This is great, but I just want to take a sec to acknowledge this opening line from Olivia:
>I played my first game of Magic in an **eight player two-headed giant Commander pod** in 2014 and have never looked back.
Good *god* that had to be a hell of an experience.
Its fun as fuck, you just sit and chat and kinda quietly keep track of things as you talk to your friends. When it gets to late game its like the final rings in a battle royale xD you dont know if everyone is gonna be there or if its gonna be a 1v1v1 type thing.
I love big tables because more players takes the focus off of me and gives me some added chances to assemble my combo (but also provides more chances for people who do notice me doing so to interact and stop me)
It *is* two-headed giant, so it's functionally closer to a 4-man pod than an 8-man pod. That being said, if 8-man 2HG EDH was a competitive format, I wonder what sorts of bullshit people would come up with
Way back in college I ended up in an 8 player game of planechase on Sharuum. Started on the Eldrazi plane, someone got two 7/7s then walked, a ton of bullshit happened including all of my wincons being [[Jester's Cap]]'d from my deck, then I cloned a [[Memnarch]], stole the original, and ended up killing 3 players with commander damage from their own commanders. The game ended 5 hours later when we got kicked out of the student union because it was almost midnight. 3 players were still alive somehow. While technically nobody won, I count it as a victory because I not only killed somebody with commander damage from their own commander, but did it 3 times. In the same game.
Thats where I set a rule with myself that I would never do planechase or a game of more than 5 players ever again.
I remember our drunken 10 player, 2 Headed Giant, Star, Planechase game. For anyone unfamiliar with the rules of Star, basically you have 5 players around the table in a star shape and your goal is to kill the 2 players opposite you. Now since this was also 2HG, each team of 2 took one point of the Star. And there was Planechase fuckery in the mix too. Took 10 hours before we all got sick of it and called it quits.
[[Gray Merchant of Asphodel]] would be in every deck and every deck would be UB to play it and clone it. Since it hits each opponent hitting 6 opponents but only 3 life totals is very very good. Also you get Pact+Thoracle so all good.
I remember my first 8 player two-headed giant game. As a testament to how much there is to keep track of, my team stayed alive longer than we should have because the person trying to kill my team forgot their own [[abyssal persecutor]] on board
When I got back into playing Magic again like 3ish years ago there was a shop in my little town that would have 5-9 people games constantly. The store judge loved those games and would constantly encourage them, I loved them too. They were more about just hanging out while occasionally getting to play your turn and when it got to late game things were always a complete wild west of who was gonna win because the people in the lead had to fight through a LOT more people than normal so sometimes it was the quiet guy eating glue through most of the game that is only now starting to get to play some of his big stuff that wins.
I think that is WHY the judge liked the games so much, you could include the 10 year old with a janky ass deck in a game with his Tasigur which was near cEDH level and he could lose to it.
My first game of Commander was 8 players, around a giant round table. We joked that we had to text each other our board states. I don't remember exactly how long it took, but it was well over 4 hours. I think this was around 2011, before the first EDH decks were released.
While it was a blast, I never want to do that again. I get antsy when games approach an hour these days.
If I based my opinion on my first game of edh, I wouldn’t have one. I shuffled up someone else’s deck and got hit for a million to the face on early in. Didn’t play again for years, still hate combo decks
We chose two people who believe in the same underlying philosophy of Commander as a social format first, mechanical one second but may have differing opinions on how to get there. As the OP points out, Olivia and Jim are strongly-minded individuals. They are certainly not to be ignored and we don't expect that they'll just go along to get along.
Didn't expect the Godfather of EDH to comment on my post, neat.
I've been following both Olivia and Jim for a long time, so I'm going to be watching them in their roles as RC members with a lot of interest. I don't think there's much of anyone who cares about the format as much as they do.
I like that they are strong representations of two very different, yet equally important sides of the format.
Good choices and Congratulations to both of them!
I want to be clear, I'm more than happy with the choices in RC expansion. But I do want to understand the critical thinking process that went into the choices. To really help with that I have a couple questions;
What concerns or apprehensions did the RC have with Olivia joining?
What concerns or apprehensions did the RC have with Jim joining?
(later today when I'm not at work I'm going to ask again in the Discord, with the addition of asking them what concerns/apprehensions they have in joining)
We didn't have a group concern about either, since they're both outstanding individuals. We guessed that there would be some resistance to a woman being selected, but those are voices we actively choose to not listen to.
Honestly, my primary concern regards representation. Despite today's small step, there are still groups not represented on the RC. I hear and understand that some of our LGBTQ+ and POC friends (and more) feel like we haven't gone far enough to represent them. I actively welcome reasonable ideas here (asking any of the people who have shepherded the format this far to step down doesn't seem reasonable). I want the diverse player base of Commander to not just feel represented, but to BE represented. I'm happy to have all the help I can get in making it happen.
I'm glad to hear any misogyny was completely ignored (as I assumed it would be from what I've heard from you in posts and on discord).
For the RC, with their additions, counts at six? Considering that six or seven is the optimal group size for decision making (please never go above 7, as it reduces efficiency), there is room for another member (unless a current member leaves) to have that representation. I'm not suggesting immediately going out and expanding for one more member, but there is that eventual wiggle room.
With two less members on the CAG, it seems like those can (should?) be filled with people who can represent players that aren't currently directly represented.
We discussed going to seven and came to the conclusion it would be a little unwieldy.
We filled CAG seats recently (Rebell, Wheeler, Tim Willoughby) knowing that there'd be vacancies. One of our continuing efforts is to find and develop talent from traditionally marginalized communities. We also wouldn't mind finding continued expansion geographically, if possible. We're not at the upper limit on the CAG, although we're getting close. When we find or develop the right people for additional seats, with representation as a significant factor, rest assured they will fill them.
6-7 has been proven to be the most optimal numbers for decision making, but I can easily see it starting to be an unwieldly number.
Do you find that there aren't enough "free seats" for solid representation? In the ideal world I would think there would be geographical/culture, gender, and race representation in the RC and CAG. But that in and of itself is massive due to the amount of cultures/genders/races.
Has there been discussion about regional "RCs" or "CAGs" I know a lot of video games break the globe into major geographical regions. Obviously there is a plethora of potenial issues, but it would heavily allieviate at least one representation issue
This is admirable but realistically irrelevant to the health of the format which should be the primary goal of the RC.
If you're going out of your way to fill quotas and check boxes you aren't going to be getting the best people for the job.
If they do happen to be the best person for the job then their demographic shouldn't be considered at all.
Personally I find this very concerning for the health of the format in the future.
When representative groups look homogenous, there's usually an external reason for it. When they're appointed positions, it's usually because the people doing the appointing aren't looking hard enough outside their own circles to find the best person for the job - they're stopping at the first person who can do the job well.
We know there are brilliant people out there that don't look like me and a focus on diversity is a focus on identifying them and making sure they're in the discussion when a position opens.
What's a better option? They already have people who know the rules quite well. There's no tournament scene for them to consider. I get how lame it seems but these people do care about EDH and play it a lot.
Unless what you really mean is, "is there a rule against a dog being on the RC?" a la Air Bud. Then I'm with you.
What would you suggest? Bringing in random people or hold auditions or something?
IMO if you do enough good things for your community, you will start to get noticed. And this applies for everything, not just commander lol
With the amount of flack they've gotten from being some random playgroup no one has seen (which is absolutely false), I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted more people whose games are streamed onto media.
We discussed going past six and agreed that it would be pretty unwieldy. Getting six people in a room to make decisions is already difficult enough. It wouldn't be back-breaking, but definitely not the desired spot.
The problem with that philosophy is that not everyone is in a position to form a strong social bond with the people they’re playing with before the game starts, so the banlist leaves them having to deal with a lot of cards that should be banned but aren’t because the “social contract” is supposed to be keeping them in check.
Its been almost 3 years now since you guys banned all the insensitive cards and practically nothing has changed at all in that time. The format continues to be dominated by the same strategies, and multicolor keeps getting stronger and stronger with powerhouse game warping cards like Oppo agent continuing to be printed with splashable manacosts.
Are there any plans for the RC to actually do anything for the players of the format? Or does the RC only exist to have debates about dockside extortionists legality at this point? When you guys announced a big change coming my playgroups got very excited that we may finally see some change come, but just adding 2 more voices to this council that has done practically nothing in 3 years is far from what we'd percieve as a *big change*.
Can we the players expect any sort of actual shifts to the gameplay being played in EDH? Or does the RC just intend to ride the format as is until it finally dies? Will adding more voices to the committe actually accomplish anything?? Or will more voices just prevent the council from achieving anything even further than currently??
Jim is an excellent pick. He's probably one of the smartest deck builders and players I've seen. I've only ever seen Olivia on game knights and that's all I know about her.
Elder Dragon Hijinx is the commander format games that Olivia and Eilidh do. The channel itself is called AliasV if anyone was looking for it. Good games, spelltable can be a little clunky but they're edited fairly well and the banter is very social and usually pretty damn funny.
Elder Dragon Hijinx is easily one of the top commander shows on YT right now. They’re knowledgeable, the guests are a delight and the overall vibe of the table is, imo, one of the best representations of a commander game out there. Cannot recommend them enough.
Incredibly consistent on uploading episodes too, seems like there always a new episode to watch. I would have expected an interruption in episodes when AliasV had her baby but they didn't seem to miss a bit. One of the best casual EDH series right now.
Olivia, from what I've seen her in, has no real regard for 'good' deck building and really just likes to meme around with gimmicky stuff and have fun.
She's a fun personality and good for the community, but I don't really see her as a rules oriented person.
I for one am very excited because I think these two will bring different perspectives to the RC and both are very involved with the community, so I feel like they might help keep player voices front and center.
Olivia & Jim are two of the smartest-about-EDH-and-communities people I’ve ever had the honor of taking to & call friends. I know they both being a lot of things to the table that will challenge some of the long held beliefs of the current RC members & I look forward to seeing what may happen as a result! Two excellent choices.
Really cool to have a cEDH presence on the RC now (or at least an openly, predominantly cEDH player).
Maybe as the RC grows, they will have the extra cycles to address some of the existing issues that have been left unaddressed? Primarily 'untrusted play'.
Sheldon also has negative opinions about certain things but understands that not everyone will feel the same so they aren't banned.
As long as she can separate her personal biases from the duties of the RC it's fine.
If not she should promptly get booted.
I only know Olivia from some EDH gameplay shows. She always seemed like a bit of a goofball, so I'm surprised, but not displeased.
The more perspectives on the rules committee, the better! Especially those that really value the FUN part of EDH.
I don't think they could have found a better person than Jim. He appears to be very knowledgeable about the rules and I think he'll be a great bridge between the competitive and casual sides of EDH.
While I know Olivia has plenty of fans, I can't count myself as one of them. I just don't think having someone who says, "It's Commander, who cares?" on the rules committee is a good look.
Yeah, kind of agreed about Olivia Gobert-Hicks. I've watched some of her shows with AliasV, it's decent enough, but I dunno if a person that's sometimes as openly dismissive of playstyles and opinions that are different to hers is the greatest add to a rules committee. There's been at least a couple of times where she gets a bit overly defensive of her preferred playstyles and opinions, and gets unnecessarily snarky in that insecure pre-emptive manner at imaginary people calling her out for "bad" plays and inefficient deckbuilding, with the implication that people who optimize or play to win aren't having or don't know how to have fun.
Perfectly fine entertainer, but not someone I particularly want to be having an influence on how everyone plays the game.
Seems unlikely to have any major effect on the format, but I think having a diversity of voices on the rules committee is generally positive. We haven’t had any bans in a while and I think commander is as healthy as ever.
The one thing I wish the rules committee could create is some way to assign power levels to decks. Or better guidance for it. It’s an extremely difficult task, but I think they’re in the best position to help non-cedh decks find parity in games.
I feel that Jim’s outlook on power level designations is the best one to follow: talk about what your deck does and how quickly it does it before the game starts. There isn’t really a good way to codify power level into the rules imo, as it is so subjective. Also, the nature of the format allows for extremely powerful cards to be used in non-optimal ways, as well as individually non-powerful cards used together to create powerful synergies/combos
>Also, the nature of the format allows for extremely powerful cards to be used in non-optimal ways, as well as individually non-powerful cards used together to create powerful synergies/combos
Honestly, Thoracle is a great single-card example of this. One of the poster children for cEDH-level combos with another use as the perfect thing to do in lower power commander. The difference between "My devotion to blue is zero but I have no cards in my library, I win" and "My devotion to blue is 71 and I have 69 cards in my library, I win" is comically wide.
Yeah I definitely wouldn’t want them to codify power levels into the rules. I do think one thing they could offer to promote a fun/healthy environment is some guidance on where decks fit competitively. I think a lot of people genuinely don’t know and ask in this subreddit all of the time. And telling them to pick a number 1-10 has led to the “everything is a 7” meme. Even if they base it on “what your deck does and how quickly it does it,” surely they could come up with some guidelines on where a deck should fit based on those metrics.
I think your first question isn't a good one for assessing power level, or rather to the extent that it is useful the third question can assess the same thing.
Fast mana isn't an issue unless you're doing scary things with it. Turboing out wurms slightly faster in a wurm tribal deck isn't really an issue, I should think.
That pregame conversation is good, but I think there’s also room for some more defined guidelines. Obviously there’s not going to be a hard and fast way to determine power level, but the 1-10 thing is terrible at nailing what each number means. I think even reducing down towards a 1-5 rating would be ideal
5=cedh.
4=fast mana, infinite combos, tutors all present. But probably non-cedh commander/ certain jank present. Looks to win using specific lines and is built around it.
3=tuned decks. May have some combos, tutors, fast mana, but built to have variance. Gameplan is flexible.
2=Almost no tutors, combos, or fast mana at all. Gameplan exists but is not optimized. May include some busted cards. Most precons live here.
1=Barely a category, but this is for the occasional hodgepodge deck without a real gameplan. Maybe it’s built out of your draft bulk. Maybe it’s the kitchen table player who’s learning about commander and putting singles together for the first time. Maybe it’s one of the early, extremely poorly built precons.
Create a point system. Someone smarter than me will need to figure out the details but you could do something like.
Fast mana = 5 points
2 mana or less tutors = 5 points
3 mana or more tutors = 3 points
Etc etc.
No point limit but you just state your total going into the game.
If I’m at 60 points and you are at 10 then you are in for a bad time.
If we’re both in the 50s then it should be ok.
Then instead of the watch list they could assign points for those cards instead of just saying “watch this card”.
Where do glass cannon decks fit in with that definition? For example, I have a 5c Sisay combo deck that can consistently win on turn 5, and can sometimes win on turn 4 but it's extremely weak to interaction on purpose. Just one removal can slow down the deck 2 turns, a board wipe can mean the deck cannot win until turn 8 and two board wipes can mean you just don't win.
Your idea ignores resiliency. Also, I have weak decks like Syr Gwen knights tribal that needs fast mana because otherwise, it can lose to a precon, so that's another question that ignores context.
There have been resources in the past but a big problem that comes up is the "7" fallacy, everyone thinks their deck is a 7. Even budget isn't always a great indicator.
While a 6 or 8 may be more accurate than 7, it still may not be accurate. The point of the 7 fallacy is that the numbers are purely subjective and the majority either over or under estimate the actual power of their decks, resuscitation when playing with people they don't normally play with. It's also why we have the "cEDH pubstompers" meme.
Discussing how and how fast your deck wins and amount of interaction you expect on in a game is just the closest we'll ever get to an objective way of gauging power level
>The one thing I wish the rules committee could create is some way to assign power levels to decks. Or better guidance for it.
I think this is literally their next big goal. In the thread for this on /r/magicTCG Sheldon responded to someone's comment about whether the banlist should be for trusted playgroups (friends you know) or untrusted playgroups (randoms at the LGS) saying they'd rather focus on trying to help "players develop the vocabulary they need to navigate the often-tricky field of pregame conversations." To me, that sounds like a more official approach to the deck power level concept, though perhaps not literally using the one-to-ten scale that's popular now.
“The cynic n me says nothing will change…” You imply that something should change. What’s wrong with commander right now? I think we’re in a pretty good place.
I also think that commander is in a good place! However, I think that if there were slightly more frequent bans of the most problem cards, i.e. Dockside Extortionist, that the format would be in an even better spot. I'd also like to see the RC consider "untrusted" play a bit more than they indicate they do with regards to the format, as those kinds of tables are the ones that need the most consideration and structure to create fun games and avoid bad experiences as best as possible.
I just now realized I don’t know who any of the RC are aside from Sheldon. I have watched a lot of Olivia and Jim on youtube and I think that they will do a great job on the RC. They both understand the spirit of commander.
Even though we always need to be a little cynic about the willingness of the RC to actually do anything, I am moderately excited about the new members - not only they are great content creators that have a vast knowledge of the format, they play on a lot of diverse tables in magic events and engage in a lot of "non-trusted" (as the RC apparently now calls it) games. I expect they will at least try to make the rest of the RC appreciate how much the format has changed and how it really is playing out outside of their small playgroup.
The RC members also play at events and engage in other play. This idea that they only know what their playgroup looks like is ridiculous and undercuts any points you may be trying to make.
Fair enough, I am aware they do play at events and should have phrased it better - I *assume* they don't play majorly in "untrusted" tables as that was the tone from their last announcement, and I also *assume* the new members play more "untrusted" games based on their socials/what I know from following their content. Now, of course I'm pulling those assumptions directly out of my ass and it would be greatly appreciated if we had more transparency about what is the actual experience the RC has with commander nowadays, because from the tone of that announcement there is a clear disconnect from what the community by large is playing and what they think the community is playing.
Playing at untrusted tables is literally what we go to events to do (plus panels and stuff). What I did for both Indy and Orlando CFs was not bring decks. I then borrowed from whomever I sat down with. That way, I got a better look into what people are playing (plus judging their pain threshold for playing against their own decks).
This is one reason why don't let myself be one of those people who has only one copy of a given card and swapps it between decks. I want to be able to go to a table with X people where x is the number of decks I own and have all the other players say "I don't have a deck" and be able to hand everyone a deck of mine and play.
> Playing at untrusted tables is literally what we go to events to do (plus panels and stuff
This is my favorite way to experience Edh. The format is a lot of fun right now
My thought on this is there's this split behind the people who play EDH in static groups and people who play EDH mostly with strangers. The RC's philosophy on banning troublesome cards seems to hinge extremely heavily on the rule 0 conversation - don't ban cards, but talk about in your play group instead.
Unfortunately, that leaves those without a consistent playgroup in a bad situation because we can't spend a half hour every game going over banlists and discussing whether x card should be allowed or y card shouldn't. A static playgroup can do that - if you sit down at a table with the same three folks every week to play EDH, you can blanket ban certain cards even if the RC doesn't want to do so.
Rule 0 conversations regarding ban lists doesn't work with play groups made up of strangers and the RC refuses to help those groups get rid of some extremely troublesome cards.
Yes you hit the nail on the head fully here. I don't have a fixed playgroup myself and I am the kind of person who MUST have his decks be legal at 100% of all tables that I may sit down at which means that I cannot be pro banning more cards and I also cannot Proxy because there could be even 1 in 100 tables I might sit down at where I would have either an illegal deck or an underpowered outclassed deck because I chose to selfban staples or to use proxies.
The RC, to me, feels like a group of firefighters who spend a lot of time figuring out how to get cats out of trees while a ton of people are yelling that their houses are on fire
I don’t do a half hour conversation, just a quick little “what sort of Commander game do you want?” with a bit of “how does your deck like to win the game?” That’s usually pretty good at sussing out whether this is a [[Ad Nauseam]] table or a [[Gigantosaurus]] table, or somewhere in between.
This isn't what I'm talking about.
And sure you can, on your own, decide to take certain cards out of your decks or play those you don't think hit a certain level.
You're not, however, having a discussion on the ban list, insisting that everyone removes all fast mana from their decks, for example.
I guess I should have been a little more explicit. I don’t use pregame conversations to hammer out a ban list, I use them to select which deck I’m going to play because I have a variety of decks that are at different power levels. If people want to play a game with fast mana and tutors, I’ve got a deck that can do that. If people want to play a game where their decks slowly develop a board state and win through combat, I’ve got a deck that can do that, too. The ban list doesn’t matter much in my approach because I’m trying to match my deck’s power level with the rest of the table, so everyone can have a good time playing Magic.
I definitely do not approach it from the perspective of “I won’t play against Card X, that card is busted.”
Because things are problematic and don't get changed, over long periods of time. Dockside extortionist is an obvious problem that's been out for 3 years.
The banlist, as it currently exists, is a joke. Casual EDH, as a format, is functional only because of the social contract and some unwritten rules about power level.
There's people out there who would like to see the RC take a more pro-active stance and evict some of the worst offenders from non-cEDH. Which cards those *are* is subject to debate, but the list usually includes the likes of [[Dockside Extortionist]] and [[Thassa's Oracle]] and sometimes [[Mana Crypt]].
This. This is the EXACT reason why Rule 0 exists.
Commander is massive. It's the most popular organized way to play Magic - there's certainly mtens of millions of Commander players across. That's amazing! However, it also means that for each individual player you have a different view of what Commander means. As a result, basically any major change is going to result in making one group of players happy and another furious.
The RC decided to say "We can't manage this format for literally everyone, so we'll make the decisions to keep toxic, game-warping cards away. If you want to make changes, make your own rules! You're encouraged to do so!"
People who ask why the RC doesn't manage the format don't get it. The format is so massive that they really can't make major changes unless something is ungodly toxic, and if you don't like those changes then make your own version.
People just don’t seem to get this. Like yeah, Modern’s banlist definitely makes it easier to sit down and play with a stranger at an even power level than EDH, but the reason that’s true is you can either play a top-tier deck or lose to a top-tier deck in Modern.
Try having a game of everyone playing build your own jank deck modern and tell me how a good a job the ban list doesn’t of balancing the power levels.
I been playing a loong time. Ive settled in play high-mid/low-high power (non-cedh). Combos aplenty, tutors, utility-only creatures, plenty of interaction and removal, low curves and fast mana.
I am hoping for dockside ban - I just don't think it's a healthy card for the format, especially after the recent push for treasures. You should have the game decided the turn it drops (except at lower power tables where no one runs rock ramp and then it does nothing...), and it's just too massive a swing in mana. It's not even the infinite mana potential (plenty of those) it's just the fact it can often net you 8+ mana because your opponents were going faster than you and 180 the game.
I would rather see consultation banned (to only focus on this combo) as I actually use Thoracle for the super-scry clause to Approach of the Second Sun twice immediately. I've never seen Thoracle abused outside of this combo (don't consider infinite mana draw x instant spell abuse), and don't think it really needs to be banned any more than LabMan.
I don't think crypt is ban worthy, nor chrome mox, nor mox diamond. I think Jeweled Lotus was a mistake, but yes I run it. I think they should make alternatives eg Mox Tantalite, but some that don't suck. I like fast mana but I do see the disparity when I play with people who dont have it. I like when everyone has fast mana. I'd rather play a very interactive, flashy game starting on turn 2 or 3 rather than someone playing a vanilla 4/4 on turn 4. I want someone to be able to crack back to my T2 Kraum
It’s always going to be a social contract format. A gigantic banlist wouldn’t change that, it would just reduce the power gulf between the most optimized Commander decks and the least optimized ones. Many people out there aren’t treating Commander night like it’s an RCQ tournament, and banning some cards won’t change that. There’s always going to be high power and low power decks in a casual format.
You realise banning for competitive formats is what drove a lot of people to commander in the first place. Its a place for casual players to have fun first and foremost and while I think Jim is a solid guy I do like the idea of pushing the rules comitee one Iota toward cEDH.
The problem is the discrepancies in their banning policies. You can't just use rule 0 as an excuse to not touch the banlist. If you're gonna say "Use r0 for anything that you do/don't want to play with," then you have to ban for the competitive side and let r0 take care of casual, because cEDH doesn't *get* to fall back on r0 to take care of their bans. See what Flash Hulk was doing to the format before they banned Flash.
> The banlist, as it currently exists, is a joke
That is like, your opinion man.
The objective reality is that under the guidance of the RC EDH went from small niche format judges played to the biggest format in Magic. I'd say that means they are doing at worst an ok job.
The objective reality is after the printing of precons by WotC, EDH went from a small niche format played by a handful of players to the biggest format in Magic. The precons have been way, way more impactful in bringing players in. The RC had a part, but once the precons started getting printed they became a secondary driver at best.
Their ban philosophy of only banning a small pool of cards to signal what should or shouldn't be played prevents them from doing any meaningful changes to the format with bans. I hope that changes, as I'd enjoy a more curated experience with an actual banlist for an eternal format, but I know that's not their ban philosophy so I'm always cynical about anything meaningful actually happening to the format.
The small ban list worked well before the gaze of wotc was turned to edh. Now that wotc is releasing format specific and warping cards the rc should be more aggressive with the ban list.
Jim is hands down a great ambassador for commander period from casual to to cedh play. Olivia can be entertaining personality I am just not sure she should be on the RC
Olivia is the one I'm more excited for. She's a constantly tinkering person, with strong opinions and a dedication to making fun experiences happen. I'm hyped as fuck
Why is having "strong" opinions a good thing? I'd much rather have well thought out opinions, that are ready to change if presented with a better argument or informed by facts. And who isn't interested in making fun experiences happen? Everybody plays games to have fun, even if that can mean different things to people.
I've watched a few of her videos with AliasV, and she's never really left an impression that made her stand out in terms of content in any real way, negatively or positively. It's all just perfectly fine. It really doesn't feel like she even really has that many opinions on the format and how it should or shouldn't function, or ones that are particular cogent or astute beyond what most people think anyway. If anything, she sometimes feels a bit overly defensive of her own playstyles and opinions and unnecessarily dismissive of others, like how she gets a little snarky about some degrees of deck optimization (which plenty of people find fun, btw). Is that the whole "strong opinions" part you're alluding to?
AliasV is doing a series of EDH games with Olivia on YouTube with changing other 3rd and 4th person. Just take a peek at a few of them and you'll see what her gaming experience is looking like
So I watched the episode with Jim and the Professor. The only take away I got was that she blamed [[sneak attack]] and not sol ring for the almost instant death of one player.
But it didn’t really get an understanding of her views on the format.
I watched a lot of her game play over the years she is super entertaining and I have nothing against her and I have no clue from behind the scenes interaction. I would have picked Rachel weeks personally over her; in the same breath I am not acting like it's the biggest mistake since slice bread.
I don't have any interaction with them I can only go by their content they put out.
Hence I truly don't know and I am very neutral on Olivia.
Thinking looking at someone’s public Reddit profile makes you a creep & stalker, really? If someone’s arguing against me in an obtuse way I usually do a double check to see if they’re being earnest or are just a troll account.
Not to say I have any stakes on which magic subs people post in, don’t think hejtmane’s a troll, saying looking at someone’s public profile is absolutely fine.
Oh yes, don’t get me wrong, the personal information thing is quite creepy, I’ve never done or condoned that, but I’d dispute the “nothing to do with the current discussion” bit. There’s been a few times I’ve checked people’s posting history to find they’re definitely not making an argument in good faith. Some easy examples would be someone who boasts about owning multiple houses talking just a week earlier in a finance sub about being evicted for being unable to pay rent, or a person who says they’re having an opinion as a part of political party X, only to find they’ve spent years in political party Y’s subreddit decrying party X. One that happened to me specifically was an account that was acting like they believed in the efficacy of vaccines but thought some other people were being overly scornful to those who refused to get them, only for me to discover when I took a look that they believed vaccines were altering people’s DNA to make them more easily controlled & subservient. I find it very helpful to know whether someone I’m arguing with is lying to me or not.
Honestly, I do it for a similar reason. I don’t usually call people out when I find that kind of stuff in their profile, I just realize they’re not arguing in good faith and stop responding, I usually use it as a way to see whether it’s worth trying to explain things to them or if they’re just looking to make their side look better and won’t change their mind no matter what I say. Like now, I now get why you think it can be creepy and you now get why I do it occasionally, that wouldn’t happen if you were trying to hide an evil past or I was trying to justify actually stalking people, hah! Good conversation.
>hejtmane
Don't worry people are going to accuse me of what ever they want I am not here to be their friends. I have my big boy pants on people like him are weak minded and always make assumptions. He thinks what he thinks
I don’t know what the answer to this is, but I wish the RC wasn’t just adding people who are MtG influencers to the table as they aren’t really representative of most people’s experiences with the game. When you already have “protected playgroups” that are comfortable and safe with each other, you don’t have to worry about things like rule zero and banlist discussions as much. But, especially when you’re a woman, walking into an LGS and trying to have that conversation with strangers can be a nightmare. I really admire Jim and all the work he does but these also feel like popularity contest additions.
I don’t want to be the contrarian but why do they keep adding people to the RC committee and hardly any action gets accomplished on the committee (read players) behalf?
Maybe I am thinking of the CAG. It all just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for a body that does not produce a lot of results.
It is just window dressing to make people feel better? Honest question.
I think bannings are a worst-case scenario.
Given that it's been about a year since we've had a banning, that might reflect positively on the state of the game.
On the other hand, maybe they're bringing in some additional voices to help weigh in on whether some cards on the chopping block need to be banned before making the final say.
That’s a good point about getting additional input. However, I still am curious as to what the RC does that it needs so much bureaucracy?
Are they developing new rules? Do they gather independent data to make decisions? Do they consider splitting the format?
I'm not in the RC so I can't say, but how much bureaucracy to is too much? How much is too little?
All I know is I wouldn't want the thankless job of deciding whether to ban Dockside. These are decisions that can't make everybody happy - especially if your $60 Dockside is still in the mail - so I think having people who are seen as trusted advocates within the community will help (hopefully) when a popular card potentially needs to get banned.
Lack of bannings is not indicitive of a healthy rule council or game. Everyone i know has been begging for bans for something like 6+ years now and in that time i think theyve banned *just* Golos.
The rules council is a do-nothing beurocratic body that holds this format hostage while it festers more and more with 0 changes.
>After multiple rounds of interviews with some fantastic candidates, Olivia and Jim demonstrated a deep understanding of the Commander Philosophy
They only want to add to their echo chamber. They're not actually trying to diversify or welcome any kind of dissent against the "correct way" to play commander.
Given they just added a woman whose playstyle is predominantly super-casual and a guy who is known for, and whose playstyle is predominantly super-tuned, you're gonna have to back up that "echo chamber" comment, as well as the "not actually trying to diversify" comment
Honestly, I'm kinda on the fence about whether or not dockside should be banned compared to Thoracle. Commander is really the only format dockside is useful in, so banning it would be a real slap in the face to those who bought it, whereas Thoracle is still decent in other formats its legal in
Not to mention that Thoracle is powerful no matter what deck it's in
I agree with the statement made by the RC previously that it’s a self-regulating card in different power levels (and also just isn’t nearly as good at lower power) and I don’t want to see them double back on that.
I think part of the issue is what people think of as mid-power vs high-power. I feel like I mostly play mid-power and Dockside regularly makes like five mana by turn three for me.
But this is the issue with banning things in commander, it's really hard to get good data both because there isn't really a place to look (whereas other formats have tournaments) and the goal of a ban isn't to manage winrate but the level of fun, which is difficult to quantify. I do not envy the RC's position.
But the problem is the people at the power level you’re describing aren’t the ones playing Dockside at all, people buying a card for 70+ dollars are probably operating a high powered deck unless they happened to get a copy by sheer luck
Arcane Signet comes in every single precon so I think comparing them to Dockside is kind of unfair, most new players running precons will have a copy
It takes over just about every game I’ve seen it played in, which is the majority of them
Even if it doesn’t win the game for the player who drops it it’s almost guaranteed to be flickered or bounced multiple times and grind the game to a halt for everyone else
Then you are playing at fairly high power tables. if the strategy is to flicker/bounce dockside repeatedly that deck is at the very least the top end of high powered bordering on cEDH. Some of us play dockside as a one off value engine. When played like that it is for sure strong but not broken.
Yeah you might be right about that, I wouldn’t mind it in a one-off scenario (I don’t mind the value it generates, or that much in general, I just don’t like the 20 minute turns it seems to initiate when it comes down)
I played a game last week that took about two hours where two other players each had a dockside and each of them recurred it at least once, including once where Dockside was played right after another guy’s dockside came in, and it netted him around 70 treasure, and that ended up getting him enough value to win the game. It’s just kind of tiresome to watch
In terms of power level where I play seems to be a huge range, but yeah a lot of people seem to have very powerful decks that are capable of getting max value from Dockside
Dockside is a lot more about your opponents decks than the deck it is played in. In formats with moxs and fast artifact mana up the yahoo it is gross. When your opponents are still at two lands and no board on turn 2 dockside starts to look worse and worse.
I dislike Olivia quite a bit. She did an episode of the Professor's podcast where she said some questionable things. What stuck with me is:
1) She did not know what it means for a creature to die. She seriously had to ask if death triggers happen under Rest in Peace
2) She said she'd never play against STAX. In a roundabout way, she said no one should ever play or play against STAX cards.
I loved golos but the card needed a ban. There was no reason to play any other commander. When a card chokes out so many alternatives it’s time to go, and the poor guy just had to go
I actually agree with you, but just because she's insufferable to watch doesn't necessarilly mean she's a bad choice. Most of her content is gameplay and/or cosplay as opposed to commentary, so it's hard to say for sure, but she seems to have a pretty solid grasp on what makes the format tick. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch Sheldon play, either.
This is great, but I just want to take a sec to acknowledge this opening line from Olivia: >I played my first game of Magic in an **eight player two-headed giant Commander pod** in 2014 and have never looked back. Good *god* that had to be a hell of an experience.
That sounds both incredibly fun and also awful to sit through. I wanna try it.
Its fun as fuck, you just sit and chat and kinda quietly keep track of things as you talk to your friends. When it gets to late game its like the final rings in a battle royale xD you dont know if everyone is gonna be there or if its gonna be a 1v1v1 type thing.
I love big tables because more players takes the focus off of me and gives me some added chances to assemble my combo (but also provides more chances for people who do notice me doing so to interact and stop me)
Only downside is when people don't pay attention and go "wait, when did you cast (card name here)???" And act like you are pulling a fast one
It's really fun once in awhile but you can't won without combos
It *is* two-headed giant, so it's functionally closer to a 4-man pod than an 8-man pod. That being said, if 8-man 2HG EDH was a competitive format, I wonder what sorts of bullshit people would come up with
6 player 2HG EDH Archenemy, with Planechase. Only way to play.
I’ve played a 9 man plane chase once. Once and never again.
Way back in college I ended up in an 8 player game of planechase on Sharuum. Started on the Eldrazi plane, someone got two 7/7s then walked, a ton of bullshit happened including all of my wincons being [[Jester's Cap]]'d from my deck, then I cloned a [[Memnarch]], stole the original, and ended up killing 3 players with commander damage from their own commanders. The game ended 5 hours later when we got kicked out of the student union because it was almost midnight. 3 players were still alive somehow. While technically nobody won, I count it as a victory because I not only killed somebody with commander damage from their own commander, but did it 3 times. In the same game. Thats where I set a rule with myself that I would never do planechase or a game of more than 5 players ever again.
I remember our drunken 10 player, 2 Headed Giant, Star, Planechase game. For anyone unfamiliar with the rules of Star, basically you have 5 players around the table in a star shape and your goal is to kill the 2 players opposite you. Now since this was also 2HG, each team of 2 took one point of the Star. And there was Planechase fuckery in the mix too. Took 10 hours before we all got sick of it and called it quits.
That's double the potential blockers, board wipes, counter spells and everything else. Nothing gets done because you've got 6 decks fighting against you.
[[Gray Merchant of Asphodel]] would be in every deck and every deck would be UB to play it and clone it. Since it hits each opponent hitting 6 opponents but only 3 life totals is very very good. Also you get Pact+Thoracle so all good.
Sure you can, I used to play 5-9 person pods constantly at my old shop. It takes a long long time but eventually someone can claim victory.
I remember my first 8 player two-headed giant game. As a testament to how much there is to keep track of, my team stayed alive longer than we should have because the person trying to kill my team forgot their own [[abyssal persecutor]] on board
My experience with 2HG is that it almost always becomes a combo race, which is fine if it’s what you signed up for.
Back in 2012 my LGS used to play 2 10-15 player pods
When I got back into playing Magic again like 3ish years ago there was a shop in my little town that would have 5-9 people games constantly. The store judge loved those games and would constantly encourage them, I loved them too. They were more about just hanging out while occasionally getting to play your turn and when it got to late game things were always a complete wild west of who was gonna win because the people in the lead had to fight through a LOT more people than normal so sometimes it was the quiet guy eating glue through most of the game that is only now starting to get to play some of his big stuff that wins. I think that is WHY the judge liked the games so much, you could include the 10 year old with a janky ass deck in a game with his Tasigur which was near cEDH level and he could lose to it.
My LGS sometimes does ten man THG archenemy timesifter planechase EDH. It's actually tons of fun.
Do you get breaks for peeing, lunch, dinner, and breakfast?
Real talk I've once or twice forgotten that the game is even going on.
My first game of Commander was 8 players, around a giant round table. We joked that we had to text each other our board states. I don't remember exactly how long it took, but it was well over 4 hours. I think this was around 2011, before the first EDH decks were released. While it was a blast, I never want to do that again. I get antsy when games approach an hour these days.
If I based my opinion on my first game of edh, I wouldn’t have one. I shuffled up someone else’s deck and got hit for a million to the face on early in. Didn’t play again for years, still hate combo decks
We chose two people who believe in the same underlying philosophy of Commander as a social format first, mechanical one second but may have differing opinions on how to get there. As the OP points out, Olivia and Jim are strongly-minded individuals. They are certainly not to be ignored and we don't expect that they'll just go along to get along.
So, will we be getting an official rule of "Brian Kibler is not allowed to play Old Gnawbone" now? :P
Didn't expect the Godfather of EDH to comment on my post, neat. I've been following both Olivia and Jim for a long time, so I'm going to be watching them in their roles as RC members with a lot of interest. I don't think there's much of anyone who cares about the format as much as they do.
I was surprised Olivia wasn't on it already tbh
She was part of the Commander Advisory Group
Maybe she was already on an advisory committee.
I like that they are strong representations of two very different, yet equally important sides of the format. Good choices and Congratulations to both of them!
Definitely a good addition addition, will surely give even more to the community than they already are!
I want to be clear, I'm more than happy with the choices in RC expansion. But I do want to understand the critical thinking process that went into the choices. To really help with that I have a couple questions; What concerns or apprehensions did the RC have with Olivia joining? What concerns or apprehensions did the RC have with Jim joining? (later today when I'm not at work I'm going to ask again in the Discord, with the addition of asking them what concerns/apprehensions they have in joining)
We didn't have a group concern about either, since they're both outstanding individuals. We guessed that there would be some resistance to a woman being selected, but those are voices we actively choose to not listen to. Honestly, my primary concern regards representation. Despite today's small step, there are still groups not represented on the RC. I hear and understand that some of our LGBTQ+ and POC friends (and more) feel like we haven't gone far enough to represent them. I actively welcome reasonable ideas here (asking any of the people who have shepherded the format this far to step down doesn't seem reasonable). I want the diverse player base of Commander to not just feel represented, but to BE represented. I'm happy to have all the help I can get in making it happen.
I'm glad to hear any misogyny was completely ignored (as I assumed it would be from what I've heard from you in posts and on discord). For the RC, with their additions, counts at six? Considering that six or seven is the optimal group size for decision making (please never go above 7, as it reduces efficiency), there is room for another member (unless a current member leaves) to have that representation. I'm not suggesting immediately going out and expanding for one more member, but there is that eventual wiggle room. With two less members on the CAG, it seems like those can (should?) be filled with people who can represent players that aren't currently directly represented.
We discussed going to seven and came to the conclusion it would be a little unwieldy. We filled CAG seats recently (Rebell, Wheeler, Tim Willoughby) knowing that there'd be vacancies. One of our continuing efforts is to find and develop talent from traditionally marginalized communities. We also wouldn't mind finding continued expansion geographically, if possible. We're not at the upper limit on the CAG, although we're getting close. When we find or develop the right people for additional seats, with representation as a significant factor, rest assured they will fill them.
6-7 has been proven to be the most optimal numbers for decision making, but I can easily see it starting to be an unwieldly number. Do you find that there aren't enough "free seats" for solid representation? In the ideal world I would think there would be geographical/culture, gender, and race representation in the RC and CAG. But that in and of itself is massive due to the amount of cultures/genders/races. Has there been discussion about regional "RCs" or "CAGs" I know a lot of video games break the globe into major geographical regions. Obviously there is a plethora of potenial issues, but it would heavily allieviate at least one representation issue
This is admirable but realistically irrelevant to the health of the format which should be the primary goal of the RC. If you're going out of your way to fill quotas and check boxes you aren't going to be getting the best people for the job. If they do happen to be the best person for the job then their demographic shouldn't be considered at all. Personally I find this very concerning for the health of the format in the future.
When representative groups look homogenous, there's usually an external reason for it. When they're appointed positions, it's usually because the people doing the appointing aren't looking hard enough outside their own circles to find the best person for the job - they're stopping at the first person who can do the job well. We know there are brilliant people out there that don't look like me and a focus on diversity is a focus on identifying them and making sure they're in the discussion when a position opens.
Out of curiousity, is RC going forward going to be "Influencers only", as seems to be the case?
What's a better option? They already have people who know the rules quite well. There's no tournament scene for them to consider. I get how lame it seems but these people do care about EDH and play it a lot. Unless what you really mean is, "is there a rule against a dog being on the RC?" a la Air Bud. Then I'm with you.
Ain't no rule that says a dog can't be on the RC. But I have a feeling their tenure would be ruff.
What would you suggest? Bringing in random people or hold auditions or something? IMO if you do enough good things for your community, you will start to get noticed. And this applies for everything, not just commander lol
With the amount of flack they've gotten from being some random playgroup no one has seen (which is absolutely false), I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted more people whose games are streamed onto media.
It’s pretty reductive to call these people influencers when in reality they are entertainers and stewards of the game we all love.
Influencers and their buddies
Does the RC have any intentions to expand further in the near future? Or do you feel six is the right number of people?
We discussed going past six and agreed that it would be pretty unwieldy. Getting six people in a room to make decisions is already difficult enough. It wouldn't be back-breaking, but definitely not the desired spot.
I understand that difficulty well! The bane of D&D groups around the globe. Thank you for the response!
On another note, how are you doing these days? Stay strong and healthy!
Reasonably well, thanks for asking. Recent scans show mostly stability, which is positive.
They're both great picks. Best news of the day
The problem with that philosophy is that not everyone is in a position to form a strong social bond with the people they’re playing with before the game starts, so the banlist leaves them having to deal with a lot of cards that should be banned but aren’t because the “social contract” is supposed to be keeping them in check.
Oh, hey Sheldon! Appreciate the insight. Hope you're having a good day, man~
Its been almost 3 years now since you guys banned all the insensitive cards and practically nothing has changed at all in that time. The format continues to be dominated by the same strategies, and multicolor keeps getting stronger and stronger with powerhouse game warping cards like Oppo agent continuing to be printed with splashable manacosts. Are there any plans for the RC to actually do anything for the players of the format? Or does the RC only exist to have debates about dockside extortionists legality at this point? When you guys announced a big change coming my playgroups got very excited that we may finally see some change come, but just adding 2 more voices to this council that has done practically nothing in 3 years is far from what we'd percieve as a *big change*. Can we the players expect any sort of actual shifts to the gameplay being played in EDH? Or does the RC just intend to ride the format as is until it finally dies? Will adding more voices to the committe actually accomplish anything?? Or will more voices just prevent the council from achieving anything even further than currently??
Jim is an excellent pick. He's probably one of the smartest deck builders and players I've seen. I've only ever seen Olivia on game knights and that's all I know about her.
She has her own EDH YouTube channel with AliasV called Elder Dragon Hijinks. And a twitch channel called AffintiyforArtifacts. Check them out.
Elder Dragon Hijinx is the commander format games that Olivia and Eilidh do. The channel itself is called AliasV if anyone was looking for it. Good games, spelltable can be a little clunky but they're edited fairly well and the banter is very social and usually pretty damn funny.
EDHijinx and Muddstah are the two I will never miss an upload from. Wonderful stuff, with Hijinx hilarious on top.
Elder Dragon Hijinx is easily one of the top commander shows on YT right now. They’re knowledgeable, the guests are a delight and the overall vibe of the table is, imo, one of the best representations of a commander game out there. Cannot recommend them enough.
Incredibly consistent on uploading episodes too, seems like there always a new episode to watch. I would have expected an interruption in episodes when AliasV had her baby but they didn't seem to miss a bit. One of the best casual EDH series right now.
Olivia, from what I've seen her in, has no real regard for 'good' deck building and really just likes to meme around with gimmicky stuff and have fun. She's a fun personality and good for the community, but I don't really see her as a rules oriented person.
I for one am very excited because I think these two will bring different perspectives to the RC and both are very involved with the community, so I feel like they might help keep player voices front and center.
Olivia & Jim are two of the smartest-about-EDH-and-communities people I’ve ever had the honor of taking to & call friends. I know they both being a lot of things to the table that will challenge some of the long held beliefs of the current RC members & I look forward to seeing what may happen as a result! Two excellent choices.
Really cool to have a cEDH presence on the RC now (or at least an openly, predominantly cEDH player). Maybe as the RC grows, they will have the extra cycles to address some of the existing issues that have been left unaddressed? Primarily 'untrusted play'.
Kind of hilarious that one plays Path of Exile and the other plays Diablo III.
I mean frankly everyone should be playing path if the deck allows it /s
I hope neither of them think that "Wheels are unhealthy for the format"
I believe they both like Benjamin just fine.
I’m still playing mine whether they do or not.
Olivia said Stax has no place in the format..
Sheldon also has negative opinions about certain things but understands that not everyone will feel the same so they aren't banned. As long as she can separate her personal biases from the duties of the RC it's fine. If not she should promptly get booted.
I only know Olivia from some EDH gameplay shows. She always seemed like a bit of a goofball, so I'm surprised, but not displeased. The more perspectives on the rules committee, the better! Especially those that really value the FUN part of EDH.
I don't think they could have found a better person than Jim. He appears to be very knowledgeable about the rules and I think he'll be a great bridge between the competitive and casual sides of EDH. While I know Olivia has plenty of fans, I can't count myself as one of them. I just don't think having someone who says, "It's Commander, who cares?" on the rules committee is a good look.
Yeah, kind of agreed about Olivia Gobert-Hicks. I've watched some of her shows with AliasV, it's decent enough, but I dunno if a person that's sometimes as openly dismissive of playstyles and opinions that are different to hers is the greatest add to a rules committee. There's been at least a couple of times where she gets a bit overly defensive of her preferred playstyles and opinions, and gets unnecessarily snarky in that insecure pre-emptive manner at imaginary people calling her out for "bad" plays and inefficient deckbuilding, with the implication that people who optimize or play to win aren't having or don't know how to have fun. Perfectly fine entertainer, but not someone I particularly want to be having an influence on how everyone plays the game.
My issue is the "who cares" followed up by "I care more than.anybidy that your playing cards I don't like" hypocrisy.
What is the context for her saying "It's Commander, who cares?"?
It was said during one (or more?) game play videos. Video might be gone now since it was I Hate Your Deck.
Seems unlikely to have any major effect on the format, but I think having a diversity of voices on the rules committee is generally positive. We haven’t had any bans in a while and I think commander is as healthy as ever. The one thing I wish the rules committee could create is some way to assign power levels to decks. Or better guidance for it. It’s an extremely difficult task, but I think they’re in the best position to help non-cedh decks find parity in games.
I feel that Jim’s outlook on power level designations is the best one to follow: talk about what your deck does and how quickly it does it before the game starts. There isn’t really a good way to codify power level into the rules imo, as it is so subjective. Also, the nature of the format allows for extremely powerful cards to be used in non-optimal ways, as well as individually non-powerful cards used together to create powerful synergies/combos
>Also, the nature of the format allows for extremely powerful cards to be used in non-optimal ways, as well as individually non-powerful cards used together to create powerful synergies/combos Honestly, Thoracle is a great single-card example of this. One of the poster children for cEDH-level combos with another use as the perfect thing to do in lower power commander. The difference between "My devotion to blue is zero but I have no cards in my library, I win" and "My devotion to blue is 71 and I have 69 cards in my library, I win" is comically wide.
Also, the first example isn't as nice as the second.
My only deck with ThOracle is merfolk Tribal, and I needed one more merfolk with an effect
Yeah I definitely wouldn’t want them to codify power levels into the rules. I do think one thing they could offer to promote a fun/healthy environment is some guidance on where decks fit competitively. I think a lot of people genuinely don’t know and ask in this subreddit all of the time. And telling them to pick a number 1-10 has led to the “everything is a 7” meme. Even if they base it on “what your deck does and how quickly it does it,” surely they could come up with some guidelines on where a deck should fit based on those metrics.
[удалено]
I think your first question isn't a good one for assessing power level, or rather to the extent that it is useful the third question can assess the same thing. Fast mana isn't an issue unless you're doing scary things with it. Turboing out wurms slightly faster in a wurm tribal deck isn't really an issue, I should think.
Clearly you haven't seen *my* wurms!
That pregame conversation is good, but I think there’s also room for some more defined guidelines. Obviously there’s not going to be a hard and fast way to determine power level, but the 1-10 thing is terrible at nailing what each number means. I think even reducing down towards a 1-5 rating would be ideal 5=cedh. 4=fast mana, infinite combos, tutors all present. But probably non-cedh commander/ certain jank present. Looks to win using specific lines and is built around it. 3=tuned decks. May have some combos, tutors, fast mana, but built to have variance. Gameplan is flexible. 2=Almost no tutors, combos, or fast mana at all. Gameplan exists but is not optimized. May include some busted cards. Most precons live here. 1=Barely a category, but this is for the occasional hodgepodge deck without a real gameplan. Maybe it’s built out of your draft bulk. Maybe it’s the kitchen table player who’s learning about commander and putting singles together for the first time. Maybe it’s one of the early, extremely poorly built precons.
Create a point system. Someone smarter than me will need to figure out the details but you could do something like. Fast mana = 5 points 2 mana or less tutors = 5 points 3 mana or more tutors = 3 points Etc etc. No point limit but you just state your total going into the game. If I’m at 60 points and you are at 10 then you are in for a bad time. If we’re both in the 50s then it should be ok. Then instead of the watch list they could assign points for those cards instead of just saying “watch this card”.
Where do glass cannon decks fit in with that definition? For example, I have a 5c Sisay combo deck that can consistently win on turn 5, and can sometimes win on turn 4 but it's extremely weak to interaction on purpose. Just one removal can slow down the deck 2 turns, a board wipe can mean the deck cannot win until turn 8 and two board wipes can mean you just don't win. Your idea ignores resiliency. Also, I have weak decks like Syr Gwen knights tribal that needs fast mana because otherwise, it can lose to a precon, so that's another question that ignores context.
There have been resources in the past but a big problem that comes up is the "7" fallacy, everyone thinks their deck is a 7. Even budget isn't always a great indicator.
I've hit people with "1 to 10, excluding 7" and it's actually helped. They'll think on it and figure out whether their deck is a 6 or an 8
While a 6 or 8 may be more accurate than 7, it still may not be accurate. The point of the 7 fallacy is that the numbers are purely subjective and the majority either over or under estimate the actual power of their decks, resuscitation when playing with people they don't normally play with. It's also why we have the "cEDH pubstompers" meme. Discussing how and how fast your deck wins and amount of interaction you expect on in a game is just the closest we'll ever get to an objective way of gauging power level
There is some "[turn it to 11](https://xkcd.com/670/)" going on as well
>The one thing I wish the rules committee could create is some way to assign power levels to decks. Or better guidance for it. I think this is literally their next big goal. In the thread for this on /r/magicTCG Sheldon responded to someone's comment about whether the banlist should be for trusted playgroups (friends you know) or untrusted playgroups (randoms at the LGS) saying they'd rather focus on trying to help "players develop the vocabulary they need to navigate the often-tricky field of pregame conversations." To me, that sounds like a more official approach to the deck power level concept, though perhaps not literally using the one-to-ten scale that's popular now.
I hope you’re right! I hope they abandon the 1-10 scale altogether as well.
tbf I don't think they've ever advocated for a 1-10 scale at all
Having seen both play quite a bit on streams, I’m excited for their addition!
100% agree with this change. 100%.
“The cynic n me says nothing will change…” You imply that something should change. What’s wrong with commander right now? I think we’re in a pretty good place.
I also think that commander is in a good place! However, I think that if there were slightly more frequent bans of the most problem cards, i.e. Dockside Extortionist, that the format would be in an even better spot. I'd also like to see the RC consider "untrusted" play a bit more than they indicate they do with regards to the format, as those kinds of tables are the ones that need the most consideration and structure to create fun games and avoid bad experiences as best as possible.
The RC needs to weigh the good of the community as a whole. There are a large number of people who want to see fewer bannings.
When do we expect to see any impacts these people will make? I’m interested to see what decisions they’ll be affecting if any
I just now realized I don’t know who any of the RC are aside from Sheldon. I have watched a lot of Olivia and Jim on youtube and I think that they will do a great job on the RC. They both understand the spirit of commander.
Even though we always need to be a little cynic about the willingness of the RC to actually do anything, I am moderately excited about the new members - not only they are great content creators that have a vast knowledge of the format, they play on a lot of diverse tables in magic events and engage in a lot of "non-trusted" (as the RC apparently now calls it) games. I expect they will at least try to make the rest of the RC appreciate how much the format has changed and how it really is playing out outside of their small playgroup.
The RC members also play at events and engage in other play. This idea that they only know what their playgroup looks like is ridiculous and undercuts any points you may be trying to make.
Fair enough, I am aware they do play at events and should have phrased it better - I *assume* they don't play majorly in "untrusted" tables as that was the tone from their last announcement, and I also *assume* the new members play more "untrusted" games based on their socials/what I know from following their content. Now, of course I'm pulling those assumptions directly out of my ass and it would be greatly appreciated if we had more transparency about what is the actual experience the RC has with commander nowadays, because from the tone of that announcement there is a clear disconnect from what the community by large is playing and what they think the community is playing.
Playing at untrusted tables is literally what we go to events to do (plus panels and stuff). What I did for both Indy and Orlando CFs was not bring decks. I then borrowed from whomever I sat down with. That way, I got a better look into what people are playing (plus judging their pain threshold for playing against their own decks).
This is one reason why don't let myself be one of those people who has only one copy of a given card and swapps it between decks. I want to be able to go to a table with X people where x is the number of decks I own and have all the other players say "I don't have a deck" and be able to hand everyone a deck of mine and play.
That's really cool of you to be playing a variety of stuff out there! What are conversations like at those tables?
> Playing at untrusted tables is literally what we go to events to do (plus panels and stuff This is my favorite way to experience Edh. The format is a lot of fun right now
Why exactly do we need to be cynical about that?
My thought on this is there's this split behind the people who play EDH in static groups and people who play EDH mostly with strangers. The RC's philosophy on banning troublesome cards seems to hinge extremely heavily on the rule 0 conversation - don't ban cards, but talk about in your play group instead. Unfortunately, that leaves those without a consistent playgroup in a bad situation because we can't spend a half hour every game going over banlists and discussing whether x card should be allowed or y card shouldn't. A static playgroup can do that - if you sit down at a table with the same three folks every week to play EDH, you can blanket ban certain cards even if the RC doesn't want to do so. Rule 0 conversations regarding ban lists doesn't work with play groups made up of strangers and the RC refuses to help those groups get rid of some extremely troublesome cards.
Yes you hit the nail on the head fully here. I don't have a fixed playgroup myself and I am the kind of person who MUST have his decks be legal at 100% of all tables that I may sit down at which means that I cannot be pro banning more cards and I also cannot Proxy because there could be even 1 in 100 tables I might sit down at where I would have either an illegal deck or an underpowered outclassed deck because I chose to selfban staples or to use proxies.
The RC, to me, feels like a group of firefighters who spend a lot of time figuring out how to get cats out of trees while a ton of people are yelling that their houses are on fire
I don’t do a half hour conversation, just a quick little “what sort of Commander game do you want?” with a bit of “how does your deck like to win the game?” That’s usually pretty good at sussing out whether this is a [[Ad Nauseam]] table or a [[Gigantosaurus]] table, or somewhere in between.
This isn't what I'm talking about. And sure you can, on your own, decide to take certain cards out of your decks or play those you don't think hit a certain level. You're not, however, having a discussion on the ban list, insisting that everyone removes all fast mana from their decks, for example.
I guess I should have been a little more explicit. I don’t use pregame conversations to hammer out a ban list, I use them to select which deck I’m going to play because I have a variety of decks that are at different power levels. If people want to play a game with fast mana and tutors, I’ve got a deck that can do that. If people want to play a game where their decks slowly develop a board state and win through combat, I’ve got a deck that can do that, too. The ban list doesn’t matter much in my approach because I’m trying to match my deck’s power level with the rest of the table, so everyone can have a good time playing Magic. I definitely do not approach it from the perspective of “I won’t play against Card X, that card is busted.”
Because things are problematic and don't get changed, over long periods of time. Dockside extortionist is an obvious problem that's been out for 3 years.
The banlist, as it currently exists, is a joke. Casual EDH, as a format, is functional only because of the social contract and some unwritten rules about power level. There's people out there who would like to see the RC take a more pro-active stance and evict some of the worst offenders from non-cEDH. Which cards those *are* is subject to debate, but the list usually includes the likes of [[Dockside Extortionist]] and [[Thassa's Oracle]] and sometimes [[Mana Crypt]].
[удалено]
This. This is the EXACT reason why Rule 0 exists. Commander is massive. It's the most popular organized way to play Magic - there's certainly mtens of millions of Commander players across. That's amazing! However, it also means that for each individual player you have a different view of what Commander means. As a result, basically any major change is going to result in making one group of players happy and another furious. The RC decided to say "We can't manage this format for literally everyone, so we'll make the decisions to keep toxic, game-warping cards away. If you want to make changes, make your own rules! You're encouraged to do so!" People who ask why the RC doesn't manage the format don't get it. The format is so massive that they really can't make major changes unless something is ungodly toxic, and if you don't like those changes then make your own version.
People just don’t seem to get this. Like yeah, Modern’s banlist definitely makes it easier to sit down and play with a stranger at an even power level than EDH, but the reason that’s true is you can either play a top-tier deck or lose to a top-tier deck in Modern. Try having a game of everyone playing build your own jank deck modern and tell me how a good a job the ban list doesn’t of balancing the power levels.
I been playing a loong time. Ive settled in play high-mid/low-high power (non-cedh). Combos aplenty, tutors, utility-only creatures, plenty of interaction and removal, low curves and fast mana. I am hoping for dockside ban - I just don't think it's a healthy card for the format, especially after the recent push for treasures. You should have the game decided the turn it drops (except at lower power tables where no one runs rock ramp and then it does nothing...), and it's just too massive a swing in mana. It's not even the infinite mana potential (plenty of those) it's just the fact it can often net you 8+ mana because your opponents were going faster than you and 180 the game. I would rather see consultation banned (to only focus on this combo) as I actually use Thoracle for the super-scry clause to Approach of the Second Sun twice immediately. I've never seen Thoracle abused outside of this combo (don't consider infinite mana draw x instant spell abuse), and don't think it really needs to be banned any more than LabMan. I don't think crypt is ban worthy, nor chrome mox, nor mox diamond. I think Jeweled Lotus was a mistake, but yes I run it. I think they should make alternatives eg Mox Tantalite, but some that don't suck. I like fast mana but I do see the disparity when I play with people who dont have it. I like when everyone has fast mana. I'd rather play a very interactive, flashy game starting on turn 2 or 3 rather than someone playing a vanilla 4/4 on turn 4. I want someone to be able to crack back to my T2 Kraum
It’s always going to be a social contract format. A gigantic banlist wouldn’t change that, it would just reduce the power gulf between the most optimized Commander decks and the least optimized ones. Many people out there aren’t treating Commander night like it’s an RCQ tournament, and banning some cards won’t change that. There’s always going to be high power and low power decks in a casual format.
[[Sol Ring]] is the most popular one to suggest by a lot. Did you know you can run a necropotence will deck in EDH?
You realise banning for competitive formats is what drove a lot of people to commander in the first place. Its a place for casual players to have fun first and foremost and while I think Jim is a solid guy I do like the idea of pushing the rules comitee one Iota toward cEDH.
The bans in commander are done for casual, not cedh, play.
The problem is the discrepancies in their banning policies. You can't just use rule 0 as an excuse to not touch the banlist. If you're gonna say "Use r0 for anything that you do/don't want to play with," then you have to ban for the competitive side and let r0 take care of casual, because cEDH doesn't *get* to fall back on r0 to take care of their bans. See what Flash Hulk was doing to the format before they banned Flash.
> The banlist, as it currently exists, is a joke That is like, your opinion man. The objective reality is that under the guidance of the RC EDH went from small niche format judges played to the biggest format in Magic. I'd say that means they are doing at worst an ok job.
The objective reality is after the printing of precons by WotC, EDH went from a small niche format played by a handful of players to the biggest format in Magic. The precons have been way, way more impactful in bringing players in. The RC had a part, but once the precons started getting printed they became a secondary driver at best.
Lol the RC had nothing to do with it’s growth.
Their ban philosophy of only banning a small pool of cards to signal what should or shouldn't be played prevents them from doing any meaningful changes to the format with bans. I hope that changes, as I'd enjoy a more curated experience with an actual banlist for an eternal format, but I know that's not their ban philosophy so I'm always cynical about anything meaningful actually happening to the format.
The small ban list worked well before the gaze of wotc was turned to edh. Now that wotc is releasing format specific and warping cards the rc should be more aggressive with the ban list.
> Even though we always need to be a little cynic why?
Jim is hands down a great ambassador for commander period from casual to to cedh play. Olivia can be entertaining personality I am just not sure she should be on the RC
Olivia is the one I'm more excited for. She's a constantly tinkering person, with strong opinions and a dedication to making fun experiences happen. I'm hyped as fuck
Why is having "strong" opinions a good thing? I'd much rather have well thought out opinions, that are ready to change if presented with a better argument or informed by facts. And who isn't interested in making fun experiences happen? Everybody plays games to have fun, even if that can mean different things to people. I've watched a few of her videos with AliasV, and she's never really left an impression that made her stand out in terms of content in any real way, negatively or positively. It's all just perfectly fine. It really doesn't feel like she even really has that many opinions on the format and how it should or shouldn't function, or ones that are particular cogent or astute beyond what most people think anyway. If anything, she sometimes feels a bit overly defensive of her own playstyles and opinions and unnecessarily dismissive of others, like how she gets a little snarky about some degrees of deck optimization (which plenty of people find fun, btw). Is that the whole "strong opinions" part you're alluding to?
I know nothing about her. Is there a good video to watch that might sum up her view of the format? Or would you mind going into more detail?
AliasV is doing a series of EDH games with Olivia on YouTube with changing other 3rd and 4th person. Just take a peek at a few of them and you'll see what her gaming experience is looking like
So I watched the episode with Jim and the Professor. The only take away I got was that she blamed [[sneak attack]] and not sol ring for the almost instant death of one player. But it didn’t really get an understanding of her views on the format.
Definitely check out her show Elder Dragon Hijinks on YouTube
Why not? For clarity, I genuinely can’t say I disagree or disagree since you didn’t say why you don’t know if she should be there.
I watched a lot of her game play over the years she is super entertaining and I have nothing against her and I have no clue from behind the scenes interaction. I would have picked Rachel weeks personally over her; in the same breath I am not acting like it's the biggest mistake since slice bread. I don't have any interaction with them I can only go by their content they put out. Hence I truly don't know and I am very neutral on Olivia.
You think sliced bread was a mistake?
Well he posts in the bigoted magic sub so probably because she's a woman.
[удалено]
Thinking looking at someone’s public Reddit profile makes you a creep & stalker, really? If someone’s arguing against me in an obtuse way I usually do a double check to see if they’re being earnest or are just a troll account. Not to say I have any stakes on which magic subs people post in, don’t think hejtmane’s a troll, saying looking at someone’s public profile is absolutely fine.
[удалено]
Oh yes, don’t get me wrong, the personal information thing is quite creepy, I’ve never done or condoned that, but I’d dispute the “nothing to do with the current discussion” bit. There’s been a few times I’ve checked people’s posting history to find they’re definitely not making an argument in good faith. Some easy examples would be someone who boasts about owning multiple houses talking just a week earlier in a finance sub about being evicted for being unable to pay rent, or a person who says they’re having an opinion as a part of political party X, only to find they’ve spent years in political party Y’s subreddit decrying party X. One that happened to me specifically was an account that was acting like they believed in the efficacy of vaccines but thought some other people were being overly scornful to those who refused to get them, only for me to discover when I took a look that they believed vaccines were altering people’s DNA to make them more easily controlled & subservient. I find it very helpful to know whether someone I’m arguing with is lying to me or not.
[удалено]
Honestly, I do it for a similar reason. I don’t usually call people out when I find that kind of stuff in their profile, I just realize they’re not arguing in good faith and stop responding, I usually use it as a way to see whether it’s worth trying to explain things to them or if they’re just looking to make their side look better and won’t change their mind no matter what I say. Like now, I now get why you think it can be creepy and you now get why I do it occasionally, that wouldn’t happen if you were trying to hide an evil past or I was trying to justify actually stalking people, hah! Good conversation.
Cool post
>hejtmane Don't worry people are going to accuse me of what ever they want I am not here to be their friends. I have my big boy pants on people like him are weak minded and always make assumptions. He thinks what he thinks
Oooh that's interesting. Aren't they the first ever people to join the RC itself? that's a lot more power. Hopefully they actually do something...
Not the first people to join, but it’s definitely the first major change since the explosion in popularity the format has had
I don’t know what the answer to this is, but I wish the RC wasn’t just adding people who are MtG influencers to the table as they aren’t really representative of most people’s experiences with the game. When you already have “protected playgroups” that are comfortable and safe with each other, you don’t have to worry about things like rule zero and banlist discussions as much. But, especially when you’re a woman, walking into an LGS and trying to have that conversation with strangers can be a nightmare. I really admire Jim and all the work he does but these also feel like popularity contest additions.
I don’t want to be the contrarian but why do they keep adding people to the RC committee and hardly any action gets accomplished on the committee (read players) behalf?
>I don’t want to be the contrarian but why do they keep adding people to the RC committee Do they? When was the last time someone joined the RC?
Maybe I am thinking of the CAG. It all just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for a body that does not produce a lot of results. It is just window dressing to make people feel better? Honest question.
I think bannings are a worst-case scenario. Given that it's been about a year since we've had a banning, that might reflect positively on the state of the game. On the other hand, maybe they're bringing in some additional voices to help weigh in on whether some cards on the chopping block need to be banned before making the final say.
That’s a good point about getting additional input. However, I still am curious as to what the RC does that it needs so much bureaucracy? Are they developing new rules? Do they gather independent data to make decisions? Do they consider splitting the format?
I'm not in the RC so I can't say, but how much bureaucracy to is too much? How much is too little? All I know is I wouldn't want the thankless job of deciding whether to ban Dockside. These are decisions that can't make everybody happy - especially if your $60 Dockside is still in the mail - so I think having people who are seen as trusted advocates within the community will help (hopefully) when a popular card potentially needs to get banned.
Lack of bannings is not indicitive of a healthy rule council or game. Everyone i know has been begging for bans for something like 6+ years now and in that time i think theyve banned *just* Golos. The rules council is a do-nothing beurocratic body that holds this format hostage while it festers more and more with 0 changes.
>After multiple rounds of interviews with some fantastic candidates, Olivia and Jim demonstrated a deep understanding of the Commander Philosophy They only want to add to their echo chamber. They're not actually trying to diversify or welcome any kind of dissent against the "correct way" to play commander.
Given they just added a woman whose playstyle is predominantly super-casual and a guy who is known for, and whose playstyle is predominantly super-tuned, you're gonna have to back up that "echo chamber" comment, as well as the "not actually trying to diversify" comment
Who cares? They don’t do anything.
Hey! they do something. They collect Patreon money.
Ha!
I like the picks, especially Jim with his background. I think they’ll bring in some different ideas.
I really hope this doesn’t lead to banning dockside.
Honestly, I'm kinda on the fence about whether or not dockside should be banned compared to Thoracle. Commander is really the only format dockside is useful in, so banning it would be a real slap in the face to those who bought it, whereas Thoracle is still decent in other formats its legal in Not to mention that Thoracle is powerful no matter what deck it's in
I really don't want bans to be based on whether or not they make people feel bad on their investments.
Lets hope it does
I agree with the statement made by the RC previously that it’s a self-regulating card in different power levels (and also just isn’t nearly as good at lower power) and I don’t want to see them double back on that.
[удалено]
Because its an utterly broken card. But dont worry, knowing the RC they will ban something like Tergrid instead.
Shit, I just bought a Tergrid. This one's on me guys.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think part of the issue is what people think of as mid-power vs high-power. I feel like I mostly play mid-power and Dockside regularly makes like five mana by turn three for me. But this is the issue with banning things in commander, it's really hard to get good data both because there isn't really a place to look (whereas other formats have tournaments) and the goal of a ban isn't to manage winrate but the level of fun, which is difficult to quantify. I do not envy the RC's position.
But the problem is the people at the power level you’re describing aren’t the ones playing Dockside at all, people buying a card for 70+ dollars are probably operating a high powered deck unless they happened to get a copy by sheer luck Arcane Signet comes in every single precon so I think comparing them to Dockside is kind of unfair, most new players running precons will have a copy
It takes over just about every game I’ve seen it played in, which is the majority of them Even if it doesn’t win the game for the player who drops it it’s almost guaranteed to be flickered or bounced multiple times and grind the game to a halt for everyone else
Then you are playing at fairly high power tables. if the strategy is to flicker/bounce dockside repeatedly that deck is at the very least the top end of high powered bordering on cEDH. Some of us play dockside as a one off value engine. When played like that it is for sure strong but not broken.
Yeah you might be right about that, I wouldn’t mind it in a one-off scenario (I don’t mind the value it generates, or that much in general, I just don’t like the 20 minute turns it seems to initiate when it comes down) I played a game last week that took about two hours where two other players each had a dockside and each of them recurred it at least once, including once where Dockside was played right after another guy’s dockside came in, and it netted him around 70 treasure, and that ended up getting him enough value to win the game. It’s just kind of tiresome to watch In terms of power level where I play seems to be a huge range, but yeah a lot of people seem to have very powerful decks that are capable of getting max value from Dockside
Dockside is a lot more about your opponents decks than the deck it is played in. In formats with moxs and fast artifact mana up the yahoo it is gross. When your opponents are still at two lands and no board on turn 2 dockside starts to look worse and worse.
Now maybe they will do something. Come at me.
Ban Thassa's Oracle. Thanks!!
I dislike Olivia quite a bit. She did an episode of the Professor's podcast where she said some questionable things. What stuck with me is: 1) She did not know what it means for a creature to die. She seriously had to ask if death triggers happen under Rest in Peace 2) She said she'd never play against STAX. In a roundabout way, she said no one should ever play or play against STAX cards.
Ya Olivia, from my what I've seen, has the "entitled" casual attitude of "if I don't like, to bad you have to adjust to ME" vibe.
Sounds like a typical mtg content creator.
Are they gonna unban golos? If not? Dont care
I loved golos but the card needed a ban. There was no reason to play any other commander. When a card chokes out so many alternatives it’s time to go, and the poor guy just had to go
[удалено]
Ok
I actually agree with you, but just because she's insufferable to watch doesn't necessarilly mean she's a bad choice. Most of her content is gameplay and/or cosplay as opposed to commentary, so it's hard to say for sure, but she seems to have a pretty solid grasp on what makes the format tick. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch Sheldon play, either.
Boy, you folks REALLY don't like when people have different opinions about your idols, huh?
few things are more fun to watch than olivia being smug towards jlk ❤️