Many EDH players have learned this format through friends and family, while others have stumbled into this format from other magic formats. Many have made friends, made stories, and built decks… and many have done so without reading the official rules of commander on the Rules Committee’s (RC’s) website mtgcommander.net.
The rules are simple enough to understand: 40 life, big legend in the command zone, color identity, and commander damage. Between rules inserts, word of mouth, and the fact that commander rules do exist within the comprehensive rules… there may not be much reason to visit the RC’s landing page beyond, perhaps, perusing the short banlist or checking to see which card got the chopping block this season.
With all that said, it’s also entirely possible that several people, even people who HAVE read the rules directly from the horse’s mouth, have completely overlooked the first statement on the rules page, which appears directly above any real rules:
A simple but important statement that reads “simply following the rules is not sufficient to ensure a good play experience” and reminds you to read the philosophy document. If you haven’t read it, I’ll give you a break to read it now. Seriously, I’ll be here, you can go and then come back. I’m not going anywhere.
The Detractors
Ok, now that all the people who haven’t read the philosophy document aren’t here anymore, we can address the elephant in the room. There are many people who don’t take the philosophy document seriously; they call it bogus, pointless, useless, and some other words that end with s.
Let’s get something out of the way first: even the detractors will admit that the RC is not in an enviable position, and that they wouldn’t want the weight of EDH player’s expectations on their shoulders. Our late founder Sheldon Menery (as well as the other founding members Gavin Duggan and Duncan McGregor) had a vision of a causal format that was to be played in between and as an escape from more competitive bouts of traditional 1v1 magic. A version of the game that was social, more akin to D&D than the normal zero-sum mentality that a normal game of Magic is predicated on. A format where Rule 0 put the power in the player’s hands to shape their own experience.
Such a vision was impossible to maintain with any sort of heavy handed action. The more players come to the format, the more likely players are to min-max, share information, and make the format faster and more competitive over time. Slowly, a format designed to be durdley, with 100-card-singleton and twice the usual life amount, would become more powerful and efficient. While commander’s main draw was always supposed to be a step away from the competitive, many newer players have gotten into commander as their first and only format, so of course it’d be difficult for them to grasp the intentions of the format in the same way as someone who shed blood sweat and tears in competitive play before landing here to feel more relaxed.
But who am I to have an opinion? I’m just a silly little guy. Well, sure, but I like to think I’m a little credible. I have been playing MTG since 2002 and commander since 2010. I know what the point of the format is, or… at least I feel like I do (don’t we all?)
And what do I think?
The Commander Philosophy Document is Cool and Based, Actually
Let’s get into it:
The key here is that “continuous improvement” and “zero sum gameplay” are not intended to be the point of commander. Commander is not meant to be an environment full of honers playing competitively and grinding out there skill. It’s meant to be Casual, where people can do their thing and let others do their thing too. Then, eventually someone might win.
The takeaway here is that it is in the philosophy of commander to be considerate of the experiences of other players. We don’t just avoid cards because of a banlist… we avoid them so that other players aren’t miserable. Some cards, effects, or categories suck to play against. Prioritizing a social atmosphere OVER competition is in the lifeblood of commander.
Basically, the RC is telling us that as long as it doesn’t ruin the social aspects of the format… we should play cards we like, experiment as we want, and overall not feel pressured to build decks a specific way. This is in direct opposition to competitive metas, where nonconformity to the meta stratagies can lead to your deck not doing well (thus pressuring you to conform).
Here, it is emphasized that if you build something you should be able to play with it for a long time. The format is stable enough that we don’t have to worry about our decks rotating out or cornerstone cards being banned. The RC is incredibly stingy with banning, and will virtually only ban if a card is actually ruining the format from one of the above perspectives (Such as Golos stifling the creative aspect by being used as a replacement for EVERYTHING, or Hullbreacher ruining the social aspect by creating zero-sum gameplay and leeching its way into casual games). P.S. If you want to see the first article I wrote involving the RC, check out “Cards I’ve Seen Banned.”
Rule 0
Rule 0 is an unofficial rule of commander that basically says:
Rule 0. You can do whatever you want, including breaking official rules, as long as everyone in the game agrees beforehand.
This rule is the embodiment of the social nature of the format, as outlined above. This is not a competitive format where we do whatever makes us win 100% of the time. We do wacky stuff for fun. We allow non-legendary creatures as commanders sometimes, or agree not to play Sol Ring before turn 3 sometimes. We make easily broken mulligan rules because we trust opponents to not abuse it and want everyone to get to play. That’s the point.
That always has been the point.
“The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don't.”
- The Commander RC, circa 2019
Commander was never meant to be “legacy lite” or “vintage with a legendary you build around.” It was meant to be played fundamentally different from competitive formats… it was meant to be played more like D&D. D&D, like commander, is easily broken. In D&D the DM decides what is and isn’t acceptable to maintain the proper social atmosphere and the gameplay they’re trying to accomplish. The DM makes sure all players are respected, time is allotted fairly between players, and the story progresses at an acceptable pace that isn’t too fast or too slow. In commander, the players are the DMs, and the rule 0 talk is how we decide all those things that a DM would be responsible for.
cEDH
It’s time to talk about cEDH. When I started playing commander, the idea of “competitive” “EDH” felt like an oxymoron. How could people take the one format of the game that’s not meant to be played competitively… and play it competitively? I was so naive. As the format grows, of course more competitively minded players would be draw into it and attach themselves to it. Of course human curiosity would lead some people to that end. It is definitely the natural conclusion.
And of course, cEDH players are EDH players too… and they should be afforded space to play like anyone else. One thing that rubs me the wrong way, however, is when cEDH players start calling for bans to try to balance the competitive side of the format. Virtually every other format is run by competitive players, with banlists curated to help competitive players function well. EDH is the one format of Magic where casual players are in charge, casual players call the shots, and competitive players have to play under banlists and rules specifically made as suggestions (suggestions you can ignore with rule 0) to help casual players play casually. Why, when competitive players have every other format, should casual players concede and be subject to banlist decisions made for competitive play?
Further troubling to me is that cEDH has a patent refusal to use rule 0. Usually if something’s insanely good to the point of being unfun, such as Thoracle or Nadu, people would rule 0 it out. They’d say “I don’t want to play against this.” That process is core to commander. It’s a central part of playing commander. If you’re not doing that, you’re ignoring a big part of what makes commander what it is.
If Rule 0 is the DM of EDH, then playing without Rule 0 is akin to playing D&D without a DM.
Playing D&D without a DM (with experienced players who know what they’re doing) can be fun. It’s cool and based, actually. But it’s not the intended experience of D&D and there’s no reason that D&D designers should ever balance their game around that experience.
Similarly, I see no reason why a format whose core tenants are “be social and decide what you want to play for yourselves” and “the format can be broken; it’s more fun if you don’t break it” should ever make banlist decisions for people who refuse to rule 0 what they want to play with and against for themselves, and intentionally try to push the envelope and break the format.
But Does This Approach Work?
Many people, especially on Reddit, complain that this approach doesn’t work well. That people are outside of the reach of Rule 0 and only respond to hard bans. This approach works well for people who have a consistent group, but doesn’t work well if you’re playing with randoms at your game store (or randoms on spelltable).
Firstly, is it true that it doesn’t work for people who primarily play with randoms? Well, yes and no. People who play with random opponents definitely have more chances to run into toxicity and problematic players. Though, with a proper pre-game talk, it’s not that hard to find people who will be fun to play against.
Secondly… why are there people who primarily play with randoms? I don’t want to discount the privileged I have to not be depressed and to not usually face social anxiety, but I find that I never play with randoms for long. When I do play with randoms, it’s either on an incredibly spur-of-the-moment basis, or it’s part of an effort to established a consistent playgroup. Try this: the next time you play with randoms at your LGS, swap contacts with someone who you enjoyed playing with and talking to. Alternatively, the next time you play with randoms on spelltable, invite someone you enjoyed playing with to your discord to play with more.
I find that for most people that aren’t playing rude spells, or just plain acting rude, this is a pretty surefire method to getting a consistent playgroup. It does require a little legwork, but… in the end I find it to take less social energy than simply accepting the fate of playing with randoms forever.
The Banlist
On the EDH banlist, there’s two types of bans. Signpost bans and pinpoint bans (also called targeted bans). Signpost bans (as I mention in my article about cards I’ve seen banned) are used to signal to players that certain types of cards or effects are not appropriate for casual play… where as pinpoint bans are made because a specific card is getting out of hand and causing problems that the safety net of "Rule 0” isn’t solving by itself.
An example of a signpost ban is Coalition Victory. In the explanation for why this card was banned, the RC says:
“Coalition Victory threatens a strongly negative experience largely out of nowhere for a casual table where the game is expected to go long enough that a spell such as Coalition Victory will be cast. In general, tapping out at a healthy life total against an opponent with nothing but any 5-color Commander in play shouldn’t cause you to lose the game unless you have signed up for that kind of experience (in which case Coalition Victory is far from your biggest problem.) Steering folks away from this kind of experience is at the heart of what the banlist is trying to accomplish.”
In essence, Coalition Victory is banned because it wins the game out of nowhere even if you’re at a healthy life total. The experience of tapping out with all boards empty and a healthy life total only to suddenly lose is not within the vision of the format. Playgroups should be steered away from cards that create a similar experience.
An example of a pinpoint ban would be Golos, Tireless Pilgrim. The RC Says:
“There are many problems with the card, but the greatest is that in the low-to-middle power level tiers where we focus the banlist, Golos is simply a better choice of leader for all but the most commander-centric decks. Its presence crushes the kind of diversity in commander choice which we want to promote.”
In other words, Golos, Tireless Pilgrim was banned because it was creating problems. It was the highest deck-count commander bar none. It was banned not as a signpost for any particular cards, but because the card itself was causing problems.
My opinion, however, is that all pinpoint bans are also signpost bans. Cards like Golos or Leovold did cause specific and measurable impacts on the commander format that were getting out of hand, and they deserved a pinpoint ban so that commander could go back to feeling like commander. Pinpoint banning is a failsafe for when rule 0 does not work, and in these cases rule 0 was not working. But, these bans also point to things that maybe you should take a step back and choose not to run in casual commander. With Leovold, for example, running Notion Thief with Wheels in your deck is a similar negative experience that you should probably avoid.
The “Reverse Commander-ification” of Commander
Finally, as is tradition, it’s time for me to go off the rails. I’ve heard a few time about the “commander-ification” of magic, where WotC (blessed be thy name), has seen the vast success of commander and tried to shoe-horn it into other formats. Whether it be literally using the command zone (à la Companion), or just printing cards designed for commander in sets that are standard legal… it’s no question that commander has inexorably changed the fate of our beloved card game.
But I want to talk about something else: just as MTG has been changed by commander… commander has been changed by MTG. “How is that possible?” asks my very pretty (or handsome) reader, who also is a very thoughtful and inquisitive person with eyes someone could just stare into for days, and who also has a 10 out of 10 personality “commander is magic… it always has been!”
Well, hold onto your horses for a hot sec and let me try to explain. For most of the history of magic, the most popular way to play was called “kitchen table magic.” In essence, you’d play a 60 card format, but you weren’t trying to be competitive… games consisted primarily of cards you had laying around and were often played on the eponymous table. This version of magic was rarely played with a complete understanding of the rules and players had no dream or interest of being competitive. Importantly, MTG designed cards to them based on flavor or feel… “what will make them feel cool to have on their table?” and almost never for power or gameplay functionality. When commander was designed to be more like the experience of D&D than a traditional game of magic, the format naturally appealed to a “silent majority” player base that was previously playing on tables that were in the same room as a sink. When commander was taking the MTG world by storm, these players were coming out of the woodworks to play at local events, buy cards, and otherwise adopt the very casual-friendly format. Now it was easier to market to these players and get them to buy things, and since they were playing closer to places where they might find a registered judge like myself, they were playing closer to the actual rules. In other words, it was easier to design things for them based on “gameplay feel” and also more profitable to design more cards for them.
You see, when commander was designed it was designed to play with Magic’s rules… but it really didn’t play like magic. It was a veritable haven for cards that are too weak to see play in regular formats, niche cards, cards with high mana values and long, slow games. In this era of commander, it wasn’t uncommon to feel like the game started on turn 6 (I certainly remembered so many games where turns 1-6 were comprised of “land… go” save for the ocassional Sol Ring or Sadbot start, and four players got through those turns in less than five minutes because there really wasn’t enough happening to take up time!) It was designed to be slow, quirky, and the game flow was definitely different. Players were friendly and social with eachother, often opting to be nice to eachother instead of treating their opponents like opponents. That original spirit of commander (as described through rose-colored glasses) has been corrupted, and designing cards for commander is one of several culprits. By designing cards for that thrive specifically in the game of EDH, cards are more efficient at playing in a 4 player environment, the game has gotten faster, and players treat each-other more like opponents. In other words… the game plays more like a traditional game of magic than it did on its inception.
I generally think that this is a good thing, and that commander is in one of the healthiest states its ever been in… with new cards being fun to use and preventing games from lasting 5 or 6 hours, even if they’re a little bit too over-pushed and power-crept sometimes. But I think we have to remember that there was a time where EDH didn’t really play like Magic, where cards were not good at dealing with 4 players, and assembling a janky deck of niche unused cards was… kinda the whole point of the format. It’s easy to forget that one of the reasons that the RC is so slow to take action is, sometimes, because it’s impossible to create this old vision of the format in a modern enviroment.
To make cards more efficient in a 4 player, 100 life environment… many of those cards end up feeling like “Avengers-Level Threats” in the other environments. They must be answered lest they win the game by themselves, or they just do much with no downsides. The result is that these cards are more playable in EDH, while forgetting that the point of EDH was never to “have and use playable cards so the game feels like other formats” to begin with.
I definitely still prefer it when games last more than ten turns and take more than an hour… and the game is more fun when I cut some value and efficient synergistic pieces for cards that I like (even if they are do-nothing cards sometimes).
A Finality Counter
This was a long rant. If you stuck with me to the end, congrats! Here’s a cookie!
This will probably be my most controversial article since I wrote about combos. But, let’s review…
I’ve been playing commander since 2010 and the RC’s decisions have always worked for me.
Commander philosophy and rule 0 are not an extraneous limb of the format, it is the heart of the format.
This format was designed by casual players, for casual players. That’s a big part of the point of playing it over a 1v1 format. It’s way easier to keep the competitive integrity of a 1v1 format.
This format is easy to break. The point is not to break it. The point is to have fun.
EDH was designed to play differently than other MTG formats, and for a long while this was true. Now, while there still are obvious differences (such as a creature in your command zone), the game plays a lot more like a traditional MTG format.
“Signpost bans” and the philosophy document, when taken together, have done a good job creating a good starting point for rule 0 discussion and helping keep things casual.
Pinpoint/targeted bans have been a good emergency measure for when a particular card somehow evades the usual rule 0 safety net somehow, and invades casual circles in a threatening way.
Pinpoint bans are also signpost bans. After all, if the cards didn’t have something that was problematic for casual play, they wouldn’t have needed to be banned.
I’m just a widdle gobwin I don’t know why I guard this casual EDH.
With that summation of my points, I’ll leave you once again with a Daily Koan:
“What did your face look like before your parents were born?”
Don’t forget to look deeply… and take care, y’all.