This is probably going to add a whole layer of complication to the EDH ban list but I would favour a points system, perhaps akin to the Australian Highlander format. In other words, instead of making outright bans on cards, points would be assigned on "problematic" cards. Decks must be constructed a way, such that their deck do not contain more than a total of X points worth of ban cards.
That way, if we were to decide that players should not have more than 7 points in their deck, we could effectively prevent the unfun Strip Mine & Crucible of Worlds combo by assigning 4 points to both Strip Mine and Crucible of Worlds. Similarly, we could do the same with Painter's Servant and Grindstone.
I know it is not the best system and has plenty of rough edges but I think it is an option worth considering.
A whole layer of complication indeed but just to play devil's advocate, saying you came up with a workable system to build the deck, how would you enforce this?
Even in a tournament or league setting, no-one is going to deck-check you. Even then, it would take a comparative list for every check to see if you hadn't somehow gone-over the quota.
It's cumbersome, complicated and totally un-enforcable.
@Syphon: Your initial stance seems to be "ban things because they're too good" (an entirely subjective criterion) instead of "ban things because they're degenerate" (something much more testable). Your mention of Uril sans mention of Vendilion Clique et al leads me to believe you've not participated in any of the MWS tournaments here or done much dedicated play with a 1v1 list elsewhere. Mention of Timetwister because "They are the Power 9, after all" also seems short-sighted as in EDH it's simply another Wheel. Still, the discussion should take place.
I'll just chime in and add Sorin Markov and Magister Sphinx. I'd like to see Rofellos get banned too, but I doubt that will happen.
Markov, more so than Sphinx, just seems like a really cheap play. I would settle if both of these cards got special errata along the lines of "Target opponent's life total becomes 20".
To me they're simply a good complement to the general damage rule. It's the only realistic way for some decks to deal with resolved life combos and I don't think the effect is at all unfair considering the costs of the cards involved (trips of color or three color, cmc >= 6) especially when starting life is 30. For the last, Sheldon and company have made a distinct effort to reverse EDH-specific errata (i.e. Riftsweeper being unable to hit generals and whatnot), a decision I agree with.
A whole layer of complication indeed but just to play devil's advocate, saying you came up with a workable system to build the deck, how would you enforce this?
Even in a tournament or league setting, no-one is going to deck-check you. Even then, it would take a comparative list for every check to see if you hadn't somehow gone-over the quota.
It's cumbersome, complicated and totally un-enforcable.
I may have to concede that it is cumbersome an complicated but definitely not unenforcable. In the first place, this system has been successfully applied to Australian Highlander format (though granted, it is a different format altogether with only 60 cards -- unique except for basic cards).
Secondly, I don't see too much of a complication involved in ensuring compliance in leagues and tournaments. A simple presentation of decklists would suffice.
Thirdly, as ludicrous as it may sound, this system relies on honours system, where individual deck designers and players are honest enough to make sure that their deck do not exceed the number of points. To be certain, the incentive for "cheating" is very low; anybody who wants to cheat in this casual format would probably deserve this very hollow victory.
That said, I agree (as I have pointed out earlier) that this system has many rough edges. However, I would argue that it is no less crude than the current system (as evidenced by the massive discussion in this thread). Personally though, I am fine with the current system.
Why does everybody call me out on not mentioning General X or Instant Y when I made it quite clear that this list is A WORK IN PROGRESS. I've seen tons of decks with different generals. These are the ones that I already mentioned that were particularly despicable. So, therestless, it's open for debate. This is a discussion so what I perceive as additions to the list are subjective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
To preface, I've no serious issue with the current list but I do think some changes would make it healthier. Lets break it all down for generals: Current list:
No banned generals
Possible revisions: Super tier: Vendilion Clique - By all accounts this one's a lock. It seems the meta hating that would be required to have game against an optimized Clique deck would about ruin your own deck vs. anything else (see: any arguments against Braids +1). Tier 1: Rofellos, Braids, Azami - I guess this is the current 'Unholy Trinity' of EDH generals. The question here becomes "Do we want to just drop a whole tier of EDH generals?" These generals can certainly be built for without crippling your deck but you certainly can't ignore them. I recall playing against a Niv deck that I'm fairly certain ran about 8 1-2 cost burn spells. Tier 1.5-2: There's a LOT you can put here, some of which could be argued as tier 1 (Zur, Daggson, et al) but I haven't seen a great showing of those in the past several tournaments. I really can't see any of these being considered.
And for cards: Current list: Ante/Dexterity cards - A given. Power 8 - Similarly. Degenerate card advantage (Gifts Ungiven, Mind Twist, Necropotence, Protean Hulk, Sundering Titan, Yawgmoth's Bargain) - Of these I can see arguments for Gifts, Twist, and Titan being unbanned. They are rather powerful but not terribly out of line with what is still allowed. If the Tier 1+ generals are added to the list than these should stay. Simply that powerful (Mindslaver, Staff of Domination, Time Vault, Tinker, Upheaval) - I know Mindslaver and Staff of Domination are very powerful but I never thought them degenerate enough to be banned. Yes, Slaver lock is an annoying way to lose and yes Staff is another easy infinite with Rofellos but they are both just a couple out of several. I really haven't heard anyone screaming to ban Mind Over Matter or Umbral Mantle so is simply being the Nth option a reason for the ban? EDH-specific issues (Crucible of Worlds, Grindstone, Karakas, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, Shahrazad) - I'm really O.K. with all of these staying listed. Crucible is the "softest" one on the list but it's pretty damn easy to luck into/search for the soft lock.
Possible revisions: Library of Alexandria - Extremely powerful opening but, outside of Niv or Azami (who tend to keep a full grip), it can be pretty useless later. It's banned in multi and I've heard cries to ban it for 1v1 but I'm not sold on that. Fastbond - Extremely powerful opening but mediocre later. It's combo options are heavily mitigated by Crucible being out. Worth watching but I don't yet think it's worth axing. Dream Halls - I say this mostly thinking of a meta post Clique-ban. It's extremely abusable but it does have to be built around and ends up being similar in power to Mind Over Matter. Still worth watching.
I really don't think any other cards have proven singularly problematic.
I think that with getting rid of Staff of Domination, Rofellos and Metal Worker become a lot less powerful. I think most people don't cry over infinite mana much if all you have to work with is your hand. People cry with Staff of Domination because it is a win right there, infinite mana = infinite life = infinite draw, so you just draw something that just wins right on the spot.
Vendilion Clique and Azami are definitely a lot more powerful than Uril in 1v1. I think really that has less to do about the general and more about the 30+ counterspells and 15+ bounce spells. Any blue mage can pack that, but Clique is the fastest clock and Azami can just infinite combo out with counter backup.
To me they're simply a good complement to the general damage rule. It's the only realistic way for some decks to deal with resolved life combos and I don't think the effect is at all unfair considering the costs of the cards involved (trips of color or three color, cmc >= 6) especially when starting life is 30. For the last, Sheldon and company have made a distinct effort to reverse EDH-specific errata (i.e. Riftsweeper being unable to hit generals and whatnot), a decision I agree with.
After giving this more thought, I think if they did get errata it should read "Target player loses 10 life". Kind of puts it in perspective...
ROFELLOS & BRAIDS (:symb:) banned as generals.
Recently removed from the ban list: VAMPIRE HEXMAGE & RIFTSWEEPER.
Recently added: DARK DEPTHS
Amulet of quoz
Black Lotus
Ancestral recall
Bronze tablet
Chaos Orb
Contract From Below
Crucible of Worlds
Dark Depths
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Falling Star
Gifts ungiven
Intuition
Jeweled Bird
Karakas
Life from the loam
Mana Crypt
Mind Twist
Mindslaver
Mox emerald
Mox Jet
Mox pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Necropotence
Painter’s servant
Protean Hulk
Rebirth
Sensei's divining top
Sol Ring
Staff of Domination
Sundering Titan
Tempest Efreet
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timmerian Fiends
Tinker
Upheaval
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Thanks for the list Zimagic. That's really...weird. Where did you find it?
I try to keep up with the French side of things on mtgfrance.com, but I haven't seen that list anywhere. I can understand Intuition and Life from the Loam (though I don't think I agree), but Dark Depths doesn't make much sense to me. Marit Lage just doesn't seem that good in EDH. I don't think I've ever seen that combo played--I've considered it a few decks, but decided it wasn't good enough. I just can't imagine how it was such a problem that it needed to be banned. Leyline of the Void + Helm of Obedience seems way better...at least that one always gets there. There are so many commonly played solutions to Marit Lage.
I'm really interested in why these changes were made.
Thanks for the list Zimagic. That's really...weird. Where did you find it?
I try to keep up with the French side of things on mtgfrance.com, but I haven't seen that list anywhere. I can understand Intuition and Life from the Loam (though I don't think I agree), but Dark Depths doesn't make much sense to me. Marit Lage just doesn't seem that good in EDH. I don't think I've ever seen that combo played--I've considered it a few decks, but decided it wasn't good enough. I just can't imagine how it was such a problem that it needed to be banned. Leyline of the Void + Helm of Obedience seems way better...at least that one always gets there. There are so many commonly played solutions to Marit Lage.
I'm really interested in why these changes were made.
One of my work colleagues went and took a flier back with him.
I don't agree with D-Depths myself either but you can't argue that an early 20/20 is a very strong threat in 1v1 EDH. Given enough tutors you could get this to stick early enough with some consistancy. Can't see it myself though.
I'll ask Marc at lunch and see what he can tell me.
My guess on Intuition is how similar it can be to Gifts Ungiven. Really, Gifts doesn't usually just get you 2 cards, it gets you 4. Similarly, Intuition will often get 3 (Academy Ruins + package or Reveillark + package). Losing the 4th card does make it notably worse, and I don't think I agree with the Gifts banning in the first place, but I can see why they're put together.
Yeah i've always been against the banning of Mind Twist as it just doesn't make sense. Its virtually the same as Mind Shatter and for the most part once you reach 5 mana Mind sludge performs the same role. Mind Twist also becomes less dangerous once sol ring and mana crypt are no longer around. It just always felt like a ridiculous banning based on someones opinion rather than actual necessity. With so many blue generals floating around its a very important tool for black decks.
Those last two revisions look a lot like what we're probably going to end up with (I haven't seen Intuition getting abused much but it probably 'should' be), though being on MWS price and availability are irrelevant. I do think Dark Depths and LftL can stay though.
I agree that Dark Depths can stay. It's not really that good. I looked at things that can remove any type of counter, and they are somewhat rare. Also, while it's not specifically stated, I think we all agree that "Un-" cards are out of the question, just as ante cards. But thanks for pointing that out regardless, Lucius.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
So I'd like to ask you Lucius_MagicTrade, what is the metagame like in French EDH? Have you guys had problems with any generals dominating the format; particularly Vendilion Clique?
I'd like to propose banning Rafiq, by the way. Turn 4 for 6 general damage is not fun.
And for whomever proposed Life from the Loam, I agree with you completely. Paired with Wasteland and Stripmine, that just completely ruins the game (and lands). Also, careful examination led me to reinforce my position on those lands: Keep them out.
I'd like to propose banning Rafiq, by the way. Turn 4 for 6 general damage is not fun.
...
Wait, what? I really hope you're not serious. By turn 4 he should be doing 8 (minimum) to 22 (Might of Oaks) and I still don't think I've ever heard someone complain about Rafiq. He's solid, sure, but he's also very simple (no haste, no protection, no evasion).
Edit: If you're talking about axing Strip Mine and Wasteland then are you also planning to axe Academy Ruins, Gaea's Cradle, Volrath's Stronghold, Miren, the Moaning Welll, Tolarian Academy, Dust Bowl, Library of Alexandria, Maze of Ith, and Reliquary Tower? Because that's really how people deal with those. I'd rather avoid banning two cards than ban 10.
Yeah. I haven't come across a Rafiq, but I run Esper colors and dealing with a threatening general is usually a piece of cake. With no protection or haste? That doesn't seem too bad. I could understand if you're trying to run colors with little to no removal, but all in all he seems easy enough to handle.
I want nice long games, not fast games. Not this "I win" in turn 3 crap. That's my reasoning. Again, you don't have to agree or bide by this. Fine, if you want to cry about my proposition of banning Stripmine and Wasteland, okay.
I propose we ban Academy Ruins, Gaea's Cradle, Volrath's Stronghold, Miren, the Moaning Welll, Tolarian Academy, Dust Bowl, Library of Alexandria, Maze of Ith, and Reliquary Tower.
There. Didn't think I would do it, did you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
The fact that this is a stickied thread on this forum is an abomination. It's a black mark that literally discourages people from posting in this forums, or assuming any intelligent conversation takes place here.
Syphon, I defended you in the "Boring opponents" thread, but this time the bans you have proposed are simply ludicrous. You can't just ban cards in massive numbers because you don't like them... at least without attemping to fight back. If you hate Wasteland/Strip Mine recursion in EDH, try the following:
1) Play more graveyard hate in your deck.
2) Play land recursion yourself.
3) Convince the rest of the table to take out the person targetting their recursive LD on you.
If that still doesn't do the trick, then ban the card that actually causes this to happen: Crucible of Worlds and to an extent LftL. There is no point in having to ban Strip Mine or Wasteland, because they are needed to keep everyone honest with their land base.
You've also overexaggerated Rafiq. He does not end games on "turn 4 for 6". That's plausible maybe if you let the Rafiq player just waltz around and do nothing uncontested. Most EDH decks anyway can do really ridiculous **** when they're left completely alone.
A ban is a last resort to a problem; not the first.
You prefer playing EDH with every card that is broken in the format, then?
Well to me thats not why this thread shouldn't be stickied. This thread is simply a personal opinion thread. You aren't really changing much of anything according to what everyone is saying in your banlist, instead using some mysterious personal research method instead of really using everyone elses thoughts and ideas. Your posts also feel downright angry when you act forced to change your list.
The reason this thread shouldn't be stickied is that everyones own personal banlist should not be stickied. If I post mine, will it get stickied? What about another person? Either this should be the case and the board would fill up with stickies, or there should be a darn good reason for your preferential treatment, and there isn't.
Not meaning to pick on you or anything, I mean you didn't sticky the thread. But it does seem a little silly doesn't it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
Halfdane Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A whole layer of complication indeed but just to play devil's advocate, saying you came up with a workable system to build the deck, how would you enforce this?
Even in a tournament or league setting, no-one is going to deck-check you. Even then, it would take a comparative list for every check to see if you hadn't somehow gone-over the quota.
It's cumbersome, complicated and totally un-enforcable.
Commander BLOG: The Crazy 99
Gonti ; Sissay
To me they're simply a good complement to the general damage rule. It's the only realistic way for some decks to deal with resolved life combos and I don't think the effect is at all unfair considering the costs of the cards involved (trips of color or three color, cmc >= 6) especially when starting life is 30. For the last, Sheldon and company have made a distinct effort to reverse EDH-specific errata (i.e. Riftsweeper being unable to hit generals and whatnot), a decision I agree with.
I may have to concede that it is cumbersome an complicated but definitely not unenforcable. In the first place, this system has been successfully applied to Australian Highlander format (though granted, it is a different format altogether with only 60 cards -- unique except for basic cards).
Secondly, I don't see too much of a complication involved in ensuring compliance in leagues and tournaments. A simple presentation of decklists would suffice.
Thirdly, as ludicrous as it may sound, this system relies on honours system, where individual deck designers and players are honest enough to make sure that their deck do not exceed the number of points. To be certain, the incentive for "cheating" is very low; anybody who wants to cheat in this casual format would probably deserve this very hollow victory.
That said, I agree (as I have pointed out earlier) that this system has many rough edges. However, I would argue that it is no less crude than the current system (as evidenced by the massive discussion in this thread). Personally though, I am fine with the current system.
Current list:
No banned generals
Possible revisions:
Super tier: Vendilion Clique - By all accounts this one's a lock. It seems the meta hating that would be required to have game against an optimized Clique deck would about ruin your own deck vs. anything else (see: any arguments against Braids +1).
Tier 1: Rofellos, Braids, Azami - I guess this is the current 'Unholy Trinity' of EDH generals. The question here becomes "Do we want to just drop a whole tier of EDH generals?" These generals can certainly be built for without crippling your deck but you certainly can't ignore them. I recall playing against a Niv deck that I'm fairly certain ran about 8 1-2 cost burn spells.
Tier 1.5-2: There's a LOT you can put here, some of which could be argued as tier 1 (Zur, Daggson, et al) but I haven't seen a great showing of those in the past several tournaments. I really can't see any of these being considered.
And for cards:
Current list:
Ante/Dexterity cards - A given.
Power 8 - Similarly.
Degenerate card advantage (Gifts Ungiven, Mind Twist, Necropotence, Protean Hulk, Sundering Titan, Yawgmoth's Bargain) - Of these I can see arguments for Gifts, Twist, and Titan being unbanned. They are rather powerful but not terribly out of line with what is still allowed. If the Tier 1+ generals are added to the list than these should stay.
Simply that powerful (Mindslaver, Staff of Domination, Time Vault, Tinker, Upheaval) - I know Mindslaver and Staff of Domination are very powerful but I never thought them degenerate enough to be banned. Yes, Slaver lock is an annoying way to lose and yes Staff is another easy infinite with Rofellos but they are both just a couple out of several. I really haven't heard anyone screaming to ban Mind Over Matter or Umbral Mantle so is simply being the Nth option a reason for the ban?
EDH-specific issues (Crucible of Worlds, Grindstone, Karakas, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, Shahrazad) - I'm really O.K. with all of these staying listed. Crucible is the "softest" one on the list but it's pretty damn easy to luck into/search for the soft lock.
Possible revisions:
Library of Alexandria - Extremely powerful opening but, outside of Niv or Azami (who tend to keep a full grip), it can be pretty useless later. It's banned in multi and I've heard cries to ban it for 1v1 but I'm not sold on that.
Fastbond - Extremely powerful opening but mediocre later. It's combo options are heavily mitigated by Crucible being out. Worth watching but I don't yet think it's worth axing.
Dream Halls - I say this mostly thinking of a meta post Clique-ban. It's extremely abusable but it does have to be built around and ends up being similar in power to Mind Over Matter. Still worth watching.
I really don't think any other cards have proven singularly problematic.
Vendilion Clique and Azami are definitely a lot more powerful than Uril in 1v1. I think really that has less to do about the general and more about the 30+ counterspells and 15+ bounce spells. Any blue mage can pack that, but Clique is the fastest clock and Azami can just infinite combo out with counter backup.
After giving this more thought, I think if they did get errata it should read "Target player loses 10 life". Kind of puts it in perspective...
Thanks for the list Zimagic. That's really...weird. Where did you find it?
I try to keep up with the French side of things on mtgfrance.com, but I haven't seen that list anywhere. I can understand Intuition and Life from the Loam (though I don't think I agree), but Dark Depths doesn't make much sense to me. Marit Lage just doesn't seem that good in EDH. I don't think I've ever seen that combo played--I've considered it a few decks, but decided it wasn't good enough. I just can't imagine how it was such a problem that it needed to be banned. Leyline of the Void + Helm of Obedience seems way better...at least that one always gets there. There are so many commonly played solutions to Marit Lage.
I'm really interested in why these changes were made.
One of my work colleagues went and took a flier back with him.
I don't agree with D-Depths myself either but you can't argue that an early 20/20 is a very strong threat in 1v1 EDH. Given enough tutors you could get this to stick early enough with some consistancy. Can't see it myself though.
I'll ask Marc at lunch and see what he can tell me.
Commander BLOG: The Crazy 99
Gonti ; Sissay
That makes recurring it even more significant and makes people lose to Momentary Blink. Format-specific errata is a trap.
And for whomever proposed Life from the Loam, I agree with you completely. Paired with Wasteland and Stripmine, that just completely ruins the game (and lands). Also, careful examination led me to reinforce my position on those lands: Keep them out.
...
Wait, what? I really hope you're not serious. By turn 4 he should be doing 8 (minimum) to 22 (Might of Oaks) and I still don't think I've ever heard someone complain about Rafiq. He's solid, sure, but he's also very simple (no haste, no protection, no evasion).
Edit: If you're talking about axing Strip Mine and Wasteland then are you also planning to axe Academy Ruins, Gaea's Cradle, Volrath's Stronghold, Miren, the Moaning Welll, Tolarian Academy, Dust Bowl, Library of Alexandria, Maze of Ith, and Reliquary Tower? Because that's really how people deal with those. I'd rather avoid banning two cards than ban 10.
I propose we ban Academy Ruins, Gaea's Cradle, Volrath's Stronghold, Miren, the Moaning Welll, Tolarian Academy, Dust Bowl, Library of Alexandria, Maze of Ith, and Reliquary Tower.
There. Didn't think I would do it, did you?
1) Play more graveyard hate in your deck.
2) Play land recursion yourself.
3) Convince the rest of the table to take out the person targetting their recursive LD on you.
If that still doesn't do the trick, then ban the card that actually causes this to happen: Crucible of Worlds and to an extent LftL. There is no point in having to ban Strip Mine or Wasteland, because they are needed to keep everyone honest with their land base.
You've also overexaggerated Rafiq. He does not end games on "turn 4 for 6". That's plausible maybe if you let the Rafiq player just waltz around and do nothing uncontested. Most EDH decks anyway can do really ridiculous **** when they're left completely alone.
A ban is a last resort to a problem; not the first.
Well to me thats not why this thread shouldn't be stickied. This thread is simply a personal opinion thread. You aren't really changing much of anything according to what everyone is saying in your banlist, instead using some mysterious personal research method instead of really using everyone elses thoughts and ideas. Your posts also feel downright angry when you act forced to change your list.
The reason this thread shouldn't be stickied is that everyones own personal banlist should not be stickied. If I post mine, will it get stickied? What about another person? Either this should be the case and the board would fill up with stickies, or there should be a darn good reason for your preferential treatment, and there isn't.
Not meaning to pick on you or anything, I mean you didn't sticky the thread. But it does seem a little silly doesn't it?
Halfdane
Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]