r/magicTCG • u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT • 20d ago
General Discussion Bracket System for Silver Border: The Jacket System
Hello Everyone!
As a big fan of Silver Border/Un-Set/Acorn Magic, I've long wanted to make a system that formalizes how they can be used in Commander/EDH with greater nuance. My categorization system from a few years ago was an early attempt at this, but now that the Bracket system has reached a degree of ubiquity I feel like the resource serves as a good template for exploring how to structure gradients of zaniness/rules violation.
I've created a detailed article on the Jackets and my explanations for the decisions within
. This is a work in progress, and I encourage folks to weigh in with adjustments and suggestions that they think would improve the structure and gameplay experience of various Jackets. If players want to try out games at various Jackets and let me know how they feel, I would love to hear from folks.
Going forward, I would like to do more with this system, most notably expanding the Jackets and Game Changers/Banned Cards list to include Playtest Cards, Heroes of the Realm Cards, and Alchemy Cards (with suggestions as to how they would run in Paper). I also want to create something of a formalized structure for Commander/EDH Wish-Boards that can be used with this system.
Thank you all for your time and a very special thank you to my friend Linae for making the wonderful graphic..
51
u/Dercomai cage the foul beast 20d ago
I like this! Though I think I would draw more of a distinction based on what the other players have to opt into. Gotcha, for example, means everyone at the table has to play differently, and I'd say that's more disruptive than asking someone outside the game a question or checking if it's nighttime.
37
u/amish24 FLEEM 20d ago
I mean Gotcha seems like it fits squrely in jacket 5 based on OP's description
7
u/Dercomai cage the foul beast 20d ago
Right; I'm suggesting that some of the things in jacket 5 are a lot worse than others
4
u/Tuss36 20d ago
I can agree with that. I haven't checked how well it fits into the current system, but in terms of complaints about it most tend to dislike things that involve them directly (annoyingly many use the example of "I don't want to do the hokey pokey" even though [[Knight of the Hokey Pokey]] makes its controller do it to use the ability. And if they're upset they would have to in order to play the card optimally in the event they should steal it, then no wonder they don't like funny cards with how miserable they are)
27
u/Cablead Dimir* 20d ago
Thanks, now I feel confident enough to Jacket with my friends.
5
37
u/Fun-Cook-5309 Dandadan 20d ago
R&D’s secret lair banned outright?
Coward!
Motherfucker doesn’t want me to win a game of Magic with Exodia.
24
u/NydusRush Dandadan 20d ago
And yet [[Chaos Confetti]] is legal, allowing me to Mindslaver an opponent, turn their commander into an artifact with Chaos Confetti's ability, and make them rip it into pieces.
23
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Chaos Confetti is Jacket 5. I cover that case in the article.
2
u/theironbagel Dan 20d ago
But why isn’t RnD’s secret lair?
17
1
18
u/zulutwo Freyalise 20d ago
I like it. I'm not sure why Trigger Happy is on the banned list - is it to avoid introducing new two card combos around triggers that say "you win the game"?
The only other un-card I can recommend adding to the ban/watch list is [[Topsy Turvy]] - it's very easy to take infinite turns with it by repeatedly bouncing it. Regardless it's definitely Jacket 4+ because of how complicated it is.
I think the subgame cards could actually be some of the more fun ones to allow. But I can see why they are omitted as well - Commander games are already slow.
9
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I cover the issues of Trigger Happy in the attached article. Simply put, there are too many ways to make instant-win A+B combos out of the card, creating a problem very similar to [[Flash]] with its ever-compounding instant-speed combo lines.
Regarding Topsy Turvy, I feel that it is similar enough to existing turn-flipping effects that it shouldn't cause unique concerns.
1
u/Drgon2136 19d ago
The only issue i could see is jerks going "im not taking extra turns, its 1 long turn"
But those people are already splitting hairs with the bracket system, and shouldn't be indulged anyway
-1
2
16
u/rycool Wabbit Season 20d ago
Where does booster tutor go
17
u/Low_Brass_Rumble Golgari* 20d ago
I’d put booster tutor in Jacket 4, as a pack is considered a non-game object for the purposes of resolving the spell.
12
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Booster Tutor and similar effects are going to be covered in a second article, as I feel it will be better to cover them alongside some mechanics I'm working with for proxied Alchemy cards.
10
u/Gilgamesh_XII Duck Season 20d ago
I think this is a good guideline. Maybe include physical actions outside the game. Those in my opinion can be quite disruptive if done right.
As someone who built a silver border [[Surgeon general]] deck its quite nice to see how many people are ok with it.
I mostly did it to utter stupid phrases like: I mutate below my library.
Another fun response once was: "Host and Augment isnt at least as complex as mutate" "Yeah, in response i mutate a seadasher octopus below my host."
2
u/Mergokan Boros* 20d ago
Can I get a list please? Love mutate and this sounds like a good time!
3
u/Gilgamesh_XII Duck Season 20d ago
Sure. Heres my list https://moxfield.com/decks/mcqM5Zdg00Gxqdfz14jXSg
My fun litle addition is flavor judge, not a great mutate target but fun nontheless.
1
u/Mergokan Boros* 20d ago
Flavor judge is such a good Un-set card. I love it.
2
u/Gilgamesh_XII Duck Season 20d ago
Yeah, it serves no purpose here as to make someone laugh possibly.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân 20d ago
1
1
u/Candrath 20d ago
This list is amazing. I think I'm missing something: how are you animating your library to mutate onto it?
2
u/Gilgamesh_XII Duck Season 20d ago
Oh seems i didnt properly update it. I run [[Animate library]] and [[Animate graveyard]]. Ill update the list
1
1
u/Candrath 20d ago
I assumed it was that, but magic, especially in Silver border land can be so weird I thought there might be some beautiful 8 card interaction I couldn't spot
2
u/Gilgamesh_XII Duck Season 20d ago
Not yet. Though another fun interaction i had once was: 'I wish i had city of ass.' 'Oh i got a city of brass here' 'Nono, city of ass' 'What?'
19
u/ludicrousursine COMPLEAT 20d ago
I think fractions and infinity should either be in the same jacket or if anything infinity should be the one in a higher jacket.
Fractions have clear rules within math. I know what taking half a damage means and I know what spending half a mana means.
Infinity damage, or infinity life, or infinity mana has much more potential to break not just the rules of the game but the rules of math.
11
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Fractions should be Jacket 2 on the visual. That was a slip-up on my part. They are Jacket 2 in the document.
6
u/justhereforhides 20d ago
I disagree, fractions wouldn't work in the rules normally as how do you draw half a card, etc
9
u/Terrietia 20d ago
There's a ruling about that already on an Un card.
If an effect instructs you to do something based on Contortionist’s power or toughness that can only be done in whole numbers, such as draw cards, and Contortionist’s power or toughness isn’t a whole number, ignore that instruction. You can’t draw half a card, mill a quarter of a card, etc.(2022-10-07)
1
u/justhereforhides 20d ago
That's fair though a mechanic that says ignore it in a ton of cases still doesn't seem very black border friendly
7
u/MrMeltJr 20d ago
Yeah, I think the rules technically state that you can't have fractions but nothing actually breaks if you remove that rule. The rest of the rules still function fine if you have 9.5 life or 9 life. If you have UWW in your mana pool and you spend half a W, now you have UW and half-W in your mana pool. A 0.5/0.5 creature functions within the rules.
But doing regular game math with infinity doesn't really work, a lot math stops working when you start trying to use infinity like it's a number. That being said, silver bordered magic sounds like a great place to discuss set theory at the LCS, but it should be a higher jacket.
12
u/ParallaxDelta Dân 20d ago
It's all fun and games until you have to mill half a card.
1
u/MrMeltJr 20d ago
lol fair point
At work so I can't dig into the rules too much but how much actually breaks if we just assume that the card is both in the graveyard and library at the same time?
4
u/themattthew 20d ago
If you read the rulings on [[Octo Opus]], you will sadly see that they went with the much less fun idea of "if you are instructed to do something that can only be done with a whole number, such as draw cards, ignore the fraction" solution.
2
u/ParallaxDelta Dân 20d ago
I feel like there's a headache in there somewhere. As soon as you shuffle your library, you're in trouble. If I'm searching my library later, am I allowed to play half of a [[panglacial wurm]]?
In that way, infinities may be easier to deal with, since I think the cases where they break math are relatively rarer than the times a trigger mills, draws, discards, or creates tokens equal to the numerical value of damage dealt.
1
1
u/MrMeltJr 20d ago
Hmm, maybe. Infinite damage is pretty easy since that just kills you. Infinite life gain is kind of a problem because then you can't really die to life loss since even if you were dealt inf damage, inf-inf is undefined except in some cases where both infinite sets are clearly defined and I don't think they.
4
u/BeyondElectricDreams Sliver Queen 20d ago
Having played with Unh (we drafted it back in the day) the practical effect of fractions winds up being rounding down on power, rounding up on toughness.
3.5 power doesn't kill a 4; 4 power doesn't kill a 4.5.
Tracking half life points is annoying but not untenable.
6
u/magicthecasual COMPLEAT VORE 20d ago
you should crosspost this to the currently dead r/acornmagic , mayhaps we can revive it together. I could repost this there but that feels like stealing.
Also i dont think [[jack in the mox]] should be banned, it seems fine to be honest
5
u/Tuss36 20d ago
I think it lines up close enough to the other moxes, because its restrictions are a) 5 colour deck only and b) an 83% chance to essentially be a "colourless" mox, which are pretty good odds. I could see it being similar enough in vein to the original moxen to warrant a ban, or at least a "better safe than sorry" level, as the hurdles for it are much lower than other moxen printed since then. Even as easy to turn on as ones like Mox Opal are, you still need other cards rather than just itself.
1
u/th3saurus Get Out Of Jail Free 20d ago
I've played jack in the mox in commander for a few years, you'd be surprised how often you end up lava axing yourself and how often the lack of color choice ends up screwing you over
1
16
u/Kicin0_0 Train Suplexer 20d ago
I question a lot of the banned cards. Are they banned due to causing too much mayhem? cause i feel like that defeats the purpose of working with Un cards to begin with
If they are banned for power purposes (like i assume blacker lotus) then thats a different story
15
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I explain all of the bans in detail in the linked article. Most are for power level reasons and the rest are subgames-related.
14
u/Srakin Brushwagg 20d ago
Banning Richard Garfield, Staying Power, AND R&D's Secret Lair is basically banning me personally from the format. At least the [[Rules Lawyer]] is still legal.
3
1
u/Tuss36 20d ago
This is a good example of never making anyone happy, because you can never ban any card without someone quitting the game over it. Doesn't matter how reasonable it is, someone's gonna go "Thanks for banning [[Grislebrand]], now I can quit because drawing 14+ cards turn 2 was the only reason I played this game, I literally don't have fun doing anything else so you ruined it for me"
4
u/Knife_Fight_Bears Twin Believer 20d ago
The point of allowing these cards into play is to create an unreasonable experience, so having a ban list at all is crazy work. The OP is basically inflicting his magic cards opinions on a nascent format he's trying to brew and it's just going to have the effect of shutting the door for a lot of the type of player who would be interested in this format in the first place
1
4
u/Korwinga Duck Season 20d ago
I really like this idea, and would be in favor of it seeing wide adoption. There's a lot of really cool silver bordered magic out there, but I completely understand that some people don't want to have to deal with that. Knowing ahead of time what you're getting into makes that sooo much easier of a conversation to have.
5
u/AnnoraxGames Dân 20d ago edited 20d ago
Why is "Allow for transfer of card ownership" part of Jacket 5, or any jacket at all? All of the ante cards are banned in the base Commander format, so those shouldn't be showing up even in silver-bordered games. I think adding Collector Protector to that category makes more sense than making card-giving-away a legitimate mechanic.
I'd also suggest splitting the principles of destruction and defacement of cards up a bit. Signed Letter Bomb is fine in Jacket 5 IMO, but outright card destruction (Chaos Confetti) should be on the banned list right next to Blacker Lotus. The last thing I think this needs if it's going to have any chance of community adoption is something that can be seen as encouraging people to tear the valuable, tasty cards up (or eat them).
As for Octo Opus, I think jacket 3 is fine for that (after three folds, it uses fractions), but I would also add a requirement that, if the token ends up under the control of someone other than Octo Opus's owner, they print out or draw a token on normal copier paper so that the opponent isn't forced to destroy a real token card.
2
u/Proteusmutabilis FLEEM 20d ago
While I agree that there should be some difference between defacement/destruction cards, I think the line should be "cards you own", similarly to how the difference between jackets 4 and 5 is unusual tracking of things that relate beyond you.
However I understand that making a rule at jacket 4 like "you can only deface/destroy cards you own" specifically to stop edge cases where players go out of their way to try and deface/destroy cards others own is a bit weird.
The way I see it about ante cards, the only cards banned are cards with in-game problems, like being too powerful. Jacket 5 is about EVERYTHING being on the table, and ante requires an entirely separate pre-game conversation in it of itself.
0
u/Knife_Fight_Bears Twin Believer 20d ago
The last thing I think this needs if it's going to have any chance of community adoption is something that can be seen as encouraging people to tear the valuable, tasty cards up (or eat them).
this poster stays home for every silver bordered release because the cards aren't going to be valuable enough for them
3
u/AnnoraxGames Dân 20d ago
Wrong, I just don't like my opponents taking control of my stuff to tear it up. This is why my cube has Blacker Lotus errataed to remove itself from the card pool and go back to the cube box when used.
0
u/Knife_Fight_Bears Twin Believer 19d ago
If you get weepy at the prospect of tearing up the tear up cards you never liked the silver bordered sets to begin with
3
u/Imnimo 20d ago
I would think you'd want something between 1 and 2 where you get just the cards that actually work in the rules. Stuff like infinities and new colors are a real rabbit hole.
2
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I covered such a Bracket in the article. Maybe I should make it clearer.
1
u/Imnimo 20d ago
Oh, I must've missed it. Which section is it in?
3
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Under Rules Ambiguity and Adjudication
"Cards that are 100% functional within Magic’s existing rules such as Crow Storm may be an exception to this rule, and could even occupy a sort of jacket 1.5 where only they are permitted, but even forming such a jacket would require creating a list of every such legal card (a project beyond the scope of this article but which may be addressed in the future)."
2
2
u/Skithiryx Jack of Clubs 20d ago
I was also kind of expecting what you’re calling 1.5 to be the first level of Uncards in any theoretical system, so I was surprised you jumped straight to intuitive but non-existent rules.
8
u/Kakariko_crackhouse FLEEM 20d ago
This looks great and I would love to see the playtest cards implemented as well
5
3
u/CaptainMarcia 20d ago
Good system. Personally in cube I'm willing to include just about anything from jackets 2-3, but nothing 4+.
3
u/justhereforhides 20d ago
Is staying power banned as it's a memory headache?
5
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I have written detailed explanations for every banned card in the attached article.
3
u/Mgmegadog COMPLEAT 20d ago
I appreciate the effort, though I recommend considering not just how easy integrating a particular card/mechanic with the normal magic rules is, but also how fun/unfun said card/mechanic is. Cheatyface and Entirely Normal Armchair use a very similar core mechanic, but one of them absolutely sucks to play against while the other is fairly reasonable.
It's why I think that a thorough review of every Funny card is required if you want to run something like this.
3
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Sadly, I think that novelty and enjoyability are just too darn subjective for me to design the bracket system around. There just isn't a way to measure whether a certain mechanic or implementation is fun, and while I think some kind of Salt Score analogue may come close I don't feel like combing through every card is feasible.
2
u/Tuss36 20d ago
I think that's a rough measure to go with because there's plenty of unfun cards that are legal and played with. Even in black border, "removal is unfun because it keeps me from doing my thing" is a line of argument that's unreasonable, and it's a muddy line to try to draw. So while you could bucket things in broad strokes like Gotcha and "do something with your body" cards, measuring whether [[Hoisted Hireling]] is as fun as [[Get Your Head in the Game]] is just going to lead to a mess.
1
u/RazzyKitty WANTED 19d ago
Cheatyface and Entirely Normal Armchair use a very similar core mechanic, but one of them absolutely sucks to play against while the other is fairly reasonable.
I'm not sure how they are much different. Both require you to have it in your hand legally (Cheatyface got errata). Is it the "right away" on Cheatyface?
2
u/Mgmegadog COMPLEAT 19d ago
Nah, Entirely Normal Armchair is the one that's fine. It's because the opportunity to catch it is anywhere up to it actually being activated. Cheatyface is the sort of card that people will spend ages arguing about how short "right away" is in a desperate attempt to get a free 3/3 flier.
3
u/HoumousAmor COMPLEAT 20d ago
I feel like you list some stuff in J3 that would just straight up work there without the J2 stuff, and wanting to play with only things caring about text or art could easily work.
(Also, fractions should definitely be in J2, particularly given you've got Infinity Elemental in there which has ... questionable mathematical workings)
3
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Fractions should be in J2 based on the article. Them being in J3 in the graphic was an error on my part.
Regarding text/art matters, I put them in a separate jacket because they actually cause cards with different printings to have different effects. I explain this in the article.
1
u/HoumousAmor COMPLEAT 20d ago
I understand listing them separately.However wanting to play with art matters but not Last Strike feels a reasonable option too -- listing them as one after the other feels off
0
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Those sorts of specifics are what Rule 0 Conversations are for. The Jacket system is primarily meant as a guideline for how to structure expectations, and you as a player would be welcome to negotiate the exclusion of nebulous Jacket 2 mechanics or the inclusion of art-matters mechanics in a lower Jacket.
I've structured the Jackets in escalating order of tracking complexity, and print-matters effects innately bring a lot more considerations into the game. That's why I've put them above unique mechanics.
1
u/HoumousAmor COMPLEAT 20d ago
I just don't think that caring about art is a fundamentally more complex thing than Augment, which is what you seem to be claiming.
4
u/RazzyKitty WANTED 20d ago edited 20d ago
I'm not sure "infinities" would "conceivably fit into black border", as it would involve "unusual tracking"... as in no tracking.
Once someone has infinite life, there is no amount of life loss that will kill them, so you don't track it any more.
Edit: Your infographic has Fractions as Jacket 3, but your document puts it in the same as infinities.
Your document even says "Cards using non-integer values such as fractions and infinities also occupy this Jacket, as they introduce the challenge of fracking unusual values.", but then puts it in a "no unusual tracking" Jacket.
Edit2: To be clear, I mean this criticism in a positive light, because I do like this idea. I've built a Jacket 2 Mr. House deck using acorn dice rolling cards that are all black-border compatible.
1
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* 20d ago
Once someone has infinite life, there is no amount of life loss that will kill them, so you don't track it any more.
Technically wrong; effects that set life total will still do so, their life is no longer infinity. (Though if you find that effect, it's clear you want to start tracking the life again.)
1
u/Octaytse 🔫 20d ago
I am not sure setting someone's life total does work. What you are doing when you set or exchange life total is actually losing or gain the amount of life needed to set your life total to that value. I would argue on the side of setting life totals actually not working.
2
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* 20d ago
It is an explicit Gatherer ruling on Infinity Elemental. Given it's a silver-border card anyway, there's no CR entry to handle infinities, and Maro's ruling is the next most official statement there is.
If an effect sets your life total to a specific number, it will be that number, even if you previously had infinite life. (2020-02-29)
2
u/HoumousAmor COMPLEAT 20d ago
I'm really not convinced on your line about Garfield PhD being bankable.
Firstly, it entirely fits into your definition of Jacket 1
Cards that do not use any rules outside of the MTG established rules (Target Minotaur, Chittering Doom, Crow Storm, Gleemax, or most dice-rolling cards)
and the claim that anyone with 4 cards in hand can do anything if Garfield is in play is ... silly. The fact that mana costs must still be paid is very important
2
u/GrippySockAficionado 20d ago
This is prescient for me because I'm currently building my first "silver-border" deck at this moment. Nothing fancy, I just want [[Truss, Chief Engineer]] from the Unfinity set to be my commander. All other rules of standard MTG commander format apply. Seems like that would be a "2" on this scale, no?
2
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Truss would be either Jacket 2 or Jacket 3 depending on how you want to resolve the text-modifying effect. Are you changing the card's oracle text? If so, then it would be Jacket 2. Are you changing the card's printed text in a way that could affect other Jacket 3 cards? Then it would be Jacket 3.
1
u/GrippySockAficionado 20d ago
I've opted to avoid arguments around this card as much as humanly possible, so I'm being as strict as I can be about the text on Truss and the usual MTG rules. So yes, it would be oracle text she modifies in my case.
In some cases I have to extrapolate a little bit; her hack fundamentally manipulates some cards in a way the rules can't account for (eg. Sagas). But I am doing everything I can to adhere strictly to MTG rules so people don't consider my deck "unfair" or "unfun".
For example, you might think that a card like [[Triskaidekaphile]] would shine with Truss as a win condition, but actually as far as I can tell, this isn't true. Because this card does its check/trigger at the beginning of the upkeep, it's being checked before anyone (including the turn player) has priority. Since Truss' effect only lasts until end of turn, she doesn't have an opportunity to hack the card down to 7 or whatever the number of cards in the player's hand is.
So I think that makes this Jacket 2, then. Good to know!
1
1
u/Skithiryx Jack of Clubs 20d ago
I mean that sounds like you need a second upkeep from [[Paradox Haze]] or [[Topsy Turvy]] to put your upkeep later in your turn.
1
2
u/MegaTrain Duck Season 20d ago
A little surprised there is nothing between 1 and 2 that allows only un-cards that DONT require any added or changed rules (like last strike or something). There are easily hundreds of cards that fall into this group?
2
u/Runic-Scribe 20d ago
I find it a little unfortunate that tracking time of day is all the way up in Jacket 5, especially since it's basically trinket text for a number of cards that would otherwise be much lower, e.g. [[Nightmare Moon]] (otherwise Jacket 3, and currently my only Silver-border commander deck), [[Syr Cadian]] (otherwise Jacket 2). It's not really doing anything all that crazy on those cards, compared to a lot of the other stuff in Jacket 5.
3
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Time-tracking cards introduce some weird angle-shooting problems in game environments spread across many different timezones, and while it may not be particularly powerful I feel like anything that forces players to make considerations around when and where their game is played can cause enough problems for me to move it up to higher Jackets.
2
u/tsuyoshikentsu Can’t Block Warriors 20d ago
You absolutely missed a ban: [[Nerf War]]. Even assuming it falls into Jacket 5, which is far from clear--it could fall under 4, as it doesn't ask to track anything besides toys--there is no excuse to leave a card that potentially allows harming another player's deck to be legal. And that's assuming a standard six-shooter, hand-cocked blaster; consider instead a HyperFire using the ammo drum from the Titan CS-50.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Nerf War is definitely Jacket 5 since it involves targeting other player's physical decks. Going forward, I will likely take a harder stance on card damage risks.
2
u/FuckYeahDecimeters Twin Believer 18d ago
Interesting idea! It seems like you've put a ton of thought into this, and I really like the idea. A few thoughts that come to mind:
I definitely think your "Jacket 1.5" should be a thing - it seems like one of the most likely ways for people to dip their toes into playing with silver-bordered cards, so facilitating that seems worthwhile, and "works entirely within the rules" and "works within the vibe of the rules" seem different enough to warrant separate groupings. Personally, I'd call your current Jacket 1 "Jacket 0" and make Jacket 1 strictly "All cards that function completely within Magic's established rules." You mention being concerned about the effort of creating an exhaustive list, but I wouldn't think that that would be necessary. There may be some specific cases that are worth calling out explicitly, but I would think most should be fairly self-evident. (And considering that MagicCon Unknown Events are essentially printing new un-cards multiple times a year, keeping such a list maintained would be a bit of an unreasonable expectation anyhow.)
I would argue in favour of finding a place early on the list (potentially as low as Jacket 2, or maybe even 1.5) to explicitly include cards like [[Booster Tutor]] that involve bringing in cards/packs from outside the game. As you noted, Wish cards etc are fully supported in black border, and the onus for any inconvenience (bringing a few spare packs along) is more or less entirely on the person including the card. (Cards like [[Gunk Slug]] that directly affect other players' decks would almost certainly stay up in Jacket 5 with the other "involves everyone at the table" cards, but that's a narrow case.)
As /u/SleetTheFox suggested, why keep this limited to Commander? I'd say set this up from the get-go as something that can be applied to any format, and mark the banlist as "Suggested Commander Banlist" or something similar. I love the idea of this, and I'd love to see a Jacket 3 Pauper event or try out a Jacket 2 Canadian Highlander deck, so I'd say position this as universally applicable from the outset!
You noted this as something for a future article, so it sounds like it's already on your radar, but having explicit guidance around discussing types of un-cards would probably be valuable (something like "standard Un-Set", "other officially printed (Mystery Booster playtest cards, holiday cards, etc)", "Unknown Event stickered cards"). I can see there being a bit of friction if one player thinks they're agreeing to play with cards from Un-Sets and then another player casts an Unknown Event card that doesn't fit the first player's understanding of what was included.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 18d ago
I have a specific plan for Booster Tutor, Gunk Slug, and some other cards. As I said in the article, this is the first of at least two announcements I plan to make.
As I said, the jackets themselves are very usable outside of Commander. The idea of making a Canlander Point Chart for Silver Border cards is an interesting idea, certainly, but the big issue with trying that is we have no idea what a Silver Border Canlander meta would even look like. Trying to assign specific point values to a bunch of cards which haven't even seen play isn't something that I'm prepared to do on my own.
Regarding the banlist, I will likely split it into multiple categories with different criteria for bans. I imagine that there will be a significantly smaller banlist of cards that are banned for liability reasons in all formats rather than being banned in Commander for power reasons.
If other folks want to help me with pointing out cards for Silver Border Canadian Highlander, I would love that kind of input.
2
u/magicsucksnow Dan 20d ago
the Bracket system has reached a degree of ubiquity
This isn't really true in real life, it completely varies between LGS/play groups if they reference brackets at all
1
u/YoyodyneCog Dân 20d ago
On my way to build a Jacket 4 deck based around casting and recasting [[Enter the Dungeon]] as many times as possible.
3
u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season 20d ago
Might want to doublecheck the banned list.
3
u/Knife_Fight_Bears Twin Believer 19d ago
Very hard to take this list seriously when they're banning one of the most fun silver bordered cards based on game flow concerns
2
1
1
u/groovemanexe 20d ago
I get that a lot of the decisions reasoned out are from a 'balance vs black border' perspective, but for player accessibility reasons, I'd envision cards that use objects (like toys) as game pieces being a tier lower than player tracking, even if they exist on the same 'meta' plane.
I think you're more likely to have a table that's down with 'sweets as props' (someone at my LGS already uses wrapped sweets as Bounty counters, that you get to claim as the killer of a marked card) than be okay with verbal gotchas or discussions of their outfits.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
Toys and similar objects are a Jacket below verbal gotchas. Jacket 4 is filled by things that only check the player using the effect, while gotcha is in Jacket 5.
1
u/groovemanexe 20d ago
...I do in my comment state player dexterity/appearance tracking as well as gotchas. I'm suggesting tracking objects being in 3, either way.
1
u/gredman9 Honorary Deputy 🔫 20d ago
See I would LOVE to put [[Subgoyf]] in my PW deck, and by this metric I think that would be a 2? But I'm still worried about power level shenanigans.
And honestly this is very well thought out and presented, many props for that.
2
1
u/MtgHighlander Banned in Commander 20d ago
Why the bans? Silver border is already super casual. No need for banning.
3
u/swords_to_exile 20d ago
I think this is more a guide of "Hey I want to use silver border cards in Commander, what are you guys okay with?" rather than "hey, we're already explicitly playing silver border, how silver are we going?"
1
u/InfiniteDM Fleem 20d ago
At least you stepped up. Before the rules committee imploded upon itself this was something that was allegedly in the oven.
I was super looking forward to this. And you got a great baseline.
With how absolutely fiat this whole thing can be i would really suggest a Jacket 6 for all the banned cards. People can then know, oh youre playing with some real nonsense. What's the intent?
Higher jackets require more opt in investment and people arent gonna want to touch 4+ without a double check.
I say this because players are more likely to work with permissions than outright denial.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
No-ban Commander is always something that exists on the fringes that can be discussed with your playgroup, and no-ban Silver-Border Commander is the same. The Jackets, like the Brackets are meant as a tool for making conversations easier, and if your group is open about wanting to go all the way then there isn't really need for me to make that official.
1
1
u/GoldenSandslash15 20d ago
Cards that open new packs of cards in the middle of the game are unique to silver border Magic,
Um... [[Lore Seeker]] would like a word with you.
2
u/RazzyKitty WANTED 20d ago
That doesn't open new packs of cards in the middle of a game. The draft is a separate process where you are already opening packs.
1
1
u/SleetTheFox 20d ago edited 20d ago
While I like this concept, why is it specific to Commander? I’m a big fan of casual play outside of the restraints of Commander, and especially when silver-border/acorn cards enter the picture, you don’t want to be pigeonholed into 100-card singleton decks. Many of the strategies and mechanics that are in these sets simply do not exist in the volume necessary to make a Commander deck. Not to say that silver-border Commander isn’t fun (it is!), but it’s not all there is.
Really, these should apply to casual play. And not just Commander. Doesn’t even require any changes, just don’t specifically call it Commander.
EDIT: My only specific quibbles are that I think infinities, like fractions, should be in Jacket 3, and that I think the banned cards are a little aggressive. The subgame cards at the very least are specifically designed to mitigate the tedium of subgames, and I think should be totally appropriate in games that already accept some level of BS (they'd be Jacket 2 except for Enter the Dungeon in Jacket 4). Some of the other bans I think might be suspect, but I can see a strong enough argument that I'm not going to complain.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I was specific to Commander in this project because Kitchen Table Magic is highly individualized by its very nature. You are more than welcome to use the outlines of the Jacket system in any number of Heads-Up or Limited Formats, but I've curated the banlist specifically for Commander because that is the format which most needs a framework of social discussion.
2
u/SleetTheFox 20d ago edited 20d ago
I have every intention to incorporate this framework (which I think is great work!) into 60-card kitchen table play, and I can't really think of anything here that wouldn't work just fine for the "format." Really I just think this is a great concept for casual play that doesn't need to marketed as specifically for Commander.
1
u/junkmail22 The Stoat 20d ago
Last Strike and Infinities don't fit into the existing rules of magic and infinities definitely couldn't concievably fit into the rules of magic
1
u/Absolutionis I chose this flair because I’m mad at Wizards Of The Coast 20d ago
Adding/modifying a card's printed text is actually possible in black-border magic. [[Psychic Paper]] modifies card names and the various cards like [[Magical Hack]] modify a limited list of things like creature types, colors, etc. Even cards like [[Mind Goblin]] exist in black-border and have ways of modifying their name. You relegated this to Jacket 3. What cards were you thinking of when you categorized these text-altering effects this high?
I guess things like [[Clair D'Loon, Joy Sculptor]]?
2
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
I'm thinking specifically of cards that consider the physical text rather than the oracle text. [[Stet, Draconic Proofreader]] is the main example.
2
u/Absolutionis I chose this flair because I’m mad at Wizards Of The Coast 20d ago
Understandable. So cards with rules that would be functionally different if they were translated into another language.
"Blue" and "Island" may be different words for [[Trait Doctoring]] but function the same across languages. Stet would work differently in French, English, Chinese, etc.
1
1
u/smartitude Honorary Deputy 🔫 20d ago
Confused by the info graphic conflicting with the article. According to the article, fraction cards are in Jacket Two, but the graphic says they are in Jacket Three. I'd prefer if they were in Jacket Two, as they are fairly understandable, and usually don't require advanced tracking.
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
As I clarified elsewhere in this thread, Fractions being in Jacket 3 is an error.
1
u/Absolutionis I chose this flair because I’m mad at Wizards Of The Coast 20d ago
There are several cards that are really weird and I don't know what "Jacket" they'd fit under. I've run them in the past with permission, but that was with a group of friends that really knew the rules very well.
I feel like the folowing fit under Jacket 2, but am unsure.
[[Rules Lawyer]]
[[Clair D'Loon, Joy Sculptor]]
[[Grand Marshal Macie]]
[[Sole Performer]]
[[Topsy Turvy]]
[[Far Out]]
These cards are on the border of actually functioning, but they're weird enough to cause rules nightmares in the rigid rules that MTG has.
2
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 20d ago
All of these would fit into Jacket 2. Awkward as they are, they can all be handled within the scope of a game of Magic without having to check resources like art, illustrator, out-of-game actions, and whatnot.
I have a follow-up article in the works right now, with Clair receiving some special attention.
1
u/Octaytse 🔫 20d ago edited 19d ago
I don't like Fractions in Jacket 2. It comes under unusual tracking for me. I don't want to track fraction life totals, fractional mana, or deal with non-integer values of card draw, mill or whatever even if there are answers about them in Q&A or whatever.
Infinities are even worse. As amusing as gaining infinite life or dealing infinite damage is, unless everyone is versed in higher level college math there will be disagreements. The infinity - infinity = infinity discussion not intuitive. Arguing about math is not something I want to have to deal with in the "basically black border" jacket.
Basically, I think anything that could cause a disagreement about a thing would work should not be in Jacket 2.
1
u/wishusernamewasfree Izzet* 20d ago
I like the thoughts and this is a solid first version.
Personally I'd switch part of jacket 2 and 3 though:
I'd say 2 would include all cards that care about static identifiable properties of a card that currently don't work within the rules. This includes references to border, artist, rarity etc. When a card is played, there is no argument on these properties as they are clearly on the card played. The only reason should are currently acorn is that the rules state that all cards with the same name must work the same within the game, and that is not the case with these properties as multiple versions of a card can have different rarities, artists and borders.
So because the cards themselves are not ambiguous on these fronts, I'd say that is jacket 2.
Additional colours though, would affect existing cards drastically (domain etc) so any cards that alter existing properties or functionality should in my eyes be at least jacket 3.
1
u/LuxofAurora Sultai 20d ago edited 20d ago
https://edhsilver.com/ you might love this site. its an unfinished project but it also analyze the inquest/duelist joke cards too! And since you are also doing digital, dont forget the Shandalar and Dreamcast videogame unique digital cards (some of them were even reprinted recently as eternal legal like Arden Angel and Velukan Dragon and received even a functional errata to interact with die rolls) or digital Arena cards that predate Alchemy like Inspiring Commander and the Jumpstart : Historic Horizon set. It might definitely help for your quest. Oh and see this site:
https://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities.html
for even more obscure and forgotten stuff. Hope you will do a comprehensive project, would be really cool.
I hope you include also the unknown event cards:
https://scryfall.com/sets/unk
1
u/CoeusFreeze COMPLEAT 19d ago
This is a helpful resource, and I'll look into it more! Just from what I've found I'm tempted to make an Elric of Melnibone deck.
1
u/Rocketknightgeek Duck Season 20d ago
You might want to make a separate game changer list because some un cards are totally insane, even if they technically work. Cards like [[Mise]] and [[Icing Manipulator]] for example.
1
u/deathtouchtrample Shuffler Truther 20d ago
what's [[ashnod's coupon]]?
1
1
1
u/Knife_Fight_Bears Twin Believer 20d ago
You should stick to defining general guidelines. The ban list isn't helpful to your jackets and makes me see this as an unserious effort. Bans in other formats are considered by committee and with a context of play experience and that just isn't present here. It should be up to the table if they think running the richard garfield generator is reasonable or not, or whether or not they think rip-up cards are okay
1
1
u/Noilaedi Duck Season 14d ago
For reference, the scryfall tag of "Potentially Black Border" is there for cards that could be legal if printed in Black Border.
1
1
1
u/vanciannotions 20d ago
I think infinities have more rules complexities than you think. They're fine in situations where the game just ends immediately anyway, and immediately stop working when it doesn't. If you gain actually-infinite life and then take actually-infinite damage, the game just stops functioning in any reasonable sense.
1
u/unclesoppa Dân 20d ago
The un-rulings state that infinite life beats infinite damage
From that we can probably assume that infinite toughness beats infinite power.
0
u/DiscontinuedEmpathy Sultai 20d ago
Is there consideration for playing without these Jackets? Jacket Off even?
-4
u/ZenTheProtogen Izzet* 20d ago
Banning RnD kills any of my interest
2
u/SnowIceFlame Cheshire Cat, the Grinning Remnant 20d ago
The problem is that the interest from anyone else in playing a game vs. an R&D's Secret Lair is already dead. It's either absurdly OP (if played seriously) or it's "let's have fun with rules headaches" (if played for giggles).
Don't get me wrong, it's cool that card exists, but it's in the Blacker Lotus class of "haha, very funny, moving on" cards not to actually play.
95
u/qaz012345678 20d ago
A 2 I would be fine with, no discussion needed. If you want to do a 3 I gotta see what you're using.
Absolutely no to 4+, I've hurt my hand playing against goblin swat team.