So, in the wake of Wizards deciding to have their own banlist for MTGO, and if I recall correctly, that the programming headache that the exception caused on MTGO was a big part of the rationale for removing the "banned as commander" criteria, what are the opinions on bringing back that clause? Full disclosure: I really just want to run Rofellos in my 99 again. But discuss anyway.

With the number of tutors and amazing recursion available nowadays, a card in your deck is even more accessible than before.

I've seen so many decks running cards like Ad Nauseam, Doomsday, and Laboratory Maniac as their "commander". The card in the command zone is only being used for their colours most of the time. Putting in a "banned as commander" list would only serve to increase complexity of the format and unban cards.

No seriously, can I nust have rofellos back in my Seton druid deck?

I think the complexity is fine. I just dont know if the banned cards are worth the trouble.

You recall incorrectly.

Can't a guy dream just a little?

I think this logic has always been faulty- because the advent of this predates EDH as a format (old Highlander was dominated by this philosophy.)

Consistently having a single card is only part of what makes Commanderness strong- but the more important side of that is the natural recursion built into the CZ. For that, I find a "banned as commander" list far more elegant as a solution to a handful of important cases.

So, I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of the BAC list returning, but it's more because it's an elegant solution to Braids, Leovold, Zur, and Jhoira- but also leaves room for Saffi, Teeg, Arbiter, Jeleva, or any other General who in the future, due to support accidentally becomes far too good at violating the social contract.

But the elegance of the BAC list was always rooted in the footnote that accompanied it, specifying that the BAC list exists as a guideline, and that each group should discuss the cards on it before using them as commanders. Leaving room for competitively minded players to create a variant format, where the commanders that are abrasive to the community's larger social contract are permissible (similar to Vintage Banlist Commander,) while players who might feel competitive, but want to try the enforced social contract can build another variant of competitive commander within that ruleset. Simply, subformats are the lifeblood of Commander as an experience, not only to spice up game nights- but to enable playgroups to learn together. Granted, my view of Commander as the best "learn to play high level Magic, but also learn how to play with and teach less experienced players" format is a funny slant on the social atmosphere that the format is seeking to produce.

The concept of a card being able to violate the "social contract" is like the concept that a car can drive faster than the speed limit. Almost all cars are capable of violating the speed limit, just like all cards are capable of breaking the "social contract". It's up to the driver what they do with them.



This "guideline" concept only applies to those that 1) have groups of regular friends they play commander with and 2) those friends agree to change the rules of the game. Most of us don't have those luxuries, and must default to the vanilla rules when playing at a local game shop or event.

And anyways, if you do have a regular group of friends who are willing to break the rules, why do you care about the official rules? Who cares about guidelines or whatever is scribbled on a website somewhere? I agree that your perspective on the format as merely a teaching tool might be skewing your perspective with regards to this issue.

When I read this comment, my YouTube Red playing on a Bluetooth speaker decided to play "Deja Vu," and I laughed for a good five minutes.

That's something of a poor analogy; on many roads you're expected to exceed the speed limit by atleast 5mph. Also, describing the act of driving on civilian roads doesn't align with the idea of sitting down for a game of Commander. If we use a racetrack metaphor, then the social contract is a device that keeps Snake Oiler and Cruncher Block from trying to create a non-games. The degree of what's permissible changes with each group, but the agreed upon rules in any Commander setting, as well as commander's Banlist are entirely based on social contract (which is why Sheldon and the crew are thorough about it.)



This might be the saddest thing I've read here. So, uh- you know that brick and mortar cardshops are a place to make friends, right? Like, most people who go to a brick and mortar frequently, are doing so for the social environment. If you aren't making friends to play EDH with at a brick and mortar, why are you posting here? Also, it isn't "breaking the rules" to add house rules- the format has always encouraged it. The reason people care about the rules as prescribed by this web domain, is because it's the most solid guideline to start with, it's the baseline for a new playgroup- because cards like Sylvan Primordial will just do obnoxious things if a group goes into EDH blind with no bans.

The BAC list gives players an understanding of which cards cross the line as commander, but not as a piece of the 99. Braids and Leovold already occupy this twilight zone. But, the footnote that exists on the current banlist, and the similar one that was for the BAC list, encourages discussion to create the best EDH experience possible for the group.

Sometimes a card shop will have a crowd to large to fully regulate using the social contract. I was able to get a core group of players together at the shop, but there were always a few others to play with that were not conformed to our standards.

It also depends on which card shop. I play at two main ones, and one of them is pretty low-key with a general casual sense of playing, and the other one is all 1v1 games (using the normal EDH banlist) with pretty serious prizes for the winners. Not at all accidentally, the deck types there are completely different, as is the general atmosphere.

@ Mr Degradation

While my current playgroup has regulars it also has random people that pop in from time to time just for the day or a some short time. Because of the latter, going by the official rules as written is the best way to try to keep everyone on the same page. While I'm fine with any effort to encourage fun game play, customizing the rules is not something everyone can do and to those who can't the base rules are fairy important.

The rules are "fairy" important... Reminds of a game where I was going for the win with counter backup. I suspected my opponent also had a counter. He plays Faerie Trickery. I look at my own faerie trickery and swear I'll only play cancel from then on.

My local store is quite large. Too many people pass in and out of there to establish a consistent local rule set for that shop, because the Commander players (including me) are quite casual and don't show up every week. It's not a matter of not having any friends, it's a matter of not knowing which people will be available to play with on any given day. It's impossible to have a local rule set at your shop when you're playing against a rotating group of players.

I'm not quite sure if you're trying to be horrible or just lacking basic skills related to human decency, but I'm going to assume the latter. In any case, isn't guff and effrontery like this not allowed in this forum?