Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Dec-14 9:50 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-15 11:07 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-16 3:48 am
Age: Hatchling
wouldn't e a review of this rule?
considering people use a mindslave in you, them using your own cards, exile your commander, you will lost its control and you usually don't be abble to recovery it


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-15 12:52 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Hi Arthur, I'm not 100% sure of your question but I'll do my best. Essentially I think you are asking for the person who physically owns the commander to be able to make the decision relating to their commander being put back into the command zone.

There are two problems with this, the first is that it doesn't work within the rules. There's no way I know of to write a rule that makes sense because "owner" is already defined in the comprehensive rules, and mindslaver gives control of that players choices as part of it's affect. The Commander rules committee have no power over the rules of Magic: The Gathering itself.

The second problem is that if your commander is being exiled through the use of a mindslaver effect, they you're playing with jerks or highly competitive people (I am NOT saying those are the same, just to be clear). Basically these people are going to do their thing regardless and tweaking some rules isn't going to dramatically change your experience of the game with them. Personally I would just not play with someone who thought that was a fun idea, not everyone has that luxury so the option you have is to talk to those players and agree on a local understanding that you cant exile someone's commander with mindslaver effects. It's a lot easier to explain that in person than it is to write a full rule for it.

If that doesnt work, then start playing a lot more sacrifice outlets. Phyrexian tower is a good one for black decks, and altar of dementia or phyrexian altar are both good choices for any deck. If you have one in play when you get targeted with the slaver you can sac your commander before your turn.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-15 6:04 pm 

Joined: 2012-Oct-24 8:05 pm
Age: Drake
It's not that hard to write a rule to fix the issue. The command zone replacement rule (903.9) already has a weird, unique exception. Just tack on another one, like, "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time. This is an exception to rule [whatever]."

The question is whether it's worth it to fix a rare situation that comes up with a few cards. I don't have strong feelings about that. It feels bad to get your commander exiled, or sent to the graveyard if you can't recover it. But it's probably not as bad as being locked out by Iona was, or the much more common situation of being knocked out of a game but having to wait for it to finish to play another.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-15 9:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-19 1:30 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
in order for this to come up, not only do you need to be Mindslavered, but there has to be a way to exile your commander on your turn that comes up. You also need to not see it coming if you have any options available to sacrifice your commander (depending on your mana available to recast). That's a lot of moving parts to line up. Honestly, it comes up seldom enough in natural play that I really don't think it's an issue, and not worth writing a new rule for.

If it does come up often enough to be an issue, someone's got to be building their deck with that specific result in mind - which, to be honest, is a lot less toxic than a lot of other options people could do to grief a player.

_________________
Useful threads: Colorless CI landsGraveyard HateRoR's Greatest Hits
My Decks: Zombiepocalypse (Thraximundar) ♦ Thrun stands alone (voltron) ♦ Ashling the Burninator ♦ Doran beatdown (treefolk/plant tribal) ♦ Mine! (UB theft/clone) ♦ Vampire Beatdown (Edgar Markov) ♦ BW Enchantments (Daxos the Returned)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-18 2:52 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
NMS wrote:
It's not that hard to write a rule to fix the issue. The command zone replacement rule (903.9) already has a weird, unique exception. Just tack on another one, like, "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time. This is an exception to rule [whatever]."

It's not an exception to a rule, it's the function of a rule plus the text on a card, and card text takes precedence over the rules, which is comp rules 101.

You could put an exception into the oracle rulings, but that would definitely be a WOTC call, and you would have convince them that it is not only better for the game, but it is the correct functioning of the rules. Errata and card rulings are not meant to be used to manage power level. The only one that exists for mindslaver currently is that you cant make someone concede, but that one is fairly obvious that the rules shouldn't work that way.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 12:28 am 

Joined: 2015-Sep-02 2:49 am
Age: Drake
Location: Connecticut
How much protection do Commander players need from anything bad happening to them? At some point, the social contract has to count for something, and if it isn’t suitable for a narrow corner case like controlling a player’s turn and arranging to exile the commander, then, truly, it isn’t suitable for anything at all. Building a contingency for an unavailable commander is smart building in general. It’s functionally similar to having your commander taxed to uncastability, a state nobody is clamouring to change the rules to prevent.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 1:20 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
specter404 wrote:
It's not an exception to a rule, it's the function of a rule plus the text on a card, and card text takes precedence over the rules, which is comp rules 101.

You could put an exception into the oracle rulings, but that would definitely be a WOTC call, and you would have convince them that it is not only better for the game, but it is the correct functioning of the rules. Errata and card rulings are not meant to be used to manage power level. The only one that exists for mindslaver currently is that you cant make someone concede, but that one is fairly obvious that the rules shouldn't work that way.

Card text only takes precedence if it directly contradicts the rules which can't happen if the rule in question is simply defining or redefining the function of the text in question. In this case, it wouldn't be a huge leap for the "control a player" mechanic to interact slightly differently with a Commander card, since that wouldn't interfere with how normal Magic works and Commander rules already have the commander replacement exception that the replacement effect can apply more than once to a single event. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, every Commander rule is an "exception" to the normal rules of Magic.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 2:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Or you could just go a slightly different route: "When another player stops controlling your turn, if your commander is not on the battlefield and not in your library, you may move it to the command zone."

That leaves them with controlling your turn and shuffling it into your library to remove your access to your commander.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 7:47 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
The answer is that it's sufficiently corner that it's not worth making the rules more complex over. It's also pretty antisocial at that point, so it tends to get culled out.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 9:22 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
Card text only takes precedence if it directly contradicts the rules which can't happen if the rule in question is simply defining or redefining the function of the text in question. In this case, it wouldn't be a huge leap for the "control a player" mechanic to interact slightly differently with a Commander card, since that wouldn't interfere with how normal Magic works and Commander rules already have the commander replacement exception that the replacement effect can apply more than once to a single event. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, every Commander rule is an "exception" to the normal rules of Magic.

Taking the "easy" rule adjustment given: "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time." and the card text of mindslaver "(You see all cards that player could see and make all decisions for the player.)" Is that not a direct contradiction?

My point is, making a simple change wont do it, everything about the commander is complicated, and the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this particular corner.

Carthain wrote:
Or you could just go a slightly different route: "When another player stops controlling your turn, if your commander is not on the battlefield and not in your library, you may move it to the command zone."

That leaves them with controlling your turn and shuffling it into your library to remove your access to your commander.

That one works ok as an agreement between people, making it a trigger has issues which is part of why the replacement effect for the commander works as well as it does. Not sure I've heard of a trigger happening when something "stops" that's feels strange but could work.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-19 1:39 pm 

Joined: 2012-Oct-24 8:05 pm
Age: Drake
specter404 wrote:
NMS wrote:
It's not that hard to write a rule to fix the issue. The command zone replacement rule (903.9) already has a weird, unique exception. Just tack on another one, like, "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time. This is an exception to rule [whatever]."

It's not an exception to a rule, it's the function of a rule plus the text on a card, and card text takes precedence over the rules, which is comp rules 101.

You could put an exception into the oracle rulings, but that would definitely be a WOTC call, and you would have convince them that it is not only better for the game, but it is the correct functioning of the rules. Errata and card rulings are not meant to be used to manage power level. The only one that exists for mindslaver currently is that you cant make someone concede, but that one is fairly obvious that the rules shouldn't work that way.


I was actually talking about this:
Quote:
903.9. If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner's hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.

It's a rule that was added to fix a different corner case (with cards like Whip of Erebos) that could deny you access to your commander. I was suggesting something similar could be done about Mindslaver effects if the RC thought it was worth it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-20 7:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2014-Jul-28 8:30 am
Age: Dragon
This is definitely the perfect place for the social contract. No need to change or add to the rules for something this narrow. It sucks to lose your commander, but in general, you should probably include a way for your deck to function without it in the first place...

If you're all-in on your commander (As with my janky Vilis, Broker of Blood deck), you essentially set yourself up to be a glass cannon. It's an inherent risk when building that type of deck. You accept it and move on when it backfires because ultimately it was a deck building choice that you made. Different decks come with different risks and rewards. They're part of the game.

Now, I'm not saying that the Mindslaver-exile-your-commander play is fun for anyone, but then it's on you, as a willing participant in this social format, to make an effort to either talk to the Mindslaver player or choose not to play with them. You have plenty of options that don't involve changing the rules.

_________________
specter404 wrote:
Basically, when it comes to commander, I want you to stab me through the heart, not cut off my balls.

Gath Immortal wrote:
Twenty Kavus and a Dream is not a legacy deck.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-20 11:27 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
NMS wrote:
I was actually talking about this:
Quote:
903.9. If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner's hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.

It's a rule that was added to fix a different corner case (with cards like Whip of Erebos) that could deny you access to your commander. I was suggesting something similar could be done about Mindslaver effects if the RC thought it was worth it.


Having looked at the comp rules I think the relevant exception is to 715.5, how would the wording of 903.9 look to make it clear that the owner makes the choice no matter what and does F up anything else?

FWIW I don't think the rule will get changed, but I am enjoying the thought exercise, and it might help with developing a local rule people can use.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-21 11:39 am 

Joined: 2012-Oct-24 8:05 pm
Age: Drake
specter404 wrote:
Having looked at the comp rules I think the relevant exception is to 715.5, how would the wording of 903.9 look to make it clear that the owner makes the choice no matter what and does F up anything else?

Yes, that's the right rule. Do you not think "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time. This is an exception to rule 715.5." is sufficiently clear? It's hard to be more emphatic without getting silly. ("That player gets to make the decision themself. No one else gets to control what decision they make, even if someone else is controlling them. Really, we mean it.") I don't think it would cause any problems, except maybe for MTGO's programmers.

specter404 wrote:
Taking the "easy" rule adjustment given: "That permanent's owner decides whether to apply this replacement effect, even if another player is controlling them at the time." and the card text of mindslaver "(You see all cards that player could see and make all decisions for the player.)" Is that not a direct contradiction?

That's actually the reminder text, not the rules text or full rules. It does contradict 715.5, but that's why I'd note that it's an exception, and maybe add a subrule to 715 to spell it out there too.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: lost commander control
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-22 12:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Baron Cappuccino wrote:
It’s functionally similar to having your commander taxed to uncastability, a state nobody is clamouring to change the rules to prevent.

Hmm, not really. When a commander becomes too expensive, a sufficiently long game has a natural fix for that just by playing more lands. If someone played Nevermore naming my commander, I will eventually draw into a way to destroy their enchantment. However, with Mindslaver and exiling, there really is no other recourse and the player in the game knows it. While they can live with the hope of drawing those extra lands (always just two more than the last time they cast their commander) or with drawing the enchantment removal they need, they know for an absolute certainty that they will never be able to cast their commander again. It is a bit deflating.

I think that since it is an easy change to make, it should be done. That said, I do recognize that taking control of someone else's turn is a pretty rare effect, so this is not a high priority, if the RC was busy with some other issue, but if it is a slow quarter, then it should be considered.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: