Welcome to Ludology, an analytical discussion of the hows and whys of the world of board games. Rather than news and reviews, Ludology explores a variety of topics about games from a wider lens, as well as discuss game history, game design and game players.
We post a new Ludology episode every other week. In these episodes, hosts Erica Bouyouris and Sen-Foong Lim deep-dive into a single topic within game design, often with a well-regarded guest from the game industry. We generally focus on tabletop game design (mainly board games and RPGs), but we often pull in experts from all forms of games, from video games to escape rooms to slot machines.
On weeks where there is no flagship Ludology episode, we will alternate between two smaller mini-sodes. Erica and Sen are happy to announce that Sarah Shipp of Shippboard Games and Stephanie Campbell of TTRPGKids will be joining us for the next year, providing additional content between our longer episodes.
Sarah’s segment, Thinking Beyond Mechanisms, is a monthly feature that dives deeper into the other aspects of games beyond the dice and cards we’re all familiar with.
Stephanie’s segment, TTRPGKids, explores how parents and teachers can use role playing games with children in the home and in the classroom.
We hope you enjoy the additional content!
Our History
We aim for most Ludology episodes to be timeless, so you are welcome to explore our entire catalog. Most of it should age quite well. The podcast was started in 2011 by Geoff Engelstein and Ryan Sturm, with Mike Fitzgerald taking over for Ryan in 2015. Gil and Scott joined the show in 2017 when Mike stepped aside, and Emma joined in 2019 when Geoff ended his tenure as host. Emma left in 2021, and Erica and Sen joined us. Since then, Scott stepped down in 2022 and Gil will be hanging up his mic in 2023, leaving Erica and Sen to carry on this amazing legacy.
Erica and Sen are working to bring new voices to Ludology and have some great things to announce as gaming expands to include even more people!
Contact Us
Have your own thoughts about our topics? We encourage you to visit us at our guild on Boardgamegeek to get involved in a continuing discussion.
If you have questions that you’d like answered on Ludology, let us know by filling out this Google Form; you can also leave an audio question that we can use on the show, if you wish!
You can also make a one-time or monthly donation here. The link will take you to Erica’s account. People who donate in this way will not have access to the Patreon page – sorry!
Introduction by Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s Game Developer, Fred Schachter: When ACME Designers Chris & Mark, as well as myself, first read in BGG James Lowry’s entertaining ACME Game After Action Report, we thought “Wow, wouldn’t this, with a bit of editing, be grand to share with InsideGMT’s audience?!?” and so this article came to be.
Hopefully, readers will enjoy the Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East gaming experiences of James and his three fellow ACME adventurers as they seek victory to become “The King of the Fertile Crescent”. What’s remarkable is that this was their first time playing the game! James has a wonderful blog covering gaming as well as a range of other topics of interest to gamers, so if you enjoy his ACME presentation, there’s more, much more, available at: www.rindis.com/blog
Back on the 25th of May (the day before Memorial Day), I had some people over to my home for FtF gaming. Patch was originally scheduled to attend so we could have a five-player game, but he couldn’t make it, thereby leaving me, Dave, Mark, and Jason to learn the rules for a four-player game of Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East.
It has been a while, but our group has played its brother game, Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea a few times and enjoyed it, so I figured this would be easy for us to get into. I panicked when I looked at the rules before everyone arrived that morning and realized I didn’t remember nearly as much as I thought I did. But once we were looking at the actual game spread out on the table, everything started coming back. Short of the new rules, we just needed to go through the details of conflict (again) and follow the sequence of play on the aid cards.
Mark and I had gone over the ACME Playbook ahead of time, and we decided upon the “Cyrus the Great” scenario as the only historical four-player scenario utilizing the full map. In hindsight, a more compact scenario would have been better, as we needed a bit of the board to save table space; notably my smallish table held the main board and our supplies of tokens fine enough, but we didn’t have a good place for the cards of available deities. The random draws for civilizations gave me the bullseye—I mean Babylon.
The scenario’s other civilizations use the game’s standard, somewhat compact, setups, but this scenario’s special rules grant Babylon the entire Fertile Crescent at the start of the game. The real changes in ACME from its ACIS predecessor are the terrain rules, and the game board’s green fertile areas are powerful, as instead of only growing with two-disk settlements, you can just have single disk camps and grow, or, best of all, have three disk cities to get VPs and growth disks.
With that setup, my initial growth was phenomenal, and only stalled later for a single turn, when a horde of barbarians came storming out of the deserts which kept me from having control of a bunch of fertile areas. After that, they were largely cleared out and my growth resumed to put me back from a poor board position to max out the number of disks in use. (Each civilization has fifty disks available for board position and growth, which then get sent back to stock by events played against you and competition. It’s very much like the stock in Tresham’s classic Civilization board game.)
Mark had the Medes & Persians to Babylon’s east and was a constant thorn in my side (as he should be). But I didn’t have a lot of other troubles, so while he got more powerful as the game went on, he could never really challenge me in the Fertile Crescent for longer than a turn at a time but progressively took control of areas just east of there. He also refused to join in on the initial rush to acquire a deity, so he didn’t get VPs that way, and at the end of Epoch III (which the scenario starts in), he was trailing well behind in points.
Dave had the Lydian Kingdom of the board’s northwest, and Jason Egypt, safely tucked in the board’s southeast with the Nile—the board’s other fertile area (but only five areas to the Tigris and Euphrates’ thirteen). To my relief, the two of them largely focused on each other, partially powered by Dave’s aggressively sea-oriented offensive strategy as he strove to gain a foothold on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. I was more focused on pure growth and managing my frontiers at first, so Dave also took a lead in cities, followed closely by Jason, and I slipped into third place in VPs.
We broke for a late-ish lunch at the end of Epoch III, and Epoch IV saw the earlier conflicts come into ever-sharper focus. Mark was getting his act together and caught up to me in points (fueled by that bad turn with the barbarian invasion), and he started catching up to the other Civilizations as well. I swept away the Fertile Crescent’s barbarian invaders and concentrated on cities (and growth!) for a revival during the game’s last two turns that put me near the VP lead again, but I didn’t quite catch up to my rivals.
Both Epochs ended after three turns (it varies from two to four), and IV concluded with a Lydian (Dave -Blue disks) win with 36 VPs, followed by Egypt (Jason – Green Disks) at 34, Babylon (me – Light Colored Tan Disks) at 33, and the Medes & Persians (Mark – Red Disks) at 27 VP.
Presumably, a fourth turn could have favored me for a win, but the VP gain caused by twelve cities caught everyone’s attention, and with the borders of Egypt and the Lydians now truly at my doorstep in the west, I was looking at a lot of negative attention at that point. (On the other hand, you can see in the photo below that Dave was still dealing with the aftermath of two rounds of barbarians.) I had actually gambled on this turn to build as many cities as I could (and since my cities could generate growth and VPs it’s not the serious decision it is for everyone else) to get back in the lead. Sadly, I didn’t quite make it, and didn’t have the extra turn to carry the momentum forward.
I think I like the long, skinny map set up of ACIS better, and I don’t see enough difference between the wonder and deity mechanics for it to matter all that much save that an ACME civilization can have but a single deity. But the terrain mechanics (including desert and mountain, which are also important) really make ACME the better game in my view.
Certainly, all of us have enjoyed both “brothers”, ACIS and Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East, and they will see the table again. ACME has a wealth of scenarios and seventeen different civilizations, each with their own unique abilities (we didn’t leverage ours very well; too busy getting used to the flow of the game), and options for putting together any mix of them in non-historic scenarios. We’re really still just in the wading section of this game. Thanks for this gem of a game GMT!
Our Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s gameboard at the end of Epoch IV’s Turn 3. Note how red, the Medes & Persians, had established a city in the Fertile Crescent next to my homeland (the big tan square block). This was his third, and most successful, incursion into fertile terrain, and I’d been too busy to push him out. A theoretical turn four would have turned into a big fight in there. We’d had comparatively few barbarians this game, but two turns of them in Anatolia had taken a severe toll on blue’s, Lydian home, which had been full of cities for almost all of Epoch III. Perhaps the most surprising board position is the VP markers. Nine VPs from first to last isn’t much, and I was surprised at how much the “pack” stayed together for the entire game.
I’ve been playing Checkers on CardGames.io, and I’ve noticed some players make perfect moves instantly, almost as if they’re using a bot or AI to assist them.
I understand that AI solvers for Checkers (like Chinook or web-based tools) require you to input the current board state before they return the optimal move. But this takes time — so how are these players seemingly:
Reading the board state immediately
Sending it to a solver
And executing the move without any delay
How could a player be getting AI solver moves so quickly?
For example, are they using browser extensions, scripts, or something else to automate the reading of the board and feeding it to an engine? How technically difficult would it be to pull off without the site detecting it?
Designing a game with the scope of Combat Commander: Vietnam requires a lot of testing. Before the game is opened up for broader playtesting, the core design team has to ensure that all of the pieces of the design are working to provide the play experience we want. In the previous article we discussed how the Random Scenario Generator (RSG) and the data behind it is the anchor for the whole system. Indeed the RSG data serves as a validator for all 24 of the designed scenarios that will come with the base game.
Scenario design for the Combat Commander series is very delicate when looking at specific historic engagements, and perhaps even more for generalized engagements. Data models trend towards the average, so the RSG system uses player agency to tilt the odds with their choices. In written scenarios, the designer is the one that tilts the odds, often to align with the historical record. Without these little tweaks the scenario might feel too generic, but tweaked too much and things can end up on the rails.
The scenarios for the base game of Combat Commander: Vietnam are pulled from the archival records of the participants. The maps are drawn from 1:50,000 scale maps from the period, zoomed in to match the scale of Combat Commander. The scenarios designed for these maps fit the details we know historically into the framing of the game. The goal is for the core system rules to cover 85% or more of any scenario. Adjustments are then made with a few special rules to bridge the gaps between historicity and playability.
What follows is an After Action Report from a recent playtest of scenario #9, “Brown Water Brawl”. This is a key scenario in the base game because it introduces Amphibious Assault rules. Amphibious and Air Assaults are among the many things we’ve heard fans say they want to see in the system. This was a playtest to see how the rules affect gameplay for both attackers and defenders.
SITUATION REPORT:
Rach Ruong Canal, IV Corps, South Vietnam, December, 1967 – Although initially blocked from deploying forces to the Mekong Delta due to opposition from the South Vietnamese Government, in 1967, the Mobile Riverine Force (MRF) became America’s force in the Delta. Pairing the 2nd Brigade of the 9th Division with Navy brown water assault craft, the MRF sought out NLF forces along the many rivers and canals of the Delta.
After receiving rocket fire from the west bank, a company of the MRF lands with support from Monitor assault crafts to engage elements of the NLF’s 502nd Local Force Battalion.
Information display showing the scenario year, victory points, and other details (playtest graphics)
The NLF gets to set up its detachment first with three bunkers provided by the scenario rules. One of the bunkers is set up forward to contest the coastline where the MRF will land. The other two bunkers are placed in the open, one to cover the forward treeline, while the other defends the treeline in the rear. A few squads are also placed forward in order to contest the Americans before they get off the coast and toward the open area.
Gray NLF units set up to resist the American landing and hold key positions (playtest graphics)
As an Amphibious Assault, the Americans will have three waves of platoons enter the map from the water in the northeast, one per turn. The first wave picks the landing zone which will be used by all subsequent waves. The Amphibious Assault rules provide the defender with the ability to contest the landing zone after the first wave has deployed. One of the things that came out of this play was the need to encourage aggressive play from the NLF to actually contest the landing zone. As it is, that possibility does not come up in this playthrough.
While the landing zone is not really contested, the landing parties can be, which leads to the other key part of the amphibious rules that allow the landing craft free attacks during each deployment. Recognizing this is one of the reasons the NLF play it safe with their setup, but playing it safe does not prevent them from taking fire.
Victory in scenarios is measured by VP which are scored in a number of ways. The clearest is combat attrition. Both sides earn 1-4 VP for eliminating opposing units. Additionally for Attacker Defender scenarios VP are scored at each time check for any held objectives. Because the defender starts in control of the objectives, it is on the attacker to take those objectives as quickly as possible to keep the defender from scoring them.
Finally each side holds a secret objective which is only revealed and scored at the end of the game. The end game is triggered either on turn 8, by one side choosing to Break Contact after the Time marker reaches the Support marker, or one side having to Break Contact the Time Check after their casualties are equal or greater than their Break Point level (we will save the discussion of Break Contact and the other new mechanics which support it for a future article).
Time 0
VP: 0
US Casualties: 0
NLF Casualties: 0
Support Marker: 5
The Americans start by picking their landing zone. They choose a spot whose line of sight is blocked by huts, to allow some of the units to deploy into cover. On landing, the platoon leader spots the forward NLF bunker for the assault craft to perform its free attack. The bunker makes for strong cover, protecting the units inside whose return fire suppresses the leader. One of the squads outside of the bunker however, does take a hit from the bombardment.
The NLF in the bunker continue firing, their recoilless rifle wounding the leader while small arms fire suppresses the machine gun team with him. Two American squads and the other machine gun team use the vollying fire to screen their movement in the opposite direction, where they find cover in the huts to the south behind the treeline. The platoon leader at the landing zone targets the bunker with mortar fire, failing to break the units inside but giving the units with him a little time to recover.
The lead squad to the south, hearing rustling ahead, moves into the treeline guns at the ready to assault fire as they make contact. The NLF local force squad there is slow to react and takes a hit.
The American group by the landing zone spray fires at the bunker and the squad hiding in the woods next to it. The bullets do nothing to the bunker but are able to hit the units in the woods.
The wounded NLF to the south are able to rally before moving out of sight of the Americans. Another NLF squad reacts to the gunfire and moves to flank the squad in the woods, but have to slow to cross the canal which is particularly high for this time of year.
The Americans by the landing zone all fire into the woods by the bunker and are able to eliminate the NLF squad there. The American squad in the southern woods continues to close on the retreating NLF squad, suppressing them with their assault fire.
Time 1
VP: NLF 1
US Casualties: 0
NLF Casualties: 1
Support Marker: 5
As the second American platoon arrives at the landing zone, the assault craft targets the bunker again, this time breaking the NLF squad inside, through the cover. An American squad in the south closes in to flank the retreating NLF unit in the woods. The other NLF squad makes its way across the canal to assault fire the initial American squad, but the Americans manage to use the cover of the woods to their advantage.
The other suppressed NLF squad moves back through the rice paddies to avoid being attacked. The American squad on the treeline counters the NLF that assaulted from the canal before they can pull back. The ambush breaks the NLF unit before they are eliminated in the ensuing melee.
With the woods to the south now clear, the Riverine forces move the arriving platoon in from the south avoiding the forward bunker all together. Another call is made from the first platoon leader for Fire Support. The NLF uses the opportunity to rally the squad in the bunker, then the recoilless rifle lands a shot at the group hiding in the huts, eliminating the leader.
Down a leader, the Americans try to regroup. More NLF emerge from hiding near the bunker on the other side of the canal, preparing for a stronger defense against the attackers coming from the treeline. The NLF recoilless rifle continues firing at the coastal huts, breaking the remaining units there. The broken units try to immediately recover but instead end up suppressed. One of the American squads on the treeline opens fire at the NLF units by the bunker, breaking them before they counterattack.
Time 2
VP: NLF 3
US Casualties: 1
NLF Casualties: 2
Support Marker: 5
The final wave of the Riverine Force arrives at the landing zone with their platoon leader joining the units in the huts to spot for the assault craft, but it cannot find the target. Instead of returning fire, the local force leader calls in for Fire Support. The NLF squad in the paddies recovered, then heads back into the woods to contest the approaching Americans.
The last platoon leader helps rally the team in the huts by the landing zone, while the Americans at the treeline keep firing at the broken NLF squad in the clear across the canal until they are eliminated.
Time 3
VP: NLF 4
US Casualties: 1
NLF Casualties: 3
Support Marker: 5
The other American squad in the woods moves to assault fire the NLF squad at the treeline, suppressing them. The second platoon leader by the canal calls in a request to delay the rear support as he prepares his men. The NLF at the treeline again retreats back to the paddies before it can be attacked.
The second platoon leader makes the call and the Americans move into positions along the treelines on both sides of the canal. The squad already there makes a dash through the clear past the suppressed NLF to secure the objective at the turn in the canal.
Unable to recover from their wounds the broken American squad from the first wave is sent back to the landing zone while the freshly landed platoon uses the activity in the woods to make their move north. The lead squad manages to avoid taking fire from the group in the forward bunker and surprise the NLF unit in the woods off the path with an assault that breaks them. Some of the platoon follow behind into the huts off the path in the north, while the remaining squads go to reinforce the groups in the trees across from the bunker.
The broken NLF squad in the north pulls back through the clear behind the trees and out of line of sight. They warn the other broken squad there about the coming wave, so they can make their way into the trees for cover. The Americas charge in before the warning NLF squad can follow, leaving them extremely vulnerable in the open.
The second American platoon leader makes another call back for Fire Support as a squad in the rear moves towards the action in the south. The squad on the canal objective tries to fire at the suppressed NLF unit through the hinderance of the paddies but can’t hit the target. The NLF leader from the bunker in the open calls back for their own fire support.
In the north, the broken NLF squad tries to fall back through the paddies. The Americans open fire but are unable to land any shots on the retreating unit. The NLF squad in the south also falls back through the paddies without taking any opportunity fire.
At that moment the second platoon leader gets confirmation on their approaching close air support and helps them spot the bunker across the canal. Napalm comes down on target forcing all of the units in the bunker, and the one behind it, out before the bunkers are destroyed by the blaze. All of the NLF units break from the attack as they run into the clear. In the midst of this an NLF sniper manages to hit an American squad still by the landing zone.
One American squad on the southern treeline jumps the gun and rushes across the canal to assault fire the NLF trying to escape the napalm fire managing to suppress the squad and the leader. The NLF try to rally but only the leader manages to do so.
Time 4
VP: NLF 5
US Casualties: 1
NLF Casualties: 3
Support Marker: 6
The NLF leader escaping the flaming bunker urges the other units to withdraw but the Americans don’t hesitate to fire on their retreat, eliminating the squad with the mortar and the team with the recoilless rifle. Now alone in the open the leader takes fire from the American squad on the objective and the one that crossed the canal, but manages to avoid taking hits. With the air support still in the area the third platoon leader calls in another strike on the forward bunker. The spotting is off this time, missing the NLF with its package of more conventional bombs.
The NLF leader in the bunker finally connects with their Fire Support and calls in mortar fire that drifts south to break the Americans that crossed the canal and suppress the leader at the treeline. Understanding the reality of the situation the NLF leader then tells the group with them to start falling back. The squads creep through the smoke from the American bombardment but the leader stays with the recoilless rifle team hoping to eliminate more Americans before pulling back.
While the Americans in the south rally, the fire group in the north opens fire through the hindrance of the paddies to eliminate the remaining broken NLF unit. More Americans start pushing out from the treeline as the NLF squad in the southern paddies crosses the canal to link up with the leader from the bunker.
The Americans in the north rush the forward bunker to surround and cut off the retreat. The NLF in the south pull back even further. Then the Americans converge on the last bunker going into melee.
Time 5
VP: US 1
US Casualties: 2
NLF Casualties: 6
Support Marker: 6
An ambush breaks a US squad but they still manage to eliminate all of the units in the bunker, hitting the NLF break point.
The surviving group in the south continues to withdraw without taking fire until they are behind the flames of the napalm. Everyone still alive manages to Break Contact, except the NLF leader that gets captured when the Americans secure the area.
Endgame
VP: US 4
US Casualties: 2
NLF Casualties: 9
Support Marker: 6
An ambush breaks a US squad but they still manage to eliminate all of the units in the bunker, hitting the NLF break point.
The surviving group in the south continues to withdraw without taking fire until they are behind the flames of the napalm. Everyone still alive manages to Break Contact, except the NLF leader that gets captured when the Americans secure the area.
It seems to be common knowledge that enemy color pairs in Magic have less synergy than allied pairs. As an example, the highest score question on the site, What are the names for Magic's different colour combinations?, asserts without explanation that allied color pairs have "higher deck cohesion". Then it repeats this claim in explaining why wedges are generally less often seen than shards. But I don’t really understand why. It seems to me that every color pair offers something different, and many enemy color pairs seem very cohesive to me. The current meta in multiple formats seems to support this.
In standard the most popular deck right now according to MTG Goldfish is Izzet Prowess. And the 2 most popular modern decks are Boros Energy and Izzet Prowess.
I haven’t played much Canadian Highlander, but watching LRR’s North 100 podcast, it seems Jeskai is the most powerful color combination in that format.
It doesn’t seem like an outlier when multiple formats of varying power levels are dominated by enemy color pairs and wedges. Izzet Prowess seems like a very synergistic deck built off the payoff for slinging a lot of cheap spells. Boros Energy in Modern seems built off the back of several very powerful cards some of which happen to have Energy. But to me, Red and White offer a lot to each other. Red provides reach in the form of direct damage and card selection with rummage/impulse draw effects, while White is a better at going wide and gives non-damage based removal to deal with high toughness or non-creature threats.
Perhaps I am somewhat conflating power and cohesion, as my examples rely on high performing decks. And I do want to acknowledge that there is a bit of a bias with my examples, perhaps Boros and especially Izzet are just particularly well suited to each other among enemy pairs. However, other color pairs seem similarly synergistic to me. Simic pairs the card draw of Blue with the ramp of Green for a powerful big mana deck. Orzhov pairs the go wide power of White with the sacrifice theme of Black to be the backbone of many aristocrats builds. Golgari pairs the powerful mill and graveyard effects of Green and Black giving a powerful, recursive engine. All the enemy color pairs have a very solid synergy built in, in my opinion.
So can someone please explain where this seemingly common conception that allied pairs are more "cohesive" comes from?
Welcome to Ludology, an analytical discussion of the hows and whys of the world of board games. Rather than news and reviews, Ludology explores a variety of topics about games from a wider lens, as well as discuss game history, game design and game players.
We post a new Ludology episode every other week. In these episodes, hosts Erica Bouyouris and Sen-Foong Lim deep-dive into a single topic within game design, often with a well-regarded guest from the game industry. We generally focus on tabletop game design (mainly board games and RPGs), but we often pull in experts from all forms of games, from video games to escape rooms to slot machines.
On weeks where there is no flagship Ludology episode, we will alternate between two smaller mini-sodes. Erica and Sen are happy to announce that Sarah Shipp of Shippboard Games and Stephanie Campbell of TTRPGKids will be joining us for the next year, providing additional content between our longer episodes.
Sarah’s segment, Thinking Beyond Mechanisms, is a monthly feature that dives deeper into the other aspects of games beyond the dice and cards we’re all familiar with.
Stephanie’s segment, TTRPGKids, explores how parents and teachers can use role playing games with children in the home and in the classroom.
We hope you enjoy the additional content!
Our History
We aim for most Ludology episodes to be timeless, so you are welcome to explore our entire catalog. Most of it should age quite well. The podcast was started in 2011 by Geoff Engelstein and Ryan Sturm, with Mike Fitzgerald taking over for Ryan in 2015. Gil and Scott joined the show in 2017 when Mike stepped aside, and Emma joined in 2019 when Geoff ended his tenure as host. Emma left in 2021, and Erica and Sen joined us. Since then, Scott stepped down in 2022 and Gil will be hanging up his mic in 2023, leaving Erica and Sen to carry on this amazing legacy.
Erica and Sen are working to bring new voices to Ludology and have some great things to announce as gaming expands to include even more people!
Contact Us
Have your own thoughts about our topics? We encourage you to visit us at our guild on Boardgamegeek to get involved in a continuing discussion.
If you have questions that you’d like answered on Ludology, let us know by filling out this Google Form; you can also leave an audio question that we can use on the show, if you wish!
You can also make a one-time or monthly donation here. The link will take you to Erica’s account. People who donate in this way will not have access to the Patreon page – sorry!
As long as it’s your turn and you control an Army, Grond is an
artifact creature.
We were faced with two different scenarios last night, both I think are related. In both scenarios I have Grond, and control a 2/2 Orc Army and no other creatures. Attackers have been declared, and Grond is attacking.
Scenario 1: Opponent destroys the Orc Army with an instant before blockers are declared. As Grond is now no longer a vehicle, is he still attacking as a 5/5? Or is he removed from combat?
Scenario 2: Opponent blocks Grond with a grizzly bears equiped with Barrow-Blade. Grond loses all abilities. Presumably, Grond is now "just" an uncrewed vehicle and is removed from combat?
My guess is both scenarios are essentially the same and Grond is removed from combat. But, wanting confirmation. No rulings on Grond around this issue.
In a Commander game, if my commander would be exiled, I can put it in the command zone instead. And Release to the Wind has the effect
Exile target nonland permanent. For as long as that card remains exiled, its owner may cast it without paying its mana cost.
So, if that spell hits my commander, and I choose to put it into the command zone instead of exile, then if I later cast it without paying its mana cost, do I still have to pay the commander tax?
If I have both Vraska, the Silencer and Displaced Dinosaurs in play, and my opponent’s creature dies, then that creature returns as a Treasure artifact. Is that Treasure also a Dinosaur creature?
