This conversation couldn’t have been uploaded at a better time. This morning a prolific cEDH event organizer announced that they would be testing their own ban list specifically for their events
I disagree that casual players will never look at a ban list because a lot of the times, casual players look towards thaf as a way to keep casual games fair. I do agree that signpost banning does not work well though.
The truth is that "casual players" are a very wide and diverse group with a vast spectrum of casualness that they occupy. I think only the very most casual of casual players don't follow the ban list. I'd bet almost every commander player follows the ban list.
They only do so because the list is tiny and old: the key point is that if you're a new commander player (a.k.a. where the biggest pool of casual commander players come from) You're likely to look at commander basically through a universes beyond release. After that you might look at synergistic cards and products for your cool 'Insert-Beyond-Property' precon deck and then might get exited about the new precons on the upcoming expansion. At no point are you likely to open up *ANY* booster that might contain Golos or Coalition Victory. You'll get pretty much 100% commander legal cards on any expansion that has significant shelf presence and enough buzz to capture the attention of a casual player. If you actually have to keep up with ban lists much in the way other Constructed format players do, it pretty much would make most casual players *leave EDH altogether* instead of consulting a huge list or actually working for a while in finding replacement or alternatives to banned cards.
@@dimitriidthen you put leovold in your deck, because it’s from conspiracy, a cool multiplayer-focused set, and you find out the hard way that it’s banned when you go to your lgs for commander night. It happens all the time.
My friend who wants to build commander decks is constantly sending me ideas with cards and I have to consistently say "yeah but X is banned". He NEVER looks for what's banned. "It's a casual format".
@@solbradguy7628 how many casual groups allow decks that are made according to the rc banlist and not made according to their own rules? my understanding of casual groups is that they do not follow the rc banlist and instead have their own way of determining deck legality. the vast majority have a custom banlist which usually includes certain strict bans like thoracle consult and some soft bans on stuff like mana crypt. competitive edh players are pretty much the only ones that truly play edh according to the rules.
As someone on a budget I'm in favor of a ban list. But not a rotation. The main reason I don't play Standard or Modern is because then I'd be forced into buying cards every so often when my deck "rotated out." That was ridiculous to me. So Commander.
@@jordangreen8309 I'd rather play a dead format with 75 proxies at the back of a gas station bathroom than play any amount of commander lmao. Garbage format for weenies
Minor disagreement: saying that politics reduces the "skill" involved begs the question of what's meant by skill. Politics, I would argue, is a skill, and a gameplay skill, no less than knowing how to tweak your land-spell ratio or when to take a good mulligan. Knowing how opponents will respond to your actions is a skill, it's just not a skill that most players come to the table looking to hone or utilize with Magic the Gathering.
I see your point. I think the issue is that it makes outside of the game interactions more important than game actions, because of the multiple attack targets. This is probably worth its own episode.
We’re in the middle of a tcg renaissance right now with so many new card games coming out. Heck Bandai alone released like 4 games this year alone. It’s shocking to me they’re all 1v1 games. No company has looked at commander and said, we should make a tcg designed from the ground up for casual 4-player free-for-all. Something like a Smash Bros tcg. Build a deck around Mario or link or Kirby and then smash against a group. A game built with many of these design principles in mind and a popular IP would jest be free money
I think this is a good idea, and I'm sure you were joking about it being free money cause plenty of new tcgs have not done the best money wise. And many licensed games are weighed down by having to pay for the ip and then they need enough sales and design space to keep going. Star wars destiny is my favorite card game but despite sales being very good(to my knowledge) it still got axed. I think finding long lasting success in tcgs is pretty tough seeing as there have been plenty of old tcgs that didn't do well while magic yugioh and pokemon have stood the test of time, which remains to be seen about many of the new tcgs coming out
You guys have FORT up there so I assume you're at least aware of OATH. When Oath came out I basically stopped playing Commander for a year or so because it scratched the same itch. It would be interesting to hear your guys' thoughts on Oath because it has some interesting approaches to these problems. One player starts from a default position of strength relative to the other players, so everyone has somewhat of a default target - that player is literally the standing king. Player interaction is largely limited by player pawns having to be in the same "space" to interact and moving around the space has costs. The bystander effect is reduced because win conditions themselves have to be sought out *and* fought over. If you sit around accumulating resources you may have no win conditions to spend them on. The game does lean into king making and politics and has its own negative features, but considering it in conversation with commander is very interesting.
I am convinced that most commander players would actually benefit from playing more board games INSTEAD of commander because they offer a similar itch and are *better designed* at multiplayer FFA gameplay.
@@brianmattei7134 for people who are interested in thinking deeply about magic and table top game experiences, yeah, playing other games is essential. I do think Magic has a corner on its huge card pool that commander players draw on before playing a game. Oath does something similar-ish with its own deep card pool, but players don't get to express themselves through it outside of play. What's interesting about magic and commander is that while it's not a perfect game or format, it's kind of what we're stuck with if you find pleasure in the 30 year card pool. I think most commander players do enjoy that aspect of the game.
Board games are great, I love them. an advantage magic has over them that makes it very appealing is player customization you bring in and everyone always knowing the rules of magic (except for some key words here and there) I'm sure we have all had board game nights where people don't want to learn a new game especially rules heavy ones. So board games have less buy in for players but they have a variable learning curve. Mtg has an assumed no learning curve for commander players who already know the basic mechanics to play the game but many players have already bought in so they want to use the game pieces they like, identify with, and own. I think some board games can simulate a customer start by having characters you can pick even if they have no or minor mechanics linked to them, but again more initial brain bandwidth needed for new players.over all very interesting design comparison
@@Flamewolf14 agreed, when thinking about how to "fix" commander by creating a new and more intentionally designed game it's almost impossible to overcome the powerful resource that is 30+ years of cards and community investment/maintenance. I love OATH but part of that is the game shipped with ~200 unique cards to play with over the course of many games. This is a huge amount of design work that is very risky for a studio to attempt and it still doesn't even approach the size of MtG. Theres also no comparison with the fact that I can go to multiple LGS in my area and play commander but (afaik) zero stores where I can meet strangers to play Oath.
I honestly thought that where this was going was that by the end, we were going to lower everyone to 20 life and then eliminate the Commander and the 3rd and 4th players.
Multiplayer Standard Brawl ought to have been way more successful than it was. The problem is they tried to pitch this to EDH and Standard players when they should have been pitching it to regular drafters that aren't interested in competitive Standard. If you draft every week, building a Brawl deck is basically free. What a great way to have casual fun with your draft leftovers! And it rotates, which can allow people to play with as strong of decks as they want probably without things being too busted. I've been thinking about this since i got into drafting regularly this year with Bloomburrow. I think I will try making a video about it and see if I can't get any traction for it at my LGS.
I like the idea of throwing out the Monarch at turn one. My first thought is "The player who goes last becomes the Monarch at the start of their first turn" (actually it was "becomes the Monarch at the start of the game but cannot lose the Monarch until the second round of play", but this was a more elegant way to get that effect) I feel like the "Allegiance to [Plane]" idea definitely requires a lot of player lore/set knowledge. Like, to take the Ravnica example, would it just be cards from Ravnica sets? Does that mean players have to check their cards for all... however many set symbols that covers? What about characters from Ravnica who had cards printed in other sets (or vice versa)? What about a reprint of a Ravnica card, or a generic card that got a reprint in Ravnica? Do I only trigger Allegiance if I run the version of Solemn Simulacrum printed in a Ravnica set, or can I run any version if a card was printed in a Ravnica set as well? I feel like it's a good idea if frontloaded into a new game but would be hard to backfill into a thirty-year-old game... a comment I wrote immediately before hearing the closing statement of the video....
that Allegiance idea doesn't really refer to a quality that black border cards have ever cared about, but they could always make like a goofy playtest card with that idea
This video is the first of your channel that I’ve seen, and I’m glad that I found it. I’ve been working on a free-for-all deck building battler since May of 2023 can’t wait to analyze my games performance against these issues
Commander Player here for over 5 years. I want to analyze the points you’ve made. Not trying to boast, but for what it’s worth here’s what I base my expertise in commander on: I’ve built over 100 commander decks and played roughly 1,920 games of commander. I win 70% of my games at every power level from unmodified precon to high power casual (and a small amount of CEDH). In most of my decks I don’t even run Sol Ring, but I win purely through psychology, understanding the politics at a given table, and building synergistic decks. Here is my analysis of your points: 1. You are correct that inaction (or the bystander effect) is rewarded. Sandbagging while other players blood feud is one of the best ways to win games. 2. The life point total should probably be 30 instead of 20. The reason 20 is too low because you can conceivably have three players take a turn and bludgeon you to death before you get a real chance to do anything about it. Coincidentally, 30 is the life total used for Commander Legends Draft at most of the events I’ve gone to. The problem with 40 life is that it effectively makes power and toughness overcosted on creatures. This is why Generous Gift giving away a 3/3 feels so meaningless. Combat has to matter or value strategies and infinite combos reign supreme. 3. You say guns isn’t viable, but I would argue Guns exist in a different way in commander. Flooding the board with threats is the aggro/gun. Pantlaza, Jodah, the First Sliver, Etali P. Conqueror, and Kaalia are examples of this. Boardstates in a can. 4. One for one interaction is actually some of the strongest things in the game if used and politicked correctly. Many times I’ve persuaded players to swing elsewhere or leave me alone simply by threatening or even showing a piece of interaction.
The fact that all of the "aggro" cards you actually list are 5+ mana sort of proves that no, Aggro absolutely isn't real. All of these cards are payoffs for a successful defensive or eco start. The only exception is arguably something like Slicer or that Beserker from AssCreed, but they're probably both too expensive. They'd probably need to start at 1-2 and get bigger with or cheat the command tax to threaten kills before degenerate greed piles can get comfortable, which is what Aggro actually is.
“Guns” wasn’t elaborated on much in this video but we’re referring to interaction with opponents being suboptimal to advancing your own board. If you spend a card removing another players card the two other players benefit without spending any resources which is a net negative for you. Your point about using 1 for 1 interaction as a deterrent is good and likely the best use for it, however if all players are playing optimally they aren’t attempting to win the game until they have enough resources(or a combo w/protection) to kill the table through interaction. This is why counterspells are effectively the only 1 for 1 interaction cEDH plays. It stops others and protects your win.
Isshin does that as a three cost commander. I’ve gotten turn 5-6 kills before and I’m not running anything that high powered. Turns out 1 drop, 2 drop, Isshin can snowball really quick, especially when backed up by board protection effects.
@@FlyingNinjaish 5 mana cards don’t come out on turn 5. Jeweled lotus, sol ring, mana crypt, and the legal moxen exist. In the power level below that, farseek, rampant growth, and arcane signet exist. I don’t think I could convince you, but “5 mana cards” come out turn 1-3 all the time. Anyone who plays regularly at a LGS has seen this. Not trying to argue.
@@distractionmakersI understand and you bring up a good point: advancing one’s board instead of removing a threat seems far more “plus EV” on paper because you don’t piss someone off and you put yourself ahead. However, the problem with running only gas (i.e. cards that advance your board state) is that opponents will sometimes outrace you to their finish line. This is where interaction is so incredibly powerful. If they invest multiple cards ramping out a threat or setting up a combo, a single piece of instant speed interaction can ruin their plans. At that point, a savvy political player can paint themselves as the “savior of the table” whereas the opponent is “the guy who almost comboed out and won.” Often the table will then gang up on the player who tried to pop off. I like to call this “veto power”. Yes, it comes at an opportunity cost of having less gas, but if deployed judiciously and when absolutely necessary it is nothing short of devastating. Think of it this way: Each player is a time bomb and when their timer reaches zero, they win the game. You may have a timer that’s faster than mine, but if I have the ability to reset your “win timer” by removing or countering your win condition, then you will never beat me. In fact, you will help me win because I can point to you and tell the other players “We need to team up against him because his win timer is almost at zero!” Meanwhile, I have the contingency to stop you in my hand if no one else does.
In my MtG set which includes a few commander cards, I made a mechanic called “Revive.” It’s built in as a game rule. If you die in a multiplayer game of commander, you sit out 1 turn cycle for each time you died, so 1 cycle the first time. Then you start over with a basic land from your library in play for each time you died. Some cards have a listed mechanic “Revive” e.g. “Revive with a 4/4 green Beast token in play” or “Revive (Whatever.)” This all tested pretty well. What this does is help deal with the elimination problem in multiplayer commander. Games that take hours should not have player elimination. If you want to win with Revive, you need to kill everyone so everyone’s waiting to Revive and sitting out a turn cycle increases that window and getting the extra land compensates for the lost turns. This won’t do anything against decks that win by meeting a condition e.g. Thassa’s Oracle but that card shouldn’t be in the format imo and Revive lets players tune their decks to better deal those strategies while having a built in buffer against regular killing off player(s).
I waited to watch the full video but its funny how you mentioned that wotc hasnt tried making their own commander (brawl during eldraine) but also mentioned bringing commander's life total down to 25 (the ammount in brawl) and trying to powercreep the game to get players to use new cards (arcane signet was so popular the original brawl paperdecks were sold out everywhere, ignoring korvold) or introducing rotation (the original point of brawl, which is now called standard brawl) Some people did bring up its 1v1 but i swear brawl or historic brawl was originally 4 player and 30 life, but any old pages talking about the format seem to have been nuked.
Also please don't take this as a reason to make a new vid lol, I love hearing about game design and would love to hear about not commander too, maybe I'm one of the few. Would love to hear about how to make a good deck builder, that's something I've always wanted to make.
More hard-restriction driven Companion cards is a great idea! If the cards specify “commander” or “if you have 2 or more opponents” somehow to avoid messing with other formats, that would be ideal
I've never met a single person who considers "signpost bannings" Anyone who actually considers the banlist thinks, "if this specific card isn't banned, I'm using it"
doubling life totals doesn't eliminate Rush strategy, it just changes it to 'Rush' for your combo instead of Rush to deal damage. Turbo Naus is a "Rush' strategy
There’s a fundamental difference. Traditional rush plays cards that do almost nothing besides beat your opponent. This is why they mulligan worse than decks that play quality cards. mono-red burn is the key example. Combo centric rush on the other hand can play most of the best economy and defense cards while winning with a tight a+b combo. If you are attempting to build resources as quickly as possible to overwhelm, you are still an economy strategy.
@@distractionmakers Well in that case, the thing that ruins a Rush strategy is the Singleton nature of the format, making redundancy impossible. If rush is defined as: mono red having all cards that deal 3 damage, or mill having all cards that mill X cards, there just aren't enough cards to fill up a deck to fit your definition of 'Rush' due to only allowing 1 copy per card. Whereas if you could make a deck with 40 combo piece A, 40 combo piece B, and 20 land, I think that WOULD fit your definition of rush, if A and B do little else but pair with each other for a win. It's just that in commander, you have to fill in the redundancy of rush with tutor effects, not to get ahead on resources like Econ, not to prevent losing like Defense, but instead to win the game. To me, that's rush. Using all your available resources for a quick A+B combo HAS to be defined as rush, since definitionally, you are NOT trying to win later like Econ is, nor are you trying to stop someone else from winning like defense is.
Paulo Vitor has a great article from years ago that explains the difference between quality and quantity cards and the play patterns each creates. For me, 40 life and 2 more opponents is the real issue. There are tons of effects that roughly deal 3 damage, the problem is they need to deal 6 to 3 opponents to even be considered close to the output they have in 20 life formats.
@@distractionmakersYou are ofcourse entitled to your own preferences, but commander was designed to eliminate rush strategies like mono red aggro. So why play commander or try to change it, if you would be going directly against its design philosophy? Why not play a different fornat that is designed to accomodate for rush? The non viability isnt a flaw or a side effect of the 40 life, its what makes edh the most popular format and tcg game by a landslide
Pushing rules that incentivizes certain game actions like swinging or gaining monarch just changes commander into a swingfest and the widest boards will just have the advantage. Adding these rules encourage players to change their decks towards taking the most advantage of attacking players and shuts off decks that want to do other routes like spellcasting, blink and pillowforting. I dont believe forcing mechanics like those will create a fun experience for current commander players
All rules push play in a particular direction. We’re discussing ideas to push play towards fulfilling the promise of commander as a casual game. These are our opinions and design philosophies, others might do things differently.
Made a fun format with friends: Budget Vintage Brawl (BVB) So it's a brawl deck (60cards, 20 life) meant for ffa where the only card restriction is cards under 2$ I just love how broken cards ban themselves and taking a card out isn't a feelsbad as it got resell value. The format can be fast and agro is very viable, people are encouraged to be proactive since life totals are lower.
This would be a huge change to the game as a whole, but adding some kind of rules-viable information to the card to say what plane it's from would be a great for a variety of reasons. The ability to build up flavorful subsets of the larger game (that can still expand over time) could be a great middleground for casual and less-casual players to live in together. Right now they can't do "Allegiance to Ravnica" AFAIK because there's just no way to determine if a card is Ravnica or not. The Specific set symbols? Do you need original printings? What about Ravnica commander sets? Supplementary set cards *set* in Ravnica, but not from a Ravnica set? Honestly I'd like a solution to this just to know what cards come from what plane.
I’m 7 minutes in and after seeing “go back to 20 life and don’t have a commander” I have a sneaking suspicion you guys are just going to finish with “and this new format will be 60 cards, 1v1, with up to 4 cards in each deck” 🤣
I do enjoy eternal formats just because of how easy it is to walk away, come back and play. Sure I may not have the best cards but the deck still worked in the past so I’m still good to just replace cards slowly
Thr idea of a Commander game designed with Commanders in mind is interesting as someone who used to play thr Japanese card game "Force of Will" which ive described to friends as "Japanese Magic" You have a Commander type character that starts off to the side, but theyre all double sided cards. You can tap either side to play a land (lands are separated into their own 10 card deck), some Rulers had powerful front side abilities that required a tap (meaning you effectively miss a land drop to play early), or you could pay a cost (usually equivalent to creature casting, but sometimes heavily discounted or only available if certain requirements were met) and then the card enters play on its reverse side. IDK if its worth delving into the game at this point (i think its fully dead) but the first set was intriguing enough i think if someone wanted to design a commander game its worth looking at (fwiw this was a 20 life 1v1 BO3 game)
The limiting commanders or decks to a single plane idea is so interesting me, I've been using it to build my Commander decks for a while now. I win less, but have more fun.
Is commander a heavy economy meta, or is it the player base (thinking more casually) that prefers the economy strategies? Some people I play with hate infinite, but my argument is that infinite combos are the natural progression of Izzet rush decks to counter these faster Econ strategies. To me the community seems to police more towards Econ as the acceptable strategy For context, I’m talking a non CEDH, but strong EDH version of Stella Lee vs Ur-Dragon for example
Gavin, a Coalition Victory win has never been easier to achieve. Between Tri Color lands with 3 different basic land types and a plethora of 5C commanders, it's pretty trivial.
I’m not sure I see the problem. Is this stronger than Thassa’s oracle + consult? At least your progression towards winning with coalition is known information on the board.
@distractionmakers I'm not saying I think it's a problem in the grand scheme of things, especially in the context of Thoracle victories being legal in the format. I just believe that if we are taking the signpost banning philosophy in good faith (I know you said you disagree with it here), then the ease of which a Coalition Victory can be achieved in '24 shouldn't be downplayed. If the argument when CV was banned is that it creates an uneventful gamestate, that's even less of a game now. I know you said it was outdated, and that's probably right, and perhaps it was uncharitable for me to assume you weren't getting the full picture of the card. I have heard a couple content creators sort of miss the mark on this card. I have heard the rules committee speak on what they believe is the necessity and function of the signpost ban and how it's even more relevant in the 2024 product avalanche. So if they don't signpost ban, they either need a 1000 card banlist or to constantly monitor power creep, and update the signpost figure of that strategy. Any thoughts on another model of ban? Big fan of the channel btw.
@@distractionmakersIt is the exact opposite thoough. To win with thassas oracles requires either to "fairly" draw your whole deck (very telegraphed) or to combo with e.g demonic consultation (very deliberate power level) Coalition victory wins out of nowhere when someone only had their commander on board. The actual problem with CV is not its power level, but how it interacts with the play experience. Even the winning out of nowhere part is not the problem. The problem with CV is that if player A wins a game with CV. In the next game players B, C and D will now be foreced to permanently and proactively destroy all of player A's lands and/or kill & counter their commander on sight, even if the other players are themselves also playing powerful permanents, because the could theoretically lose if player A happens to maybe draw CV. Player A would never get to play the game anymore and players B, C and D are forced to play in this way. CV looks fun and janky but forces a game patern where all players must not allow the one who plays CV in their deck to have absolutely any agency. That is why CV is so problematic as a card for a social setting.
The difference in problematicness between thassas oracle and coalition victory is not even close. CV is a way way way more problematic card in commander.
12:00 the Smash Bros item argument is not that good because if there is a skill differential, oftentimes the player with better game knowledge takes better advantage of items. This makes a snowball effect, especially with items that control the whole stage, making sure that the player can use even more items while their opponents suffer.
Casual doesn't mean imbalanced. Casual players are more likely to want cancerous cards banned. People keep conflating casual with "anything goes" and that's just silly.
No it’s not a casual game by definition is focused on EXPERIENCE instead of the OUTCOME. So limiting the card pool only decreases possible experiences which is against the spirit of casual.
@@jamesgreenwood1703 That's false. Try again. That's not what casual means. And even given your silly definition, many cards make for a bad EXPERIENCE that many casual players would not like to play against. Casual doesn't mean "all experiences including the bad ones". Use your damned brain.
@@Cybertech134 We're in the middle of a massive community wide reckoning about what casual means, and the fact it hasn't been an open and shut checking of the official definition rather proves you wrong, I figure. And besides, the word's not so important. You and the other commenter both want the game to "casual" it would seem, but you don't agree on what that entails (a nebulous concept?). If, rather than focusing on what casual means, you just focus on what you mean it to mean, you can have an actual conversation beyond "nuh-uh". "Commander would be better if it used bannings to lower the power level of the format to be more approachable for less experienced/competitive players" vs "Commander would be better if it focused on being a completely open structure to explore Magic as a system or experience with one's full, uninhibited creativity." That's gonna be more fruitful than arguing over what a single word means. And come on man, grow up? About disagreeing over a word? You could call me out for the immaturity of my cursing or whatever, but me proposing that language is too complex and subjective to pin down objective definition to words isn't, like, sophomoric.
The "Allegiance to Ravnica" example is a really interesting idea. Not sure there's a way to actually make something like that work in EDH, but that would be an interesting design choice for a different game/game variant of Magic that had adequate rules made for it, though I don't think they could retroactively apply those rules to old cards. That said, it would solve the "eternal card pool" problem, so that's another plus to that idea.
the allegiance to x idea reminds me of riot's card game, lor, which is essentially their version of the colour pie, which i think is implemented very well there. would be interesting to see how it would work here
I think something similar to competitive Pokémon (not the tcg) could be useful. They have everything in tiers based on usage, so every team is within a tier, and construction is about moneyballing and finding unpopular choices whose strength is undervalued within the tier. Probably wouldn’t work as well in Magic since a 100 card deck is very different than a 6 Pokémon team, and data collection is much harder. But it could be a starting point.
You got around to the point I was waiting for at the end of the video and then stepped around all of it. The current financial state of WotC and MtG is built solely on the backs of commander players, 60-70% of which play an extremely open, pseudo-casual version of the game, 15-20% play a weird "let's just see what this deck can do" with off the wall deckbuilding ideas, and the remainder play some form of high-power casual/cEDH. Putting any restrictions on this format will almost certainly negatively impact the monetary viability of MtG in the short term at least, though if it impacts enough players then it will likely shift those players to one of the ever-growing competitors who are openly embracing formats and Metas that lean into casual or are built around casual gameplay. WotC has shown us, just this past month, that all of this is factually accurate. Their statement "explaining" Nadu and how they actively think about Commander and commander players when creating a set was the latest example. It's a Modern set why would the focus at all be on Commander? Commander players have found ways to adopt/adapt cards not intended for the format since the beginning of the format because it's not something they ever considered would gain popularity. But the truth is that EDH is extremely popular and moves a LOT of product. I don't think EDH needs to be revamped or reformatted, even though a lot of your points make sense. I'd argue that EDH works and is as popular as it is because of how it mirrors a really inventive tabletop RPG. Absolutely, the GM can be as stringent and set in his ways on following the story that he's crafted, those are the worst games to play. The best are the ones that allow the players a LOT of freedom in crafting the experience and ultimately filling in the meat of the story that the GM outlined. The use of the triangle of decks Control-Aggro-Combo or Speed-Interaction-Power, has to morph when you're forced to play multiple players. No two games are the same, and even four players, playing the same decks, back to back to back aren't going to have the same outcomes, ESPECIALLY at the casual to semi-casual level. There are just too many variables in a 100 card singleton format. Keeping EDH (Casual) as close to it's original design and allowing for Rule Zero conversations to guide each individual game, in my opinion, is in the best interest of this format. I do think, cEDH needs to officially recognized by WotC/MtG, renamed, and moved into it's own place within the world world of competitive Magic. There needs to be an official ban list for this format that doesn't have those glaring exclusions like you've pointed out. The end product needs to reference and "feel" like EDH but anything competitive needs more rules. There has to firmer control. The current format feels a lot like going to run a marathon but the organizers allowing people to jump into cabs to the finish line or take a completely different path with the only caveat being, "You've gotta run the first five paces and the last five paces, oh, and that's not us saying it that's the independent marathon committee (who have no actual power) saying it." Will this ever happen? I don't think. I think it would significantly decrease revenue and probably alienate a lot of players. I think the one question that needs to be answered before you even consider why Commander being different is a necessary, is why does it need to be necessary. For the most part, casual commander players don't have a problem with the format itself because it allows for a self-policing, Rule Zero method to guide each game and each pod. Often the loudest critics of Commander are the people who don't play it, and think it's killing the format because of things like Nadu and that the format isn't officially recognized but is one of the reasons the power creep in each set continues unchecked. Commander players are going to play with the cards that come out, they'll find a way to keep them viable. That's literally the original intent of the format besides it being a way to include relational interactions between players. I'm not sure how pigeonholing a fan-made format makes sense over WotC "sacking up" and creating their own officially sanctioned multi-player format. It seems really disingenuous to turn your cash cow that propped up the company for quite some time into a heavy-handed format that barely recognizes what it once was.
16:45 In my experience commander does not encourage ”complete inaction”. When I do nothing I get slaughtered by people doing things. Are y’all saying y’all don’t play to the board, don’t interact with opponents, and still win games?
What we’re saying is if you’re reacting you’re losing. If you spend your resources stopping 1 opponent you and that player are behind the other two who have done nothing. Spend your resources advancing yourself towards a win as much as possible and react only when you absolutely have to.
i play planechase and archenemy (the format) a lot, i also find sol ring to be a thing that helps keep the format in check via making someone the archenemy (the person at the table)
God yes. It's also why there's so much grumbling about cEDH vs casual EDH vs low power EDH vs various power levels vs win by turn X vs... All of those things should be formats, not rule zero conversation fodder. Commander is a separate game using Magic the Gathering cards like meeples. It's a game repurposed from the carcass of another, but being treated like it's a subset of that game. The reason you don't hear about high power vs low power standard is because you can just find the format you want whose deck restrictions get you the right power level.
Everything just being economy is kinda the entire point tho. Cedh being only combo and casual bring only ramp and recourse collection is by design. The 8th card is also by design. Instead of running out of cards because of magics draw 1 play 2 cards per turn pattern, you now always have a card in your hand, even on turn 15. Kingmaking also is never inherently a problem because it is caused by an abundance of player agency.
I feel like the "eternal" argument just needs a more aggressive ban list and no more cards that reference the term commander or command zone. At the very least you could suspend cards and be like rhystic study is suspended you can't play it for the next year. So not a permanent rotation but a temporary one.
i think that if commander had a type 2 style standard rotating card pool it would be really interesting, but I dont think that there would be enough stuff for diverse decks to be made, like would anyone play sheoldred still if wheels didnt exist, in a 40 life format.
I disagree with the assertion that aggression is strictly negative because it draws attention and makes you spend resources. Any player above a completely beginner level identifies when an opponent is making too much "butter" and the table typically agrees they need to be reigned in. Hell, most players just count how many cards are on the field to determine who to target.
Some good ideas here. I think positive reinforcement is always better than negative, or having a ridiculous banlist. Would love to see old cards in the daylight again, maybe through some form of game incentive.
I agree. I think the canlander points system is a good start. You can play them, but there is a deck building cost. It would also be a shorthand for power level.
People have a warped perspective of brawl because of arena. No version of brawl on arena is actually brawl. Brawl is supposed to be a 4-player, standard legal only, 60-card, 30 life, highlander format with either a standard legal legendary creature or planeswalker as the commander. It’s almost unrecognizable what arena has warped it into
This came out right after I decided to finally bite the bullet and try out Commander for a bit. 😂 Mostly to try to incept 60 card casual into my LGS, but still.
A couple of thoughts. 1. I actually didn't know that Keyforge was still around. Interesting game, I actually really enjoy it but it seemed like no one else locally could get beyond not being able to deck build so sadly it completely died it out years ago here. So now I wonder what I've missed out on the last few years of not paying attention to it. 2. Planechase is interesting for anyone who hasn't tried it before. Our local group has a few people with planechase cards (including myself) and we do occasionally add it to our commander games. It does make the games interesting but the randomness can be super swingy so not necessarily a perfect solution for Commander's inherent issues. Edit: will also agree that the current ban list is the worst of two worlds. It doesn't balance the format and a fair number of things are banned that made sense many years ago and currently make no sense due to power creep and the format developing. Also, I just do not agree with removing "banned as a commander" as a concept, especially since it existed for years as part of the game.
An potential implementation of the "allegiance" mechanic, that rewards a limit in deckbuilding, like playing a bigger deck, one with only cheap permanents or one with only one permanent type, would be the "universally loved" companion mechanic. It truly is the best solution, rewarding unique deck restrictions with a card your always have access to, and everybody loved this. Also, those banlists are indeed giving off the wrong vibe, One of the easiest ways to improve your deck is to take a look at he legacy and vintage banlists, and if they are commander legal, and are not devalued because of how commander works, you shove them in your deck. Do I know why time twister, demonic tutor and necropotence are good cards? no idea. Do they win games? yes
I agree with your final statement: Commander cannot evolve to the degree that its main issues can be fixed. It will remain a flawed system. The only way to fix it is to create a successor, which people are working on both in their home games and on larger scales. That being said, I think among the majority of Commander players, Commander still works "well enough". I doubt the majority are interested in exploring new, innovative formats that aim to improve the Commander experience, at least at this time. I think we're still very much in the early days of this gradual evolution.
I'm the type of person that plays an RTS game and just turtles and builds my little town and doesn't really enjoy getting attacked until I'm ready. That certainly makes me quite a bad competitive RTS player and it's a genre I don't play much because of that. But I've always really enjoyed building my little town and then eventually defending it from my friends. Commander actually hits that spot for me currently. I think it's important to remember when designing a game inspired by commander that there are non-competitive players in your potential player base, and that a huge strength of commander is simultaneously supporting both competitive and non-competitive players. I think it's also much easier to design for competitive players and a lot of game design wisdom will lead you towards supporting that type of playstyle.
Therea types of games made for you. Lornsword for example. Or even just the singleplayer campaigns or specific scenarios in others rts. Or, and this is the big or, you drop the real time part of strategy and go to grand strategy like dominions or heroes of might and magic or old world etc. Turn based. The problem is if you make an rts into a competitve city builder you'll essentially slow it down to the point of killing it.
I'm in that same boat. While I do have a few aggro push the pace decks. I have the most fun building up my board state and "managing" the game or board state. One of my favorites is based on getting an indestructible creature that I can redirect damage to. Then win through non combat damage. Essentially building an impenetrable wall that isn't threatening to anyone. Until I play my win con and it's to late.
Commander doesn't do what you said. It does not simultaneously support anything. It's a feckless ruleset that pushes the responsibilities onto the players to finish designing it. If a card isn't banned, it's legal. If your playgroup decides to ban a card that isn't otherwise banned, you aren't playing the same format anymore. You're playing something that is very nearly but not quite Commander, and that's fine, but why call it Commander?
@@fastpuppy2000 I think you said it, Commander is half designed. And it is on us, the players, to finish designing it. cEDH, PrEDH, Pauper EDH, Planar EDH like the video mentioned, there are so many ways for us to play Commander. They just need to be popularized.
@@shorewall Then we need to stop praising Commander as a format. It's not flexible; it's unfinished. It's not a boon to the casuals that they can walk up to a table with competitive players; it's a source of bad beats. Not to say you think any of that, but I often feel like Commander players could buy a car without an engine and then describe that experience as a cool chance to have a car that really fits your vibes, when really, they just got fleeced into buying an unfinished car. Also, framing cEDH and prEDH and all the rest as variants of the same format is like saying Pauper is a subformat of Legacy (which, sure, but that's silly, so we don't say that). All of those are unrelated formats being played in a game called Commander that uses the bones of Magic to alternate ends.
The 'allegiance to Ravnica' idea is interesting. There was a period of time wizards tried 'set matters' card, I'm thinking City in a Bottle and Apocalypse Chime. I'd be interested to see cards that explore this idea more and not just as format hate cards.
So insta win combo has replaced aggro in commander. The way to stop those is interaction. Economy loses to insta win but beats defense. Defense beats insta win with interaction. Insta win beats Economy because wins before the value has been achieved. Now cedh is not the only place for insta win. Cedh is just super optimized versions of regular strategies. Cedh defense is stax. Cedh Economy exists but all the decks have some form of insta win, it's just when does the deck expect to pull it off and how does it plan to get there. So an Economy strategy in cedh is all about seeing the most cards because the game is played on the stack not the field. The fast combo decks instead play specific early game combos that they find by tutoring. Also aggro decks in cedh do exists there's tribal decks like elves, merfolk, and others. Timmy and tribal decks exist in casual edh and weenie decks are tokens instead of 2/2s for 1 mana and 3/2s for 2 mana.
Imo, I feel like if the idea is "if Commander was made today", a lot of the ideas suggested here seems off, but certainly something open for discussion. I would say that's true both for some new game or even just "what if new mtg format". Like, imo to every point - 8th card problem: I feel like this in particular comes down to a question of "what do we mean by a new version of Commander?" What would we feel is important to keep in a newer game? Is it just "multiplayer tcg"? Is the sort of "leader card" that important? I say this because if the idea was to keep a sort of leader card, I feel like at some point you'd just be forced to embrace the issue and sorta work around it. It's not entirely infeasible; Yu-Gi-Oh has their extra deck, which has some restrictions but is otherwise fully available at all times. - Card pool: This is also a subject where I think there's sorta an easy spot to disagree with. I think you could argue some sort of rotation would help such a game, but unless you specifically do a rotation, I don't think there's really room to say that the card pool needs to be shrunken in a causal setting. Magic is just in a unique position where it's so old where you can have these cards that are very different in design goals or whatnot Like, in my eyes, while I understand the idea of "these cards aren't designed for Commander, they shouldn't be in this format", I don't think that's necessarily different from what makes Modern, Pioneer, and Legacy different formats or why those three formats might exist separately to each other. There's likely plenty of Legacy cards or Modern cards that could also be argued as "not designed for this format" for Pioneer. I also kinda feel like if it's argued as it's own new game that sorta card pools wouldn't necessarily be a starting issue. Again, the problem is just how long mtg has been around and moreso that there are cards not designed for Commander - Banlist: I think most would agree that the banlist needs more curating and has problems (moreso with a lack of bans especially to cards very similar to the "signpost banned" cards), but i feel like the idea of "a causal format shouldn't need bans", I feel like that wouldn't necessarily be true unless the card pool was low. I feel like trying to say "this game is casual" probably only works for so long before you get a small dedicated group tries to play competitively regardless. And at that point, you kinda either have to ban stuff yourself, or they will ban stuff amongst themselves, or whatever, but you probably will end up with a ban list in some capacity (or the game would stay rather niche). I think a discussion could be on who should run that ban list (some community group of the game desgner), but then there's also the consideration of how some might see the designer seemingly not "doing enough" if something got too out of hand (unless you had some aggressive rotation) and you rely on the community to make the ban list for you - Some benefit to to plane focused cards: I think the problem here is pretty obvious: they already tried doing stuff based on sets (cards like City in a Bottle), and the problem is just Magic as a game doesn't care a ton about this. A newer game might be able to try something like this, but Magic just can't the way it's developed over time. And even if they wanted to design stuff that way, they probably would run into an issue of "either you can't add new planes, or you gotta rotate planes, or you get planes that may or may not get enough support". Because we might see this for an individual set (Idk, a commander for face down cards), and even there the problem becomes that it's likely the mechanic is so narrow that it might be 5-10 years before your deck gets new cards. And sure, power creep is talked about negatively, but people do like to at least get "new toys". Even if you keep to only a few planes, you kinda have to avoid, say issues that a game like cardfight vanguard had of needing a ton of product just to support them all I feel like a lot of the other points made could be argued over, but are more sound. Like with the discussion of kingmaking, there's sorta a discussion of "how much of solving the bystander problem makes this less of an issue". Or with the idea of whether adding more randomness (like planechase or keyforge) fits within the intended design of the game
I think the points system like canlan would be ideal for casual edh to do a power scale talk that isn’t the arbitrary 1-10 everyone not playing cedh builds 7s by default and budget doesn’t always reflect power but you could argue the higher the budget the stronger the individual cards are in a vacuum or how many staples are in the deck but I’ve seen 50$ decks shame 500+ but I agree the ban list is more of indication of cards that are strong and to emulate and it needs to be stricter Or there has to be a defining system of what is acceptable power level of cards in the casual sphere.
Also thinking about the banned list, it’s always been a debate and point of contention among commander players. Maybe it’s a messaging or language people? Maybe if a banned was framed differently people would react to it differently. A banned list is something used to limit power at a tournament level, but commander isn’t a tournament format. What about a Commander Hall of Fame? Like these are the most powerful cards in the game. The most notorious. These cards shouldn’t be played in pick-up games. But if the players decide to play with a Hall of Fame game in advance that’s ok. Essentially it’s just a banned list, but frames the cards not at forbidden, but as earning their spot in retirement. Retired athletes don’t play professionally anymore, but still play for exhibition.
The farewell hate is a bit silly. Reading board states and playing around board wipes is a journeyman magic player skill. If someone is sandbagging their board state, that's a red flag. If someone is holding up certain mana, that's a red flag. Picking up on these things is a skill people should develope. And as board wipes have gotten better, protection has also gotten better. You talk like Tef-Pro is the only answer, and it is one of the best answers. But there are several more affordable options. In mono-white alone there is Clever Concealment ($14), Perch Protection ($2), Aven Interrupter ($3.5), Guardian of faith ($5.5), and Galadriel's Dismissal ($8). The fact that most of these cards are a year or two old means that WotC is aware that effects that counter farewell and cyclonic rift are in demand, and there will undoubtedly be more effects like these released in future sets.
Codex card time strategy's FFA rules: The game ends instantly when someone dies Whoever has the most life wins You get mana for doing damage You may spend mana to heal You may block for other players.
I want to say that the commander ban list isn't a problem. Because I read it once, and immediately understood the reasoning and could then identify cards I likely shouldn't play. But, my play group is an example of why that's not true. They play any and every card not on the ban list, using the ban list as an excuse for why they should be able to play those cards, despite me showing clear evidence for why those cards are problematic for the format and our own games
It’s because the CRC is inconsistent and unfortunately are kinda hamstringed by wotc to not ban a bunch of cards. The problem with the pre-game talk as a solution is what you’re experiencing. I’m like your friends, if it’s not on the ban list, it’s fair game so long as we’re in agreement as to which power level we’re playing. So the CRC would tell you to keep trying yo convince your friends, I’m suggesting you fight fire with fire. Show them why not following the spirit of the ban list is a problem. Chances are though, they’ll relish that you joined them in their tactics. So, you may inadvertently start an arms races.
Definitely going to have to disagree with casual players not caring about banlists. Casual players are MORE likely to complain about powerful cards and are very quick to say no to cards that are on ban lists. If anything casual play IS the area that needs the more comprehensive ban list because casual players usually dont look at things fairly, so the environment needs to be set up more fairly from the start, woth of course rule 0 always being an option for whoever wants to ignore such a banlist
Depending on your play group (kitchen table) you could do a proxy commander. I'm working on a custom warhammer 40k cube with very few cards. As long as they all agree, then it's all good
I'm curious as to what gives you guys the confidence to be critical of WOTC while also being contracted to do art for them. Are you worried about the youtube hurting your chances at employment from Wizards? Or are you confident enough that the art directors aren't married to the game design aspect? Just curious because I admire your bravery to be objective toward a company that has given you work.
I wanted to write a more thought out and nuanced comment but I keep getting sidetracked by ADHD I think you've correctly identified a lot of incentives and resulting behaviours in the Commander format, but I'd question how many can actually be called "problems." Which isn't an attempt to put the format beyond critique, just my attempt to posit that the critiques are more valuable when they come from people who love the game, and that maybe trying to "fix," a game that you don't enjoy to begin with is a bad exercise for a designer to take up? Leaving room to acknowledge that the point is not to "fix" commander as much as to gesture to other designs and ideas and that there are valid reasons for a designer to engage with designs and games they dislike. If you're unfamiliar I highly recommend the videos of The Trinket Mage and Salubrious Snail on EDH as it's clear they each love the format dearly and have substantive gripes with it. (As do I)
Yeah our goal isn’t to fix commander and we mentioned that at the beginning of the video. We tried to make it clear this is about things we’re considering while making our own games.
I really hate Catan. Its supposedly a competitive game, but It has TOO much randomness for the game to be enjoyable in my opinion. Munchking is similar in that way. You can aquire resources without taking other players optunities to aquire resources (except on the ocasional cases where you steal a item from somebody).
@@Joker22593It is a skill for sure. Not one I think fits into a area control game. Not for me and my group. We consider Catan unplayable because the randomness in aquiring resources.
Laughs in Longest Road and Largest Army. Roll better. lol I agree it’s not competitive, but from you is the first I’m hearing the idea of it being competitive.
@@maximillianhallett3055 By competitive I mean in contrast to being a co-op game. Board games are eigher competitive or co-op, or a abomination in between.
I'd say they should simply stop printing to the format, but holy hell WotC is too far gone with that. They just really needed to stay in their lane and focus on draft/standard experiences that "oops this is good in other formats" happens NOT AS PART OF INTENTIONAL DESIGN. Any time they print into any other format, it gets worse. Granted, older cards still exist, so it's really more a way to try to remedy power creep. Also, the rules committee being in bed with WotC doesn't help, either...so bannings, forced design, etc. At the end of the day having groups that understand collectively how strong their circle is and are okay with that kinda remedies most problems. The separation of kitchen table funtimes and lgs power struggles needs to be understood too. I have an online group that we occasionally play an adjusted form of commander, with card limits(Mirrodin and before only, certain cards gaining partner but with heavy limitations, etc.) and honestly It's been some of the most fun I've had. Granted, I get more satisfaction with deckbuilding than anything else...but I digress. These days for casual I just make decks I think are neat and wacky that have enough removal to stop the decks trying to curb stomp. I don't gotta win all the time, but I at least keep the metalworkers in check.
This BECAUSE commander has made traditional aggro basically impossible. Your only non-combo option to play aggro in commander is Infect - and that only barely. Even halving life totals (20 each, rather than 40) means the aggro deck needs to carve through 60 health to win. It would shake up the format as we know it. The other part of that - which I have given some serious thought to - is that in the vast majority of playgroups, people have created an unwritten contract in which you're basically not allowed to try to win the game before turn 5 or so. Thanks to this near obliteration of aggro's strength, both systematically and socially, cEDH has become the only place that aggro is acceptable. And combo became the aggressive wincon in cEDH because every other option was basically erased from the list.
Not really there is aggro commanders out there. Things like Isshin or various voltron commanders. Yes burn aggro doesn’t exist but creature aggro does.
I think the 1 plane only idea is EXTREMELY untenable. A lot of planes have barely any cards, a lot have many many cards. The plane of origin isn't marked on cards, and frankly, I don't know it for 90% of the cards I play. I made a ban list for my friends and I to use. It's been a good guidepost. Its a type of rule 0 conversation to make your own ban list. I think the purpose of the ban list is to avoid bad interactions in pickup games at game stores. And cEDH cards are allowed in commander mostly because cEDH players self-segregate from casual players. Something like Coalition victory gets banned because its easy for that to show up in a casual pod and win out of nowhere, whereas, if you put Thassa's Oracle, Demonic Consultation in your deck, you know what you're doing. There's also the alternative fan format: Conquest, which has 30 life and a real ban list. Overall, I think y'all had a tough time staying on topic in this video and it ended up being very bog standard complaints about the format. I don't think this came across as lessons to be learned from commander for new games for most of the video.
I really enjoy listening to you guys and the perspective you bring from your experiences. However, the more I feel you haven't experienced enough of commander to see how these things are handled in a casual setting, as opposed to ones filled with only aiming to win or an arms race to the top. Find groups and metas outside of that, and play a bunch of commander there. I'd also say to not take the banned list as seriously as the word implies. The players are largely left to police themselves. Unless you for some reason really don't understand why you've taken 20 damage by having Tiamat/Krenko/Kinnan/Jodah as your commander by the time you cast it, that's the action of push back from the group at work. I haven't seen a Voja Jaws of the Conclave in a long while because those players get knocked off the table. In this way, we balance the game. There is also the social aspect, where perhaps you bring a roster of very good decks that usually dominate might leave you wanting for opponents in a casual setting.
If some cards get policed out of the format, why have them legal? If your answer is that different tables will have different tolerances, why not create a multitude of formats so that you can play at specific power levels with a well defined set of rules? Don't take up for lazy game design that asks the players to finish the game instead of the designers. You deserve better. And of course people aim to win. If you don't want to play to win, remove winning. Why does the game have an end point defined by competition if it's not meant to be competitive? It's because you are trying to bend the game rules out of shape towards unintended ends. These guys know what they're talking about. You deserve a game that is ACTUALLY designed for what you want.
@@fastpuppy2000 Cards remain legal because it's not a format spanning thing. It's down to the group involved, or the people in your LGS, and so on. If one group is fine with say Voja Jaws of the Conclave, then have fun with it! Because part of the social aspect of commander is having a conversation about at least what thee decks do, or going in and experiencing it. If you find it too powerful or less powerful, things can change for next game, no waiting for a patch or DLC. Winning can be secondary. I always play to win, but I also play to see what happens that's cool or if my card selection does what I want. Commander is eternal so I get to keep going. This was the game of Magic I always wanted, ever since I played 60 kitchen table. I'd always have a creature be the "leader" in my decks, so it was a natural evolution for me to start playing EDH at the time.
@@Aaron-l3l6g It’s all a loop, friend. WotC made EV so low, no one will open Sealed, resulting in obscene singles prices. Resulting in additional financial burden driving players out of constructed 60-card, and often into the Safe(r) Singleton Harbor of EDH. Causing WotC to target Commander players as the largest playerbase. Requiring players to purchase playsets of cards that will be 55$ during prerelease is a murderously sheer barrier to players trying to move into serious engagement w/ a 60-card format, and add to that rotation woes in some cases. It’s all on WotC greed. Right now, they could print the greatest Modern and Standard cards of all time and not cause a bump in player recruitment/retention, because cost.
Potentially hot take: Commander took off because it makes for the most accessible video content, not because it has the best gameplay. You can be "bad at Magic" and still totally enjoy and appreciate a lively Commander video from Game Knights or StarCity; that bar is a lot higher for a streamed Modern or Standard match, no matter how engaging the players are.
Casual Commander is in a perpetual economy meta because all of the other strategies are far outclassed by the economy-centric decks, which leads to incredibly similar gameplay that is just barely different enough for most players to enjoy. Its really just a slog of midrange soup followed by a board wipe, rebuild, board wipe, rinse and repeat until someohow someone wins with combat damage or the pod is too tired to continue the loop. Not to mention that the community at large has essentially agreed that combo decks are not to be played, and any player who chooses to play an interactive strategy is not letting the people at the table to "do their thing" and should be reprimanded for it.
So agree. The economy system exists because people whine about how too much solitaire is problematic, but also how too much interaction is also problematic. If people actually built decks to solve those problems instead of shunning the play pattern. The game would be healthier
@@jamesgreenwood1703My answer to the complaining from my friends about my control deck was building Omnath Locus of Rage. I played it twice and they haven’t complained about my Vadrik deck since. Commander is best, imo, when all 5 colors are present in a pod, and the pod has at least one control deck and one aggro deck, with two differing midrange decks.
Personally i dislike the "anti-prison" route MtG is taking. They are trying to print flashy cards, but some colors just arent meant for it. They are moving away from protection anthems, pillowfort enchantments and stax. They are trying to print more and more interesting "Everything blows Up!" Versus more "I dont think so". Let me have my Solitary Confinement, my Avacyn Angel of Hope, and my Previledged Position. Not everything must in Red and Blue playstyle. Black Reanimator is chocking to death from all those Finality Counters. Let me recycle my creatures, god dammit
How do you define casual? For me it’s “players of differing skill levels being able to have compelling games” rush, econ, or defense can still exist in that context.
@@distractionmakers Absolutely a fair question! (And waring for the wall of text) I disassociate casual from concepts such as fun since those are wholly subjective, but it is funny that you mention compelling games as a definition. I would define casual as the abscence of a necessity to optimize once play or deck construction in order to participate meaningfully. Rush conflicts with this definition because it aims to defeat the opponent before they get to enact or even deploy their game plan. Rush can achieve this by deploying more powerful effects early at the cost of sustainability or by praying on the natural deck inconsistency of non rush decks. (Examples of natural deck inconsistency: mana screw, mana flooding, drawing late game cards early, or not drawing earlygame/meaningful interaction early.) (^This is not just about bad deck construction, because even the best tournament decks can, by the virtue of drawing random cards, draw the most terrible of opening hands.) Rush forces the opponent to remove higher cmc, clunkier, cumelative and more narrow effects from their deck because those cards dont just do nothing, they activly take up deck and draw space for cards that could have combatted rush. It is not about rush being to powerful, but that the best way to beat rush is to trim and optimize once deck. Running more things such as removal requires a lower curve to cast that removal. This in turb requires more draw to acces that removal and once own gameplan. Which in turn causes the gameplan to become more concise since there are less deck slots for it. While other strategies can also require specific deck restraints on their opponent, the often allow their opponent the time and agency to draw into them alongside their own game plan. Rush aims to win before their opponent gets to do their thing, its optimal game is a game in which their opponent has had as little agency as possible and has taken as few actions as possible. Else the rush deck itself loses any agency, because it cannot compete in the lategame. An anecdotal example from1vs1 60card MTGarena e would be that I have almost never seen the conclusion of a game between mono red aggro and blue white control. It almost always leads to a concede from one side around turn 4. Because either the control player knows that they are dead in 2 turns with no outs, or the red aggro deck knows it will die in the next 8 turns since it no longer has the reach. In a similar way, this necessity of optimalisation is why almost all cedh decks come down to tutoring/mass drawing to find a combo line, but it works in competitive, because the optimalisation is the express goal, as opposed to casual. Feel free to ask for any clarification if something does make sense
@@isvitdap Seems like at least some of that would depend on how aggressively the faster deck is focused in on its rush strategy, relative to how focused the deck or decks it's up against are focused on theirs. You might end up with a situation where some higher cmc cards or clunkier cards have to go, but not necessarily to the extent that the player can't still afford to prioritize other things over optimization. It could also potentially depend on how many players there are. The rush strategy may have to make compromises if it's a multiplayer game, and cut some early threats in favor of some kind of back up if the game goes longer. I'm not sure how workable "the absence of a necessity to optimize one's play or deck construction in order to participate meaningfully" is as a definition of casual, at least if you're after an objective measure. That also seems somewhat subjective. What constitutes meaningful participation, objectively? When is it a necessity to optimize, and how far does that necessity extend? How much difference in power level between decks are you allowing for?
The "problem" with the plane limitation is: Me and my friend do it in our commander decks. But as a rule its has something that are not easy to clearly define. For example: Mirrodin / New Phyrexia. War of the Sparks wirh the Amonkhet army invading Ravnica. And now withe the paths that allow non planeswalkers from every plane to visit any other plane. How do you put in the rules wich card belongs to wich plane?
This conversation couldn’t have been uploaded at a better time. This morning a prolific cEDH event organizer announced that they would be testing their own ban list specifically for their events
They should do this because after the late Sheldon departed us, God have him, the committee is a joke.
@TheZombieGrunt which organizer? If you have a link to the announcement I’d like to read it, thanks
Which cEDH event organizer? Topdeck?
Yep it's Topdeck
Topdeck gg yeah. Cedh tv has a video already about it.
I disagree that casual players will never look at a ban list because a lot of the times, casual players look towards thaf as a way to keep casual games fair. I do agree that signpost banning does not work well though.
The truth is that "casual players" are a very wide and diverse group with a vast spectrum of casualness that they occupy. I think only the very most casual of casual players don't follow the ban list. I'd bet almost every commander player follows the ban list.
They only do so because the list is tiny and old: the key point is that if you're a new commander player (a.k.a. where the biggest pool of casual commander players come from) You're likely to look at commander basically through a universes beyond release.
After that you might look at synergistic cards and products for your cool 'Insert-Beyond-Property' precon deck and then might get exited about the new precons on the upcoming expansion.
At no point are you likely to open up *ANY* booster that might contain Golos or Coalition Victory. You'll get pretty much 100% commander legal cards on any expansion that has significant shelf presence and enough buzz to capture the attention of a casual player.
If you actually have to keep up with ban lists much in the way other Constructed format players do, it pretty much would make most casual players *leave EDH altogether* instead of consulting a huge list or actually working for a while in finding replacement or alternatives to banned cards.
@@dimitriidthen you put leovold in your deck, because it’s from conspiracy, a cool multiplayer-focused set, and you find out the hard way that it’s banned when you go to your lgs for commander night. It happens all the time.
My friend who wants to build commander decks is constantly sending me ideas with cards and I have to consistently say "yeah but X is banned". He NEVER looks for what's banned. "It's a casual format".
@@solbradguy7628 how many casual groups allow decks that are made according to the rc banlist and not made according to their own rules? my understanding of casual groups is that they do not follow the rc banlist and instead have their own way of determining deck legality. the vast majority have a custom banlist which usually includes certain strict bans like thoracle consult and some soft bans on stuff like mana crypt. competitive edh players are pretty much the only ones that truly play edh according to the rules.
As someone on a budget I'm in favor of a ban list. But not a rotation.
The main reason I don't play Standard or Modern is because then I'd be forced into buying cards every so often when my deck "rotated out." That was ridiculous to me.
So Commander.
EXACTLY.
Just play the best format: vintage
@@alexspeedwagon3701 lol vintage is dead. Commander is multi-player vintage. I'd rather play 1v1 commander than vintage
@@jordangreen8309 I'd rather play a dead format with 75 proxies at the back of a gas station bathroom than play any amount of commander lmao. Garbage format for weenies
Modern doesn’t rotate and Pioneer is an additional 60-card non-rotation format. Pioneer just begins its available sets with Return to Ravnica onward.
Minor disagreement: saying that politics reduces the "skill" involved begs the question of what's meant by skill. Politics, I would argue, is a skill, and a gameplay skill, no less than knowing how to tweak your land-spell ratio or when to take a good mulligan. Knowing how opponents will respond to your actions is a skill, it's just not a skill that most players come to the table looking to hone or utilize with Magic the Gathering.
I see your point. I think the issue is that it makes outside of the game interactions more important than game actions, because of the multiple attack targets. This is probably worth its own episode.
We’re in the middle of a tcg renaissance right now with so many new card games coming out. Heck Bandai alone released like 4 games this year alone.
It’s shocking to me they’re all 1v1 games. No company has looked at commander and said, we should make a tcg designed from the ground up for casual 4-player free-for-all. Something like a Smash Bros tcg. Build a deck around Mario or link or Kirby and then smash against a group. A game built with many of these design principles in mind and a popular IP would jest be free money
I think this is a good idea, and I'm sure you were joking about it being free money cause plenty of new tcgs have not done the best money wise.
And many licensed games are weighed down by having to pay for the ip and then they need enough sales and design space to keep going. Star wars destiny is my favorite card game but despite sales being very good(to my knowledge) it still got axed.
I think finding long lasting success in tcgs is pretty tough seeing as there have been plenty of old tcgs that didn't do well while magic yugioh and pokemon have stood the test of time, which remains to be seen about many of the new tcgs coming out
Just like WotC Distraction Makers has also tailored all their content for Commander.
Depressingly, much like in magic, commander is where the money is at on youtube
The bloomburrow commander party that just happened has some fun effects like you are talking about. It just made the games SO FAST.
I simply can't believe how many episodes in which the vampire game has come up and yall have NEVER bothered to learn the name
Hahaha 😂
I always assume that this is an in-joke/oblique reference to the fact that the game in question had to change its name halfway through its existence.
You guys have FORT up there so I assume you're at least aware of OATH. When Oath came out I basically stopped playing Commander for a year or so because it scratched the same itch.
It would be interesting to hear your guys' thoughts on Oath because it has some interesting approaches to these problems. One player starts from a default position of strength relative to the other players, so everyone has somewhat of a default target - that player is literally the standing king. Player interaction is largely limited by player pawns having to be in the same "space" to interact and moving around the space has costs. The bystander effect is reduced because win conditions themselves have to be sought out *and* fought over. If you sit around accumulating resources you may have no win conditions to spend them on.
The game does lean into king making and politics and has its own negative features, but considering it in conversation with commander is very interesting.
I am convinced that most commander players would actually benefit from playing more board games INSTEAD of commander because they offer a similar itch and are *better designed* at multiplayer FFA gameplay.
@@brianmattei7134 for people who are interested in thinking deeply about magic and table top game experiences, yeah, playing other games is essential.
I do think Magic has a corner on its huge card pool that commander players draw on before playing a game. Oath does something similar-ish with its own deep card pool, but players don't get to express themselves through it outside of play.
What's interesting about magic and commander is that while it's not a perfect game or format, it's kind of what we're stuck with if you find pleasure in the 30 year card pool. I think most commander players do enjoy that aspect of the game.
@@Crodobizglesgonna plug Inis again as well as Oath for this itch
Board games are great, I love them.
an advantage magic has over them that makes it very appealing is player customization you bring in and everyone always knowing the rules of magic (except for some key words here and there) I'm sure we have all had board game nights where people don't want to learn a new game especially rules heavy ones.
So board games have less buy in for players but they have a variable learning curve. Mtg has an assumed no learning curve for commander players who already know the basic mechanics to play the game but many players have already bought in so they want to use the game pieces they like, identify with, and own. I think some board games can simulate a customer start by having characters you can pick even if they have no or minor mechanics linked to them, but again more initial brain bandwidth needed for new players.over all very interesting design comparison
@@Flamewolf14 agreed, when thinking about how to "fix" commander by creating a new and more intentionally designed game it's almost impossible to overcome the powerful resource that is 30+ years of cards and community investment/maintenance.
I love OATH but part of that is the game shipped with ~200 unique cards to play with over the course of many games. This is a huge amount of design work that is very risky for a studio to attempt and it still doesn't even approach the size of MtG.
Theres also no comparison with the fact that I can go to multiple LGS in my area and play commander but (afaik) zero stores where I can meet strangers to play Oath.
I honestly thought that where this was going was that by the end, we were going to lower everyone to 20 life and then eliminate the Commander and the 3rd and 4th players.
Multiplayer Standard Brawl ought to have been way more successful than it was. The problem is they tried to pitch this to EDH and Standard players when they should have been pitching it to regular drafters that aren't interested in competitive Standard. If you draft every week, building a Brawl deck is basically free. What a great way to have casual fun with your draft leftovers! And it rotates, which can allow people to play with as strong of decks as they want probably without things being too busted.
I've been thinking about this since i got into drafting regularly this year with Bloomburrow. I think I will try making a video about it and see if I can't get any traction for it at my LGS.
I feel people should try Canadian highlander and duel Commander if people are having issues with regular commander.
I like the idea of throwing out the Monarch at turn one. My first thought is "The player who goes last becomes the Monarch at the start of their first turn" (actually it was "becomes the Monarch at the start of the game but cannot lose the Monarch until the second round of play", but this was a more elegant way to get that effect)
I feel like the "Allegiance to [Plane]" idea definitely requires a lot of player lore/set knowledge. Like, to take the Ravnica example, would it just be cards from Ravnica sets? Does that mean players have to check their cards for all... however many set symbols that covers? What about characters from Ravnica who had cards printed in other sets (or vice versa)? What about a reprint of a Ravnica card, or a generic card that got a reprint in Ravnica? Do I only trigger Allegiance if I run the version of Solemn Simulacrum printed in a Ravnica set, or can I run any version if a card was printed in a Ravnica set as well? I feel like it's a good idea if frontloaded into a new game but would be hard to backfill into a thirty-year-old game... a comment I wrote immediately before hearing the closing statement of the video....
that Allegiance idea doesn't really refer to a quality that black border cards have ever cared about, but they could always make like a goofy playtest card with that idea
This video is the first of your channel that I’ve seen, and I’m glad that I found it. I’ve been working on a free-for-all deck building battler since May of 2023 can’t wait to analyze my games performance against these issues
Commander Player here for over 5 years. I want to analyze the points you’ve made. Not trying to boast, but for what it’s worth here’s what I base my expertise in commander on: I’ve built over 100 commander decks and played roughly 1,920 games of commander. I win 70% of my games at every power level from unmodified precon to high power casual (and a small amount of CEDH). In most of my decks I don’t even run Sol Ring, but I win purely through psychology, understanding the politics at a given table, and building synergistic decks.
Here is my analysis of your points:
1. You are correct that inaction (or the bystander effect) is rewarded. Sandbagging while other players blood feud is one of the best ways to win games.
2. The life point total should probably be 30 instead of 20. The reason 20 is too low because you can conceivably have three players take a turn and bludgeon you to death before you get a real chance to do anything about it.
Coincidentally, 30 is the life total used for Commander Legends Draft at most of the events I’ve gone to. The problem with 40 life is that it effectively makes power and toughness overcosted on creatures. This is why Generous Gift giving away a 3/3 feels so meaningless.
Combat has to matter or value strategies and infinite combos reign supreme.
3. You say guns isn’t viable, but I would argue Guns exist in a different way in commander. Flooding the board with threats is the aggro/gun. Pantlaza, Jodah, the First Sliver, Etali P. Conqueror, and Kaalia are examples of this. Boardstates in a can.
4. One for one interaction is actually some of the strongest things in the game if used and politicked correctly. Many times I’ve persuaded players to swing elsewhere or leave me alone simply by threatening or even showing a piece of interaction.
The fact that all of the "aggro" cards you actually list are 5+ mana sort of proves that no, Aggro absolutely isn't real. All of these cards are payoffs for a successful defensive or eco start.
The only exception is arguably something like Slicer or that Beserker from AssCreed, but they're probably both too expensive. They'd probably need to start at 1-2 and get bigger with or cheat the command tax to threaten kills before degenerate greed piles can get comfortable, which is what Aggro actually is.
“Guns” wasn’t elaborated on much in this video but we’re referring to interaction with opponents being suboptimal to advancing your own board. If you spend a card removing another players card the two other players benefit without spending any resources which is a net negative for you.
Your point about using 1 for 1 interaction as a deterrent is good and likely the best use for it, however if all players are playing optimally they aren’t attempting to win the game until they have enough resources(or a combo w/protection) to kill the table through interaction. This is why counterspells are effectively the only 1 for 1 interaction cEDH plays. It stops others and protects your win.
Isshin does that as a three cost commander. I’ve gotten turn 5-6 kills before and I’m not running anything that high powered. Turns out 1 drop, 2
drop, Isshin can snowball really quick, especially when backed up by board protection effects.
@@FlyingNinjaish 5 mana cards don’t come out on turn 5. Jeweled lotus, sol ring, mana crypt, and the legal moxen exist. In the power level below that, farseek, rampant growth, and arcane signet exist.
I don’t think I could convince you, but “5 mana cards” come out turn 1-3 all the time. Anyone who plays regularly at a LGS has seen this.
Not trying to argue.
@@distractionmakersI understand and you bring up a good point: advancing one’s board instead of removing a threat seems far more “plus EV” on paper because you don’t piss someone off and you put yourself ahead.
However, the problem with running only gas (i.e. cards that advance your board state) is that opponents will sometimes outrace you to their finish line. This is where interaction is so incredibly powerful. If they invest multiple cards ramping out a threat or setting up a combo, a single piece of instant speed interaction can ruin their plans. At that point, a savvy political player can paint themselves as the “savior of the table” whereas the opponent is “the guy who almost comboed out and won.” Often the table will then gang up on the player who tried to pop off.
I like to call this “veto power”. Yes, it comes at an opportunity cost of having less gas, but if deployed judiciously and when absolutely necessary it is nothing short of devastating.
Think of it this way: Each player is a time bomb and when their timer reaches zero, they win the game. You may have a timer that’s faster than mine, but if I have the ability to reset your “win timer” by removing or countering your win condition, then you will never beat me. In fact, you will help me win because I can point to you and tell the other players “We need to team up against him because his win timer is almost at zero!” Meanwhile, I have the contingency to stop you in my hand if no one else does.
This channel has by far become one of my favorites not just about game design.
In my MtG set which includes a few commander cards, I made a mechanic called “Revive.” It’s built in as a game rule. If you die in a multiplayer game of commander, you sit out 1 turn cycle for each time you died, so 1 cycle the first time. Then you start over with a basic land from your library in play for each time you died. Some cards have a listed mechanic “Revive” e.g. “Revive with a 4/4 green Beast token in play” or “Revive (Whatever.)” This all tested pretty well.
What this does is help deal with the elimination problem in multiplayer commander. Games that take hours should not have player elimination. If you want to win with Revive, you need to kill everyone so everyone’s waiting to Revive and sitting out a turn cycle increases that window and getting the extra land compensates for the lost turns.
This won’t do anything against decks that win by meeting a condition e.g. Thassa’s Oracle but that card shouldn’t be in the format imo and Revive lets players tune their decks to better deal those strategies while having a built in buffer against regular killing off player(s).
So you'd also win by being the only player currently in play?
Yeah
I waited to watch the full video but its funny how you mentioned that wotc hasnt tried making their own commander (brawl during eldraine) but also mentioned bringing commander's life total down to 25 (the ammount in brawl) and trying to powercreep the game to get players to use new cards (arcane signet was so popular the original brawl paperdecks were sold out everywhere, ignoring korvold) or introducing rotation (the original point of brawl, which is now called standard brawl)
Some people did bring up its 1v1 but i swear brawl or historic brawl was originally 4 player and 30 life, but any old pages talking about the format seem to have been nuked.
Also please don't take this as a reason to make a new vid lol, I love hearing about game design and would love to hear about not commander too, maybe I'm one of the few.
Would love to hear about how to make a good deck builder, that's something I've always wanted to make.
Commander incentivises inaction, and yet, literally every Commander game I've ever played has been a very active game.
More hard-restriction driven Companion cards is a great idea! If the cards specify “commander” or “if you have 2 or more opponents” somehow to avoid messing with other formats, that would be ideal
I've never met a single person who considers "signpost bannings"
Anyone who actually considers the banlist thinks, "if this specific card isn't banned, I'm using it"
doubling life totals doesn't eliminate Rush strategy, it just changes it to 'Rush' for your combo instead of Rush to deal damage. Turbo Naus is a "Rush' strategy
There’s a fundamental difference. Traditional rush plays cards that do almost nothing besides beat your opponent. This is why they mulligan worse than decks that play quality cards. mono-red burn is the key example. Combo centric rush on the other hand can play most of the best economy and defense cards while winning with a tight a+b combo. If you are attempting to build resources as quickly as possible to overwhelm, you are still an economy strategy.
@@distractionmakers Well in that case, the thing that ruins a Rush strategy is the Singleton nature of the format, making redundancy impossible. If rush is defined as: mono red having all cards that deal 3 damage, or mill having all cards that mill X cards, there just aren't enough cards to fill up a deck to fit your definition of 'Rush' due to only allowing 1 copy per card.
Whereas if you could make a deck with 40 combo piece A, 40 combo piece B, and 20 land, I think that WOULD fit your definition of rush, if A and B do little else but pair with each other for a win.
It's just that in commander, you have to fill in the redundancy of rush with tutor effects, not to get ahead on resources like Econ, not to prevent losing like Defense, but instead to win the game. To me, that's rush. Using all your available resources for a quick A+B combo HAS to be defined as rush, since definitionally, you are NOT trying to win later like Econ is, nor are you trying to stop someone else from winning like defense is.
Paulo Vitor has a great article from years ago that explains the difference between quality and quantity cards and the play patterns each creates. For me, 40 life and 2 more opponents is the real issue. There are tons of effects that roughly deal 3 damage, the problem is they need to deal 6 to 3 opponents to even be considered close to the output they have in 20 life formats.
@@distractionmakersYou are ofcourse entitled to your own preferences, but commander was designed to eliminate rush strategies like mono red aggro. So why play commander or try to change it, if you would be going directly against its design philosophy? Why not play a different fornat that is designed to accomodate for rush?
The non viability isnt a flaw or a side effect of the 40 life, its what makes edh the most popular format and tcg game by a landslide
@@lunaazalaria4816 because a lot of people have the attitude of, "don't tell me what to do, cunt"
Pushing rules that incentivizes certain game actions like swinging or gaining monarch just changes commander into a swingfest and the widest boards will just have the advantage.
Adding these rules encourage players to change their decks towards taking the most advantage of attacking players and shuts off decks that want to do other routes like spellcasting, blink and pillowforting.
I dont believe forcing mechanics like those will create a fun experience for current commander players
All rules push play in a particular direction. We’re discussing ideas to push play towards fulfilling the promise of commander as a casual game. These are our opinions and design philosophies, others might do things differently.
Made a fun format with friends: Budget Vintage Brawl (BVB)
So it's a brawl deck (60cards, 20 life) meant for ffa where the only card restriction is cards under 2$
I just love how broken cards ban themselves and taking a card out isn't a feelsbad as it got resell value. The format can be fast and agro is very viable, people are encouraged to be proactive since life totals are lower.
I like the idea of commanders with deckbuilding restrictions like companions.
Could also have been titled: Distraction Makers TL:DR
This is for sure the best EDH - related video on UA-cam
This would be a huge change to the game as a whole, but adding some kind of rules-viable information to the card to say what plane it's from would be a great for a variety of reasons. The ability to build up flavorful subsets of the larger game (that can still expand over time) could be a great middleground for casual and less-casual players to live in together.
Right now they can't do "Allegiance to Ravnica" AFAIK because there's just no way to determine if a card is Ravnica or not. The Specific set symbols? Do you need original printings? What about Ravnica commander sets? Supplementary set cards *set* in Ravnica, but not from a Ravnica set? Honestly I'd like a solution to this just to know what cards come from what plane.
I’m 7 minutes in and after seeing “go back to 20 life and don’t have a commander” I have a sneaking suspicion you guys are just going to finish with “and this new format will be 60 cards, 1v1, with up to 4 cards in each deck” 🤣
Haha it was a joke we thought about including. But no, we’re not saying just play 1v1 60 card.
I would’ve enjoyed it! But I really appreciate the work guys are doing. Agree with virtually everything you guys say
@@distractionmakers 20 life, 60 card ffa is very fun.
I do enjoy eternal formats just because of how easy it is to walk away, come back and play. Sure I may not have the best cards but the deck still worked in the past so I’m still good to just replace cards slowly
Thr idea of a Commander game designed with Commanders in mind is interesting as someone who used to play thr Japanese card game "Force of Will" which ive described to friends as "Japanese Magic"
You have a Commander type character that starts off to the side, but theyre all double sided cards. You can tap either side to play a land (lands are separated into their own 10 card deck), some Rulers had powerful front side abilities that required a tap (meaning you effectively miss a land drop to play early), or you could pay a cost (usually equivalent to creature casting, but sometimes heavily discounted or only available if certain requirements were met) and then the card enters play on its reverse side.
IDK if its worth delving into the game at this point (i think its fully dead) but the first set was intriguing enough i think if someone wanted to design a commander game its worth looking at (fwiw this was a 20 life 1v1 BO3 game)
We’ll check it out!
The limiting commanders or decks to a single plane idea is so interesting me, I've been using it to build my Commander decks for a while now. I win less, but have more fun.
Is commander a heavy economy meta, or is it the player base (thinking more casually) that prefers the economy strategies?
Some people I play with hate infinite, but my argument is that infinite combos are the natural progression of Izzet rush decks to counter these faster Econ strategies.
To me the community seems to police more towards Econ as the acceptable strategy
For context, I’m talking a non CEDH, but strong EDH version of Stella Lee vs Ur-Dragon for example
Gavin, a Coalition Victory win has never been easier to achieve. Between Tri Color lands with 3 different basic land types and a plethora of 5C commanders, it's pretty trivial.
I’m not sure I see the problem. Is this stronger than Thassa’s oracle + consult? At least your progression towards winning with coalition is known information on the board.
Yes because you cant just throw Thassa in any blue deck, but you can throw Coalition in any 5c
@distractionmakers I'm not saying I think it's a problem in the grand scheme of things, especially in the context of Thoracle victories being legal in the format.
I just believe that if we are taking the signpost banning philosophy in good faith (I know you said you disagree with it here), then the ease of which a Coalition Victory can be achieved in '24 shouldn't be downplayed. If the argument when CV was banned is that it creates an uneventful gamestate, that's even less of a game now.
I know you said it was outdated, and that's probably right, and perhaps it was uncharitable for me to assume you weren't getting the full picture of the card. I have heard a couple content creators sort of miss the mark on this card.
I have heard the rules committee speak on what they believe is the necessity and function of the signpost ban and how it's even more relevant in the 2024 product avalanche.
So if they don't signpost ban, they either need a 1000 card banlist or to constantly monitor power creep, and update the signpost figure of that strategy.
Any thoughts on another model of ban?
Big fan of the channel btw.
@@distractionmakersIt is the exact opposite thoough. To win with thassas oracles requires either to "fairly" draw your whole deck (very telegraphed) or to combo with e.g demonic consultation (very deliberate power level)
Coalition victory wins out of nowhere when someone only had their commander on board.
The actual problem with CV is not its power level, but how it interacts with the play experience.
Even the winning out of nowhere part is not the problem.
The problem with CV is that if player A wins a game with CV. In the next game players B, C and D will now be foreced to permanently and proactively destroy all of player A's lands and/or kill & counter their commander on sight, even if the other players are themselves also playing powerful permanents, because the could theoretically lose if player A happens to maybe draw CV.
Player A would never get to play the game anymore and players B, C and D are forced to play in this way.
CV looks fun and janky but forces a game patern where all players must not allow the one who plays CV in their deck to have absolutely any agency. That is why CV is so problematic as a card for a social setting.
The difference in problematicness between thassas oracle and coalition victory is not even close. CV is a way way way more problematic card in commander.
12:00 the Smash Bros item argument is not that good because if there is a skill differential, oftentimes the player with better game knowledge takes better advantage of items. This makes a snowball effect, especially with items that control the whole stage, making sure that the player can use even more items while their opponents suffer.
Do you think there's enough material for a video specifically on Canadian Highlander and its points system?
Probably 😄
Casual doesn't mean imbalanced. Casual players are more likely to want cancerous cards banned. People keep conflating casual with "anything goes" and that's just silly.
No it’s not a casual game by definition is focused on EXPERIENCE instead of the OUTCOME. So limiting the card pool only decreases possible experiences which is against the spirit of casual.
@@jamesgreenwood1703 That's false. Try again. That's not what casual means. And even given your silly definition, many cards make for a bad EXPERIENCE that many casual players would not like to play against. Casual doesn't mean "all experiences including the bad ones". Use your damned brain.
@@jamesgreenwood1703 @Cybertech134 Casual is not so strictly defined, God damn you both.
@@fastpuppy2000 Casual is not as nebulous as you think. Grow up.
@@Cybertech134 We're in the middle of a massive community wide reckoning about what casual means, and the fact it hasn't been an open and shut checking of the official definition rather proves you wrong, I figure.
And besides, the word's not so important. You and the other commenter both want the game to "casual" it would seem, but you don't agree on what that entails (a nebulous concept?). If, rather than focusing on what casual means, you just focus on what you mean it to mean, you can have an actual conversation beyond "nuh-uh".
"Commander would be better if it used bannings to lower the power level of the format to be more approachable for less experienced/competitive players" vs "Commander would be better if it focused on being a completely open structure to explore Magic as a system or experience with one's full, uninhibited creativity."
That's gonna be more fruitful than arguing over what a single word means.
And come on man, grow up? About disagreeing over a word? You could call me out for the immaturity of my cursing or whatever, but me proposing that language is too complex and subjective to pin down objective definition to words isn't, like, sophomoric.
The "Allegiance to Ravnica" example is a really interesting idea. Not sure there's a way to actually make something like that work in EDH, but that would be an interesting design choice for a different game/game variant of Magic that had adequate rules made for it, though I don't think they could retroactively apply those rules to old cards. That said, it would solve the "eternal card pool" problem, so that's another plus to that idea.
Giving a thumbs up for the KF recognition! 🤘
the allegiance to x idea reminds me of riot's card game, lor, which is essentially their version of the colour pie, which i think is implemented very well there. would be interesting to see how it would work here
I think something similar to competitive Pokémon (not the tcg) could be useful. They have everything in tiers based on usage, so every team is within a tier, and construction is about moneyballing and finding unpopular choices whose strength is undervalued within the tier. Probably wouldn’t work as well in Magic since a 100 card deck is very different than a 6 Pokémon team, and data collection is much harder. But it could be a starting point.
Canlander’s point system is sorta like this. Definitely worth considering.
You got around to the point I was waiting for at the end of the video and then stepped around all of it. The current financial state of WotC and MtG is built solely on the backs of commander players, 60-70% of which play an extremely open, pseudo-casual version of the game, 15-20% play a weird "let's just see what this deck can do" with off the wall deckbuilding ideas, and the remainder play some form of high-power casual/cEDH. Putting any restrictions on this format will almost certainly negatively impact the monetary viability of MtG in the short term at least, though if it impacts enough players then it will likely shift those players to one of the ever-growing competitors who are openly embracing formats and Metas that lean into casual or are built around casual gameplay.
WotC has shown us, just this past month, that all of this is factually accurate. Their statement "explaining" Nadu and how they actively think about Commander and commander players when creating a set was the latest example. It's a Modern set why would the focus at all be on Commander? Commander players have found ways to adopt/adapt cards not intended for the format since the beginning of the format because it's not something they ever considered would gain popularity. But the truth is that EDH is extremely popular and moves a LOT of product.
I don't think EDH needs to be revamped or reformatted, even though a lot of your points make sense. I'd argue that EDH works and is as popular as it is because of how it mirrors a really inventive tabletop RPG. Absolutely, the GM can be as stringent and set in his ways on following the story that he's crafted, those are the worst games to play. The best are the ones that allow the players a LOT of freedom in crafting the experience and ultimately filling in the meat of the story that the GM outlined. The use of the triangle of decks Control-Aggro-Combo or Speed-Interaction-Power, has to morph when you're forced to play multiple players. No two games are the same, and even four players, playing the same decks, back to back to back aren't going to have the same outcomes, ESPECIALLY at the casual to semi-casual level. There are just too many variables in a 100 card singleton format. Keeping EDH (Casual) as close to it's original design and allowing for Rule Zero conversations to guide each individual game, in my opinion, is in the best interest of this format.
I do think, cEDH needs to officially recognized by WotC/MtG, renamed, and moved into it's own place within the world world of competitive Magic. There needs to be an official ban list for this format that doesn't have those glaring exclusions like you've pointed out. The end product needs to reference and "feel" like EDH but anything competitive needs more rules. There has to firmer control. The current format feels a lot like going to run a marathon but the organizers allowing people to jump into cabs to the finish line or take a completely different path with the only caveat being, "You've gotta run the first five paces and the last five paces, oh, and that's not us saying it that's the independent marathon committee (who have no actual power) saying it."
Will this ever happen? I don't think. I think it would significantly decrease revenue and probably alienate a lot of players. I think the one question that needs to be answered before you even consider why Commander being different is a necessary, is why does it need to be necessary. For the most part, casual commander players don't have a problem with the format itself because it allows for a self-policing, Rule Zero method to guide each game and each pod. Often the loudest critics of Commander are the people who don't play it, and think it's killing the format because of things like Nadu and that the format isn't officially recognized but is one of the reasons the power creep in each set continues unchecked. Commander players are going to play with the cards that come out, they'll find a way to keep them viable. That's literally the original intent of the format besides it being a way to include relational interactions between players. I'm not sure how pigeonholing a fan-made format makes sense over WotC "sacking up" and creating their own officially sanctioned multi-player format. It seems really disingenuous to turn your cash cow that propped up the company for quite some time into a heavy-handed format that barely recognizes what it once was.
16:45 In my experience commander does not encourage ”complete inaction”. When I do nothing I get slaughtered by people doing things. Are y’all saying y’all don’t play to the board, don’t interact with opponents, and still win games?
What we’re saying is if you’re reacting you’re losing. If you spend your resources stopping 1 opponent you and that player are behind the other two who have done nothing. Spend your resources advancing yourself towards a win as much as possible and react only when you absolutely have to.
@@distractionmakers ahh gotcha
i play planechase and archenemy (the format) a lot, i also find sol ring to be a thing that helps keep the format in check via making someone the archenemy (the person at the table)
You hit on it at the end, it needed to be a new game not one that was adapted from another.
I would love it if it spun off.
God yes. It's also why there's so much grumbling about cEDH vs casual EDH vs low power EDH vs various power levels vs win by turn X vs... All of those things should be formats, not rule zero conversation fodder. Commander is a separate game using Magic the Gathering cards like meeples. It's a game repurposed from the carcass of another, but being treated like it's a subset of that game. The reason you don't hear about high power vs low power standard is because you can just find the format you want whose deck restrictions get you the right power level.
Everything just being economy is kinda the entire point tho. Cedh being only combo and casual bring only ramp and recourse collection is by design.
The 8th card is also by design. Instead of running out of cards because of magics draw 1 play 2 cards per turn pattern, you now always have a card in your hand, even on turn 15.
Kingmaking also is never inherently a problem because it is caused by an abundance of player agency.
I feel like the "eternal" argument just needs a more aggressive ban list and no more cards that reference the term commander or command zone. At the very least you could suspend cards and be like rhystic study is suspended you can't play it for the next year. So not a permanent rotation but a temporary one.
I'll tolerate a lot on the internet, but talking smack about the og highlander movie is fighting words lol
Did...did you just shit on Highlander?!? I'm rethinking this whole sub now.
Wow didn’t think not liking Highlander would be my most controversial take 😆😆
This.
i think that if commander had a type 2 style standard rotating card pool it would be really interesting, but I dont think that there would be enough stuff for diverse decks to be made, like would anyone play sheoldred still if wheels didnt exist, in a 40 life format.
I disagree with the assertion that aggression is strictly negative because it draws attention and makes you spend resources. Any player above a completely beginner level identifies when an opponent is making too much "butter" and the table typically agrees they need to be reigned in. Hell, most players just count how many cards are on the field to determine who to target.
Some good ideas here. I think positive reinforcement is always better than negative, or having a ridiculous banlist. Would love to see old cards in the daylight again, maybe through some form of game incentive.
I agree. I think the canlander points system is a good start. You can play them, but there is a deck building cost. It would also be a shorthand for power level.
We just going to not mention brawl?
lmao
Not multiplayer and eternal if it was it would fix many of the issues stated here.
Brawl is 1v1 cedh.
Man I miss when Brawl came out. Multiplayer Paper Brawl was pretty great
People have a warped perspective of brawl because of arena. No version of brawl on arena is actually brawl. Brawl is supposed to be a 4-player, standard legal only, 60-card, 30 life, highlander format with either a standard legal legendary creature or planeswalker as the commander.
It’s almost unrecognizable what arena has warped it into
This came out right after I decided to finally bite the bullet and try out Commander for a bit. 😂 Mostly to try to incept 60 card casual into my LGS, but still.
A couple of thoughts. 1. I actually didn't know that Keyforge was still around. Interesting game, I actually really enjoy it but it seemed like no one else locally could get beyond not being able to deck build so sadly it completely died it out years ago here. So now I wonder what I've missed out on the last few years of not paying attention to it. 2. Planechase is interesting for anyone who hasn't tried it before. Our local group has a few people with planechase cards (including myself) and we do occasionally add it to our commander games. It does make the games interesting but the randomness can be super swingy so not necessarily a perfect solution for Commander's inherent issues.
Edit: will also agree that the current ban list is the worst of two worlds. It doesn't balance the format and a fair number of things are banned that made sense many years ago and currently make no sense due to power creep and the format developing. Also, I just do not agree with removing "banned as a commander" as a concept, especially since it existed for years as part of the game.
An potential implementation of the "allegiance" mechanic, that rewards a limit in deckbuilding, like playing a bigger deck, one with only cheap permanents or one with only one permanent type, would be the "universally loved" companion mechanic.
It truly is the best solution, rewarding unique deck restrictions with a card your always have access to, and everybody loved this.
Also, those banlists are indeed giving off the wrong vibe,
One of the easiest ways to improve your deck is to take a look at he legacy and vintage banlists, and if they are commander legal, and are not devalued because of how commander works, you shove them in your deck. Do I know why time twister, demonic tutor and necropotence are good cards? no idea. Do they win games? yes
I agree with your final statement: Commander cannot evolve to the degree that its main issues can be fixed. It will remain a flawed system. The only way to fix it is to create a successor, which people are working on both in their home games and on larger scales.
That being said, I think among the majority of Commander players, Commander still works "well enough". I doubt the majority are interested in exploring new, innovative formats that aim to improve the Commander experience, at least at this time. I think we're still very much in the early days of this gradual evolution.
I'm the type of person that plays an RTS game and just turtles and builds my little town and doesn't really enjoy getting attacked until I'm ready. That certainly makes me quite a bad competitive RTS player and it's a genre I don't play much because of that. But I've always really enjoyed building my little town and then eventually defending it from my friends. Commander actually hits that spot for me currently.
I think it's important to remember when designing a game inspired by commander that there are non-competitive players in your potential player base, and that a huge strength of commander is simultaneously supporting both competitive and non-competitive players. I think it's also much easier to design for competitive players and a lot of game design wisdom will lead you towards supporting that type of playstyle.
Therea types of games made for you. Lornsword for example.
Or even just the singleplayer campaigns or specific scenarios in others rts.
Or, and this is the big or, you drop the real time part of strategy and go to grand strategy like dominions or heroes of might and magic or old world etc. Turn based.
The problem is if you make an rts into a competitve city builder you'll essentially slow it down to the point of killing it.
I'm in that same boat. While I do have a few aggro push the pace decks. I have the most fun building up my board state and "managing" the game or board state. One of my favorites is based on getting an indestructible creature that I can redirect damage to. Then win through non combat damage. Essentially building an impenetrable wall that isn't threatening to anyone. Until I play my win con and it's to late.
Commander doesn't do what you said. It does not simultaneously support anything. It's a feckless ruleset that pushes the responsibilities onto the players to finish designing it. If a card isn't banned, it's legal. If your playgroup decides to ban a card that isn't otherwise banned, you aren't playing the same format anymore. You're playing something that is very nearly but not quite Commander, and that's fine, but why call it Commander?
@@fastpuppy2000 I think you said it, Commander is half designed. And it is on us, the players, to finish designing it. cEDH, PrEDH, Pauper EDH, Planar EDH like the video mentioned, there are so many ways for us to play Commander. They just need to be popularized.
@@shorewall Then we need to stop praising Commander as a format. It's not flexible; it's unfinished. It's not a boon to the casuals that they can walk up to a table with competitive players; it's a source of bad beats. Not to say you think any of that, but I often feel like Commander players could buy a car without an engine and then describe that experience as a cool chance to have a car that really fits your vibes, when really, they just got fleeced into buying an unfinished car. Also, framing cEDH and prEDH and all the rest as variants of the same format is like saying Pauper is a subformat of Legacy (which, sure, but that's silly, so we don't say that). All of those are unrelated formats being played in a game called Commander that uses the bones of Magic to alternate ends.
So you guys basically just want to play normal Magic?
I'll have you know highlander is not just a movie, there was a whole series on sci-fi! It was great
Haha well hopefully the series was better than the movie! 😆
How dare they call the highlander movie bad 😢
@@distractionmakers Thankfully your game analysis is better than your taste in movies.
No views?
Not on my…watch
Goddamn you for being here 14 seconds before me lol
The 'allegiance to Ravnica' idea is interesting. There was a period of time wizards tried 'set matters' card, I'm thinking City in a Bottle and Apocalypse Chime. I'd be interested to see cards that explore this idea more and not just as format hate cards.
You say Highlander isn't good, but I know for a fact it won the Academy Award for the Best Movie Ever Made.
@@dyne313 Twice!
I… I think they just reinvented Canadian Highlander
Prophetic lol
Whoooops
So insta win combo has replaced aggro in commander. The way to stop those is interaction. Economy loses to insta win but beats defense. Defense beats insta win with interaction. Insta win beats Economy because wins before the value has been achieved. Now cedh is not the only place for insta win. Cedh is just super optimized versions of regular strategies. Cedh defense is stax. Cedh Economy exists but all the decks have some form of insta win, it's just when does the deck expect to pull it off and how does it plan to get there. So an Economy strategy in cedh is all about seeing the most cards because the game is played on the stack not the field. The fast combo decks instead play specific early game combos that they find by tutoring. Also aggro decks in cedh do exists there's tribal decks like elves, merfolk, and others. Timmy and tribal decks exist in casual edh and weenie decks are tokens instead of 2/2s for 1 mana and 3/2s for 2 mana.
Would Commander Damage be trying to fill out the absence of the Rush strategy?
Yes it is.
Imo, I feel like if the idea is "if Commander was made today", a lot of the ideas suggested here seems off, but certainly something open for discussion. I would say that's true both for some new game or even just "what if new mtg format". Like, imo to every point
- 8th card problem: I feel like this in particular comes down to a question of "what do we mean by a new version of Commander?" What would we feel is important to keep in a newer game? Is it just "multiplayer tcg"? Is the sort of "leader card" that important? I say this because if the idea was to keep a sort of leader card, I feel like at some point you'd just be forced to embrace the issue and sorta work around it. It's not entirely infeasible; Yu-Gi-Oh has their extra deck, which has some restrictions but is otherwise fully available at all times.
- Card pool: This is also a subject where I think there's sorta an easy spot to disagree with. I think you could argue some sort of rotation would help such a game, but unless you specifically do a rotation, I don't think there's really room to say that the card pool needs to be shrunken in a causal setting. Magic is just in a unique position where it's so old where you can have these cards that are very different in design goals or whatnot
Like, in my eyes, while I understand the idea of "these cards aren't designed for Commander, they shouldn't be in this format", I don't think that's necessarily different from what makes Modern, Pioneer, and Legacy different formats or why those three formats might exist separately to each other. There's likely plenty of Legacy cards or Modern cards that could also be argued as "not designed for this format" for Pioneer.
I also kinda feel like if it's argued as it's own new game that sorta card pools wouldn't necessarily be a starting issue. Again, the problem is just how long mtg has been around and moreso that there are cards not designed for Commander
- Banlist: I think most would agree that the banlist needs more curating and has problems (moreso with a lack of bans especially to cards very similar to the "signpost banned" cards), but i feel like the idea of "a causal format shouldn't need bans", I feel like that wouldn't necessarily be true unless the card pool was low. I feel like trying to say "this game is casual" probably only works for so long before you get a small dedicated group tries to play competitively regardless. And at that point, you kinda either have to ban stuff yourself, or they will ban stuff amongst themselves, or whatever, but you probably will end up with a ban list in some capacity (or the game would stay rather niche). I think a discussion could be on who should run that ban list (some community group of the game desgner), but then there's also the consideration of how some might see the designer seemingly not "doing enough" if something got too out of hand (unless you had some aggressive rotation) and you rely on the community to make the ban list for you
- Some benefit to to plane focused cards: I think the problem here is pretty obvious: they already tried doing stuff based on sets (cards like City in a Bottle), and the problem is just Magic as a game doesn't care a ton about this. A newer game might be able to try something like this, but Magic just can't the way it's developed over time.
And even if they wanted to design stuff that way, they probably would run into an issue of "either you can't add new planes, or you gotta rotate planes, or you get planes that may or may not get enough support". Because we might see this for an individual set (Idk, a commander for face down cards), and even there the problem becomes that it's likely the mechanic is so narrow that it might be 5-10 years before your deck gets new cards. And sure, power creep is talked about negatively, but people do like to at least get "new toys". Even if you keep to only a few planes, you kinda have to avoid, say issues that a game like cardfight vanguard had of needing a ton of product just to support them all
I feel like a lot of the other points made could be argued over, but are more sound. Like with the discussion of kingmaking, there's sorta a discussion of "how much of solving the bystander problem makes this less of an issue". Or with the idea of whether adding more randomness (like planechase or keyforge) fits within the intended design of the game
I think the points system like canlan would be ideal for casual edh to do a power scale talk that isn’t the arbitrary 1-10 everyone not playing cedh builds 7s by default and budget doesn’t always reflect power but you could argue the higher the budget the stronger the individual cards are in a vacuum or how many staples are in the deck but I’ve seen 50$ decks shame 500+ but I agree the ban list is more of indication of cards that are strong and to emulate and it needs to be stricter Or there has to be a defining system of what is acceptable power level of cards in the casual sphere.
Also thinking about the banned list, it’s always been a debate and point of contention among commander players. Maybe it’s a messaging or language people? Maybe if a banned was framed differently people would react to it differently. A banned list is something used to limit power at a tournament level, but commander isn’t a tournament format. What about a Commander Hall of Fame? Like these are the most powerful cards in the game. The most notorious. These cards shouldn’t be played in pick-up games. But if the players decide to play with a Hall of Fame game in advance that’s ok.
Essentially it’s just a banned list, but frames the cards not at forbidden, but as earning their spot in retirement. Retired athletes don’t play professionally anymore, but still play for exhibition.
The farewell hate is a bit silly. Reading board states and playing around board wipes is a journeyman magic player skill. If someone is sandbagging their board state, that's a red flag. If someone is holding up certain mana, that's a red flag. Picking up on these things is a skill people should develope. And as board wipes have gotten better, protection has also gotten better. You talk like Tef-Pro is the only answer, and it is one of the best answers. But there are several more affordable options. In mono-white alone there is Clever Concealment ($14), Perch Protection ($2), Aven Interrupter ($3.5), Guardian of faith ($5.5), and Galadriel's Dismissal ($8). The fact that most of these cards are a year or two old means that WotC is aware that effects that counter farewell and cyclonic rift are in demand, and there will undoubtedly be more effects like these released in future sets.
Designed for multiplayer for the start? Hmmm... like Vampires of the Eternal Struggle. Too bad it flopped back in the 90s.
Codex card time strategy's FFA rules:
The game ends instantly when someone dies
Whoever has the most life wins
You get mana for doing damage
You may spend mana to heal
You may block for other players.
I want to say that the commander ban list isn't a problem. Because I read it once, and immediately understood the reasoning and could then identify cards I likely shouldn't play. But, my play group is an example of why that's not true. They play any and every card not on the ban list, using the ban list as an excuse for why they should be able to play those cards, despite me showing clear evidence for why those cards are problematic for the format and our own games
It’s because the CRC is inconsistent and unfortunately are kinda hamstringed by wotc to not ban a bunch of cards. The problem with the pre-game talk as a solution is what you’re experiencing. I’m like your friends, if it’s not on the ban list, it’s fair game so long as we’re in agreement as to which power level we’re playing. So the CRC would tell you to keep trying yo convince your friends, I’m suggesting you fight fire with fire. Show them why not following the spirit of the ban list is a problem. Chances are though, they’ll relish that you joined them in their tactics. So, you may inadvertently start an arms races.
Definitely going to have to disagree with casual players not caring about banlists. Casual players are MORE likely to complain about powerful cards and are very quick to say no to cards that are on ban lists.
If anything casual play IS the area that needs the more comprehensive ban list because casual players usually dont look at things fairly, so the environment needs to be set up more fairly from the start, woth of course rule 0 always being an option for whoever wants to ignore such a banlist
I want a commander that flips into a plain from plain chase. then flips back.,
Depending on your play group (kitchen table) you could do a proxy commander. I'm working on a custom warhammer 40k cube with very few cards. As long as they all agree, then it's all good
All these guys do is talk about guns and butter. I hate guns but I am a fan of butter so I’ll stick around.
Calling highlander not a good film is sacrilege!
It literally won the Academy Award for the Best Movie Ever Made.
Commander but you can only play with cards designed exclusively for commander.
I'm curious as to what gives you guys the confidence to be critical of WOTC while also being contracted to do art for them. Are you worried about the youtube hurting your chances at employment from Wizards? Or are you confident enough that the art directors aren't married to the game design aspect? Just curious because I admire your bravery to be objective toward a company that has given you work.
I wanted to write a more thought out and nuanced comment but I keep getting sidetracked by ADHD
I think you've correctly identified a lot of incentives and resulting behaviours in the Commander format, but I'd question how many can actually be called "problems." Which isn't an attempt to put the format beyond critique, just my attempt to posit that the critiques are more valuable when they come from people who love the game, and that maybe trying to "fix," a game that you don't enjoy to begin with is a bad exercise for a designer to take up? Leaving room to acknowledge that the point is not to "fix" commander as much as to gesture to other designs and ideas and that there are valid reasons for a designer to engage with designs and games they dislike.
If you're unfamiliar I highly recommend the videos of The Trinket Mage and Salubrious Snail on EDH as it's clear they each love the format dearly and have substantive gripes with it. (As do I)
Yeah our goal isn’t to fix commander and we mentioned that at the beginning of the video. We tried to make it clear this is about things we’re considering while making our own games.
Canadian Highlander mentioned! Play some
"the way the format is being managed" ie not at all, the RC just says figure it out yourself haha
I really hate Catan. Its supposedly a competitive game, but It has TOO much randomness for the game to be enjoyable in my opinion.
Munchking is similar in that way. You can aquire resources without taking other players optunities to aquire resources (except on the ocasional cases where you steal a item from somebody).
Some people consider managing luck a skill.
@@Joker22593It is a skill for sure. Not one I think fits into a area control game. Not for me and my group. We consider Catan unplayable because the randomness in aquiring resources.
You could say the same for Magic. but the higher your skill becomes, the less the randomness is a factor in determining the winner.
Laughs in Longest Road and Largest Army. Roll better. lol
I agree it’s not competitive, but from you is the first I’m hearing the idea of it being competitive.
@@maximillianhallett3055 By competitive I mean in contrast to being a co-op game.
Board games are eigher competitive or co-op, or a abomination in between.
I'd say they should simply stop printing to the format, but holy hell WotC is too far gone with that. They just really needed to stay in their lane and focus on draft/standard experiences that "oops this is good in other formats" happens NOT AS PART OF INTENTIONAL DESIGN. Any time they print into any other format, it gets worse. Granted, older cards still exist, so it's really more a way to try to remedy power creep. Also, the rules committee being in bed with WotC doesn't help, either...so bannings, forced design, etc. At the end of the day having groups that understand collectively how strong their circle is and are okay with that kinda remedies most problems. The separation of kitchen table funtimes and lgs power struggles needs to be understood too.
I have an online group that we occasionally play an adjusted form of commander, with card limits(Mirrodin and before only, certain cards gaining partner but with heavy limitations, etc.) and honestly It's been some of the most fun I've had. Granted, I get more satisfaction with deckbuilding than anything else...but I digress.
These days for casual I just make decks I think are neat and wacky that have enough removal to stop the decks trying to curb stomp. I don't gotta win all the time, but I at least keep the metalworkers in check.
I would argue combo is the rush in Commander sirs. Love the show.
Lol TESTIFY MY BROTHERS!
This BECAUSE commander has made traditional aggro basically impossible. Your only non-combo option to play aggro in commander is Infect - and that only barely. Even halving life totals (20 each, rather than 40) means the aggro deck needs to carve through 60 health to win. It would shake up the format as we know it.
The other part of that - which I have given some serious thought to - is that in the vast majority of playgroups, people have created an unwritten contract in which you're basically not allowed to try to win the game before turn 5 or so.
Thanks to this near obliteration of aggro's strength, both systematically and socially, cEDH has become the only place that aggro is acceptable. And combo became the aggressive wincon in cEDH because every other option was basically erased from the list.
Not really there is aggro commanders out there. Things like Isshin or various voltron commanders. Yes burn aggro doesn’t exist but creature aggro does.
Combo is rush for sure. Lots of casual tables ban combo =\
I think the 1 plane only idea is EXTREMELY untenable. A lot of planes have barely any cards, a lot have many many cards. The plane of origin isn't marked on cards, and frankly, I don't know it for 90% of the cards I play.
I made a ban list for my friends and I to use. It's been a good guidepost. Its a type of rule 0 conversation to make your own ban list. I think the purpose of the ban list is to avoid bad interactions in pickup games at game stores. And cEDH cards are allowed in commander mostly because cEDH players self-segregate from casual players. Something like Coalition victory gets banned because its easy for that to show up in a casual pod and win out of nowhere, whereas, if you put Thassa's Oracle, Demonic Consultation in your deck, you know what you're doing.
There's also the alternative fan format: Conquest, which has 30 life and a real ban list.
Overall, I think y'all had a tough time staying on topic in this video and it ended up being very bog standard complaints about the format. I don't think this came across as lessons to be learned from commander for new games for most of the video.
I really enjoy listening to you guys and the perspective you bring from your experiences. However, the more I feel you haven't experienced enough of commander to see how these things are handled in a casual setting, as opposed to ones filled with only aiming to win or an arms race to the top. Find groups and metas outside of that, and play a bunch of commander there.
I'd also say to not take the banned list as seriously as the word implies. The players are largely left to police themselves. Unless you for some reason really don't understand why you've taken 20 damage by having Tiamat/Krenko/Kinnan/Jodah as your commander by the time you cast it, that's the action of push back from the group at work. I haven't seen a Voja Jaws of the Conclave in a long while because those players get knocked off the table. In this way, we balance the game. There is also the social aspect, where perhaps you bring a roster of very good decks that usually dominate might leave you wanting for opponents in a casual setting.
If some cards get policed out of the format, why have them legal? If your answer is that different tables will have different tolerances, why not create a multitude of formats so that you can play at specific power levels with a well defined set of rules? Don't take up for lazy game design that asks the players to finish the game instead of the designers. You deserve better.
And of course people aim to win. If you don't want to play to win, remove winning. Why does the game have an end point defined by competition if it's not meant to be competitive? It's because you are trying to bend the game rules out of shape towards unintended ends.
These guys know what they're talking about. You deserve a game that is ACTUALLY designed for what you want.
@@fastpuppy2000 Cards remain legal because it's not a format spanning thing. It's down to the group involved, or the people in your LGS, and so on. If one group is fine with say Voja Jaws of the Conclave, then have fun with it!
Because part of the social aspect of commander is having a conversation about at least what thee decks do, or going in and experiencing it. If you find it too powerful or less powerful, things can change for next game, no waiting for a patch or DLC.
Winning can be secondary. I always play to win, but I also play to see what happens that's cool or if my card selection does what I want. Commander is eternal so I get to keep going.
This was the game of Magic I always wanted, ever since I played 60 kitchen table. I'd always have a creature be the "leader" in my decks, so it was a natural evolution for me to start playing EDH at the time.
I wouldn't mind it as much if Standard,Modern, Legacy, Vintage,Sealed and Draft got as much attention as Commander does.
@@Aaron-l3l6g It’s all a loop, friend.
WotC made EV so low, no one will open Sealed, resulting in obscene singles prices.
Resulting in additional financial burden driving players out of constructed 60-card, and often into the Safe(r) Singleton Harbor of EDH.
Causing WotC to target Commander players as the largest playerbase.
Requiring players to purchase playsets of cards that will be 55$ during prerelease is a murderously sheer barrier to players trying to move into serious engagement w/ a 60-card format, and add to that rotation woes in some cases.
It’s all on WotC greed. Right now, they could print the greatest Modern and Standard cards of all time and not cause a bump in player recruitment/retention, because cost.
Potentially hot take: Commander took off because it makes for the most accessible video content, not because it has the best gameplay. You can be "bad at Magic" and still totally enjoy and appreciate a lively Commander video from Game Knights or StarCity; that bar is a lot higher for a streamed Modern or Standard match, no matter how engaging the players are.
Very good point.
I got sick of 1v1 years ago because it felt so one-dimensional but commander allows me to play goofy or group-hug and still have fun.
Casual Commander is in a perpetual economy meta because all of the other strategies are far outclassed by the economy-centric decks, which leads to incredibly similar gameplay that is just barely different enough for most players to enjoy. Its really just a slog of midrange soup followed by a board wipe, rebuild, board wipe, rinse and repeat until someohow someone wins with combat damage or the pod is too tired to continue the loop.
Not to mention that the community at large has essentially agreed that combo decks are not to be played, and any player who chooses to play an interactive strategy is not letting the people at the table to "do their thing" and should be reprimanded for it.
So agree. The economy system exists because people whine about how too much solitaire is problematic, but also how too much interaction is also problematic. If people actually built decks to solve those problems instead of shunning the play pattern. The game would be healthier
@@jamesgreenwood1703My answer to the complaining from my friends about my control deck was building Omnath Locus of Rage. I played it twice and they haven’t complained about my Vadrik deck since.
Commander is best, imo, when all 5 colors are present in a pod, and the pod has at least one control deck and one aggro deck, with two differing midrange decks.
I would be curious for you guys to review the ban list cards and discuss if cards should stay banned or be removed.
Anyone who says Highlander is not a good movie me and you parking garage
Personally i dislike the "anti-prison" route MtG is taking. They are trying to print flashy cards, but some colors just arent meant for it.
They are moving away from protection anthems, pillowfort enchantments and stax. They are trying to print more and more interesting "Everything blows Up!" Versus more "I dont think so".
Let me have my Solitary Confinement, my Avacyn Angel of Hope, and my Previledged Position.
Not everything must in Red and Blue playstyle. Black Reanimator is chocking to death from all those Finality Counters. Let me recycle my creatures, god dammit
Rush as a strategy is antithetical to casual gameplay
How do you define casual? For me it’s “players of differing skill levels being able to have compelling games” rush, econ, or defense can still exist in that context.
@@distractionmakers Absolutely a fair question!
(And waring for the wall of text)
I disassociate casual from concepts such as fun since those are wholly subjective, but it is funny that you mention compelling games as a definition.
I would define casual as the abscence of a necessity to optimize once play or deck construction in order to participate meaningfully.
Rush conflicts with this definition because it aims to defeat the opponent before they get to enact or even deploy their game plan.
Rush can achieve this by deploying more powerful effects early at the cost of sustainability or by praying on the natural deck inconsistency of non rush decks.
(Examples of natural deck inconsistency: mana screw, mana flooding, drawing late game cards early, or not drawing earlygame/meaningful interaction early.)
(^This is not just about bad deck construction, because even the best tournament decks can, by the virtue of drawing random cards, draw the most terrible of opening hands.)
Rush forces the opponent to remove higher cmc, clunkier, cumelative and more narrow effects from their deck because those cards dont just do nothing, they activly take up deck and draw space for cards that could have combatted rush.
It is not about rush being to powerful, but that the best way to beat rush is to trim and optimize once deck.
Running more things such as removal requires a lower curve to cast that removal. This in turb requires more draw to acces that removal and once own gameplan. Which in turn causes the gameplan to become more concise since there are less deck slots for it.
While other strategies can also require specific deck restraints on their opponent, the often allow their opponent the time and agency to draw into them alongside their own game plan.
Rush aims to win before their opponent gets to do their thing, its optimal game is a game in which their opponent has had as little agency as possible and has taken as few actions as possible. Else the rush deck itself loses any agency, because it cannot compete in the lategame.
An anecdotal example from1vs1 60card MTGarena e would be that I have almost never seen the conclusion of a game between mono red aggro and blue white control. It almost always leads to a concede from one side around turn 4.
Because either the control player knows that they are dead in 2 turns with no outs, or the red aggro deck knows it will die in the next 8 turns since it no longer has the reach.
In a similar way, this necessity of optimalisation is why almost all cedh decks come down to tutoring/mass drawing to find a combo line, but it works in competitive, because the optimalisation is the express goal, as opposed to casual.
Feel free to ask for any clarification if something does make sense
@@isvitdap Seems like at least some of that would depend on how aggressively the faster deck is focused in on its rush strategy, relative to how focused the deck or decks it's up against are focused on theirs. You might end up with a situation where some higher cmc cards or clunkier cards have to go, but not necessarily to the extent that the player can't still afford to prioritize other things over optimization. It could also potentially depend on how many players there are. The rush strategy may have to make compromises if it's a multiplayer game, and cut some early threats in favor of some kind of back up if the game goes longer.
I'm not sure how workable "the absence of a necessity to optimize one's play or deck construction in order to participate meaningfully" is as a definition of casual, at least if you're after an objective measure. That also seems somewhat subjective. What constitutes meaningful participation, objectively? When is it a necessity to optimize, and how far does that necessity extend? How much difference in power level between decks are you allowing for?
What about the 9th card problem? Haha. (Partner)
And the 10th, companion? 😆
If only we could stick in an 11th card as background, haha.
The "problem" with the plane limitation is:
Me and my friend do it in our commander decks. But as a rule its has something that are not easy to clearly define.
For example:
Mirrodin / New Phyrexia.
War of the Sparks wirh the Amonkhet army invading Ravnica.
And now withe the paths that allow non planeswalkers from every plane to visit any other plane.
How do you put in the rules wich card belongs to wich plane?
id say rush is still viable if you build it right in commander, its just a bit more difficult.
Build a better butter!
Highlander good