Wizards R&D to take over 1v1 Commander
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on July 13, 2017, 8:55 p.m. by sylvannos
In this announcement, WotC has stated they will be officially taking over the format for 1v1 Commander, particularly due to managing MODO. I also speculate this is so they can develop the format to work with MtG: Next (the replacement for MODO and MtG: Duels) the same way there are various tournaments for other formats.
Also note, the EDH Rules Committee will still be in charge of multiplayer EDH.
I'm actually excited for this and may consider getting back into EDH if it means R&D is involved. They're better at managing formats, I think, than the RC. I stopped playing EDH when the RC banned Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and unbanned Metalworker at the same time. Meanwhile, auto-win cards like Tooth and Nail continue to run rampant, alongside cards like Mana Crypt and Demonic Tutor, which ensure games are often linear and punish decks that don't have fast mana and tutors.
I hope going forward we see the format diversify and become similar to how Prismatic was played (i.e. "battle cruiser" Magic with longer games that had complex decisions). As stated, I've become frustrated with how the RC approaches their decisions and with their general philosophy. That's especially considering their choices have financial impact on players' wallets who invest into the format. I've felt their choices have been arbitrary, at best. Hopefully, R&D can show the format's competitive side while still fostering the spirit and community surrounding EDH and Commander.
Epochalyptik says... #2
I never proposed that a majority of Commander players are competitive, and, at any rate, I doubt that's the case. What I'm getting at is that it's irrelevant whether the ratio of casual vs competitive players is 1:1, 3:2, 3:1 or anything else. It doesn't matter whether an apparent or an actual majority of Commander players prefer casual games.
Why?
Because Commander is neither casual nor competitive. It's social. And the social designation exists outside of the casual vs competitive continuum. The social design of the format is what allows players to play the kinds of games they like, whether those are casual battlecruiser games or competitive tournament/side event games.
And there's no good reason to dispose of that mechanism. I don't see any compelling argument for eschewing a design and philosophy that allows both demographics to enjoy the format as they like and instead focus solely on the enjoyment of one of those groups. Both groups exist, and both must be accounted for—regardless of whether the loudest voices on the internet favor a casual experience.
I'll give a different example, this time from the other perspective. I work, in some sense, in a regulatory field. My job is to build a framework that establishes the rules for how my company operates so that it complies with legal, regulatory, and other restrictions and requirements. Just because one department in my company is subject to very strict regulations doesn't mean that other departments need to follow the same rules; most regulations apply only if you handle a certain kind of data or perform a certain kind of business function. Units that handle credit card payments are subject to stricter requirements than those that just schedule information sessions.
How do we account for this in the framework? We establish a baseline: what is expected from every department regardless of the restrictions to which they are subject. The baseline creates a picture of what responsible and effective business operation looks like (e.g., lock the office after hours). Those departments that are subject to stricter requirements still have to comply with their regulatory obligations, and we work with those areas to help ensure they're compliant. We also expect that they'll need to adhere closest to the framework, and we care more about when they're noncompliant because they handle more important functions. The event schedulers wouldn't create a great deal of risk if they leave their office unlocked at night, but the medical clinics would. But we respect that the business has needs as a whole and use that as the starting point of the framework.
How does all of that apply to Commander?
The format rules are just a framework. They govern the expectations of all players. However, responsible format management must include an appreciation and recognition of the "stricter" environments in which Competitive players play. And, for that matter, of the freedom preferred by all players, including casual players. The house rule argument doesn't work for competitive players (in most cases).
Take, as my last example, my (and a sizable portion of the public') reaction to the tuck rule change that expanded how the command zone replacement effect works. I challenged the decision on the basis that it removed a critical tool from the game (and especially from blue, which has poor permanent removal to begin with) for bad reasons. Reasons like "people play more tutors because of tuck and we don't want that" (I've not heard of tuck being a primary reason to include tutors in a deck; tutors are outstanding for many other reasons, and the consistency they offer needs to stop being vilified). Or like "players are forced into blue and white because of tuck cards" (I've not seen any evidence to substantiate this claim, either. The format is extremely diverse, and, given the wide range of utility offered by blue and white, tuck effects can't reasonably be claimed to be solely or disproportionately responsible for players picking two of the better colors if they pick them at all).
I have higher expectations for the RC and the way they manage the format that so many of us love.
July 26, 2017 7:52 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #3
I do not like this idea, as EDH is supposed to be a casual format for the fans and by the fans, so WotC taking over the entire format would be tyrannical, in my mind. Yes, WotC did invent the game, but that does not mean that they can control formats that they did not invent, so I really hope that this incident is not the beginning of a trend.
July 26, 2017 10:39 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #4
Epochalyptik"... it's irrelevant whether the ratio of casual vs competitive players is 1:1, 3:2, 3:1 or anything else. It doesn't matter whether an apparent or an actual majority of Commander players prefer casual games."
Is it irrelevant though? If you were a President(or RC) and 2/10 people wanted X, and 8/10 people wanted Y; would you not do Y? You are, at the end of the day, there to please your people and make them happy with their country(format).
"Because Commander is neither casual nor competitive. It's social. And the social designation exists outside of the casual vs competitive continuum. "
So you are basically saying the EDH is a new, non-binary addition to the casual/competitive delineation?
I would argue that nearly all casual games are social ones, where few competitive ones are. Where in almost any casual setting such as the kitchen table or a "do you have a deck on you?" game at the LGS; its ok to go and ask "Hey, do you guys mind in I run this banned card in my deck?", or "Is it ok if I have a couple proxies in my deck?", or "Hey, do you want to play with powerful decks or slower ones?" you would probably not consider doing that in a competitive environment, be it at the LGS event, PTQ, or with your hyper competitive playtester buddies.
Which would lead me to believe that if 'Social' is indeed outside of both competitive and casual, it seems to be far more related to the casual side of things.
Besides, in its first iteration, having 40 life and an Elder Dragon as your commander has nothing to do with competitive, or social aspects, but the longer games with splashier expensive mana costed spells and flavorful commander requirements, has casual written all over it.
Thank you for elaborating on the analogy you made before, the in depth one I definitely got. The same rules apply to all, but are only being enforced on one populace. And that is basically what they are doing right now at the RC; "Here is a banned list(rules), but feel free to ignore it if your playgroup(are in a slack department) agrees". And as a competitive player(strict department), you are basically saying; "Those casual(slack department) guys keep doing dumb stuff like banning PoK(parking in the bosses spot), and now the format sucks(we have to park across the street rather than in the office parking lot). Am I right?
Which to a large degree is true, I agree. But it fails to acknowledge the number or competency discrepancy.
So to continue the above analogy: You and 20 other people work on the 4rth floor in the strict department doing something badass like workin the stock market, and you are good at it too! Down on the second floor are 100 plebs in the slack department(casual players), some of whom are both mentally and physically(skill or money) handicapped. And the breakroom(PoK) used to be on the third floor between the paper pushers on the 2nd floor and the money makers on the fourth floor. But it was more difficult(harder to deal with PoK) for those handicapped 2nd floor people to get up the stairs to that breakroom than it was for you smart, sexy, rich 4th floor guys to make it down the stairs. The 2nd floor guys wanted the Breakroom moved down to their floor(Ban Pok), and even though all 20 of the 4th floor guys said to leave it, there was still 40 of the 100 2nd floor people calling for it to be moved. And eventually enough people on the 2nd floor bitched and whined about it, that the boss(RC) appeased them and moved the breakroom down to the second floor(PoK got the ban-hammer).
I do see where you are coming from, and as much as I do agree with equality, I also believe in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
now for an anecdote.I used to be a much more competitive player back in the day, Id go to Cons and tournaments around my province, and Id do pretty good honestly. But I left magic for a couple years, and when I returned, I just played with friends or down at the LGS, and it was more for the social aspect of hanging out with people and playing games then going in with the hopes of placing and getting loot. But its really hard to back to casual once you have gone competitive. I like my decks to work as smoothly, reliably, and quickly as possible, and building sub-par decks both hurts my heart as a Johnny, but also as a once competitive player who knows how fast and good a deck should be in order to be good.
But I got way off topic there, sorry.
Point being, I continued to play competitive decks for a while even after I started playing in casual groups. And as much as I loved my Tucks, I hated to see the crestfallen look on my casual opponents face when they had to perma-lose their commander. Either because they didnt run colors for critter tutors, or they did not run a lot of tutors(or any). I agree with you 100% about the near need for tucks, and I loved and used them, but I also saw first hand too many times how difficult it could be for unprepared players to deal with it. And both you and I might have said "Well, now they know, get prepared!", but most people are not as into the game as us, they dont mod mtg sites(I used to), and they might only play once every couple of weeks, or longer. Maybe they dont remember to buy the cards next time they are at the LGS and then forget until next time it happens, or maybe they dont have the free cash to spend on a tutor suite for the deck they play once in a while. And maybe they just get pissed at the game, or lose interest because of some "unfun" cards that "Dont let you use your commander, who you always should, because thats the name of the format even!".
Personally, I dont care either way if WotC is running the show or the RC. Honestly they might as well make 2 ban lists, a competitive one and a casual one. Call one "EDH" and the other "Commander" and it would sorta be like Vintage and Legacy :P
July 27, 2017 1:02 a.m. Edited.
Winterblast says... #5
Epochalyptik and RoarMaster I'd like to throw in an anecdote that shows again why the banlist is only interesting for competitive players. Yesterday I played with some guys who don't show up frequently and one of them plays mono G Omnath (among other decks). They play casually, not by having less powerful decks in terms of speed, but by making absolutely ridiculous decisions that have no predictable outcome and most likely ruin the game for everyone. Now, the Omnath player gets Rofellos out on turn 2 and with 5 people on the table it was clear that if I can't remove this creature immediately, no one else would. I made the mistake to play control against these guys (even though I should know better by now) and my deck is tuned for a rather competitive meta in which aggro is no problem in most cases. Why? Because the most ridiculous green ramp creatures are banned at the moment. He said he plays Rofellos because no one complained before. Well, that's probably because winning is completely random in games with these people anyway, not beof their decks but because of how they play their decks. I told him that playing banned cards like that would require other players to reconsider their decks as well and that we could play a no-banlist-edh the next time if he insists on playing banned cards. Funnily enough, all of these guys agreed at first...I then pointed out that it would mean that the whole P9 would be included as well then. Suddenly the opinion wasn't one of "yeah, let me play Rofellos and primeval titan" anymore.
The point here is that the casual players have such a bad threat assessment that they literally do not care in their deckbuilding what possible actions the banlist allows and prevents, especially in the early game. They could all just play every card they want to spend money on and be happy with their choices, while I would have to exchange several cards in my deck, maybe even reconsider my whole gameplan if aggro was indeed a big thing. They on the other hand didn't even consider the cards that would be allowed in a no-banlist game except the ones they would play themselves. And everything out of their own budget wouldn't be seen as a potential threat either.
It's just anecdotal evidence but it further proves that casual players don't need a banlist and competitive players do (or there needs to be clear that the format has no banlist at all)
July 27, 2017 5:09 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #6
I think the arguments are fairly well summarized so far. The RC makes decisions for a Social setting, and suggests casual groups talk about the cards on the banlist (and cards like them.) Competitive environments don't get to do that, without lots of market research done in advance, and the more you tweak the official banlist the harder it is, as an LGS/TO, to get new people in the door.
I think the MTGO experiment did a pretty good job at gauging the interest of the community. With the outrage around taking away fast mana (as one example) and the number of people that said "I only play Paper anyway," I think people are pretty happy with the status quo. Despite decisions that aren't necessarily in line with what competitive players might want, competitive players still do their best with what they have.
Until someone takes their toys and goes to play somewhere else, ie develops and distributes a competitive banlist, I think this is what we have to work with, or hope the DCI can do a better job.
July 27, 2017 11:50 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
@RoarMaster: I still find the utilitarian argument diminished somewhat in light of a mechanism that could satisfy multiple needs without forcing you to favor one party to the exclusion of the other.
That mechanism is the playgroup, which is Commander's social aspect. And yes, social is not a point on the casual-competitive continuum. I go into more detail about that in my article, but suffice it to say that the social nature of Commander facilitates play at all points along the casual-competitive continuum because it allows players to choose the experience they want from among the many possible points on that continuum. One playgroup likes playing super casual games with a limit of five rares. Another likes playing with decks that are equivalent to preconstructed decks. A third says "anything goes, even if the rules don't say so," whereas a fourth says "do whatever you like, as long as you follow the letter of the law." Your playgroup's social contract facilitates a multitude of experiences; you just have to decide which one you (as a group) want for the current game. (One important note: in actuality, casualness and competitiveness are not necessarily linked to the quality of the decks being used; they're more accurately applied to characterize what it is that players value in a game, be it whimsical interactions and nonchalance about the outcome of the game [casual] or optimal plays and higher valuation of victory and performance [competitive]. For the sake of simplicity, I'll stick to the common idea that monetary investment in decks is roughly analogous or proportionate to personal investment in outcomes, but I wanted to clarify briefly this one point.)
You therefore misrepresent the nature of the format when you posit that it, in its infancy, was casual, yet not social. True enough, the battlecruiser approach to Magic is distinctly more casual than competitive, but, again, social is not a point on the casual-competitive continuum. Battlecruiser games are no more or less social than those games that end with a combo in five turns or fewer.
Regarding that lattermost point, it's interesting that you consider whether tournament games can be construed as social. Social play does not inherently require that you modify the foundational rules of the format. It means that you agree to a shared expectation of the games you play.
In a casual playgroup, or in a new playgroup, you may indeed be more likely to haggle over house rules and make compromises that diverge from the official baseline. But competitive groups have the same opportunity; that they appear less likely to modify the rules is not an indication that those groups are not bound by a social contract. Playing your banned card in a competitive playgroup that expects to follow the published rules is not fundamentally different from playing your optimized turn-3 Animar, Soul of Elements combo deck in a casual playgroup that would rather be casting Stormtide Leviathans. In either case, the issue is one of a violation of the social contract.
In a tournament, your participation is an implicit agreement to the rules established for that tournament and the valuation of the competitiveness promoted by its player ranking and prize support systems. You could just as easily choose not to participate in the tournament; oftentimes, you can instead have a more casual game with other non-participants.
I'll respond to your analogy by returning to my opening remark: the best way to manage the format is to acknowledge any valid criticisms raised by your constituents while still remaining true to the format's values. It might be that 100 pencil-pushing ninnies yell louder than 20 (or 21) aspiring new-money Manhattanites, but the company's owners should recognize that moving the break room from its current location is not a justifiable change once all arguments (including costs; let's not forget those) are considered. It is impossible to please everyone. Pleasing everyone is therefore not a worthwhile goal. Maintaining the integrity of your company, however, ranks quite favorably among worthwhile goals and should be pursued enthusiastically.
Applying that reasoning to the tuck change, I arrive now, as I did upon its announcement, at the conclusion that tuck is still a valuable and needed (although not strictly necessary) aspect of the game. Your experience playing competitive decks and tuck effects in casual playgroups that would rather that not happen is a violation of the social contract, the burden of which rests squarely on your shoulders. Some people may not care to face a certain card or mechanic, but the format needs to be managed with a keen sense for what is fair and how that may be different from what is liked (at least by certain players). That's why the social nature of the format is so appealing: it allows those individuals to work together to shape their games according to their shared vision.
As far as the feasibility of a multiple-banlist system (I'm opening my response here to include points raised by several other people), I think the most tenable solution would be to maintain a single banlist that more heavily favors openness and facilitates a balanced experience if followed completely. The RC (or WOTC, depending on how much more they subsume) could maybe go so far as to propose recommendations or guidelines to facilitate playgroup discussions about customization through the social contract. Put more generally: "the rules say X, but some players prefer games with Y instead; talk to your playgroup and discuss what would be best for you." Thus, you could create a baseline that respects both casual and competitive needs, but you could also actively encourage players to exercise control over the social contract where possible to create more enjoyable experiences for themselves.
I'll wrap this up by way of offering one more enhancement to the analogy in my previous post: the way my company promulgates a flexible framework is by actively encouraging departments to discuss their needs in a holistic, realistic manner. It's not about choosing not to follow a rule because you don't want to; it's about choosing not to follow a rule because you don't need to. It doesn't actually apply to anything you do, or it does something that another rule already covers in your particular case, or it would be unjustifiably prohibitive to your operations if followed. In any case, it's about the department considering the baseline (a baseline created with a company-wide perspective), considering its needs, and making an informed decision about what is in its best interests.
That's how Commander needs to be managed if it's to live up to the values set forth for it. The rules should create an open, judiciously balanced environment, and the philosophy should encourage players to explore and push the boundaries of that environment.
RoarMaster says... #1
EpochalyptikHaha, I guess I did say RC rather than WotC, that was a typing error on my part.
A lot of what you are saying is that I am basing my statements off of my own personal experience in my own playgroup(s). And that is not the case, or only to a small degree at least. Most of what I was saying comes from online evidence. Im on Commander.net, mtgsalvation, the WotC website, cardkingdom,edhrec,, and on here, and the vast majority of Commander content and decks are on the more casual side.
But as far as my personal experience goes, yes, of the 9 major groups Ive played with since EDH became a thing, they were all casual EDH settings.
As far as the "Playgroup of the world table", I guess you missed what I was meaning. I am not saying there is a group named this. I was saying that if the Commander format is self regulated by its players, then all the players of the world are the governing body, or at least what the RC should be aiming to please. The majority of their players. Which are casual.
Are you really saying that the majority of EDH players are competitive EDH players? Because that is a really hard sell man.
From its very conception, with high cost flavorful Elder Dragons as Commanders(A very non-competitive way to go), to its very success due to spreading like wildfire through kitchen table games around the world, to it being pushed as a casual format by the owners of the game, its entire history up to and including today, point to a massively tilted scale in the favor of it being a casual format rather than competitive.
Scientifically, we can draw conclusions based on the variety of information we have available. And almost exclusively, that information points to casual over competitive. Yes, without some binary polling bs we cannot ascertain with 100% accuracy if its a fact or not, so its just a 'theory'. But like the 'theory' of gravity or evolution, we are damn sure its true due to the overwhelming evidence to support it.
As for entering a new playgroup and knowingly running banned cards(Primetime), obviously you would probably remove them before entering the groups game. Im not really sure where this analogy of yours was going honestly though, and I think Im missing the point a bit. Not sure exactly what you are getting at.
July 26, 2017 2:42 a.m.