Split Cards, Split Decisions
Foreword
Recently, the TL:R community was shaken to varying degrees by what was to most an unforeseen, unexpected, and unnecessary change to the format rules. Here I will attempt to describe the series of events that led up to the change, some of the process behind it, what the change actually means, and announce a nonfunctional update with that change. To read that announcement, scroll to "An Identity of Our Own".
Bottom Line Up Front: a nonfunction rules update will introduce the concepts of “Tiny” and <cost identity> (skip to the announcement for details). This nonfunctional (meaning has no effect on the function of the rules or the game) will define and use these concepts to help players of all skill and experience levels better understand, apply, and explain the updated rules as well as help with as-yet-unseen hurdles. Explicitly:
A card’s <cost identity> is the set of each mana value among all sets of characteristics on a card; put simply, the mana cost of each distinctly defined set is applied toward <cost identity>. A card is considered “Tiny” if, and only if, each value in its <cost identity> is ≤ 3. In other words, if any value in a <cost identity> is > 3, a card is not Tiny.
Looking Ahead By Looking Back
The whole discussion started soon after Peter Parker // Amazing Spider-Man was spoiled. Looking at the previewed cards, I noticed many of the upcoming legendary creatures had one major problem in common: regardless of potential playability, all or almost all of them that had a “Tiny” front face had a back face that wasn’t. It was readily apparent these transforming MDFCs weren’t going to require a major CR overhaul, and so I thought it safe to assume these would be treated like any other MDFC in-as-much as our format was concerned.
This raised the question: with all these new, potentially very popular, potentially highly playable commanders, should we (the Committee, Consultants, and Advisors) revisit the format rules for mana value restriction? Initially, I didn’t think it was going to be a Big DealⓇ, a quick back-and-forth then dismissed as not worth it to change anything. Now, I’ve been wrong before, but I was not expecting the series of events that followed one (ostensibly) simple question.
Visions of Beyond
As you may well have noticed, the original question was only about DFCs, specifically modal DFCs. Not long after I brought that question to the Committee, someone posited that this might be a chance to better clarify and define not only the format’s identity, but also the Committee’s philosophy and vision. So I laid out a series of potential options for discussion, still naively thinking this would be quick and easy: a rule that simply would have removed the exception that allows the back face to be evaluated, and two that are similar, if not identical, to the rules implemented in the recent update.
What I thought would be at most a few days of brief discussion led to over two months of deep, sometimes heated, debate with every member having an opinion on at least one aspect of the topic. This is a good thing: people having strong, informed opinions means they are invested and they care; defending those opinions effectively means they are knowledgeable and they care; engaging in discourse means they are reasonable and they care. The underlying motif is: the folks heading the format are not there by accident or happenchance; each one is invested in the health and success of the format, and having divergence in thought is one way to prevent stagnation.
Out of these debates arose first the vision of the format, which then shaped the formation of the philosophy, which in turn helped people determine which path they thought was better for the format. In short, these talks weren’t just about the rules (in fact, I’d argue the rules themselves were merely a byproduct), and much of the results are under the surface and more important.
(Un?)Friendly Neighborhood
Reading people’s reactions to the update, my initial assessment was that much of the negative feedback was likely due to a combination of three things: first and foremost, the most common recurring theme was confusion, ie what does this change mean/do? Second, it felt like most of the more verbose commenters were more upset about the suddenness of the update than the update itself; and third was that it was a change, exacerbated by the confusion. Taken together, you have a sudden change that is not well understood; a recipe for frustration.
Hindsight is often 20/20, which means it’s great for seeing where errors were made so you can learn from them; the danger lies in treating what could or should have been done yet wasn’t as the focal point, rather than the lesson for the future. As an example, I underevaluated the initial question; I thought I asked “do we need to change how we treat DFCs”, when in reality the issue extended all the way to the lack of a clear, defining format philosophy and vision. I also both underestimated the initial response and the reasons for it; the former was met with near-instant correction upon announcement, the latter took some time as I read and processed posts and replies. Over the following couple of days, as the initial intensity faded, M1-K3 re-introduced a concept that had been initially tabled in favor of other priorities; an idea brought to him by Jesh, one of the more active members of the Discord:
An Identity of Our Own
The most common recurring theme surrounding the controversy of the rules update centered around confusion regarding what the update actually meant and/or did. For those of us on the Committee side, it seemed simple enough; all we did was, to paraphrase M1-K3, make it so each “card” on a piece of cardboard was evaluated separately. What we failed to take into account was how deeply entrenched the definition of “mana value” was, to the point where at least one commenter accused us of re-defining the term. This both highlighted an oversight and presented a problem.
To help counter this confusion among current players and circumvent it for new and prospective players, Jesh had the idea to piggyback off color identity; <commander> uses <color identity> as a similar yet disparate concept to <color> as a way to further restrict deckbuilding, so why can’t we do the same? Introducing <cost identity> and “Tiny”! M1-K3 had the idea of “Tiny” being an encapsulating concept within the format; something to help not only distinguish TL:R from other (possibly similar) formats but also something to be uniquely ours. Many formats have something iconic, a card, mechanism, or flavor that brings that playstyle to mind even in a vacuum. Vintage has the Power 9; draft has the concepts of “BREAD”, “chaff”, and “bombs”; and even cube has its level of customization as a unique selling point. As a bonus, Tiny is not only a word immediately referential to the format, the word itself is evocative of the core identity of the format: Tiny spells for Tiny Leaders!
Jesh’s idea of <cost identity> has been of great interest to several members of the Committee since its introduction. While the name itself is, shall we say, a tad clunky, it does three things very well: First, it “piggybacks” off the concept of <color identity>, a principle used in many disciplines that relies on prior knowledge to improve learning and retention of new knowledge. Second, it further separates the function of the concept from the in-game function of <mana cost> and <mana value>, reducing points of overlap and confusion while still integrating these known quantities in a recognizable way. Third, the idea further solidifies that it only applies to deckbuilding, and has no application or purpose beyond that (color identity itself is only referenced on a handful of cards, and has no bearing beyond those specific examples), further reducing potential points of conflict.
A card’s <cost identity> includes each <mana value> found on a card, much like <color identity> includes each <color> found on a card; a cost is considered “Tiny” if the value of that cost is ≤ 3. A card is considered “Tiny” if each value in its identity ≤ 3. The rules will receive a nonfunctional (meaning the update doesn’t change how the rules function) update to include these “new” concepts and reflect their use. Still a bit confused? That’s perfectly fine, new things often are confusing, so here are some examples:
Thran Dynamo has a mana cost of {4}. It has a mana value of 4. Its cost identity is [4]. Since 4 > 3, Thran Dynamo is not Tiny.
Cathartic Reunion has a mana cost of {1R}. It has a mana value of 2. Its cost identity is [2]. Since 2 ≤ 3, Cathartic Reunion is Tiny.
Peter Parker // Amazing Spider-Man is a Modal Double-Faced Card that has a front face mana cost of {1W} and a back face mana cost of {1GWU}. It has a mana value of 2. Its cost identity is [2, 4]. Since 4 > 3, Peter is not Tiny.
Sink into Stupor // Soporific Springs is an MDFC that has a front face mana cost of {1UU} and a back face that’s a land (and therefore no mana cost). It has a mana value of 3. Its cost identity is [0, 3]. Since 3 ≤ 3, Sink into Stupor // Soporific Springs is Tiny.
Bonecrusher Giant // Stomp is an Adventure that has a primary characteristic mana cost of {2R} and an alternative characteristic (Adventure) mana cost of {1R}. It has a mana value of 3. Its cost identity is [2, 3]. Since 3 ≤ 3, Bonecrusher Giant is Tiny.
Flaxen Intruder // Welcome Home is an Adventure with a primary mana cost of {G} and an alternative mana cost of {5GG}. It has a mana value of 1. Its cost identity is [1, 7]. Since 7 > 3, Flaxen Intruder is not Tiny.
Painter’s Studio // Defaced Gallery is a split card with a combined mana cost of {3RR}. Painter’s Studio has a mana cost of {2R} and Defaced Gallery has a mana cost of {1R}. It has a mana value on the stack of whichever half is being cast (either 2 or 3). It has a mana value on the battlefield of whichever halves are unlocked (either 0, 2, 3, or 5). Elsewhere it has its combined mana value of 5. Its cost identity is [2, 3], the values of each half. Since 3 ≤ 3, Painter’s Studio // Defaced Gallery is Tiny.
Armed // Dangerous is a split card. It has a combined <mana cost> of {4RG}. It has a mana value of 6. Armed has a mana cost of {1R}. Dangerous has a mana cost of {3G}. It has a mana value of 6. Its cost identity is [2, 4]. Since 4 > 3, Armed // Dangerous is not Tiny.