@ Jusstice - PT and SP were not problems by themselves, other than the ubiquity. It was the way people used other cards in conjunction with them and the result of letting them stay on the field for a few turns without exiling them. So I don't really see how you can't see the same thing about PoK and DEN.
@ Forgotten One - CS and AN get brought up regularly.
In 706 pages, I can assure you that those cards have been brought up over and over ... ad nauseam.
As far as I can tell, the general consensus is divided into two camps. Those who seem to almost unconditionally support the banlist, and those who don't think its banworthy. The former reason that Ad Nauseam requires a deck to be built around to be good (they're wrong by the way).
And in regards to Consecrated Sphinx, well, it just isn't banworthy. It's great, sure, but also political suicide.
Sadly, I think one of the biggest strikes against it is that for the same 6 mana you can Recurring Insight, which puts less of a target on your head, and if CS promptly dies like it should, draws you more cards.
And since they advocate playing competitively and building casually this translates into "you should not run mass LD for any reason" since if you're playing competitively there will be many situations where the correct play is blowing up all the lands without winning quickly.
That sounds like what people WANT to take away from the philosophy when they don't agree with it. Just because you have 'Geddon in a deck does not mean you have to cast it the second you are ahead in position, even if it is the "right" play. No amount of endorsement will change the fact that a lot of people hate it, it gets misplayed A LOT, and those two things are most likely related.
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 think they generally frown on MLD simply because so many people either misplay it or play it antisocially (i.e. with a group of players who do not like it). Because the RC advocates social play and fun games, I doubt they would frown on something like floating ton of mana, dropping MLD and Uril with a couple of enchantments, assuming the player wasn't among people who hate MLD because MLD.
Yeah, I agree. Basically people use MLD in one of 3 ways.
1) Whenever they rip it off the top, like it's Wood Elves, because that's how they play every card in their deck. Everyone from all levels of play expectations are annoyed. Either someone other than the MLD player will win on board, or the game will essentially just be reset. The RC tag-line would be "players should be able to play, not just watch" or some such. The reasonable counter-argument would be that, in the one sense, you can't stop kingmaking with a variety of cards, because you can't model stupidity. Or in the sense of a reset, likewise, it's no worse than a Turn 1-2 Wheel of Fortune, or better - Smallpox. Only MLD does have the potential to stop excessive ramp, which oddly enough, seems like something the RC disfavors anyway.
2) Players use it whenever they have a marginal lead on board, or some artifact mana, what have you. Here, they might take 7-8 turns to finally win it out against 3 players. More likely though, the threat they were counting on either eats removal with the MLD on the stack, or one of the three draws out into some small removal that kills their Jitte-equipped Thalia or some similar. The RC line of argument is essentially the same, "players shouldn't have to sit and wait without being able to play what they draw" etc. The easy counter is that it just does not take that long in real time to draw out to a reasonable board state, and it's hardly a unique situation where a player has to wait to play a topdecked card. That 2/2 is going to do a lot more damage than the typical 2/2, but if players are going around pointing to that as an "auto-win" for MLD whenever it's played, they simply have never played a single game out post-Geddon.
3) Players use it as part of a resource denial strategy, or when they have a 2-3 turn clock on board. Then, they probably win with it. But then, the RC line is "don't end game too quickly or too abruptly". Reasonable counter is lots of things are actually quicker, not just combo, and what it wrong with winning the game in the first place? That's not the only goal, but tables where no one is trying at all to win make no sense.
At any rate, it's unfortunate that MLD won't ever be banned. Because the RC and like-minded players are against it in whatever form is shows up in, for so many different reasons, but all pointing that they don't like it. There's no real harmony on principle other than it's frowned upon. I personally think it's just a visceral loathing for anything that interferes dramatically with the inertia of the game. But, they won't ban mass ramp either until it's gets overplayed, so that's the standoff.
Well mass ramp IS overplayed. Just look at pretty much any deck with G in it. And among other reasons, the ramping aspect is what got PT and SP the boot. I for one am glad that they won't ban MLD. Because despite their overall vocal distaste of it, they are acknowledging that there are times when it is acceptable. I just wish they would be slightly more vocal about how excessive ramp is bad for the game.
I think MLD has its place. In fact, although I don't necessarily see it as a good answer to ramp, it can occasionally be, but it's more of a local scope solution than a global one. In your local group, you don't need to Armageddon too many times when there's the guy with 12 lands when everyone else has five before he'll start getting twitchy about dumping too many lands in play. Of course, I usually find cards like Acidic Soil even better at making players regret dropping too many lands. Armageddon some folks a few times might turn short term losses into long term gains. The same doesn't apply globally. What does a guy in Paris, Texas care if a local in Paris, France keeps getting MLD'd out of games?
We don't, in general, like resource denial as a strategy because it takes the game away from players. At the same time, some selective resource denial might make environments more healthy. The occasional Armageddon (or threat of it) can probably make an environment more interesting. Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines cannot.
I think MLD has its place. In fact, although I don't necessarily see it as a good answer to ramp, it can occasionally be, but it's more of a local scope solution than a global one. In your local group, you don't need to Armageddon too many times when there's the guy with 12 lands when everyone else has five before he'll start getting twitchy about dumping too many lands in play. Of course, I usually find cards like Acidic Soil even better at making players regret dropping too many lands. Armageddon some folks a few times might turn short term losses into long term gains. The same doesn't apply globally. What does a guy in Paris, Texas care if a local in Paris, France keeps getting MLD'd out of games?
We don't, in general, like resource denial as a strategy because it takes the game away from players. At the same time, some selective resource denial might make environments more healthy. The occasional Armageddon (or threat of it) can probably make an environment more interesting. Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines cannot.
That's a good point about how merely the threat of MLD can how a playgroup approaches ramp. Maybe instead of Farhaven Elf you run Borderline Ranger, for example.
I think that for me at least, answers like the one you just gave us are things I'd like to see published in your articles rather than given sporadically. For example, in your article yesterday I can see that line of logic among the RC, but to the casual reader Toby was saying that MLD is bad; end of story.
I don't think we'll see anything banned. I can see why people are burned out on Deadeye Navigator, Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker, Tooth and Nail, Cyclonic Rift, Prophet of Kruphix, et al but I don't think that they are really warping games to the point that some people contend. Yes, they are the very best cards at what they do, but there is always going to be a subset of cards that are better than the others. Play them, enjoy them responsibly, and pack some removal.
haha 'tis a shame the RC would find complaining difficult to ban.
seriously though, i've not seen prophet of kruphix being oppressive via mana (or at least any more so than seedborn muse).
and yea i don't think that the banlist is going to change at all this time round. the way how i see it, boundless realms is kinda the green version of insurrection. a huge, stupid spell that just wins you games outside silly situations (someone has an armageddondingus egg/rakdos charm).
this isn't to say though that i'm a fan of overcharged ramping.
I think MLD has its place. In fact, although I don't necessarily see it as a good answer to ramp, it can occasionally be, but it's more of a local scope solution than a global one. In your local group, you don't need to Armageddon too many times when there's the guy with 12 lands when everyone else has five before he'll start getting twitchy about dumping too many lands in play. Of course, I usually find cards like Acidic Soil even better at making players regret dropping too many lands. Armageddon some folks a few times might turn short term losses into long term gains. The same doesn't apply globally. What does a guy in Paris, Texas care if a local in Paris, France keeps getting MLD'd out of games?
Well, the problem with the threat of MLD as a deterrent is that you're really talking about a level 1, or at best level 2 use, under my previous post above. That means no one is winning, just drawing. Most are probably drawing out for no reason other than to beat the MLD player as well, and I've certainly had games where I played MLD then 2 or 3 players drew out into whatever cheap removal they had, after which they would just leave the game after I was dead. As if killing the MLD player were the only objective left. So, players might even prefer losing to the 20 lands by Turn 10 type player, and I'm sure there's plenty of other anecdotal evidence to support that.
Also, ramp players only get twitchy about dropping too many lands into play if their win conditions are really gimp. Usually, they just need X amount of mana for a single turn. Rarely is it more than a dozen. For those players, you either preemptively strike with MLD to curtail development in the middle turns, or they just end up not caring. You basically have to catch them after they've tapped out for Explosive Vegetation, or its too late. Hopefully your own board is developed by then. It is not as if they are using that 15+ land count to run out double 6-drops turn after turn for 3-4 turns with countermagic backup. I'm not the best guy to approach the scenario of an experienced player building a deck that doesn't win after producing a hundred mana over the course of a game, but I am sure MLD is neither the only way nor the best way to deal with that level of gimpiness.
I'm not trying to be an elitist jerk here. I'm not one of those anti-social speedball combo guys, and my games are pretty Spirit of EDH-y. For reference, in my last two games the alpha was a more or less stock Nekusar who ran out Sire of Insanity turn 6 or 7 (and lost to Loxodon Warhammer despite eliminating 2 players just with the Megrim pain), and a Karametra deck that had her Primal Surge win-con live at about Turn 7 or 8 as well. Granted the Nekusar has nothing to do with ramp, but in each case, an off the cuff Armageddon is nothing that the alpha is actually afraid of, except in the case of the turn before the critical one. So, they are not holding Wood Elves in hand for any post-Geddon recovery, they are just ramping to needed mana and either winning or losing with their plan.
I mean, I don't think I'm surprising you with this because your last few SCG articles touching on it included snippets where RC members mentioned that MLD was not a solution to ramp, and you just repeated that above. Which I agree its not when it's just slid into a deck.
We don't, in general, like resource denial as a strategy because it takes the game away from players. At the same time, some selective resource denial might make environments more healthy. The occasional Armageddon (or threat of it) can probably make an environment more interesting. Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines cannot.
But here's the other side of the coin, when the strategy succeeds, and it does take the game away from other players. See here, when you talk about "resource denial as a strategy", I'm reading this basically as the inverse of the "MLD doesn't counter ramp" uses. So, when it does work it's a counter, when it doesn't it's not.
I'm not sure that's judging those decks on the same critera as the rest. Decks have a high internal fail rate in Highlander. A lot of well-built resource denial decks are capable of draws that are the exact same as those of a weenie/aggro deck where Armageddon is just slid into the 99. But in no other deck type is the deck working 100% of the time in a given MU the litmus test for whether the deck is healthy, sporting, or should be allowed. Decks should be allowed to fail equally, despite the fact that the inertia of the game is impacted more severely when a resource denial deck fails. But if your Armageddon fails, then you are not only anti-social, you're also accused of not understanding what you're doing.
The other thing is how players assess their enjoyment of a game when the deck doesn't fail. If you beat me with a one-card, 4cmc combo in two spots - Pattern of Rebirth/Natural Order into Craterhoof Behemoth, whether or not before Turn 7, then good show sport, I'll add you to my friend list. If you beat me with a stack-based one-card combo in that same turn window with equal opportunity for outs, you are an anti-social power-gamer. But if you play Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines? It's either on 10 turns worth of mana, or you're advertising for a full orbit that you can potentially take the game on your untap. And it's probably not before Turn 6 even then. Is that more disruptible than a hasty overrun? I'm fairly sure it's not. It also requires a third card to either resolve the existing non-land board state, or to preserve your own lands. But say you do make that play on an empty board, ok, now you're not making for interesting games because you still have to attack everyone to death with your 2/2 Dimir Signet. ???
I've posted in several spots before that I don't understand this, and the frequent response is that I obviously do because I brought up an example. Propter hoc, I don't know how I'm supposed to know. But now that I have heard complaints, my win con has to be changed. It's not healthy, I'm supposed to know that, and by suggesting that I don't I'm being deliberately obtuse. A similar thing has been brought up often that Counterspells are inherently less enjoyable than Doom Blade's, even when the net value of the creature killed is zero. It's just something that defies any quantitative, rational expression, but nevertheless exists in the subjective minds of the ostensible majority.
That's where the "resource denial as a strategy" counter-strategy is eviscerated as a counter-strategy. You con't know exactly what to play because even from the mouth of an RC member, Geddon can be fine to balance a local area but MoM/Lattice never. Maybe someone else will say something different. The guy you're playing against will certainly say that it's whatever you chose to play that game that's unhealthy. So you will get complained of more than the thing you're trying to beat, even if you do win, and if you don't win people will complain even more because you are one of those spazzoids who Geddons off the top.
TL;DR - MLD is never a good counter because it's always more dreaded than what it stops, if it even stops it at all. I wouldn't mind MLD being banned to see what the actual format we're supposed to be playing would be like.
The strategic depth of a game after an Armageddon is significantly more interesting than what you have left after March+Lattice. Ignoring the difference between the two is definitely being obtuse. In the case of Mass-LD being played, each player is still capable of playing lands and casting spells in an attempt to catch up. With March/Lattice, unless the player has an Anthem effect to keep their lands alive they are effectively reduced to doing pretty much nothing.
And we all know that the guy playing Arcum Dagsson isn't waiting to have 10 turns of mana in play...
I think that what anyone who isn't 100% against mass-LD "just cuz" really expects of the player who plays a card like Armageddon is that they have some sort of tactical or strategic reason for doing so. What is annoying to some is the person who plays a Mass-LD card just to set the game back to zero with no plan and no real reason for doing so. Playing it to reign in 'Rampant Growth into Explosive Vegetation into Boundless Realms' guy would in fact be a very legitimate tactical reason.
And please don't characterize the "ostensible majority" of players as not knowing the difference between having a creature countered versus being hit by a Doom Blade. I don't understand those players either and I think those are definitely in the minority.
The crux of the problem with MLD is the average player doesn't build their decks to prepare for this eventuality and feelings get hurt when the pain comes. There was a period of time when my meta played a lot of MLD and while it was certainly annoying no one cried foul or lost sleep over it. We simply dealt with it. Our games were longer but still fun. I shoved Flagstones in my Bant lists, upped the number of dorks, added Crucible, and things were fine. Eventually we all concluded it was win-more and a waste of a slot. Not much MLD is played now
The strategic depth of a game after an Armageddon is significantly more interesting than what you have left after March+Lattice. Ignoring the difference between the two is definitely being obtuse. In the case of Mass-LD being played, each player is still capable of playing lands and casting spells in an attempt to catch up. With March/Lattice, unless the player has an Anthem effect to keep their lands alive they are effectively reduced to doing pretty much nothing.
And we all know that the guy playing Arcum Dagsson isn't waiting to have 10 turns of mana in play...
I think that what anyone who isn't 100% against mass-LD "just cuz" really expects of the player who plays a card like Armageddon is that they have some sort of tactical or strategic reason for doing so. What is annoying to some is the person who plays a Mass-LD card just to set the game back to zero with no plan and no real reason for doing so. Playing it to reign in 'Rampant Growth into Explosive Vegetation into Boundless Realms' guy would in fact be a very legitimate tactical reason.
And please don't characterize the "ostensible majority" of players as not knowing the difference between having a creature countered versus being hit by a Doom Blade. I don't understand those players either and I think those are definitely in the minority.
I think this is another explanation of the subjective quality of what people hate. Take 3 kinds of combos/sequences:
1) Those that end the game with certainly because they are immediate - Infinite Damage, Mill, etc.
2) Those that win the game with certainty, but require some formality to end the game - MoM/Lattice, Geddon/Land Equilibrium then attacking with your board
3) Those that aren't always certain, whether or not immediate - Primal Surge, Tooth and Nail, NO into Craterhoof, Tangle Wire locks, etc
If people prefer only #3, because they like back-and-forth, or the game always having a chance to turn around however slim, then I can understand why. And that's the difference between MoM/Lattice and just Armageddon. Only, people don't like #3 whenever it's a sequence that involves MLD, and some prefer #1 to that, but #3 everywhere else that doesn't involve MLD.
Also in my eye, players should respond to the first 2 exactly the same, because they are both certain. The response to both should be shuffle up and play another game. But they actually hate #2 the worst of the three. Maybe they don't concede. But I find that really hard to believe. If they don't look at it the same, mostly they will leave with a sour taste in their mouths and the conclusion that you wreck games. All you did was win. Winning ends the game, it doesn't wreck it.
My flavor test for how enjoyable/unenjoyable I find a win has nothing to do with the particulars, or the certainty of it, rather the consistency and variety. If a Karametra deck has a win-con of Primal Surge, then we will all watch the permanents roll off and have a laugh. GW does not get that card every game, and it can win a number of ways. But if a BUG deck with all the Legacy-banned tutors has a Tooth and Nail win-con with enough ramp and rituals, then I am not amused by it, I will probably see the same thing used each game, and I will probably have to change to a deck that can fight one particular card.
I'm using the word "Combo" here, but what I'm really talking about is a powerful sequence of plays. So, MLD fits in here too. The only difference is that with MLD you fall into one of the 3 categories I described above. Either you fail to make it into a powerful sequence because you didn't build that way, you fail to achieve a powerful sequence because your deck didn't give you what you need, or when you do MLD into a strong position, you at least leave open the opportunity to fight back. No matter where you fall, people loathe what you're doing for one reason or another, disproportionately to the level of certainty/variety/speed that your play has.
#1 - Either I have an answer in hand or game over. GG whether I like the outcome, let's shuffle up another.
#2 - If anyone has an out in their deck, the game isn't over until we're dead. If someone draws and is successful with their out, the game continues.
#3 - Game ender is attempted. It works, game possibly over. Or it doesn't work and game continues.
In general, #2 is frowned on because players feel bad either because they just give up and scoop or because for them the game drags while they dig for an out.
I think that #2 you're describing is really #3 by my reckoning. Maybe Seedborn Muse, Winter Orb, Tangle Wire, Academy Ruins looks like a hard-lock, but it's not. Instant speed artifact removal uncountered will get someone an untap, then maybe the next guy in position can deal with it. People may try to fight out of that lock, or they might concede to it if they're playing artifact hate only on 5cmc creatures, or some other impossible configuration. Which is why I suppose that stuff gets run against high mana curves. (Does that mean it's an answer to ramp?)
But the #2 I'm talking about... MoM-Lattice while no one has mana rocks or a board is a hard lock. Jokulhaups with Land Equilibrium in play floating for a Hexproof creature is a hard-lock, I suppose unless someone has Nature's Claim or Innocent Blood. I can't think of any other examples invovling MLD, but I think everyone scoops there. My question, why not just concede to that hard lock just as if it were an Exsanguinate? Because yeah, people storm off about how the game has been ruined.
And apparently, that combination of 2 cards isn't a healthy solution to anything.
I was envisioning #2 as something like a monoblue deck being on the losing side of Iona (for a random example) and having a Spine or O-Stone in the deck. Or a T1 Entombed/Reanimated Jin-Gitaxis when you run Swords. Something that's pretty much a hard lock but you can potentially draw into outs. A straight hard lock that you described where are literally no outs is more like #1 to me. The game is over, you just might not like the way it ended.
I see #3 as you described as something that could be over but there's no guarantee and if it fails the game continues as normal. In my opinion, #3 is the closest to the creators intent, with #1 being mostly acceptable plays, and #2 being antisocial unless you're in a specific group that tolerates/enjoys those types of plays.
I think its more along the lines of the fact that you didn't actually win when you dropped March of the Machines and Mycosynth Lattice, all you did was make everyone concede unless someone is packing a Sunscour, Pyrokinesis, Abolish, or Sickening Shoal in their deck (there are a few others like Snapback, Slaughter Pact, or Soul Spike that are either terrible or don't actually solve the problem). There is functionally no difference in the result between the MoM+Lattice and Exsanguinate for 30+ or build-up of an army+Craterhoof, but there is definitely a lot more involved in setting up the last two than the first so the win (or mass concessions) feels less cheap. It's less about the result more about the journey; it you worked for your win and there was some interaction and counterplay involved in the game, then a lot of people don't have a bad taste in their mouth at the conclusion of the game.
Well is it really easier or do people just feel that the victory is cheapened because of how it comes out?
Exsanguinate for Infinite is 3 cards in Mono Black - Basalt Monolith, Rings of Brighthearth then Exsanguinate. The two necessary pieces cost 6, and since the first produces mana you've got 3 total mana. 3 cards, 6 mana.
Craterhoof is 1 card - Natural Order, Pattern of Rebirth then a multiplicity of other things that might put out enough tokens for lethal. Maybe just Tooth and Nail for Avenger. 1 card, 9 mana. An advantage here also is that you don't leave permanents down prior to get killed.
MoM - Lattice is 2 cards for 10 mana, then one other card like a Wrath to resolve everyone's board. Tutoring for those cards and playing them without people killing them is the killer. Otherwise, 10 mana is hard to reach. Resolving to a state where you win if you lock out mana is not automatic, either.
Which one is harder to get? I could make an argument that MoM-Lattice is the hardest of the three to pull off. But at the least, it's just as difficult as the others.
Anyway, this was just an illustration of how very few really care what is a counter-strategy to what. So when MLD is used "healthily" as a counter-strategy to anything, usually not even groups plagued by ramp decks will take stock of it, and most likely they will just pummel the MLD player in and out of game to stop playing it. The community at large just doesn't like it, for reasons that are in no way objective, but are nevertheless widely shared. I have basically given up on it being an accepted balancing strategy anywhere, but on the other hand I would like to be able to play an aggressive Red deck without succumbing to the idea that there's nothing at all I can do against 75% of the field, competitive, casual, or what have you. If it's there, I will probably run it in public games. If it's banned, I would just want to see what that format looks like. First, maybe people learn to play better Control decks of different types. Also, it is possible that people would learn to grow a thicker skin for things like Tectonic Break, Keldon Firebombers, and Wildfire if they were untouched by the ban. But this implicit stamp of approval for comparables seems to be exactly what keeps the RC at large from banning a few well-known delinquencies already.
Funny that you mention Tectonic Break and Wildfire as those cards specifically do not counter a land-ramping player; they would actively ensure that those players ended up with more lands in play than anyone else afterward. Tec Break was also one of my favorite cards back in US-MM-6E standard.
Keldon Firebombers seems like a perfect kind of answer. If definitely reigns all the out-of-control land ramping players while simultaneously leaving everyone with some lands so that everybody isn't starting from scratch. This would be the kind of card that I would call a 'courteous' form of disruption.
As for what game-ending play is harder to pull off, it all really depends on the situation and how you want to paint the picture to prove your point. Where you list Rings of Brighthearth + Basalt Monolith + Exsanguinate at only 6 mana, yet list March of the Machines + Mycosynth Lattice at the full 10 mana, I can turn the tables and say that lethal Exsanguinate is 42 mana where Rings+Monolith into March+Lattice is only 6 mana.... If you are going to make the comparison, it needs to be apples to apples.
Natural Balance goes right along with the Firebombers as fair solutions to the rampy player. IMHO, there needs to be many more abilities like this in EDH.
I think Armageddon and Ravages should get the hammer, and I think it was in this thread a few months back that I made the argument for why 4cmc is different. Basically, it's what Sheldon said about things being ok on turn 13 that are not ok on Turn 3. The average win turn of my games versus the games of the RC just seems lower, with turn 9 being about average - whether control, combo, or aggro. Armageddon being so cheap is definitely an issue with floats in that window where others are not. Of course, I think Upheaval would probably be ok too, but tradition and all. If there were a #2 ban worthy MLD card it would probably be Cataclysm, to me. That card is just winning games at a high percentage of the time it's played, into too many different board states, at too low of a cost, too early. Effectively a Jokulhaups 2 cheaper. But Obliterate and others I view as a lower level, possibly weaker level, and much more often part of an integral strategy that wins more immexiately. Lots of decks have had a chance to win or do their thing by 6 and 8 mana. So, just Geddon would be the first step in my eye, then maybe all 6cmc if they feel most of the community are playing games where 6 is basically the same.
On Wildfire, I think you're right. Your comment to me also shows how it wouldn't be a problem, because most would not build for it. Because my use of it has been in very low-curve decks with some amount of land ramp. In those decks, I don't have much use for more than 4 mana in a single turn, while Ramp decks are built around the idea that they will have 7+ at some point to do their thing. Essentially, it's not the best for balancing down Ramp to the same land count, but it is good against a Ramp strategy due to it's mana demands, while not hurting lower-curve decks very much. Nelson Firebombers are obviously better at hosing the land ramping player, but Wildfire tends to punish bad draws and with artifact hate will punish non-green more than Firebombers. But I suppose punishing bad draws is going to be looked at as unsporting in a lot of places.
The Sage of Hours needs just too much setup to be anywhere near banworthy. I honestly und respectfully hope you're just joking. It's not even a good card. Of course, there are ways to exploit him, but if you wanted to get rid of all the two-card and three-card-combos, you'd have the longest day.
I don't think 2 more cards are too much setup. Also, Sylvan Primordial was banned just because he was abused like hell. I don't think people will play Sage just to occasionally have one more turn. They will abuse him. And yes, there are 2-3 card combos, but infinite rounds are little bit more OP than infinite tokens. Many cards in banlist are there because they were abused. Sundering Titan is another example of that. So I think that if you judge some cards just as they are alone, they aren't that strong. But you should see how they are abuse-able. Because people are munchkins and they will break those cards.
I agree with you that if we would ban every combo-like card, we wouldn't have much to play with. But I don't agree that it is not a good card.
i dont think its gonna get the ban-slam.. the thing with sundering titan, primeval primordial and prime time was that as it came into play, everyone was out copying, stealing 'em over and over. you can't really do the same with sage of hours, because not every deck has the ability to put counters/constantly target it with spells. heck if i think about it, i think at least 70-80% of all the targeted instants/sorceries i have in all my edh decks are kill spells.
i think the uniqueness in the type of interaction that the sage requires will make it not ban-worthy. and even if people pull it off, its like a 'i win, lets shuffle up for next game' type of combo, not a 'im gonna nuke this land, this land, this land, then im gonna copy SP to nuke a couple more lands till i get to goldfish a few turns' type of interaction.
@ Forgotten One - CS and AN get brought up regularly.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
In 706 pages, I can assure you that those cards have been brought up over and over ... ad nauseam.
As far as I can tell, the general consensus is divided into two camps. Those who seem to almost unconditionally support the banlist, and those who don't think its banworthy. The former reason that Ad Nauseam requires a deck to be built around to be good (they're wrong by the way).
And in regards to Consecrated Sphinx, well, it just isn't banworthy. It's great, sure, but also political suicide.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
1) Whenever they rip it off the top, like it's Wood Elves, because that's how they play every card in their deck. Everyone from all levels of play expectations are annoyed. Either someone other than the MLD player will win on board, or the game will essentially just be reset. The RC tag-line would be "players should be able to play, not just watch" or some such. The reasonable counter-argument would be that, in the one sense, you can't stop kingmaking with a variety of cards, because you can't model stupidity. Or in the sense of a reset, likewise, it's no worse than a Turn 1-2 Wheel of Fortune, or better - Smallpox. Only MLD does have the potential to stop excessive ramp, which oddly enough, seems like something the RC disfavors anyway.
2) Players use it whenever they have a marginal lead on board, or some artifact mana, what have you. Here, they might take 7-8 turns to finally win it out against 3 players. More likely though, the threat they were counting on either eats removal with the MLD on the stack, or one of the three draws out into some small removal that kills their Jitte-equipped Thalia or some similar. The RC line of argument is essentially the same, "players shouldn't have to sit and wait without being able to play what they draw" etc. The easy counter is that it just does not take that long in real time to draw out to a reasonable board state, and it's hardly a unique situation where a player has to wait to play a topdecked card. That 2/2 is going to do a lot more damage than the typical 2/2, but if players are going around pointing to that as an "auto-win" for MLD whenever it's played, they simply have never played a single game out post-Geddon.
3) Players use it as part of a resource denial strategy, or when they have a 2-3 turn clock on board. Then, they probably win with it. But then, the RC line is "don't end game too quickly or too abruptly". Reasonable counter is lots of things are actually quicker, not just combo, and what it wrong with winning the game in the first place? That's not the only goal, but tables where no one is trying at all to win make no sense.
At any rate, it's unfortunate that MLD won't ever be banned. Because the RC and like-minded players are against it in whatever form is shows up in, for so many different reasons, but all pointing that they don't like it. There's no real harmony on principle other than it's frowned upon. I personally think it's just a visceral loathing for anything that interferes dramatically with the inertia of the game. But, they won't ban mass ramp either until it's gets overplayed, so that's the standoff.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
We don't, in general, like resource denial as a strategy because it takes the game away from players. At the same time, some selective resource denial might make environments more healthy. The occasional Armageddon (or threat of it) can probably make an environment more interesting. Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines cannot.
That's a good point about how merely the threat of MLD can how a playgroup approaches ramp. Maybe instead of Farhaven Elf you run Borderline Ranger, for example.
I think that for me at least, answers like the one you just gave us are things I'd like to see published in your articles rather than given sporadically. For example, in your article yesterday I can see that line of logic among the RC, but to the casual reader Toby was saying that MLD is bad; end of story.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
haha 'tis a shame the RC would find complaining difficult to ban.
seriously though, i've not seen prophet of kruphix being oppressive via mana (or at least any more so than seedborn muse).
and yea i don't think that the banlist is going to change at all this time round. the way how i see it, boundless realms is kinda the green version of insurrection. a huge, stupid spell that just wins you games outside silly situations (someone has an armageddondingus egg/rakdos charm).
this isn't to say though that i'm a fan of overcharged ramping.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Well, the problem with the threat of MLD as a deterrent is that you're really talking about a level 1, or at best level 2 use, under my previous post above. That means no one is winning, just drawing. Most are probably drawing out for no reason other than to beat the MLD player as well, and I've certainly had games where I played MLD then 2 or 3 players drew out into whatever cheap removal they had, after which they would just leave the game after I was dead. As if killing the MLD player were the only objective left. So, players might even prefer losing to the 20 lands by Turn 10 type player, and I'm sure there's plenty of other anecdotal evidence to support that.
Also, ramp players only get twitchy about dropping too many lands into play if their win conditions are really gimp. Usually, they just need X amount of mana for a single turn. Rarely is it more than a dozen. For those players, you either preemptively strike with MLD to curtail development in the middle turns, or they just end up not caring. You basically have to catch them after they've tapped out for Explosive Vegetation, or its too late. Hopefully your own board is developed by then. It is not as if they are using that 15+ land count to run out double 6-drops turn after turn for 3-4 turns with countermagic backup. I'm not the best guy to approach the scenario of an experienced player building a deck that doesn't win after producing a hundred mana over the course of a game, but I am sure MLD is neither the only way nor the best way to deal with that level of gimpiness.
I'm not trying to be an elitist jerk here. I'm not one of those anti-social speedball combo guys, and my games are pretty Spirit of EDH-y. For reference, in my last two games the alpha was a more or less stock Nekusar who ran out Sire of Insanity turn 6 or 7 (and lost to Loxodon Warhammer despite eliminating 2 players just with the Megrim pain), and a Karametra deck that had her Primal Surge win-con live at about Turn 7 or 8 as well. Granted the Nekusar has nothing to do with ramp, but in each case, an off the cuff Armageddon is nothing that the alpha is actually afraid of, except in the case of the turn before the critical one. So, they are not holding Wood Elves in hand for any post-Geddon recovery, they are just ramping to needed mana and either winning or losing with their plan.
I mean, I don't think I'm surprising you with this because your last few SCG articles touching on it included snippets where RC members mentioned that MLD was not a solution to ramp, and you just repeated that above. Which I agree its not when it's just slid into a deck.
But here's the other side of the coin, when the strategy succeeds, and it does take the game away from other players. See here, when you talk about "resource denial as a strategy", I'm reading this basically as the inverse of the "MLD doesn't counter ramp" uses. So, when it does work it's a counter, when it doesn't it's not.
I'm not sure that's judging those decks on the same critera as the rest. Decks have a high internal fail rate in Highlander. A lot of well-built resource denial decks are capable of draws that are the exact same as those of a weenie/aggro deck where Armageddon is just slid into the 99. But in no other deck type is the deck working 100% of the time in a given MU the litmus test for whether the deck is healthy, sporting, or should be allowed. Decks should be allowed to fail equally, despite the fact that the inertia of the game is impacted more severely when a resource denial deck fails. But if your Armageddon fails, then you are not only anti-social, you're also accused of not understanding what you're doing.
The other thing is how players assess their enjoyment of a game when the deck doesn't fail. If you beat me with a one-card, 4cmc combo in two spots - Pattern of Rebirth/Natural Order into Craterhoof Behemoth, whether or not before Turn 7, then good show sport, I'll add you to my friend list. If you beat me with a stack-based one-card combo in that same turn window with equal opportunity for outs, you are an anti-social power-gamer. But if you play Mycosynth Lattice/March of the Machines? It's either on 10 turns worth of mana, or you're advertising for a full orbit that you can potentially take the game on your untap. And it's probably not before Turn 6 even then. Is that more disruptible than a hasty overrun? I'm fairly sure it's not. It also requires a third card to either resolve the existing non-land board state, or to preserve your own lands. But say you do make that play on an empty board, ok, now you're not making for interesting games because you still have to attack everyone to death with your 2/2 Dimir Signet. ???
I've posted in several spots before that I don't understand this, and the frequent response is that I obviously do because I brought up an example. Propter hoc, I don't know how I'm supposed to know. But now that I have heard complaints, my win con has to be changed. It's not healthy, I'm supposed to know that, and by suggesting that I don't I'm being deliberately obtuse. A similar thing has been brought up often that Counterspells are inherently less enjoyable than Doom Blade's, even when the net value of the creature killed is zero. It's just something that defies any quantitative, rational expression, but nevertheless exists in the subjective minds of the ostensible majority.
That's where the "resource denial as a strategy" counter-strategy is eviscerated as a counter-strategy. You con't know exactly what to play because even from the mouth of an RC member, Geddon can be fine to balance a local area but MoM/Lattice never. Maybe someone else will say something different. The guy you're playing against will certainly say that it's whatever you chose to play that game that's unhealthy. So you will get complained of more than the thing you're trying to beat, even if you do win, and if you don't win people will complain even more because you are one of those spazzoids who Geddons off the top.
TL;DR - MLD is never a good counter because it's always more dreaded than what it stops, if it even stops it at all. I wouldn't mind MLD being banned to see what the actual format we're supposed to be playing would be like.
And we all know that the guy playing Arcum Dagsson isn't waiting to have 10 turns of mana in play...
I think that what anyone who isn't 100% against mass-LD "just cuz" really expects of the player who plays a card like Armageddon is that they have some sort of tactical or strategic reason for doing so. What is annoying to some is the person who plays a Mass-LD card just to set the game back to zero with no plan and no real reason for doing so. Playing it to reign in 'Rampant Growth into Explosive Vegetation into Boundless Realms' guy would in fact be a very legitimate tactical reason.
And please don't characterize the "ostensible majority" of players as not knowing the difference between having a creature countered versus being hit by a Doom Blade. I don't understand those players either and I think those are definitely in the minority.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
I think this is another explanation of the subjective quality of what people hate. Take 3 kinds of combos/sequences:
1) Those that end the game with certainly because they are immediate - Infinite Damage, Mill, etc.
2) Those that win the game with certainty, but require some formality to end the game - MoM/Lattice, Geddon/Land Equilibrium then attacking with your board
3) Those that aren't always certain, whether or not immediate - Primal Surge, Tooth and Nail, NO into Craterhoof, Tangle Wire locks, etc
If people prefer only #3, because they like back-and-forth, or the game always having a chance to turn around however slim, then I can understand why. And that's the difference between MoM/Lattice and just Armageddon. Only, people don't like #3 whenever it's a sequence that involves MLD, and some prefer #1 to that, but #3 everywhere else that doesn't involve MLD.
Also in my eye, players should respond to the first 2 exactly the same, because they are both certain. The response to both should be shuffle up and play another game. But they actually hate #2 the worst of the three. Maybe they don't concede. But I find that really hard to believe. If they don't look at it the same, mostly they will leave with a sour taste in their mouths and the conclusion that you wreck games. All you did was win. Winning ends the game, it doesn't wreck it.
My flavor test for how enjoyable/unenjoyable I find a win has nothing to do with the particulars, or the certainty of it, rather the consistency and variety. If a Karametra deck has a win-con of Primal Surge, then we will all watch the permanents roll off and have a laugh. GW does not get that card every game, and it can win a number of ways. But if a BUG deck with all the Legacy-banned tutors has a Tooth and Nail win-con with enough ramp and rituals, then I am not amused by it, I will probably see the same thing used each game, and I will probably have to change to a deck that can fight one particular card.
I'm using the word "Combo" here, but what I'm really talking about is a powerful sequence of plays. So, MLD fits in here too. The only difference is that with MLD you fall into one of the 3 categories I described above. Either you fail to make it into a powerful sequence because you didn't build that way, you fail to achieve a powerful sequence because your deck didn't give you what you need, or when you do MLD into a strong position, you at least leave open the opportunity to fight back. No matter where you fall, people loathe what you're doing for one reason or another, disproportionately to the level of certainty/variety/speed that your play has.
#1 - Either I have an answer in hand or game over. GG whether I like the outcome, let's shuffle up another.
#2 - If anyone has an out in their deck, the game isn't over until we're dead. If someone draws and is successful with their out, the game continues.
#3 - Game ender is attempted. It works, game possibly over. Or it doesn't work and game continues.
In general, #2 is frowned on because players feel bad either because they just give up and scoop or because for them the game drags while they dig for an out.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But the #2 I'm talking about... MoM-Lattice while no one has mana rocks or a board is a hard lock. Jokulhaups with Land Equilibrium in play floating for a Hexproof creature is a hard-lock, I suppose unless someone has Nature's Claim or Innocent Blood. I can't think of any other examples invovling MLD, but I think everyone scoops there. My question, why not just concede to that hard lock just as if it were an Exsanguinate? Because yeah, people storm off about how the game has been ruined.
And apparently, that combination of 2 cards isn't a healthy solution to anything.
I see #3 as you described as something that could be over but there's no guarantee and if it fails the game continues as normal. In my opinion, #3 is the closest to the creators intent, with #1 being mostly acceptable plays, and #2 being antisocial unless you're in a specific group that tolerates/enjoys those types of plays.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Exsanguinate for Infinite is 3 cards in Mono Black - Basalt Monolith, Rings of Brighthearth then Exsanguinate. The two necessary pieces cost 6, and since the first produces mana you've got 3 total mana. 3 cards, 6 mana.
Craterhoof is 1 card - Natural Order, Pattern of Rebirth then a multiplicity of other things that might put out enough tokens for lethal. Maybe just Tooth and Nail for Avenger. 1 card, 9 mana. An advantage here also is that you don't leave permanents down prior to get killed.
MoM - Lattice is 2 cards for 10 mana, then one other card like a Wrath to resolve everyone's board. Tutoring for those cards and playing them without people killing them is the killer. Otherwise, 10 mana is hard to reach. Resolving to a state where you win if you lock out mana is not automatic, either.
Which one is harder to get? I could make an argument that MoM-Lattice is the hardest of the three to pull off. But at the least, it's just as difficult as the others.
Anyway, this was just an illustration of how very few really care what is a counter-strategy to what. So when MLD is used "healthily" as a counter-strategy to anything, usually not even groups plagued by ramp decks will take stock of it, and most likely they will just pummel the MLD player in and out of game to stop playing it. The community at large just doesn't like it, for reasons that are in no way objective, but are nevertheless widely shared. I have basically given up on it being an accepted balancing strategy anywhere, but on the other hand I would like to be able to play an aggressive Red deck without succumbing to the idea that there's nothing at all I can do against 75% of the field, competitive, casual, or what have you. If it's there, I will probably run it in public games. If it's banned, I would just want to see what that format looks like. First, maybe people learn to play better Control decks of different types. Also, it is possible that people would learn to grow a thicker skin for things like Tectonic Break, Keldon Firebombers, and Wildfire if they were untouched by the ban. But this implicit stamp of approval for comparables seems to be exactly what keeps the RC at large from banning a few well-known delinquencies already.
Keldon Firebombers seems like a perfect kind of answer. If definitely reigns all the out-of-control land ramping players while simultaneously leaving everyone with some lands so that everybody isn't starting from scratch. This would be the kind of card that I would call a 'courteous' form of disruption.
As for banning mass-LD (this is the banned list discussion thread after all), are you just talking about wanting to ban Armageddon, Ravages of War, Boom//Bust, Decree of Annihilation, Catastrophe, Devastation, Jokulhaups, and Obliterate (or whatever else that might blow up all lands, I might have missed a few)? What about a card like Ruination? Wake of Destruction? What about any of the asymmetrical land destruction cards or non-basic hate cards that gtAngel proposed here? I'm curious as to where you think the line should be drawn (or if it should be drawn at all).
As for what game-ending play is harder to pull off, it all really depends on the situation and how you want to paint the picture to prove your point. Where you list Rings of Brighthearth + Basalt Monolith + Exsanguinate at only 6 mana, yet list March of the Machines + Mycosynth Lattice at the full 10 mana, I can turn the tables and say that lethal Exsanguinate is 42 mana where Rings+Monolith into March+Lattice is only 6 mana.... If you are going to make the comparison, it needs to be apples to apples.
On Wildfire, I think you're right. Your comment to me also shows how it wouldn't be a problem, because most would not build for it. Because my use of it has been in very low-curve decks with some amount of land ramp. In those decks, I don't have much use for more than 4 mana in a single turn, while Ramp decks are built around the idea that they will have 7+ at some point to do their thing. Essentially, it's not the best for balancing down Ramp to the same land count, but it is good against a Ramp strategy due to it's mana demands, while not hurting lower-curve decks very much. Nelson Firebombers are obviously better at hosing the land ramping player, but Wildfire tends to punish bad draws and with artifact hate will punish non-green more than Firebombers. But I suppose punishing bad draws is going to be looked at as unsporting in a lot of places.
Doubling Season, Ajani, Mentor of Heroes aaaand PUFF! infinite rounds.
Or Vorel of the Hull Clade] with Ajani, Mentor of Heroes
These are just two ways how to abuse him. And I think, you people can find another ways how to abuse him.
Derevi, Asura, Rafiq, Mimeoplasm, Vorel and other U/something generals will
I don't think 2 more cards are too much setup. Also, Sylvan Primordial was banned just because he was abused like hell. I don't think people will play Sage just to occasionally have one more turn. They will abuse him. And yes, there are 2-3 card combos, but infinite rounds are little bit more OP than infinite tokens. Many cards in banlist are there because they were abused. Sundering Titan is another example of that. So I think that if you judge some cards just as they are alone, they aren't that strong. But you should see how they are abuse-able. Because people are munchkins and they will break those cards.
I agree with you that if we would ban every combo-like card, we wouldn't have much to play with. But I don't agree that it is not a good card.
i think the uniqueness in the type of interaction that the sage requires will make it not ban-worthy. and even if people pull it off, its like a 'i win, lets shuffle up for next game' type of combo, not a 'im gonna nuke this land, this land, this land, then im gonna copy SP to nuke a couple more lands till i get to goldfish a few turns' type of interaction.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom