When Should Cards Be Banned?

[@distractionmakers]

Thanks to those that have pointed out we didn't account for mulligans. The easiest way to estimate the one free mulligan is to treat those as equivalent to a game. So, if players would be encountering this scenario 3 to 4 times a year, the free mulligan means it's 6 to 8. The thing to keep in mind is these numbers on still on the absolute extreme end where everyone is playing Mana Crypt and 7-10 mana rocks. Using the data we have (EDHrec) we can assume this isn't the case since Mana Crypt was in only 11% of decks on the site, which includes cEDH decks.

[@gerrimeister]

And all the decks on EDHrec are from players invested enough to go on the site an register them, so out in the wild there are (were) sooo many less even.

[@MomirsLabTech]

Another important point that was not brought up here is that the aggregator EDHREC uses to gather that data has no way to distinguish a "casual" decklist from a cEDH decklist, which means that the 11% inclusion rate is already skewed higher than it actually should be when discussing "casual" because that percentage includes cedh decklists from the sites they scrape from.

[@irisnegro]

Also add to that math Sol Ring and Jeweled Lotus, and add a second mulligan, and 10-12 two mana rocks this scenario is fun to have 3 or 4 times a year, but it happens way more frequently than that.

[@Jaketg93]

@@irisnegro You also forgot that while yes, 2 signets don't happen as often, your forgetting "1 signet, and a turn 2 land drop" which is still 5 mana on turn 2

[@irisnegro]

@@Jaketg93 Oh, I'm not forgetting, didn't understand if the video math is not taking into account second turn land drop, commander decks are like 50%+ lands/ramp in some way (mana dorks, rocks, sorceries...).

[@Banazama]

I feel the issue with playerbases clashing on the "identity" of commander is only going to get more pronounced as time goes on. Since WotC killed support for more competitive formats, I have been seeing more and more spikes funneling into Commander to get their fix and that's causing friction with the casual base.

[@gnogara]

It's what I've been saying a lot. EDH right now is like 3 formats on a trench coat, and (unless you play with the same group of friends) you need to keep having these longer and longer conversations. Infinite combos, tutors, fast mana, LD, stax...

[@sussygamer3581]

I have been a spike playing commander for 12 years now, fuck you mean.

[@Banazama]

@@sussygamer3581 Are you saying you don't understand my sentiments or that it has no basis in reality?

[@MadMage86]

EDH was like the house party for non-smokers when we got tired of breathing in the toxic air of competitive play, only to have competitive players wander in and openly smoke in your house. Modern and Standard dying off has been the worst thing for the format since it's inception. And yes, I am aware that there have always been a small group of 'competitive' players who [claim to] have been here since the beginning, you were always a small subset. A few guys hanging out at the kitchen table that we put up with. The problem is that the competitive players' party died off and the rest of the smokers decided to invade en masse.

[@lracseroom8286]

@@Banazama I'm shocked he never had a reply. I read it as "man" not "mean" and that he thinks playing in a casual pod with a competitive deck and mindset is a-ok as long he gets his cheap win and he feels better about his tiny little willy.

[@pdxholmes]

"You're probably not as casual as you think you are" applies to almost every commander player. People hide behind "it's a casual format" far too often.

[@josephcourtright8071]

If you ever improved your deck you have powercrept your pod and taken one step closer to cEDH.

[@BrettDavis-mq6pq]

Commander isn't a casual format. It's a social format. It is far, far from casual. It's statistically THE most complicated format you can play. There are multiple layers of strategy that non-multiplayer games don't have with politics and dealmaking, probably close to 250 unique cards in every game if you take out mana.

[@VexylObby]

@@BrettDavis-mq6pqOf course the variety of cards is complex, but I would say that isn’t casual, nor makes the format at large not casual. Even board games have decks of hundreds of different cards. The “casual” part of it is the not caring so much about the win, and the caring of group fun.

[@patstevenswhohatesbuttermi5861]

I tend to see the opposite a little more. People will put a lot of work and creativity into a deck and call it a 7 or 8, when it's probably more of a 4 or 5. Nothing wrong per se with their decks, they just overrate the power level.

[@StrongButAwkward]

Nah, it's literally all casual. Even cEDH is just power gaming in casual, and their self styled, self appointed status as 'competitive' players has reeked of pretense since day one the same way it did when the rare 60 card casual player decided to apply the same logic to a 'format' that what was no-bans Vintage at the time and showed up with some variants of 4xSol Rings, 4x Demonic Tutor, etc combo shell that won T1 every game. Those players also said things like "the point of the game is to win" and that they were just playing the strongest cards/deck within the rules. They'd even refer to themselves as competitive players sometimes. The thing is those people were exceedingly rare in 60 card casual days. Likely because they'd be rightly scoffed and laughed at for such an obviously ridiculous attitude and get no games because they'd be shunned by everyone from the newest casual to veteran players who built strong decks but still understood the point of casual because they usually had plenty of experience in real 1v1 competitive play. The real riddle is when that changes and why we take people with that same exact attitude any more seriously just because it's EDH instead of 60 card casual despite the fact that it's fucking absurd. Like, you didn't need a banned list in 60 card casual days for people to know not to play power 9 in their casual decks, or not to play 4x or even 1x Sol ring or mana crypt in literally all their decks just because it was legal. Somehow the average player now is less capable of self policing and restraint and generally parsing the overall niche that casual play enables (which is the opportunity to be creative with cards/ideas that will never work in 1v1 competitive formats) and are trying to pretend maxing out the power level of casual magically transmutes them into competitive players. I think on some level it has to do with the fact that for many players, the presence of a banned list inherently gives permission and 'legitimizes' playing anything that isn't on it in a way no ban list at all doesn't because the banned list allows them to deflect the responsibility for their own actions to the list allowing it. Anyways. cEDH players are also casuals and while any player using edhrec might not be as laid back about casual as they think, any player that calls themselves a competitive player because they play cEDH is more of a casual player than they want to admit and needs a reality check.

[@whatisthisIcanteven]

On the math you're also forgetting that you get a free Mulligan. I don't know how that changes the math, but it gives you a second shot at every opening hand every game. Got to increase the likelihood of this happening a little bit.

[@geek593]

And cEDH regularly sees extreme mulligans down to 3-4 cards to find combos.

[@bobthor9647]

Only 1% of players actively mulligan for a good hand . 25% keep unplayable 1 mana hands then complain for two hours. ( *stats not backed up with data )

[@SheetsInc]

People who do this math also forget this format goes up to 6 players. Not to mention the RC was talking about the scenario of an explosive start not that specific combination of cards.

[@thomaspetrucka9173]

This! ☝🏻

[@briant1784]

I did a little math assuming all players mull for a good hand and stop if they have a mana crypt (I'd probably keep a trash 0 lander with one so not far off), each player has a %14.6 ish chance to open with one, meaning , 46.9% of 4 manacrypt owner games involve at least 1 person opening with a manacrypt. If everyone is running a problematic card nearly half of all your games that problematic card is in someone's hand turn one.

[@runcmd1419]

The crypt ban isn’t just about the nut draw, assuming the deck has crypt, it will have ring, both of which lead to 4 mana turn 2 by default, or 5 mana turn 2 with any two mana rock, not just signets. The critical mass of fast mana is a problem, and Wizards needs a brake check.

[@pastelcia42]

I think this ban goes in the right direction, they banned enablers, namely fast mana, instead of banning every single powerful combo or synergy, which is an impossble task. This makes you still able to play the same combos or sinergies, just later in the game when there is more of a chance for people to get ready for it and interact, making it less common to have unbalanced games. Honestly its a common ban practice for magic since the beggining for competitive formats and the biggest winner of this ban is cEDH, because it makes games a little less decided on who got the explosive starting hand and little more based on skill.

[@dongdoodler]

Its for normal players, decks have been getting really strong even at a casual level. If this helps push wizards to not make ridiculously strong cards and make them chase cards, or help push players away from running mostly staples with some flavor

[@solsystem1342]

Alright now ban sol ring you cowards! (I know this won't happen but if fast mana's finally under tha ban hammer it's nice to dream at least)

[@pdxholmes]

@@dongdoodler None of that will happen. Go look at the price of Mana Vault today. People will find and push new staples. All that equity that flowed out of Crypt/JLo/Dockside yesterday is just flowing in to new must have staples.

[@dimitriid]

You can't know if it's the right direction until you *actually remove ALL of the fast mana options* because you still have both mid-range price cards like Mana Vault, Chrome Mox, Mox Opal, Mox Amber and then you STILL have the reserved list cards like Mox Diamond, Grim Monolith etc. Which I consider the high end range of price (It's not exactly lining up since Mana Crypt was at one point more expensive than many reserve list cards but for the purposes of this discussion, Mox Diamond is an order of magnitude more expensive than non-reserve list fast mana cards that remain legal) The core issue is that in my opinion, all the banning did was make fast mana *far more expensive* instead and that's a really ugly precedent: you're not making the format slower and more casual friendly, you're just making it pay-to-win.

[@-Gojiro-]

I thought the question was whether the format is player-controlled or committee controlled. Either the banlist is meant to override rule zero, in which it doesn't have a purpose. Or rule zero overrides the band list, which brings the question why the ban list exists in the first place

[@iceghost27]

I don't love the segment where you calculated the odds of the specific signet situation. It's not very representative of every other situation in which mana crypt generates advantage, then continues to do so every turn - without signets. Holding a magnifying glass up to one example the RC gave, misses the big picture.

[@BS-gk2cb]

That’s the point though. This is the example the RC gave to justify their decision. We need better reasoning otherwise it’s going to be criticized. There’s no consolation points for getting the correct answer randomly without a good methodology.

[@Dnallohes]

This was my nitpick too. Tons of salient points in the video. But the removal of ONE OF the pieces that contribute to huge early game leads, and one of the most egregious at that, reduces both the frequency and degree of that advantage. I think any hand that results in ramping twice before turn 3 kind of falls in the category of explosive start.

[@PensFan96]

To counter your point, I think you may be missing the point they were making. The rules committee gave an example as to why a card was a problem, it is fair to put that reasoning under a microscope. If that reasoning given does not hold up when tested with data, then why should the players respect the RC's process? No one actually knows what they do to determine a ban-worthy card. If they aren't using data to reach consensus, then it's subjective. If it's a subjective process/opinion then you or I may disagree with what is banned and our feelings are just as valid as theirs.

[@iceghost27]

@@BS-gk2cb In my opinion, the RC's reply got the point across in a concise manner. I'm glad they didn't write a novel with every combination of cards mana crypt works well with personally. We got the point. Meanwhile, hyper analyzing that one citation about signets isn't useful to painting the big picture.

[@MrSzymonpik]

Yes, those calculation were rushed, and not taking into construction, that, crypt is only one of those broken options.

[@jacobd1984]

Cards should be banned when they give players (who are not me) an insurmountable advantage early on/when they hit the battlefield.

[@Cybertech134]

This, but unironically.

[@Dnallohes]

I disagree. The game needs cards that give an insurmountable advantage. But as finishers, not turn 1 plays.

[@dimitriid]

@@Dnallohes Finishers is the operative word here: The most surprising ban was Dockside Extortionist because if you look at the average casual table, *Dockside did nothing for you* other than enable you to ramp up without having access to green. It wasn't until you step up to cedh level when you actually saw Dockside as a win condition as a way to enable not just ramp but infinite mana. That's the key: Fast mana does nothing without combos. And combos without the efficiency curve of fast mana and tutors are just called 'Synergy' and perfectly acceptable and used in casual tables. It's not until you combine both fast mana, efficient win conditions and heavy use of tutors that you raise to the level of cedh so removing only one aspect of the 3 parts of that equation will do absolutely nothing to protect casual players from high power, cedh-level style play patterns. Without actually widely sweeping all aspects of cedh play patters the bans just manage to infuriate players and little else.

[@MultiKbarry]

@@dimitriid The RC made comments on banning Dockside a dozen times over the years. That they were watching and thinking on it. They just finally acted.

[@runcmd1419]

@@dimitriiddockside is gross on even mid power tables. The other week i played against someone who ‘had it in has deck because it was a pirate’. T3 cloudstone curio, t4 dockside loop with a one drop.

[@Zavult]

These cards should have been banned on release. Not left to fester for so long.

[@Thalarion]

one of those cards was in print before EDH was even a format (crypt) but was also a book promo that wasn't printed into a standard set until *much* later

[@dimitriid]

That's the worst part of this: According to the RC's own follow up comments: they *DID* intend to ban them for years now and mentioned they did made WotC aware of their intention so at the best of cases, by conceding in delaying their bans for years at the behest of WotC just enabled them to intentionally mislead their customers including these cards specifically as the most sought after includes on commander masters and Lost caverns of Ixalan. So at the most, the RC failed spectatularly with their timing if by their own admission they intended to ban the cards for years but held off watching the very public promotion WotC made out of this cards. Hell, JLo was so popular it was the cover image of commander master products and even promotional merchandise by Ultra Pro: This all happened while 100% of the time the RC knew they intended to ban the card that WotC was intentionally plastering all over publicity and merchandise as much as they could to entice sales. They're complicit at the best of cases.

[@runcmd1419]

I am really curious what the response would have been to a day 1 ban to jewelled lotus without seeing it in the wild.

[@benvictim]

​@@Thalarion mana crypt aside... People during jeweled lotus' release said it was a mistake and should be banned. People were also complaining about dockside and it should have been banned along with hullbreecher. Mana crypt is the only one I am like .. ehhh? On the banning, but understand why.

[@Jerhevon]

@@benvictim And until WOTC decided to reprint it, Mana Crypt was often defacto banned due to having such low availability.

[@carlossantiago2659]

For me the worst thing about this situation is WOTC having more information than the public, RC shouldn't share any ban information with WOTC at all

[@EpicWin1337]

I think your math is off in a meaningful way because you ignored Sol Ring. The land Sol Ring, Mana crypt into signet on turn 1 is much more likely to occur when you have two artifacts that lead to that play pattern. This also doesn't include mulligans. In cEDH everyone is playing both and games end faster since the players tend to be more experienced so more overall games get played in a night so you see that line like every other session or so. That being said there are like 10 other fast mana cards like the moxen, sol lands, spirit guides, rituals that made the hoop of 5 mana on turn 2 somewhat common and the RC just banned the worst offenders except sol ring. Anyway, the frequency people are actually playing mana crypt in casual lower and mid power decks just didn't happen in my experience across multiple different LGS's in my city over a few years. Even in games with an obvious bad actor choosing a deck above power level crypt and lotus weren't seen. I did however had an opponent go sol ring into signet 3 games in a row one night but, that's an entirely different problem.

[@veleon_]

I think there is a good reason to have a ban list for the casual crowd. Now the RC would probably never say this as it people would find it very demeaning, but since about 2012 or so, the RC bans stuff they think the players are too stupid to not run. The bans save players from themselves. People are running these cards in their decks and ruining their games and not realizing that they are the problem. The primeval titan years ago is very emblematic of this. Looking at bans through this lens, they make a lot of sense. People were cheating out Iona and everytime it happened some player at the table was miserable. People were making 5c Golos decks saying, "Oh i'm just using golos for the colors it won't be bad." But it was bad because all the golos decks ended up doing the same thing. People kept throwing hullbreacher and wheels into their decks thinking it was just a cool combo. People were putting prime time in their decks and every time it hit the table the game devolved into which player could get the most value off of the creature. People put paradox engine into decks and then accidentally took 30 minute turns. Nadu is the same way, i know a couple people who where interested in Nadu, and they just didn't get that it was going to be them taking 20 minute turns while everyone sits around twiddling their thumbs. And through this lens you can see people are shoving fast mana into their decks simply because they are good cards. They end up pushing their playgroups into faster and faster decks. The RC believes this is happening in playgroups where this isn't what the players mean to happen. Now this is obviously just speculation on my part. But it is the reasoning that I think is the most consistent. You are correct when you say that don't really help up understand where their line is for this kind of thing.

[@shorewall]

100%

[@popo237]

Nah the RC sucks

[@chenhan22]

Canadian Highlander point system will eventually rise to prominence. It’s the best way to ensure a “balanced” table for the casuals while allowing for nuanced deck building and power. People can always increase or decrease the total points allowed to power up their games and be upfront about it. And individual cards can have their points adjusted without outright being banned. War games have been doing this forever. My prediction this that if more banning like this happen, some playgroups may start moving in such a direction. My second prediction is that in 10-15 years we will see a group versus DM or PvE style format rise and take over the “casual” space. I think that’s ultimately what a lot of commander players want.

[@DaKongman-93]

For real, the PvE style magic game would be super fun. DM sets up a couple different archenemy lists and they play the games 1v3-5. Also limit the colors to 3 color decks so there's a feeling of having different classes/tools at the players disposal... I love the idea.

[@itheruler2157]

I couldn’t agree more 👏

[@Cybertech134]

There's a pervasive myth that only competitive formats should have ban lists that work towards balancing the game. Casual has never meant "anything goes".

[@KeirStarmerFan123]

No, casual means "whatever's fun." A lot of people thought mana crypt was fun. Who are you to tell them no?

[@ab2aasd]

Then what's even the point of "casual"? That's just watered down competitive

[@geek593]

@@KeirStarmerFan123 One person gets to have fun when they luck a Crypt out on turn 1. The other three players who didn't hit it are instantly behind in mana economy and will likely lose the game from there.

[@Cybertech134]

@@ab2aasd Yes. You're acting as if "watered down competitive" is a bad thing. It is not. The point of casual has never meant that anything is allowed with no ban list. EDH is a casual format first and foremost. It's the competitive end that needs to realize this.

[@Cybertech134]

@@KeirStarmerFan123 Someone who follows the official rules. That's who I am. Some people find murder fun; who are you to tell them no? Don't be dumb.

[@OODZUTSU]

You can also go Ancient Tomb->Sol Ring->Signet->Talisman today and untap with 6 mana. Banning things around a nut draw seems kinda weird to me. Not to mention this also takes 4 cards out of your hand and you might just end up flooding out.

[@seanwechsler6783]

We’re forgetting to add mulligans into those mathematics of predicting the odds of starting with Mana Crypt into a signet. I think a big purpose of this ban is not only to extend game length, but to also see more variety in competitive games in the future. I think the RC wants to stop seeing the same 20 overpriced overpowered cards winning every tournament.

[@irishopman7246]

EDH was never supposed to be played in tournaments.

[@seanwechsler6783]

@@irishopman7246 exactly. I see what they’re talking about in the ending of the video though. There’s always going to be competitive players that will go around the intended game design for a more consistent proficient approach. And just as said at the end of this video, players will continue to find a way to still play consistent and proficient in EDH. So I say, f*** it. Ban more. I run a couple salty cards that I wouldn’t mind having to take out.

[@Saltpounder513]

Then take them out. You don't need a ban list to take cards out of your deck.

[@fleeinggenie0933]

The RC has stated numerous times that they don't care about competitive EDH and they only want to balance around casual EDH

[@seanwechsler6783]

@@fleeinggenie0933 that’s good in my opinion. The game was invented and intended to be casual.

[@itheruler2157]

I totally get what you are saying. But I think this format is not about the system but about philosophy or vibe or mindset or what you want to call it. You discuss this format from a totally different axis than it’s meant to be. The fact that they didn’t ban sol ring because its “iconic” shows this, in my opinion.

[@distractionmakers]

You make a good point. Our argument is that managing a format with a philosophy and no methodology is likely to create unwanted outcomes with no ways to measure.

[@codyhanson1344]

Is the Jeweled Lotus not iconic?

[@cheesi]

^ to the comment above, I can't reply directly for some reason but no, Jeweled Lotus isn't anywhere near as iconic as Sol Ring. It just doesn't have the history, it was first printed in 2020. It's referencing Black Lotus but (to me at least) these kinds of references feel very cheap when it's obviously just pushing excitement for an extremely broken card. Sol Ring is almost 8 times older than Jeweled Lotus, and at this point it's spent many of those years as a core component of Commander played in almost every deck.

[@cheeseitup1971]

​@@codyhanson1344Jeweled Lotus is a relatively recent card, themed off a different card, and strong in commander because it says "commander" on it. All that plus the cost means I often forgot about it

[@tedm3081]

Mana crypt is iconic

[@herrabanani]

Bans used to be when they clearly overtined cards and it was somewhat rare, but now we're getting chase cards that mostly designed for one format, and then being banned from that format. I'm not saying they shouldn't ban the broken cards, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with the current design.

[@minabasejderha5972]

Ehhhh.... if a risk is small, it can still have unacceptable consequences. It could be that they know it doesn’t happen often, but they just think it is unacceptable when it does. With that said, it's also worth saying that this was likely also to send a message to WotC, that they cannot just print busted, chase rares that become staples of the format and expect no one to do anything. This is also the RC saying, "WotC, we disagree with the printing of Dockside and Jeweled Lotus, and we disagree with how you've handled Mana Crypt. Don't dangle fast mana as a way to sell packs."

[@turgid4391]

The crypt into signet thing isn’t really a great example to zero in on because crypt does so much more than cast a signet. Crypt casts a rhystic study before anyone has mana and much much more

[@distractionmakers]

I agree. I’m not sure why the RC was so focused on it, but it was the reasoning given.

[@ADPRadio]

Commander players losing their minds over busted cards getting banned just shows me they have zero clue how much special treatment they get compared to 60 card constructed players. You guys just got a little taste of what we get and we don't send people death threats over it. That was just shameful behavior.

[@michaelalves8900]

Totally different. Constructed, you are expected to see constant rotation. Commander was supposed to be an eternal format. When I played Constructed, I always KNEW that I had to keep updating my collection to lose as little as possible while playing. Commander felt like i could invest in cards that i always wish i had and that i could care for that cards and the decks i was building. Not it is not like that anymore.

[@indomobilegaming3636]

@@michaelalves8900 there is no rotation in vintage, legacy, pioneer etc. commander is also a constructed format just so you know. also you are very dumb if you treating non RL card as investment. let this make you as a wake up call.

[@michaelalves8900]

@@indomobilegaming3636 You show both a lack of interpretation AND a lack of civility. These are indicators that your arguments are not very relevant. Boosters cost much more than they would based on the production and distribution cost precisely because cards "hold value." Ignoring that is stupid. It is being blind to how the world and any TCG work. That is why there are so many shops fully dedicated to them. I don't treat cards as an investment. But i buy cards i like to have, and i only pay that huge amount for it because they worth that amount. It is expected that if I need money back, I can sell it for at least 60-70% of what I paid. Commander was a format that people expected to not see cards going "poof" in price because of singleton and great stability as it was an eternal format. So it is OBVIOUS that everyone who lost money on this got angry. My deck had those cards. I liked playing with them. My play group uses them. Playing in shops with other cEDH players with them was fun. I don't like the ban. I don't like losing the money i paid for such cards. You can twist logic as you want. You are just being individualist, unempathetic, and plain uneducated, as this will have a bad impact on the whole of Commander if you can't see that.

[@michaelalves8900]

@@indomobilegaming3636 Such a childish comment.

[@DanielCotillo]

​@@michaelalves8900 You can also invest in Pioneer and Modern, yet you choose to play Magic the wrong way. No sympathies.

[@MetalCoreHog131]

I think the real problem is how so many Local Game Stores can only fire off tournaments for “commander” because it’s the only thing new players want to play most of the time. Tournaments with prizes sort of necessitate some sort of ban list with such a huge card pool. For kitchen table commander you don’t need a ban list, I’ve played in pods where Cyclonic Rift and Sol Ring was banned, etc but Rule 0 doesn’t really exist with strangers at cons or game stores. So if they’re going to change this casual format into something that works for tournament-play they’ll need an even bigger ban list and probably a separate one for cedh. It’s tough too because I understand not everyone can find a playgroup that fits their needs. Cards like these are the reason I’ve never desired to play commander at a con or lgs so this definitely I think makes it more likely that I would but I’d rather draft a cube/play limited or any other format with strangers as there is an some sort of power level agreed upon Commander was intended to be a way to unwind in between games of constructed but now it’s turning into something completely different and I think this is the first of many growing pains to come. Who knows maybe 5 years from now Commander will be cut up into several formats both eternal and rotating Rule 0 only works between friends, there’s always going to be someone who thinks their deck is a 7 when it’s closer to a 9 I still can’t really wrap my head around tournaments for a 4 player game where “politics” is involved but hey people love it I guess

[@thebigsquig]

The last thing anyone should ever be doing is playing in a commander tournament. That’s a recipe for disaster

[@MetalCoreHog131]

@@thebigsquig oh I wholeheartedly agree but this is very much a thing at Local Game Stores that don’t have enough people interested in actual competitive formats to fire off events. They need to incentivize players to come to the store so they have these commander tournaments which I’m guessing is where we have all these pre-con vs mana crypt feel bad moments because I don’t know where else that would happen I would love it if PreModern and Pauper got some more love as those can be pretty accessible financially if you build the right decks and the meta is mostly good fair Magic but those are so niche it’s more something you have to do with friends of smaller con-type gatherings Modern/Legacy/Vintage are ludicrously expensive and basically rotating formats now. Standard hasn’t been worth playing since 2013 imo I get why no one wants to play anything besides commander and limited but it’s causing a lot of issues for the health of the game/longevity imo but then again they seem determined to change into Funko Pops tcg with all these crossovers at which points I assume profits will be so high the health of the game doesn’t actually matter

[@thebigsquig]

@@MetalCoreHog131 I run an lgs myself and I never understood the desire to organize commander. Commander is great for the store cause you don’t have to do anything. Let the players organize themselves. They will sus out playgroups and power levels and rule zero on their own. You don’t need rounds, entry fees, timers, prizing, or pairings. Just provide the space for the community to meet. We host commander twice a week. It’s free open play with random promo raffles every hour. Promos WotC provided for free. Anything more than that is working harder not smarter.

[@guksungan1267]

@@MetalCoreHog131 that's an insightful breakdown on the unfortunate events surrounding tournaments and local game stores. I think as you said, the prioritisation of profits ultimately is killing the game, which in turn causes these issues to begin with.

[@MetalCoreHog131]

@@guksungan1267 I’ve lived in two different states in recent years and every single LGS I’ve been able to reasonably drive to has only offered Commander “Leagues” and sealed Pre-Releases. I haven’t even found a way to booster draft the latest set at a store… I’m forced to either play Arena/MTGO or find enough friends to go in on a box with. Bizarre times for sure. If I wanted to try and compete in Legacy, Modern, Pioneer, or even Standard I’d have to spend hundreds on train or plane tickets. I never imagined Magic would end up like this but I suppose with Foundations maybe that could change. Between this and Universes Beyond I think it’s clear WOTC/Hasbro cares more about pulling in new customers/collectors with IP crossovers then enfranchised players. Commander can be a great time but it’s also like playing a really poorly designed board game. It’s like Dominion if everyone had a different set of cards haha

[@briant1784]

As a lot of commenters point out, this doesn't include the free mulligan. , I did a little math assuming all players mull once or stop if they have a mana crypt. each player has a %14.6 ish chance to open with one, meaning , 46.9% of 4 manacrypt owner games involve at least 1 person opening with a manacrypt. If everyone is running a problematic card nearly half of all your games that problematic card is in someone's hand turn one.

[@phoebeharrison6666]

It's very strange to me that the RC cite the very specific case where you have 2 signets and a mana crypt in the reasoning for banning it when mana crypt is just a blatant problem by itself. Playing a 3 drop on turn one and potentially a 4 drop which often could be your commander on t2 just puts you unreasonably ahead

[@breyor1]

No, not really. Sure, it’s a powerful start, you have 3 opponents, they collectively have thrice your resources you can still lose easily

[@ВасяПупкин-ш3ф4у]

In cedh, about half of tutors were for crypt. It definitely deserves ban

[@distractionmakers]

This would have been decent reasoning if backed up with data, but they don’t ban for cEDH.

[@fletcherchase926]

Haven’t done a ton of analysis on this but what if a player bringing another player’s life total to 0 in commander caused the person who dealt the final blow to win instead of causing the other player to lose? I feel like that adds a whole new dimension of strategy while making rush more viable, but it would REALLY change the meta of current commander. I like the idea of someone not having to sit out the rest of the game after losing all their life though.

[@Tvboy777]

Do you think that 11% is really an accurate reflection of how many decks would be running mana crypt if price wasn't an issue?

[@laurencefraser]

Introduces a slightly weird dynamic where everyone's trying to keep everyone else alive but as close to dead as possible so that they can be the one to strike the killing blow on Someone... ... Certainly sounds like a fun weird variant to try out once or twice, at least.

[@benneem]

I feel like the RC should radically change how the "banlist" works. Imo they should instead have a points system like Canadian Highlander. Allow players to play every card they like, but they have to tell the table "my deck is a 50" and the other 3 players can gang up on them or simply refuse to play. Or pods could use the points to specify the power level they will attempt to build decks to, "everyone bring a 10 point deck." Edit: There's decent back and forth in replies. There definitely pros and cons and complexity to any major change. The main reason I wish there was a points system is it would better allow the "soft signalling" that the RC wants. They could still rate a Black Lotus at 100 points which is basically "it's banned", but Mana Crypt and Sol Ring could both be rated at 10 points to send the signal "a format with too much fast mana is undesirable." I think it's a real shame that Mana Crypt suffered for the sins of Sol Ring in the current system that only allows outright bans or no action. It could also be possible to give *combinations* of cards a point value. Like you could have Thassa's Oracle have no point value because as a single card it is fine, but if the deck contains any single "flip your library" effect like Demonic Consultation it is valued at 20 points. This would increase the complexity of the system though.

[@Saltpounder513]

That's way too smart. If you do that then people won't be able to be dishonest about their decks being a 7.

[@megapussi]

Its simply too much work for something thats not likely to see any returns in the short term. I think this or a similar system would be a good investment in the long run, but i dont think hasbro cares about that. They care more about infinite quarterly growth.

[@mostlikelymaybe]

It would make for a better format in theory. But no one would play it. Canlander is my fav format but it is niche. Points is too complicated to enforce in a casual setting and is a dramatic shift. Essentially a whole new format.

[@MultiKbarry]

Somethings do have to stay hard banned.

[@GreatWhiteElf]

There's like what...30k unique cards? With hundreds more released every year. It's frankly an unrealistic goal to assign point values to them all. And that doesn't take into account card synergies or combos

[@tristinjeffers450]

Eh, you know I wasn’t planning on selling these cards anyways. Did I really lose anything? It sucks I can’t use these at my LGS anymore without having to ask, but it won’t stop me from using these cards when I play with my friends.

[@FlyingNinjaish]

I think the problem that gets ignored is how poorly the massive change in policy was handled. The RC has had a watch list that they've exclusively used to say they are looking at, but not banning, Dockside for years. The decision to go from a long policy of inactivity to dropping large, unheralded money bans is simply not competent.

[@MomirsLabTech]

And this point isnt arguable because the RC acknowledges the fact that they really could have handled this instance better in their FAQ document.

[@gnogara]

And they did that and just dipped. How about a promise of quicker bans? They called out Jeweled Lotus in 2020 as being "problematic", they say they started talking about banning Lotus in 2023, saw the whole ass commander masters reprint it with new art and had zero things to say until the set was done being stocked in shelfs. RC is clearly pandering to WotC. Like, I'm an enfranchised player, playing multiple formats, I'm used to the good cards being banned. But I know a guy in my LGS who traded like, 90% of his binder for a Jeweled Lotus. Last I spoke to him he will just quit Magic for now. And I can't blame him, the card was printed for EDH, and the RC did nothing about it for 4 years, why would they ban it now, right after a reprint?

[@breyor1]

@@gnogaratinfoil hat, it’s because those two cards can’t be power crept, and WotC wants more design space.

[@beingbag2606]

Ban the cards I don't like

[@MomirsLabTech]

Based comment

[@tristanescure7384]

I think we're getting back to Richard Garfield's vision with how many players want to have their casual cake and eat it too. Fundamentally, playing a TCG casually means that you don't have access to all the cards. You're making due with what you have, and that means even the most powerful cards are okay because they are rare and you don't have full support for them. But if you want to fabricate a "casual" format while also giving yourself access to everything all at once, then yeah that's gonna break. I think the only consistent framework I've seen for this type of thing is setting a budget for your decks and hoping that demand will put the power-appropriate price tag on each card. But of course WotC wouldn't want to tell you to spend less money...

[@bobthor9647]

RC says “ we don’t control what Wotc prints “. Then Wotc says “ we don’t control the RC “ - so who is running the game !? 😮😅

[@PhoenicopterusR]

The players?

[@ProbablyJacob]

The problem is commander was never intended to be "the game" and commander completely stealing the show is having predictable consequences

[@codyhanson1344]

@@ProbablyJacob the realist comment all day

[@Pistallion1]

Nothing in the commander community makes sense. Card bannings should be last resort due to it being a physical item (this isnt hearthstone). In a casual format, where Primeval Titan is banned and Time Twister isn't, thinking commander isn't nonsense is just stupid. Using edhrec as a source is also BS (not your fault since its all we got lol)

[@iudexumbra609]

The difficulty comes from a lack of a defined meta in the casual space, what a card does when in a game and when that becomes too regular, and how often something is used. These aren't metrics unlike ones used to regulate competitive formats, but it becomes murky under the weight of Commander's variability and reach. Primeval Titan is banned in Commander for the same reason Jace, the Mind Sculptor got banned in standard when both did so. Each warped the game around them being used and abused. Time Twister isn't banned because you could use it, but then three other players will punish you for it. It's largely self-policing. What these bans to the new cards addressed and has been speculated on was that the self-policing aspect and Rule 0 conversations were no longer enough, and so they were contained via official decision.

[@solsystem1342]

No, I don't think that every game piece in the game's history should be in a casual format. Fast mana in general is just reallt toxic so I don't think it should exist. Definitely the right call to throw out the most agreegious example. Hopefully the moxen will be next

[@Pistallion1]

@@solsystem1342 i think its a good argument and i pretty much agree. I am, though, against bannings in competitive formats. Edh isnt one of them... and tbh i really just dont get the appeal

[@Vuohenmor]

You guys forget though that EDH is just a subset of mtg that they have been pushing more towards being as broken as it can be, and while the CRC/CAG can try to regulate some of the more broken cards it has ultimately been a fruitless endeavor for the most part. CEDH may be the logical extreme of commander, but it has ultimately bled out a lot of the format. Why try to build or play a fun but weak deck when you’re just going to always get curb-stomped by the less interesting cEDH deck, or the deck playing the cEDH combos just cause they can.

[@SoftwareNeos]

9:36 Yeah... but most CEDH players hate that card. Its very weird to say "CEDH players play like this" when they are basically forced to. if CEDH had their way. Dockside, Rystic Study, Thassas oracle, Orcish bowmasters, etc. People can say all they want about "they allow everything" but they also know what poor design. CEDH players... are also players. They arent robots that just wanna win every game with a degenerative combo. Even they believe that cards like that arent healthy. or fun

[@raedien]

Yup, my issue with the bannings is that they didn't go far enough.

[@JesseKearnsEverydayEveryman]

From an artistic perspective…there is no higher honor than to have your card banned, as it will be etched into a very narrow, very prestigious set of cards that almost everyone who knows about Magic is familiar with. So…congrats on Dockside…and also “my condolences.” 😅

[@SenkaZver]

Makes sense y'all would cover this. This is like, the biggest, spiciest news in tcg world in awhile lol

[@brianmattei7134]

The ban list is because Rule 0 doesn't work. Too many pubstompers exist and the whole "my deck is a 7 but it's actually cEDH" problem is so pervasive that it's a literal meme.

[@ClayKBFP]

Yea I have like 2 cEDH level combos in my deck that I play at level 7-8 usually. Hit the exact combo described by RC with Sol ring and Arcane signet and slammed down for a turn 3 win after just explaining my deck usually gets a winning board state after 7-8 turns Felt like such an ass I’m tearing the deck down to make sure what ever new deck I get can’t physically win before turn 5 If they want to slow games down and prevent problematic cycles they need to start maybe requiring minimum cards required in an infinite combo or something and stop with the bans

[@SaberToothPortilla]

I don't really have a problem with bans in casual formats specifically because they can be easily ignored and/or they have little impact on the whole. For instance, yeah, everyone wants to win the game, but if your record isn't a priority for you (as you'd expect for a casual player) you shouldn't be that bothered by the power-level of the game changing on the basis of how it might affect your performance like a competitive player would. For similar reasons, being told you can't play the card you bought isn't as big of a deal, because you presumably didn't buy it strictly because it would help you win anyway. If it just makes the game less fun for you, you don't *have* to play at sanctioned events, a lot of people don't. I don't think most people's personal play groups are that invested in the ban list anyway. They'll take it as a suggestion, but I'd imagine most people aren't going to think "RC put out their take on the format, we *have* to play this way". I get that it might be kinda rough for people who only play FNM at their LGS or something, but I think that having reasonable baselines is good for facilitating play with new/unfamiliar people.

[@vferrei2]

“They should just share their methodology!” Every company that has ever shared their methodology for something like this has only made the situation WORSE. All that sharing methodology does is give folks more to tear apart. There is NOTHING they could even possibly share that would make everyone happy, because perfect methodology that everyone will agree is reasonable doesn’t exist.

[@rumad-_-bro2062]

Did you calculate the "free mulligan" when calculating the odds? If not, I feel as though having multiple mulligans can askew the odds/stats.

[@distractionmakers]

Mulligans do change things but we have to ask some questions. How often are players taking a mulligan? Are players taking a mulligan specifically to find mana crypt? Are the mulligan rules actually the problem? You can mulligan down to 4 cards and have the described scenario. The RC does not mention this at all in their statement. But, this is why we gave a range of 1 in 25 to 1 in 37 IF everyone is playing all of the described cards. Mana crypt is in less than 11% of decks if we use the only available data we have, EDHREC.

[@SSolemn]

In cEDH the Mulligan is really aggressive, and it's not hard to see people opening with a 5 card hand (that's 3)

[@IMTSin]

I personally think that the approach to this idea was pretty disingenuous (from the creators of the video). The RC stated it was about limited explosive starts to games which this change will do on some level. I think that the idea behind the principle is what is more important. Mana crypt or sol ring, plus a land, plus a mana rock is 4 mana on turn 2 which is still significantly more then the average player who has only 1 mana in tapping on turn 2. This is still a significant advantage over the average board state and in higher level pods this absolutely provides an incredible advantage. Yes, they did use an extreme example but they did provide the premise. Personally I think CEDH and EDH will need separate ban lists. As there seems to be a strong division in what type of game people want to see and rule 0 seems rather ineffective.

[@breyor1]

If you create a separate ban list, C would be happy, and EDH wouldn’t change. Thats because the top 10% will always exist in every format, so the guy who pub stomps the locals will still be able to do that, and it’s impossible to fix it.

[@IMTSin]

@@breyor1 you can absolutely make it more manageable tho.

[@Thalarion]

18:51 The banlist is a suggestion. Within playgroups they encourage you to make your own banlist. But the list exists to facilitate public/pick up games with randoms/outside your playgroup, which for YEARS (honestly most of pre-pandemic) the most common way to play EDH was with your playgroup and much less often with strangers EDH has outgrown itself

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

Commander having a "sugested avoid" list is something I always defended. In fact, thats How I take It considering its a casual format I play with my friends, not a oficial tournament... About the bans, they were more then right in getting rid of powerful neutral fast mana.

[@Taeerom]

That's also literally in the actual rules ofthe format. Rule 0 explicitly states that you are allowed to play with whatever cards you and your opponents agree to play with, including banned cards.

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

@@Taeerom I know. Thats why I believe CALLING It a "sugested avoid" list is better. Most players simply obey the "oficial ban list" blindly.

[@otterfire4712]

A tier list for commander cards and staples would help keep CEDH decks and cards out of more casual tables while still retaining a uniform format. With this, you can better define where your deck sits in power because stronger cards are gatekept out of lower tiers of play.

[@mac_antonio]

Something that is interesting because of the free for all format is that the chance an opponent pulls a fast mana combo is 3 times the chance you pull it. Meaning you are going to get rolled by a lucky fast mana combo 3 times more often than you get to pop-off with lucky fast mana.

[@thomaspetrucka9173]

I don't know how you can look at the Commander system and conclude that it is a competitive one. A free mulligan and an 8th card pads out a bumpy start. 4 players evens out power imbalance. Color restriction and singleton pushes you to play some less-optimal cards. 40 life with commander damage gives time for shenanigans. You're right that it only incentivizes players to fast-track combos, but can you see how that might have been an attempt to make a fun and relaxed game? Which competitively-minded players have taken as a challenge?

[@distractionmakers]

The problem is Goodhart’s Law. They’ve created a system they think is incentivizing casual play without actually doing that and with no way to measure. What a game system can do is reduce the returns from skill through table politics and randomness, commander seems to have done that. But when you actually look at the situations the system creates alongside the cards available the system is instead circumvented leading to one specific strategy being dominant - combo. They could attempt to ban that type of strategy, but it’s a fools errand with the massive card pool. What they should be doing is adding even more randomness.

[@codyhanson1344]

@@distractionmakers I like this response. One question I do have tho is, aside from hyper controlling the legal card pool, how would you suggest randomness is added? Perhaps we roll a die to see who takes the next turn every turn? Shall we just increase the deck minimum to 199 and ban all tutors? These suggestions are ofc a bit overexaggerated, but the question is genuine.

[@distractionmakers]

@@codyhanson1344 A couple ideas would be: -ban tutors -remove free mulligan -introduce an additional random element like planechase as a rule -reduce hand size -up deck size (unlikely) -remove commanders (obviously not gonna happen)

[@Jerhevon]

@@distractionmakers There's diminishing returns to that list of ideas. Before EDH I played a 250 card format called Five-Color. Minimal bans, only a restricted list, ante cards allowed, 25 cards of each color. Some similar initial goals to EDH: Make a format where you could play whatever, but restrictions forced more variety into games. But like every tutor was restricted, and every regrowth. Sleeved decks were towering monstrosities. Checking up on it after I got into EDH it somehow pushed decks up to 300 cards.

[@raedien]

​@distractionmakers everything the "casuals" want is found in Limited. Commander isn't casual. Never has been. Never will be for the conceptual reasons you and I agree on. Commander presents a deck builder and play puzzle that will always reward skill, investment, and efficiency. If you want a "casual" experience, you need to craft it without giving people access to a given card with perfect, and repeated reliability (cmdr). Tutors at least cost you a card, the CMDR doesn't. Skilled players minimize "singleton variance" better than a casual. Always will. Limited Formats, especially Cube, can be created for the experience you want. This is the ultimate end point of "kitchen table" Magic. Kids playing with "what they have" -> adults crafting an experience via the cards they put in the cube -> playing pools against eachother with those cards. CMDR is just a way to play multiplayer Magic made by judges (not casual at all lol) with very serious conceptual flaws (padded life totals for one) that have never actually been addressed from a design perspective *if* the goal is "casual" play. No one cares about losing more than the self- designated "casuals" in my experience and the hypocrisy is absolutely wild.

[@JimNoBoDie]

As someone who owned none of these cards but played against them in my pods a fair bit, they all set players so far ahead I don't think they are really needed in the format. Especially since we still have sol ring, signet, etc. It creates such a "feels bad man" situation that I don't think they do anything but make people salty.

[@JimNoBoDie]

I also have to imagine there's a lot of people that experienced a Mana Crypt with that groan moment of "oh, I've lost turn 2," because the caster of Mana Crypt just goes off. That will reinforce a negative perception in that players mind, ie: "every time someone casts Mana Crypt they go off, and I keep seeing Mana Crypt" (even though they may not being seeing it all that much). In my mind that negative feeling is far more dangerous than a few lucky players that pulled one of these cards and casually run it. In the end, do we really NEED these cards in the format? You said it yourself, Mana Crypt is only in 11% of decks. Probably a more positive change than not

[@hunhhmm]

My experiences have been that a Sol Ring/Mana Crypt turn one usually leads to a loss as the other 3 players gang up on them. I've personally started sandbagging Sol Ring until like turn 4 to avoid the heat. I'm genuinely curious what your pods are like where this doesn't happen. Are people not ganging up? Is it that the interaction counts are so low? Something else?

[@GreatWhiteElf]

So I have a few problems with your opinions in the video. But my biggest problem is that I think cEDH is 100% it's own format. And my reason for thinking that is because the philosophy/mindset for cEDH and regular EDH could not be more different.

[@breyor1]

They aren’t, because CEDH is simply the logical conclusion of EDH, those players simply arrived there first. Even if you made C a separate ban list, EDH would still have pub stompers and griefers, you would only be improving the C players time ironically

[@GreatWhiteElf]

@@breyor1 I understand that argument, and yes there will always be those that push a format to its most extreme. But if you separate cEDH, then the gap between the lowest power and highest power for casual is substantial smaller. I see that as a good thing.

[@irisnegro]

@@breyor1 That's like saying Speed running is the logical conclusion of gaming while also talking about Animal Crossing. Yeah Speed running can be fun to play or watch for some people, but that's not why most of the people play video games.

[@breyor1]

@@irisnegro the older a format gets, the more it shifts upwards. Speed runners are having fun there own way, but it’s not quite an accurate analogy because those games are single player. Once you add 2-3 other people it gets complicated, because tiny wins in the arms race will eventually lead to everyone playing much stronger decks. “Casual” has always been rules enforcement lvl not game type, and people weald it like a magic fix all word for people they don’t like

[@dizzzave357]

Overly expensive cards are exclusionary of a lot of players (as if Magic isn't too expensive already) and when mana rocks reach a critical mass it throws off the natural flow/progression of the game. Both are good reasons to say sayonara to Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus.

[@QuicksilverSG]

Commander is really three overlapping formats, distinguished by card selection: * Casual Commander - No: stax, infinite loops, land destruction. Budget-friendly, no proxies. * Pay-to-Win Commander - Casual plus pay-to-win cards > $25. Proxies require permission. * Competitive EDH (cEDH) - Play-to-win, nothing legal excluded. Proxies taken for granted. Prominent promoters of Pay-to-Win Commander are WotC, online card dealers, and corporate-sponsored KZbinrs.

[@bakdorz]

Banning is just the most extreme game-balancing tool to use here. A more nuanced approached is creating a tiering system like in Pokemon Battles. The concept of Overused, Underused, and Neverused are used to create metas that don't all revolve around the same few cards. It's like how there are weight classes in UFC, it just ends up creating more curated experiences where people understand what they are signing up for.

[@distractionmakers]

Weight classes is a great comparison.

[@hatertime]

The Commander "Community" has to either understand that if the Commander Rules Committee is the legitimate arbiter of the Commander Format they therefore have the legitimacy to remove cards from the format and need to have those decisions be backed up by Wizards themselves. If they are not, then they're illegitimate and need to be ignored. People can be upset about bans, but there is no basis for which to challenge their legitimacy. There is no good or bad time to ban cards. All bans hurt people. My understanding is that the Rules Committee and Rules Advisory committee expressed to Wizards that printing Jeweled Lotus was a mistake, before the card was printed. This was not taken into consideration. They allowed it into the format for a long time partially to placate Wizards by not snap banning a marquee card from a Format Specific Master Set. There has always been a tension between the two. This may trigger a crisis of legitimacy, however Wizards vision of the format includes cards like Dockside and Jeweled Lotus

[@tedm3081]

I think this point has been underappreciated in all this. WotC is gonna print powerful cards that sell. What sells best? Fast mana that can go in any deck. I saw jokes about Jeweled Lotus Petal coming out in future sets

[@Skronkful]

Regarding the math on screen at 12:44 - 14:59 - this number evaluates to around 90.7%, so that can't be right. TBH I don't understand what that expression is trying to calculate. I think the correct formula for what you're saying is 1c1*7c2*91c5/99c8=0.5704% There's 1c1 ways to choose 1 mana crypt, 7c2 ways to choose 2 out of your 7 signets, and 91c5 ways to choose 5 cards from the remaining 91 (non-crypt non-signet) cards from your deck; divided by 99c8 possible ways to draw 8 cards from a 99 card deck. But this is the probability of drawing EXACTLY 2 signets - drawing more than 2 is fine as well. We also need to draw at least one land to cast the second second signet, right? I didn't bother to type out all the possible combinations, but by simulation the probability of drawing mana crypt, at least 2 signets and at least 1 land (with 36 lands) is around p=0.5762%. Now if all 4 players are running it, and they use their free mulligan trying to find it, that's 8 chances to see it per game. The chance of at least one player hitting it is 1-(1-p)^8, which is around 4.518%, so around one in 22 games.

[@ekolimitsLIVE]

“Who’s game is this” is probably the best way I have seen explained the core problems with the RC.

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

The reason why I disagree with these bans are: 1) in a casual game you dont need to ban anything, since rule zero will catch any offending cards anyway, and 2) the idea that games that last "only" 6-8 turns is too short is offensive to me.

[@davonscott5768]

I just was thinking if these cards where in my price range would I run them in almost every deck, the answer is yes most definitely why wouldn’t you

[@breyor1]

I own several copies of each card banned, and a lot of decks didn’t have crypt or lotus as a deliberate design restraint. I’m more miffed that Red got an Axe as it only gets mana rocks and they jacked 2.5 of the good ones

[@MrSzymonpik]

Guys, your math isn't quite what they were saying. Ok, let me explain. -You play approximately 12 sources of fast ramp. -You have two pieces of mega ramp: Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. -Cutting the chance of drawing one of these pieces of mega ramp decreases the odds "geometrically". -In Commander, you start with 8 cards in hand on turn one and can "see" the ninth card on turn two, excluding your commander. -You also get one free mulligan, which is an important factor. Love you guys, but now, I dare you to count again. 😅

[@MomirsLabTech]

15:00 an important point that was not brought up here is that the aggregator EDHREC uses to gather that data has no way to distinguish a "casual" decklist from a cEDH decklist, which means that the 11% inclusion rate is already skewed higher than it actually should be when discussing "casual", and thats before even considering the fact that not every decklist built online is built in paper.

[@IssaUserName]

Do I .... Just play with assholes? Does my pod just cheat? Like.. these numbers don't add up 😭

[@Brognold]

It looks like they excluded mulligans and the first card draw in the calculations, and seemingly forgot about all the other ramp or stax that's available at two mana if you didn't get a second signet turn 1.

[@distractionmakers]

A couple things. We did not include mulligans. That changes the math to be about 1 in 20 games on the low end. We are also not accounting for all of the ways you can get lots of mana on turn 2, we are looking at Mana Crypt and two mana rocks. The last thing to note is observation bias. When this type of explosive start happens you're likely to notice that more than when it doesn't.

[@relevantusername3342]

18:53 This is something I have been confused about. I assumed that the RC only applied to WoTC official tournaments. They literally have no authority over what people do in their own games.

[@BlackGarland]

The comments from the RC about mana crypt into signets was moreso to show the near top end of explosiveness. This whole video seems predicated on, "Lets look at this hyper specific point of mana crypt going off, look at how dumb the RC is!" When the RC wanted to reduce those starts geometrically, its because sol ring and mana crypt both occupy the same space, making 4 or more mana on turn 2. Cutting out one of those reduces the likelyhood of an early start by half. Unfortunately the math provided here has such thick horse blinders on, that I don't even know if there's a point to having a discussion about it. If I didn't trust this duo to give their true thoughts I would have written it off as completely bad faith, and it pains me to say it.

[@nathand6467]

And they spent over 15 minutes doing it. Incredible.

[@PhoenicopterusR]

I think the confusion people are having is that the banlist IS a suggestion list, but very few have actually gone to see the banlist and the RC's reasons as to why specific cards are banned. Reminder to everyone who sees this comment, the Commander RC website includes the reason why a card banned, and how it conflicts with their philosophy. They also state that you can still use any of those cards if your group agrees. I feel like it might be worth it to direct people to the commander site in videos like these. While WotC does have the banlist on their site, it doesn't have any other information that is vital to understanding the format.

[@milii113]

Part of this though is the RC's fault in the end it feel, because their branding really does work against their goal of just giving recommendations. Like if you're a relatively new or otherwise unaware player and while playing a game someone goes "Oh you can't play that card, the Commander Rules Committee has that on their Ban List", you'd really have no clue as to the fact that this is a recommendation from an independent organization not working with wizards directly.

[@PhoenicopterusR]

@milii113 I'm not entirely sure that's on the RC since commander wasn't originally an official format. When WotC swooped in to make it one and start printing specifically for it, they made no effort in educating or directing players to the proper avenues, they simply said "hey here's the limitations of the format, here's the banlist" with no further explanation. They're no stranger to this either, it's not like the formats we had pre-commander were lacking a banlist or the intricacies that aren't apparent to the new or overly casual player.

[@hughmortyproductions8562]

For people who have a consistent group to play with, the banlist works fine as a suggestion. But for anybody else the banlist is what you have to build you decks with.

[@PhoenicopterusR]

@hughmortyproductions8562 or you can talk to whoever you end up playing, guarantee anyone who owns a Crypt or Lotus will agree to play with them because they want to play their own. If it's an organized event, ask the event organizers if they allow certain cards. otherwise, you can plan around it by having a card to swap in if the group/event upholds the ban. Dunno dude, it's a real non-issue no matter how I look at it. It's already commander, communicating and planning accordingly is the least effort you'll put in.

[@elitheworrywort]

I don't think they meant 1 land + mana crypt + 2 signet, I think they meant 1 land turn 1 + mana crypt + signet + a second land turn 2. Cause that's still 5 mana turn 2. You're not "untapping" with 5 mana but they say the issue is having 5 mana on turn 2 so this would also fit

[@hunterstrong3318]

Big issue i see in the design philosophy is lowering the frequency of explosive turns by a tad doesnt change the powerful plays they can make fron that mana, its just now the 1 guy who has it is more likely to runaway with the game with lower chance for the others to make an explosive play to stay on paridy

[@trixx2369]

Another thing you missed in the Argumentation is the amount of quick mana. You just focused on crypt without thinking about every way to get to 5 mana in t2 if you run all 3 of the banned cards plus sol ring. So you need to add the amount of land, signet plus jeweld lotus starts, the crypt and sol ring starts, the solring plus signet starts and the dockside with 3 or 4 treasures plus any other fast mana starts. Its the amount of possibilitys that they are reducing

[@Trisket]

"They want to extend game length" the last thing EDH needs is longer games. If I lose quickly to an explosive start, okay, I'll just shuffle up and play again. Banning cards in a format with a Rule Zero makes no sense on its face. These bans impacted 65% of the decks I own. I don't care about the loss of monetary value, in fact I would prefer they reprint every card more, even stuff on the reserve list. What I care about is no longer being able to use the cards I put effort into acquiring and don't know what other cards I own are also in the sights for a ban. I've been playing for 25 years and am deeply invested in the game and for the first time I'm seriously considering cashing out and proxying everything.

[@geek593]

It's less about the actual game length and more about the effective game length. If resolving a Mana Crypt almost guarantees a stomp from there the game was determined by the first card played even though more cards were played after that for however long it took. Nothing is worse than knowing you've lost early and having to sit there waiting for it to end. Game determining effects should come later in the game and hopefully in the form of something more fun than "I have more mana than you".

[@PhoenicopterusR]

Just proxy anything anyways, not many people are going to care and the ones that care you'd be good to avoid. As for the banlist, it functions to warn people about cards that may negatively warp gameplay, that's why there's rule 0 to say "hey, if your group agrees with it, then go ahead"

[@Trisket]

​@@geek593the thing is Mana Crypt in no way guarantees a stomp in my meta, we all play heavy interaction, specifically to deal with explosive starts.

[@shorewall]

​@@Trisket and your group can keep playing it.

[@solsystem1342]

​@@Trisket No one's sending the pinkertons to confiscate cards (that have been banned). You can still play them with that group. It just helps suppres the amount of competative games that become a boss battle against someone who got lucky with their opening draw.

[@dold_]

I'm reviewing some thoughts I had about altering how the ban list works in Commander (I will say that it should have a ban list, but it's a hard list to curate due to the casual nature of the format). Basically, I don't think a Commander ban list can "solve problems" like it can in Modern (Commander problems seem to be a lot more localized than in tournament formats), so I'm thinking about other options I've seen other games use (mostly Android: Netrunner, which went through a few ideas before eventually settling on a normal ban list). There's more than what I'm mentioning here, but the crux of it is that there would be a ban list, but also an "Exclusive List": "The 'Exclusive List' is a list of cards where you may only play one card from the list. Your deck cannot contain more than one card from the Exclusive List" For example, you would have to pick between playing Jeweled Lotus and Mana Crypt and anything else that happens to be on the Exclusive List. You can also use it to break up combos, like putting Demonic Consulation and Thassa's Oracle both on the list bans the combo but not the individual cards. You can tweak the formula endlessly, like "actually you can play 2 cards from here" or "here are 3 different Exclusive Lists, you get one card from each", but I would keep it simple for the sake of all our brains.

[@distractionmakers]

Interesting idea!

[@Caliban_80]

100% agree. If the RC has a methodology they should share it. Then we can make informed decisions about what to purchase/play. If the methodology points to a card like Crypt being banned, we buy that card at our own risk knowing the methodology. If there is NO methodology they shouldn't be banning anything at all.

[@iudexumbra609]

You hit on it a little with methodology, but I would look back into the history of the format for answers. I would also exclude anything about design of the cards from the standpoint of the company and more the use of them by the players over time. The problem is going to be the answers that make the most sense and imo are the ones that answers the questions people have don't make sense in a black and white kind of way. They definitely have more "feel" involved than just looking to a rule book. I have answers I believe are correct in my mind and could explain here, but Commander is a bit more individual than that so what works for me to make sense of things might not work for others.

[@fl4re163]

I think the thing that upsets me most about these changes is that its just another change that makes green even better in the format. If they're trying to incentive these slow, escalating games where you build up a board state, and take away opportunites to win faster then your opponent, you're just giving more advantages to the colour identity that has that play style baked in. This is especially felt with the dockside ban, where now what was probably the worst or second worst colour in the format is getting hit even harder than all the rest.

[@Crushanator1]

Im not personally affected by this ban, but as someone who likes playing in 2-3 Pre release events now im definitely selling off any card i have that ever hits $50+ dollars. Its a very cool story to have opened a One Ring and Orcish Bowmasters in the same Jumpstart event, those are absolutely being sold and replaced by proxies immediately. I feel there is now literally zero incentive for me to ever open a pack outside a pre release event, which i do bc I think theyre fun. I'll simply only ever buy real cards

[@agrocreepers]

umm you never had a reason too open packs ask anyone whose played this game for any amount of time and ask them if gambling on a pack is worth it not a single person with half a brain will say yes unless they have their hands in the cookie jar the literal only reason you open packs if for draft or pre release

[@rickdeckard8002]

Proxying ftw

[@Dstinct]

@@agrocreepers Yes. buy nothing from the stores. But expect a place to play. Big brain thinking here.

[@agrocreepers]

@@Dstinct what drugs are you on and can I get some

[@taylorreid5347]

I really appreciate the analysis and perspective. My best guess as a person that has played since 1993, is that Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus don't have a mana cost -or- an opportunity cost for including in a deck. Those are dangerous cards to incentivize and accept, but I can't know for sure. I really like this channel, and I wouldn't have found it without this ban decision, so there's that I guess.

[@distractionmakers]

Glad you like our channel! I could definitely see the case being made for them being dangerous in the format. Banning them will reduce explosive starts. I think the question becomes how much did they move the needle and was it worth it to take these cards away from players.

[@thejollyrajamtg9847]

"Why is this not a suggestions list?" THANK YOU. Because the RC and Wizards/Hasbro operate independently, to say there's a ban list in the same way there's one for Standard etc. is ridiculous. I'm sure there are second and third-order problems that arise by calling it a "suggested ban list for competitive events," or "suggested ban list for non-competitive events," but at least then it's clear what the ban list is supposed to accomplish and for who.

[@Zaxophone32]

I think you are 100% correct with the rules committee trying to influence the culture of edh. I think that when they say they want it to be a social game what they mean is that anytime you go sit down to play it feels like playing with friends. I don’t think that’s possible. I have a lot of fun with my own little group of players but have had universally negative experiences with any free play events I’ve gone to. To make an extreme example, I can bring my “sitting in chairs” tribal deck to my friend group and know I will be treated with respect because they know me and my style of creativity, even if my deck is weaker than everything else at the table. The same is not the case for a bunch of strangers who are all playing for their own reasons and may see my choices as suboptimal and those choices, and subsequently me, as not worth treating with respect. Meanwhile, if someone slaps down a mana crypt and pops off, something no one in my friend group could possibly afford, my initial reaction is “oh, fuck this guy for being able to pay enough to have more fun than me.” It ultimately comes down to people playing for their own reasons and the only way to play with people you sync up with is by cultivating your own community, not relying on the rules committee to make a community for you.

[@distractionmakers]

You really hit the problem on the head. When designing a competitive game to be played with strangers you have to assume the possibility of someone taking the system to its extreme. This is why tournaments don’t run into this problem. When tournament players sit down we all have agreed to play by the ruleset outlined prior to the tournament by WOTC. Commander is a fascinating experiment in attempting to create that same idea, but for casual play. Which I would argue defeats the purpose of casual play entirely. Casual play for small groups to talk with each other and find a balance over time. Playing with any given random person is impossible to rule 0 your way into that same experience.

[@hibiscusmix]

A big part of what happened in this ban I think is an issue of control. The Commander RC doesn't have anywhere near as much control over the format as I think they'd like to have, considering that WotC can just print whatever they want into the format whenever they want, and they've been doing so more and more aggressively in the last decade. They can't realistically ban Sol Ring since it's in every precon deck ever made, and all the new busted cards that keep changing the identity of the format they don't have the ability to really do more than give suggestions on. They're pulling the levers they have available to them in order to try and wrangle the format back into something they might recognize again.

[@gomensnana9169]

Game breaking design choices, like, RED LEYLINE, and that red, 1-cost mouse. I don’t think anyone should be able to actually lose in mtg before their second turn.. TLDR: Someone had the combo in hand and killed me BEFORE my second turn (-4 hp). Who lets these red designs go to print?.. This morning I decided to play constructed ranked mtg arena for the first time. I am someone who likes making weird decks and optimizing them, and, once they’re “decent,” I usually work on a new one. I had a deck that was doing a nice combo and didn’t require much mana. Rather than beat up on fellow unranked players, I figured I’d play some ranked with it. The third game I played, the player got to start with the red leyline on the field and played the mouse. I’m thinking, “well, this will hurt.” I play my first land and have no 1-costs in my hand. Opponent’s second turn, casts the +3/0 manifest dread on the mouse, and then after hitting me casts the sacrifice creature to do its power in damage (of course the mouse has the same effect on itself, why wouldn’t an uncommon have this?). So I had 1 land and -4 hp before my second turn started. After that match I looked it up and there was a video outlining it 3 weeks ago so there isn’t even any creativity involved. I seen the red leyline 3 more times before I had to go to work. Fun meta, I like when I don’t get to even play the game.

[@Keck282]

One reason I like Pauper. It takes time to build a board state to win, and you get a nice back and forth, knock-down-drag-out fight that old Magic used to be. Don't get me wrong, there can be some broken stuff, but that usually comes later in the match, not right out the gate

[@thomaspetrucka9173]

@@Keck282 Isn't that what Commander used to be? I'm a pretty new player, but I was under the impression that commander used to be the go-to bulk bin casual format. Why should players have to keep running to new formats to have that kind of experience?

[@Keck282]

@thomaspetrucka9173 to an extent yes. As it was envisioned at the beginning, before WOTC started making product specifically for Commander, then people started to optimize the decks to win as fast as possible, instead of trying to do janky things. Pauper specifically is a 60 card format where you can only play cards that were printed at common (with a ban list). It was created to do just that, play with more bulk cards that didn't fit into a Modern deck that is largely playing uncommon and higher cards

[@danewirostek1903]

Wotc started printing designed for commander cards that push chaff out of the format​@@thomaspetrucka9173

[@shorewall]

​@@thomaspetrucka9173yep, if pauper became popular, wotc would ruin that too.

[@hoooplah]

This is a rare video where I think you've heavily missed the mark: 1) I think you focus on this as a ban list designed for competitive (which it isn't) and then ask for it to be a suggested list of cards for casuals not to play with (which is what the ban list is already...) 2) As a 'casual' player (who spends time designing decks which don't win too quickly [turn 6-8 for my strongest and later for the weakest]) I actually much prefer bans of cards in the 99 to a ban of something like Nadu. I can ask someone to play a different deck if they pull out Nadu I can't check for every fast mana card 3) I think saying "a less consistent game = more casual" shows a huge lack of understanding of the 'casual' game. There is an idea that in a good commander game everyone has space for their deck to do it's thing and have a cool moment. Having random very fast pop offs is the opposite of that. 4) Your numbers on the 1 in 150 of Mana Vault > Rock > Rock is obviously quite rare. However one of these fast mana cards being played in turns 1-3 and leading to a big advantage would be lots more common. Your scenario was an extreme and far from the only negative one. For an episode which talks about numbers a lot cherry picking one like this is a very odd choice. 5) I think the real issue here is that a competitive player base have a ban list managed by a group who don't take into account their play experience and where only one card has ever been banned for them. I don't know whats stopping cEDH from having a separate ban list - especially if it is a more permissive one than EDH.

[@Dstinct]

Casual is a meaningless description in a public format as it has just as many interpretations as a deck power level. The format only properly works if you explicitly tell your opponents what it is you want to do. Banning these two rocks does next to nothing to slow a deck down that uses them. On average my goldfishes on moxfield are around .6 turns slower. How much more time is that really giving you? A cedh banlist is meaningless to the edh community because the cedh community is split on what they want from the format. Some want to play the most powerful cards in a deck using a commander, and some want to compete at highest level of whatever the edh environment is. You are looking at one group who wants to race formula 1, and one that wants to race a grocery getter. While both competitive, they are completely different mind sets. I keep seeing posts all over saying that rule 0 doesnt work in shops. In a way I agree, but that is only because people are refusing to do it, and refusing to set consequences if someone breaks the social contract. Rather than getting salty with stompers, a pod needs to scoop and restart with a new player, or ignore them and continue playing. If you are playing in a tournament, you have to assume you are going to come up against cedh decks, and decide if you want that experience. If the ban list is just a suggestion, then you are going to need to have a discussion on what you want as an experience. If your discussion is "we are using the banlist", then you do not have any legitimate complaint for someone playing a more powerful deck that conforms to the ban list you have decided to abide by.

[@ruecianbeoulve7770]

Turn one sol ring is like 50% of every pod of 4, plenty of decks are running more like 16+ ramp effects, turn 5 on turn 2 happens a lot more than 1/150 even when nobody runs mana crypt. You only need one signet and 2 lands. Every hand that has a Sol ring is way less likely to be a mulligan, so 8% times 4 people is 32% increased by 8% for each free mulligan taken, and Sol Ring (or mana crypt) will have huge staying power in determining the outcome of those mulligans. 48% with 2 mulligans ignoring the increasing odds of drawing the card with each card drawn beyond the first. If you run mana crypt and sol ring both your odds double. I can't speak for most play groups, but i help a lot of people build decks in ours and i tell them to work having one, or two ramp in their opening 9 cards into the build of the deck, and Sol ring signet is so prevalent people are cutting rampant growth for rocks, or cutting kodama's reach and cultivate because they are simply too slow these days. i used to say Cultivate was the most powerful card in commander, and people are cutting it now. They should have said F it and banned Sol Ring (i think by defying physics they are implying WOTC said they couldn't do it), I took it out of all my decks when they announced the bans, it's been a big problem for the format for years now. When I take turn 5 on turn 2 it's not archenemy, the game is over. So many powerful cards and effects and value makes it snowball too hard.

[@salvocrey]

This is one of the better takes I've seen come out. Good job guys

[@gnogara]

The guiding principle is very lacking. Is this THE ban of the year? Of the next 4 years? Will the next ban be about vibes or power level? Pick whichever card you want, new or old, as the next chase mythic rare of special guests from sets to come. Should I buy it as a single? Will I open packs for it? Right now I'm not sure.

[@tartfruit801]

Even though I'm not effected by these bans, sudden and spastic bans that arent pre-emptive and are far too late rub me a wrong way. These bans are not designed to protect players from predatory card designs, and are not in reaction to a new exploit or trend. They also do not hit similar cards that cause the same problems, and infact have made alternative cards more expensive and unobtainable (mana vault prices jumping to 300$). The forsight and consideration that went into banning lutri was in reaction to potentially problematic design. The original banning of morphon was based on a concerning trend.

[@tartfruit801]

Sure some of these points apply to nadu, but the fact that wizards was able to properly watch competetive results and announce a date for bans, before banning the card, is much more mature than coming out of youtube celebrity hibernation to randomly decide a card thats been safe for years should be banned today. At least konami gave us a month to expect a list update.

[@Tristanramos1]

Commander isn’t magic Its a joke that doesn’t work in a competitive environment

[@Thalarion]

Commander is by far the most popular magic format. I agree it doesn't really work in a competitive environment, but saying it isn't magic is disingenuous

[@PhoenicopterusR]

That's the point

[@indomobilegaming3636]

it is magic, but it definitely the worst way to play as competitive. 40 life instead of 20 is just stupidly not how magic game designed for

[@DaKongman-93]

@@indomobilegaming3636 Which is why it should be treated as a board game and not a competitive, tournament driven card game. cEDH tournaments can happen all they want, until they ignore the RC and set their own bans it will be a broken and mismanaged Format to play competitively. I'm a casual commander player. If I want something more competitive I'll go play standard, it's kind of popping right now.

[@laurencefraser]

Commander is very much Magic... it is also ABSOLUTELY a casual format that was never designed to be, and does not work as, a competative format, because Magic as a whole just is not built in a way that allows competative and multiplayer to be viable at the same time. Well, two headed giant manages both but there's a reason for the name.

[@thelardmonkey7661]

Even In Commander I don't really consider myself a casual player. I don't play cEDH because I think the meta decks are lame, but my fastest decks have consistent turn 4-6 wins. I'm not someone who necessarily values the game going longer at every level of play. That said I'm so overjoyed about these bans. I see them not as trying to keep spikes out of EDH, but instead actually facilitating high-power games. I play mostly at LGSs, where the social element gets very weird. The higher power your decks go (all the way up to cEDH, where this is taken as a given), the more expected you are to be open to anything. In general the "rule zero" is weaker. All of the cards that were just banned are the worst offenders in my experience for creating games with mismatched expectations. It's going to be so much easier for me to find high power games that dont result in a non-game scenario because of some explosive cards. Ultimately you can't take the high power out of Commander without banning hundreds of cards, and players are still able to play some busted stuff. Sorry to people who lost money, that sucks genuinely.

[@Relinquished001]

7:21 i did the probability on this scenario and it was something like .113% chance of having a 6 mana turn two, arguably less. Personally I have only have a turn one land, sol ring, crypt once

[@Dstinct]

Some more anecdotal stats for you. I rebuilt 6 of my decks that contained these cards and goldfished on cockatrice. On average it slowed my decks down 1.2 turns. But it is skewed with a couple of decks. If I get rid of those two, it's around 0.6 turns. This ban did nothing overall. It definitely hurts when playing against other CEDH decks.

[@sufferlogan]

They said that they banned nadu for bad play pattern and an indeterminate combo win. My favorite commander is Arjun, the shifting flame. He is just as indeterminate as nadu, and the turns take just as long. Should he be banned as well? Nadu is half the mana so it isn’t a direct comparison, but if the reasoning is long indeterminate turns, then my arjun deck is just as bad

[@Sidenonra]

My good lord, this is like the first video of you folks that I have to say you truly put your foot in your mouth. Let's start with you want higher variation in game play, why let people have tutors? Why limit max deck size? If you think casual games don't need ban lists, why do they need rules?

[@infinitedm5396]

Ban lists should be for balance not vibes.

[@distractionmakers]

What we’re saying is they’re trying to have it both ways. It’s a welcome inclusive format where you can play all your cards… except the ones we don’t like.

[@Sidenonra]

@@distractionmakers The ban list is not the only problems with RC and the "rules" of commander

[@BlobThoughtsMTG]

The RC is going easy on the format. If it were up to me, the banlist would be 2-3x bigger. I I also disagree with the notion that there are dozens of comparable cards to Mana Crypt. There simply aren't. Removing the most problematic cards is an improvement however you frame it.

[@distractionmakers]

I agree that removing problem cards is an improvement. The question is, is the magnitude of that improvement worth the cost to players?

[@revelmonger]

What people don't seem to understand is thet cEDH is just high-powered edh with an agreed upon rule 0.

[@BS-gk2cb]

Well no… Cedh is playing rules as written. Rule 0 is almost exclusively used for casual alterations to said rules

[@Cybertech134]

@@BS-gk2cb If you bring Rog/Sai cEDH list to a casual table, are you playing cEDH or are you just playing high power EDH?

[@j.hartman120]

@Cybertech134 You’re playing EDH with the regular rules. You also mention “casual table”, and that would be an alternative rule, something like a “Rule 0” if you will.

[@revelmonger]

@@Cybertech134 If the other people are playing high powered then your playing high-powered. The only difference between high powered and cEDH is whether you're playing for fun and to see cool high-powered plays. Or to win. It's about mindset.

[@revelmonger]

@@j.hartman120 exactly! 💯 Honestly the way I see it the "cEDH" is less it's own thing and more what EDH really is. "Low skill EDH" is where you find all the players crying about salt scores and "muh gameplan". Like no shit I'm not going to let the goblin player resolve a purphoros.

[@chrisjones6792]

To be fair, the edh banned list *is* a sugestion list explicitly. Everyone just ignores the intent if signpost bans.

[@TheDustyPeaches]

So I want to mention that when you calculated the Mana Crypt likelihood you specifically only calculated the opening hand and you did not work under the assumption that a player could mulligan to achieve this combo so it was actually far more likely than you suggested. I will concede that it is still unlikely but it makes it more than a statistical anomaly.

[@JesseCarver]

So, you can't really take the philosophy from the three points. The game design is also a huge part of it. The ban list is explicitly a philsiphoical document, suggesting you can even house ban similar cards. But also like 40 life and singleton decks indicate the format should be slow and high variance, both of which these bans help.

[@ProbablyJacob]

i cant believe the community attempting to hijack the game from the developers is starting to have consequences

[@prestonbeaulieu4379]

The banlist is a suggestion. It's there to be a set of guidelines for pickup games

[@MrWearily]

Im gonna give what I believe to be the real answer to the RC's want to slow the game down. No one would like this and would be far more furious, but banning all tutors other than ones that search for basic land. That would bring the power of a lot of decks down. Thats one of the other important variables when it comes to playing higher power decks. If you can only pull Mana Crypt at random, then like your math suggests the percentage chance is low. Now stick 10 tutors in your deck and it automatically increases those chances. Idk how much it would and may be negligible, but if it wasn't giving a good enough advantage then no one would use them. Im 99% sure most high level decks most definitely have a few tutors in there. I know of some people would rule 0 tutors out of the games they play (other than the ones that searcj for basic lands) and have experienced slowed down games. Just something to consider and would love a video going over that topic and idea. Im still very new to magic and commander as a whole, so im sure there's something im kossing here, that someone with far more knowledge could fill me in on. Great video as always!

[@_furydance8890]

But equipment tutors are the primary way for Boros voltron decks to gain cards they want since Boros have terrible card draw.

[@MrWearily]

@@_furydance8890 would colorless card draw artifacts help alleviate that, or would they still be too slow for the build style? Things like arcane encyclopedia, bargaining table, carnage altar, jodah's codex, etc. please let me know!

[@kenaisparkman1099]

"The majority of players have never played against a mana crypt" 🤔

[@distractionmakers]

Is that incorrect?

[@SSolemn]

I only play casual, we do have one LGS here that is only cEDH, and we play at another LGS and with friends at home, and I see one MCrypt at least one a month. Same for JLo and Dockside

[@huddleaw]

I've always thought that anything that allows you to case a 3 drop turn should be re-evaluated. Some are fine and others aren't.

[@santiagocorbo4327]

This is a very complex topic I guess and there is a lot more than statistics to it. I have a lot of thoughts on this video and perhaps I'm biased due to my love to this format, I have played a lot of competitive games(MOBA's, shooters, TCG, etc.) and I have grown tired of the grindy mindset. When I started paying Magic(like an year ago) I really liked commander and I have would never played this game if it wasn't a free for all format in which you have first a philosophy applied over a pre existing ruleset(there are some specific rules that shape even more this format) and that's a selling point for me. First I will discuss something that I see you guys mention from time to time and it kind of sounds weird to me that is not clearer: cEDH and EDH are not a different ruleset but they are different Philosophies of how to use the rules, so for me cEDH playstyles is not the logic conclusion from EDH but the logic conclusion for a competitive mindset applied to this specific ruleset. So, talking about opacity I agree that the approach from RC is lacking to say the least, there is a pretty interesting video from Travis Gafford talking about it, he has been an esports figure(He has a creer on it) for years and has a lot of experience on how to comunicate things. His suggestions are a very interesting point and so are yours on the way things were told. The ban list seems weird to me as well, a "Cards that we find that make for a poor experience"(name in development) list could be better or at least if you have a ban list make sure that you also have the other one. On the "Social" talk, I think that is meant to reflect the focus of the philosophy and expectations from players, commander is a space to get along with people and to also paly magic in a way you can include more of them this makes that playing this format has a lot wider expectations than any other, asking players to be considerate with other peers experience is inherently social. Competitive formats are social outside the rules and expectations for deckbuilding and playing. For me when EDH feels better is when everyone at the table is not expecting to win but to just "build your army and clash it against the others", this army does not have to be just creatures, but setup for your wincon. This is why a lot of people despise combos and mainly easy to assemble ones. So be considerate to the experience of other players is a key part of this philosophy of playing, and that is why is social appears as a key of the format. As a different topic, please more videos like the Systems ones, I swear I'm here for that type of content and not for magic!

[@CarbonBallas]

You guys make a lot of sense. Really appreciate your opinions!!!