Can we just ban this banlist? It doesn't just neuter decks; it neuters the entire format, which is supposed to be about freedom and creativity. Creativity is, of course, the hotly debated word by the OP... Maybe he should just play with more creative people, or play people with whom he shares the philosophy that if a card is used by more than 5 people it should be banned.
I would change 2 cards on the list but otherwise I would love to play that format. I would drop bribery and earth craft. Bribery is an entirely fair card and is only even remotely good when people play big dumb fatties its the best non mass LD hate against big ramp decks. Earth craft is very limited and is generally only good in token decks as otherwise it just turns creatures into birds of paradise which is good but no where near the other cards on the list.
Banning all tutors seems like people would not use strategies with synergy just all good stuff and every good deck would be blue. I could be wrong but that seems less creative and less fun you can't force creativity you would get a ton of blue good stuff decks this format looks ripe for a teferi knowledge pool deck.
Instead, there are tons of "spikes" who kidnapped the format and abuse it 'cause they finally can play all the stuff they own which is ruining everyone elses games.
Think about it, then reread the OP. I'm with him.
Then do not play with those people. The EDH community should be large and diverse enough to find people who like the same kind of games you do.
Lots of people in EDH want to play great cards, but not combo out on turn 4. A large ban list will hurt the format in the long run, create a larger house ban list.
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.
This whole thread is what pushed me away from Commander, after is just got into it. I just rediscovered MTG for myself after a LONG pause and thought "all this people putting out 100/1000's of $/€ for standard are living in a bubble that gets smaller and smaller", Commander seems like a nice niche where you can be creative, play some of the weaker stuff and still enjoy a great game, have lots of fun and not "it's turn 4, i won!".
Instead, there are tons of "spikes" who kidnapped the format and abuse it 'cause they finally can play all the stuff they own which is ruining everyone elses games.
Think about it, then reread the OP. I'm with him.
Funny, we have both of those things and still manage a friendly group that introduces new players all the time.
And I'm 100% against the OP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
My group is very casual, but we like big crazy cards.
The other night my friend that plays Numot played Omniscense then dropped Gisela, Blazing Archon and Basandra from hand with Numot already on the field, basically winning the game right there. After realizing we had no shot we conceded the game. Seriously who wants to play a game for 3 hours anyways? If games go more quickly, we can get in more games and everyone is happy. Ramp and tutors get you to a board state where someone can actually win in a faster time clock.
If you can't play all the big and fun cards in EDH, where can you play them?
My group is very casual, but we like big crazy cards.
The other night my friend that plays Numot played Omniscense then dropped Gisela, Blazing Archon and Basandra from hand with Numot already on the field, basically winning the game right there. After realizing we had no shot we conceded the game. Seriously who wants to play a game for 3 hours anyways? If games go more quickly, we can get in more games and everyone is happy. Ramp and tutors get you to a board state where someone can actually win in a faster time clock.
If you can't play all the big and fun cards in EDH, where can you play them?
This is basically my issue with players who "dont like combo" I dont care who wins or how if everyone had fun, but I will NOT have fun when games are 3-5 hours long its simply impossible.
I tried to play a big silly maelstorm wanderer deck. The combo's weren't what made it unbearable it was the 120 life to chomp through, the constant sweepers, and the blockers, the combo's only matter because 40 life is insurmountable for decks that swing (To put it in perspective pretend prime titan was a 3/3 in standard. That is roughly how nerfed creatures are in this format.) Short of some absurdly huge dudes (Malignus, blightsteel) its almost impossible to win by swinging which is very sad.
For those of you who actually read what I had to say and were (and are) courteous in your posts, thank you. A number of suggestions were quite valuable; you'll note that the original post has been heavily changed. I've flipped the focus of the thread to better reflect its original purpose.
I'm not missing it at all. He's ridiculous ramp on top of being a huge beater. But if you play Aven Mindcensor against him, then yeah, he's pretty much just a big beater, or maybe the Titan player will get really lucky and get the equivalent of a free Rampant Growth off him every turn.
You really don't understand, after all.
1) Doom Blade kills Consecrated Sphinx. Your point?
2) Read Rampant Growth. Now read Primeval Titan. See the difference.
Either way, suddenly he's a lot less scary, and if enough people start playing those sorts of answers, maybe people won't cram the Titan into every green deck.
This is called warping the format. When a card is so powerful that it demands answers, you have a problem. The "solution" you offered is the very opposite of desirable.
My points, again are, a) you ban one great card just because it's used a lot - which was the suggestion made by the guy I was responding to - and all you do is guarantee that the next most advantageous card gets used just as often as did the one you just banned, and b) there are other ways to deal with the problem than just banning things.
The next most advantageous card often isn't nearly as good. Consider this: Avenger of Zendicar (Prime Time's runner up) is often great because he rides Primeval Titan to victory. See the synergy?
But I digress.
While it is true that there will always be a set of "the most powerful cards," it does not follow that the same imbalances will follow. Sure, if Sol Ring is banned then the new top tier mana rock will be ____, but that doesn't mean that ____ will cause the same problems that Sol Ring did -- it simply doesn't do what Sol Ring does nearly as well. It's more fair, and even though it's top tier it doesn't negatively affect the game life Sol Ring did.
Why do you think there are banned cards in standard? The same logic applies there, too. After Jace the Mind Sculptor was banned, there was a new "best" planeswalker, but not nearly as broken.
The combo's weren't what made it unbearable it was the 120 life to chomp through, the constant sweepers, and the blockers, the combo's only matter because 40 life is insurmountable for decks that swing (To put it in perspective pretend prime titan was a 3/3 in standard.
It sounds like no one in your group has built a competent aggro deck, then. One of my decks is aggro and it one-shotted an opponent in a 5-player game. With one creature. (Of course, the offending cards were destroyed, but hey, that's what happens in multi-player games.) Another two aggro decks in that group produce creatures every turn, and one of them makes those creatures uncounterable. Each of those decks beats face and wins by swinging.
Plus, you don't have to be the only one killing people. Your opponents are your opponents' opponents, too, and if you played your politics right, then they'll have taken care of themselves and you can just come in later to clean everyone else out. AND! There's still general damage! It only takes 21 to kill someone, so if they gain life like crazy just swing with your general.
The comparison of Prime Time to a 3/3 in Standard is laughable. Individually, he may not take out an enormous chunk of life, but then again, nothing (okay, very few) cards in a deck should stand alone. Ideally, if you're gonna make an aggro deck, you're not swinging with just a Prime Time. You're tossing out little (but useful) support creatures until the heavy hitters come out; you should be swinging with them, too. If you don't do too much at once, then you're opponents will likely disregard it and let the damage through. The damage adds up over time.
/rant
Anyways! I noticed that the OP changed into strata and tiers and such. All of this is waaaaaaay too laboured and complicated. EDH is rather simple with its rules already. Extra layers of rules aren't necessary and even detract from the enjoyment of playing the format. I don't want to have to remember which cards are banned for which level people are playing. The universality of the current rules and banlist are important for consistency in the format.
It sounds like no one in your group has built a competent aggro deck, then. One of my decks is aggro and it one-shotted an opponent in a 5-player game. With one creature. (Of course, the offending cards were destroyed, but hey, that's what happens in multi-player games.) Another two aggro decks in that group produce creatures every turn, and one of them makes those creatures uncounterable. Each of those decks beats face and wins by swinging.
Plus, you don't have to be the only one killing people. Your opponents are your opponents' opponents, too, and if you played your politics right, then they'll have taken care of themselves and you can just come in later to clean everyone else out. AND! There's still general damage! It only takes 21 to kill someone, so if they gain life like crazy just swing with your general.
The comparison of Prime Time to a 3/3 in Standard is laughable. Individually, he may not take out an enormous chunk of life, but then again, nothing (okay, very few) cards in a deck should stand alone. Ideally, if you're gonna make an aggro deck, you're not swinging with just a Prime Time. You're tossing out little (but useful) support creatures until the heavy hitters come out; you should be swinging with them, too. If you don't do too much at once, then you're opponents will likely disregard it and let the damage through. The damage adds up over time.
/rant
Anyways! I noticed that the OP changed into strata and tiers and such. All of this is waaaaaaay too laboured and complicated. EDH is rather simple with its rules already. Extra layers of rules aren't necessary and even detract from the enjoyment of playing the format. I don't want to have to remember which cards are banned for which level people are playing. The universality of the current rules and banlist are important for consistency in the format.
I have tried everything from mono green ramp beats, to edric, to jenara. The only way aggro can be good is if at least 3 players are swinging, otherwise it's too much to go through. As for no card standing on its own as I mentioned with malignus, blightsteel, exct creatures need to be a threat all alone just like in standard, modern, and legacy otherwise the format has issues that lead to winning by swinging being freeking terrible. (For example prime/inferno titan, goyf/delver, goyf/delver/stoneforge again) You are right however I don't have a competent aggro deck because such a thing in a format where your creatures effectivness is halved is simply impossible.
General damage isn't much to mitigate this considering the number of tuck effects played at my table (Almost everyone plays blue and has hinder/crumple and or spin into myth, we even have one guy with hallowed burial) Generals typically end up tucked if they get cast.
Your assertion that no creature should stand on its own is laughable in every format creatures stand on their own and barring a few (very rare) decks like burn where the goal is to count to 20 most of the creatures are reasonably able to end the game ALONE in no more than 7 turns. EDH is the only format where this is not the case. There is no threat of dying as a control or combo deck if you shaved off 10 life the entire format would be more balanced.
I really like this new banned list however I feel like it promotes more control and long grindy games and does nothing to for aggro. For example with bribery banned there is no reason not to just run eldrazi in control instead of other more fairly costed finishers like guile/Csphinx/whatever.
It's unfortunate that tuck effects are so common with your group. We generally allow people to move their general to the command zone when that happens. Are you referring to the Stratum 3 list when you mention Bribery? It's not on the austere (stratum 2) list.
I'd like to note that these strata aren't proposed to become official; this is just a list of common house rules, and that includes commonly house-banned cards. If that's not clear, I'll try to edit the language in the first post.
It's unfortunate that tuck effects are so common with your group. We generally allow people to move their general to the command zone when that happens. Are you referring to the Stratum 3 list when you mention Bribery? It's not on the austere (stratum 2) list.
I'd like to note that these strata aren't proposed to become official; this is just a list of common house rules, and that includes commonly house-banned cards. If that's not clear, I'll try to edit the language in the first post.
Generals tend to not get cast if anyone has 1UU open or you are likely to lose them. As for that I didnt see that on bribery and you are actually correct I just misread the lists.
I have tried everything from mono green ramp beats, to edric, to jenara. The only way aggro can be good is if at least 3 players are swinging, otherwise it's too much to go through. As for no card standing on its own as I mentioned with malignus, blightsteel, exct creatures need to be a threat all alone just like in standard, modern, and legacy otherwise the format has issues that lead to winning by swinging being freeking terrible. (For example prime/inferno titan, goyf/delver, goyf/delver/stoneforge again) You are right however I don't have a competent aggro deck because such a thing in a format where your creatures effectivness is halved is simply impossible.
General damage isn't much to mitigate this considering the number of tuck effects played at my table (Almost everyone plays blue and has hinder/crumple and or spin into myth, we even have one guy with hallowed burial) Generals typically end up tucked if they get cast.
Your assertion that no creature should stand on its own is laughable in every format creatures stand on their own and barring a few (very rare) decks like burn where the goal is to count to 20 most of the creatures are reasonably able to end the game ALONE in no more than 7 turns. EDH is the only format where this is not the case. There is no threat of dying as a control or combo deck if you shaved off 10 life the entire format would be more balanced.
I really like this new banned list however I feel like it promotes more control and long grindy games and does nothing to for aggro. For example with bribery banned there is no reason not to just run eldrazi in control instead of other more fairly costed finishers like guile/Csphinx/whatever.
I was going to respond to the discussion about the banned list (which I will in a moment) but your post about not being able to make a good deck that kills with creature damage has intrigued me. What do you mean by not being able to realistically kill with creature damage (or general damage)? What kind of other decks/cards to you regularly see in your playgroup(s)? Is everyone you play with playing very fast combo decks? Are you talking about trying to kill with creature damage like turn 3-4 or something, or am I missing something?
On to the banned list:
An earlier post or two mentioned that banning more cards makes games more skill intensive. This is incorrect. If you think back to the Caw-blade era, the best players were winning with Caw-blade. The cards got banned to attempt to create a "healthy" (not broken) format.
This may look like an argument in favor of the banned list, but it isn't. EDH never claimed to be a competitive format. It's social, casual, fun, whatever you want to call it. Making a broken deck in EDH is ridiculously easy. It's actually much harder and more challenging to build an EDH deck that is fun to play, well balanced for your playgroup and fun for other people to play against. Anyone can look online for all the infinite combos that exist in EDH, shove the ones that work with his general in a deck, add tutors and play. The problem is, unless everyone else is playing that game (which might actually be a rather entertaining evening of EDH), you will either win very fast, then either get hated off the table next game (or win again), then people will probably ask you not to play that deck or in general again.
Making a list of broken cards that are more powerful and "unbalanced" compared to other cards is a slippery slope. For example, looking over your list, I saw that Rhystic Study, Carpet of Flowers and Mystic Remora weren't listed. In my opinion, these are amazingly broken cards that grant very large, early game advantages. I don't play with them personally, because I think they are too broken. That doesn't mean I want them banned. I don't think they completely warp the environment or anything (although I did once tell someone playing Rhystic Study that it was a crutch that let bad players compensate, hence the social aspects). Compare these cards (or most cards on the suggested expanded banned list) to Emrakul. He warped the format. For a while there, our games turned into a fight to get (either cast, Bribery, steal) him then finish the game. They all turned into the same game. Now, this sameness of games is a potential argument to consider banning Primeval Titan. The main difference (and reason I'd suggest he's not ban-worthy) is the titan isn't an end to himself, he is an enabler for other means to end the game.
The suggestions mentioned earlier about "modifying" cards that work too well in EDH (Sorin Markov, Magister Sphinx, Serra Ascendant) are not good ones. You would be creating an overly complicated additional level of errata for a format, that thanks to the huge amount of old cards being played, already has errata to deal with. Currently, you can explain to an existing magic player (who has a pretty good grasp of the rules) how to play EDH in under two minutes. Three if you go over the banned list in detail. If you add in all these exceptions to cards that the potential player may already know, it's lessens the chance that he'll even bother with this format. Same argument applies to a 50-100+ card banned list. If it's too long to easily remember, it reduces the chances of people even messing with it.
The arguments for banning Tooth and Nail and Bribery I have trouble agreeing with. They are just cards that happen to see a lot of play because they're good. I actually think Bribery is a good card for the format. It keeps people "honest". If you're playing with "broken" creatures, then you could be punished for it. Blightsteel Colossus, Felidar Sovereign, Primeval Titan, the sphinx from above, any of the surviving Eldrazi, the list goes on. Tooth and Nail goes and gets amazing creatures, but it can be copied, countered, etc.
I think the main point here is that a banned list can't just be a pet peeve list. I have lots of cards that I don't like to play with or against (Time Stretch, other time cards, Armageddon, Obliterate, etc) because I think these cards make for an un-fun (yeah, I know it's not a word) game. I do, however, play with someone regularly that thinks the Time Warp-type cards are wonderful and loves them dearly. I don't want to take that away from him, no matter how much I complain when he takes 6 turns in a row or something. You just have to plan for such things.
Another random example of self-correcting metagames, in a game a while back, a guy tried to play Armageddon in a game where everyone had a ridiculously slow start and the board had just been wiped, and he had the only non-land permanent out (Gilded Lotus). His argument was that he had the lotus and would recover faster. Luckily, the spell got countered and he was rapidly taken out by everyone. The point being, that card would have created a very un-fun (and slow) game state for everyone playing (except for the guy with the lotus). I guess the point of this is, unlike tournament magic, EDH is about fun for everyone. Sure you want to win, you should. But it's not just about winning at all costs. It's about winning in a way that's interesting, exciting, and doesn't prevent your opponents from having an enjoyable game too.
No, I really do understand just fine. I just don't get all worked up over some of the same things you and some other people do. You see cards like Prime Time as "warping the format." I see the format itself as being kind of "warped," albeit in a very good way, so it's only natural that cards that produce crazy effects are going to be played. Honestly, my only problem with cards like the Titan and Sphinx,, is that they are over-played, which I find kind of boring. But not ban-worthy.
This indicates a difference of opinion, not a lack of comprehension on my part or some sort of superior understanding on your part.
1) Doom Blade kills Consecrated Sphinx. Your point?
Actually, you've kind of made my point for me by your own example. The Sphinx is another card that a lot of people get their panties all in knots about, but I've never seen it as a huge problem, because probably 75% of the time I've seen someone play one in EDH, it's gone before the player that cast it plays his next turn, and probably 25% of the time it doesn't even survive the turn upon which it was cast. The same is true of Primeval Titan.
If you play good opponents, the Sphinx of Uthunn can be more dangerous than the Consecrated Sphinx.
Overall, though, it is hard for me to get really worked up over creatures when they are so easy to remove. YMMV.
2) Read Rampant Growth. Now read Primeval Titan. See the difference.
Snarky comments don't prove one's point. They merely demonstrate something about the character of those making the comments.
Seriously, with the Mindcensor in play, the Titan rarely accomplishes much. Maybe your next few cards will contain something like Kessig Wolf Run, but more likely not. If you get real lucky, it might snag you two random lands, but probably not something you would have tutored for with Prime Time. Still a lot less scary.
There are also cards that stop ETB effects, or which prevent opponents from searching libraries. They shut down Prime Time, too.
Etc., etc.
This is called warping the format. When a card is so powerful that it demands answers, you have a problem. The "solution" you offered is the very opposite of desirable.
All sorts of cards demand answers, and cause problems for others when they don't have those answers. Playing those sorts of cards is often how people win games.
If a person gets Blightsteel Colossus out, it demands an answer or it will soon be "game over." Should it be banned?
Someone running a token/swarm deck can usually end the game by successfully casting Overrun, unless it is countered or the opponent's attack is fogged (i.e., the opponent has an answer ready). Should it be banned?
Likewise, Insurrection ends games all the time, usually on the turn it is cast. Ban-worthy?
Also, I consider it quite a desirable thing for people to play versatile decks that can deal with a variety of situations. Crazy idea, I know.
The next most advantageous card often isn't nearly as good. Consider this: Avenger of Zendikar (Prime Time's runner up) is often great because he rides Primeval Titan to victory. See the synergy?
Sure, they have great synergy. But the Avenger is a great card on his own, and can win just as well if you follow it up with Skyshroud Claim, or Beastmaster Ascension, or any number of other things besides the Titan.
1.I have tried everything from mono green ramp beats, to edric, to jenara. The only way aggro can be good is if at least 3 players are swinging, otherwise it's too much to go through. 2.As for no card standing on its own as I mentioned with malignus, blightsteel, exct creatures need to be a threat all alone just like in standard, modern, and legacy otherwise the format has issues that lead to winning by swinging being freeking terrible. (For example prime/inferno titan, goyf/delver, goyf/delver/stoneforge again) You are right however I don't have a competent aggro deck because such a thing in a format where your creatures effectivness is halved is simply impossible.
1. Try Thrun, with troll tribal? (haha... trolls..) That way, you've got a wonderfully hexproof Voltron general and can run Cavern of Souls, since you're so concerned about getting countered.
2. I never said that there are no creatures that aren't threats on their own. I qualified that statement in parentheses. Also, if your attitude is that there aren't enough stand-alone creatures in the format, then there won't be. It also sounds like you're comparing EDH to Standard, Modern, etc. That's not a fair comparison at all. EDH is completely different from other formats in pretty much every single way. Having expectations of EDH that are similar to those of Standard, Modern, etc. will only cause disappointment and/or frustration (case in point, you).
1.Your assertion that no creature should stand on its own is laughable in every format creatures stand on their own and barring a few (very rare) decks like burn where the goal is to count to 20 most of the creatures are reasonably able to end the game ALONE in no more than 7 turns. EDH is the only format where this is not the case. 2.There is no threat of dying as a control or combo deck if you shaved off 10 life the entire format would be more balanced.
1. Again, I never said that no creature should stand alone. I said that creatures in EDH tend not to stand alone, and therefore a player should maximize synergies among creatures to create large effects. Exploiting small or low-CMC creature and spells in the right way can create the large threats later in the game (when those threats would typically be played). If that wasn't clear, I apologize.
2. First off, I don't know if this is supposed to be one sentence or two... I'm going to assume it's two and address the part, starting from "if". In my play-group, we have a house-rule for 1v1 games. We start with 30 life. In multi-player, we start with the normal 40. Because the format assumes that there will be some sort of balance between the archetypal deck triangle, the 40 life offers a little extra padding against the aggro decks. If your playgroup/ meta doesn't have any other aggro decks, well then, that's indicative of an unbalanced meta and is unfortunate.
It's like some evil dictatorship took over the Rules Committee and created their own definition of "fun."
Quoted for truthery. The official ban list works JUST FINE for mtgo. I'm confused as to why there are so many people complaining about it IRL. Whatever. Makes me glad I play online only. I'd hate to walk into another group somewhere only to be told my deck doesn't match some arbitrary definition of "fun"
EDH never claimed to be a competitive format. It's social, casual, fun, whatever you want to call it. Making a broken deck in EDH is ridiculously easy. It's actually much harder and more challenging to build an EDH deck that is fun to play, well balanced for your playgroup and fun for other people to play against. Anyone can look online for all the infinite combos that exist in EDH, shove the ones that work with his general in a deck, add tutors and play. The problem is, unless everyone else is playing that game (which might actually be a rather entertaining evening of EDH), you will either win very fast, then either get hated off the table next game (or win again), then people will probably ask you not to play that deck or in general again.
I don't disagree with you at all.
However, my understanding is that the OP proposed the austere ban list (and the other "strata") in the context of an EDH game outside a regular playgroup (emphasis mine). I point this out because the "officlal" ban list is created with exactly the same context that you stated (i.e., a regular playgroup with social feedback, aka a self-correcting metagame).
I have played games recently with random people that I don't know and found the players weren't having as good a time as a regular playgroup would. This is quite simply because of the varied power level among the decks and the varied experience levels of the players. The more experienced players with more powerful decks simply dominated the game, which obviously resulted in mediocre games.
After a few games like that, I searched for a more restricted ban list (and found this thread!) in order to make those random games much more enjoyable. As an aside, I modified one of my decks to adhere to the austere ban list for when I play against people I don't know well (and btw it has resulted in some of the most fun EDH games I have played!).
I don't play combos, but as you said above, and as I personally can attest, anyone that builds the notorious Ad Nauseum combo deck or a prototypical Mind over Matter combo deck and plays with some random players is a) going to win and b) going to make the other players either mad or disappointed with that game, and perhaps the format. This is the context that I understand the OP to be referring to, and the one which I am interested in. At least for me, the austere ban list seems like a wonderful compromise between the official ban list and some of the more popular cards that provide substantial, and likely, insurmountable, advantages over the course of a game (where the game typically ends with one player playing and everyone else dying).
Finally, one suggestion for the OP. Consider futher restricting the list of banned generals. For example, consider adding some of the more "deadly" generals to the banned list when used as a general, e.g, Sharuum the Hegemon.
@BetweenWalls, just a quick question... is each higher stratum supposed to be only adding cards to the previous stratum, or is each stratum independent? For example, I noticed Sundering Titan is not on the austere ban list, and I'm not sure why.
I think I said this in another thread but it looks like this is the older one. Anyways there's only one house rule I go by, and it doesn't come up often.
If at the end of your turn you have an infinite combo with a win condition that someone recognizes before you go off, you lose and get everyone drinks.
1. This ban list is kind of going too far too fast. I feel it would be better if cards of a certain power level for their purpose were put into their own tiers, so people can easily gauge what they want and don't want to ban.
2. Sometimes we play Zombie EDH. It's pretty fun in that it promotes aggro to an extent, being aggressive rewards you with resources (team mates) instead of just making you vulnerable. I personally would adjust the rules to fit for EDH by making a zombie respawn [without restarting the game] with health equal to the life the zombie lost from the killing player (minus excessive killing damage, no million health zombies ). Example being, if I was pinged for 2 10 times [20 total] by a player, then hit for 10 by another, then hit for 8 by a third player, and then the first player hits me for 2 (or more) for the kill, I would respawn as their zombie with 22 life.
@ magicmar
The austere list is indeed proposed for irregular playgroups, hence the name austere. (austere meaning solemn, serious, or otherwise antisocial) I'm no linguistic expert, but I believe its meaning can be understood in context here.
The strata would ideally be built upon each other, but I was unconvinced that Sundering Titan was strong enough to warrant banning. It has a very unique & potentially devastating effect, but only seemed overly strong in matches between mono-colored decks and 3 or 5 colored decks. Compared to the other cards on the official list, it simply doesn't fit. The same goes for Kokusho, the Evening Star. (though not as a general)
Essentially, as I was of the opinion that the official ban list shouldn't have these cards as they were, I refrained from included them in the next stratum. As I had hoped to keep matters relatively simply, I kept the official list intact as stratum 1, but I can see now that it's had the opposite effect. As much as I'd like to ignore the Rule Committee, I've added Sundering Titan and Kokusho back to those lists for clarity's sake.
I'd like to 'ban' as few generals as possible, so maybe we could start with a list of generals and cards that make them dangerous?
@RedPanda
Thanks! I'll add it to the list (but without drinking references - not all of us can do that legally)
@darkchair
That's very similar to what this is, no? While I'd be happy to help compile groupings of archetypical cards in this manner, I believe having all cards done so together would provide a more consistent basis for house-ruling. Do you have certain card purposes in mind for it?
Thanks for the link! I had heard of Horde, but not the other zombie varieties. Your modification of it sounds neat, though I'd be concerned about the longevity of such games. (the rules rundown mention re-spawning multiple times, with less health each time) Would re-spawning with some percentage (50%-70%, rounded) of the damage dealt by the player with the killing blow work better? You could still limit the number of re-spawns allowed of course.
A number of changes have been made to the original post as I continue to add relevant information and clarify things. In explaining these ban lists, (and perhaps adjusting them in the process) I became interested in the history of the official ban list. I've found some information regarding this, but am interested in any additional info the Rules Committee has released upon banning or unbanning different cards.
If someone could direct me toward that, other explanations, or lists similar to these, I'd be most appreciative. As always, any suggestions for what could be added or improved are welcome. I'm particularly interested in compiling a list of cards that either create infinite combos with certain generals, or are incredibly strong with them.
The first post of our Banlist Discussion thread contains a quote from Sheldon talking briefly about their banning philosophy, and much of what Sheldon and papa_funk say here has to do with the banlist, if you look at their posts. In general, you probably want to wait for a couple weeks - Sheldon has been saying they're talking philosophy and planning on releasing more information about it with the banlist announcement September 20.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thank you to Rivenor for this awesome banner!
Palladia-Mors of {The Spirit of EDH}
EDH
WLinvala, Queen of the AngelsW
WUThe Prison of the Grand ArbiterUW [Primer]
URNiv-Mizzet, Handcycling ComboRU
UTalrand, Drake-Slinging to VictoryU
WUGDerevi, Tactical ShufflingGUW
BCao Cao, Discard Stax of Absolute MiseryB
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Lots of people in EDH want to play great cards, but not combo out on turn 4. A large ban list will hurt the format in the long run, create a larger house ban list.
Funny, we have both of those things and still manage a friendly group that introduces new players all the time.
And I'm 100% against the OP.
The other night my friend that plays Numot played Omniscense then dropped Gisela, Blazing Archon and Basandra from hand with Numot already on the field, basically winning the game right there. After realizing we had no shot we conceded the game. Seriously who wants to play a game for 3 hours anyways? If games go more quickly, we can get in more games and everyone is happy. Ramp and tutors get you to a board state where someone can actually win in a faster time clock.
If you can't play all the big and fun cards in EDH, where can you play them?
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
WU Grand Arbiter Augustin IV WU
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftan WBG
B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B
RU Tibor and Lumia RU
'He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him!' - Khan Noonien Singh
This is basically my issue with players who "dont like combo" I dont care who wins or how if everyone had fun, but I will NOT have fun when games are 3-5 hours long its simply impossible.
I tried to play a big silly maelstorm wanderer deck. The combo's weren't what made it unbearable it was the 120 life to chomp through, the constant sweepers, and the blockers, the combo's only matter because 40 life is insurmountable for decks that swing (To put it in perspective pretend prime titan was a 3/3 in standard. That is roughly how nerfed creatures are in this format.) Short of some absurdly huge dudes (Malignus, blightsteel) its almost impossible to win by swinging which is very sad.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Thanks for your time,
-BW
You really don't understand, after all.
1) Doom Blade kills Consecrated Sphinx. Your point?
2) Read Rampant Growth. Now read Primeval Titan. See the difference.
This is called warping the format. When a card is so powerful that it demands answers, you have a problem. The "solution" you offered is the very opposite of desirable.
The next most advantageous card often isn't nearly as good. Consider this: Avenger of Zendicar (Prime Time's runner up) is often great because he rides Primeval Titan to victory. See the synergy?
But I digress.
While it is true that there will always be a set of "the most powerful cards," it does not follow that the same imbalances will follow. Sure, if Sol Ring is banned then the new top tier mana rock will be ____, but that doesn't mean that ____ will cause the same problems that Sol Ring did -- it simply doesn't do what Sol Ring does nearly as well. It's more fair, and even though it's top tier it doesn't negatively affect the game life Sol Ring did.
Why do you think there are banned cards in standard? The same logic applies there, too. After Jace the Mind Sculptor was banned, there was a new "best" planeswalker, but not nearly as broken.
It sounds like no one in your group has built a competent aggro deck, then. One of my decks is aggro and it one-shotted an opponent in a 5-player game. With one creature. (Of course, the offending cards were destroyed, but hey, that's what happens in multi-player games.) Another two aggro decks in that group produce creatures every turn, and one of them makes those creatures uncounterable. Each of those decks beats face and wins by swinging.
Plus, you don't have to be the only one killing people. Your opponents are your opponents' opponents, too, and if you played your politics right, then they'll have taken care of themselves and you can just come in later to clean everyone else out. AND! There's still general damage! It only takes 21 to kill someone, so if they gain life like crazy just swing with your general.
The comparison of Prime Time to a 3/3 in Standard is laughable. Individually, he may not take out an enormous chunk of life, but then again, nothing (okay, very few) cards in a deck should stand alone. Ideally, if you're gonna make an aggro deck, you're not swinging with just a Prime Time. You're tossing out little (but useful) support creatures until the heavy hitters come out; you should be swinging with them, too. If you don't do too much at once, then you're opponents will likely disregard it and let the damage through. The damage adds up over time.
/rant
Anyways! I noticed that the OP changed into strata and tiers and such. All of this is waaaaaaay too laboured and complicated. EDH is rather simple with its rules already. Extra layers of rules aren't necessary and even detract from the enjoyment of playing the format. I don't want to have to remember which cards are banned for which level people are playing. The universality of the current rules and banlist are important for consistency in the format.
Thank you to Rivenor for this awesome banner!
Palladia-Mors of {The Spirit of EDH}
EDH
WLinvala, Queen of the AngelsW
WUThe Prison of the Grand ArbiterUW [Primer]
URNiv-Mizzet, Handcycling ComboRU
UTalrand, Drake-Slinging to VictoryU
WUGDerevi, Tactical ShufflingGUW
BCao Cao, Discard Stax of Absolute MiseryB
I have tried everything from mono green ramp beats, to edric, to jenara. The only way aggro can be good is if at least 3 players are swinging, otherwise it's too much to go through. As for no card standing on its own as I mentioned with malignus, blightsteel, exct creatures need to be a threat all alone just like in standard, modern, and legacy otherwise the format has issues that lead to winning by swinging being freeking terrible. (For example prime/inferno titan, goyf/delver, goyf/delver/stoneforge again) You are right however I don't have a competent aggro deck because such a thing in a format where your creatures effectivness is halved is simply impossible.
General damage isn't much to mitigate this considering the number of tuck effects played at my table (Almost everyone plays blue and has hinder/crumple and or spin into myth, we even have one guy with hallowed burial) Generals typically end up tucked if they get cast.
Your assertion that no creature should stand on its own is laughable in every format creatures stand on their own and barring a few (very rare) decks like burn where the goal is to count to 20 most of the creatures are reasonably able to end the game ALONE in no more than 7 turns. EDH is the only format where this is not the case. There is no threat of dying as a control or combo deck if you shaved off 10 life the entire format would be more balanced.
I really like this new banned list however I feel like it promotes more control and long grindy games and does nothing to for aggro. For example with bribery banned there is no reason not to just run eldrazi in control instead of other more fairly costed finishers like guile/Csphinx/whatever.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
I'd like to note that these strata aren't proposed to become official; this is just a list of common house rules, and that includes commonly house-banned cards. If that's not clear, I'll try to edit the language in the first post.
Generals tend to not get cast if anyone has 1UU open or you are likely to lose them. As for that I didnt see that on bribery and you are actually correct I just misread the lists.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
I was going to respond to the discussion about the banned list (which I will in a moment) but your post about not being able to make a good deck that kills with creature damage has intrigued me. What do you mean by not being able to realistically kill with creature damage (or general damage)? What kind of other decks/cards to you regularly see in your playgroup(s)? Is everyone you play with playing very fast combo decks? Are you talking about trying to kill with creature damage like turn 3-4 or something, or am I missing something?
On to the banned list:
An earlier post or two mentioned that banning more cards makes games more skill intensive. This is incorrect. If you think back to the Caw-blade era, the best players were winning with Caw-blade. The cards got banned to attempt to create a "healthy" (not broken) format.
This may look like an argument in favor of the banned list, but it isn't. EDH never claimed to be a competitive format. It's social, casual, fun, whatever you want to call it. Making a broken deck in EDH is ridiculously easy. It's actually much harder and more challenging to build an EDH deck that is fun to play, well balanced for your playgroup and fun for other people to play against. Anyone can look online for all the infinite combos that exist in EDH, shove the ones that work with his general in a deck, add tutors and play. The problem is, unless everyone else is playing that game (which might actually be a rather entertaining evening of EDH), you will either win very fast, then either get hated off the table next game (or win again), then people will probably ask you not to play that deck or in general again.
Making a list of broken cards that are more powerful and "unbalanced" compared to other cards is a slippery slope. For example, looking over your list, I saw that Rhystic Study, Carpet of Flowers and Mystic Remora weren't listed. In my opinion, these are amazingly broken cards that grant very large, early game advantages. I don't play with them personally, because I think they are too broken. That doesn't mean I want them banned. I don't think they completely warp the environment or anything (although I did once tell someone playing Rhystic Study that it was a crutch that let bad players compensate, hence the social aspects). Compare these cards (or most cards on the suggested expanded banned list) to Emrakul. He warped the format. For a while there, our games turned into a fight to get (either cast, Bribery, steal) him then finish the game. They all turned into the same game. Now, this sameness of games is a potential argument to consider banning Primeval Titan. The main difference (and reason I'd suggest he's not ban-worthy) is the titan isn't an end to himself, he is an enabler for other means to end the game.
The suggestions mentioned earlier about "modifying" cards that work too well in EDH (Sorin Markov, Magister Sphinx, Serra Ascendant) are not good ones. You would be creating an overly complicated additional level of errata for a format, that thanks to the huge amount of old cards being played, already has errata to deal with. Currently, you can explain to an existing magic player (who has a pretty good grasp of the rules) how to play EDH in under two minutes. Three if you go over the banned list in detail. If you add in all these exceptions to cards that the potential player may already know, it's lessens the chance that he'll even bother with this format. Same argument applies to a 50-100+ card banned list. If it's too long to easily remember, it reduces the chances of people even messing with it.
The arguments for banning Tooth and Nail and Bribery I have trouble agreeing with. They are just cards that happen to see a lot of play because they're good. I actually think Bribery is a good card for the format. It keeps people "honest". If you're playing with "broken" creatures, then you could be punished for it. Blightsteel Colossus, Felidar Sovereign, Primeval Titan, the sphinx from above, any of the surviving Eldrazi, the list goes on. Tooth and Nail goes and gets amazing creatures, but it can be copied, countered, etc.
I think the main point here is that a banned list can't just be a pet peeve list. I have lots of cards that I don't like to play with or against (Time Stretch, other time cards, Armageddon, Obliterate, etc) because I think these cards make for an un-fun (yeah, I know it's not a word) game. I do, however, play with someone regularly that thinks the Time Warp-type cards are wonderful and loves them dearly. I don't want to take that away from him, no matter how much I complain when he takes 6 turns in a row or something. You just have to plan for such things.
Another random example of self-correcting metagames, in a game a while back, a guy tried to play Armageddon in a game where everyone had a ridiculously slow start and the board had just been wiped, and he had the only non-land permanent out (Gilded Lotus). His argument was that he had the lotus and would recover faster. Luckily, the spell got countered and he was rapidly taken out by everyone. The point being, that card would have created a very un-fun (and slow) game state for everyone playing (except for the guy with the lotus). I guess the point of this is, unlike tournament magic, EDH is about fun for everyone. Sure you want to win, you should. But it's not just about winning at all costs. It's about winning in a way that's interesting, exciting, and doesn't prevent your opponents from having an enjoyable game too.
Condescending much?
No, I really do understand just fine. I just don't get all worked up over some of the same things you and some other people do. You see cards like Prime Time as "warping the format." I see the format itself as being kind of "warped," albeit in a very good way, so it's only natural that cards that produce crazy effects are going to be played. Honestly, my only problem with cards like the Titan and Sphinx,, is that they are over-played, which I find kind of boring. But not ban-worthy.
This indicates a difference of opinion, not a lack of comprehension on my part or some sort of superior understanding on your part.
Actually, you've kind of made my point for me by your own example. The Sphinx is another card that a lot of people get their panties all in knots about, but I've never seen it as a huge problem, because probably 75% of the time I've seen someone play one in EDH, it's gone before the player that cast it plays his next turn, and probably 25% of the time it doesn't even survive the turn upon which it was cast. The same is true of Primeval Titan.
If you play good opponents, the Sphinx of Uthunn can be more dangerous than the Consecrated Sphinx.
Overall, though, it is hard for me to get really worked up over creatures when they are so easy to remove. YMMV.
Snarky comments don't prove one's point. They merely demonstrate something about the character of those making the comments.
Seriously, with the Mindcensor in play, the Titan rarely accomplishes much. Maybe your next few cards will contain something like Kessig Wolf Run, but more likely not. If you get real lucky, it might snag you two random lands, but probably not something you would have tutored for with Prime Time. Still a lot less scary.
There are also cards that stop ETB effects, or which prevent opponents from searching libraries. They shut down Prime Time, too.
Etc., etc.
All sorts of cards demand answers, and cause problems for others when they don't have those answers. Playing those sorts of cards is often how people win games.
If a person gets Blightsteel Colossus out, it demands an answer or it will soon be "game over." Should it be banned?
Someone running a token/swarm deck can usually end the game by successfully casting Overrun, unless it is countered or the opponent's attack is fogged (i.e., the opponent has an answer ready). Should it be banned?
Likewise, Insurrection ends games all the time, usually on the turn it is cast. Ban-worthy?
Also, I consider it quite a desirable thing for people to play versatile decks that can deal with a variety of situations. Crazy idea, I know.
Sure, they have great synergy. But the Avenger is a great card on his own, and can win just as well if you follow it up with Skyshroud Claim, or Beastmaster Ascension, or any number of other things besides the Titan.
1. Try Thrun, with troll tribal? (haha... trolls..) That way, you've got a wonderfully hexproof Voltron general and can run Cavern of Souls, since you're so concerned about getting countered.
2. I never said that there are no creatures that aren't threats on their own. I qualified that statement in parentheses. Also, if your attitude is that there aren't enough stand-alone creatures in the format, then there won't be. It also sounds like you're comparing EDH to Standard, Modern, etc. That's not a fair comparison at all. EDH is completely different from other formats in pretty much every single way. Having expectations of EDH that are similar to those of Standard, Modern, etc. will only cause disappointment and/or frustration (case in point, you).
1. Again, I never said that no creature should stand alone. I said that creatures in EDH tend not to stand alone, and therefore a player should maximize synergies among creatures to create large effects. Exploiting small or low-CMC creature and spells in the right way can create the large threats later in the game (when those threats would typically be played). If that wasn't clear, I apologize.
2. First off, I don't know if this is supposed to be one sentence or two... I'm going to assume it's two and address the part, starting from "if". In my play-group, we have a house-rule for 1v1 games. We start with 30 life. In multi-player, we start with the normal 40. Because the format assumes that there will be some sort of balance between the archetypal deck triangle, the 40 life offers a little extra padding against the aggro decks. If your playgroup/ meta doesn't have any other aggro decks, well then, that's indicative of an unbalanced meta and is unfortunate.
Thank you to Rivenor for this awesome banner!
Palladia-Mors of {The Spirit of EDH}
EDH
WLinvala, Queen of the AngelsW
WUThe Prison of the Grand ArbiterUW [Primer]
URNiv-Mizzet, Handcycling ComboRU
UTalrand, Drake-Slinging to VictoryU
WUGDerevi, Tactical ShufflingGUW
BCao Cao, Discard Stax of Absolute MiseryB
Quoted for truthery. The official ban list works JUST FINE for mtgo. I'm confused as to why there are so many people complaining about it IRL. Whatever. Makes me glad I play online only. I'd hate to walk into another group somewhere only to be told my deck doesn't match some arbitrary definition of "fun"
I don't disagree with you at all.
However, my understanding is that the OP proposed the austere ban list (and the other "strata") in the context of an EDH game outside a regular playgroup (emphasis mine). I point this out because the "officlal" ban list is created with exactly the same context that you stated (i.e., a regular playgroup with social feedback, aka a self-correcting metagame).
I have played games recently with random people that I don't know and found the players weren't having as good a time as a regular playgroup would. This is quite simply because of the varied power level among the decks and the varied experience levels of the players. The more experienced players with more powerful decks simply dominated the game, which obviously resulted in mediocre games.
After a few games like that, I searched for a more restricted ban list (and found this thread!) in order to make those random games much more enjoyable. As an aside, I modified one of my decks to adhere to the austere ban list for when I play against people I don't know well (and btw it has resulted in some of the most fun EDH games I have played!).
I don't play combos, but as you said above, and as I personally can attest, anyone that builds the notorious Ad Nauseum combo deck or a prototypical Mind over Matter combo deck and plays with some random players is a) going to win and b) going to make the other players either mad or disappointed with that game, and perhaps the format. This is the context that I understand the OP to be referring to, and the one which I am interested in. At least for me, the austere ban list seems like a wonderful compromise between the official ban list and some of the more popular cards that provide substantial, and likely, insurmountable, advantages over the course of a game (where the game typically ends with one player playing and everyone else dying).
Finally, one suggestion for the OP. Consider futher restricting the list of banned generals. For example, consider adding some of the more "deadly" generals to the banned list when used as a general, e.g, Sharuum the Hegemon.
If at the end of your turn you have an infinite combo with a win condition that someone recognizes before you go off, you lose and get everyone drinks.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
2. Sometimes we play Zombie EDH. It's pretty fun in that it promotes aggro to an extent, being aggressive rewards you with resources (team mates) instead of just making you vulnerable. I personally would adjust the rules to fit for EDH by making a zombie respawn [without restarting the game] with health equal to the life the zombie lost from the killing player (minus excessive killing damage, no million health zombies ). Example being, if I was pinged for 2 10 times [20 total] by a player, then hit for 10 by another, then hit for 8 by a third player, and then the first player hits me for 2 (or more) for the kill, I would respawn as their zombie with 22 life.
WUBRGReaper KingGRBUW 5c Blink [Less Competitive]
WBEvershrikeBW Orzhov Enchantments [Less Competitive]
GIwamori of the Open FistG Green Smash [Less Competitive]
RGWUInk-Treader NephilimUWGR Draw Too Many Cards [More Competitive]
URJhoira of the GhituRU Izzet Stax [More Competitive]
URGRiku of Two ReflectionsGRU Ceta Dredge [More Competitive]
Modern
RUGBNightshiftBGUR Like Scapeshift but bad
The austere list is indeed proposed for irregular playgroups, hence the name austere. (austere meaning solemn, serious, or otherwise antisocial) I'm no linguistic expert, but I believe its meaning can be understood in context here.
The strata would ideally be built upon each other, but I was unconvinced that Sundering Titan was strong enough to warrant banning. It has a very unique & potentially devastating effect, but only seemed overly strong in matches between mono-colored decks and 3 or 5 colored decks. Compared to the other cards on the official list, it simply doesn't fit. The same goes for Kokusho, the Evening Star. (though not as a general)
Essentially, as I was of the opinion that the official ban list shouldn't have these cards as they were, I refrained from included them in the next stratum. As I had hoped to keep matters relatively simply, I kept the official list intact as stratum 1, but I can see now that it's had the opposite effect. As much as I'd like to ignore the Rule Committee, I've added Sundering Titan and Kokusho back to those lists for clarity's sake.
I'd like to 'ban' as few generals as possible, so maybe we could start with a list of generals and cards that make them dangerous?
@RedPanda
Thanks! I'll add it to the list (but without drinking references - not all of us can do that legally)
@darkchair
That's very similar to what this is, no? While I'd be happy to help compile groupings of archetypical cards in this manner, I believe having all cards done so together would provide a more consistent basis for house-ruling. Do you have certain card purposes in mind for it?
Thanks for the link! I had heard of Horde, but not the other zombie varieties. Your modification of it sounds neat, though I'd be concerned about the longevity of such games. (the rules rundown mention re-spawning multiple times, with less health each time) Would re-spawning with some percentage (50%-70%, rounded) of the damage dealt by the player with the killing blow work better? You could still limit the number of re-spawns allowed of course.
If someone could direct me toward that, other explanations, or lists similar to these, I'd be most appreciative. As always, any suggestions for what could be added or improved are welcome. I'm particularly interested in compiling a list of cards that either create infinite combos with certain generals, or are incredibly strong with them.
-BW