Something i see everywhere is that the rc did not talk to the cag, but the rules committee said they talked to them about fast mana over the past few years, just because they didnt ask explicitly should we ban jeweled lotus does not mean they did not talk to the cag about the issue.
This. They didn't say "hey, we are thinking about mana crypt, what you think?" They went about it as "hey, we are worried about fast mana and the speed of the format, what you think?" I personally think this is good, and they learned a lot in how to handle the next one. Now, that is a moot point. WOTC is our benevolent dictator now. I doubt we ever see another ban and most of the bans will be undone. Love to be proved wrong, I'm just less than enthusiastic.
The way the RC behaved, as presented by those in the know, suggests that these were conversations about the subject of fast mana, rather than specific cards (though I'm sure some conversations were had about those as well for the last 3-4 years). They also had an idea that this was going to create some sort of discourse, though as has been astutely pointed out, nobody could have predicted this level of response. I would suggest that the CAG was underutilized and should have been consulted directly about a change of this magnitude. My opinions are based off the info presented and the behaviors demonstrated, and I wouldn't dream of saying I have a perfect picture of what happened. I think keeping the CAG in the dark to prevent leaks, insider trading, etc. was monumentally foolish and shortsighted, especially if they're the ones being trusted to help provide advice on the format. At this point, however, finger pointing is largely irrelevant with Wizards in charge of the format. Gavin has the knowledge, passion, and charisma to guide the format in better directions, and if they follow Pauper's model for community involvement, I think we'll ultimately have many Commander games in our futures, even if the way we got here was absolutely reprehensible.
Crazy everything that happened with Magic this week. Hope it works out - I know a lot of the amazing people in our community love the game and are Commander fans.
Particularly in the case of Mana Crypt. Card's been around forever, and I've played with and against it a ton. The format's technically better with it gone, but like the Lotus, it has very few places to see play with Vintage being as inaccessible as it is.
I feel you are a bit off about uninformed people will be hurt. You talked about the one situation in wouldn't hurt them, if it isn't eventually banned. The fact is, every single one that is banned will hurt the uninformed. Whether that's acceptable is the question.
Before I go into some more detailed thoughts here, thank you for the critique. I did gloss over this a bit, and there were (in my mind) good reasons for it, but I'll gladly share my thoughts in more detail here for further discussion. In fairness, anytime a card is banned, everyone will take a hit financially who owns that card, informed or otherwise. With that in mind, let's say a watchlist is implemented and another $100 card, say Chrome Mox, is placed on it. Here's how I personally would look at it: "Chrome Mox is in my deck because I feel it will help me get my game plan online in a more reasonable timeframe or ahead of my opponents. Taking it out of my deck will make the deck slower/less optimized, so I'd like to keep playing it as long as I can to optimize my fun. Card will tank for a bit if it is banned, so I could make a quick buck by trading it off for another high end card not on a watchlist. Based on its price history and legality in other formats though, such a drop would be relatively trivial in the long run based on similar bannings, and I could enjoy the card now and sell it later if I wait." I recognize this isn't quite a direct parallel to Mana Crypt or Jeweled Lotus, but I would have looked at them the same way under the same lenses. While these cards don't have a true home outside Commander, they're rare enough to still hold some value, and even if a player is uninformed about a watchlist, it's much more likely that they're going to get the card from an LGS's display case or an online marketplace/retailer than by talking to me and trading me directly. Do stores and marketplaces have an obligation to alert a customer of a card's watchlist status, or is it the customer's job to do their homework before purchasing as you would for a major appliance? Would I be more of a scumbag for initiating a private trade with someone and not telling them about a card potentially losing value than a store/storefront, either costing myself a trade or taking the financial hit in the present before a decision is made? Ultimately, the reason I didn't dive into all these nuances is twofold. First, the RC's statement read to me like the watchlist was a precursor for a nearly certain ban. That's not what a watchlist is for. It's there to put extra scrutiny on a card and assess whether it is truly deserving of a ban via data because you need more information to make an informed decision. And second, I feel like the reasoning provided by them for not providing a watchlist is blown a fair bit out of proportion, so I wanted to present the counterpoint they neglected. This isn't 2000 and the majority of the Commander audience isn't the 6-12 age group - it's teenagers and older. People who have access to the internet and are much more clued in to things like card prices than they were 20-25 years ago. I also feel that walking down this road of conversation begins a slippery slope of questions where you begin to worry about factors that are no longer tied to the health of the format - and if you believe price should not be a factor for whether a card is bannable, you're worrying about something that is irrelevant to your format's philosophy. By extension, whether or not it is acceptable to introduce a risk of the uninformed being taken advantage of isn't something you should consider from a price-centric point of view. I'm going to pump the brakes here, because this conversation then starts to go further down the slippery slope of individual morality, which goes further afield from the points I'm endeavoring to make and Commander as a whole.
Something i see everywhere is that the rc did not talk to the cag, but the rules committee said they talked to them about fast mana over the past few years, just because they didnt ask explicitly should we ban jeweled lotus does not mean they did not talk to the cag about the issue.
This. They didn't say "hey, we are thinking about mana crypt, what you think?" They went about it as "hey, we are worried about fast mana and the speed of the format, what you think?"
I personally think this is good, and they learned a lot in how to handle the next one. Now, that is a moot point. WOTC is our benevolent dictator now. I doubt we ever see another ban and most of the bans will be undone. Love to be proved wrong, I'm just less than enthusiastic.
The way the RC behaved, as presented by those in the know, suggests that these were conversations about the subject of fast mana, rather than specific cards (though I'm sure some conversations were had about those as well for the last 3-4 years).
They also had an idea that this was going to create some sort of discourse, though as has been astutely pointed out, nobody could have predicted this level of response. I would suggest that the CAG was underutilized and should have been consulted directly about a change of this magnitude. My opinions are based off the info presented and the behaviors demonstrated, and I wouldn't dream of saying I have a perfect picture of what happened. I think keeping the CAG in the dark to prevent leaks, insider trading, etc. was monumentally foolish and shortsighted, especially if they're the ones being trusted to help provide advice on the format.
At this point, however, finger pointing is largely irrelevant with Wizards in charge of the format. Gavin has the knowledge, passion, and charisma to guide the format in better directions, and if they follow Pauper's model for community involvement, I think we'll ultimately have many Commander games in our futures, even if the way we got here was absolutely reprehensible.
Crazy everything that happened with Magic this week. Hope it works out - I know a lot of the amazing people in our community love the game and are Commander fans.
Definitely an understatement - I'm choosing to be optimistic, but it has been hard at times.
Interesting that they choose now to get rid of these cards.
Particularly in the case of Mana Crypt. Card's been around forever, and I've played with and against it a ton. The format's technically better with it gone, but like the Lotus, it has very few places to see play with Vintage being as inaccessible as it is.
@@AssortedMeeples It is very interesting to see all the different game types as when I played there was one way to play the game.
I feel you are a bit off about uninformed people will be hurt. You talked about the one situation in wouldn't hurt them, if it isn't eventually banned. The fact is, every single one that is banned will hurt the uninformed. Whether that's acceptable is the question.
Before I go into some more detailed thoughts here, thank you for the critique. I did gloss over this a bit, and there were (in my mind) good reasons for it, but I'll gladly share my thoughts in more detail here for further discussion.
In fairness, anytime a card is banned, everyone will take a hit financially who owns that card, informed or otherwise. With that in mind, let's say a watchlist is implemented and another $100 card, say Chrome Mox, is placed on it. Here's how I personally would look at it:
"Chrome Mox is in my deck because I feel it will help me get my game plan online in a more reasonable timeframe or ahead of my opponents. Taking it out of my deck will make the deck slower/less optimized, so I'd like to keep playing it as long as I can to optimize my fun.
Card will tank for a bit if it is banned, so I could make a quick buck by trading it off for another high end card not on a watchlist. Based on its price history and legality in other formats though, such a drop would be relatively trivial in the long run based on similar bannings, and I could enjoy the card now and sell it later if I wait."
I recognize this isn't quite a direct parallel to Mana Crypt or Jeweled Lotus, but I would have looked at them the same way under the same lenses. While these cards don't have a true home outside Commander, they're rare enough to still hold some value, and even if a player is uninformed about a watchlist, it's much more likely that they're going to get the card from an LGS's display case or an online marketplace/retailer than by talking to me and trading me directly.
Do stores and marketplaces have an obligation to alert a customer of a card's watchlist status, or is it the customer's job to do their homework before purchasing as you would for a major appliance? Would I be more of a scumbag for initiating a private trade with someone and not telling them about a card potentially losing value than a store/storefront, either costing myself a trade or taking the financial hit in the present before a decision is made?
Ultimately, the reason I didn't dive into all these nuances is twofold. First, the RC's statement read to me like the watchlist was a precursor for a nearly certain ban. That's not what a watchlist is for. It's there to put extra scrutiny on a card and assess whether it is truly deserving of a ban via data because you need more information to make an informed decision. And second, I feel like the reasoning provided by them for not providing a watchlist is blown a fair bit out of proportion, so I wanted to present the counterpoint they neglected. This isn't 2000 and the majority of the Commander audience isn't the 6-12 age group - it's teenagers and older. People who have access to the internet and are much more clued in to things like card prices than they were 20-25 years ago.
I also feel that walking down this road of conversation begins a slippery slope of questions where you begin to worry about factors that are no longer tied to the health of the format - and if you believe price should not be a factor for whether a card is bannable, you're worrying about something that is irrelevant to your format's philosophy. By extension, whether or not it is acceptable to introduce a risk of the uninformed being taken advantage of isn't something you should consider from a price-centric point of view.
I'm going to pump the brakes here, because this conversation then starts to go further down the slippery slope of individual morality, which goes further afield from the points I'm endeavoring to make and Commander as a whole.