Ok, my buddy used Worst Fears on me... long story short, he exiled MY commander with one of MY cards while it was MY turn. He claims that he makes all decisions during my turn (and by the official rules that looks correct) including what zone my commander goes... and he chose to exile it permanently.

Poof

Gone forever

Is that legit? There doesn't seem to be an official rule about another player choosing to make that call or not when they steal your turn.

Yup, that's how it works. Controlling another player means that you get to make all game decisions for them, other than conceding.

Unfortunately this is legal. Choosing to apply a replacement affect is a game decision that you would have made, and worst fears means that all those game decisions are made by the other player.

It's kind of a dick move, depending on what your commander is, but it is a legal one.

Could we not add it in as a rule of Commander though?



I mean, there's an exception in the rules to prevent you from conceding for another player - so why not have one in commander that protects the commander from being permanently exiled the same way that rule 903.9 and 903.10 do?



It seems like controlling another player's turn to permanent get rid of their commander is the last loophole against the idea that you always have your commander ... why not get rid of the loophole?

Agreed. They are protected from tuck, being put in the graveyard, exile, or your hand.

I would be fine with preventing players from taking over my turn to get rid of my commander.

Losing your turn like that can feel pretty harsh as it is, but to lose your commander in the process just adds to that.

Personally, I'm against a rules change like that.

If your opponent takes control of your turn, it should feel like a violation. It's mind control, flavor wise it fits. Mind control is usually depicted that way.

And, if my opponent takes control of my turn, and I've invited that on myself some how, I just feel like I deserve all that's coming towards me that game.

You are suggesting format specific errata. Bad idea.

It is no more a format-specific errata than starting at 40 life is or having a minimum and maximum deck size of 100 is.

The rule would apply a restriction on what you can do when you take over someone's turn. The rule wouldn't care about how you took over someone's turn (Mindslaver, Worst Fears, some other future cards), the rule would just say you can't do two things when you take over someone:

1) You can't make them concede.
2) You don't get to choose how the Commander replacement effect is applied.

That said, a rule like that does not look elegant at all.

So why cant they concede for you?
No we are suggesting format specific rules. Those already exist.

It's functionally the same, and bad for the same reasons.

As worried as some people are about losing their commanders this way, it seems the card is appropriately named.

While I don't think this rule is needed, rules and errata are not the same. Format specific errata change the text of cards. (e.g., if you change "30 life" or "40 life" cards to "starting life total +10/20.") Format rules modify a class of actions without regard to card text. (e.g., Until recently, your City of Brass did a different thing in EDH than in normal games of Magic.)

This is not splitting hairs. This is a real difference.

Well no, they are not the same, at least not in the way people usually use the phrase "format specific errata". Generally, that phrase is applied to specific cards, like having a rule that states Haakon, Stromgald Scourge can start play in your graveyard instead of the Command Zone or that he can be played from the Command Zone instead of just from the graveyard, that would be an example of a rule that is applied to a specific card to "fix" something about that card.

A rule that prevents opponents from making the commander replacement effect choice is not about Mindslaver or Worst Fears specifically, it is about what can and cannot happen when someone controls your turn.

Again, such a rule is not especially elegant.

It's not the same, and rules like it already exist that are extremely useful. You aren't really backing any of this up.

Color identity is a format specific rule. Is it bad?

Use of the Planar Die is format specific. Is it bad?