EDH Freerunning & the Letter of the Law | Magic: the Gathering | Commander
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Do these cards count, or no?
archidekt.com/decks/2856931/a...
Check out ALL our decklists here: edhrec.com/articles/edhrecast...
Commander at Home: • Ben Brode is compensat...
The "Commander Commander" deck:
Want access to exclusive content, the Challenge the Stats spreadsheet, EDHRECast Discord, and more? Support the cast on Patreon! / edhrecast
Title sequence by Daniel Woodling / MTG Explainers: bit.ly/3982yYa
Card images courtesy of Scryfall: scryfall.com/
Elevate by LiQWYD / liqwyd
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/liqwyd-elevate
Music promoted by Audio Library / nw - Hry
I miss upping the average 😢
I also miss upping the average.
Same, what happened to that series?
do they not do it anymore?
I agree, though I do like this think piece series. I just prefer upping the average.
@@eebbaa5560 I'm not sure but the last one they did was 4 months ago.
Knowing when and how to break your own rules is an art.
In your specific case, I feel it would fit the theme to run Freerunning cards, but only if the deck contains no other ways to trigger Freerunning -- no Assassins!
If the deck does contain assassins or changelings, you can't use them to trigger the Freerunning. Only a commander can trigger them.
I probably wouldn't play the Freerunning cards in a commander commander deck, but I also wouldn't give anyone else a hard time for doing it.
Before watching, I don't think anyone but you has any say in it.
Do you, personally, feel like they fit? Then just go with the feels
It's wild that we've got Joey out here giving us straight up life lessons every week.
I love this discussion in particular. I have a deck where every card must have "of the" in its name, like my commander, "Esika, God of the Tree", and I specifically run a copy of Imbraham, Dean OF THEory, mostly because I think it's absolutely hilarious. Almost everyone I've played with loves it, so it's interesting how players respond to cards that aren't explicitly in the theme, as long as they're funny enough.
I love that! I think that's a great example of the fun aspect/the spirit being more important
You're allowed to play Guerilla Tactics in a Gorilla deck. Because it's funny.
I resonate with what Gavin said about it. I mean, is the restriction "only cards that say 'commander' in their rules text" or "only cards that have abilities that pertain to your commanders"?
what i was gonna suggest turned out to be exactly what dequan watson suggested! use only the versions with the reminder text, i think?
Also fully enjoy these “Joeys Journals” 😂😂
Maybe change the rule to every card in the 99 has to interact with your commander in some way. If the rule is causing issues, you can change the rule. It’s what the RC did with the commander death rule.
I love self-imposed restrictions and rules when deckbuilding. You almost always get a more flavorful and fun deck.
For me, when I build a deck with this sort of restriction, I like to hold myself to the strictest version of the "law." In this case, it would be excluding freerunning, and in the one-drop deck, it would be excluding X-spells. I think this has to do with proving to myself(and to a lesser extent, my opponents) that I can do the thing without any possibility of pointing at a card and saying "well, actually..."
When playing against these decks, I respect(using this word very loosely) the decks that do the same adherence to the strictest rules, and if I see something in these grey areas I have to adjust my perception of the deck. It's never anything that makes me dislike a deck or a player, but it definitely can cause me to lose a bit of the "woah, that's so cool!" feeling.
Ultimately, I understand that everyone builds their decks how they have the most fun, and putting a restriction on yourself doesn't make any of these decks illegal to play with or against. Build however you want!
For a channel having an entire series (my only series right now...) dedicated to discussing Magic rules, I always enjoy these kinds of videos. Keep it up!
The best rules videos
@@davidstar2686 Oh snap! Thanks, means a lot.
@@ThisIsACommanderChannel Love watching your videos. I started watching them cause people at work play it and I get bored at night, but then after I watched a few I really, really started to get into them. The rules of magic are fascinating and complex. For some people, the complexity is a turn off, totally understandable, but I find it so cool that wizards has had to think of so many loopholes and interactions between effects and document them in the comprehensive rules for all those scenarios that can be encountered.
@@kyleedmunds5329 Holy crap, that's so cool and great to hear. I was a big fan of The Joys of Painting and Bob Ross. I didn't paint, but I just loved watching his videos and listening to him talk, and over time it has made me really want to actually try his style of painting. Fingers crossed I'll get to try it one day.
Thank you for saying what you said about Freerunning, I absolutely hate that it just randomly refers to commanders. I don't think I want to play most of these cards myself, just because it feels so weird to be using them with my random commanders.
That episode of commander at home was almost as insane as the episode of commander at home with Kyle Hill and Day9
I would play exactly one Freerunning card in the deck. The theme seems also kind of like a retrospective on how commanders have been treated over MTG history, so I like the nod to this unique mechanic & moment. Feels like it continues to fill out the theme, not break it. And I mean, it's printed on the card.
it’s literally NOT printed on every version of the card…
@@domotoro3552 Calm down, my guy. I didn't list the full legal disclaimer, cuz it seemed easily implied. So yeah, get the version that has the descriptor text for the Commander-Commander deck (and yes, every one of those cards has that version). You okay now?
@@jasonhart543 referring to the literal truth as a “full legal disclaimer” is disingenuous at best. you said “it’s printed on the card” when the VIDEO YOU’RE REPLYING TO said it’s not printed on every version of the card. if you even watched the whole video…
@@domotoro3552 Okay bud. I in fact did watch the whole video. Joey acknowledged not all versions have it spelled out. So why do I have to reiterate that, when it has nothing to do with the point I was making? Feel free to post your own comment with all your own points - but "well, actually"-ing my positive comment with your hyper-literal BS is cringe. Not responding further.
@@domotoro3552 Actually, yeah one last thing, re: “full legal disclaimer” - That's sarcasm, not disingenuous. Literal truth.
I'm on team "freerunning counts" - text aside, freerunning synergizes with your commanders *because* they are commanders
In the end this is all caused by the vagueness of the restriction itself. It can be intepretet in one way or the other. Since this is your restriction it is up to you to improve its definition. So you can decide whether you want to include cards which mention the commander in the rules text or not. Imho this would also extend your card pool to other cards with partner or similar rules. Whether you want that or not is up to you.
Play them! I think they fit the theme. Love the video.
After watching the video my thoughts are the same as the rules committee dude.
Just use the version of the card that says "Commander". To me it still fits the spirit of the deck (cards printed for the Commander format which also mention your "Commander"), but you won't be able to please everyone so just play what you want
I feel that with how concerned all the EDHREC people are with everyone having a positive experience at the table, the only reason anybody would be displeased is if they have poor sportsmanship. I respect the guys for being so considerate of everyone else at the table, but I also think that Joey shouldn't feel the need to not include a card just because someone could hypothetically be offended by the words on a piece of cardboard.
I was sceptical at the start of the video, but I now think that they absolutely fit the deck. It's a mechanic that refers to your commander, it being keyworded shouldn't change that. It is a flavor theme, so flavor matters, which is why Siege Gang Commander doesn't fit even though it contains the word commander.
I don't know much about Assassin's Creed lore but I understand that there is some element of directing the actions of others. The Animus is used to project one's consciousness (I think) back to take control of pivotal events. In that way, I think Freerunning works really well with Commander, because your commander is an extension of "yourself" in the game.
I think it is a matter of following the joy of the deck you created.
Joy is something that is always shared and enjoyed at the commander table and definitely carries the "spirit" of the game.
Whatever way you decide to go, the effort you put forth to make your deck an everyone's experience is sure to shine through any perceived technicalities.
A couple of cards does not an epic story make.
Yes, you could put them in the deck beceause they do refer to your commander.
BUT, you could only cast them for their freerunning cost so that the reminder text do matter, and the word commander "appears" in the casting of those spells !
I think that because it does reference Commander, at ALL, makes it okay. While I am for the LETTER of the law in deals and agreements within a game, I do also think the SPIRIT of Commander is fun and enjoyable whenever possible. Maybe make two deck lists to post, but a sideboard for actual play? As always, great video!
This was just an interesting video, cause I recently had this conversation with my play group. I built a theme deck in which one of the cards breaks the rule of you count reminder text (which I wasn't). Some friends were trying to argue against the card being in the deck, and I had to politely remind them that I made the restriction up.
I'm curious what the theme was and the card that supposedly broke it
I feel like the main difference between Partner & Freerunning as keywords that mention Commander is that Partner deals with deck construction while Freerunning is to do with your commander within the game. I feel like the same could be said for planeswalkers that state they can be your commander. It's a purely deck-building stipulation with no effect on gameplay itself.
Interesting. Thanks! I would play Freerunning if the card works in the deck. Besides, you said that card needs to refer to your commander. And it does! I don't recall you saying it had to be in the regular oracle text. It's your rule and your deck.
I'd say Freerunning would count because it is a mechanic that does specifically care about your commander, even if not exclusively. I do agree with the stipulation of playing the versions with reminder text if possible, because it helps keep the clarity of the theme for the other players.
You do you Joey, it's your deck. Personally, they seem fine to me to be part of the theme, but what I or anyone else thinks matters little.
I’m honestly surprised that this could break the letter of the law, I always considered statements like “mentions commander in the text box” to be a shorthand for your actual goal, “cards that care about the commander in some way, shape, or form”, and ultimately freerunning is an ability that in your deck that can only be triggered by your commander
Do your vibe, Run Free!!
The ability is dependent on your commander so they’re good. But I also think that extort cards should have Orzhov color identity too, so that’s not terribly surprising
JOEY! You tricked me! When you put that banana token up on screen I jumped for joy! I thought I had missed an official token and immediately went to buy one, but I see that was a trick and now I'm disappointed. I will never forgive you.
3:44 this is just the same argument as the word "commander" being in the reminder text. If you use fo:commander or fulloracle:commander it will show up
I think it would have to come down to how important the effect of the Freerunning card would be to your deck vs how much the card deviates from what the rest of your deck is doing.
For example, I would be more likely to be suspicious of a card that let you win the game without either commander in play vs a random ramp spell that let you do more things if your commanders were in play.
I had a similar situation come up recently. I made a Doctor Who theme deck using The Fourteenth Doctor & Rose Noble a while back & it's been a ton of fun. I had built it using specifically only cards from the Doctor Who precons. Even going as far to only use Doctor Who specific printings of cards. The more and more I played the deck a particular problem kept occurring. Fliers. The Doctor Who precons did not have that many fliers leaving a pretty big hole in my defenses. Eventually somebody brought up the Doctor Who secret lair that reflavored a bunch of MtG angels as Weeping Angels which would provide the deck with a couple fliers. I struggled if I should count the secret lairs as cards that fit the deck but my roommate reminded me that I was already allowing secret lair cards. The Fourteenth & Fifteenth Doctors as well as Rose Noble are all from a secret lair. So I chose to slightly expand the theme to any Doctor Who cards.
I definitely agree with the decision that they are ok to play in the Commander Commander deck. I agree with the fitting of the spirit of the law argument.
& I similarly agree with your take on the Freerunning working with commanders in general. I very much dislike that decision and outside of a deck like the Commander Commander deck I will not run any of the Freerunning cards.
I think the letter of the law is for hard rules. Your theme deck, you get to choose if they count or not.
And for my own decks, I would find it perfectly fitting to make my own theme deck and egregiously break the spirit of it because that conflict entertains me. It's the "no Homers" club, we're allowed to have one.
I have a similar quandary with my War Doctor deck. I'm transforming it into War Doctors Without Borders. All the cards from Who in it are Surge Foil (Extended Art, Where Applicable).
I'm hoping to get all the rest as Borderless/Extended Art Foils, or different frame treatments at minimum. An example being the Neon Ink Secret Lair Hall of the Bandit Lord...
This reminds me of when I played a game with a guy who said “I’ll play my budget deck” and slammed a one ring. Literally laughing I was like “what’s your budget?” and he said it didn’t have one. Next game he went infinite and won with a “group hug” deck on turn 6. Not following the “letter of the law” feels like the person is cheating. Like sure it’s your deck and your law but make the law congruent with the deck instead of “gotchas”. If letter of the law is “it must reference commander in its text” then no free running, if it is “must reference the commander” then it’s fine. Just change the law to be congruent with what you want, at the end of the day nobody actually cares and expectations being met are what matters. TLDR expectations are what we want met so if the letter of the law is broken that’s what causes this divide.
If you apply a build restriction on yourself you have to go by the 'spirit'. It's the only way to keep that imagination and creativity alive. 👍👌
I definitely agree with the spirit of the self-imposed rule. If you're attacking with your commander to pay the free running cost, then it seems like a fit. If you're just normal casting them, then it feels like a theme break. In your shoes, I'd include some with the additional self-imposed rule that I could only pay the free running cost.
I find the arguements comparing to extort, and that you wouldn't run any other partners in the 99 very compelling. It's bringing ambiguity into a deck theme that was otherwise rock solid. Has anyone suggested any of the cards in your deck were off theme before now? How much does that matter to you?
As a comparison, how would you feel about Fallaji Wayfarer? It mentions commander in reminder text, and cares about your actual commander through its color identity, where partners in the 99 and such don't.
Inversely, I don't agree with the deck described as all 1 drops as following the letter of the law, because the description doesn't match expectations - all 1 drops would be all spells you paid 1 for, that you can always play on turn 1 after your land, not just 1 mana value. The players in the game are feeling that subtle but meaningful difference.
Your own deck building restrictions aren't color identity.
It's silly to hold them to the same arbitrary restrictions.
Use em if you want, I think it fits by definition, but if the vibes are off, simply dont.
When i made a deck like this i extended the restriction to be cards that say either commander or legendary and like specifically draw the line at cards that come up of the scryfall search of - fo:commander or fo:legendary, so for me cards with historic and free-running both fit in my deck-restriction and i will likely add 2 or so of the free-running cards to the deck. (there is a little further stipulation that cards that say legendary care about legendary creatures or enchantments (because backgrounds) in some way specifically and also to exclude cards that only reference nonlegendary in their rules). I think i mostly went for a wider restriction to cater to budget so i didn't feel forced to pick up deflecting swat and co. I have never had complaints about the 2 cards that mention historic in my deck not 'technically' saying legendary so I personally think it would be fine to add them and people are more likely to be upset about you considering putting them in rather than if they're sat across the table seeing a free-running card hit play.
if you use the 'has the word commander on it (except for basic lands)' strictly, you need to define 'it' first. If 'it' is the rules text, Freerunning wouldn't be allowed but cards like Siege-Gang Commander would.
However, what you said at 0:42 seems to describe the the restriction and intention behind it much better, although it isn't as clearly defined. If I were to try to define this a bit more clearly, it would sound something like this:
"every card in the deck (except for basic lands) has to have a direct dependency on edh-commander(s)"
in this case Freerunner would be allowed, since the the alternate casting cost is directly depenent something being a commander (specifically the thing that dealt combat damage this turn).
also if i were to build a deck in which every card had to have the words 'lose life' on it, i feel like the intention was to have every card cause loss of life. technically the extort cards don't fit that rule, but it does fit the intention behind the rule. I'd say that sometimes put the intention into words, specifically in form of a short rule, can lead to loss of information and miss the point of the intention on a technical level.
What actually counts is the intention. and if the rule is not all-embracing in regards to the intention, it needs to be changed.
I guess you just gotta mention it during rule zero... to see if anyone wants to veto the deck or bow out of the pod. 😄
In the end it is as most already remark, it solely depends on what you feel like is the spirit of the deck. If it brings you joy adding/playing those cards than they are a perfect fit!
To be 100% transparent though: I would be dissapointed seeing a freerunning card in a Deck advertised as a Deck where all cards need to refer to your commander(s), It would feel like cheating the gimmick for better playability. Like you are not fully comitting to the "Joke" in exchange for better card availability.
Questions:
-does cards that say "this card can be your commander" count?
-Sauron says in the text box "whenever a commander.." does it count too?
It seems like you’re on to something with the “it’s okay now” idea. Think about it like Treasures. A couple cards that make Treasures wasn’t such a big deal when Ixalan hit the shelves, but being able to make a mono-color “Oops, everything makes Treasures” deck is another story. So maybe you test the waters now, and when the floodgates inevitably bust open, you go back to just the stuff Scryfall can search up.
"sound of an eldrazi slamming into an opponent for like 8 damage, by trampling over a small army"
*ooooh boy, so sneaky this spell costs less now*
The struggle is real for sure. I have had a similar argument with myself that is still going on today. I have a universes beyond only deck headed up by Gylwain, Casting Director. It is themed that Gylwain is going around getting all kinds of things from the "movies" to be in his movie. My dilemmas are what is considered universes beyond? Are reprints UB? Can I only use legendaries? Are certain sets UB (Commander Legends Balders Gate I am talking to you)? Are all secret lairs UB? Are all cards with art from a UB legal?
Also, on the bit about tacking on "and your commander" to freerunning to sell more packs, personally I don't feel like cracking AC packs. I'm perfectly fine buying singles for this one and letting other people rip themselves off by paying stupid prices for less product.
Only way to know is to run it a couple of times and see how it feels, then go with your gut.
Not that it matters much, but I say go for it, king! Make those commanders run on all of them walls!
Running them is definitely about how you feel about it, but i do agree with dequan watson, if you are playing them they should be the ones with the reminder text
it is your deck that you came up with so you can do what you want
EDH is a casual format, I think allot of people forget that
I'm in an extremely tangentially similar spot where there's a card in this set, Excalibur, that would be as close as a piece can be to an auto-include in my pet deck. Thing is, that pet deck has been a now decades long silly little personal Universes Beyond project that is very dear to me, and the card would be an extreme flavor break to include. I could absolutely stretch my own narrative to justify putting it in, but I won't unless I have no better choice by the time I wrap up that project.
For the same reason, I personally wouldn't play the Freerunning cards in the Commander Commander deck. For me it goes beyond 'does it mechanically organically work with my intended restriction' and into the 'how flavorful is this to the story I'm trying to tell with my deck', and in that, these cards don't pass, same way Excalibur doesn't.
Use them! They are just sweet and they would feel right to me.
Although I agree with Gavin (5:00), in spirit they could belong to the deck; I personally wouldn’t put them in the deck. The reason is not because the “commander” clause is just in the reminder text; but rather because I think the commander keyword shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Freerunning should have been limited to assassin; the same as prowl is limited to goblin and rogue. Tagging commander to that ability feels definitively like a marketing move rather than following the spirit of Magic The Gathering.
Just to note, prowl is not limited to goblin and rogue. Some faeries and even a sphinx has it (and yes, they are also rogues, but it just has to share a creature type) and then there's the hunting velociraptor that gives it to all of your dinosaurs
I think you need to determine why you love playing the deck.
Based on what I’ve heard you discuss and what I’ve seen from your gameplay with the deck, it seems you like how offbeat and a bit, dare I say, janky the idea and execution is. The more support the idea gets from future printings, whether that support be in reminder text or not, the less novel the execution will probably feel to you.
So, it might become that the deck is more indicative of an era in commander where explicit printed support was not so rampant and the idea was more novel.
You could always make an alternative list of “updated commander commander” that plays the new optimal stuff. I doubt it will feel the same as you enjoy it today, though. Likely, the more official sanction and support you get from Wizards, the less unique you’ll start to feel about it.
So, you’re right. Answering this question now is probably going to be important to your future enjoyment.
Letter of the Law breaks the new Wheel of Potential from MH3, whereas the spirit of the law makes it operate as intended.
Yeah freerunning definitely fits the spirit of the deck. But I also can't help wonder how many of the initial people saying no freerunning actually meant no assassins creed because people get...weird about universe beyond.
I have a deck that runs every alternate win condition. The stipulation is that I cannot win any other way and that I take out each win condition after it's been achieved.
One hypothetical that I haven't had to deal with yet is whether to give myself permission to win with somebody else's alternate win condition (for example by casting Rite of Replication on their Laboratory Maniac).
Since commander damage is an alternative win condition, will you change your commander if you win that way? It would make for a pretty funny situation at that table if your opponents know you're playing with that restriction.
@@chasm9557 Maybe that'll be the grand finale after winning every other way. I would have to beat all three of my opponents with commander damage though.
I'd love to see the one mana only deck.
I am in a very similar situation right now - I have a fully double sided deck with Esika/Prismatic Bridge as the commander - every single card including ALL lands is double sided, which provides an interesting restriction because I can't use any basic lands, no ramp spells (even the ramp battle doesn't work because it only gets basics), I have VERY limited removal and board wipes, and the only counter spell is a bad mana tithe (Jwari Disruption), and the deck being very handicapped and low power as a result is one of the reasons I built it. And MH3 has just released a load of really, really good MDFC lands which would all be incredibly good in this deck, but would they make the deck simply too good, to the point where it overshadows the deck building restriction that has led to the deck being so fun to pilot so far? Even the fact that I would be able to have tapped dual lands would make the deck so much more consistent than it is now. I'm still undecided on what to do with it.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
so for the example that people gave for if you did a scryfall search for commander would it show up
just use fo: instead of o: and yes they would show up
and as far as the letter of the law is concerned like the partner example is more ambiguous but like if you look at the planeswalker as commander cards that text isn't even in the reminder text that is straight up rules text
and there is no way you would be playing those
If Magic 30 felt out of touch, the Freerunning mechanic including commanders just feels cynical. I don't mind UB stuff but this specifically sets a precedent for other mechanics in the future. With regards to the commander commander deck I think it's fine and only using copies *with* the reminder text is a cute compromise if trying to be as literal to the deck's conceit as possible.
People are haters. I think as long as the card or the description of the ability has “commander” on it, it works
You have to ask what it means to "Reference the EDH Commander". I would ask whether it interacts with the Commander mechanic.
While Freerunning cards don't mention the Commander because of what they say in their text, they clearly "reference the EDH Commander" because of what that ability is.
A "Partner" card in the 99/98 would be excluded because it fails to interact with the Commander mechanic. If the deck had been constructed differently, the card would interact with it, but it doesn't. There is never any possible scenario where a "Partner"-card in the main deck behaves differently whether you are playing EDH or not. I would therefore say that "Partner" in the maindeck does not reference the Commander because it doesn't interact with Commander-ness, but it does if it's in the Command zone.
I personally vote for spirit of the law. It's a casual format, and a creative deck.
Like you've said, mechanically it DOES refer to your commander.
Now if you play with those cards and frequently find people raising an eyebrow at their inclusion, sure. Go ahead and take them out. After all if the point of the game is for everyone to have a fun game then it does make sense that you want to follow through with your theme in a way that satisfies your opponents too.
And if Wizards starts doing this a lot, I see no reason why you can't revert your decision. Right now it's an edge case. If it ends up down the line that there's 5 new mechanics following the same issue, you might feel that including those cards no longer adheres to the spirit of the deck. That's completely okay.
And regarding your commanders, even if you go for letter of the law, I think a "spirit" exception would be made specifically for your partner commanders since- they are THE COMMANDERS.
Whenever I see a theme deck across the table from me, that ends up coloring my expectations for what its power level will be. And the biggest feel bad moment is when someone discounts their deck as a themed build, but the actual gameplay shows that it’s way more optimized.
I would try out the free running cards in the build and see how it affects the power level. If it turns out those cards make the deck significantly better, then I would leave them out to avoid any feel bad moments of people thinking you are abusing the theme of the deck.
You think Freeruning and MDFC cards change the level of a deck that much? For example, when Dana talks about mana efficiency and the winning % last year with his decks, I agree with him. Winning a game depends more of your skill and efficiency playing that just raw power. If I play a deck with suboptimal cards, but those cards are the BEST in their level, like the MDFC, I have more posibilities than my opponets if their decks are poorly constructed. The problem there is not mine, is theirs. They need to change their worst card for better versions, and I don't think that change a lot the power level of the deck IMO.
@@Controlqueen31 I totally agree. I haven’t looked at the free running cards in much detail, but I doubt any of them would change the power level of the deck by itself. However, if one of the cards stands out as more powerful than the rest of the deck, then that would be cause for concern for me.
My point is more on a general note that deviations from a theme really only matter to me if they change the power level or play experience
Honestly I think the idea that theme deck equal weak deck is a misconception the community needs to grow out of. I have a monster hunter theme deck and that theme lends itself well to a fairly strong stompy deck.
Yeah it sucks when people try to shark by saying don't attack me I'm a starfish theme deck and them doing thoracle combo turn 4 but people also shouldn't have to feel bad about playing cool cards because some people can't accept that different themes lend themselves to different powerlevels.
@@snowconesyrup2698
Care to share that deck list? Been wanting to do something like that for a bit and would love some ideas on how to go about it
I feel like the spirit of the law is, in this case, more important than the letter of the law
Would I put them in? Yeah if I felt like the deck could use that card. I'd also put in the partners and Siege Gang Commander if I wanted them in the deck. In general I prefer hard rules and rules as written over rules as intended.
I also think a deck can be themed on something without being exclusively that thing so a Bear deck doesn't need to just be 100% bears. If even a third of the cards end up being of a specific type it usually passes the vibe-check for a theme for me.
Since these are self imposed rules rather than actual rules if it passes your own vibe-check that's all that really matters at the end of the day. On the other hand if you were to bring a card that said "Standard" on it but wasn't legal in the format to a Standard tournament or a friendly Standard game night I would expect them to throw you out.
i would not use them cause i wanna be also in magic universe if posible. but like you said, your deck your choices :)
Wait... is Kebo G or RG? (for color identity)
I've only played against a Kebo deck once, but it was definitely running both colors...
I mean, it's your deck. You created the rule, I'd say you can bend it as you please
I have this with secret lairs, the goblins are too silly for my deck with the "we are goblin kind" goblin chieftain. Its not off theme but its off vibes.
Not that my opinion matters, but I think that if any specific Freerunning card fits with what your deck does, it should be okay to include it in your deck. I don't feel the need to disclose specific cards I'm running in any of my decks, and I feel part of the fun of commander is seeing cards you don't expect to see or forgot existed. If you truly feel that it might be misleading to include them in your deck, maybe explain that it's okay for the reminder text to say "commander" and point it out on the partner mechanic's reminder text. I also like the idea mentioned that you should run a copy of the card that includes the reminder text in that instance, just to have it physically on the card itself.
Isn't Lieutenant also having the word 'commander' in reminder text?
This may be the most unhelpful advice in the world, but since you're the one who established the deck-building condition, it ultimately down to how you feel about it in terms of the "vibes, maaaan".
Having said that, if you *do* decide to include the Freerunning cards, I would just clarify when bringing out the deck that reminder text counts towards your condition just to avoid any ambiguity. I think as long as expectations are properly set, you're ultimately the sole and final authority on what you put in your deck.
The correct answer is to play the free-running cards. Because then the people who believe it's fair game are happy to see you cast those cards, and the people who think you shouldn't be using it, get to complain. It's a win-win
Fake ass banana token with an eldraine set symbol on it had me do a double take
Wait … so what is Kibo’s color identity?
I would say reminder text doesn't count as the word commander on the card just like extort, but it seems you are leaning the other way just so you can add some other cards.
I personally think you're free to run them
Wait...what colour identity is Kibo?
I don't think they'd be a theme fail. It's reminder text but it is reminder text that is specifically for and about commanders.
I agree that Partner, outside of the command zone, *would* feel like a theme fail but that's because it's reminder, outside of the command zone, is no longer actually about commanders.
It's vestigial not integral.
But I definitely get where the debate is coming from and love that it's happening.
Spirit of the Law all the way.
So uktabi makes banana mana😊
I care most that people follow their own rules. If you include a Freerunning card, go for it. But don't introduce the deck by saying "This deck includes only cards that refer to my Commander in their rules text", instead say "This deck includes only cards that refer to my Commander".
As long as your rule for yourself is consistent, and it is presented consistently, do whatever you want.
Use the freerunning cards but only cast them for their freerunning costs
MH3 definitely going to overshadow assassin’s creed
I think they are okay, but don't be jamming assassins in. If there was an assassin card you had in the deck before they were previewed, its okay, if you add any after, it is not unless it really fits the commander theme and not just freerunning synergy. I would lean on the side of also not having the assassin creatures with freerunning, just the spells.
I kinda feel the opposite about free running. It works By the letter of the law. It has the word commander written on it and referring to Your edh commanders, but feels like it goes against the spirit of the deck. Idk i dont really care ifnyou include them cause it works no matter what technically just feels a bit off.
I agree for the same reason Horobi still dies when you try to equip him with an equipment artifact despite normally not having any reminder text.
I got rent to pay
Its your deck. If it works for you, then who cares what other people think. Besides if I had a dollar for everytime I heard a commander player complain about a deck, I would be able to buy a set of power 9.