Flowstone Chat: With Shivam Bhatt

In 2019, the Rules Committee, the de facto leadership of the Commander format, added the Commander Advisory Group to its ranks. Various members of this group have spoken online regarding changes and suggestions for the format, but their addition continues to recieve a significant number of questions — including the simplest of "What does the CAG do, exactly?"

To give a bit of a look behind the scenes, while answering a few questions on some of the most hotly debated topics in Commander over the last two years, I spoke with Shivam Bhatt of the Commander Advisory Group, getting a few nice tidbits about how things exactly work, and how Commander rules are made. It's not all business, of course, as I also talk to Shivam about some of his favorite ways of playing Commander. Without further ado, MTGNexus presents the interview, happy reading.

First off, thank you for agreeing to the interview. For those who don't know you, could you tell a bit about yourself, who you are and how you got into Magic and, specifically, Commander?

Sure. My name's Shivam Bhatt and I'm the host of a podcast called Casual Magic. I used to be the co-host (with Phil Deluca and Shawn Whatson) of the Commanderin' MTG Podcast. I'm also a member of the Commander Advisory Group (CAG) that helps the Rules Committee (RC) make decisions regarding Commander.

I've been playing magic for 25 years or so, since about Revised/The Dark, and I got into Commander in 2011 when a few friends of mine suggested I give this format a try on our message board, where we used to play magic by play-by-post games. I was totally enthralled by this idea that I could use my favorite cards from magic's history and build a thematic army around them and I was totally sold.

A draw for the format for many, for sure. How did you end up getting involved with the CAG? And how did you end up as, well, the social media face for the group?

So in 2019, I was in Victoria BC in Canada for the Ravnica Allegiance Pre-Pre-Release when I got a strange email from Sheldon Menery, the godfather of Commander and face of the RC. This email was asking my thoughts about an advisory group to help broaden the reach of the RC and give them more visibility into the community. We'd known each other through him guesting on my podcast, but I honestly don't even know how he got my email.

I sent him my thoughts and he sent a follow up which had two things on it - a, am I interested and b, why it would be a good idea to add me

We went back and forth a bit, and then the RC watched me the next day on the prepre and said something to the effect of "I'd like to play games with him, he seems fun" (a paraphrase), and that coupled with my hard focus on casual fun Commander and my perspective on the game being different from the other folks they'd asked led them to asking me to join the group. As far as how I became the sort-of "press secretary" for the group, well, I'm just really active on social media and always have been. Sheldon is still the face and the voice of the RC, and we're all very happy to have him handle that position, but one of the driving reasons behind the formation of the CAG was to open the doors for communication and to demystify what the group does and why, and the CAG were all chosen because they had different takes on the format, and more importantly, platforms by which to communicate to the community at large.

We don't have a spokesperson, but I post a lot so I end up taking on the role almost by accident.

I feel that makes sense, talkative and extrovert people make for great faces for groups such as the CAG.

It's weird, because I have a very strong position and opinions, and sometimes (many times) the RC has a different take than I do, and I have to explain what they did and why even if it's not what I wanted But part of our mandate was to be the folks who share community concerns up to the RC and share RC ideas with the community, and I take that very seriously.

Which is very evident when one looks at your twitter, found under the name ghirapurigears, where you constantly explain various processes of the CAG and the RC to people asking. What I do see is people wondering how often the RC and the CAG come together to talk about possible changes and the feedback from the community, can you give some insight on that?

We talk pretty regularly in our private discord, but we have official meetings once a quarter right before the next set comes out.

And that is where decisions like bans/unbans or new rules get set in stone, so to speak?

Well, we have a meeting where we discuss rules, go over problem cards and so on, and then the RC has a separate smaller meeting to vote, and then it is locked and announced to the public the monday after prerelease.

Right, that's pretty clear then. Can you give an example of how the CAG has so far influenced the RC's recent discussions, or would that be considered trade secrets and thus banned?

Sure. The CAG has influenced basically everything since we were created. From things like Rule Zero, the banning of Iona, Shield of Emeria and Paradox Engine, the unbanning of Painter's Servant, and some things they considered but we strongly vetoed (that I can't go into specifics about).

Of course, it's good to see that the CAG is already having an effect then, as the Iona & Engine ban, and the unban of Painter's Servant has been pretty impactful on the format at large. Having said that, those bans also seemed to be the starting point in a months long discussion that has been going on all over social media, forums and outlets like Reddit by now - the rift between Competitive Commander (cEDH) and the "rest" of Commander as a whole. Does this get a lot of talk between the CAG and the RC?

The issue of cEDH has not only been a continual discussion point among the CAG and RC, but I'd say it's even been the majority of discussions over the past year, to the point of exhaustion. We're feeling the same fatigue as the community overall about this, honestly.

But it's really important to emphasize that every flavor of EDH is discussed and paid attention to, despite all the talk that we aren't listening.

There has been mention of various discussions involving renowned cEDH players and the RC/CAG as a whole. Is there also anyone on the RC/CAG who plays on cEDH level? And if not, do you think you could give some insight as to how those discussions went?

We have a private discord channel where we have an open line of communication with content creators and format spokesfolk of the cEDH community, and it's been interesting and educational, but Flash is still legal, so... There are a few folks like Rachel on the CAG who definitely play at cEDH level, but overall, the tenor of the CAG and RC leans way heavier into casual. I do think it would be beneficial to add real self-proclaimed cEDH folks to the panel at some point in the future.

That last part is well known, but it certainly helps to know that there are cEDH players on the CAG as well, as it confirms that voices from that tier of play don't fall on deaf ears.

Beyond this, another item that seemed to get quite some passionate debate lately has been the hybrid mana rule. With there being flavorful and game design arguments on opposite sides, do you foresee this discussion ever dying down?

Here's the thing: the designers of magic, who are the main ones pushing for it to change, really like hybrid cause it helps them make cards for draft and also to kind of shore up weaknesses in colors. But Commander's entire focus is color identity, and that is a very, very important part of the aesthetic appeal of the format. As far as the RC is concerned, hybrid is a done deal, and yet the discussion keeps coming up regularly. I don't expect it to change or go away any time soon. I also think that it's OK if there are cards that don't work in every format. No one is writing angry polemics about Dragonlord Kolagan not working as a general, after all, or trying to get Squadron Hawk into EDH.

I for one have had quite some success with a Dragonlord Kolaghan-led deck at my local store, but there'll always be weird exceptions. One final argument about the hybrid mana argument, specifically mentioning the aesthetics, lies with off-color Fetchlands like Flooded Strand in a Tasigur, the Golden Fang deck. How do you feel about the argument that if off-color hybrids aren't allowed, the same should go for off-color fetchlands, keeping in mind that their printing tends to include the color on the card (albeit not in mana symbols).

Fetch lands are irritating aesthetically, and I know the RC has thought about limiting them to on color only, but I think it's just logistically very difficult to do, and if I'm honest, the fact that they make my Titania, Protector of Argoth deck work is an upside for me. Personally, I could go either way on the fetches. I don't really have strong feelings here.

Coincidentally, you mentioning Titania segues neatly into the next part I wanted to talk about. You mentioned you build like a Vorthos, but naturally that runs into problems like, say, running Strip Mine in Titania, which seems completely the opposite of what Titania would ever want. How far do you tend to go in the lore vs effectiveness part of decks built this way?

I do like to put flavor forward, but it's not always the story flavor. In Titania, the flavor I'm going for is the land awakening in wrath, and the land destruction spells fit into that theme really well. But my playstyle is such that I'm never gonna proactively wipe someone's land base, only use the strips and wastes on cards that are super dangerous, like Cabal Coffers or Maze of Ith

How about the other way around, where you're building a thematic deck, and you have some cards that really should be in but just aren't good enough no matter what? Like, say, Squee's Toy in a Weatherlight themed deck? Do you still try to work the card in in that case?

My personal preference is that no card is too bad for Commander. Honestly, though, I think that there's a line to walk. You shouldn't make your deck a complete pile of aesthetic but unplayable cardboard, and you probably don't need to be the bleeding edge of efficiency either. But at the end of the day, play the cards you like.

Are all your decks built around such a story or theme, or do you also have a few "good-stuff" decks as well for when you end up at a higher end table online or at Magicfests? Or is that not necessary by virtue of your decks able to trade punches with such tables anyway?

Some of my decks are story driven, some are mechanical theme driven, and some, like my Breya, Etherium Shaper, are just a pile of my favorite artifacts.

A nice mix of all then. Using the mention of Magicfests and online play, I would like to circle back briefly to discussions that have been had online. Back at the April 2019 banlist, Rule 0 got announced. The concept behind Rule 0 appears to be - and do correct me if I'm wrong - to formalize the basic philosophy behind Commander. However, it's often used in discussions online as a way to shut down talks about more controversial subjects under the umbrella of "Just rule 0 it with your playgroup". In this era of Magicfests drawing great Commander crowds, online pickup games, and large playgroups with ever-changing amounts of regulars, is this the right way to go about it?

I am a huge proponent of rule 0. I think folks misunderstand the point of rule 0, though. What we were going for was simply this — when you sit down to play a game of Commander, talk to the folks you are playing with and ask them if this is gonna be a stronger game or more relaxed game. Rule 0 is telling the folks you're playing with that you have a few silver cards in your deck and asking if it's ok. It's saying 'hey, I'm trying out this Kaya, Ghost Assassin Planeswalker EDH deck, do you mind?" Magic fests and stores are why rule 0 exists, because it is assumed that with your own playgroup this is already just the way. It's hard to change the rules of Commander. There are a lot of moving parts folks don't consider, like magic online, products being printed, cards being designed, and so on. And more than that, we don't want to change rules that impact a small portion of the player base with neutral or negative impact on the rest. Magic is already an incredibly difficult thing to learn without shifting the game around a lot. And some of the things folks are asking for are huge, significant changes for the format as a whole, but a simple 2 sentence conversation with the folks you're playing with on a personal level.

Such as, for example, Wishes? Another item that has come up recently, albeit seemingly not in as large a debate as previously mentioned points of contention.

I was going to say gold bordered cards, but wishes work, sure. Adding wish boards to edh is a pretty epic change. Asking your playgroup or Commander table if you can have a wish board for Spawnsire of Ulamog isn't that big of a deal.

Speaking of Spawnsire, you mentioned on Twitter that that is one of those cards you'd like to see being usable, although the framework of the rules currently prevents such in general. Are there any other pet cards or rules that you would personally like to see being made legal or changed, but don't see happening anytime soon?

This is a bit of a challenging question for me, because if I want something to happen, I can actually try to make it happen. Seriously, I think that EDH is in a fantastic place right now, and I don't think there's anything particularly that I wish I could use that I can't.

Realistically speaking, I mean. Because I'd love to see Tolarian Academy unbanned, even though I know it is the dumbest possible card to unban.

Given what I recall from Sheldon, he might argue Balance would be even worse, but that too is a good one.

On a more casual note, are there any cards or strategies that you'd like to play but just haven't been able to make work the way you want them to?

It's my dream to play a deck where Mahamoti Djinn can be the all star that I believe he is.

Being an uncommon these days, you could make a Pauper Commander deck out of him. Speaking of such formats, do you also play, or have you played any of the other offshoots of Commander such as Brawl, Oathbreaker, Tiny Leaders or indeed Pauper?

I'm a huge fan of brawl. I love the limited card pool, because it forces you to play Commander with sub-optimal cards and it just reminds me of the olden days of EDH. I've tried Oathbreaker, and while it's not my jam, I appreciate that it exists for folks who like planeswalkers.

Alright. Then to cap off this interview, one final question regarding the CAG and the RC.

What would you say is the best way to go about bringing something to the attention of the CAG & RC?

Almost certainly twitter. we're all available and accessible there.

Then that about wraps up the questions I had for you. Do you have anything you'd like to see to those reading this interview yourself?

No, I think this covers it. I'm always happy to discuss Commander with everyone on twitter, so feel free to hit me up any time!

I'm certain many people will. Thank you very much for agreeing to the interview.

For sure! Thanks for having me.

Shivam's Podcast can be found on Spotify, with weekly episodes about Casual Magic.

To contact him directly, or just get more insights into the workings of the CAG as a whole, you can follow him on Twitter, and contact him there.

For MTGNexus, I've been MorganeLeFay, and you can also find me on Twitter, where beyond my personal opinions I'll also post updates on new articles, and occasional MTG news, with a focus on Commander. I hope you enjoyed reading, and see you next time.

And special thanks once again to Shivam for agreeing to this interview, and to the CAG for the work they have done for the format so far.