OPINION: Commander Is Ruining Our Regular Constructed Formats — Here’s Why

Last updated on September 13, 2024

Nadu and Hogaak – Illustrations by Daren Bader + Vincent Proce

While bans are not uncommon in Magic: The Gathering and other strategy games, they often spark debates about whether certain cards should exist in the first place. This conversation gained momentum with the recent controversy surrounding Nadu, Winged Wisdom. While intended to enhance the multiplayer experience, these cards often spill over into other formats, creating imbalances and frustrations for players who prefer traditional constructed play. 

This raises a critical question: Is Commander, once a casual and community-driven format, now undermining the balance and integrity of other constructed formats? Or is it simply a case of Wizards of the Coast needing to manage better the power creep and design philosophy of new sets? 

Let's dive into the issue and explore why Commander might be ruining our regular constructed formats.

Nadu Was Designed and Balanced for EDH

After Nadu, Winged Wisdom dominated the Pro Tour Modern Horizons 3 back in June, also dubbed the “Pro Tour Nadu,” players widely expected a ban in the following update. However, the ban didn't come until the August 26th scheduled announcement when Wizards of the Coast finally took action to restore balance to the Modern format.

Michael Majors, the senior game designer who worked on Modern Horizons 3, admitted that Nadu, Winged Wisdom was a design mistake. 

Originally intended to be a build-around for Commander, the card became problematic in competitive formats due to its ability to create long combos and dominate games. Majors explained that Nadu originally had a flash ability that was too strong in EDH. That design, which was playtested in Modern, was then scrapped due to being too broken in EDH.

Credit: Jake & Joel MTG

This back and forth on card design for Commander clearly shows where the focus of the R&D team was on this card. Majors even stated that they wanted the card to “have an audience or a home” in the Commander format and that this philosophy “resulted in the final text” on the card.

Due to all of these last-minute changes, the card's abilities and its interactions were overlooked. Majors said they went with the final version without any testing in Modern due to the time constraints of altering Nadu for Commander.

“We didn't playtest with Nadu's final iteration, as we were too far along in the process, and it shipped as-is,” Majors said.

That said, Mark Rosewater's response on his blog offers some insight regarding the influence of Commander in today’s Magic and why this is a problem.

“Only a certain percentage of any set can be designed for top-end competitive tournament play,” Rosewater said. “This means every set is going to have some cards designed for casual play, and whenever you think about casual play, you consider Commander.”

The Real Problem

In my eyes, the issue isn't just that they took too long to address the problem, especially since Nadu was a clear offender, but rather why it was designed this way in the first place and how it ended up in Modern at all. I understand Mark Rosewater's point on some cards being designed for casual play, but this type of card has consistently bled into other constructed formats in unintended and broken ways. 

Majors' response was more introspective, acknowledging specific mistakes and their consequences, while MaRo's was more outward-facing, defending the broader design strategy. The message was clear: the game’s design philosophy has shifted to prioritize the player base's largest and most profitable segment and that philosophy presents itself even in format-specific supplementary sets.

This isn't a new approach, though. Maro also expressed this on his podcast a few years ago, explicitly saying, “Magic by its nature shifts where its audience wants it to be,” highlighting a fundamental shift in design priorities that led to problematic cards like Nadu slipping through the cracks.

While this is true, especially if you dive into platforms like YouTube, where you can see the vast difference of views on Commander gameplay videos vs. other formats, the reality is that you will still impact many people who may have other interests when playing the game. If you're going to design some cards for these casual settings, and those cards will be legal in other constructed and competitive formats, then they should receive just as much if not more attention during playtesting.

Similar Cards That Ended up Being TOO Good

The “Nadu Theorem”—a term I’ll use to describe cards designed for Commander that unexpectedly dominate other formats—has become increasingly prevalent as multiplayer formats gain popularity. This phenomenon highlights a recurring issue where cards intended to shine in Commander have an outsized impact on Constructed formats, often leading to their banning.

Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis is a prime example. Printed in Modern Horizons, Hogaak was designed as a powerful creature for Modern but with potential appeal to Commander players. It created a single, overwhelming archetype that overshadowed other strategies and interactions in Modern. Its dominance led to its banning after it proved too powerful and resilient, outshining other deck types and leading to a less enjoyable format. Fun fact: both Nadu and Hogaak were legal for exactly 73 days, according to RhysticStudies.

Additionally, multiplayer mechanics such as Monarch and the Initiative have had surprising impacts on Constructed formats like Pauper, Legacy, and even Duel Commander. 

While these mechanics are designed to add depth and intrigue to multiplayer games, they have led to numerous bans in Pauper due to their overwhelming effect on gameplay and balance. When printed as commons, cards with these mechanics often disrupt the format’s equilibrium, forcing Wizards to intervene.

In formats like Duel Commander or Legacy, the combination of these mechanics with high-stat creatures further amplifies their disruptive potential. Both examples illustrate how multiplayer-focused designs can inadvertently overshadow Constructed formats. 

Will WotC Ever Address the Problem?

Major’s response only gives the impression that they have learned their lessons about card playtesting, and I imagine they would set aside some more time to re-evaluate cards.

Aaron Forsythe, Vice-President of Magic Design, has also stated that the way this situation was handled was wrong and that they will take action to avoid repeat mistakes in further sets.

The bottom line is that the Nadu problem happened because it was an even stronger card that was nerfed. However, because too little time was spent on it, the final version was not playtested, and the result was overlooked. Design and logistical failures are the two key factors that played a big role here. The issue could’ve been mitigated though by not being conservative with bannings or waiting until the scheduled announcement one month after PT MH3.

Overall, WotC is already aware of these and is committed to making more effort to avoid similar problems in the future.

Is this enough or effective? There are certainly a few things they could also implement that I will mention briefly, but the fact that they have taken ownership of what at least has failed is encouraging.

This is likely not the last time we see some Commander-driven cards being too much for some constructed format, though. The more WotC focuses on the multiplayer environment, the greater the chance it could happen again.

How I Think Things Could Improve

Hopeful Initiate – Illustration by Dan Scott

Addressing the problem of cards designed for one format but impacting others is a complex issue for Wizards of the Coast, and I see several potential avenues through which they might address it.

Improved Testing and Design

While obvious, WotC could enhance its playtesting processes, particularly for cards intended for Commander, but that might influence other formats. The main driver of Nadu's dominance was the fact it was adjusted for a format other than the set's intent, Commander, and not playtested afterward for Modern.

Obviously, they playtest the set for its main format, but if Commander and casual formats take up as much space in the design stage as Mark Rosewater said they do, then those cards specifically should receive additional attention afterward for all of their legal formats.

Format-Specific Mechanics and Products

Introducing more mechanics or design elements explicitly tailored for Commander could mitigate cross-format issues. For example, designing cards with powerful effects or synergies in Commander but less impactful in Constructed formats would help balance their influence. An approach similar to the “Partner” mechanic, which works well in Commander but has limited impact in other formats, could be beneficial.

Something like this could've been done with Nadu. WotC could've added a clause that the land couldn't share a name with another land you control. That would've made it equally powerful for Commander, but not nearly as strong in 60-card constructed.

Alternatively, Nadu could’ve been placed into a preconstructed commander deck rather than the main set. Majors clearly had Commander at the focus for this card, so why didn't it go into the Commander-specific product? Legacy has not had nearly as severe an issue with Nadu as Modern, and that means no 60-card construction playtesting would need to be done whatsoever.

Wrap Up

While the designer of Nadu and the Vice President of Design have shown a willingness to address the issues related to the card, the underlying concern may be tied to the broader direction of Magic's design, as suggested by Mark Rosewater. The increased focus on Commander and increasing play might continue to influence design decisions in ways that affect balance and playtesting.

What do you think about this shift in focus? Let us know in the comments!

As always, thanks for reading up until now. If you want to stay connected with us, follow us on social media and join our Discord community to never miss an MTG-related update!

Take care, and we’ll meet again in the next article.