Hey everyone!
I wanted to set up a space where you can connect with me in a way that’s easy to track and open for everyone to join. This helps keep everything organized, and it gives you a place to share ideas, offer suggestions, and refine thoughts together. I’m really excited about this new opportunity and would love for you all to be part of it.
Just a heads-up that I’m only one person, so having everything in one spot really helps me stay on top of things!
Not sure if its the place to ask this but has the rules commitee ever talked/thought about introducing bracket 5 only cards? Would be a way to unban stuff without affecting casual play
I think this idea has been floated among cedh players. The only problem is creating a separate banlist fractures the format. And I want to really avoid doing that if I can. Because then we will have a bracket five format and a pre bracket 5 ban format.
Congrats on joining the format panel! We’ve been jamming games since way back in the cedh nexus days so I know you’ve been into cedh for longer than most & have a unique perspective on the format after going through all the highs and lows over the years. Excited to see major cedh representation on the panel. I think they couldnt have picked a more fitting person for the role. 
First and foremost, this seems like a ‘nice guys finish first’ situation… couldn’t be happier for Mr. Higher, as I am a big fan of the content, your approach to the game, and the kindness you show to members of the community in all the different ways.
My question is: how high is ‘the seat four problem’ on your list of things to fix? In my humble opinion, I don’t think a major change is necessary, but I do believe a subtle advantage to seat four would be beneficial for members of all five power brackets. Specifically, a simple scry 1 for the s4 player’s t1 draw seems extremely reasonable. No graveyard help, no busted starts, simply seeing an extra card that may help you find the missing piece of your starting hand.
Once more, congratulations! I couldn’t think of a better community member to represent all of us <3
I still do not like Scry as a “fix” to this issue because it is a game action. There’s too many ways this can be broken or abused.
There is something to be said for creating equity in the pod. Player 4 is surely going to be a problem no matter what simple from the action economy perspective. Before they even get a turn, three other players have had the opportunity to set up draw engines and develop their board. It quite literally isn’t fair.
Using the lens of tournament grinders, it might be a software issue. Where instead of random seating pods, the system gives you a number that hasn’t been chosen before, 1,2,3,4. So you don’t get last seat 4, 4 times in a row. After round 4 it restarts. Sure you might get seat 4 twice in Swiss but that beats getting seat four 3 or 4 times. I feel like this would average win percentages in tournaments.
Hi Higher, congratulations man!
Has there been any discussion around templating a ruleset specifically for B5/cEDH? This would be something that would fit within the bracket context that WOTC has been working on with the goal to address issues we currently face? I don’t think this should touch deck construction legality (bans/unbans), but rather changing pregame setup like having starting life totals be 25 or 30 (or even staggered, like P1 starts at 25, P2 at 30, etc.). This could possibly open up deck design in the same way as bannings/unbannings without having to do that. Thoughts?
First off, want to say congratulations again, Higher, I am glad you are the person they chose to represent the cEDH scene!
For community feedback, I watched the video between you and Ryan and I know your opinion on Mana Crypt. However, I still believe fundamentally the card wasn’t a problem for the format and feels from my perspective a balance for all players.
I would rather see more cards come off the list than more be put on the list unless they are actually a problem for the format. Overall, I am curious to see what yourself and the CFP come up with to handle the seat order issue and tournament rules for the future of commander.
I agree with the sentiment on unbanning Crypt. It feels correct to play in this format.
This would give uneven advantages to different decks depending on their color etc. too “wild west”
About about only changing the mulligans?
S1 doesnt get a free mulligan
S2 gets a free mulligan
S3 gets 2 free mulligans
S4 gets 3 free mulligans
I think part of the barrier to entry to this type of solution is that it’s extremely hard to track how many mulligans each player has done.
It’s hard enough when we all have the same number.
Crypt allowed for some insane acceleration in the format when it was legal. I’m not saying it definitely needs to stay banned, but it was completely a game-warping card in lots of games I played- many hands were playable just because you could vamp/imp seal for crypt t1.
I like mana crypt as a card and I do think it should be unbanned. However Im concerned the coin flipping might slow down gameplay especially if all 4 players have one out
Bracket 5 only cards sounds very interesting. I like this a lot, I’ve seen concerns about making CEDH banlists, because of how it fractures the format a bit. But also there is a rise in bracket 3 tournaments, and I think it merit a discussion of what can be played in bracket 3, versus bracket 5. And if so, can we customize the cards allowed? I think it warrants a careful discussion, because again worry about the fracture of the format.
“This is my opinion, and does not reflect the opinion or views of the CFP”
I mentioned in another comment the need to be cautious with bracket-specific rule changes. Once you start down that path, there’s a real risk the format drifts away from Commander entirely and turns into something else, effectively a Competitive 100-card Singleton format. For the sake of discussion, let’s call it CSF.
CSF is probably where you could make rule changes that are perfectly tailored to what cEDH wants and needs. The tradeoff, though, is that you likely lose a significant portion of the player base. A lot of people still want to play Commander as it exists today, just at a higher power level.
This is obviously just my read, and I could be wrong. But speaking from personal experience, whenever a new Commander variant pops up, I’ll usually try it once and then end up right back where I started, playing Commander. That inertia is real, and it’s worth keeping in mind when we talk about carving the format up.
“This is my opinion, and does not reflect the opinion or views of the CFP”
I have held the belief for a long time that no bans or unbans outside of the most egregious offenders (talking about Nadu or Tinker level stuff) can fundamentally “fix” problems in the format. The rules of the format really have shaped deck design, political play, and what we see out of tournaments. This doesn’t solely apply to cEDH but to really anywhere you see mass commander play. Fundamental rules changes (such as starting life total, mulligan rules, sideboards etc) to me seem like the only way to address other issues mentioned such as seating order or time commitment for tournaments.
With the recent discussion around the hybrid mana change, this gives me hope that other rules of the game are being looked at with closer detail. While sideboarding specifically is a closed discussion, when thinking about other fundamentals - especially when thinking about how long a casual game of commander goes and how emotional some people get over them - do you think there is any realistic chance for
Obviously this wouldn’t be done at once and more than likely I understand this might just be “no” across the board. I feel though this approach could be significantly better than banning/unbanning stuff ad infinitum.
Either way massive congratulations, I knew you’d be on there since the first Mox Masters I played in.
Hey Higher! Congrats on this position, super great to have more representation for cEDH!
What I wanted to ask about, is whether you have given any thought to how you can best represent the cEDH community as a whole rather than only the subsection that you are connected with. Of course this is extremely challenging (and not possible to do entirely), but I can’t help but notice that the place where you are asking feedback is related to CriticalEDH, and now in this thread Logan from CritEDH is already involved in a lot of the discussions. Don’t get me wrong I LOVE the CritEDH guys and what they do for the format, I listen to every single podcats they put out. But their takes on the banlist are very different to the takes I’m hearing in my community (Netherlands/Europe), and I personally also have some pretty big disagreements with the takes I’m hearing on their pod.
So my question is: are you at all worried about being in echo chambers and have you given thought to ways that you can make sure to represent the cEDH community as a whole rather than just a subsection?
Happy New Year!
Short answer yes. I’m in alignment that we should be looking at rules to help the format in general. Life totals, hand size, etc.. I think this is the way forward. I understand that the spirit of commander is essential for the CFP, so I want to gently massage the idea of a Commander, or more likely, a multiplayer MTR be created by us. I think that will sit better with the group and can get more support than just a commander rule policy.
Great Question!
CritEDH is a great way for me to get connected with a lot players certainly. However, I’m also heavily involved with many folks within the community, and am actively working with the CCC who have worldwide reach. In addition I’m completely open to anyone reaching out if they have concerns or questions that I can answer. For me it’s more about making sure that the community has access, so if there is somewhere I can be to help make that happen feel free to link it!
