TL;DR : "With the Magic Online deployment of Hour of Devastation on July 5, however, we will add another Commander format with a second, separate banned list.
Essentially, multiplayer Commander and 1v1 Commander will be treated as separate formats."
That seems sensible and slightly resolves the issue of the banlist taking over. Slightly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out the thread for my cube if you have the time, and tell me how terrible it is.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
well, this is a pretty good example of why I would never want wotc in control of the paper ban list, while this list is geared toward 1v1, it feels like a pretty half-assed list that leaves a lot of broken 1v1 stuff out and bans cards that dont need banning, like humility. As out of touch as the RC is with the actual format, wizards seems to understand it even less.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
This is the most accomodating reaction one can expect within reason. Good job.
Yeah I agree, this is an improvement. At least now they've effectively taken over commander, they've kind of done it "properly". Now all they need to do is suggest that sanctioned events also use their lists and Boom, less ambiguity and people will quickly adopt the wizards ones, rather than a vague halfway-house affair where some places will and some places won't. It will upset some people but if your implementing a banlist to a format you have to just do it fully. Rip off the plaster (or band-aid if you're American)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Well this was almost the perfect banlist, until I see the Oracle is now unbanned. Anyway, I'll still play and just conceed when I see green blue decks.
In the words of Maynard Jk "this changes everything"
The preconstructed decks they sell are now unplayable out of box, because they've always had Sol Ring. How is that going to affect paper product? Are the new paper decks going to be altered because of this ban list?
If you read the article, you'd know better. It's totally seaprate from paper product and totally separate from paper banlists. What the people behind paper do is only their own doing.
I can see how I was misconstrued there. I was referring first to the fact that all of the Commander decks (going back to the first ifI remember correctly) are still available for purchase on MTGO, and thus would have been banned out of box before they changed to two lists.
Add in the fact that the people making the paper also made the new banned list and it seems like something would start to give over at Wizards.
My apologies to the community for spamming this thread with insufficiently verbose commentary that failed to contribute to the conversation. My purpose for calling out Sensei's Divining Top was to bring attention to a multiplayer EDH ban announcement for MTGO in an article which, based on title alone, might be unexpected for those who had not read that article. As denoted by the smiley face in my original post, I like that ban, although I am aware that many others disagree.
This list is a very good start. I've been championing for Wizards to take over the banlist for years. I know people are currently panning them for their poor decisions with regards to Standard, but do note that many of the decisions they make were with their pockets and not their brain.
With EDH, there's no half ass decisions influenced by finance. Wizards have a good record with doing away with feel-bad cards. I've always ask for data with regards to bannings. The current RC do their bannings based on what they see in their basement games and League (which has nothing to do with multiplayer EDH).
EDH has become a global game. A global game means you need to make it for people all over the world. You cannot have pet cards not on the banned list. But most importantly, you need data for a global game.
The RC's hands off approach is better for the spirit of a multiplayer, casual format.
Yes it's better for the spirit of it, which is great when you're only playing with people who respect the spirit of the game. I've played leagues in 3 different stores around my area, and have found that there seems to be little respect for that spirit at the "friendly" local gaming store. People are dumping thousands of dollars into their "casual" decks and end up either playing a non-interactive deck that shuts down the table, or tutoring up an infinite combo win on turn 3-4, ignoring the rest of the table.
"Back in the day" the spirit of it all was enough to keep things in check, because there were so many fewer cards. Now you can literally build a deck that does nothing but take extra turns until you have enough mana to cast your auto-win condition, and it's considered okay because none of those cards are on the ban list. At best, people only interpret "and cards like it" as those cards that are more broken than the listed cards, but mostly that clause is just entirely ignored.
The RC's hands off approach is better for the spirit of a multiplayer, casual format.
Yes it's better for the spirit of it, which is great when you're only playing with people who respect the spirit of the game. I've played leagues in 3 different stores around my area, and have found that there seems to be little respect for that spirit at the "friendly" local gaming store. People are dumping thousands of dollars into their "casual" decks and end up either playing a non-interactive deck that shuts down the table, or tutoring up an infinite combo win on turn 3-4, ignoring the rest of the table.
"Back in the day" the spirit of it all was enough to keep things in check, because there were so many fewer cards. Now you can literally build a deck that does nothing but take extra turns until you have enough mana to cast your auto-win condition, and it's considered okay because none of those cards are on the ban list. At best, people only interpret "and cards like it" as those cards that are more broken than the listed cards, but mostly that clause is just entirely ignored.
Anything played competitively (for money or bragging rights) stops being casual. That sort of degeneracy is inevitable and that's what the format will look like if its played that way. You can't keep it in check with bans, because its not the broken cards that make the format degenerate - its the change in attitudes, the need to win at all costs.
Ban all the top combos, tutors, fast mana etc. and the format just becomes poorer for it (in most cases) while the competitive players look for the next closest broken thing to abuse so they can see their name at the top of a board. Hell, even if they ban all the cards they had on the list to begin with, the truly competitive decks are still 2000$ monsters, leaving every casual player at the table in the dust.
I always considered the term "healthy competition" an oxymoron. There's nothing healthy per se in competitiveness, because its a zero sum game by default.
The solution is to keep it casual and play with like minded folks, or competitive and play with the Spikes. But legitimizing competitive multiplayer EDH as a format will make it just that - competitive.
I won't disagree that it's impossible to close all the loopholes, but the hands-off approach is too hands-off in my opinion. WotC used to state part of their ban philosophy as something like "any card that is a 'must-include' in every deck, is too powerful", which was the reason for Black Vise being banned back in the day. That's evolved into a more subjective analysis of deck diversity, allowing a greater variety of cards to be played in any given format.
This is where the RC falls down in its ban list, in my opinion. While EDH has tremendous diversity as measured by the number and types of Commanders used, the decks are all using the same cards to achieve their end goals, and that's where the hands-off approach fails. The RC should be banning most cards that either go in every deck, or go in every deck of a certain color or color combination. Not all cards - colors need access to their iconic strategies, but when a card is going in every deck that it can go in due to its raw power, then it probably does fit the casual spirit of the format.
The RC's hands off approach is better for the spirit of a multiplayer, casual format.
Yes it's better for the spirit of it, which is great when you're only playing with people who respect the spirit of the game. I've played leagues in 3 different stores around my area, and have found that there seems to be little respect for that spirit at the "friendly" local gaming store. People are dumping thousands of dollars into their "casual" decks and end up either playing a non-interactive deck that shuts down the table, or tutoring up an infinite combo win on turn 3-4, ignoring the rest of the table.
"Back in the day" the spirit of it all was enough to keep things in check, because there were so many fewer cards. Now you can literally build a deck that does nothing but take extra turns until you have enough mana to cast your auto-win condition, and it's considered okay because none of those cards are on the ban list. At best, people only interpret "and cards like it" as those cards that are more broken than the listed cards, but mostly that clause is just entirely ignored.
Anything played competitively (for money or bragging rights) stops being casual. That sort of degeneracy is inevitable and that's what the format will look like if its played that way. You can't keep it in check with bans, because its not the broken cards that make the format degenerate - its the change in attitudes, the need to win at all costs.
Ban all the top combos, tutors, fast mana etc. and the format just becomes poorer for it (in most cases) while the competitive players look for the next closest broken thing to abuse so they can see their name at the top of a board. Hell, even if they ban all the cards they had on the list to begin with, the truly competitive decks are still 2000$ monsters, leaving every casual player at the table in the dust.
I always considered the term "healthy competition" an oxymoron. There's nothing healthy per se in competitiveness, because its a zero sum game by default.
The solution is to keep it casual and play with like minded folks, or competitive and play with the Spikes. But legitimizing competitive multiplayer EDH as a format will make it just that - competitive.
Here's the problem though, EDH has grown so much over the last few years that it is now "competetive format". It's arguably the easiest format to get into, as an out of the box pre-con with minor mana-base tweaks can hold its own with a competent pilot.
And therein lies the problem. The format is easy to get into, and beyond that, is incredibly diverse. I feel as though players look at other non-rotating formats, analyze decks, and realize if they have a $2000 budget, commander allows them to stretch that budget almost infinitely and gives them access to a half-dozen decks/strategies compared to at most a pair in the other formats. So instead of Modern recruiting an "only cares to win" player, EDH gets them instead because of the reasons listed prior. So whose at fault? Can you blame the player because they thought of a more efficient way to spend their budget? Absolutely not. Can you blame the player for only playing to win? No, because it is a game after all.
It's easier to massage established players from other formats into the EDH spirit, but almost nearly impossible to push new players into it. Why? Because most spent their first ~$30 of MTG budget on EDH, and how are you going to tell that player that the goal isn't to win. Some will understand, many however, will not.
Ultimately, Wizards have a formula for "fun". They've the data to suggest, and thus predict what type of cards are fun to play and what cards aren't. But on the flip side, they also know that when it comes to banning cards from a pool as wide as EDH, Legacy, Vintage (restriction), they often have a more relaxed view than people realized.
They even coined player psychographics; while it started off as a perception, a pattern soon emerged and this psychographics eventually become more and more defined. They know the Melvins, Johnnies, the hybrids, etc. That's how deep Wizards know about us players. And let's not forget that casuals are the biggest drivers of their product. Of course they know how to treat us. What make anyone think otherwise. Just because they screw up Standard recently?
What I'm trying to say is that they do know when to stop a slippery slope. The magic of today is very different from the first 10 years. They know fast mana is horribly broken, even for casual games. Tutors aren't as efficiently costed. Counterspells, land destruction, time magic... Whatever makes magic interaction poor, are now consciously designed for better play experience.
Sure, everyone can have their opinion. It's just that this decision was made likely because the new opinion outnumbers yours. The change reflected the majority's opinion.
What will banning fast mana and a few combos change? The best deck on the table will then cost 1500$ and win a turn later.
What's the difference between Vintage and Legacy? The difference between Legacy and Modern? Modern and Frontier (or whatever the Next eternal format will be)? The differences are player accessibility, deck diversity, and length of games. So yeah, the goal in my mind is a slower game that's less expensive to play, and actually sees a wider variety of cards played because there aren't so many must-haves. When that's achieved skilled multi-player gameplay will once again be more important than deck composition, the way that it was when the format was originally introduced.
This banned list is a disaster. I've been playing competitive Commander games online stating new banned list only and the number of turn 4/5 wins I've had is just ridiculous. Yes, they banned the fast mana, but Crucible lock is still really good. Upheaval is still really good. Sunder is still really good. They talked about wanting to get rid of board states that aren't fun and cards that create that easily. A start would be:
Lion's Eye Diamond has no drawback in decks that only care about resolving the Commander ASAP, like Narset or Azami. It's fast mana.
Armageddon, Ravages and Sunder still make the format about who draws more fast mana as well as create stagnant board states super easily. They are no-brainers if that really is the goal of the format.
If the goal is to get rid of cheap ways to gum the game up and create stagnant board states, yes. I don't think it's too good. It's definitely not fun, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
This banned list is a disaster. I've been playing competitive Commander games online stating new banned list only and the number of turn 4/5 wins I've had is just ridiculous. Yes, they banned the fast mana, but Crucible lock is still really good. Upheaval is still really good. Sunder is still really good. They talked about wanting to get rid of board states that aren't fun and cards that create that easily. A start would be:
Lion's Eye Diamond has no drawback in decks that only care about resolving the Commander ASAP, like Narset or Azami. It's fast mana.
Armageddon, Ravages and Sunder still make the format about who draws more fast mana as well as create stagnant board states super easily. They are no-brainers if that really is the goal of the format.
I don't think any of these Generals are too good, but they do create terrible, stagnant gameplay situations too easily.
To be fair to them, they specifically stated that this banned list is a starting point. They want to see what players do/like before they ban more, but they're likely to be more aggressive with the banhammer at first, as they try to get the format shaped properly.
Ultimately, Wizards have a formula for "fun". They've the data to suggest, and thus predict what type of cards are fun to play and what cards aren't. But on the flip side, they also know that when it comes to banning cards from a pool as wide as EDH, Legacy, Vintage (restriction), they often have a more relaxed view than people realized.
WotC are playing "fun police" in 1-vs-1 EDH to extent never before seen in an eternal format. I mean, they banned Moat. Moat!
One of the reasons people play eternal formats is because they have been more or less immune to WotC arbitrary definition of "fun". Some people like formats with prison, combo, and control strategies; and traditionally we have flocked to eternal formats as a "safe haven". Modern already exists as a non-rotating format that is micro-managed for "fun". I do not play competitive EDH, but I am worried about the future of Legacy.
I played about 10 games last night, and I must say it was refreshing. No longer fearing t1 Sol ring crypt
Or t2 mana drain is awesome. I found myself not conceding any match. Still some cards that need to go, looking at you prophet of kruphix, but it already seems improved.
My Simic list dropped the three big mana ramps and put mox diamond and grim monolith in their place, deck is still fast, but now it also has a lot of game ending bombs to go along with its already combo wincon in the form of Upheaval to reset everyone, Prime Time, Sylvan Primordial, Sundering Titan, Emrakul, and Prophet of Kruphix to cast them all at instant speed. I'm sorry but I rather have my fast mana back and lock those guys away when it comes to playing multiplayer, I just feel dirty playing the deck but I'm going to keep at it to prove a point to WotC, that their banlist creates unfun situations in multiplayer and having to wait until July is stupid.
Like I said before, I'm pretty sure the list is just THE beginning. And I think it's a good start. Over the next few weeks and months would we see possibly more changes. They could have easily make sweeping changes but that would kill confidence in mtgo commander.
Let the new environment settle and then look at the data for any kinks.
I think most of the games on MTGO (and I played like 200) are Baral into Polymorph + Emrakul or Vial Smasher into Delve or Tasigur/Leovold + value or Azusa/Nissa + Mana Dork into Green Ramp with land destruction. Occasionally, you can see Zurgo and other decks. Only prohibitive cost of some cards didn't cause more people to run one of those decks or make it even more ridiculous. Format is not fun, but hey, who said that competitive Commander 1v1 can be balanced or fun? It feels more like a different version of legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have divined your fate. You shall find your nemesis, a catastrophic clash. Devastation, misery for all, the unleashing of horrible curses and ferocious powers. Ruin, such ruin that I dream each night of blessed peace, assured that the universe is in balance once more...
If the goal is to get rid of cheap ways to gum the game up and create stagnant board states, yes. I don't think it's too good. It's definitely not fun, though.
So, remove an entire strategy that was a part of the game since its inception because you don't find it fun?
Its not there to "gum up the game". In my Teferi Stax deck its there to lock you down for a turn or two so that I can combo off unmolested. Its as much a part of the overall strategy as having a 20/20 beater and swinging for the win. People need to be more tolerant of other players approaches to playing the game instead of demanding a ban for whatever they don't like.
You can be assured that there are a number of decks that I detest but I wouldn't dream of demanding that they should be banned just because playing against them is a chore.
I wouldn't call that a "demand", sounded more like a suggestion to me. The meta isn't even close to balanced right now because OP cards drive folks to Ux or Vial decks. Everyone needs to understand that initial list was a starting point and to expect major changes when HoD releases, and I'd fully expect to see a lot of cards he/she had listed making their way into the list. Stax will be difficult to keep around in a competetive sense, matches going to time is something nobody wants to see.
I'm also confused by your prior post, how would they screw with Multi-Player? They are using the official list once HoD goes live, and honestly, if you tweaked your deck to the "new" list, I'm obligated to call you a bit foolish.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That seems sensible and slightly resolves the issue of the banlist taking over. Slightly.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
Yeah I agree, this is an improvement. At least now they've effectively taken over commander, they've kind of done it "properly". Now all they need to do is suggest that sanctioned events also use their lists and Boom, less ambiguity and people will quickly adopt the wizards ones, rather than a vague halfway-house affair where some places will and some places won't. It will upset some people but if your implementing a banlist to a format you have to just do it fully. Rip off the plaster (or band-aid if you're American)
In the words of Maynard Jk "this changes everything"
I can see how I was misconstrued there. I was referring first to the fact that all of the Commander decks (going back to the first ifI remember correctly) are still available for purchase on MTGO, and thus would have been banned out of box before they changed to two lists.
Add in the fact that the people making the paper also made the new banned list and it seems like something would start to give over at Wizards.
With EDH, there's no half ass decisions influenced by finance. Wizards have a good record with doing away with feel-bad cards. I've always ask for data with regards to bannings. The current RC do their bannings based on what they see in their basement games and League (which has nothing to do with multiplayer EDH).
EDH has become a global game. A global game means you need to make it for people all over the world. You cannot have pet cards not on the banned list. But most importantly, you need data for a global game.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
"Back in the day" the spirit of it all was enough to keep things in check, because there were so many fewer cards. Now you can literally build a deck that does nothing but take extra turns until you have enough mana to cast your auto-win condition, and it's considered okay because none of those cards are on the ban list. At best, people only interpret "and cards like it" as those cards that are more broken than the listed cards, but mostly that clause is just entirely ignored.
This is where the RC falls down in its ban list, in my opinion. While EDH has tremendous diversity as measured by the number and types of Commanders used, the decks are all using the same cards to achieve their end goals, and that's where the hands-off approach fails. The RC should be banning most cards that either go in every deck, or go in every deck of a certain color or color combination. Not all cards - colors need access to their iconic strategies, but when a card is going in every deck that it can go in due to its raw power, then it probably does fit the casual spirit of the format.
Here's the problem though, EDH has grown so much over the last few years that it is now "competetive format". It's arguably the easiest format to get into, as an out of the box pre-con with minor mana-base tweaks can hold its own with a competent pilot.
And therein lies the problem. The format is easy to get into, and beyond that, is incredibly diverse. I feel as though players look at other non-rotating formats, analyze decks, and realize if they have a $2000 budget, commander allows them to stretch that budget almost infinitely and gives them access to a half-dozen decks/strategies compared to at most a pair in the other formats. So instead of Modern recruiting an "only cares to win" player, EDH gets them instead because of the reasons listed prior. So whose at fault? Can you blame the player because they thought of a more efficient way to spend their budget? Absolutely not. Can you blame the player for only playing to win? No, because it is a game after all.
It's easier to massage established players from other formats into the EDH spirit, but almost nearly impossible to push new players into it. Why? Because most spent their first ~$30 of MTG budget on EDH, and how are you going to tell that player that the goal isn't to win. Some will understand, many however, will not.
They even coined player psychographics; while it started off as a perception, a pattern soon emerged and this psychographics eventually become more and more defined. They know the Melvins, Johnnies, the hybrids, etc. That's how deep Wizards know about us players. And let's not forget that casuals are the biggest drivers of their product. Of course they know how to treat us. What make anyone think otherwise. Just because they screw up Standard recently?
What I'm trying to say is that they do know when to stop a slippery slope. The magic of today is very different from the first 10 years. They know fast mana is horribly broken, even for casual games. Tutors aren't as efficiently costed. Counterspells, land destruction, time magic... Whatever makes magic interaction poor, are now consciously designed for better play experience.
Sure, everyone can have their opinion. It's just that this decision was made likely because the new opinion outnumbers yours. The change reflected the majority's opinion.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Upheaval
Sunder
Crucible of Worlds
Strip Mine
Dust Bowl
Iona, Shield of Emeria
Isochron Scepter
Lion's Eye Diamond
Winter Orb
Armageddon
Ravages of War
Lion's Eye Diamond has no drawback in decks that only care about resolving the Commander ASAP, like Narset or Azami. It's fast mana.
Armageddon, Ravages and Sunder still make the format about who draws more fast mana as well as create stagnant board states super easily. They are no-brainers if that really is the goal of the format.
Commanders:
Leovold, Emissary of Trest
Oloro, Ageless Ascetic
Narset, Enlightened Master
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
I don't think any of these Generals are too good, but they do create terrible, stagnant gameplay situations too easily.
WotC are playing "fun police" in 1-vs-1 EDH to extent never before seen in an eternal format. I mean, they banned Moat. Moat!
One of the reasons people play eternal formats is because they have been more or less immune to WotC arbitrary definition of "fun". Some people like formats with prison, combo, and control strategies; and traditionally we have flocked to eternal formats as a "safe haven". Modern already exists as a non-rotating format that is micro-managed for "fun". I do not play competitive EDH, but I am worried about the future of Legacy.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Or t2 mana drain is awesome. I found myself not conceding any match. Still some cards that need to go, looking at you prophet of kruphix, but it already seems improved.
Let the new environment settle and then look at the data for any kinks.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I wouldn't call that a "demand", sounded more like a suggestion to me. The meta isn't even close to balanced right now because OP cards drive folks to Ux or Vial decks. Everyone needs to understand that initial list was a starting point and to expect major changes when HoD releases, and I'd fully expect to see a lot of cards he/she had listed making their way into the list. Stax will be difficult to keep around in a competetive sense, matches going to time is something nobody wants to see.
I'm also confused by your prior post, how would they screw with Multi-Player? They are using the official list once HoD goes live, and honestly, if you tweaked your deck to the "new" list, I'm obligated to call you a bit foolish.