COMMANDER/EDH BANNED LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: January 2016
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 18, 2016, 11:39 a.m. by Ender666666
Summary:
- Commander-specific mulligan rules are removed
- Rule 4 (mana generation restriction) is removed
- Prophet of Kruphix is banned
Mulligans:
We promised in the last update that, with the advent of the Vancouver Mulligan, we'd be evaluating the mulligan process in Commander. This announcement is the culmination of that research. After examining several popular options, and coming up with a few of our own, we've concluded that the Vancouver Mulligan (with the standard first-one-free in multiplayer and a scry once you go to 6 or fewer) is the best option. The RC continues to use and recommend the Gis ("Mulligan 7s to a playable hand. Don't abuse this") for trusted playgroups, but that's not something that can go in the rules.
Ultimately, the goal of mulligans in Commander is to ensure that you start the game with enough lands to be a participant. With Commander games running an hour plus, it's unfortunate if you can't play anything because you miss land drops and get run over quickly.
We didn't want to solve the problems of Magic itself - mana screw and mana flood are part of the game - and players need to make a reasonable effort with their land counts, but we wanted a mulligan rule that tried to minimize unplayable opening hands. So, we brainstormed, and ran computer simulations. And what ultimately came out was... it didn't much matter. Nothing provided a clear enough upgrade to justify having additional rules for mulligans. For example, with 37 lands, Partial Paris was "successful" (which we defined as playing a 4th land on turn 4) 89% of the time versus Multiplayer Vancouver at 86%, but it came at a cost of about a fifth of a card on average. On the whole, 86% success is a rate that seems reasonable.
If you find yourself playing 1v1 (perhaps while waiting for a friend to show up), you should still use the free multiplayer mulligan. With a deck this size, variance is high enough to make not having the free mulligan potentially punishing - without the free mulligan you drop down to about 80% success rate, which, combined with being the only opponent to focus on, leads to too many unfortunate games.
Finally, its not an official rule, but we recommend setting aside the hands you're mulliganning away until you get a keeper. That saves shuffling time, and we're all for minimizing shuffling 100-card decks.
Rule 4:
We still love Rule 4. It's a nice piece of flavor and reinforces the idea that this format goes beyond simple mechanical restrictions into a deeper philosophical approach around color and mana symbols. Its effect on the game was pretty small, but that flavor message made it worthwhile to preserve.
However, the mana system of Magic is very complicated, and trying to insert an extra rule there has consequences in the corners. Harvest Mage. Celestial Dawn. Gauntlet of Power. And now, colorless-only mana costs.
Being able to generate colorless mana more easily in Commander wasn't going to break anything. But, it represented another "gotcha" moment for players, who were now likely to learn about Rule 4 when someone exploited the colorless loophole. We could paper over it (both "mana generated from off-color sources can only pay generic costs" and "you can't pay a cost outside your color identity" were considered), but a lot of the flavor would be lost in the transition, defeating the purpose. Without the resonant flavor, Rule 4 was increasingly looking like mana burn - a rule that didn't come up enough to justify it's existence.
We don't expect removing the rule to have a big impact. Some Sunburst and Converge cards might get a bit more of a look. Sen Triplets works more like you'd expect, as does Praetor's Grasp. The clone-and-steal deck, already one of the most popular archetypes, gets better, but less than you might think. It turns out there really aren't that many impactful non-blue activated abilities on cards that commonly get stolen in Commander. It's OK if you can regenerate that creature you just stole, and you'll need to work for it a bit anyway.
One side benefit to the removal of both the color production and mulligan rules is that, in terms of game play, Commander becomes a normal game of multiplayer Magic with a higher life total and a set of additive rules to bring a new piece (your Commander) into the game. That's good streamlining in terms of teaching people the format and reducing gotcha moments while still preserving the essential flavor of Commander.
Prophet of Kruphix:
This was challenging. Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander, so we chose to take a conservative approach and see if casual groups could adapt. In the past, we've seen unpopular cards generate a lot of outcry, but be handled reasonably well. Powerful cards existing is OK and exploring them responsibly is an essential part of Commander.
This didn't happen with Prophet. Casual groups haven't been able to work around it and problematic play has not dropped off in hoped-for ways. Instead, the primary approach has been to steal it, clone it, run it yourself, or get run over. Ultimately, it seems the card is too perfect - it does everything U/G Commander players want to be doing and it does it in a way that makes counterplay difficult. With traditional boogeymen such as Consecrated Sphinx, you're forced to expend a lot of your mana to cast it and will have a challenge protecting it as the turn goes around the table. With Prophet, it has virtual protection built in, negating that disadvantage almost immediately.
Prophet becomes only the second multicolored card on the banlist (after the structurally-problematic Coalition Victory). It's telling just how pervasive Prophet is despite such a restriction. Yes, U/G is the most popular color combination in Commander, but we've reached the point where Prophet is driving U/G deck choice, rather than vice-versa. That's centralizing in ways we can't ignore, so it's time for Prophet to take a break.
Whenever we decide to ban a card, we take a long look at the current list to see if any cards can come off, as we believe a casual format is better served by a minimalist banlist. After extensive discussion, however, we concluded that everything on the list served a purpose, so we won't be unbanning anything. It's been two years since the last (non-consolidation) card got banned, which is an acceptable growth rate!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18057
There seems to be some confusion about what the removal of Commander Rule #4 means, so here is some clarification.
The normal Commander rules regarding Colour Identity still apply. You may only include Spells, Artifacts, Planeswalkers, Creatures and Lands in your deck that match your commander's Colour Identity. The ONLY exception is with cards where mana symbols show up in reminder text which explain a mechanic, for example, cards with the "Extort" mechanic. Crypt Ghast is an example of a card that is purely Black, even though there is a 
symbol in the reminder text that explains how the "Extort" mechanic works.
Your commander's Colour Identity is determined by each and every COLOUR of mana symbol, printed anywhere on it (Again, with the exception of reminder text).
Cards with the mechanic of "Devoid" are colourless, but still fall under the normal rules in Commander when determining its legality for your deck. Want to play Transgress the Mind, but your commander is Green? Sorry, you can't. Transgress the Mind may be colourless, but it has a Black Colour Identity when you are determining if you can legally include it in your deck because it has 
in its casting cost.
What the removal of Commander Rule #4 means is that lands like Forbidden Orchard, Mana Confluence, City of Brass, and cards like Birds of Paradise can now legally make you mana of ANY colour (
), regardless of your Commander's Colour Identity. In the past, if something caused a mana of a colour that wasn't part of your Commander's Colour Identity to be added to your mana pool, it INSTEAD added that many 
to your mana pool.
Oh, and IS NOT A COLOUR. Got it?
So what about Command Tower? Can it create any colour of mana now? NOPE. Because of the wording on Command Tower, it will still only create 1 mana of any colour IN YOUR COMMANDER'S COLOUR IDENTITY
I hope that this helps clarify things for anyone who might be confused.
Squirrel_of_War says... #2
To my understanding colored mana such as Swamp can make 
but can't make so you have to use something like Ancient Tomb or Wastes to cast Kozy.
January 30, 2016 9:19 p.m.
...No, swamps will now produce REGARDLESS of your commander's color identity. You will need Sol Ring, Ancient Tomb, Temple of the False God, etc., in order to cast Kozilek in any deck.
January 30, 2016 10:47 p.m.
Swamps make which is used for but can't be used for is what he's saying.
January 30, 2016 11:02 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
It should be clarified that generic mana (, etc.) is simply a way of denoting a cost that may be paid with any type of mana: colored or colorless. It isn't a kind of mana that can be produced itself.
Colorless mana () is a specific type of mana. It can be used to pay for either generic or colorless costs.
January 30, 2016 11:26 p.m.
Personally, I'm glad to see the prophet go. When she hit the table, the game just stopped, because the person with prophet had ALL the turns. And it's kind of impossible to kill if the player that controls it has mana open. If someone attacks you, you can throw down a creature to chump or kill the attacker. Also, if you use the prophet in every deck, it gets super repetitive, and to most people, EDH is a format to use wacky combos, not a format where each deck has a specific gameplane and run Prophet of Kruphix.
Rule 4 has been kind of useless to me, so I could care less about it going. I never use it anyways,because I either play Chromatic Lantern or monocolor decks, and I don't use steal effects.
January 31, 2016 10:12 a.m.
Doesn't the essential removal of Rule 4 dumb down the game? Am I missing something here? Why is dumbing down the Commander format a good thing?. It's almost like Commander's lost a key part of itself. Part of the fun of Commander was building around your decks'theme or Commander. I mean seriously the colourless symbol is not that big of a deal, it doesn't destroy the format you just play by the rules you've always played by before. I wish they had given the colourless symbol a chance like maybe a few months worth of our time to experiment with its inclusion in the format. Uggh... Well at least the inclusion of that one artifact stone thing that lets you play your opponent's mana in the recent Commander set makes more sense now... Eh idk this just feels like blue and artifact decks got a huge advantage now, probably green too
January 31, 2016 2:06 p.m.
PookandPie says... #8
It's most likely not that big of a deal. Memnarch and Sen Triplets garner a boost from this, but they weren't exactly top tier Commanders before.
You still can't include cards outside of your Commander's color identity, so I don't understand what you mean by, "Part of the fun of Commander was building around your decks'theme or Commander." You still can't put Eldrazi Displacer in a Xenagos, God of Revels deck- this just means that if a Merieke Ri Berit player were to steal a Heroes' Bane from the Xenagos player, the Merieke player would be able to tap its lands for green mana to buff it so long as that player controls a Chromatic Lantern or something similar. That's literally all this change affected.
Deck building in Commander still has the same restrictions as before- nothing has changed on that front. The only thing that changed, regarding rule 4, is that you may produce mana outside your Commander's color identity. That doesn't mean you can suddenly run Ghostfire in Sydri, Galvanic Genius.
January 31, 2016 6:13 p.m.
killswitch69698 says... #9
so in order to use the kossolec u would need to have the new ulamog at the commander since they have the colorless symbol and they cant be played in any other deck
February 3, 2016 8:24 p.m.
False, you can run the new Kozilek in a Karn edh deck, or any edh for that matter. He's colourless.
February 3, 2016 8:39 p.m.
Okay, addendum: you can run it in any deck that can afford to pay the and has a spot for it, but I feel like that's splitting hairs.
February 3, 2016 8:52 p.m.
I love the edit to his comment. Just continuing the trail of misspellings.
February 3, 2016 9:09 p.m.
I really find the trolling on spelling distasteful.
February 3, 2016 11:10 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #16
Maybe this can help clarify things for anyone still confused about the difference between 
and . It all comes down to COSTS and EFFECTS.
If , , 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, or 
, etc shows up in the casting cost of any card ever printed, or the activation cost (to the Left of the ":" symbol in the text box of any card ever printed), you may pay that COST with that many of ANY type of mana you have in your mana pool, coloured or colourless.
On any cards printed before Oath of the Gatewatch, any EFFECT that would have generated X amount of mana, are now understood to produce that many instead. So Sol Ring produces , Mishra's Factory produces . Any and all cards printed from now on will be formated that way to denote the difference.
Because MTG's rules have evolved over so many years, the game just wasn't specific enough in differentiating between (two Generic mana, which is 2 mana from any source) and (2 Colourless mana, which is 2 mana produced from EFFECTS that only make mana without colour). The terms "Colourless" and later "Generic" were commonly used interchangeably by players, even after the rules made the distinction (but wrote both the same way still - grrrrr).
February 4, 2016 12:30 a.m.
Ender666666 says... #18
Yes, typo. Are you able to delete it now that I reposted a corrected version? Along with your comment and this one?
February 4, 2016 10:47 a.m. Edited.
Ender666666 says... #19
Maybe this can help clarify things for anyone still confused about the difference between and . It all comes down to COSTS and EFFECTS.
If , , , , , , , , , or , etc shows up in the casting cost of any card ever printed, or the activation cost (to the Left of the ":" symbol in the text box of any card ever printed), you may pay that COST with that many of ANY type of mana you have in your mana pool, coloured or colourless.
On any cards printed before Oath of the Gatewatch, any EFFECT that would have generated X amount of mana, are now understood to produce that many instead. So Sol Ring produces , Mishra's Factory produces . Any and all cards printed from now on will be formated that way to denote the difference.
Because MTG's rules have evolved over so many years, the game just wasn't specific enough in differentiating between (two Generic mana, which is 2 mana from any source) and (2 Colourless mana, which is 2 mana produced from EFFECTS that only make mana without colour). The terms "Colourless" and later "Generic" were commonly used interchangeably by players, even after the rules made the distinction (but wrote both the same way still - grrrrr).
February 4, 2016 10:50 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #20
Actually, when the game first began, there WAS a clear distinction between generic costs and colourless production.
was used for costs, and 'One colourless mana' was used for production.
It wasn't until later in the game when they started using the same symbol for both.
February 4, 2016 8:18 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #21
I suppose that's true in a sense, but this is also at the point when there were "Mono", "Poly" and "Continuous" Artifacts, no 
symbol, and rules wording was wildly inconsistent (eg. "Destroy" effects sometimes referred to as "Discarding")
The point that I was trying to make was that in the beginning, the rules and terminology for game mechanics weren't consistently applied and as strictly codified, and whether by accident or on purpose, players developed the bad habit of using the terms "Colourless" and "Generic" mana interchangeably, thus the confusion now.
February 4, 2016 8:43 p.m. Edited.
The_Ferret says... #22
Slightly off topic from the colourless discussion, but still relevant to the OP,
Regarding Commander and Pauper, does the pauper ban list also coincide with the Commander ban list? For example, are cards banned for Pauper banned for Pauper Commander? More specifically, does this mean Cloud of Faeries is not only banned in Pauper but also in Pauper Commander?
February 5, 2016 3:40 a.m.
No, there is currently no banned list for Pauper EDH.
February 5, 2016 4:26 a.m.
The_Ferret says... #24
Ruffigan so Cloud of Faeries is legal in Pauper Commander, despite being banned in Pauper? That makes no sense.
February 5, 2016 5:25 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #25
Why doesn't it make sense? They're different formats.
February 5, 2016 6:33 a.m.
Stormcaller says... #26
The_Ferret, i guess it's because Cloud of Faeries + High Tide may enable an endless combo. I know there is something missing but i couldn't find anything to complete the loop.
While such combos are easy to assemble in a 60-card-format with four-of's it's much harder in a singleton format with 100 card decks. And playing with such combos is often encouraged in EDH as a quick winning option, because EDH games tend to drag on for quite some time.
February 5, 2016 6:54 a.m.
That's the jist of it. With the limited card draw and deck manipulation available in Pauper, as well as the fact that you can only run one copy, it's a lot less of a problem. If anything Ghostly Flicker would be banned before Cloud of Faeries for being nigh unstoppable without clutch graveyard removal.
February 5, 2016 10:58 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #28
So in light of the integration of the Vancouver mulligan over the Partial Paris, am I crazy for thinking I need to up the count of lands from 37 to 42 (including Expedition Map, Mana Crypt, and Sol Ring as lands)?
February 5, 2016 11:47 a.m.
Honestly, I wouldn't. I was running around 32 lands. I might bump those numbers up a little but I probably won't break 40 ever. 40 is a good number imo.
With more you get close to running half of your deck as mana. Mana floods lose games. Deck thinning will be needed but can be used with either style mana base.
You really don't want half of your deck as mana and/or thinning cards. Just my opinion.
February 5, 2016 12:10 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #30
Why would Vancouver mulligan necessitate inclusion of more land?
February 5, 2016 12:19 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #31
You want to have more playable hands, and the Vancouver Mulligan decreases the consistency that you can get enough lands to operate. So adding a couple lands makes your mulligans easier overall.
I personally have been upping the land counts to my decks, normally just by one or two. I normally played about 36 lands and some mana rocks, now I'm trending towards 37-38 and some rocks.
February 5, 2016 12:26 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #32
And are you guys talking about competitive tournament play?
February 5, 2016 12:29 p.m.
Yeah the new mulligan has really dropped consistency. The way it feels to me now is it is almost mandatory to play 3-3-9. It is no longer just the best option, it is about required.
Yes I only play competitive, I don't make 75 decks. When I'm just playing random games with friends it's still tournament decks.
February 5, 2016 12:35 p.m.
I have ran 38 prior to the rule change and it still screwed me over... I don't know how to fix it...
February 5, 2016 12:35 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #35
I personally play more casual decks, but iAzire is definitely talking competitive. Competitive decks have a lot lower curve, so they can justify having a lower number of lands.
Still, I do think that even casual decks should increase the number of lands. Having some 7 drop stuck in your hand all game because you couldn't partial it away will be a more common occurrence, so upping land counts ensures you can get your gameplan going.
February 5, 2016 12:37 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #36
Getting three or more lands in a seven card hand was easy to do with partial Paris, so you didn't have to factor your starting amount in to your equation, just your draws. Now, it is something you have to factor in, so if I want three out of every seven cards to be lands to have a safe opening hand, I would want 42 for every 98 (42 in 99 is close enough). Mathematically, it seems ideal, but in practice, it could prove to just suck. Then again, I could run all the cycling lands, retrace cards, and Dust Bowl to make top decked lands less bad? Right?
February 5, 2016 12:42 p.m.
Are you running 3-3-9? I think it helps immensely because of the tutor effects. The chance to tutor whatever you need.
I've thought about possibly increasing basics and including Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse to help ensure you can get what you need.
Also none of my decks included Command Beacon when I first built them so that is an easy inclusion.
February 5, 2016 12:44 p.m.
3 ABUR Duals, Volcanic Island for example.
3 Shocklands, Steam Vents for example.
9 Fetch Lands, Scalding Tarn for example.
This is obviously for 3 color Commanders. I believe 2 color Commanders run a 1-1-7.
February 5, 2016 12:52 p.m. Edited.
And what about monocolored? That's where I'm suffering.
February 5, 2016 12:59 p.m.
JuiceboxHero says... #41
Just played with a guy who ran ~36 land in his deck. He mulled twice, still 4 lands by turn 7. We ended up letting him do a search, cause, it's about fun and what not.
I'm in favor of the new mulls, but wasn't fully against Partials either. I've seen how both are detrimental to a game. Unplayable hands from the start are just part of the legend of the game, neh?
February 5, 2016 12:59 p.m.
In Mono I run the same number of lands on average. I run a lot more basics though, only run utility nonbasic. I run stuff like Reliquary Tower in all of my decks but all in all I tend to run a low number still. Mono is actually easier because you only need one color.
Certain cards help with certain colors though, Serra's Sanctum for most Mono-White, Gaea's Cradle for most Mono-Green.
If you have trouble generating mana I would suggest Extraplanar Lens with Snow-Covered Basics. You should be running Sol Ring in every multiplayer deck, mana rocks you choose after that are preference. Gilded Lotus and Thran Dynamo are both good options.
3 color decks usually run all 3 Signet that fit in the deck. 2 color has Signet, Talisman, etc.
February 5, 2016 1:09 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #43
For mono-colored, I find that 36 lands, about 25ish of which should be basic if you are running Extraplanar Lens, and then about 4-5 ways to ramp for three or less mana. I find that I don't get mana screwed too often. Although my playgroup has adopted the Gi's Mulligan, and that has done a world of good for getting multiple one landers in a row.
February 5, 2016 1:47 p.m.
Yeah for Mono I find ramp to be a bit easier. Solemn Simulacrum, Burnished Hart, etc can all help you ramp pretty hard. Definitely a lot of ramp when you're searching for Basics. That's one of the reasons I run so many Basic in Mono. I run Snow-Covered Basics for Extraplanar Lens. The reason for that is so that only you get the benefit as the vast majority of players run regular Basic, especially full arts. There aren't any legal full art Snow-Covered.
February 5, 2016 2:17 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #45
I personally don't run Extraplanar Lens, as it turns any artifact removal into land destruction. I don't like risking stuff like that. Plus, it turns the game into the point where snow-covered basics are the best basics to play because it won't matter until you play against someone who plays Extraplanar Lens.
For mono-colored, I run all three cycling lands, Expedition Map, Myriad Landscape, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, other utility lands, and 15-25 basics.
February 5, 2016 2:23 p.m.
I can't really disagree with that point M a g i c a l H a c k e r. Snow-Covered Basics are the best basics to use. There really is no benefit to using regular basics. The full art are nice to look at but that's it. From a gameplay point of view the occasional Extraplanar Lens will make Snow-Covered the best basics to use in every deck.
February 5, 2016 6:51 p.m.
I agree with nobu, Gravepact and others like it are horribly annoying. Don't have a destroy/exile enchantment in your hand? Well don't bother playing any creatures until you do. Friend of mine plays Prossh with grave pact effects being the staple of the deck. Gets old real fast. I'd love to see it gone forever but that would mean multiple cards being banned. Not going to happen.
February 8, 2016 12:19 a.m.
By that logic, we should ban all counterspells, enchantments, artifacts, planeswalkers, remove lands from the game AND remove all big creatures because sometimes they're annoying to some people.
February 8, 2016 12:43 p.m.
JA14732 Can we just ban from EDH? I hate getting counterspelled when I'm trying to play the game, I hate when my opponents draw more cards than I do, has the worst Planeswalkers to deal with, and if we want to talk Praetors, Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur is totally broken!!
I vote to ban from the format!! It's totally broken, many people feel like they have to run just to be competitive or they at least have to build their decks expecting to play against it. is format warping, you either run it and/or risk losing to it.
Was Prophet of Kruphix really broken? YES, because she is .
Aztraeuz says... #1
Nope all generic.
I believe you're getting confused still thinking
is new though.
The ruling means that Kozilek, Butcher of Truth doesn't produce any mana from Command Tower.
Kozilek, the Great Distortion REQUIRES two of the mana to be Colorless when cast.
The new symbol doesn't designate a new mana type, it simply requires that part of the cost MUST be colorless.
January 30, 2016 9:03 p.m.