Nadu, Bans, and Rule 0 | Commander | Magic: the Gathering
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Bye bye, birdie.
Michael Majors's article: magic.wizards....
Rules FAQ & Rule 0: mtgcommander.n...
Check out ALL our decklists here: edhrec.com/art...
Want access to exclusive content, the Challenge the Stats spreadsheet, EDHRECast Discord, and more? Support the cast on Patreon! / edhrecast
Title sequence by Daniel Woodling / MTG Explainers: bit.ly/3982yYa
Card images courtesy of Scryfall: scryfall.com/
Elevate by LiQWYD / liqwyd
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/liqwyd-...
Music promoted by Audio Library / nw
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
Honestly, I find the reliance on rule zero in place of bans on problematic or 'unfun' cards to be putting the oneus on the wrong group. Rule zero works best for established play groups where people have the time to balance the play experience over multiple games and over a long period of time. I believe the ban list should be aimed at the pickup game at the lgs or cons. If before the pickup game, someone wants to play a banned or illegal card, then they can ask.
Been saying this for years.
This is such an obvious take, that it’s frustrating there hasn’t been action towards this. Even Joey says rule 0 was originally about adding non-normal stuff. So let’s normalize banning these unfun, overpowered cards and let people rule 0 them back into their playgroups if they want to play with them.
Get rhystic study and dockside out of my games
No, it should be on you. Because the point of commander is I can play any card.In fact, I already think there's too many cards banned and a couple cards that shouldn't be banned, but I don't think there should be more than twenty banned cards.
@cablefeed3738 if you want to play any card, there is a format for that. It is called vintage.
@reaper1858 Nope, that's a competitive tournament format. No, thank you.
I would rather have the RC enforcing a stricter banlist and THEN we could have the pregame discussions about 1 or 2 cards that are on the official banlist but that the playgroup might be willing to allow if someone brings them on the table in their turtle tribal deck or something. IMO that's a much easier conversation to have than everyone trying to list all the nebulous cards and strategies that they think are unfun and degenerate. I am 100% on board with people who think "Rule 0" does nothing for a large chunk of the playerbase and the format needs a bigger banlist.
@@Sicktoid
Who gets to decide what is "unfun" and should be on the ban list. I think cards like warpworld are fucking awful, they certainly aren't powerful. I guess though, since I find it unfun it has to go. Fuck that. The guy who plays chaos has every right to enjoy the game as I do. I personally enjoy the game when played at higher power levels. Not cEDH, but highly optimized. I talk to every table I sit down with and gauge what everyone is looking for. I play something appropriate for the table or go find another table.
@@jacobalbert2603 The RC should decide? I think that's literally the point, yes? The way I look at it, one card getting banned usally opens up the playing field for 10+ other cards, so banning things often ends up being a net positive in terms of what people can play.
To be clear, I wouldn't want them to go after cards that are just annoying like Warp World or Thieves' Auction (all though I wouldn't mind that either), but overpowered and uninteresting cards like Cyclonic Rift, Dockside Extortionist, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring etc. Cards that slide into almost any deck and offer too much bang for the buck or warp the game way too much in relation to their cost.
@@Sicktoid
That's how YOU enjoy the game. That's not how everyone enjoys the game. As bannings stand now you are free to play that way. People who like to play with more optimized decks can also play the way they enjoy. YOUR way to play isn't the only way. It's the right way...for YOU. Not the right way for someone else. The RC isn't there just to make the low power casuals happy just like they are not there to make cEDH happy. A small ban list leaves a home for all of us.
It is true. I do indeed enjoy a game with clear rules and boundaries and a coherent banlist.
@@Sicktoid
No, you want a ban list that supports the game play you prefer and anyone who enjoys cards you don't like can fuck right off. Your everything that's wrong with commander players these days.
I respect the RC and Sheldon's vision a lot, but yes, it does seem that lately they've been doing nothing and not communicating very well. They're letting Rule 0 do the work for them. If the banlist is supposed to be a signpost set of guidelines? They need to know that right now, the community NEEDS MORE SIGNPOSTS.
The problem with the Rules Committee is communication. The community wants to see the RC as their representatives but their comms are so infrequent that what they say barely matter. The only time I'm ever reminded that they exist is when they make an "I'm from the RC" joke/comment in gameplay videos, and all of those feel like they are in bad taste. Frankly people say they do nothing because their comms make it look like they do nothing.
Talk to us more, engage your community.
This is very sincere and interesting feedback and we're very interested to hear more ways people think such communication could improve, especially given how hard it is to craft a method of communication that is actually discoverable online (posts don't have the same reach as gameplay, for instance).
@@EDHRECast Since the RC does have some engagement with WotC directly, why not have them post articles/reasonings/etc directly to the MTG site like this ban explanation post from Majors? Wizards has guest articles plenty of times, especially outside of the MTG sphere, so the fact that the RC isn't under their umbrella shouldn't matter. The RC is the closest thing we have to an official governing body for the format (despite rule zero's "feel free to ignore us for fun" angle) so it makes the most sense to me to have their communiqué hosted on the game's official page.
@@EDHRECastthey could also create video content just like yours. Have a RUclips Channel and make videos say even twice a year. This could also allow them to speak and hear more directly from players.
Some things I would like to see them speak to personally would be
- What cards are they watching for potential bans or are banning. How did they make that decision?
- What trends do they see as impactful and exciting in EDH and which may be concerning?
- What is their feedback to Wizards of the Coast on the direction MTG is going?
I have the problem with the reasoning for bans and no update. For example the unbanning of world fire but not the unbanning of sway the stars. If your playing suspend deck it is very legit and not making the whole previous parts of the game useless.
Yes the person who plays a reset the game cards are kind of making the game with no game plan to win are bad. But so is mass land destruction with no win condition.
Land destruction I feel is a valid win condition along as you can lock in a win.
The inconsistent reasoning for bans/unbans by the RC with no stated guidelines like modern not having any before turn 4 wins. Or decks that take along time to win a game makes it harder to even think they are doing anything. I have cedh and edh decks but I hate the format having a defined what is and isn't allowed. Like is winter moon casual if your playing a budget $50 deck that is 1-2 colors? When everyone else is playing maxed out 3-5 color decks?
Soft bans on Armageddon because of 90% of rule zero talks shouldn't that result in a ban? Gaea's cradle for example I gave proxies to play group I play with and after 2 weekly games it was banned because when everyone had access to it was stupidly over powered. The argument of not seeing much play doesn't mean it shouldn't see a ban
@chancedavis7529 ding ding ding nail on the head. Swingy cards like gaeas, sol ring, mana crypt are somehow fine but sway the stars isnt lol some cards on the banlist got power crept years ago and are from early days of commander.
The RC is honestly a frankly a joke with communication AND bans/unbans. Theres no reason to even be nice about it. How is Griselbrand banned but Nadu isnt rofl give me a break. Gbrand is a terrible creature by todays standards and is put to shame by ALL high powered commanders... but we have Yoriko? Ur dragon? Edgar? Other such bs...
Edh and cedh ban lists NEED to be separated. Theyre not the same game and i highly suspect a lot of issues are because of the choice to not split them. Reality is cedh has basically poisoned the format for regular edh
Assuming that players use "rule zero" and choose to not push the boundaries of a card/deck and "self regulate", is simply not a realistic way of thinking. Currently it does seem like the rules committee/advisory group are too busy with other things to keep up with every release, meanwhile the duel commander ban list has gotten consistent updates.
They have not banned cards since 2021, and cards like mana crypt, dockside, tassa and pushed tutors already existed back then, so the problem is not the pace of releases, but rather the RC doesn't want to ban anything because someone always complain
@@ivenschagas Yep, and don't you also get a feeling that most of those complaints come from people with a deficit of experience - Around amicably dealing with people in general, and specifically in playing the game?
That cut to, "Money!" Perfect! Give your editor a raise!
Hey thanks! I'm the editor, I'll tell my boss to give me a raise!
It reminded me of a Jerma bit
I was at my LGS a little over a week ago. Someone took out their deck helmed by an acorn commander. "So this is my attraction deck." Hey that sounds fun, haven't played with acorns or Attractions. Turn three rhystic study. Everyone complains. Then turn six they reveal their true face. They had nothing but draw and extra turn spells. Their idea of an attraction deck was to just get so many turns and upkeeps that their attractions would trigger over and over. When at one point they had six extra turn spells cued up, we all conceeded and played the rest of the evening at a different table with a new player.
Rule 0 conversation, friendly game, whatever you want to call it requires strangers to have the basic ability to communicate. The frustrations that came with it and that are expressed is that some people simply cannot regulate themselves, and others cant do it for them either. Unless I get to go through their deck beforehand next time I am not playing with that player anymore. And this wasn't a one time goofy deck made for a gimmick. The only other deck I witnessed them play was a nadu deck that went infinite on turn 4. These were casual tables, where people busted out precon and even below precon level stuff.
We waited like thirty minutes for them to finish their extra turn bs. Because they could deck. They later revealed they had a single flier in the deck that they intended to win with. I think from alrunds epiphany.
That's about an hour of my time that day completely wasted.
Rule 0 does not work. No one wants to give away what their deck does, cause it might make them a target. If someone is too honest, they get focused down for it. Players get rewarded for being sneaky, and tricking opponents who don't know.
well, that`s a point Rule 0 only works in its own pod, its like have a tank with sharks, a tank with whales, a random fish and a pufferfishes, in their own pod they are happy, but if we put them together chaos and death, what i mean is, your playgroup has these Rules and then you will build your Deck with those rules in mind, but if a third party comes into play, suddenly you can either say, sorry go away, all your decks have Crds X/Y/Z in there which are by us banned or you allow it and he becomes the focus and dies, before he could even do anything remotly.
People have to build decks with good intentions in mind for Rule 0 to work. If your decks goal is combo and you let everyone know thats fine. But if the combo only needs 2 pieces to win and 1 of them is the commander and the deck has 30 tutors to find the 2nd piece, thats a problem.
Why are you rewarding sneakyness and focusing on the ones that are honest about their decks? Shouldn't it be the other way arround?
And also if you have an environment that you don't like.
Lots of extra turns, stax or mass discard for example. Can't you just mention it before the game and have people adjust what decks they use or borrow others if they are bad deckbuilders.
And if the thing you asked not to experience occur, call them out for it. Why did you do the thing that we expressly asked you not to do?
Your experience is rough and I myself have had experiences similar. To be honest I can think of times when I misunderstood and pulled out the wrong deck and my opponents probably felt pubstomped.
The part you said that I find interesting is your said players are rewarded for being sneaky and tricking others. And it is true that playing that way will lead to more game wins. But you know what it won't reward the player with: more games with those opponents. I don't play with people like that and I try to respectfully (but clearly) tell them why.
Commander is a social game first and foremost. I wish the other formats were easily accessible for those that put winning above all else. So as a commander player I do everything I can to encourage those other formats at my LGS.
how in the world will the rules committee ever ban that type of gameplay away? do you guys want commander to have hundreds of bans and or stipulations?
You end the video with a joking comment "Goodbye Nadu, no one misses you"
You're 100% correct. And if we all agree this is a true statement, and it doesn't result in a ban by the EDH Rules Committee, then there IS an obvious failure in the role of the Rules Committee
Not really
Statistically Nadu is already becoming self regulating as is
It's not just that the play patterns with Nadu are extremely offensive. They take forever and they are non-deterministic. This would catch a ban for that reason alone if WOTC was in charge. But, for whatever reason the RC is too busy doing 'behind the scene' stuff to even take that into consideration.
@@WilliamDildine
Exactly. It checks every box for justifications used in previous bans.
Long Turns; Non-deterministic, but likely win-states; unenjoyable play patterns; difficulty for opponents to interact with; and of course high power level.
How do these turns take people forever? You literally just look at the card and it’s either going to your hand or the battlefield. And if it triggers some landfall thing you do the trigger. There are other decks(any sisay deck) that take way longer because people don’t know what they’re searching for.
@@jdbrad07 it's non deterministic but loops
Meaning you can't shortcut it and have to play out the loop until you win or whiff
I think im just a little frustrated with the whole "this product's not for you...but every product's for you cuz every product is for commander" coupled with what feels like little-to-no defense from the rules comittee for this constant onslaught (like ye they might've been consulted beforehand but we don't see that and we still have to deal with this stuff anyway). Yes it's an emotional response but it doesn't make it any less frustrating to have a glacially slow non-consistent pretend banlist where everything is self-regulated.
We as a community should rally around a community made casual banlist
MaRo made a reply today on Tumblr that basically says every set needs to consider casual play, which unfortunately means that every set has to consider commander. I wonder if the fact that they change the card because it would create a negative flakes experience also speaks to the fact that the CRC is very slow to act on banning anything in commander
This also seems to have been true. Historical sets had standard and limited. I’m sure kitchen table was in there also. Modern horizons was never just for modern. Sets have always had multiple goals. It’s great that magic players have a range of mechanical and flavour/art designs.
@@fencingfireferret1188 what would that look like? Would it have to be updated per set/ commander product, or every couple of months?
@@Blacklodge_Willyprobably "as needed" since people have shown to get mad with schedules (as was shown with this recent ban announcement). The real question is how "aggressive" things should bans be given.
Regardless pretty much any system is better than what is happening with the banlist now (which is never updating it).
"So which is it?" That's the point, I don't believe that rule zero works well outside of established playgroups which is *why* I want the rules committee to actually deal with the ban list productively and comprehensively. That is what I want to have happen.
However, lets assume they refuse to do so(as they presently seem to) because they believe rule zero works. Then from that perspective they are already not fixing the problem I am experiencing at which point their job as managers of a ban list becomes unnecessary so why should they continue to do it? If they believe that self regulation is working fine then why ban anything at all? I can accept either of the two possibilities, I have my opinion on which is correct. But I see no logical sense in the half assed middle state they are operating in with signpost and token bans to "guide" the format. Either do the ban list or don't because what's going on now is just security theater.
It isn't illogical or incongruous as you seem to think it is. It is an if-then situation. If you won't fix the electrical problem that is causing sparks to fly, then you should keep a fire extinguisher on hand at all times. That doesn't mean you think the fire extinguisher is the right choice it means that if this is the situation we are given and we have no choice about it then what do I think we should do in that given environment.
That said I don't think WotC is necessarily a better arbiter for the player base nor do I think the rules committee is doing nothing they've made some great and fun changes to the format since I started. I just think their ban philosophy is incorrect and damaging to anyone who wants to play with a group of strangers. In contrast many people who aren't playing with strangers as their regular environment believe that a ban list is a talking point. That is not in my experience what happens in any normal environment. A banned list is a list of banned cards and people don't play those cards because they're banned. If they want to unban something with their friends they sometimes do. If a card isn't banned they feel as though they are following the rules by playing that card.
I believe it is better to have a format where we design the general rules for playing with strangers rather than catering to those who already have a group and could address any disagreement about certain bans being unnecessary by unbanning those cards.
The issue I have is when the rules committee uses rule 0 or the philosophy of commander to justify inaction. I'd like more experimental changes or more frequent health checks. Address community concerns. And yes ban more cards 1000s of cards enter the format every year no bans in extended periods concerns me of the longevity of format health
I agree, though many many people have the concern of banning a card only for a newer player to enter an LGS, be told the card is banned, then leave the game forever. That's the biggest argument for not banning Sol Ring, as while it's busted it's also in every precon, and no one wants to tell a new player who just spent however much money on a deck that it's not legal.
You can do that with your playgroup, or you can make those changes yourself and ask on your LGS or over the internet who wants to join, for example in my city there are budget restricted tournaments, LGS with their own ban list of cards or play patters, some haw two rulesets and they decide how to play according to the people that come to the place, I've had games where we decide to all play tribal decks, or were we play our faster decks.
Maybe you don't like the answer but is simple, look around and find the right play group for you.
"Rule 0" is a nice idea, but like a lot of the philosophy of the format, its a little outdated. Like it or not, Commander is the face of MTG right now, and its so vastly different from where it was when it was a "niche" side format. We get specific designs, lots of products, big shows on YT like Game Knights and Shuffle Up and Play, etc that can even pack out live show crowds. It's getting harder and harder to pin down what exactly commander "is," and that will only get harder as more time passes without meaningful adaptation.
The format NEEDS structure - some kind of comprehensive banlist, format document changes, "something" to prop it up further as Magic's leading way to play. IMO, "Rule 0" should be the rule that lets you play banned cards if you want to play with them, not ban cards if you don't want to play against them. (Like how we let people play silver border/acorns if they want to.)
You're spot on about Rule Zero.
If I go up to a playgroup of randoms and say something like "I'm not down to play with the Ikoria Free Spells" or "Do you mind if we don't use any Reserved List cards", some of them might have to borrow a deck.
But if I say, "My deck contains the (hypothetically) banned cards Thassa's Oracle and Underworld Breach, is that OK?" and have a different deck to play if they say no, everyone wins.
My man spitting facts
Amen.
I'm kinda on the fence about more bans, but something I believe the RC needs is some guidelines beyond just "talk it out pre-game"
In an ideal world we would have some real power scale that can accurately measure the power of a deck, irl probably we will never have but just agree on any one power scale and support it with the RC
We already have some projects online like commandersalt and deckcheck. Just pick one and endorse it as a baseline from where a more streamlined rule 0 talk can start
If you want more bans, create your own format.I like my cards, and I don't want you whining and trying to take them away.
In my experience running commander nights for local game stores/event spaces, I've found that post game chats and in game comments are much more effective than a pre game chat. As an example, I have a friend who played decks that were very frustrating to most tables they sat at. They would apologize for things that they did because "they didn't mean to make people feel bad, that's just what their deck does." It took calling them out in game a few times saying things like "if you don't want to make people feel that way, don't build decks that do the thing that make people feel bad." So their deck building and gameplay changed and now they're way happier, still winning games, and people at events don't actively try and avoid tables they are at. I've also found that expressing post game frustrations is effective in creating a healthier environment. Not being confrontational or aggressive, but expressing that "this was not a fun game for me because of these actions that were taken/these decisions that were made" has been very productive. It usually leads to a conversation that let's people know that their actions are affecting people in a way that they maybe weren't aware of.
We absolutely love this. Thanks for sharing it
Yeah, this how people grow. It really helps when you give feedback in a respectful but direct way
My playgroup has what we call "asshole night" at irregular intervals. Play whatever you want, but understand that the other people will play "unfriendly" strategies because we've all been warned that it's "that" type of game night. It can be extremely fun when everyone is involved in the degeneracy and we're all trying to be the biggest problem at the table, you just all need to care more about how someone is capable of squeezing a win from the most messed up board state you've seen and not whether you're the one winning that game.
As nice of a success story as this is, it’s kind of sad that people have enough empathy to say “sorry about what my deck is doing” but don’t have enough introspection to realize maybe they should stop building decks that cause them to feel that way.
So taking the lead from TheSpikeFeeders Alex I have, in every game I have started trying to lead a post game Debrief by starting with a compliment towards the winner and a complimentary acknowledgement of the person who bricked.
Just... At the end of each game make 1 kind comment about each deck and maybe address grievances and try again
"A banlist ... is a common-ground starting point".
I think a lot of us would just prefer that that starting point was safer and groups could instead use Rule Zero to peel back bans they think aren't needed for their specific group rather than at times having to convince complete strangers that they should not play legal cards in a new group's first game.
The banlist and rules as written should be tailored for the situations where its not going to have people comfortable enough to deviate from it, not the groups where people are comfortable enough with each other to agree on deviations from the baseline.
I am not going to go around calling people that think differently names or such though.
@@eepopgames2741 Yeah, it's not a good look calling people that just wants to play the cards they find fun for jerks.
Imma just be blunt
Non cEDH commander is the same is 60 card format less kitchen table magic
Y'all don't need a banlist to begin with, you're suffering from the format being overexposed and blaming everyone except yourselves and wotc
The simplest answer is
There should be no hard banlist outside cEDH because outside cEDH there's not an actual expected power level
Also cubes are better for casual play anyways, Highlander formats are sweatfests
@@V2ULTRAKill The thing is 60 card format less kitchen table magic is not something that generally gets played with strangers. Commander in 2024 very much is. From content on the web to WotC's clear publishing strategy, Commander is the baseline format. So whether custom 60 card kitchen table has the same issue is kind of beside the point. If you wanted to go to a FLGS and play some magic, your best bet for getting a game is taking a commander deck.
My confusion is why is it so much better to have no banlist as the baseline instead of having a functional banlist and then when a group is established enough to not need it, use Rule Zero at that point to agree that their group no longer needs to abide by the functional banlist?
Having no banlist, or the minimal banlist we do, actively harms new entrants to the format. They do not know what would be a problem, and don't know the questions to ask during a pregame discussion to ensure a good game with 3 strangers they may never play with again.
Comparatively, there would be zero harm to the established groups having a functional ban list, as they all know each other, have played together numerous times, and have the background to negotiate that group's ideal environment on their own.
Anyway, I hope it works out for commander players and the format flourishes. My son and I just had bad experiences when we tried to start the format with strangers, so we gave up on trying. I am not getting into flame wars over it, or making bombastic statements on anyone's character. Just trying to get across that there is definitely a pool of more possible commander players out there getting alienated by the current set up.
@@eepopgames2741 I'll answer your comment very simply
It's easier for a group to rule 0 not playing cards
Than to rule 0 unban them
My two cents: The banlist should be for people that don't know each other and just want to sit down and have a good time without having any or minimum pregame talk about powerlevels. Casual playgroups don't need banlists, they can decide what the hell they want and don't want to play with or against, while people that play on LGS events or any type of sanctioned event, with or without prizes REALLY need it.
But I know nothing will change because they put themselves on a corner where it's impossible to get out. You wither do a lot of bannings and let people furious about it or don't do nothing and people can slowly but surely growing tired of the format.
There should just be a list of advice and suggestions for casual commander and a REAL banlist for cedh tbh. Thats what makes the most sense.
One is kitchen magic and the other has tournaments
such a banlist cannot possibly exist because what every player wants out of the game and what decks they want to play are far too varied to effectively police in an eternal format. you can't banlist police power level of decks, and that's by far the most important factor in how fun a game of commander is.
Casual groups of randoms exist. It's what most LGS non-tournament nights that I've played in are, where you don't know who exactly is going to show up, but there's usually a set range of bodies showing up.
Not having a regular play group, it’s hard going to my LGS and having no idea what range of experience I might have. I have to build and bring decks ranging from precons to below cEDH and then discuss with folks what they are playing to even begin to hope for a fun and level playing field. It takes a lot of emotional energy to go, and about half the time it’s just not fun. Turn 3 wins or 20 turn slogs. Hardly anything in between because there is nothing but a few sentences between strangers governing the parameters for the game. Without a rules committee that is proactive, I feel you can’t have healthy a format for pick up play.
I also go to an LGS and play with people I've rarely or never played with before, and I barely have any issues navigating that. Mistakes and misjudgements happen, but it's just like social interaction in general: You make mistakes, and you learn from and move on from them, and become better at avoiding them in the future.
If you want a very structured experience, you'll just have to sort out a set group with the same preferences that you have. It really is as simple as that.
The LGS is a space for all kinds of players, and if you're unhappy with how the rule 0 discussion is handled, the onus is on you to be proactive. Ask questions, be an example of what you want to see in others, or just state outright what sort of game you want, and if the current pod can't or won't provide that, you just move on to another table.
Embody the change you want to see in others, in short.
@@xxhellspawnedxx Their point is not only is it ineffective for a lot of players to have that discussion, it's emotionally exhausting to deal with that every single time you want to play a game (while having the pushback against 'why should I not have surprises in my deck?').
You sound like you lucked out in your experiences at your lgs. Most of the time, when I'm extremely open to what my deck does, I get focused down first and someone else snowballs into victory because the table has blown all of their removal taking out my known pieces compared to the snowballing person in the corner who put their deck pieces out in play. Or my tweaked precon ran roughshod over a pod that wasn't expecting something of that calibur.
Multiple game shops, multiple groups. Rule 0 doesn't do enough on it's own.
@@leadpaintchips9461 If you find it emotionally draining to have the talk and want a stricter ban list, there are other formats where rule 0 isn't a thing. Virtually every other format, in fact.
Or create your own playgroup with like-minded individuals. Both are valid paths, and with proxying being as widely accepted as it is presently, and webcam magic being as prolific as it is, this shouldn't be much of a chore.
@@xxhellspawnedxx Wanting a banlist that isn't 'signposting' but an actual banlist I don't think is asking too much, and this is supposed to be the laid back, casual format. Not the rules committee simulation format, which is what doing the rule 0 talk with every stranger is.
@@leadpaintchips9461 You don't think it's a lot to ask, because you expect this ban list to not impede your way of playing, which just might be the case, but that's besides the point.
"A laid back, casual format" (and casual in the sense of lower power) is your preference. There are plenty of people who enjoy that mode of playing, and equally, plenty of people who enjoy various degrees of edge-of-your-seat and no-holds-barred gameplay. What about them? Just shed them, because your preferences are somehow superior?
As previously stated, it's your job to carve out that niche for yourself. You can't expect handholding in this.
The RC's goal is to work for the entire player base, not just your preferred slice of it.
The main reason cards like Dockside, Jeweled Lotus or Gaea's Cradle self-regulate is their scarcity and price tag. Reprint them to the same extent as Sol Ring and Arcane Signet and I guarantee they wouldn't self regulate anymore. The main reason Stasis is rare, I feel, has less to do with it's salt score and more to do with the fact that decks that can leverage Stasis towards considerable advantage are themselves pretty rare and also quite unappealing to pilot for many players.
It's also a way to make low power commanders more viable. Mabel from Bloomfield is a good example of this. It's a pretty weak card but if you juice it up with some fast mama it becomes more viable
Reprint Jeweled Lotus until it's a $1 card and let's see what happens.
@@brw147 mabel aint that weak, but it may be part of how you deckbuild. If you know the deck is slow, you can put accelerants, or go further into engines to try and make the game go long. This later approach was the one that worked for my nahiri deck.
@@W4llh4kMabel is extremely weak
Combat commanders in general are
True, cards like stasis and winter orb are only seen in decks that can break parity. The true problem are cards like dranith can be slotted in any deck with no downside and the RC does nothing.
If the RC would have the balls to ban Dockside, Thoracle and Nadu, that would already be super great, at the very least, to show they are actually trying something. I get the argument that the problem are the players (weird guy), not the cards, but man, those three particular cards...people are just so fed up of those, just get rid of them to maybe give some fresh air to the format. I don't know if it is just me, but I believe most of people are like "yeah alright, dockside is blinking again.....yeah draw the deck, thoracle wins, whatever...."
Nobody's fed up with thoracle
It literally sees so little play outside of the ONE scene it's strong in that casual players complaining is hilarious
You are statistically more likely to lose to worldfire followed by a ping land
Than you are to SEE a thoracle
@@V2ULTRAKill I am fed up, so your point falls flat right there.
I have to kinda disagree. Rule 0 works when there are MORE cards being monitored and scrutinized. Your comment on "something will always be on top regardless" is very similar to the comment on The One Ring not being banned in Modern. Its just feels bad to NOT do something about feelsbad cards when its KNOWN to cause problems, but it doesnt cause ENOUGH of a problem
there doesnt need to be a rule 0. all that should be said is; this is the deck i'm playing, this is what it does, this is the power-ish level, and thats it. as soon as people start saying, you cant have powerful cards in your deck like dockside, thats when rule 0 becomes useless
I completely agree. It's just giving up before actually starting. Also, while his reasoning about not aiming hate at the wrong people is correct, it seems more like he's trying to use sympathy to disregard and pass over the problems players have rather than try to address the problem or help create a solution for the problem, and in the process, make players feel more frustrated and somewhat gaslit.
It's really up in the air. Look at any Reddit thread of someone showing off their LGS's custom ban list, you're gonna run into a bunch of comments saying that the store is full of whiney babies, and a number of folks that would say "I'd bring such and such deck that'd technically be legal just to make them have a bad time for having the gal for enforcing standards". It's impossible to know how many people would make good on that promise if such bans became format-wide, but the fact is there would at least be *some* people that would still do their best to make games miserable for others no matter what, and you can't ban enough cards to prevent those people from existing.
@@alexmeissner8524 What's the scale of power? We already have a problem that every deck is a 'power 7'.
They already said that rule 0 is supposed to be about asking permission to play janky, fun stuff instead of telling people no. Except that the ban list is so short all the janky, fun stuff that people might have an issue playing against is already allowed.
@@leadpaintchips9461 the power level 7 problem has nothing to do with edh and more has to do with players thinking they make good decks when they don’t.
And what’s your definition of jank? You shouldn’t need permission to play jank. The only time you should ask for permission to play a card is if it’s on the ban list, or if you’re trying to do something that’s outside the rules )like playing a card as your commander that can’t be via rules).
As always, I appreciate you trying to understand this issue from all sides, from designers struggling to keep up with demands of their overlords, to hurting (but maybe misguided) players venting on the internet.
I understand the RC's unwillingness to ban, but I've wished that intentional use of those bans could plant our flag in the ground about what sort of greedy or format-warping card designs commander players simply won't accept. In a perfect world, it would signal to Hasbro that cards won't find an audience in commander no matter what, and that greedy or lazy design wouldn't guarantee profit.
However, I understand that in reality taking on that policy would put the RC in the crosshairs of angry players and corporate execs alike - and I don't think that's a fight any of them signed up for, nor is it fair to put them in that position.
I think it’s worth discussing the refusal to ban might be a problem from the RC…
Every member of the RC could have died the week after the golos banning and we never would’ve known…
My biggest issue I feel are the "signpost" bans that are supposed to represent a broad set of cards that you shouldnt also play. That just feels lazy because unfortunately players have and will continue to play the "adjcents" to the signpost ban because it isn't directly banned. Hullbreacher/Leovold and synergistic wheel disruption. If it's truly bad to support that style of play for fun/time equity just gut them all. Players will see that narset and thief and others are NOT banned and just play them anyways since they can. If something is truly egregious to the health of the game, don't signpost ban and just gut it.
If someone REALLY loves it and wants to play with it, they can talk with their play group and attempt to "rule 0" it back in. I'd much rather have a group of randoms come with a full comprehensive understanding of what should and shouldn't be allowed (especially if you don't read WHY x,y,z is banned and don't see the ideology of signpost bans) and have some expectations curbed. I personally find stax a fun play pattern to play with and against; most players not so much but if it's truly egregious to play some of the hard stax pieces but not so much the soft stax pieces just get rid of them and if the group would like to have a hard puzzle night, rule 0 them back in.
I feel like there's some interesting ... tension(?) to explore between Joey's position that we don't need ban-heavy regulation from above because we're not a competitive tournament format and a tweet from Dana (about "casual" EDH play of Nadu, but I think can be extrapolated to a broader range of stuff -- e.g., Dockside in non-CEDH games) that some cards exist in a space where they are meant "for people who only care about winning, and playing commander is a thing they tolerate to get that win."
Like, it's obviously true that we can't legislate jerks away, but we do have some degree of control over how many hoops you have to jump through to be a jerk...
The biggest difference for me is that nadu in the command zone is much easier to prompt a rule 0 discussion from the table if they weren’t planning on it to begin with. Where as hiding dockside in your 99 and taking over a game with it is more difficult to manage in a pub game with randoms.
i agree, and i'm sick of the hyper comepettive mindset in casual Edh. Go play cEDH if you are playing to win at any cost. Casual EDH should be the place to play sub-optimally if you like and snag a win occasionally. Yes I'm trying to win but its about the 3rd most important thing in the game.
I don't think its fair to say it's not a rules committee problem. It is by their decision they haven't separated Cedh from regular EDH , which play as almost entirely different games. Nadu in a Cedh pod is whatever, the expectation is no holds barred, degenerate anything goes gameplay within the confines of the absolute minimum rules of the game. Flash hulk ban is a perfect example, same with Leovold. Flash hulk wasn't a problem in casual edh, didnt show up, Cedh, format warping at the time. Leovold as much as i have a soft spot of control, is kind of a problem as a commander if built around correctly, for casual, Cedh, he s probably too slow. So treating the ban list as universal when these essentially two different formats have completely different gameplay goals is a mistake, that's on the rules committee, as well as taking 15 year old decisions and not updating them , commander isn't new anymore, people can handle banned as commander as a concept. While all the blame obviously doesn't fall on their shoulders, they re literally regular people doing the best they can, some of the frustration towards inaction, is warranted. Not everyone, especially after 2020 has kitchen table pods, with super open and friendly rule zero discussions, there a lot of people who love the game, but only have FNM type lgs get togethers with strangers or acquaintances that may not have amicable rule zero protocols, in which case designing decks around the base rules of commander are adhered too. But having Cedh ish cards like nadu, in a casual pod, creates a lot of animosity, will eventually turn people away from playing, even the most masochistic of us, get tired of things like paradox engine play patterns aka nadu games.
It's not possible to split the formats. Whatever split you make, the most powerful decks in the "casual" format can still be played together with a competitive mindset - in turn becoming the "competitive casual edh"-way of playing.
@@Taeerom I mean, splitting the format really just involves 2 different ban lists, one for the casual tier, and one for the Cedh tier. The play patterns, card selections, interaction pieces are vastly different, doesn't seem like someone will accidentally play cedh. And having banned in the 99 and banned as commander, isn't complicated considering the interaction and win condition comprehension in Cedh are fairly intense to begin with. As for powerlevels, there still needs to be a power-level discussion, it is a social format, 99 lands and atogatog, against winota stax is never going to be balanced. But I think you are confusing an optimized/high power deck, and a Cedh deck... they are two different animals.
@@gn0s1sall that would do is create another cEDH and the cycle starts again
cEDH comes from people taking commander as is and going "let's turn this into a drag race"
And no matter how much you think you can split shit up, or how much you ban
That will always be there, always happen, and you'll always deal with arms races
@@Taeeromit's completely possible. Cedh is more whatever you wanna do to win with that 10k deck. You ban out the most ridiculous stuff from cedh from casual. Thoracle for example, gets the axe in casual and expand the ban list for casual.
@@billlong4586 But what happens then?
cEDH is whatever is the most competitive. With an expanded banlist, you just made a new cEDH metagame, in addition to the older one with less bans.
That's what I mean with it not being possible. Playing competitive is to play to win. Legacy isn't "casual vintage" just because it has a larger ban list.
Commander started as a format played with cards designed for 1v1 competitive formats in a way that was unexpected. Both parties were happy - the 1v1 players had healthy formats, the Commander players had a playground to experiment with new ideas and cards without a home.
Now, Commander is a pseudo-rotating format of constant new staple releases, and 1v1 formats are languishing under the intensity of the power creep.
You can decide if this is good or not, I know how I feel.
Commander isn't rotating though. The best cards in commander have been the best cards since the beginning.
I didn't know underworld breach was around in the 2000s@@yugioh1870
I think we should put the phrase "rotating format" on the shelf for now. The commander format is the singular format with the least amount of "rotation" in the entire game so far, with "staples" seeing far less play than in 60 card. There has been a singular card that's seen enough play in commander to be considered a new staple, maybe three if you want to stretch (Farewell, Lotho, and Delighted Halfling). New cards get printed into (typically) extremely specific niches for commander while being too inefficient for normal tournament play or realistically even for playing outside those niches. People keep saying commander is speeding up, but frankly thats coming from EDH players figuring out how to actually construct a focused deck (or rip off ppl who do at least) instead of a pile of 99 random cards.
Frankly, even shit like the one ring and bowmasters hardly show up in commander because for the most part, they're not even that good. A card-drawing orb of warding with a better drawbridge? Meet the word "each" and other untargeted effects because those are more efficient anyways vs three opponents. A two mana creature that punishes you for drawing cards? Just about every important creature has at least 3 toughness, and Underworld Dreams is provably not enough to prevent draw spells even in 20 life formats. These cards are made for tournament magic, even Nadu wasn't made *for* commander, it was changed and then overbalanced after removing a superfluous element- that is information we got directly from WoTC and even STILL we have people pulling out of their ass it was made *for* commander.
I wish rule zero worked the opposite way than it does today. If more cards were banned, rule zero could be about people agreeing to play with certain cards that aren't legal.
I'm glad it works the way it does. Cause you just wanna ban the stuff. I like to play like golos
Good job, random youtube commenter. You can confidently say that you are smarter and have a greater understanding of game design than anybody who has been a part of the Rules Committee. Also, this is not sarcastic, my cynical tone comes from the fact that this simple solution has eluded what are apparently the foremost minds in charge of the format.
@@MasterDecoy1W No this hasn't quite eluded them, they must have passed though here, but have discarded the Idea.
@@cablefeed3738 So ask your group if it's ok with them that you play it. If it's ok with them, then you get to still play it but people exploiting the heck out of it can be told "it's on the list, you don't get to play it.".
@@leadpaintchips9461 Exactly you want to add more limitations to everyone.Rather than every group making their own.
My problem with rule zero is local stores are to afraid of setting the rules for commander events. And children and teenagers who are use to playing with there friends get stomped out. Store events arnt being advertised as CEDH events but advertised as a fun commander event
People aren't rolling up to commander night with cEDH shells
Whatever is stomping those stores, would get stomped just as hard as a cEDH pod
So there was a commander league at my LGS. I showed up with a pretty powerful equipment deck i got wrecked. There was kids and urza winter orb decks or demonic consolation oracle decks. So I joined the following weeks with cech decks. I ended games in 5 mins. People where told to expect an 45mins-1 hour for a game and for all the truly casual players the league sucked and for the cedh players it was easy wins. It wasn't advertised as cedh but plays with rules as written it was fine. Some of the younger crowd never returned. Is this a good play experience? For some it can be but it wasn't for half the players. When your store is running a fun even and keeping it simple playing rules as written it sucks I can't rule zero out mana crypt, gaea's cradle, Winter orb or Armageddon. Because we where playing rules as written.
The rules committee in my belief should be to optimize the format for the most players enjoyment in organized play. Kitchen table sure go nuts but you can't make a LGS's rules change just because you don't like something. Sure you don't have to play the event but the fact it turns half the players away and they might not ever return is bad for the LGS and the game. If the LGS makes some bans then people complain the store is making dumb bans and aren't following the rules. The LGS is in a bad place they in a lose or lose place.
The same LGS had a no ban list modern event and everyone had fun. Everyone knew what they signed up for. A commander event is can range from tweeked precon's to cedh.
Part of the fault is on the LGS and part is on the format the power level not being defined by the rules.
I believe that that we should keep the RC around, but they need to be more active towards the players and not just flaunt the title like in a video game. We already know the work they do with Wizards behind the scenes, but they need to be more involved when it comes to the players, the card that get printed, and what is happening across the world of Magic in terms of how people play & approach the game.
And small hot take here: I think that EDH and cEDH should be have separate rules committees that can regulate each side of the format, as well as any interweave between styles of commander game.
Splitting cEDH doesn't work
There have been attempts
It always fails
People who weren't there need to stop bringing up the idea like it'll work the 10th time
I know the RC isn't at any fault here. But also let's admit that a couple of bannings here and there could solve a LOT of the issues WOTC produces with such an ease. The very designers admits their errors and yet these cards are still legal despite even their designers themselves recognizing they are miserable and were a mistake. We could correct those mistakes so easily and lift up a big weigh off their shoulders... But we aren't. For some reason.
Part of the reason is whenever there are bans, in any format, theres content on RUclips and Reddit and everywhere else. Some of that content is critical, or even negative about the ban decision, even in a case like Nadu in modern, where 97% of modern players agree it should have been banned, and sooner if anything. Half of the RC are content creators. They don't want to feel the ire of the community, they don't want that kind of attention, they don't want to fee the need to defend themselves.
@@nathand6467 They would receive praise if anything. The community is claiming for bans for years now. Even a single ban would be a huge gesture from the RC, showing that they care about their community, raising the morale of the players. Many need to feel that they are actually being protected from WoTC BS lately. I can't imagine anybody being mad at a Smothering Tithe, Dockside Extrortionist or Nadu ban, for naming some random examples.
@@patonnightyou have no idea how big the "don't ban" crowd is do you?
Every time a dockside ban is even FLOATED there's more backlash to the mere idea of it, than there are people hoping it'll go through
One of the challenges in the way bans and such are handled in favor of "rule 0" conversations is the way in which it completely privileges neurotypicality. For some people, having a detailed rule 0 convo is much more challenging and less likely to have positive outcomes. If something is worth banning, don't be circular about it when you have players who are neurodivergent and want (or even NEED) more direct approaches.
In the LGS I frequent, the pregame conversations have gotten pretty effective with most groups I sit with. We compare our decks to precons with very broad brush strokes. As in, “this is way more than a precon”, “it’s pretty above a precon”, “it’s more or less a precon”, or “I don’t know how it will, it’s new.” We’ll also say if we’re going combo, janky combo, or no combo, and then all try to match.
After the first game, we have a second talk if anything was super far off, then the rest of the night is super smooth because we’re all on the same page. Been like that for years now, and it doesn’t take long for new people in the shop to catch on and roll with it. It’s also a WPN store and can pretty frequently get 60+ people in the shop for FNM or commander nights. The guy that owns the place, and all the employees for that matter, has cultivated a great culture among the regulars.
The only issue that I see with using a precon as a measuring stick is that there's a large variety between precon power levels. Are we using 40K, Fallout, the first precons for commander?
I'm glad that it works out for you and your store, but the power level variance even in precons is pretty large. I wouldn't want to take the Necron precon into a pod that has the first couple of generations of precons, just like I wouldn't want to take those into a Dr. Who pod.
“My brother in cardboard, WHOMST!?!” 19:56 😂
😂
@@spoon501 comedy gold for sure.
This is your best episode in a while, and that's not to disparage your other ones. This one was just that much a stand out. It was well thought out, and sincere.
This just hi-lights something I miss in EDH: finding cards to work for your deck. I miss having to browse through cards and cards finding stuff most of the playerbase forgot about to find tech for my decks. I miss looking at various commanders and thinking about how they could work and such. Now we're the face of MtG and every other card is designed for us and it's just removed so much charm from the game.
We're getting so much stuff that it's actually starting to hurt; not just us and other formats do and it's majorly depressing.
yeah the entire appeal of edh is just nonexistent anymore. really sucks.
I feel like a significant issue is calling the banlist a banlist, because we're constantly given a definition of it that is not a banlist. It's supposed to be a guideline and not an all encompassing list of cards not to play, just a list of examples that you can follow or not. That's not banning, that's community figureheads telling people this card sucks to play with/against. It's not a rule so why is it something that the rules committee does?
100%. Mass land destruction isn't banned, but it is socially as good as banned.
like mox are banned because; accessibility! but the low end doesnt jam fast mana. and the topend took the 100% proxy friendly route. who is this ban for?
Cuz it ISNT a banlist really. Its a guideline which is ridiculous and stupid. The RC should either exist and do their job or shouldn't exist and we rule0 everything which has just as many problems as their stupid non-list.
Id say its even LESS confusing to not have a list at this point for whats playable and not for regular players.
Here me out: the Magic community in aggregate sucks. They're just not the people you'd want to sit down with at an LGS to play a game wherein you're all expected to self-regulate. Casual commander is a nightmare as a result. Playing only with people you know helps but at that point there is zero argument for a rules committee.
I feel like WOTC has been trying to branch out in terms of design and art direction and marketing in an attempt to bring in more hospitable players to bring up the community
yeah, the people so entrenched in despair about the game are not those you want to play with. you don't even need a rules committee if you're actually able to communicate with, care about, and respect 3 other people. Resenting the rules committee for not saving you is pure helplessness.
@TweedleDeem I don't resent the rules committee one bit. I resent the reactionary chuds who still make up a massive chunk of the player base in the Midwest. You ever try to bring a girl to FNM in Ohio? The vibes are horrendous
@@patches.742 agreed. Wish it was taking better/faster in my neck of the woods
I don’t need the rules committee to step in and save the day, Id love WOTC to stop printing meta warping cards. But more than anything I wish they’d stop printing cards that just make me resent another player. If Nadu is in my pod I’m almost certainly directing all of my resources at that player and it makes me feel like a dick. But the alternative is to just let them win every game when they pop off.
Reliance on Rule 0 places a ceiling on what Commander could become. The damage done by this vision is starting to show
Yeah, that was a super solid and compelling argument backed up by a lot of facts and solid thinking.....wait no it was a whiny bitch spouting bullshit on the internet
I'm curious to hear your reasoning for this statement.
It’s funny because commander is the one format that has survived and been fun through fire design, modern horizon design etc.
Clearly something they’re doing is working, even if it’s not perfect!
Commander Is already the Most popular format, I dont know what higher point can It reach
@@enoesiw Now that Commander has become extremely popular and moved beyond kitchen table games or niche playgroups to being played at local game stores, its design flaws are becoming more apparent. The main issue is that players don't really know what to expect when they sit down with strangers for a game, as much of this is left to "Rule 0." This lack of clear guidelines limits the format because it's growing in many different directions, and these competing forces are starting to clash.
My problem with the edh banlist is actually there are things that are seemingly banned for no or innocuous reasons. I'd much rather that everything is legal barring ante, shaharazad, chaos orb effects, and we could do the power level rule 0 pregame discussion or whatever it will be called for removing problem cards.
Just because in my experience it's easier to get people to take cards out of their decks for a game or two then to say include a coalition victory as people are more resistant to allowing something deemed "bad" enough to be banned to played at the table.
Tell that to the guy last month who people not even in our game swarmed over when I got loud enough that everyone knew he was trying to run Sunder in his Nadu deck and he still laughed it all off as he had 9 people telling him why the card is so salty. It got bad enough that I didn't even play that game and the person who slotted in for me brought a deck to wreck the kid. And the table suffered for it AND it was the Nadu player's first time at the store and I believe he hasn't returned.
Anecdotal, but I should think not uncommon.
LOL sounds like a skill issue you had😂
Rule 0 is, sadly ‘’magical thinking’’ there is a reason why ‘’every deck is a 7’’ is a running gag. My first time in a LGS my pod told me they were running ‘’7’’ I was happy to sit down with my slightly upgraded precon. 4 turns in…. They had 200-300$ worth of cards on their field… I did not had a good time that night at all. Or hearing someone say ‘’my deck is barely a 8, I blink Dockside and have 4 infinite combos’’ … the community needs better guidelines to actually have a common langage speaking about power level. Rule 0 has never been effective for me in a LGS.
Maybe its a local LGS issue, but as a real casual player, I am tired of hearing people say they are casual and then play Mana Crypt, Gaias gradle and rustic study by turn 2.
The truth is that not every deck is a 7, and a moderately upgraded precon is nowhere close to that. Assuming 10 and 9 are cEDH, then 8 would be really degenerate stuff and 7 would already be high power, either moderately restrained builds of crazy OP commanders or non- cEDH viable commanders with an assortment of crazy OP staples in the 99.
Most older precons were around low power 3s, recent precons are most likely lower mid to mid power 4s and 4.5s. Moderately upgrading such precons will result in maybe something close to 5.5. Add a few more staples plus some tutors and infinites, and you're reaching upper mid power 6 to 6.5, and you can maybe hope to compete on a table of 7s.
this is why I always go with vibes instead of some arbitrary powerlevel number. example be saying something like: I want a more cutthroat vibe where we play tight magic and try to win. or something like I want something more chill where we play loose with stuff more precon level.
As a real casual player? Casual play is full of those situations. I've been playing casual Magic since before Commander was a thing I heard about (1999-2000, I'm not sure) and we always had to deal with varying power levels. That's casual. Expecting that not to happen with strangers is not casual. Expecting a curated experienced with strangers is for tournaments.
@@alexandergartner88771-3 should be reserved for precons 4-7 for most built decks, and 8-10 for CEDH. I don't know why the RC won't offer any guidance on the topic of power levels. That seems like something that should be their responsibility but instead they're off wasting time on unfinity cards.
@@alexandergartner8877you need to start off by defining what 1 through 4 are. There's no sense in using a 1 to 10 scale if you're jumping right to a 4.
It also shouldn't matter what a precon was 10 years ago vs today. Precons should always form the lower end of the power level and older ones are ultimately going to drop into the 1 category as we experience power creep.
my biggest issue with rules committee is since sheldon passed, there's been 0 word from them on the regular in general. Yes they do suck at actually banning anything, and yes, Rule 0 no longer works since most play is no longer with a play group, its randoms at the lgs, usually that just edhrec their entire lists to a power level i'm not looking for. and decks these days also becoming too samey , too many "commander staples" being printed cuz of this edh focus from hasbro/wotc, very rare that i can't tell you half the cards in a deck just based on color identity. no other info needed. is getting boring and killing what was my favorite way to play for fun. more fun to get steamrolled by turn 3 from a red deck in bo1 standard on arena than it is to grab a deck and go to lgs for commander these days. so i stopped goin to lgs for anything other than sealed events now.
Build a cube
It was always the better way to play casually
I used to be a big fan of rule 0. But then the last several times ive gone to play magic and had game play discussions it always turns out the awkwardly quiet person in the corner wasn't saying much because they wanted to play their 2.5k animar deck despite the rest of us agreeing the play a game with precons
At that point I would just refuse to play with them again and even go as far to ask the other 3 players if they’d like to play without him since he’s trying to pub stomp
Okay, so you lose the game pretty quick, and then you all rebalance the power level by someone changing decks or don’t play with them again. Communication is really key!
literally just talk to that person. doesn't have to be confrontational. but tell them you're not interested in what they're doing
@@violetto3219 but if 1/4 people are like this then its every game. I live in a big city with 100s of people who go to commander nights each month at one LGS alone. This game is most fun with a group of dedicated people all on the same page but the people I spent 10 years playing with have grown up and spread out. I really think its gotten to the point where I don't care to go to LGS nights anymore. Its also an issue with proxies. Im all for people not spending stupid amounts of money, but its lead people to thinking their casual deck can turn 1 an ancient tomb, mana crypt and it be "untuned." The game is too big and popular to find consistent experiences. I still like the game, but this is definitely a true statement. For the record, this Animar example was real and I said "I think its in poor taste to play that deck after we all discussed power levels. Have a good one" and left. Im sure that person loves their deck and wants to play it. I just wont be there for it.
Your opinion about the WOTC / RC situation was a very human one. You care about the player base and that's something we shouldn't take for granted. Thank you, Joey. I really appreciate that.
I'd also like to add I appreciate so much the videos in which you talk to us in a more serious and somber tone. I have the feeling it shows us how committed you are and how much thought process was involved in every single word you are saying. And it makes it easier to follow all your saying and to understand your logic.
A big problem with a casual multiplayer game is that you're conflaiting the difficulties of social etiquette (A cultural based system of rules that daunting no matter how extroverted you may be), with the incredibly complex system of MTG. I can't blame people for being frustrated with the ineffectiveness of a rule 0 conversation considering that it's so inconceivably difficult to properly assess a 'power level' of a commander deck, or really any deck that can utilize 99.9% of all the cards in all 30 years in MTG history. While we will never fully be able to get wizards executives to stop putting unrealistic expectations on their design team, but we can choose to be less hostile to each other in our pods. We can choose to not be so hostile towards someone at the table, or presuming malice when we think they over or undervalued their decks, because frankly, most of us have no idea what a 'tier 7' deck is. Maybe even normalize bringing up a perceived power level issue during the match, and ending a match early to shift decks or cards around to make it more enjoyable. After all, a balanced game requires data to find that balance right? Maybe we should look at it like we're just gathering data.
Socially inept nerds don't want to deal with the issues that come from self regulating experiences with other socially inept nerds
But also don't want to play a standardized format
My frustration in this situation tends to come from the fact that the Rules Committee just keeps saying oh it's a rule zero discussion when when you read the text about rule zero rule zero implies that it's more about bringing cards back that are not allowed and doing the Whimsical funny not the conversation about these cards are too strong for whatever reason I also think that rule Zero versus power level are two different conversations and they both can be difficult to have at your local LGS sometimes. Honestly I personally am not looking for specific bands or unbalanced I'm just looking for more communication from the rules committee on things. Obviously I'm just a random on the internet spouting into a comment section . But at least it is engagement for a good video
With how the RC operates, wouldn't be surprised if they gradually gets pushed out of the discussion in the long run in favor of a more community driven approach. You're already seeing the community "unbanning" Lutri in the 99 and self-banning Nadu. At some point people are just going to split off and do their own thing.
When the competitive crowd from constructed 60 cards formats were frustated with their formats and started to flock to EDH, cEDH started to flourish a lot more, and the casual and bigger part of the players suffers because they don't have any regulation besides the ineffective or fuzzy "Rule 0", you have abig problem. If they sepate those thing with different formats with a Ban List to each of them, a lot of this issue would be solved.
cEDH was growing before that
Because of the natural edh arms race playgroups go through
You can't stop the progression and trying to will hurt you more in the long run (short answer, build a commander cube)
As a ygo (and a commander) player we're SUPER ENVIOUS of how communicative and punctual wotc is with its banlist, we have got people cross referencing spreadsheets (with banlist timing) with events timing just to try and conjure up when the next banlist is going to come out! And sometimes they throw us a curveball and drop a banlist on a saturday during the weekend of an event (that came in effect in a couple of weeks ofc).
We used to have some explanation for bans and limits but it lasted very shortly, and a lot of times it's difficult to grasp the reasoning besides some hits. For example we had some very annoying floodgates/stax pieces that the community was just fed up with, compared to magic in ygo it's a bit harder to interact with floodgates/stax so it was just frustrating people all around, and they decided to limit them to one copy each? Like it was an improvement, but why? Why not just ban them straight up? And there are other cases like this that can feel puzzling.
Lastly in july there was a big event, and there could have been the timing for a banlist just before (which would make a lot of the testing done completely useless), BUT they managed to give us a reassurance that there'd be no change in banlist for that event (which is not normal! We do not know for sure in advance the banlist for an event) and that the banlist would be coming in late august, cool right?...
It's the 28 of august and we've heard no news of a banlist, content creators are kinda scrambling doing content while still being ready to drop the reaction immediately, people don't want to attend smaller events because we're fed up with this format and crave something new, and in all of this all we get from yugioh official social media accounts is only product shilling.
Do not take anything for granted magic community, it's normal to vent frustration and make your voice heard, but remember to be a little bit grateful that you have this communication; trust me you don't wanna live like us.
This is such a great insight, appreciate you for providing it!
Rule 0 is a problem at the end of the day. Designing for Commander outside the commander decks is also a problem. It is also wild when you go play at a store or con vs a playgroup. They are just entirely different and there NEEDS to he more things done to balance the format outside of Rule 0 and pregame discussion.
I usually like to make a pre game conversation of 2 minutes just for knowing, if I'm playing for fun, what I'm going to encounter. I love to play all power levels after all
No, they don't, because all you want is them to band cards. Other people like and are popular for a reason Golos never should have been banned.
@@cablefeed3738they absolutely do. Who cares if they ban cards? It won't affect you if you just want to play rule 0 anyway. No one's stopping you. But it helps to structure the format for standardized play that it desperately needs
@zombiegodsire No, it doesn't cause then everyone argues about what should be banned. Everything gets banned too many cards are banned. No one wants to play anymore.There's just not enough cards that are fun
@@cablefeed3738 that literally doesn't matter. Everyone already argues over what should be banned or what's allowed to be played in a pod. It doesn't matter. They aren't in charge
Rule 0 shouldn't need to be a serious thing to consider, not to mention RC's bias towards catering to WotC. Companion shouldn't have been applicable in Commander due to it breaking one of the core tennants of Commander (Exactly 100 cards, no side board). Wish spells and modes don't work unless they pull from exile, they also banned Yurion as a Companion exclusively, but outright banned Lutri even though they could have banned it similarly to Yurion citing the inverse reason (Yurion banned as companion because the rule is impossible, Lutri banned as companion because it's too easy).
Well spoken friend! An intelligent response that was well thought out but not compromised. Much appreciated!
Like i have been saying, i think magic as a whole as declines in quality and spiraled in powercreep since 2018 dominaria.
More and more often more and more cards are both set up and payoff. Every card feels like a bomb that if left unanswered then its over.
It’s quite demoralizing tbh
I agree with the weird guy issue, but i would say that Nadu is incentives weird guy play patterns like paradox engine. I would welcome a ban in commander
We dont really have the "Dungeons and Dragons Effect."
Dungeons and Dragons ALSO says "if you dont wanna follow these rules you dont have to." But that doesnt mean you dont have a clear guidline you can follow.
Thats what a banlist should be. A guideline. And we dont have a guideline.
Its so much easier to rule 0 if you just have a guideline on what EDH should be.
If you PROMOTE stack cards. PROMOTE cards like rystic study. PROMOTE dockside. PROMOTE a banned card that wins the game... but still have thassas oracle... you dont have a guideline.
Just have a guideline.
When I sit down to play in my LGS we always have a two hour rule zero meeting. We then draw up a a 30 page rule zero contract and get it notarized.
I play with strangers/acquaintances I've met a couple of times in the LGS that's closest to my house. A lot of 'ways' I'd like to play magic is overlooked in that group. Someone has proxied half their deck, meaning their card quality is just higher than mine, a budget brewer. Someone else doesn't realise what a threat is outside of crazy ramping and big dinosaurs, and someone different has played commander maybe twice, ever. I think the game should be balanced so that even someone like me has a chance to interact with these kinds of decks, and I'm always adjusting my decks to deal with newer threats at the table. To me that's playing magic. But issues such as: cards coming out like crazy, to the point where you have no memory over what's being played anymore; cards being themselves swiss army knives and they do what three cards in your deck ever hope to do, etc... that's a WoTC problem, not a player problem. I shouldn't spend most of my game experience in the cutting room
I hear it all the time. There are people who want to play standard and modern but are forced out of those formats into commander because they are so mismanaged and it creates a cascading spiral that either drives players out of the game or into commander. Im an entrenched commander player because i dont enjoy one on one 60 cards, but im not everyone.
Make standard for standard, modern for modern, pauper for pauper, and commander for commander.
I will push back a bit. We spend our hard earned money on this game. We are entitled somewhat to a good product and some transparency. Every piece of media needs marketing which is transparency and when there are delays or issues you need to keep your customers in the loop. There is a balance to what you should and should not get.
This is just my opinion but I think players want to see a split between entry level commander (jank, precon, and low power), high power commander, and CEDH. Or at the very least a split between CEDH and everything else. Part of the frustration is that everyone know CEDH basically functions as its own format like pauper commander, but the rule's committee's refusal to split them into two ban lists, is frustrating players, i understand that is more work for them but its something i am feeling more and more.
Holy cow you put all my thoughts and feelings into words perfectly
Thank you for this very thoughtful consideration in a time of hate speech and frustration. It's a delight to listen to you ❤❤❤
You are insanely smart and eloquent. My regular table only has 1 rule, we don’t play infinite combos that end the game because it feels unsatisfying for everyone. So my experience with rule 0 is overall positive.
That "weird guy" point was just weird. Like ya an actual ban list for commander isn't gonna stop the "weird guy" but at least now the "weird guy" can't be a cheeky prick and be like "Well we didn't rule 0 this! 🙂👍"
Like no one is gonna play with the weird guy. I highly doubt anyone sat in a commander table and then started seeing a bunch of banned cards like Iona or Prime Time.
The point is that even if you ban the worst stuff, the "weird guy" is gonna just play the next worst stuff. You'd need a big banlist to keep them from playing stax or counterspell.dec and making folks miserable while still going "But it's not banned so it's fine!"
@@Tuss36 you are conflating "shitty to play against" and "Obviously too OP". Mana positive mana rocks, Any tutor other than highly specific ones are plain as day, clear as crystal, no if ands or buts about it OP and the amount of Commander players that actually play with these cards is in the single digits. It's essentially a given that these are rule 0'd in my LGS anyways. Banning all of those cards I'm talking about would be such a boon for the format and stop "the weird guy" at least than you have some solid base to go off of and if you wanna rule 0 to Stax / Counterspell.exe whatever than go ahead.
Also for the love of god please don't give me the " But the ban list would be too big!" Argument. We play a format that involves 3 other players all with 100 card singleton decks. Pioneer essentially has a "ban list" of every card past the legality date of when the format was conceived.
Also I think banning all reserved list cards would be good for the format too but that's not really for power reasons. Didn't really know where else to put this in.
@@Tuss36 I don't know why RUclips isn't putting up my comments but here was my reply basically
" You are conflating "sucks to play against" with "Obviously too OP"
It is absolutely plain as day, crystal clear, no ifs ands or buts about that 0 cost or mana positive mana rocks / generic tutors are way to overpowered and have no place in Commander especially casually.
If you wanna "rule 0" those cards in be my guess but it is essentially an automatic rule 0 that all those cards are banned in my LGS. The thing with these cards legality is I've personally seen "the weird guy" tutor for his infinite combo right when he was about to die also when he lost one game he then busted out all of his beefy mana rocks that are all over 100$ and then stomped the game. Now can I just not play with these people ? ( They are two separate people btw) Sure, although I live in a small town, my LGS needs the support to even survive we had an LGS kinda crash and burn in like 4 months and at the end of the day. If all the other pods are full. I still want to get a game in. With these cards still being unbanned it just opens the floodgates to bullsh*t and essentially leaves the game design into the players hands which is a horrible idea because 3 other people's communication, honesty, and listening skills can all vary.
Not only that we all hear "oh my deck is a 7" because we also all have different perspectives. What you think is OP isn't what I may think is OP and so on.
If you wanna play Counterspell.exe or Stax go for it. Those are sh*tty to play against but if they still lose at a reasonable rate and don't completely dominate the game, are obviously unbalanced in basic resources (like mana from mana rocks) and go past a certain power level then fine. I'm not even asking for sucky play strats to be banned. That's only a small part of the conversation. But Mana Positive Mana rocks and Tutors there is 0 defense for.
Also please don't give me the argument of " oh but the ban list will ne too big!" BS. I highly doubt that in a format of 100 singleton card decks with 3 other people with 100 singleton card decks I highly doubt that these same people playing this format (me included) can't control+F a ban list on Google. If you play pioneer your "ban list" is essentially every set before the formats creation. People still play Pioneer.
Also hey guess what if you disagree with any of what I said, JUST RULE 0 BRO! just rule 0 whatever you want! Did you know the original intent of Rule 0 was for players to INCLUDE cards that were banned and had nothing to do with EXCLUDING cards? Crazy right 🤯.
Also I think all reserved list cards should be banned for other reasons but that's another conversation.
I once had a friend who was just starting out and he wanted to build a Hazezon mass land destruction deck because he thought it looked "funny". We had to argue against it with him and explain how detrimental it was to the game experience. It was hard to convince him, it's like he had to see for himself to judge. The fact that cards like Armageddon aren't banned can lead to a new player finding them out and wanting to try them. Of course any experienced player knows how detrimental to the fun of an EDH game this card is but it might not stop an imexperienced player to pay 30 bucks for it to "surprise" his friends.
Please just ban MLD
Ya i just entirely disagree with your assessment of rule zero. The problem with rule zero is that is used to justify both banning and nit banning certain cards. The German philosopher Karl Popper is famous for his theory known as Popper's Falsification Principle: "that which cannot be falsified cannot be true". The Rules Committee cannot use the same rule to justify why something is both banned or not banned. If 'all roads lead to Rule Zero' then it ceases to be impactful. You cannot use the same rule to justify completely different standards being applied and outcomes as a result
agreed.
that's exactly the problem
I don't think this makes sense a rule can be used in many ways to justify multiple things. For example a law is created saying "hey everybody this is a list of items that isn't allowed in a library". Now people can say "this list is stupid because the list says I can't bring a knife but I can technically bring a axe". The rule doesn't become meaningless just because it doesn't include every item or situation and leaves certain things up to common sense.
Rule 0 is used to create a catered gaming experience for your playgroup and when rule 0 fails consistently then a card gets banned. When rule 0 succeeds then they don't ban a card and when it fails they do.
Also Karl Popper never even said that if you even do a basic google search of him his theories are based on how the scientific method needs room to change as new information becomes available and no theory can be 100% correct because new information appears all the time.
TLDR rule 0 is impactful and rules can be flexible
@@user-yl6mk2ck5k the rules are changed when this type of glaring omission occurs, also, I don't advocate for this, but malicious compliance gets rules fixed faster than regular legislative means. So we could all just go with azorius agustin mld/stax/extraturns and try to put pressure that way, if you have the means for that.
@user-yl6mk2ck5k that's either a misunderstanding of what is being said or a dishonest interpretation. There is a substantial difference between inconsistency in a rule and contradiction within a rule. We're not talking about an oversight in the rules, we're talking about a contradiction. I'm sure we could all point to the numerous inconsistencies of the ban list, and that's a separate issue. The real issue at play here is the contradiction within rule zero that affects the ban list, not specific cards on or not on the list.
Rule zero already consistently fails and it has no impact on the ban list; this is abundantly evident by the litany of cards that are erroneously banned such as biorhythm or coalition victory and the numerous cards that are near universally hated, but not banned, such as Thassa's Oracle or Stasis or Winter Orb.
That is absolutely what Karl Popper said and with all due respect, I am not going to take the opinion on the matter of someone who has openly admitted their entire understanding of Popper comes from a brief Google search. Read more than the Google AI response or the snippets under a headline and then come talk to m3 about his theory. If you had done more than a basic Google search, you would understand the concept.
Again, i think this is disingenuous; there's a breaking point where rules become so inflexible they become meaningless. Rule zero is beyond that breaking point. Banning a card and justifying it with rule zero is invalidated by the equal and opposite argument: a card shouldn't be banned because rule zero exists.
The big problem with commander is that many different groups want different things, and the rules committee needs to have a single baseline work for all of them.
Like I play primarily in 2 main groups, one group actively avoids games that are 5 or more people, while the other group averages 5.5 players per game and in recent memory, has has less than 10 games being fewer than 4 players. One group runs double the removal (on average) as the other group. One group typically wins via combos or big haymakers, while the other does not. My Vega the Watcher decks works amazingly in one of the two groups, but leads to unfun gameplay in the other. These are both casual groups that want to kick back and play a low brain-power needing game with friends. But how they do so is very different.
This is most evident in the ban list. I would argue that for commander, because of every playgroup wanting something different, a traditional ban list does not work. I have argued in the past for a modular ban system (tldr there are modules, like tutor package that includes imperial seal, demonic tutor, etc, or a fast mana package that includes mana crypt, mana vault, basalt monolith, etc, and each playgroup bans certain modules, with a certain combination of modules being decided by the rules committee and top CEDH players as the default cedh banlist), and the modules get updated (not just which cards are in which modules, but also creating new modules or disbanding old ones or merging two together or splitting to up or removing cards or moving cards from one to another, or putting a card on multiple, etc), as well as which are the default for CEDH, every few months, even if it means making an announcement that nothing is changing. This is not going to solve every issue, but I strongly feel that this would be the simplest and most effective first step toward.
Sorry for the rant that is not super on topic, this is just my frustrations with commander at the moment
"Errors sometimes get through."
And this is a perfect reason why rule zero is necessary and not every card WotC prints should just be unanimously allowed at a casual table, ESPECIALLY since the RC is just a bunch of geriatric men who may either be sleeping or in a coma.
"We were too far along the process" - this is a non sequitur at its finest. Just have 1 less card in the set.
"We put a completely untested but redesigned engine in to our new rocket, but it was set to leave for the International Space Station the next day so what can you do?"
It feels like the rules committy is either being used as a figure head, or a target for people to be mad at while WOTC just continues to do what they're doing.
Like, yes there are two Non-wotc individuals, but there are 3 wotc individuals. It feels like they may have their hands tied and then they have to deal with the fall-out.
The big reason rule 0 never works with pickup groups
Is because people have no idea how powerful commander can get
Most people take their 3 thinking "oh this decks a 7" get stomped by a 5 and go "why was that guy using a cedh deck at a casual pod" when the gap between the stronger deck and cedh is twice as wide as the gap between the weaker and stronger deck
Do "Commander player bait" cards need to go in the main set? Isn't that what the Commander products that come with every set release are for?
yeah, I feel like that is the part a lot of people are missing, every set now comes with commander decks, and the commander cards can show up in boosters, Nadu for example is simic and plays with lands, it was already a great fit for the Omo deck, I don't understand why they didn't just put him in there instead of in the main set
I l literally avoided playing in the modern RCQ season up until now expressly because of Nadu.
My unasked for thoughts on Rule 0:
If you find yourself constantly playing with people who can't be as honest and accomadating as you; Rule 0 isn't the issue.
I hope there is a follow-up article because "he takes full responsibility" is easy to say if there's no consequences and/or process changes coming from this.
I'm not asking for him to step down or anything, but this is hardly the first time a commander design broke a format (hi @hogaak) or last-minute-changes had unexpected results.
Skullclamp peeks around the corner
Bros asking for someone to lose their job over a card
Lol I love the positive peer pressure! We ARE too cool to do things like that!
Love a lot of what you’re saying here Joey. You really can’t make policy around “that guy” and there will always be something pushed toward the top.
That said, I still believe there are a few egregious cards that don’t necessarily self regulate in the proxy space that I believe is healthy for the format. Things like dockside, which you mentioned, skews games in ways I really don’t like and honestly should just take a ban. I don’t want a ton of cards being banned every set or anything, but I think we have enough data on a few that maybe could take a hit of the RC was just a touch more proactive.
Rule 0 doesn’t exist in my local area. We have one store that is primarily casual/optimized play. But the main store here randomizes pods, and at least one cEDH player ends up at each of those pods. They proceed to play a cEDH deck just to murder their pod so they can play a cEDH game in a winners pod. This is why I wanted to separate the formats at the LGS I founded a Commander night at. I didn’t want people forced into cEDH if they couldn’t handle it or didn’t want to play it. It’s disheartening to new players to come into a store excited about their new precon and they get their ass kicked in 2 seconds. Most of the time they leave and never come back
You are an energetic person. That is why you are on RUclips. Many players abhor confrontation. To ask them to find a better way to address their frustration is easier said than done.
We, regardless of what format we play, just need to stop buying sealed product. If they do these things simply because of money nothing (no tweet, no YT video, no Discord chat) will send the message loud and clear than us collectively not buying sealed product.
This video has 2 standard deviations of empathy above the average magic video.
I agree that having the RC doing genuine tournament bannings doesn't make sense. HOWEVER. I think there is a massive difference in situations like Nadu.
1) Nadu is a legendary creature. It is a commander. That means the misery it causes is at the forefront of the game, and if someone in your playgroup pulls it out, they might not "stop running a couple busted cards" but have to disassemble the deck entirely. That's an excuse I've seen used constantly and has enough success rate at convincing those who are not confrontational and those who haven't yet experienced The Nadu Turn that I think is an inherent part of the problem.
2) Nadu's play pattern is miserable. Sure, you may argue "Tergrid is the same" and you would be right. Except Nadu is not a 5 mana monoblack legend that folds to any form of responsible interaction. If anything Nadu is comparable to Kinnan. An efficient, ultra impactful card that dominates any casual game it is in and has the colors to protect itself. And while in my opinion Kinnan is on the annoying verge of being banneable, Kinnan isn't as miserable in time equity, and he is not a 4 toughness mostruosity that arrives at turn 2 or 3 and that cannot be safely rid of without counterspell.
3) Nadu is categorically a design mistake. It was something that was broken from its design, that should not have been what it is. Design Mistakes Are Okay To Be Banned. Especially if they are legendary creatures that control an entire deck. Do I want Skullclamp banned? No! But if it is a sacrifice required to avoid another Nadu? Then sure.
In general I don't want these powerful, untested cards that err for the side of being stronger than too weak to go unchecked because the RC is scared of policing the format. The make commander less fun, more swingy, more dependent on your opening hand. You may argue that sounds fun, and it is, when you are playing CEDH and have the resources in your deck to go up against something like that. If my counterspells of choice are Rewind, Unwind and Spellswindle, because I am playing a slow chill game, how am I expected to deal with something that wholly fucks the table turn 4?
And I 100% believe this is going to be a trend. I was pretty vocal with my playgroup that Stella Lee was problematic for that same ability to easily turbo out a win without really putting too many CEDH staples, Nadu is that on steroids. Why? They cost 3 mana. Now Stella is bearable cause you need to spend at least 3 cards turn 4 to turbo to win on the spot. Nadu just needs to spend 1. But the issue of this need to make stronger legendary creatures being cheaper to be able to cast them earlier in a commander game and just being playable in 60 card formats I foresee damaging more and more the game over time.
Screw battlecruise-y games right? We are at the age of "deal with this now or die next turn". And that turn is before I could cast commander sphere
Sounds like Cedh.
I don't play at my local LGS, I play at the one in the next city. I do that because the one in my city has 'weird guy' behavior whilst the other doesn't. I strongly believe that isn't because one city has 'weird guys' and the other doesn't, but because of the differences between the stores causes 'weird guy' behavior. One only does tournament style events, always having prices (or lotteries to 'keep it casual') whilst the other has most people just playing commander in whatever way they want. You can guess which store is which.
And it is because I believe that 'weird guy behavior' is a product of its environment, I strongly believe the rules committee shouldn't lean on rule zero. As soon as some reward is in sight for winning, rule zero dies. The first kind of store needs a stronger rules committee to preserve the spirit of the game, the second doesn't need it to exist at all. Fencesitting in the middle doesn't help either.
So with rule 0 my problem comes down to the fact that there is no common consensus and language, I think the best way to demonstrate my point is the whole "my deck is a 7" meme and the reason for it's existence. We have language that gestures at and suggests a common meaning, but there's still enough variance that a pick up group you aren't gonna be playing with for more than 3 games can have a rule 0 convo that ends up not properly setting expectations.
Also, I believe that people can self govern, but at the same time Tergrid is the number 4 mono black commander with over 8000 decks as I write this, which suggests that people kinda won't self regulate.
Lastly I understand the idea that you can't regulate a weird guy, which is 100% true, but there's some cards that I think should be banned because players can play them without being a weird guy. I think that even in a casual format, some level of curation is needed to maintain a desired type of play.
what disappoints me most is that the original Nadu text would have been a very interesting commander. A deck built around playing remove-on-sight threats with flash shenanigans is a very interesting design space that simic doesn't usually do. Opponents would have to decide if removing your threat is worth the benefit you gain in value, on top of needing to reason if you're bluffing or not with hidden flash cards. The deck could end up being either very political or very oppressive depending on the pilot, allowing for more expression. It feels a lot more 'organic' than a lot of the designed for commander cards which usually force you into playing one specific way.
Cards originally not printed for commander made commander players more creative in what they build.
This video made me realize where the frustration and powerlessness sentiments behind those repeated comments directed at the Commander format, rule 0 or RC actually come from and I’ll view them in a different light now, so thank you for that Joey
Thank you for giving a voice to a rational perspective.
How about a rule about unsportsmanlike conduct like pretty much every other activity? We don't need to ban cards, we need to impose penalties on playing in a degenerate manner. Get the rules committee on deciding what that means.
This is what I imagine it must have felt like to hear Forest Gump speak at the Lincoln memorial... "You said it all man. You said it all."
Respect❤
I think there’s a lot of people that need to understand that their deck that they say is a 7 is actually really a 5 or so (no tutors, no inf combos, unoptimal amounts of removal, no fast mana, budget mana base, and so on) while other people that say their deck is a 7 is really an 8 or so (fast mana, free counters, dockside, inf combos, endless tutors, endless removal/board wipes, and so on). A lot of people don’t want to say that their deck is only slightly stronger than a pre con but it’s okay if that’s the case. A lot of other people don’t wanna admit that their deck is only a couple steps down from a cEDH deck and that’s okay they are but people do need to be a bit more honest with themselves.
It’s the same thing with how people who were upset about golos being banned, you had to be playing a very very week 99 for your deck to actually be low powered if golos was your commander and anyone who thought their lands matter, big spells, 5 color good stuff golos decks were “only 7’s”. At that point, in my opinion at least, you’re just playing ignorant and being inconsiderate to your playgroup.
It’s okay for decks to be stronger and to admit it, it’s okay for your decks to be weaker and admit it.
Commander is fun, I love magic. Everything will be fine I promise
For me the hardest part about rule zero is not wanting to be the guy who complains all the time. One guy in the pod I wants to play his three decks that I don't like to play against. Most people don't like to play against Mass Land destruction and discard decks. But I feel bad for being the person that speaks up about it.
It's even worse when you're the only one too. Seedborn Muse is a card that just makes me see red. I've played one too many games where one guy takes fifteen game actions on each player's end step and nobody can stop it, and I'm kinda done. But on the other hand it still feels like less of a fuss to just muscle through a bunch of bad games than to be the guy with an uncommon rule 0 stipulation.
While I understand your argument that we can't regulate "weird guys", I think an attempt could be made, a lot of really powerful cards are not played by people, not because of them being too powerful and regulated, but because of them being too expensive, a lot of people don't play with proxies so that means, no original dual lands, no mana crypt, no dockside, no the one ring, no jeweled lotus. These are not cards that people want out of their decks because of them being unfun or unfair, they are out of their decks because they are expensive. I can assure you, if that was not a problem, you would see high powered decks everywhere, because people like to feel powerful, they like to win. And if playing things like Nadu, Dockside, Jeweled lotus, dual lands and all of that will make them win, they will do it, that is the reality of a game
+1. Unproductive pregame chats is also my experience.
I only play CEDH, "precons only", Dual Commander, and "under $2 commander" because these are the only Commander formats where everyone has 100% aligned expectations without a rule 0 conversation.
Miniscule point, but having the abiility to cheat UNTAPPED lands into play with your Commander is incredibly strong, and even a WotC exec could probably see that.
I think you hit the point there. It's not a designer fault, it's a process fault, and that fault comes from not having enough resources (in people and/or time) to ensure testing and quality.
And this comes from the pressure to maximise profit, including minimizing investment.
My brother in cardboard, me. I have noted in previous videos that your metas and my metas frequently don't align and here's one place.
Pregame conversations don't tend to happen a lot or be productive in my main meta. But I have been in a pregame discussion that took about 12 minutes and people outside the game even came to weigh in. I have been in a pregame discussion so convoluted that multiple players switched decks multiple times and so the discussion dragged. Personally, I'm stoked when that kind of thing happens. It's frequently a sign that the people with whom I choose to play value the experience we're about to have, but I'm happy to spend the time and my buddy who thinks a half hour is too long for a game isn't.
I really like this take.
Bringing up Boros when designing specifically for commander, valuing transparency, the whole modern commander without modern legal cards thing, it really adds some much needed nuance to the situation.
And the comment about yet another Simic value commander is just the icing on the cake.
😘👌
14:41 -- "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering"
I just wish people would stop using the term Casual for CMDR while complaining about, but not banning CEDH cards. Thassa's Oracle is NEVER played in a casual way. No one has ever been like "OMG this was the craziest 4 hour game, I can't believe we both managed to run out of cards and then the last card in my hand was Thassa's Oracle!
I'd be curious on what a poll of your viewers about how successful rule 0 discussion are to that player base. As I can speak to my experiences and you to yours but that is not quantitative.
The comic bust of the 90s is an example of what will happen IF production continues its trajectory. We need someone who knows what fat to trim
"When does your deck pop off and win if not interacted with?" That's how I determine what deck to play.
A pregame discussion works works if everyone is honest. We have a guy that has a Nadu deck... I asked "Is it what I expect it to be?" and his response was that it was a landfall deck. So that's a yes. The rest of the pod basically said they'd rather not play against it.
No, it works if it’s in the command zone. He lied about it but the table decided to not believe him. But annoying cards in the 99 can be “lied” about via omission. If there was some banner someone had to put on their deck that indicated they were playing stax or rhystic study it would be much easier to have productive “rule 0” conversations
My buddy is like this. I usually tell him when I plan a new deck what the commander is and the game plan. When he builds a deck I'll be lucky if he tells me the commander at all. It's always some top 20 all time powerhouse, and the deck is always 'that deck' exactly what you'd expect. Now his default is "this is a modified precon" whatever tf that means