Oh, I remember those... (actually I had forgot about Koko and tried to bring it as a general once, lawls!), people were pissed, but I think everyone understood their total brokeness. Whereas with Prime Time, it just doesn't feel that way.
Then people are not being honest with themselves about his power and game warping.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Then people are not being honest with themselves about his power and game warping.
Let me clarify, what I meant was that I don't have the same feelings of 'power' when looking at Primeval Titan that I did of Tolarian Academy at the time.
Truthfully, if I was a member of the RC and Primeval Titan came up, I would have voted for his banning. I can admit that to myself and the members here. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it, but... and I hate saying this, it was probably the right decision.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
Let me clarify, what I meant was that I don't have the same feelings of 'power' when looking at Primeval Titan that I did of Tolarian Academy at the time.
Truthfully, if I was a member of the RC and Primeval Titan came up, I would have voted for his banning. I can admit that to myself and the members here. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it, but... and I hate saying this, it was probably the right decision.
Yea I figured you did, but anyone on here saying it is because Sheldon likes blue or because they could not deal with PT need to get a grip.
My favorite is when people threaten to quit. Be less mature, right?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Let me clarify, what I meant was that I don't have the same feelings of 'power' when looking at Primeval Titan that I did of Tolarian Academy at the time.
Truthfully, if I was a member of the RC and Primeval Titan came up, I would have voted for his banning. I can admit that to myself and the members here. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it, but... and I hate saying this, it was probably the right decision.
When Academy got banned, I flipped my lid. Man was a angry. Not because it was my favorite card or anything like that, but the effort I put in to acquire one was huge.
Now, I don't even think about.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being upset about not being able to play a pet card, but getting mad about it is just a waste of energy.
No, but those things will have more diverse targets. Green players will tutor for DIFFERENT creatures. No one will have to sit on removal before PT comes out. He wont warp the game with centralization and obsene ramp.
Come now, I think you are underestimating the creativity of players and extrapolating from a small sample here. I don't think most of the tutors are significantly skewed towards primeval titan. I think the centralisation argument is pretty much moot unless you have significant data to show otherwise. As for obscene ramp, I'd like to stress that many cards already do that -- I would argue that at times when I had Boundless Realms and Primeval Titan in my hand, I opted for Boundless Realms since instant gratification is better than delayed benefit over a period of time.
Then people are not being honest with themselves about his power and game warping.
This argument is desperate. What are we supposed to do? Search our feelings and know if it is true? By that logic, I can argue that an arbitrary card (say, Island) should be banned and people who disagree with me are not being honest with themselves about its power and game warping abilities.
Yea I figured you did, but anyone on here saying it is because Sheldon likes blue or because they could not deal with PT need to get a grip.
My favorite is when people threaten to quit. Be less mature, right?
Haha, yeah that's definitely out there. For anyone that watched Sheldon's deck techs or heard him talk about Prime Time, we know his love for the big green guy. I'm sure it was hard for Sheldon to cast his vote (as it would be for many of us).
When Academy got banned, I flipped my lid. Man was a angry. Not because it was my favorite card or anything like that, but the effort I put in to acquire one was huge.
Now, I don't even think about.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being upset about not being able to play a pet card, but getting mad about it is just a waste of energy.
Yeah, I had actually put away my mono blue artifact deck, and had started down the road with something else, so I wasn't as upset, but some people we're really, really pissed.
Again, for me it's just the loss of a favorite card in the only format I care about. I will get/am getting over it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
Come now, I think you are underestimating the creativity of players and extrapolating from a small sample here. I don't think most of the tutors are significantly skewed towards primeval titan. I think the centralisation argument is pretty much moot unless you have significant data to show otherwise. As for obscene ramp, I'd like to stress that many cards already do that -- I would argue that at times when I had Boundless Realms and Primeval Titan in my hand, I opted for Boundless Realms since instant gratification is better than delayed benefit over a period of time.
You can think what you like about over-centralization the data is all over this board. Many cards ramp, none grab two utility lands when cast, then another 2 anytime it attacks. People say he is a central strategy, then say lots of cards do what he does, it is disingenious.
This argument is desperate. What are we supposed to do? Search our feelings and know if it is true? By that logic, I can argue that an arbitrary card (say, Island) should be banned and people who disagree with me are not being honest with themselves about its power and game warping abilities.
It is my opinion about people who claim PT was not overly powerful or centralizing the game. They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Worldfire (and, for that matter, Sway of the Stars which was already on the banlist) essentially ignores everything that's happened so far in the game. Unless you're doing something like running Zo-Zu the Punisher as your general, or casting it off suspend/flash on top of some damage to all opponents (all of which turns Worldfire from a middle finger into a "gg"), then all of the game for the past hour is completely meaningless. That's simply not fun.
Again, how are Decree of Annihilation and Obliterate any different? They both can be played the exact same way, floating mana to cast your general and win the game. How is Tooth and Nail any different? It gets cast, the player fetches a combo, and the game ends, ignoring everything that has happened so far in the game.
This argument is all anyone uses against Worldfire, but it doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny. Obliterate can't be countered, but Worldfire can. Decree leaves unbalanced life totals alone, Worldfire balances them. The 1 life clause is incredibly important, and is what makes Worldfire both fair, and interesting. Being at one life, scrambling for a win when it's anyone's game is what makes it fun. Maybe not your kind of fun, but if that's the issue, I could show you a list of things I don't like, too.
Cards should not be banned based on their fun level for some, but not for others. This isn't the case, though, it's a case of a lack of proper assessment, and biases being formed too early, without sufficient testing. All the attention went to P-Town, and for the first time, the reasoning behind a ban doesn't add up. And if you or anyone else thinks that Worldfire is "universally un-fun", I'll direct you to this thread, where 99% of players are focused on Primeval Titan instead, and the few comments on Worldfire were "I've never played it, and never seen it played".
Sheldon might ignore some points or just point back to earlier statements, but at least he doesn't pull this crap. Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you guys can be.>
@Marc- it's less about losing a favorite card, and more about the decision of the RC. It's getting harder and harder to invest time and energy into the format when the leaders are making these kind of choices. When bans are unpredictable as prime time, all bets are off. It might seem like i'm just throwing a hissy fit or 'taking my ball and going home', but it's just that I'm not going to follow the list any more. Still gunna play EDH, because that's what drew me to the game in the first place, it's what got me playing magic again. Not what cards i couldn't play with, but with what cards i could. We had/have fun because we love the game, and because we love making our decks efficient and cutthroat, but i guess that's just a different fun than we're supposed to be having.
Sheldon might ignore some points or just point back to earlier statements, but at least he doesn't pull this crap. Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you guys can be.
@Marc- it's less about losing a favorite card, and more about the decision of the RC. It's getting harder and harder to invest time and energy into the format when the leaders are making these kind of choices. When bans are unpredictable as prime time, all bets are off. It might seem like i'm just throwing a hissy fit or 'taking my ball and going home', but it's just that I'm not going to follow the list any more. Still gunna play EDH, because that's what drew me to the game in the first place, it's what got me playing magic again. Not what cards i couldn't play with, but with what cards i could. We had/have fun because we love the game, and because we love making our decks efficient and cutthroat, but i guess that's just a different fun than we're supposed to be having.
I don't really think it was "unpredictable." I heard discussion about it as far out as a few months ago, and as recent as a week or so ago. I mentioned it to a few friends who don't follow this forum, and when it happened they all texted me saying that I had called it - I hadn't actually called it, I didn't say the card was going to get banned, but I did say that I saw it being talked about. And for reference, in the discussion thread there were a lot of people saying they would be happy to see it go, and this was weeks before it actually happened.
Bottom line, when cards come up for banning, there are going to be people who are happy, and people who aren't. It could have been TnN instead of Primeval Titan and you would have a lot of people bemoaning the banning of their favorite spell. But the thing is, even TnN was talked about, and even now with Primeval Titan being banned a lot of people are saying "TnN would have been a better or more logical choice!"
For reference about my own opinion; I only partly support Primeval Titan's banning. I do support the RC and their decisions, though I believe we should be able to appeal those decisions with logical and well thought out arguments (not the temper tantrum whining that some people do) and I love reading the well thought out responses that many people have posted. PT had to be a hard card to ban, simply because it is so popular, so useful, and so polarizing, but I find that in games where it is present, at least games I've played, it does tend to dominate the field, and warp the game from being about playing to being about dealing with PT. But that's just my humble viewpoint.
@Marc- it's less about losing a favorite card, and more about the decision of the RC. It's getting harder and harder to invest time and energy into the format when the leaders are making these kind of choices. When bans are unpredictable as prime time, all bets are off. It might seem like i'm just throwing a hissy fit or 'taking my ball and going home', but it's just that I'm not going to follow the list any more. Still gunna play EDH, because that's what drew me to the game in the first place, it's what got me playing magic again. Not what cards i couldn't play with, but with what cards i could. We had/have fun because we love the game, and because we love making our decks efficient and cutthroat, but i guess that's just a different fun than we're supposed to be having.
Do whatcha you gotta do man. The decision was fine. The reasoning could have been better, but thats a public relations issue more then a format issue.
Sheldon might ignore some points or just point back to earlier statements, but at least he doesn't pull this crap. Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you guys can be.
Kind of like half the posts in this thread, meaningless and dismissive.
the ban on primeval titan should have been expected by everyone. what I think most of the players complaining about the ban fail to realize is, PT puts permanents from your library into play. permanents. plural. as in more than one. and when this is a re-usable resource like non-basic land, its going to wreck the game. if you have a greaves on the board, it turns into pay 6 for a 6/6 trampler and search for any 4 land in your deck and drop them on the board. thats just silly people. its so good that other players not using green drifted to blue to steal, and copy their way to victory. this is what is meant by format warping. the game devolved into ways to take,copy,or tutor up one card. for every deck, not just the ones running titan. as for the RC, theese Judges and players spend an awful lot of time devoted to commander as a whole, take Sheldon for example. he plays at armada every week, goes to all the major events all over the world and plays, plays with other members of the RC, plays online, writes for starcity..... how does he have time for family, work, or anything else? these guys dont get paid for this.....they do it because of their love of the format. I for one will always be grateful for their efforts, even if I dont get everything I want.
Sheldon might ignore some points or just point back to earlier statements, but at least he doesn't pull this crap. Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you guys can be.
Play nice or get out. Posts like this are the last thing we need to keeping an open and respectful communication with the RC.
You can think what you like about over-centralization the data is all over this board. Many cards ramp, none grab two utility lands when cast, then another 2 anytime it attacks.
I am not sure what is your point. Many cards reanimates permanents with casting cost three or less but how many other cards you know of could reanimate a permanent casting three or less, then reanimate another one when it attacks?:confused:
It is my opinion about people who claim PT was not overly powerful or centralizing the game. They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
Another weak argument. To demolish this argument using reductio ad absurdum: -
It is my opinion (that people are not being honest with themselves about the power and game warping potential of Islands). They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
*Replace the bold part with any cards that you don't personally like but somehow lack reasonable arguments to support your position.
Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you ...can be.
I feel like this should be the response to every post you make about the RC.
If you were caught blind side by the ban, you were not paying attention. It came up regularly on this forum and others, and we widely address last season when Sundering was banned.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I am not sure what is your point. Many cards reanimates permanents with casting cost three or less but how many other cards you know of could reanimate a permanent casting three or less, then reanimate another one when it attacks?:confused:
It is my opinion (that people are not being honest with themselves about the power and game warping potential of Islands). They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
*Replace the bold part with any cards that you don't personally like but somehow lack reasonable arguments to support your position.
Those cards have to be in the graveyard and less than 3 CMC. They do not ramp you most of the time. Sun Titan is not in EVERY white deck, nor does it become the target of every kill or control spell.
You can make that argument about islands all you like, I have backed up my opinion on PT multiple times and have agreed with others: If people did not think it was warping games they had a small sample size or are not being honest with themselves.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
... but still, look at Consecrated Sphinx (we've all see the degeneracy), Kiki-Jiki (does anyone play this card fairly?), etc.
I'd never seen anyone play Kiki-Jiki in an unfun manner until Zealous Conscripts was released. It could be done, but I never saw anyone bother, because the other cards you could do it with generally weren't good enough on their own to make the cut for a deck unless you were specifically trying to go for a degenerate combo. Conscripts is a whole different thing: A card that is really great on its own, and completely broken when combined with Kiki.
Me personally, I intentionally don't play Conscripts and Kiki in the same deck because I don't like those sort of cheap "I win" combos in EDH, but that doesn't strike me as ideal, because there are lots of situations that could come up during a game in which either could be ideal. I'd personally hate to see Kiki banned, but I also haven't seen (and haven't been able to think of) a better solution that doesn't require you to intentionally weaken your decks in order to avoid an undesirable game condition.
And as others have stated, Con Sphinx, while powerful and potentially game-winning, simply doesn't impact the game just by virtue of having been successfully cast, as is often the case with Prime Time. It's a dangerous card, and definitely one with high potential (along with the better Eldrazi, I guess) to attract those looking for cards to abuse now that PT isn't around, but it really isn't in the same league as Prime Time. Literally nothing is.
Those cards have to be in the graveyard and less than 3 CMC. They do not ramp you most of the time. Sun Titan is not in EVERY white deck, nor does it become the target of every kill or control spell.
I think you miss my argument. My point was just because Primeval Titan is the only card that performs a somewhat unique function is not reasonable basis for it being banned.
You can make that argument about islands all you like, I have backed up my opinion on PT multiple times and have agreed with others: If people did not think it was warping games they had a small sample size or are not being honest with themselves.
Oh-come-on.... By your train of thought, if you or anybody think that Primeval Titan was warping games, you had a small sample size and/or are not being honest with yourselves.
At this point though, I have a feeling that we are just going to agree to disagree, if civilly.
Play nice or get out. Posts like this are the last thing we need to keeping an open and respectful communication with the RC.
While it was kinda rude he did have a little point if you responsible for a format you posts should consist of more than nah and shrugging people off. How would people feel if their leaders did that? (ie. kings/presidents)
Vorinclex has always been terribad in my experience (although I still run him in Azusa... hypocritical, I guess). He is perhaps the single biggest hate magnet I've ever seen. I've literally never seen him last a rotation around the table.
When I first started EDH, I didn't really have my head wrapped around the whole "social game" thing very well, so I included Vorinclex in the first version of my Rafiq deck. My thought was, "Big, powerful, expensive creature... seems a natural for EDH." I removed him quickly after, as the response was "kill the guy that plays Vorinclex, just on principle."
A lot of people (especially ones who play small generals and tons of utility creatures) complain about Elesh Norn, but I don't personally think she or most of the praetors are so bad. The exceptions are Vorinclex and Jin-Gitaxius; neither is fun, in my opinion.
I think you miss my argument. My point was just because Primeval Titan is the only card that performs a somewhat unique function is not reasonable basis for it being banned.
I agree that would not be a reason to ban it. I do not think that was why it was banned, but the power of finding non-basics was a factor.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
As for obscene ramp, I'd like to stress that many cards already do that -- I would argue that at times when I had Boundless Realms and Primeval Titan in my hand, I opted for Boundless Realms since instant gratification is better than delayed benefit over a period of time.
None of the other options - including Boundless Realms, which is a really good card - let you tutor for specific lands of your choice, while also being attached to a really solid body and being easily recurred/bounced/etc.
That combo of factors, combined with him being under-costed for the value he provides, are why Prime Time warped the format, and thus why he was banned.
As for the data, as recently as a couple months ago I was against banning PT, but then I started looking carefully at how it was being played within the two groups I play in, what the results were and how, essentially, the game became focused on Prime Time once it was cast and until it was exiled or the game ended... except in those cases the game was already focused on it before it was even cast, i.e., the focus was on getting one out first.
Those observations, along with the easy-combo brokenness of tutoring for things like Urborg/Coffers, is what changed my mind, and I'm not the only person who has observed those patterns.
Again, how are Decree of Annihilation and Obliterate any different? They both can be played the exact same way, floating mana to cast your general and win the game.
Neither of those two hits everyone's life total while also wiping out everything. That is a huge difference, as it gives essentially no time for the other players to catch up to the sudden advantage the guy who just cast the big kablooie spell has given himself.
Seriously, you can't see how that difference makes all the difference in the world?
Decree leaves unbalanced life totals alone, Worldfire balances them. The 1 life clause is incredibly important, and is what makes Worldfire both fair, and interesting.
Guess not.
What you mention is not a plus; it is why Worldfire is so bad. It erases any advantage all other players might have gained to that point in the game while giving the one player an insurmountable advantage. Literally everything that happened up to that point in the game becomes totally irrelevant.
Maybe not your kind of fun, but if that's the issue, I could show you a list of things I don't like, too.
Some people like torturing kittens, too. That doesn't mean such behavior is generally acceptable or should be encouraged.
The Worldfire win is a cheap one that requires no skill whatsoever; it simply requires one play a low-cost general and be able to live long enough to cast the spell while leaving a couple mana dangling. Most people prefer the game outcome be somewhat dependent on things like deckbuilding and play skill. Otherwise one might just as well roll a dice at the start of the game to see who wins instead of who goes first.
Again, "social format." Worldfire is the exact opposite of that. In fact, it takes unfair advantage of that aspect of the format, as social games allow the Worldfire player time to do their easy wincon. Played against other decks that are tuned just to win, Worldfire would be a crappy card, and probably never take a single win over all the third/fourth-turn tutor-combo fests.
If all that matters is winning, Worldfire can be good, but that's not the underlying idea behind EDH. People who like that kind of win would be better off playing in other formats where the whole point is to win, i.e., pretty much every other official format. Insisting on bringing those tactics into EDH is like one fighter wearing hockey armor for a boxing match and expecting people to consider that a fair and enjoyable match-up.
While it was kinda rude he did have a little point if you responsible for a format you posts should consist of more than nah and shrugging people off. How would people feel if their leaders did that? (ie. kings/presidents)
I think we should see the context of the rebuff: -
First of all, congrats on your Pokemon accomplishments, and sorry in advance if this post is unsatisfying. I don't have time to write up something that addresses all your points, but thanks for writing them.
Mainly, I want to establish that our fanbases are very different from each other. Smogon is a place for high-caliber players to congregate and test their hard-earned talents against one another. In a metagame like that, I strongly support your policy to ban only objects that unbalance competition. This is because that environment is self-regulating, as everyone is playing with the same goal: to win. The nature of this goal puts bounds on the strategies that will be encountered, as everyone will be pushing the upper limits of what is possible. It's rather more objective when something becomes unhealthy in a competitive environment, since there are only a few features outside of "win percentage" that actually matter.
Commander is explicitly not like that. We must choose the other policy (banning things to achieve a desired metagame) because it's fundamental to the very definition of the format. There are many formats that operate like Smogon, from Legacy to Sealed, and we've specifically set aside Commander for players who are looking for a different experience. There is no upper limit to Commander games, since the primary goal isn't an objective one, and it's definitely not zero-sum like a Standard tournament. We don't need an objectively balanced format, because Commander players don't try to tip things over to enjoy themselves.
You mentioned Armageddon as an effective way to check the power of Primeval Titan decks, and you're right, Azusa probably loses most games to Cataclysm. The problem with this logic is that there's a very good reason why mass land destruction is "soft-banned" in most EDH circles: it's not very much fun for the majority of players and playgroups when it happens. Encouraging aggressive land destruction in Commander's metagame in order to make the format more balanced would be similar to moving Arcaus out of Uber tier because people enjoy playing it. It goes counter to the philosophy of the game.
So, we're aware that EDH is a broken, overpowered format, and we're aware that this fact causes problems for a segment of our following. We don't like that and we certainly want those problems to go away, but we're also unwilling to damage the format in any way for our intended audience.
If this is true- please ban all mass LD, stasis, the abyss, counterspells, smokestack, mindsclicer, mind over matter, all combo cards, humility, and any other card you think is "unfun", etc. Then everyone going into the game will understand your philosophy much clearer.
It is difficult to see how to the out of context comment in the second last post above.
Quote from JWK »
None of the other options - including Boundless Realms, which is a really good card - let you tutor for specific lands of your choice, while also being attached to a really solid body and being easily recurred/bounced/etc.
That combo of factors, combined with him being under-costed for the value he provides, are why Prime Time warped the format, and thus why he was banned.
As for the data, as recently as a couple months ago I was against banning PT, but then I started looking carefully at how it was being played within the two groups I play in, what the results were and how, essentially, the game became focused on Prime Time once it was cast and until it was exiled or the game ended... except in those cases the game was already focused on it before it was even cast, i.e., the focus was on getting one out first.
Those observations, along with the easy-combo brokenness of tutoring for things like Urborg/Coffers, is what changed my mind, and I'm not the only person who has observed those patterns.
While I can respect your arguments and observations (having seen them myself), I would dispute that these combo potentials are sufficient basis for Primeval Titan's banning. There are many cards that had similarly high combo potential -- which, if I may add, all but wins the game (I am looking at you, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, et. al.).
I don't think centralisation is a good argument any longer in the age where different playgroups have different cards they would rather "centralise" on. I can admit that at least some of my games has seen Primeval Titan being centralised but I'd also argue that in others, strategic decisions has been taken to centralise other cards including the NPH Praetors, Consecrated Sphinx, etc.
Neither of those two hits everyone's life total while also wiping out everything. That is a huge difference, as it gives essentially no time for the other players to catch up to the sudden advantage the guy who just cast the big kablooie spell has given himself.
Catch up? There is no room for catch up, because there is no advantage, other than life total and Enchantments. When everyone has a completely empty board (sans Enchantments), yet one player is at 3 life, and the Decree player is at 38, how do you propose that player "catch up"? And if the Decree player is running Enchantments? Then we have the "one player gets an insurmountable advantage" point you brought up. With Decree, not Worldfire. Because Worldfire doesn't allow for that.
What you mention is not a plus; it is why Worldfire is so bad. It erases any advantage all other players might have gained to that point in the game while giving the one player an insurmountable advantage. Literally everything that happened up to that point in the game becomes totally irrelevant.
This is the most overused argument against Worldfire, and it is also the weakest. In fact, I just pointed that out in the post you quoted. Decree erases everything that happened up to that point. Any infinite combo erases everything that happened up to that point, because the game is over. The "erases everything up to that point" argument holds no water when multiple other unbanned cards do the same, or worse (can't be countered). Also, what insurmountable advantage does anyone have on a clear board with no cards in hand and everyone at one life? Nobody does.
...it simply requires one play a low-cost general and be able to live long enough to cast the spell while leaving a couple mana dangling.
And if we all abuse cards to their fullest extent, doing everything we can to win instead of playing the card for it's intended purpose, then I've got another laundry list of unbanned cards to show you.
Again, "social format." Worldfire is the exact opposite of that. In fact, it takes unfair advantage of that aspect of the format, as social games allow the Worldfire player time to do their easy wincon.
So do all the other board sweepers, since you can float mana and play those, too. Now refer to my first point, where having one player at 38 life and another at 3 isn't balanced.
If all that matters is winning, Worldfire can be good, but that's not the underlying idea behind EDH. People who like that kind of win would be better off playing in other formats where the whole point is to win, i.e., pretty much every other official format. Insisting on bringing those tactics into EDH is like one fighter wearing hockey armor for a boxing match and expecting people to consider that a fair and enjoyable match-up.
And now you're telling me that your fun is not my fun, and that my fun is wrong. If you had read my posts, you'd find that I don't play Worldfire to win at all. In fact, that's my entire argument, and the fact that you haven't addressed that leads me to believe that you should before trying to refute me. Go look over my other posts where I address how Worldfire is supposed to be played, because I've already addressed your argument twice now.
Again, I've actually played Worldfire without abusing it for a cheap win. I've played games where everyone scrambled to reassemble a board state, where anyone could take the win. I've played games where everyone got one threat out on the board, but had to carefully choose who to attack without leaving themselves vulnerable in the process. If you can't see the interesting game-state Worldfire can create that no other card can, then it is unlikely that you, like many others before you, have played the card properly.
Also, if you are going to address my points again, I ask that you refrain from trying to insult my intelligence with quotes like, "Seriously, you can't see how that difference makes all the difference in the world? Guess not." They are crass, and dilute your argument.
Let me clarify, what I meant was that I don't have the same feelings of 'power' when looking at Primeval Titan that I did of Tolarian Academy at the time.
Truthfully, if I was a member of the RC and Primeval Titan came up, I would have voted for his banning. I can admit that to myself and the members here. That doesn't mean I'm happy with it, but... and I hate saying this, it was probably the right decision.
My favorite is when people threaten to quit. Be less mature, right?
When Academy got banned, I flipped my lid. Man was a angry. Not because it was my favorite card or anything like that, but the effort I put in to acquire one was huge.
Now, I don't even think about.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being upset about not being able to play a pet card, but getting mad about it is just a waste of energy.
Come now, I think you are underestimating the creativity of players and extrapolating from a small sample here. I don't think most of the tutors are significantly skewed towards primeval titan. I think the centralisation argument is pretty much moot unless you have significant data to show otherwise. As for obscene ramp, I'd like to stress that many cards already do that -- I would argue that at times when I had Boundless Realms and Primeval Titan in my hand, I opted for Boundless Realms since instant gratification is better than delayed benefit over a period of time.
This argument is desperate. What are we supposed to do? Search our feelings and know if it is true? By that logic, I can argue that an arbitrary card (say, Island) should be banned and people who disagree with me are not being honest with themselves about its power and game warping abilities.
Haha, yeah that's definitely out there. For anyone that watched Sheldon's deck techs or heard him talk about Prime Time, we know his love for the big green guy. I'm sure it was hard for Sheldon to cast his vote (as it would be for many of us).
Yeah, I had actually put away my mono blue artifact deck, and had started down the road with something else, so I wasn't as upset, but some people we're really, really pissed.
Again, for me it's just the loss of a favorite card in the only format I care about. I will get/am getting over it.
It is my opinion about people who claim PT was not overly powerful or centralizing the game. They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
Again, how are Decree of Annihilation and Obliterate any different? They both can be played the exact same way, floating mana to cast your general and win the game. How is Tooth and Nail any different? It gets cast, the player fetches a combo, and the game ends, ignoring everything that has happened so far in the game.
This argument is all anyone uses against Worldfire, but it doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny. Obliterate can't be countered, but Worldfire can. Decree leaves unbalanced life totals alone, Worldfire balances them. The 1 life clause is incredibly important, and is what makes Worldfire both fair, and interesting. Being at one life, scrambling for a win when it's anyone's game is what makes it fun. Maybe not your kind of fun, but if that's the issue, I could show you a list of things I don't like, too.
Cards should not be banned based on their fun level for some, but not for others. This isn't the case, though, it's a case of a lack of proper assessment, and biases being formed too early, without sufficient testing. All the attention went to P-Town, and for the first time, the reasoning behind a ban doesn't add up. And if you or anyone else thinks that Worldfire is "universally un-fun", I'll direct you to this thread, where 99% of players are focused on Primeval Titan instead, and the few comments on Worldfire were "I've never played it, and never seen it played".
<*slow clap*
Ladies and gentlemen, the RC.
Sheldon might ignore some points or just point back to earlier statements, but at least he doesn't pull this crap. Thank you for your meaningless post.. well i guess in a way it wasn't really meaningless, it showed the close mindedness and dismissive nature of how you guys can be.>
@Marc- it's less about losing a favorite card, and more about the decision of the RC. It's getting harder and harder to invest time and energy into the format when the leaders are making these kind of choices. When bans are unpredictable as prime time, all bets are off. It might seem like i'm just throwing a hissy fit or 'taking my ball and going home', but it's just that I'm not going to follow the list any more. Still gunna play EDH, because that's what drew me to the game in the first place, it's what got me playing magic again. Not what cards i couldn't play with, but with what cards i could. We had/have fun because we love the game, and because we love making our decks efficient and cutthroat, but i guess that's just a different fun than we're supposed to be having.
Trolling warning issued. -viper
I don't really think it was "unpredictable." I heard discussion about it as far out as a few months ago, and as recent as a week or so ago. I mentioned it to a few friends who don't follow this forum, and when it happened they all texted me saying that I had called it - I hadn't actually called it, I didn't say the card was going to get banned, but I did say that I saw it being talked about. And for reference, in the discussion thread there were a lot of people saying they would be happy to see it go, and this was weeks before it actually happened.
Bottom line, when cards come up for banning, there are going to be people who are happy, and people who aren't. It could have been TnN instead of Primeval Titan and you would have a lot of people bemoaning the banning of their favorite spell. But the thing is, even TnN was talked about, and even now with Primeval Titan being banned a lot of people are saying "TnN would have been a better or more logical choice!"
For reference about my own opinion; I only partly support Primeval Titan's banning. I do support the RC and their decisions, though I believe we should be able to appeal those decisions with logical and well thought out arguments (not the temper tantrum whining that some people do) and I love reading the well thought out responses that many people have posted. PT had to be a hard card to ban, simply because it is so popular, so useful, and so polarizing, but I find that in games where it is present, at least games I've played, it does tend to dominate the field, and warp the game from being about playing to being about dealing with PT. But that's just my humble viewpoint.
Do whatcha you gotta do man. The decision was fine. The reasoning could have been better, but thats a public relations issue more then a format issue.
Kind of like half the posts in this thread, meaningless and dismissive.
Play nice or get out. Posts like this are the last thing we need to keeping an open and respectful communication with the RC.
I am not sure what is your point. Many cards reanimates permanents with casting cost three or less but how many other cards you know of could reanimate a permanent casting three or less, then reanimate another one when it attacks?:confused:
Surely you are not trying to use other people's logical fallacy to refute my arguments, are you?
Another weak argument. To demolish this argument using reductio ad absurdum: -
It is my opinion (that people are not being honest with themselves about the power and game warping potential of Islands). They don't want it to be true, so they deny it.
*Replace the bold part with any cards that you don't personally like but somehow lack reasonable arguments to support your position.
On a related note, this: -
I may disagree with the RC's decision but I think that a civil discussion is in order.
If you were caught blind side by the ban, you were not paying attention. It came up regularly on this forum and others, and we widely address last season when Sundering was banned.
.....and there was much rejoicing
my tribal spirits/karador deck has such a raging clue right now......
You can make that argument about islands all you like, I have backed up my opinion on PT multiple times and have agreed with others: If people did not think it was warping games they had a small sample size or are not being honest with themselves.
I'd never seen anyone play Kiki-Jiki in an unfun manner until Zealous Conscripts was released. It could be done, but I never saw anyone bother, because the other cards you could do it with generally weren't good enough on their own to make the cut for a deck unless you were specifically trying to go for a degenerate combo. Conscripts is a whole different thing: A card that is really great on its own, and completely broken when combined with Kiki.
Me personally, I intentionally don't play Conscripts and Kiki in the same deck because I don't like those sort of cheap "I win" combos in EDH, but that doesn't strike me as ideal, because there are lots of situations that could come up during a game in which either could be ideal. I'd personally hate to see Kiki banned, but I also haven't seen (and haven't been able to think of) a better solution that doesn't require you to intentionally weaken your decks in order to avoid an undesirable game condition.
And as others have stated, Con Sphinx, while powerful and potentially game-winning, simply doesn't impact the game just by virtue of having been successfully cast, as is often the case with Prime Time. It's a dangerous card, and definitely one with high potential (along with the better Eldrazi, I guess) to attract those looking for cards to abuse now that PT isn't around, but it really isn't in the same league as Prime Time. Literally nothing is.
I think you miss my argument. My point was just because Primeval Titan is the only card that performs a somewhat unique function is not reasonable basis for it being banned.
Oh-come-on.... By your train of thought, if you or anybody think that Primeval Titan was warping games, you had a small sample size and/or are not being honest with yourselves.
At this point though, I have a feeling that we are just going to agree to disagree, if civilly.
While it was kinda rude he did have a little point if you responsible for a format you posts should consist of more than nah and shrugging people off. How would people feel if their leaders did that? (ie. kings/presidents)
When I first started EDH, I didn't really have my head wrapped around the whole "social game" thing very well, so I included Vorinclex in the first version of my Rafiq deck. My thought was, "Big, powerful, expensive creature... seems a natural for EDH." I removed him quickly after, as the response was "kill the guy that plays Vorinclex, just on principle."
A lot of people (especially ones who play small generals and tons of utility creatures) complain about Elesh Norn, but I don't personally think she or most of the praetors are so bad. The exceptions are Vorinclex and Jin-Gitaxius; neither is fun, in my opinion.
I agree that would not be a reason to ban it. I do not think that was why it was banned, but the power of finding non-basics was a factor.
None of the other options - including Boundless Realms, which is a really good card - let you tutor for specific lands of your choice, while also being attached to a really solid body and being easily recurred/bounced/etc.
That combo of factors, combined with him being under-costed for the value he provides, are why Prime Time warped the format, and thus why he was banned.
As for the data, as recently as a couple months ago I was against banning PT, but then I started looking carefully at how it was being played within the two groups I play in, what the results were and how, essentially, the game became focused on Prime Time once it was cast and until it was exiled or the game ended... except in those cases the game was already focused on it before it was even cast, i.e., the focus was on getting one out first.
Those observations, along with the easy-combo brokenness of tutoring for things like Urborg/Coffers, is what changed my mind, and I'm not the only person who has observed those patterns.
Neither of those two hits everyone's life total while also wiping out everything. That is a huge difference, as it gives essentially no time for the other players to catch up to the sudden advantage the guy who just cast the big kablooie spell has given himself.
Seriously, you can't see how that difference makes all the difference in the world?
Guess not.
What you mention is not a plus; it is why Worldfire is so bad. It erases any advantage all other players might have gained to that point in the game while giving the one player an insurmountable advantage. Literally everything that happened up to that point in the game becomes totally irrelevant.
Some people like torturing kittens, too. That doesn't mean such behavior is generally acceptable or should be encouraged.
The Worldfire win is a cheap one that requires no skill whatsoever; it simply requires one play a low-cost general and be able to live long enough to cast the spell while leaving a couple mana dangling. Most people prefer the game outcome be somewhat dependent on things like deckbuilding and play skill. Otherwise one might just as well roll a dice at the start of the game to see who wins instead of who goes first.
Again, "social format." Worldfire is the exact opposite of that. In fact, it takes unfair advantage of that aspect of the format, as social games allow the Worldfire player time to do their easy wincon. Played against other decks that are tuned just to win, Worldfire would be a crappy card, and probably never take a single win over all the third/fourth-turn tutor-combo fests.
If all that matters is winning, Worldfire can be good, but that's not the underlying idea behind EDH. People who like that kind of win would be better off playing in other formats where the whole point is to win, i.e., pretty much every other official format. Insisting on bringing those tactics into EDH is like one fighter wearing hockey armor for a boxing match and expecting people to consider that a fair and enjoyable match-up.
I think we should see the context of the rebuff: -
It is difficult to see how to the out of context comment in the second last post above.
While I can respect your arguments and observations (having seen them myself), I would dispute that these combo potentials are sufficient basis for Primeval Titan's banning. There are many cards that had similarly high combo potential -- which, if I may add, all but wins the game (I am looking at you, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail, et. al.).
I don't think centralisation is a good argument any longer in the age where different playgroups have different cards they would rather "centralise" on. I can admit that at least some of my games has seen Primeval Titan being centralised but I'd also argue that in others, strategic decisions has been taken to centralise other cards including the NPH Praetors, Consecrated Sphinx, etc.
Catch up? There is no room for catch up, because there is no advantage, other than life total and Enchantments. When everyone has a completely empty board (sans Enchantments), yet one player is at 3 life, and the Decree player is at 38, how do you propose that player "catch up"? And if the Decree player is running Enchantments? Then we have the "one player gets an insurmountable advantage" point you brought up. With Decree, not Worldfire. Because Worldfire doesn't allow for that.
This is the most overused argument against Worldfire, and it is also the weakest. In fact, I just pointed that out in the post you quoted. Decree erases everything that happened up to that point. Any infinite combo erases everything that happened up to that point, because the game is over. The "erases everything up to that point" argument holds no water when multiple other unbanned cards do the same, or worse (can't be countered). Also, what insurmountable advantage does anyone have on a clear board with no cards in hand and everyone at one life? Nobody does.
Paper-thin argument. Cards aren't banned on skill-level required, and the list of no-skill win cards is a mile long.
And if we all abuse cards to their fullest extent, doing everything we can to win instead of playing the card for it's intended purpose, then I've got another laundry list of unbanned cards to show you.
So do all the other board sweepers, since you can float mana and play those, too. Now refer to my first point, where having one player at 38 life and another at 3 isn't balanced.
And now you're telling me that your fun is not my fun, and that my fun is wrong. If you had read my posts, you'd find that I don't play Worldfire to win at all. In fact, that's my entire argument, and the fact that you haven't addressed that leads me to believe that you should before trying to refute me. Go look over my other posts where I address how Worldfire is supposed to be played, because I've already addressed your argument twice now.
Again, I've actually played Worldfire without abusing it for a cheap win. I've played games where everyone scrambled to reassemble a board state, where anyone could take the win. I've played games where everyone got one threat out on the board, but had to carefully choose who to attack without leaving themselves vulnerable in the process. If you can't see the interesting game-state Worldfire can create that no other card can, then it is unlikely that you, like many others before you, have played the card properly.
Also, if you are going to address my points again, I ask that you refrain from trying to insult my intelligence with quotes like, "Seriously, you can't see how that difference makes all the difference in the world? Guess not." They are crass, and dilute your argument.