” format then in that case everyone should just proxy and there should be nobody upset period
People like to play with real cards. This really isn't that hard to understand.
Yeah, wait until your see "proxies" , where someone just wrote names with a pencil on a card...no thanks.
@@Cybertech134 more people like to play with proxies thanks to the gouging practices of Hasboro / WOTC. This really isn't that hard to understand. 😁
@@tokertalk9648 If people didn't prefer to play with real cards, we wouldn't have all this bitching from the community. This really isn't that hard to understand.
@@Cybertech134 The bitching is for the ban at all, and the loss kf value for the cards. If no cards have any value then noone will care to buy them and proxy becomes the norm.
This opinion is 100% on point. I played with a new player at my LGS and we all played precons. This guy dropped a Mana Crypt he opened in a LCoI pack and the rest of us were taken back.
It was later in the game so it didn't have a big impact but who expects a Mana Crpyt when someone says "I just have this precon" and that was legit the only change the guy made to the deck lol
Cus mtgo will never add a rule 0 to thier client :(
Isn't there free form commander on mtgo
You can play rule 0, but not in tournaments I guess.
And finding a trusted group online... Kinda different 😂
MTGO literally added rule 0 a year or two ago.
@@Dragiceoriginal what's the game play format
@@Dragiceoriginal free form???
I think RC should primarily apply their ban list to organized casual events, like command fest, magic con and online play, while CEDH tournaments can have their own ban.
Anywhere else, the RC should encourage rule zero and not enforce the ban list. So casual play groups can choose whether to follow the ban or not.
Have you read the RC site? This is what they advocate for. Take the second paragraph of the ban list:
"The following is the official banned list for commander games. These cards are not legal without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards. For the underlying philosophy that drives the banlist, see Format Philosophy."
Or in their FAQ over Rule 0:
"Commander does not have an enforcement arm. Nobody is going to break into your playspace and take away your Commander privileges if you decide to ban some more cards or start at a different life total."
I expected Tomer to include plea to the RC to ban Rhystic Study too
When I played Commander it was a 100% guarantee that the players who complained about the ban list and how no cards should be banned were also the players who complained anytime anyone else played a good card.
A bankist is necessary for playing with strangers at cons or lgs, talk about playing whatever you want with your friends
I play against people I do not know on a weekly basis. Not having a banlist and needing to banter about whether or not to play certain cards would be terrible. Not everyone has the same play group every game.
All this conversation sounds like, is that Commander needs a Point list like Canadian Highlander.
And i've never played CH.
The points list in CH is hot sauce. Love it.
100% agree. Rule 0 shouldnt be or have been a catch all reason to avoid updating the banlist as it has been. Expecting players to have a rule 0 convo at an lgs with strangers has always been absurd to me. Like, yes a general power level convo is had, but it never goes deeper than that. And with how much broken stuff there is in the format I think it's great to have more bans than less.
I think that would lead to a more interesting olay experience for those who want to include them and a streamlined one for those who stick to the list.
Especially since what that winds up looking like is every player needing to build up a list of cards that they hate seeing, and exchanging lists before a game. "Do you have any of these cards? Do you? What about you?" etc.
Which is literally just a slow and tedious ban list.
The rules committee should start thinking outside the box. Create a new type of restricted list, where you can choose one card from the list to put in your deck, but you can’t use any other card on the list. For example, put every broken fast mana card like Jeweled Lotus, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault etc on the list, so you can choose which one to use and they all remain legal and retain some value.
I mean, at that point, aren't we just playing Canadian Highlander?
In a sense, that’s what they’ve wound up doing by not banning Sol Ring.
The problem is that there are many player that pay for strong cards like mana crypt, jewelled lotus, smothering tithe, The One Ring, rystic study.
When some players owns a card, they just want to play it because they invest in it. When I didn't play a card, there is no need for me to keep it and I will just sell it. So our playgroup didn't have a Rule 0 Ban list. I think an official ban list will make decisions less complecated and everyone know what to play and what not.
I don't see any point to the rule zero argument, since you can also rule zero stuff off of the ban list
It doesn't work in reverse if you rule 0 to ban cards your decks are still legal if the cards aren't included. Rule 0 unbans has people playing illegal decks and a lot of people don't like that.
that's exactly the point he makes
@@MrMacdaddymcfly That doesn't really make sense. It's way more reasonable to expect someone bringing a banned card to also bring a backup for that slot if Rule 0 doesn't go their way than it is for the rest of the table to memorize all the cards they don't want to play against and sort through everyone's deck to find them.
also another against rule zero: if your LGS is sanctioned and you play in leagues or whatnot, they have to play by wotc's rules. no banned cards, no proxies, no rule 0.
Personal experience...never saw a crypt or lotus in a casual pick up game at my LGS, unless they mentioned high powered fast mana before the game. The way it was supposed to be. I think players that would pubstomp still will, with Thoracle, food chain, ad nauseum etc
I never have seen lotus in play, but I saw my fair share of crypts.
I also regularly played dockside, but I would argue "fairly" since I had no bounce back to hand, flicker, or reanimate shenanigans to go alongside it.
We need a ban list. Countless times I’ve had rule zero conversations where people still have no idea how to adjust to power levels. I played a powered up gonti precon into a thoracle combo deck after a rule zero convo. My regular play group moved away north and I mostly only play pick up games at my LGS. I like the new bans and we need a ban list. People who are loud and salty about bans are just much louder than people who are fine with them.
Investors when they get money -> I made money!
Investorts when they lose money -> You made me lose money!
Maybe it's time to stop treating Magic like stocks and actually use the cards to play and have fun...
My thoughts exactly.
Yes screw MTG finance it a blight on the game
It goes beyond that. It really hammers the casual players who saved up to slightly boost one of their decks with one two of these cards.
This is kinda a dumb take in my opinion. Magic is also a collectible. If all anyone was concerned about was playing the game then every single commander deck would be proxies. Why buy any card when you can get it for cheaper and not have it affect gameplay? Just because people like to collect and trade cards doesn’t make them mtg finance. Is every single person that owns a trade binder a mtg finance guy? This also screws over a lot of local game stores. Aren’t we supposed to support those? That’s where a lot of people go to play magic but they lost a lot of money. Should we say screw them too?
You say that but its not just investors who got hurt here. LGS everywhere just lost thousands of dollars, That include mom and pop shops. Its your average joe who through money at all of the past masters sets trying to get these cards.
2:27 they did our boy so dirty with that ban… he’s only a problem as a companion 😭
Rule 0 blows. Most people hate EVERYTHING. The only thing rule 0 does is push an arms race into the group.
Rule 0 is basically the most lawyerly person in the group gets to play the most powerful deck.
@@spybreak23 EXACTLY!!!
I have never experienced this argument in my life, and I play with 3 randoms a week. The worst I have heard is people being mildly annoyed by proxies.
@@Finicky9 Consider yourself lucky.
"Most people hate everything" is reductive and incorrect. Most people hate very specific play patterns.
How many wolves or elves would be on the table with Voja out on turn 2...?
If they're banning for casual then ban Rhystic Study.
add smohtering tithe
Then add trouble in pairs
I agree, but I think the dust needs to settle first 😅
Alternatively, pay the 1.
@@TheAverageGuyTAG I mean, I do. And I play these cards. But I would still vote for them being banned personally.
I don't know...I have never had a problem asking what's in a deck or describing what's in mine. Communication is at a premium. If someone play a curb-stomp deck with no notice ...no one plays with them again.
those kind of players are abundant at my lgs... which is why I stopped going entirely
@@anthonydelfino6171 That's a damn shame. There are some fun games to still be had with pre-con level decks.
6:13 what is a ban slot? Not sure how that’s relevant? That sounds made up and I’m not sure why there’s a limited number of something that was made up?
He was just using words. He doesn't have insider knowledge of a top secret ban slot.
A ban slot is a concept used to describe the desire to limit the number of bans as much as possible. So for example, Instead of banning Nadu, you could have banned every card with a 0 cost targeted ability. This is a few cards, banning Nadu is only 1.
There shouldn’t be a ban list but a tier list of for cards/examples for cards to not use.
Ex: You should not use: P9, ante.
You should heavily dicuss: Sol Ring, MD, Ancient Tomb ex cetera.
Something like that.
That's literally what the committee said, though. To paraphrase: "These cards are going on the banned list. Now instead of needing Rule 0 conversations to ban the cards from a group, there should be Rule 0 conversations to unban them."
they need to ban more cards. if people dont like it they can go play metazoo.
If me and two of my friends went to the ball court for a pick up game of 3v3 basketball and the only people there were of a collegiate or professional level experience, should they be or be not allowed to use crossovers, drive to the goal, layup, or dunk on me and my friends? Magic the Gathering rewards players for their experience and dedication to the game. If I have to continually reduce the power level of my deck(s), is that a good experience for me? If we have local Modern night like we did last night and there was a brand new player to Modern, should the others take out the powerful cards from their decks, or play tier 3-4 decks? I agree that new players having generally good experiences will make them continue to want to play. But, are the beginner and casual players the only ones in mind here?
Basketball might be the worst possible game you could use for this example, since it has a long history of tweaking its rules to break up boring or overly-dominant strategies.
@@PhysicsGamer then insert whatever other game you need to satisfy your requirements. basketball rewards the player for time spent playing the game and studying it, and so does Magic.
@@guitarwithjacob Yeah, and in both cases it's sometimes necessary for the health of that game to disrupt metas that would be harmful to it.
I trust the community to self regulate without a banlist the same as I trust society to regulate themselves without a government
or corporations....
@@anthonydelfino6171 ❤
Even asking the question is madness. We need a baseline. I say this a lot when questions come up about the banlist, but when I first started playing, if Panoptic Mirror hadn't been banned, I would have made quite a few games absolutely miserable by imprinting a wrath before I got the message and pulled it out. And if you weren't there, you wouldn't believe how many people thought of Iona, Shield of Emeria as a big Timmy angel, when it's actually a vicious stax piece. The number of conversations I had with people at my generally laid-back LGS about Iona was maddening.
> We don't need a ban list to have fun. We figured that out for ourselves.
That works when you're already a solid group of players. But think about that sentence outside of card games.
"We don't need rules to have fun. We figured that out for ourselves."
Again, that works when you're already a solid group of people. But the moment outsiders wanders in, then things change dramatically. Imagine you're playing a game in the park. You're a group of friends playing, you all know the unspoken rules of your game. Someone asks if they can join, and you say yes, assuming that they're going to adhere to those unspoken rules. But instead of just playing football, they're throwing in mixed martial arts and kicks someone in the head.
You get upset, because why would you do that?! And they don't get why you're upset - you didn't specify you COULDN'T kick people in the head!
gawd, ALL OF THIS!! ☝🏽☝🏽☝🏽
thanks for completely validating the casual mid-power scene and for calling out everyone who’s ran these cards and claimed all the excuses as to why they run them, good riddance!!
Time to promote winter orb into the modern commander meta. I've ran across it at the lgs.
Also free fastbond!
"Also free fastbond!"
no.
honestly, green has more than enough cheap mana ramp, and with the hit to every color that's not green this week, there's zero reason to push that color ahead unless MAYBE if they unbanned Balance to go alongside it.
"Ruin the fun" Because it sucks sitting down at a table at a LGS and having them play all these expensive fast mana cards against you when you cannot afford them and the LGS doesn't allow for proxies.
I think the worst part about the current controversy with these bans, and the seeming validation some people are getting from the community will lead these people to pressure their group or LGS pickup groups to still let them play their cards. Often that pressure is toxic and effective when you're at a store with a lot of shy introverts that just want to be liked, our has them in abundance. Do really hope I'm wrong on this though.
It's time the RC and CAG communicated better with the playerbase. All they had to do was say a year ago - when they started talking to wizards about these cards - that they were looking at the format with an eye on what was happening with the proliferation of fast mana. That would have reduced the upset felt by the player base by a major factor, because it wouldn't have felt so random!
I agree completely with your sentiment. In the group I usually play with, the next consequences were a fifteen-minute chat where the two copies of these cards had their owners go 'oh well' and move on, since they weren't invested enough to push for an exception. But this is NOT the point. A consistent group of people can actually have the good sort of rule zero where it becomes so accustomed that we almost forget what to tell new entrants until they try to play Stasis.
This is here for public games, and it is at its most helpful in public games where you can't entirely trust that all players will be realistic or even honest about their power. I have zero sympathy for pubstompers. People who went 'oh well, I just pulled it' and are telling the truth should have no more problem going 'oh well' and taking it back out. People who 'need' busted cards to make their decks work need to lose the crutches and learn to brew. And people in honest, open mega-power games can and should have their own groups with custom rules.
My sympathies lie mostly with the independent stores who have lost a decent bit of value if they had bad timing.
I think it's absurd to prioritize magic as a financial vessel over a game. I have 4 one rings and I understand fully that they are wallet-gamer pieces that should probably be banned for pickup games and would not feel bad if they were banned.
if that was the case then wizards shouldn’t be charging $150+ for boxes of cardboard
@@JuniorOrtiz738 If you're talking about boxes of sets then that's not WOTC they go rid of msrp and now everyone can price boxes at whatever price they want. If this is about secret lair stuff, that's collector's stuff, if you're playing on a budget it's not meant for you.
@@alexmorrison2911 my point still stands because wotc sells their sealed boxes to distributors (aka LGS) and they also need to make a profit. This whole game revolves around a business so to say that magic shouldn’t be financial just doesn’t make sense. In reality yes the prices shouldn’t even be anywhere near where they are now and let people play for the sake of the game but thats not case nor world we live in
So I'll put it this way, since I can understand where it's coming from....
I JUST finished and got a deck I had been crafting for Zhuldok in the mail on Monday. It was my first attempt to build a colorless deck and since colorless ramp options are kind of crap compared to colored ramp, I decided for the first time ever to put Jeweled Lotus and Mana Crypt into the deck. The deck arrived the same day as the cards were banned in the format.
Now thankfully... I have all my cards run off from a professional printer as proxies, so while annoying that now I have to replace those two cards, it would have been FAR worse if I had spent $300 on cards that I never got to play with and can't even sell to recoup the costs because the value on these cards is tanking. So there is a point at which you can see someone being out money AND being out fun from being able to play with the cards.
@@anthonydelfino6171 it definitely does suck and trying the method that op was saying to just accept the losses if a ban comes is just outright ridiculous and allows wotc to continue making chase cards with low print runs and hike up prices
The issue with rule zero is that people don’t ask the right questions. People ask “about what power level is your deck” which is meaningless. People should ask “how much fast mana”, “how many free spells”, and “how does your deck win”, and follow up with specifics about they type of game the table wants, like “fast and competitive” vs “slow and durdly”. That would lead to way more clarity about the type of game you are about to play.
I'm usually in the camp of least bans as possible. There are so many cards that people don't want to see in casual, the list would never end. So ban all the cards that are sort of banned like Armageddon, or unban everything and let people play. I'm also thinking a separate ban list with less bans for Cedh would be helpful. If casuals want to play with all the salty cards banned cool but let Cedh players use broken powerful cards. That's my opinion at the moment.
A potentially simple solution for the issue of pre-cons having Sol Ring, if it were banned, is that it would be legal if the deck is unmodified. There is already precedent for this with Faceless Haven being banned in Standard before the release of the 2022 Challenger Decks, where the Mono White Aggro deck contained 3 Faceless Havens. When upgrading the list, Sol Ring would simply be the first card to be swapped out.
Sylvan Primordial? Way too strong, banned. Necropotence, Thassa's Oracle, Catastrophe, Survival of the Fittest? All totally fine. There is no rationale for the unevenness of the banlist.
@@Pinfeldorf necropotence has a down side that you must manage for it to be useful. The other 3 don't have drawbacks besides Mana cost and interaction
The number of people who have such idiotic takes astounds me. The RC puts out a detailed explanation of their ban philosophy and people still argue "Why is Sylvan Primordial banned? Sol Ring is more powerful. Checkmate 😏"
@@traycarrot Counterpoint: Woodfall Primus is way more abuseable than Sylvan Primardial and that card is free to go.
Because the policy of the RC is to ban cards based on overall player experience, not power. It's less about balancing the format and more about adhering to their own vision of the format.
@@TheTexasDice That's factually WRONG. Primus hits one thing (2 if it can persist). Primordial hits one thing per player and ramps a land for each one hit... AND Primordial costs less.
Because majority of people play pick up games at game stores or spell table and don't have a dedicated play group, and that's the majority of the player base not the antisocial people that only play with a select few and never venture outside of that little bubble....... So in that case that little bubble can rule 0 these cards in and just play with no ban list while the 80% of the rest need rules regulations and guidelines to play by
And in Poland for example every one wants cEDH deck if they can afford it. When I want discuss power level everyone is looking at me like at an alien.
honestly.... I think the "power level" discussion was an interesting concept, but ultimately a waste of time since it's all subjective.
the better discussion I think is "if left alone to do your thing, by what turn will your deck typically win a game?" for me most of my decks that's around turn 8, but for other people that answer might be 3 or 5 which would be a better determining factor for what power levels the decks are playing.
Exactly, rule 0 is an essential part of the game, and its easier for people wanting to do broken things to ask for permission and/or for organised play to unban cards for their events, than it is for random people to police each other upon meeting each other for the first time. The ban list should help police those casual games and provide guidance to make the average experience fun. I think what most people forget, is that anyone (myself included) that is willing to post a comment online about this, is already not an average mtg player, we are in the top 10%, and you really need to have some empathy for what the real average mtg player experiences.
Rule zero does not work at an lgs. I've played too many games where someone at the table plays a precon, and two other players decide to pull out a legitimately weak deck. But that last players decides it's time to play a "barely upgraded precon" that has combo wins, infinites, and/or a ton of expensive staples.
I know rule zero and communication is supposed to try to limit these games, but it happens so often. Even if we tell the pubstomper to change decks or tables, the new player's experience is ruined. And again it happens so often at any lgs I go to
that's exactly the point he makes in the video
I think Tomer hits the nail on the head here. Rule Zero the banned cards back in if you want to. I had a player ask that question at LGS this week and everyone said sure, keep the Mana Crypt in. The banning just forces players to declare they’re running those cards at the top of the game and helps facilitate the rule zero conversation for pickup games.
Ok, hear me out! What about dropping the balist entirely and making rule 0 helper packages. For example, 5 packages you can just tell everyone which packages are banned before playing
Examples
1. cumbersome and extremely poowerful cards: power 9, Shahrazad, tolarian acadamy, lutri, etc (This could be the only package banned in cEDH)
2. Fast mana: All positive mana (not rituals and not sol ring)
3. Problematic commanders: Iona, Nadu, Emrakul, braids and so on
4. Stax cards: Mass land destruction, winter orb, generally cards that rewind the game or slow it down too much
------------- You can encourage all casual players to ban all these 4 packages, and encourage LGS to promote these cards as banned for new players, so that everyone always has a deck that can play without cards from these 4 packages, while still having decks that include ones they like so that they can find matches that are balanced -----------
5. Powerful and autoinclude cards: Just a last package, not encouraged, but optional to try and play with more variaty. Things like, free counters, rhystic study, smothering tithe, demonic tutor, SOL RING, etc.
This way rule 0 conversation just becomes, What packages (or groups) aren't allowed in this game. And new players always follow the same 4 packages so they don't have to learn all packages, you leave that to the more seasoned players. Conversation could be just, Casual or Competitive (and this already assumes that competitive only bans group 1 and casual bans up to 4) and some may answer " I have a casual deck with some Stax in it, is it a problem?" "You can play it, I have one Casual deck with tergrid, so it can balance out" "Cool, I have one with fast mana, but casual otherwise, we can play the same pod"
Once you recommend people to ban a specific part it becomes a banlist as people are naturally competitive even in a casual setting, why do you think people actually treat the RC's list as Gospel despite their protest in sayign it is a suggestion list not a actual banlist? Again naturally Magic at it's core is completely broken and people are just naturally competitive
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena sure, but the moment you show them as suggested groups, rule 0 is easier to handle. If you only make 1 group and say "we recommend not using them, but they aren't banned" people will see it as a banlist, but if there's more than 1 group and you make clear that commander night in your LGS is with groups 1-4 banned, while tournament commander is with group 1 alone banned, you can educate players into seeing them as ways to tune their expectations more than just a banlist
i think the main issue was a lack of communication and the lack of a grace period that said certain things/cards were under revision or consideration , giving people/players the opportunity to consider evaluating the financial impact of a potential ban could do and act accordingly.
I think the tenor of the backlash can be explained by the fact that Commander becoming less-friendly for pubstompers means that pubstompers don't have anywhere else to win. If they show up to 60-card they'll get stomped; if they show up to limited they'll get stomped; you need to actually have friends for kitchen table; and won't someone think of the poor pubstompers?
What baffles me is how passionate and resourceful the community is, and how little that is actually put to use. At a minimum, the format should be split into cEDH and casual, with the former having almost-nothing banned and the latter being much more curated.
And yes, kick out Sol Ring and implement the challenger/event-deck/trade-secrets rule of 'if you're just playing a precon, it's fine.' The idea that 'I have to memorize an entire deck to make this rule work!!' is nonsense: not only do all the cards in the precon have the same set symbol, but I also don't think most people at a casual table are going to really care if a player genuinely doesn't know it's banned but has swapped out 3-4 cards. Prize-support play would just outright ban sol ring, and if someone really wants to precon there, they'd just replace it with a basic.
But you could also have people curate suggestions of cards, such that playgroups can have easy house-ban references. Have someone curate all the cards that count as MLD. Curate all the 'restart' cards (Worldpurge is legal, lol). Curate cards that count as stax, etc. Now individual playgroups - or even stores - can say "we use the casual bans, and we also add in the MLD and Stax cards to that list." Somehow, new players can be trusted to look up complicated netdecks and are expected to meticulously metagame and buy all the munchkin cards, but they can't be trusted to look up a banlist? Safe to say, a better Commander website and UX design would also be helpful here, rather than Wizards just pulling the classic 'mvp' corpo strat.
I agree that banning Sol Ring is a lot easier than some people seem to think. Not so much on some of your other points:
The issue is that curated ban lists in-turn create metas where the most powerful cards and decks get played over others, defeating EDH's purpose as a "play anything" format. Doubly so in prize-supported play. It's a lot easier to simply play what you like and be chill about what other people like.
cEDH exists as a sub-format of EDH, where a meta does exist and people play as powerfully and optimally as possible, but they play under the rules of EDH . To splinter off and create their own format would defeat the purpose of cEDH in the first place.
Your point about metas is self-defeating. Banning jeweled-crypt-dockside will have a minimal effect in broader, 'casual' commander where many of these cards are already faux-pas... yet they have severely shrunk the realm of possibility in cEDH. The cEDH meta is now far more restricted and far more limited... because of a ban that was aimed exclusively at casual players, in the causal iteration of this ruleset.
Which, mind you, is like the division between standard and modern: the same ruleset, with different ban lists. Excluding, say, Assassin's Creed from Standard is simply the same as to say that all Assassin's Creed cards are banned in standard use, unless they are legal within a standard set. When a standard set rotates out, it becomes effectively banned in the format.
Now, I'm of the opinion that prize support just shouldn't be offered for EDH and defeats the point of the format. Prize support offered for cEDH is different - there, everyone understands. That's more of an angle-case regarding the sol ring ban - where if it could impact anything with prize support, it's easily resolved; and if it isn't, then it really isn't consequential.
The format already has a de facto split between competitive and casual - except that it not being explicit does a disservice to both parties. Competitive players have to contend with a banlist explicitly uninterested in addressing their metagame, and casual players have to contend with obvious pubstompers taking advantage of the social contract to engage in faux pas. Competitive players don't want to play against casual players; casual players don't want to play against competitive players. There's exactly one group who wants the lines to remain blurred, making appeals to an idyllic yesteryear that never really existed.
100% agree with you. I have a regular group since more than 10 years and we have to constantly check house rules to prevent some of our friends to break the meta. They are friends that I love very much, but they still want to win whatever it takes. We need a ban list that prevents Casual commander from breaking. cEDH players can play whatever they want.
This works great for playgroups. But not the randoms at your LGS or online?
This is my issue. I only play at my lgs and I know a fair amount of people but still lots of randoms. My lgs does organize it by generating pods but this also means time limits on a round. Even a decently high powered pod can run to time. A little fast mana isn’t bad. It’s the density at which people play it and luckily price helps here as much of it is insanely expensive. Most people have EITHER a crypt, dockside, or lotus in their deck. Rarely do they have all three
that's exactly the point he makes
@@anthonydelfino6171 Yeah my bad I jumped the gun
The only thing that gets me is how they dumped Commander Masters and LCI in the festival in a box... Big fan of the ban (despite owning a copy of each of these cards) but talk about a rug pull. :(
MTG is not a financial investment. MTG is a card game. Yet, the company /treats/ it as if its a financial investment. They play into the philosophy. But this is a different conversation though. Good ban despite the implications.
My deck can't function without these cards is basically saying you expect to win by a certain turn number and anything short of that is 'nonfunctional'
I do think there's an argument there for a fairly played dockside (not flickered/reanimated over and over) as just a method of saying to the table "I need to keep up with the ramp other colors get" but even then in all my decks, and I did proxy dockside into most my decks with red, none of them needed him for the wincon, and all of them played him as an enter once and be done with it strategy
A great video about Sol Ring was just posted by 3/3 Elk on their channel today. It's only 6 minutes, but it outlines Sol Ring's position in the format and offers some deeper insight as to why it didn't catch a ban like Mana Crypt did. Highly recommended!
Arguing against a ban list existing because you have a group of players who could have responsible discussions amongst themselves feels like advocating for removing seatbelts from cars because you, personally, drive carefully and safely: they’re not for you, they’re meant as safeguards against the people who can’t control themselves.
Ikr, people advocating for that forgot that in the banlist you have stuff like Channel, Balance, Biorhythm and Fastbond.
@@Machiroable and 8 of the p9
kind of? I mean it's also the same kind of discussion around if you proxy your decks. People immediately jump to "you're just going to load your deck up with all the broken expensive cards" when in reality (at least in my case) my style of deck building, the power level I want to play at, and the cards I want to play has changed very little from when I was buying all my cards to now that I'm proxying them, just now I get to have more decks to cycle through and enjoy the game.
the banned list is there for people who don't understand why they shouldn't play degenerate crap and need a rule to force them not to
Wholeheartedly agree. I think the EDHRECast said it best a few weeks or months ago, when they had the topic of what cards you could/should ban/unban. Those 3 cards in particular just found their way into places, where they shoudln't and people didn't have the discipline to self-regulate, similar to for example Paradox engine.
Unfortunately, the playgroup I have does have some... stubborn people, who don't really give a damn about other peoples enjoyment or what powerlevels we want to play, and discussions always lead to 'Well, they are not banned, I bought them, so I am gonna use them.' While this isn't specificly for those banned cards, in this case it is Cyclonic Rift, such a ban solves at least a symptom, even though it doesn't solve the underlying problem. And if you don't have other playgroups, but also don't enjoy getting to know new people by visiting LGSs or using Spelltable... well, what other choice do you have? Honestly, if the community wouldn't instantly misuse it, I would recommend to just ban EVERY card with a salt-score over 1.5. People who want to play with those cards probably will find similar minded people to rule 0 obnoxious cards like Vorinclex or Tergrid, but that way games at LGSs would be way more harmless and comfortable for new players. But like I said, I assume the community would misuse it and EDHREC would see a huge number of new votes next year, where suddenly half the viable cards have a score of 2+ because even though the founder of commander was such a kindhearted person, nowadays people are getting more aggressive and demanding... but thats a problem everywhere really, not just in Magic.
The RC was literally founded to protect the casual philosophy of the format! Simple as that, cEDH players are delusional thinking the RC has any allegiance to them.
I'm anti-ban, but this is completely true... In theory. Banning Flash definitely sends mixed messages.
Maybe some consistency from the RC on ONE THING would help with trust.
Don't be surprised when you run into guys looking for games and they ask if you're RC or not and leave the table when you say you're pro RC. Guarantee this is going to fracture commander more than people realize because salty players are going to not participate with pro ban people
@@MustangMike52 Yeah, I can totally see that, and wouldn't even blame them. Every poll I've seen has the community 50/50 anti vs pro these bans.
So it's definitely not like the community at large supports them.
that's a big problem with the RC imo - they're making decisions for the health of the format... but they're the only ones who determine what's healthy for the format. They didn't even consult with the Commander Advisory Group before making these bans! So in essence, they do whatever they want. Half of players disagree with them? Meh.
Yeah, they kinda shot themselves in the foot with this one methinks.
@@Belena711 like in the simplest sense I understand the decision was made to make Commander a more welcoming format for more people,but it's interesting to see the way it actually split the whole player base down the middle and now JLK left the CAG and I bet more will follow suit.
@@MustangMike52 Yeah, it's like watching a friend's car crash. 😅😬
I think it would be cool to experiment with using a point system instead of a ban list. It's a bit more complicated, but I don't think it's that much more complicated than the format already is.
You mean calculating points for every card? Thats much much much more complicated. I have 30 decks and 0 of them are documented online, calculating a score for each of them ? No thank you.
At about 7:00 you're talking about how you should rule 0 in stuff back into cEDH. Which defeats the purpose of cEDH. The whole point of the format is that you DON'T use Rule 0, you just show up and play.
Maybe those players should adapt.
@@PhysicsGamer This isn't about adapting. The top tiers going against the top tiers with no gloves on its the entire point of that style of play. You don't have a rule 0 discussion because the rule 0 discussion was had before you even sleeved up your cEDH deck.
@@aaronwishard7093 And if cEDH players want to have a tournament with a different ban list then that's perfectly allowed. It just has to happen before the actual "game" they're playing, which is the tournament itself.
@@PhysicsGamer You're correct, that's allowed under the rules of Commander. However that's not allowed under the rules of top tier commander. Or Competitive Elder Dragon Highlander. Because if you add extra cards onto the list, you're not playing EDH anymore. If you take stuff off the list. You're not playing EDH anymore. But you're correct, you're right, the established rules that are older than Commander being called Commander magically get to go away because you think it's stupid that people want to play that way.
@@aaronwishard7093 You can Rule 0 that you'll still call it Commander, too. Nobody's going to break down your door and haul you off to prison.
Completely agree with you here Rule 0ing in cards creates less social friction than rule 0ing out cards. To rule 0 in a card, only 1 player has to ask, and maybe give a bit of context as to why it will be a fun time, and the other players have the ban list as a comfortable default to justify saying no. To rule 0 out cards, every player has to share their opinion on a multitude of cards and card types, and their only justification is personal preference. This can easily lead to strong personalities basicially dictating how everyone else has to play the game, and where non-sense like "no combos" starts.
Personally I think the game will be a lot heathier if the ban list is more comprehensive, but everyone knows that it's just a sensible default.
Rather than a banlist, I would prefer a point system like canadian highlander so there's a concrete way to determine/cap power levels.
Just looked this up, I'm a fan
great idea
The problem I have with this is that the points are not fixed. They are based on frequent changes to the game. Jewelled Lotus was always powerful but the primary issue is ward on a Commander (such as the example of a turn 2 Voja with ward 3), which affect the points. I would not want to build decks and then constantly have to check whether they remain legal.
@@Dragon_Fyre No system is perfect, and with WotC's release cadence, the power level of everything is constantly in flux. Yes, turn 2 Voja sucks, but its not like Voja players are guaranteed a turn 2 JLo in a 100 card singleton format. Give them the win and play another game. One of the issues with power level discussions is that it's so nebulous. A concrete points system gives a framework so everyone is on the same page. Canlander averages 2-3 points updates a year and cards shift by a point. Only 35 cards have points at all, and truly egregious cards have super high point values (Ancestral recall is 8 points, 10 points is max allowed) Dont want to play at that level? Cap your decks at 6-7.
TBH I do love this idea! I'm not entirely sure how well it would work for a format as large and full of beginners as Commander, though.
Tomer is piling on the Ws recently with these videos about the bans and the recent one about basic lands.
The one point I'd disagree with is when he said that problematic cards are fine if they're not used very often. It may be the case that a card isn't played often enough to really gauge just how bad it is for the format, but if a card is well known enough as a problem, it should be banned for the same reason of ensuring pick-up games are a good experience. A miserable game is no less infuriating simply because the problematic card(s) that caused it are ones people don't play very often.
With the new bans, my extended playgroup basically decided fuck the RC and fuck their banlist, everything is legal now.
Congratulations that was always allowed
...nothing has changed for regular playgroups. Why are you so mad?
@max then why are you mad? your playgroup is not playing for tournament why do you follow RC to begin with.. RC is for people who doesnt have playgroup and just playing with random people
I would love to play with my 45 lotus, 45 ancestral recall + finisher commander deck proxied on a white paper with a pencil in your playgroup.
@@Schatten941 Yeah I don't think you know what commander is if this is your idea of some kinda counter argument.
This reflects pretty much spot on how I see the whole situation.
Now these high power pods can afford those cards. They should be happy.
No banlist is a horrific format killing idea
Seriously the reason it stays casual is because of bans
The reason it stays casual is because people play it with a casual mindset and expectation. If the ban list was gone tomorrow, most people wouldn't suddenly start playing CEDH. You could go walk into an LGS right now with a completely legal Rog-Si deck and I can almost assure that you will draw the ire of the entire table who would accuse you of not playing casually. They could make the banlist seriously constrict making playing competitively difficult, but that would take an absolutely massive banlist that almost nobody would be able to agree with.
While the banlist absolutely is designed to, and (as much as it can) does, facilitate a casual table, it is not the reason for commander being a casual format.
The ban list hasn't done much for the format until right now. Fast mana except power nine has been ignored while cards like Panoptic Mirror are banned, which nobody has ever heard of. Commander has so many cards and isn't competitive enough for a banlist to be impactful, except for financial reasons.
Casual went out the window once the format went mainstream at the LGS and randos started facing off. If you cannot talk to strangers, these bans will fix nothing. I will still oracle you on turn 4 at the latest.
@@Robin-vf7oq You're right, most wouldn't. But it's the same thing with murder laws: if they went away, most people wouldn't start killing. But a few would. And those people would do tremendous damage around them. So while the banned list doesn't create a casual mindset, it does keep the few who don't have that mindset and are there to pillage in check. Or rather, just like murder laws, a way for the others to deal with that.
@@noahfriedrich4686 I agree that banning expensive cards is actually good for the format, however it's pretty complicated to actually ban a card for just being expensive. If we were to say, ban every card over $100 for instance, then cards that are over that mark that mainly see play in commander you'd think would see their prices fall, but if people know that the card could see play again if it's price were to fall, would its price actually fall, I can't say for sure.
I love how everyone says it's a brewing issue when a deck needs good mana in order to function when some of us are trying to still play Legendaries from forever ago that really just can't keep up with today's cards. Sedris, the Traitor King for example used to keep up. Now, it's likely going to have to be scrapped and reinvented as a different deck just to keep up with the only group I have or even the "local meta," or I just put it down and never play it again
CEDH TOURNAMENTS are almost certainly going to follow the ban list. That's the problem. You can't just say "well house rule it in to your cEDH group".
why would you play edh tournament? the best tournament would be 1v1 60card 20life format because thats was how magic dmg and milling was designed for also
@@indomobilegaming3636 cEDH is competitive edh. It's a thing.
Because you either play a lot of these broken cards in vintage, legacy or not at all. I'm not gonna be super hype to bring my mana crypt to a standard tournament.@@indomobilegaming3636
@@indomobilegaming3636 You play edh tournaments because they are offered and you want to compete? It's not really about what the best tournament is, I absolutely agree that commander as a whole is not designed to play in a competitive format simply because of its multiplayer nature. That does not change the fact that there are EDH tournaments and that the prizes (at least the ones near me) are usually like win a dual events or win a cradle/tabernacle events so usually something worth playing for. Fundamentally, the rule 0 for cEDH is to play EDH at the highest level possible within the banlist. If you are going ah the format was so much better with these cards i'm just going to keep playing with them, You are playing EDH, just not cEDH.
@@benflint9926 The way to fix this is to take a page out of the video game tournament playbook: the "Rule 0" conversation is part of the tournament organization. Announce the tournament, including any twists like banned cards, allowed cards, weird extra rules, etc.
I wonder how many pods’ Rule 0 banlist is effectively enforced by play - like, when the table basically gangs up on people playing what the group considers unfun decks and cards until they stop playing them.
This ban is really helpful to my regular play group as my brother loves high powered cards
Rule 0 should work in reverse only. Not allowing banned cards, but letting a playgroup set the tone by saying what IS.
Its a lot easier to to tell someone you don't know that you dont want to play against certain things, than to convince strangers to allow you to use a "banned" card.
"Its a lot easier to to tell someone you don't know that you don't want to play against certain things, than to convince strangers to allow you to use a "banned" card."
Well, you don't actually need to play the banned card. Play a legal one and avoid the unnecessary conversation altogether.
I am so happy with these bans!!! Love it. I would love better communication from the RC, but still.
People saying “rule 0” don’t play with randos at their LGS. With my friends it’s a very different story.
Also, everyone who harassed people can leave the mtg community and never come back, thank you very much.
Tomer, your description of the effectiveness of Rule 0 is perfectly on-target and explains why the RC made a point to mention how they’re working on a way to cover and more effectively communicate Rule Zero discussions. They’re at their best with regular playgroups while an eye-rolling experience to sit through alongside randos, especially if there’s any dissension. Under that logic, the bannings do make sense but would’ve been infinitely more effective with a watchlist discussion like WotC has with rules description. And yeah, someone should’ve made a point to separate cEDH a long time ago.
Yes, my Tromokratis deck will lament the loss of the Mana Crypt I’ve owned for a decade but I love bling so not having to worry about finally buying a fancy version of Lotus or Extortionist is a huge sigh of relief for my wallet.
Like if your first reaction to a banlist is "consumer confidence" you're in the game for the wrong reason. The loudest voice isn't necessarily the popular voice. I don't play commander enough to have my few games turn into nongames with fast mana so I'm personally all for these bans., I feel bad for the people that had personal investment but that's card games. Blame the company printing the cards and not the people in a lose-lose situation; where people are going to complain whether or not they do anything.
I completely agree, “just use rule zero” rarely ever works when playing with strangers
bans were good, process not so good. wotc practice of selling chase products with reprints to be banned, not good.
Yeah the bans themselves aren't the issue. WOTC pumped and dumped sealed product the minute they heard the RC was considering banning the cards. The RC should either disband or keep all communication with WOTC at a minimum.
Thing with this though is at the rate of printing, you're always less than 18months from a chase card being printed. Mana Crypt would have been printed again within 2 years. Rhystic Study was printed in Wilds of Eldraine, no one thinks it wont show up in packs again before 2027. So we can never ban it?... and the longer you wait after a printing, the more the price goes up. So you can't ban something months after its been printed, but if you wait 2 years after its been printed, than you are just killing more theoretical value, and people will bitch about that.
@@dcon1891 I dont think those suggestions would be good for us. its better for us if they exist than if they didn't. Wotc has to communicate with them to ensure they don't lose millions. there needs to be a balance and we need Wotc to be more responsible about not milking money for cards they know might get banned. this could have been a case of its already in production so its too late . But still something they need to try avoid doing if possible.
@@nathand6467 its the lack of trust. "Please buy these expensive packs, it has expensive cards like jeweled lotus and mana crypt, look at the special shiny versions we made just for you"---"should we tell them these are in talks of being banned?" - "nah, keep it a secret until after we sell the products, we will lose too much money if we tell them now, its already in production, so its too late to change the products"
The problem with this logic is that the ban list doesn't actually fix the issue of pub stomping and power mismatches.
The funny thing about all this is I haven't faced mana crypt at my LGS but I've absolutely been locked out by winter orb in mono blue Urza.
Yeah all the people saying “”im gonna become the problem now that they banned these cards” you already were. The fact your response to a simple rules change in a card game is to spite build decks so that strangers can’t have fun playing is just a self inditement on your character.
I heard a suggestion on a different video that Rule Zeroing in more powerful cards should be the norm. This moves the needle into that direction. It might be more awkward when trying to convince some randoms at an LGS to play with fast mana or banned commanders, but it doesn't affect groups who play together often as they can rule zero them back in if they want to play those kinds of games.
(Made this comment before watching lol didn't realize we thought the same.)
No, we need a bigger ban list in fact.
imo, there are cards on there which have no business being there and several cards not there which should be... problem is it's all subjective and who really is to say what is and isn't healthy for the format
@@anthonydelfino6171 Having _some_ sort of starting point helps, though.
I play D&D, and a great DM once said, "Encounter design doesn't stop once the players roll initiative." It's the same here: game design doesn't stop just because the cards have shipped. Ban lists are a necessary lever on keeping a format healthy, and these bans are a welcome breath of fresh air.