On Mana Value and Restrictions
On Mana Value and Restrictions in TL:R
Gray Beadle, Rules and Policy Manager
The past couple of days have really hammered home for me how little the general player base understands the behind-the-scenes that goes into not only creating and maintaining rules and policy, but also creating, curating, and maintaining a format. Most already know that one of the primary roles of a Judge is to be a bridge of sorts between the general player base and rules and policy. Usually this only goes as far as the “how”, and not the “why”. My case is rather unique, as while I do write and (try to) maintain the rules and policy supplements, it is not my vision that guides me; rather my efforts are guided by the ideal of what TL:R is and what the Committee wants for the format. That being said, it does give me some insight into the reasons behind certain choices made, and hopefully I can convey those reasons in a sufficiently cohesive manner.
First, I’d like to address the minor issue of {X} spells and split cards. While this wasn’t a decision made by the current Committee, the decision was made to maintain the previous rendition. For split cards this makes a lot of sense. Current Magic rules dictate the mana value (hereafter MV) of a split card is the combined total of both halves, and there was no compelling reason to carve out an exception in the supplemental rules. The rules I wrote were very intentionally written to be supplemental:
By minimizing the back-end it saves all of us a lot of headache.
The base rules of Magic by default apply to TL:R, which reduces the up front cognitive load and by extension the barrier to entry of the format.
Any updates to the Magic Comprehensive Rules are automatically applied to TL:R, meaning there is zero delay or confusion on the vast majority of rules updates. The updates that do need to be made can be done quickly and easily, and can largely be foreseen (for example the change to add Adventure costs to color identity).
The supplemental documents are kept short and simple, and anything in them is guaranteed to apply to the format, and by extension makes the documents easier to read and search.
Furthermore, to carve out an exception to split cards would be a lot more intensive that would seem at first glance. I highly encourage anyone who thinks any given process (which this would be, as I’ll get to) is simple to read the process for casting a spell (CR 601). As you do, I’d like you to not just gloss over, but to actually read each step and consider how much different the game would be if shortcuts didn’t exist. To carve out an exception for split cards would require the following considerations:
To add a rule redefine the rule regarding how MV is calculated for a split card, and add it as an exception to the normal rules for Magic
Another rule to clarify that both sides still count for color identity
Another rule clarifying each side must still be MV 3 or less
Yet another rule either allowing or disallowing split cards with Fuse
If Fuse is allowed, a rule clarifying how that works in TL:R
While technically yes, all of that could be written as one rule, that’s not how the convention for Magic rules is done. Each individual specific point is treated as its own rule. It has to be written that way. Otherwise updates, changes, obsolescence, and referencing all become much more difficult to achieve in a reliable and concise manner, and the problem only compounds as the documents grow.
{X} spells are, to me, a slightly contentious gray area (pun intended). I see the validity of arguments on both sides of the aisle. The deciding factor in my eyes comes down to gameplay and complexity. It would be all too easy to make {X} spells not legal in the format. Again, though, more rules means greater divergence from existing Magic, which creates greater dissonance and a higher barrier to entry to the format. All of that is predicated on the argument of, essentially, “X can make the MV greater than 3 while it’s on the stack”. While this is true, this argument starts to fall apart when applied elsewhere. Does this mean we have to ban any/all stacks pieces? After all, Thalia makes Lingering Souls cost 4. Plus, now we are evaluating cards in specific situations, which is not a good path to go down in the context of rules, which need to be as universally applicable as possible. No one wants to open a rule book and see “In the case of A, do one thing, but if B, do something else, and if C you can’t do anything”. Complexity has now left the solar system, and the juice is not worth the squeeze. It makes worlds more sense to evaluate each card in the meta on a case-by-case basis and ban as needed. Additionally, a hard cap of 3 mana would severely restrict things. {X} acts as a balancing mechanic, of sorts. It’s a means of spending mana early, and catching up late. Bad when missing land drops and a good draw when flooded. When the best card in both players deck is costed 3, it really limits the ability to come back from behind, or to even break a board stall. Overall, the positive value brought to the format by {X} spells far outweighs the added baggage that removing them would bring.
“Now hold on”, you may say, “why not do that for MDFCs? You already allow Adventures > 3.” Let’s talk about Adventures. Adventure spells are always an instant or a sorcery, never a permanent, and are always “attached” to a permanent. This makes them more akin to an activated ability on a permanent than a MDFC, and I have yet to hear anyone voice a complaint about activated abilities in any way, shape, or form. Add in that Adventures offer more points of interaction, hitting the stack more often and as more card types. Adventures and their accompanying permanents also tend to be overcosted, which further limits the available pool for TL:R, at least in terms of viability if not legality.
Finally, here we are at the heart of the controversy: MDFCs. I have stated multiple times that each exception we have made requires a compelling reason to be worth the added complexity and increased barrier to entry. To start, this was a decision made by previous Committees. Decisions made while establishing a thing, especially when that thing turns out successful, carry a lot of weight. “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” persists to this day because it’s not wrong a lot of the time. Plus, there is something to be said about tradition and identity, from an outside perspective the idea of a 4+ mana card in a “tiny” format doesn't vibe, and definitely would be harder to explain to someone new to Magic than the current rule: everything has to be 3 or less, except Adventures and the backs of cards, why, because it's the rule; vs everything 3 or less, except Adventures, why, it's like part of the card rather than a separate card. MDFCs are also relatively new, and the pool is very small. This allows us to more critically look at the cards themselves. Out of 70 MDFCs currently printed, 14 are not legal because of the current rule. Out of those 14, only 3 have been the topic of discussion: Valki, Birgi, and Esika. For the statistics people, that’s roughly 4.2% of the pool. There are 7 other potential commanders made illegal that aren’t part of this discussion. The on the scale of “Is It Worth the Baggage?”, the needle moves towards “yes” when the arguments are all favoring a historically problematic card, a known combo piece, and “generic 5c good stuff”. All three of the most discussed cards are Legendary, which means they can sit in the command zone. That alone warps the scales to an excessive degree. The inconsistency in card type also moves the needle towards “yes”, as it becomes hard to explain why a format defined by a 3 mana restriction allows a 5 mana artifact to sit in the command zone. While generally I am very much not in favor of “doing stuff just to do stuff”, this rule makes a lot of sense when you look through the lens of “every card has to be 3 or less”, and from a different perspective each side could be considered a different card.
The summation of all of this is that you are not always going to agree with everything. I wrote the documents and don’t always 100% agree with everything in them. However, I understand why things are that way. It’s ok to not like things and disagree, and it’s ok to voice that disagreement in a productive way. One of the best lessons from my time in the military was pointing out problems, real or perceived, is just complaining. If you want to be heard and garner respect, point out a problem and bring an idea for a solution. Even when that solution isn’t used, people will see you want to solve the problem rather than waiting for someone else to do it for you. I am always (within reason) willing to listen to those that have concerns and possible solutions. If you don’t want to hear “that’s just the way it is”, have more to offer the conversation than “i don’t like it”. Until next time, be safe, be well, and be good to each other.
Your Friendly Local(ish) L2, Gray