Monday evening, the online chatter started. The forums and Twitter buzzed. At midnight (September 20, 2011), Wizards of the Coast was scheduled to make its quarterly announcement concerning bannings and restrictions. During the previous ban/restriction announcement, the player base watched as the hammer dropped on Standard staples Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Stoneforge Mystic.

This September announcement was highly anticipated. Modern was announced as a new format during the last quarter, we watched the format’s inaugural event at Pro Tour: Philadelphia in the end of August, and the buzz predicted another round of big news. Wizards had previously stated some goals for the Modern format. They wanted the format to be fun, balanced, attractive to the player base, and aimed to eliminate very, very fast win conditions. Prior bannings in the format eliminated cards that provided an unbalanced power level (like Skullclamp and Stoneforge Mystic) or cards that enabled consistent turn-two and turn-three victories (like Hypergenesis, Dread Return, or Glimpse of Nature).

Given these banning guidelines, most folks anticipated the banning of cards like Rite of Flame (that Stormed to victory) and Blazing Shoal that had been crafted into the poison combo decks (an early-turn combo), but were somewhat surprised when Wizards slammed the format with a litany of banned cards including Preordain, Ponder, Cloudpost, and even Green Sun's Zenith. Basically, they gave the burgeoning format a swift reset that will likely slow the format down, make it somewhat less combo-prone, and might provoke the revival of Zoo and Affinity, as well as leave an opening for some sort of control deck.

Some players were encouraged, while some were a little disappointed. It can be hard on folks who begin adopting a format to get stung in the very early stages of deck assembly, card collection, and tournament participation. My local game store began hosting Modern tournaments this month and quickly assembled twenty to thirty players who began building decks and assembling cards for the new format. I personally traded cards, made purchases, and constructed Zoo, Twelve Post, and Splinter Twin. Vesuva shot up in price in recent history and could run a player $25 to $30. The Twelve Post deck ran four. Now that deck is nixed, and players who were early adopters of the deck have been financially punished. The Modern mana bases could easily run players over $150. With the recent bannings, it is likely that players have wasted money on WotC’s new format and should learn an important lesson: This is why you can’t own nice things.

Rather than consistently following the banning principles of limiting early (turn-two and turn-three), consistent win conditions and moderating power level, Wizards overstepped and banned cards like Cloudpost, Green Sun's Zenith, and Preordain. They ventured out of their own guidelines and banned cards that enabled turn-four and turn-five win conditions and explored banning powerful cards that influenced the novel format after one month of play. Love it or hate it, Magic might now be a game where powerful decks are frequently neutered just because they are strong and popular.

Commander Bannings

The Commander Rules Committee demonstrates a tradition of coinciding their banning announcements alongside the quarterly Wizards announcements. On Monday, I wrote an article challenging some of the current Banned List decisions. The post outlined the three banning principles outlined by Rules Committee members on the mtgcommander.net rules forums. The first banning principle focuses on the power level of cards and access to the answers of those powerful cards, the second aims to restrict access to very expensive cards that distract from the play experience of Commander, while the third banning principle mandates the exclusion of silver-bordered cards.

I support the banning of cards based on power level. This especially seems to make sense when a card becomes super-powerful because of Commander’s unique rules and deck-construction limitations. I tend to believe that many of the card bannings make for a better play experience and genuinely help shape Commander into a more manageable and fun format. However, I also believe that some of the power-level bannings are based on insufficient data, are applied very inconsistently, and should be constantly questioned. For example, Tolarian Academy is banned, while Serra's Sanctum and Gaea's Cradle go unmentioned. The popularity of decks likely brought Tolarian Academy under examination while the majority of players have yet to employ similar “fast-mana” engines in other decks. Centralizing creatures like Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx are untouched while Emrakul gets the banhammer.

I would rather have a tight power-ban on cards that directly abuse the rules of Commander (deck construction, life total, etc.) and let the player base dictate, through local playgroup decisions, the playable and unplayable lists. While it is clear that playgroups can make whatever decision they want, the formal Banned List pushes folks in the direction of following authority and blindly adopting the Banned List without reasonable questioning or testing.

Poorly Banned Commanders

How many folks have built or faced a deck constructed around Erayo, Soratami Ascendant? How about Braids, Cabal Minion or Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary? While these decks are crafty, they are easily moderated in playgroups that adjust and metagame accordingly. There are tons of threatening, Commander-focused decks that do crazy, powerful things. For example, how does Erayo receive the banning when Azusa, Sharuum, Azami, and Zur are equally threatening and can be arguably as degenerate? Once again, we see strong, cheaply costed Commander options banned. This time, I actually laughed out loud at 12:15 when I read Erayo’s banning. Not only is Erayo not considered a problem in many playgroups, but she is old news. Next, the Rules Committee is going to ban Zur the Enchanter or Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind. These decks have been around on forums and videos, and have been tested and played for years.

Do I love Erayo? No. I have built and tested the deck. We did it with fast mana and cheap spells, and even packed in Arcane Laboratory. It wasn’t fun, and the playgroup did not care for it, so we took it apart and moved on. It did not need to be banned because we moderated it within our own group. I have no problem if someone else wants to test it out and build the deck. Exploration and making mistakes helps individuals mature and allows them to understand the format, fun, and where to draw the lines.

The Rules Committee is enforcing these Commander bannings like an overprotective parent. They are inconsistently applying rules when a perceived problem pops up and taking autonomy away from the player base. Erayo has been around for years, and the format had already self-moderated her uses and acceptability. The same could be done with other Commanders. I believe we should promote a more hands-off approach to bannings in which only the essential, time-tested, data-proven cards are eliminated from play.

Positive Unbannings

I typically like to see cards like Lion's Eye Diamond come off the Banned List. It was a perfect example of a card that was likely prematurely banned without sufficient data. Maybe a given combo with other cards made this card stick out, but there are thousands and thousands of interactions. Commander is rife with broken interactions and abused combinations of two- and three-card interactions. Rather than ban the pieces of each of those thousand combos, we should teach the guiding principles of play. With a deeper understanding of the casual orientation and adoption of social play policies, players will be able to monitor their own activity. We don’t need the number of cards banned that are banned at this point. We need a better player development effort!