Heroic InterventionHeroic Intervention | Art by James Ryman

Last time we talked about what the best reasons were for the current Commander ban list that the Commander Format Panel (CFP) has publicly talked about. In short, we discussed why some cards like FastbondFastbond were said to be too strong for Commander while others like BalanceBalance were considered too unfun and not CFP approved.

I'd promised that we'd continue by discussing what the biggest weaknesses for the CFP's current ban list are and what cuts could be made. However, I don't plan on talking about each individual card like last time.

We're first going to start with why a small handful of cards can't be included in the latter portion of today's discussion before diving into the juicier talking points.

Additionally, for this discussion, let's not concern ourselves with what may happen regarding finances and very swift re-bans if changes were made. We're instead trying to find specifically the best reason these cards could be unbanned and just that.

These Banned Cards Aren't Going Anywhere

Ancestral RecallAncestral Recall, Black LotusBlack Lotus, Mox EmeraldMox Emerald, Mox JetMox Jet, Mox PearlMox Pearl, Mox RubyMox Ruby, Mox SapphireMox Sapphire, and Time WalkTime Walk.

I'm convinced there isn't a world in which eight pieces of the power nine are unbanned. As cool as it may be to play with these cards, they are the pinnacle for individual cards being too powerful for Commander. If the eight of the power nine aren't to be banned, then what should be banned for being too strong in Commander?

Chaos OrbChaos Orb and Falling StarFalling Star.

These two "dexterity checks" are banned because tossing or flipping cards isn't a playstyle the CFP wants to foster. Aside from the struggles in enforcing the loose legalities surrounding how distances should be measured or how board states should be treated before the ability is put onto the stack, the CFP would like Commander to be as accessible to as many players as possible.

Cards that ask players to perform a physical feat are intrinsically exclusionary towards anyone that would struggle steadily and accurately flipping cards for advantage in a multiplayer setting. Sure, Commander is socially inclined and other players could theoretically aid others with properly resolving a Falling Star, but that's an expectation that frankly shouldn't be depended on.

Magic cards ought to be cards we can reasonably engage with physically and mentally. Categorically, I don't see why the CFP would ever unban these cards.

The Rest of the Ban List

We'll be focusing on every other banned card we talked about last time.

We could stay here and discuss each and every individual card's best reason to be unbanned, citing shifts in meta and power creep and more, but the glaring weakness the rest of the ban list shares is simple: Brackets promote self governing playstyles. As such, the ban list should reflect what cannot be self governed in addition to uniquely powerful cards such as the "power eight of nine."

Now, I know this is the exact problem the Brackets were originally designed to resolve. Too many "my deck's a seven" incidents informed WoTC that some form of authority was required when balancing a pod's power levels.

But... don't we fundamentally still have this problem? If I wanted to build a Bracket 3 deck, I'd expect the deck to run not run any two-card infinite combos, mass land denial (MLD), chaining extra turns, no more than three Game Changers, and to end the game no sooner than turn six.

"Alright," I say to myself, "what defines a twoc-ard infinite? Does that just mean nothing that wins the game on the spot with only two cards? Does that include infinite loops that don't end the game?"

As our recent Combo Vote has shown, many players answer these questions differently and thus govern their Bracket 3 experiences as such. The same can be extrapolated for MLD and extra turns.

"Where's the line between chaining extra turns and playing just enough on others' turns? I'd never engage with Strip MineStrip Mine as much as my deck could, but does simply having the potential of MLD exclude my deck from lower Brackets?"

Our answers to these questions aren't currently dependent on a standard set by the CFP, rather the pods we surround ourselves with. Because of this, the Bracket solution has simply moved the goalpost; players start with the CFP's guidance, but inevitably fall back on self governance for creating their preferred game experience.

A Ban List for Brackets

Don't like playing against UpheavalUpheaval? Tired of your opponent's reoccurring Sundering TitanSundering Titan or their Iona, Shield of EmeriaIona, Shield of Emeria deck? Well, the easiest solution is to stop playing against these kinds of opponents.

This defense is the logic behind strong commanders not being Game Changers due to opponents' abilities to self govern the kind of opposition they're comfortable playing against.

There's no need to make a card like Urza, Lord High ArtificerUrza, Lord High Artificer a Game Changer if players who don't want to play against that kind of deck preemptively seek games away from those kinds of decks.

The same can be said for just about any card. If you're not comfortable or don't vibe playing against a deck that play any given card, interaction, combo, or strategy, the best defense is to not play against that card, interaction, combo, or strategy.

By utilizing self governing in this manner for a casual format, there isn't a need for WoTC to jam its hand into every Commander game via the ban list and tell everyone how to play since everyone is already doing that for themselves.

The first counterargument that comes to mind sounds something like this: "The only time I can engage with Commander is against decks that run unfun/undesirable cards, strategies, etc. The ban list is my only hope to play Commander with this group."

Situations like this exist, I won't deny that. Our games absolutely are limited by the players closest to us, and there exists the chance that our opponents don't foster the Commander environment we'd be most comfortable playing in.

However, I'll argue that the vast majority of Commander players don't experience this problem. Perhaps those afflicted with poor pod-mates were the most vocal and thus the most represented, but there doesn't seem to be evidence of a large portion of Commander players struggling to fit into a pod as such.

Because of this, it doesn't make sense for this seemingly small percentage of Commander players to be the focus group the CFP cites for banning a card.

In fact, the CFP shouldn't be appealing to the most vocal players' opinions anyways. To ban a card, the CFP ought to demonstrate it's damaging the format and requires intervention that self governance hasn't already solved.

Is a card too boring/unfun? Categorically, the majority of players won't be playing it because it's unfun to play. Commander's too large and too socially inclined to allow unfun cards like UpheavalUpheaval to dominate the format. Hence why cards like StasisStasis aren't prevalent in the majority of Commander games.

Why should unfun cards be banned anyways? Isn't this what the Game Changer status partially seeks to fix? As a soft ban list for lower Brackets, most "unfun" cards ought to be Game Changers before they're banned, anyways.

If something is too unfun to play, it won't be played. If something unfun becomes too powerful and thus is played, then the CFP can make it a Game Changer and then ban it if needed citing the card's demonstrably overpowering effect on games and/or flooding Commander's overall meta.

Is Recurring NightmareRecurring Nightmare too strong of a reanimator piece? Is Emrakul, the Aeons TornEmrakul, the Aeons Torn too powerful for Brackets 3-5? Will TinkerTinker dominate the Commander meta?

The CFP must prove these claims instead of adopting both the previous committee's ban list and their antiquated explanations. It isn't enough to appeal to the loudest of players and claim equal representation for Commander players' opinions.

A ban list for the Bracket system ought to uphold the strengths of Brackets by granting Commander players the opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of game they'd like to create before the CFP determines what a healthy Commander game looks like.

But what do you think? How do you feel about greatly reducing the current ban list? What are your thoughts on self policing? Do you think the CFP should outline specifically what it takes to make a ban?

I hope this article was informative with exploring where the CFP hopes to direct the format. Find me on BlueSky at @ajwicker4.bsky.social, I'd love to hear from you and what your thoughts are.

Tune in next time to continue this deep dive in the Bracket system and more Commander Philosophy!