E013 – Sheldon Menery – Commanderin’ MTG Podcast


Sheldon Menery comes Commanderin’ to talk about a myriad of commander-related topics! Want to learn how to get on the EDH Rules Committee? Listen to this episode! Want to hear Sheldon laugh? Listen to this episode! Want to hear Commander Jesus refuse to cure Sean? Listen to this Episode!

Sheldon is an excellent guest, and he takes us back to the dawn of time and describes his efforts to popularize the format.

Sheldon’s current favorite deck: Yasova Dragonclaw, complete with play-by-play. Updated version as of 11 AUG 2015 is at DeckStats.

Sheldon is a fan of the Outlander TV series: IMDB (general spoiler warning applies).

These are the Commander Rules Committee (RC) members as of 22 AUG 2015:
Sheldon Menery
Toby Elliot
Gavin Duggan
Scott Larabee
Alex Kenney

These are former RC members:
Duncan MacGregor
Devon Rule

Find Sheldon on Twitter, Facebook, and Star City Games. Read his articles, they are golden wisdom.

Our web site is: https://commanderinmtg.com/

You can find us on Twitter:

The podcast – @commanderinmtg
Phil – @ketjak
Sean – @copain26
Nate – @misterplorg

Our email: cast@commanderinmtg.com

Our theme song was created for the podcast by Nate Burgess.

Our logo was created for the podcast by Mr Picto, with assistance from Kelle DeLuca. You can find more art from Mr Picto by going to mrpicto.co.uk.

Special thanks to tech wizzes Jessie Thomson and Graham Frank, and to Justin for the server space.

© Copyright 2015 Commanderin’ MTG Podcast

5 thoughts on “E013 – Sheldon Menery – Commanderin’ MTG Podcast

  1. I feel like you guys really softballed this one. I don’t see why its worth asking questions regarding the RC’s decision-making process or previous decisions if you’re just going to agree with him. Especially after hearing Sean bring up heavy blue/black strategies and bring up Jester’s Cap as a hate card against strategies that heavily rely on a few cards I expected a bit more push on the “Tuck Debate”. I think you missed a real opportunity to tie that in when Sheldon brought up how Karador decks should be built to fight around grave hate.

    Also something I think would be interesting to see talked about is that MTG Goldfish has been publishing articles regarding analyzing the data from 28k games of modern and 85k games of standard, has anything like this been attempted regarding Commander? I think there is a significant (though perhaps not representative) number of games of Commander played on MTGO and Cockatrice, both make the task of data analysis much easier. Even EDHrec has been able to do a huge amount of analysis for Commander with very little financial backing, it seems odd that the people who seem to be be putting forth the least effort to understand the worldwide meta are the people in charge.

    Additionally. regarding Deadeye Navigator, he is very vulnerable to spot removal in response to the soulbound trigger either when either creature enters the battlefield (including when they blink something) which I think is worth mentioning in a bit more detail as a PSA against a card many people seems to struggle against.

    1. Forgot one point: I was very surprised to hear someone say that as a result of the tuck rule change they had taken some tutors out of their deck, not only have I never met anyone in person who has done that I’ve literally never heard anyone else say that before. The only possible explanation is that your playgroup has some kind of soft ban or points system that punishes tutors, other than that I’m at a loss to explain how a Ghave or Jarad deck isn’t strictly better and absolutely in colors that should be tutoring.

      1. Hi Azreal,

        I don’t recall saying I reduced my tutors because of the tuck rule change – I could easily have been unclear, though, and led folks to believe that. Mainly, I removed tutors because I like the variance more than the reliability. I suppose, in some alternate universe I, personally, create in which the results actually mattered, I would reinsert tutors for the less-effective cards in whatever deck it is. *I* don’t care about winning as much as I like watching convoluted plans click into place to grind the other machines to death, and tutors bring a certain… regularity to the experience. I’m having more fun as a result.

        As for the tuck rule change debate – there is no debate. The rule has been changed. I don’t see the reward in pursuing that since the RC made a decision already and aren’t going to reverse it without a strong opinion otherwise. Since the change, I *have* felt more free to use more commanders that I previously didn’t, and while I feel some are unfair (Voltrons especially) it is not the world-ending change some folks thought it would be. My current feelings on the tuck change are different from what they were when it was announced.

        As for your points on data analysis, I think I agree. Collecting that data is probably easier than it seems, but, then, I work with big data systems and so it’s not as opaque to me. We’ll talk to someone about the data collection challenge in a few weeks, and maybe we can illustrate a way to do it.

        Thanks for writing – these were points I actually wanted to make but lost them in the ebb-and-flow of recording a podcast with three other people.


        1. Hey first of all thanks for taking the time to respond.

          I probably misinterpreted your comment on tutors, I think the confusion was that it was mentioned during a discussion of the tuck rule and one of their bullet points had to do with reducing tutor counts.

          My point about the tuck rule debate ( I’ll maintain it is a debate, the conversation doesn’t need to be one that has a reasonable goal to change anything to be a debate among members of the community) is more about making sure that the RC is aware of the kind of response they’re getting. I actually totally agree that the change has had very little noticeable effect on my meta. I also totally agree that it should have been that way from the beginning, but since it wasn’t I think it should be noted the way people are perceiving the way decisions are made especially ones that got tacit encouragement from the WOTC Commander products and that have been a part of the format for as long as most people have been playing. I can understand that Sheldon and the RC see this as their own project and that they have their own vision but I think the shockwaves that this (relatively minor) change sent out should be noticed as a warning that these kinds of surprise decisions run the risk of fracturing the format into “offical rules” and “house rules” groups, making play at an LGS or with strangers in general much more difficult to manage. I’m not saying that you guys needed to yell at him or anything, but I think the way these changes are brought in is reducing many people’s confidence in the future of the format. These feelings may not be valid or justified but it is something I’m seeing more and more.

          A side not about the tuck rule that as much as I don’t like the “feels bads” reasoning on its face, there is certain legitimacy to it in that newer players are much more likely to build around their commander almost entirely and getting your Krenko tucked a few times can easily turn people off to the format. I think destroy/exile do a fine job keeping most commanders in check and make the format a bit more accessible which should always be at the forefront of rules conversations.

          1. Azreal, that’s an excellent point about the risk of fracturing the format, and one we’ve been discussing around the campfire while we throw cards at one another. I think we’ll end up talking about that some day when we break the mics out.

            I think we don’t run enough exile effects in our decks. At least I don’t – I have to keep Sean’s and Nate’s commanders in exile as much as possible.

Comments are closed.