The ban list, imo, is insufficient for all players because it fails to fully address competitive play, and relies on house-rules for other groups' games to function. I believe it is easy to have a ban list that helps all players, however they like to play the game.
This is not meant to be rude, but I think that is because you have not thought it all the way through. Your implication is that an easy solution sits on the table and the RC refuses to implement it, which is not correct. YOU think there is a simple solution, but there are tons of dissenting opinions as well.
Making a ban list that helps the competitive players who don't play in a regular group, at the expense of the groups that play socially with people they know and choose to play with regularly, would be a MASSIVE failure.
As I stated before, I do think the ban list can be improved but a philosophy shift is a pretty bad idea.
At the expense of other groups? Why?
I think it is easy because there are clear problem cards that damage competitive games and they could just be placed into the current ban list. Best of both worlds. It feels like the current ban list just totally neglects competitive groups/players for the hell of it. Even just a start, like the 4 changes Cryogen mentioned, would be a step in the right direction.
I think the idea is that it's not fair for casual players to have to regulate their groups with house rules. Kind of silly but there you have it.
They already have to because they don't want people with extremely optimised decks to come in and combo before turn 5-10. If that's how the format should be played, then why are so many cards that allow these kinds of things to happen not on the ban list? I think that adding some of the cards that competitive players think are broken to the ban list would cause casual games to either be better or to not change (since no one is running the cards anyway). On top of that, competitive deck lists won't just run over casual groups when they happen to play with each other since the maximum power level of competitive decks will be reduced. In the end, everyone benefits.
My group (8 always, though 22 for last tournament, not bad for a shop in the boonies) doesn't house ban. We just have a simple rule: If you do something degenerate, expect everyone to remember as long as you play that deck. Which means that everything but the kitchen sink will be used by every player available to make sure you lose as quickly as possible.
Case in point: one Karador player who went Swamp, Dark Ritual, Entomb, Reanimate Sylvan Primordial (back when Sylvy was around), on Turn 1 as the last player among five players. Nuked everyones lands, got 4 forests, put out Survival of the Fittest, etc.
Next game, he was dead by Turn 4 when the entire table threw everything at him. Cards, I mean. The players did not pick up the table and chairs and throw them at him. As judge, I might have had to stop that.
If more playgroups were like this then this thread might only be 5 or 10 pages. I'm glad most of my groups are similar to yours.
I think the idea is that it's not fair for casual players to have to regulate their groups with house rules. Kind of silly but there you have it.
That's not the point. No list will be perfect, this one leans towards the groups that can have a social contract, and keeping the ban list short is a priority. People want to have access to great cards without running the game for everyone as soon as possible. Putting all the burden to change the list via house rule on the significant majority of the players is just a bad idea.
Every other format is set for tournament, competitive play. This one does not need to go there.
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.
Putting all the burden to change the list via house rule on the significant majority of the players is just a bad idea.
They already have this burden and the RC encourages them to do this. If you have a deck full of incredibly broken tutors and fast mana I'd think it would be a good idea to ask a new group if running those cards is acceptable instead of just assuming they must be fine.
I think the idea is that it's not fair for casual players to have to regulate their groups with house rules. Kind of silly but there you have it.
That's not the point. No list will be perfect, this one leans towards the groups that can have a social contract, and keeping the ban list short is a priority. People want to have access to great cards without running the game for everyone as soon as possible. Putting all the burden to change the list via house rule on the significant majority of the players is just a bad idea.
Every other format is set for tournament, competitive play. This one does not need to go there.
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
I think you GREATLY overestimate the number of groups using house bans, which is central to your position. Of course there is no way to know for sure, maybe I only run into groups that have no house rules by chance.
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 you GREATLY overestimate the number of groups using house bans, which is central to your position. Of course there is no way to know for sure, maybe I only run into groups that have no house rules by chance.
I'm not sure if you're feigning ignorance here but the majority of groups and casuals I run into have 2 primary unwritten rules: No combo, no mass LD. That's a house ban on a ton of cards.
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
I think you GREATLY overestimate the number of groups using house bans, which is central to your position. Of course there is no way to know for sure, maybe I only run into groups that have no house rules by chance.
They're not always explicit house-bans, they are pretty much just gentleman's agreement - or just me seeing that other people are not having fun because my deck is too oppressive (in which case I switch deck). But I have played with groups that essentially eject a player from the game if they win by combo and then continue until someone else wins and I've heard many times "tutors ruin this game" or other things that are similar.
How many people would actually be upset if some broken cards were banned? The only one that everyone has that I think should be banned is sol ring. How many people actually run demonic tutor and think the card is fun and okay for the format? How about mana crypt or vampiric tutor?
I'm pretty sure that you are the one who is missing the point. You are the one dividing the world up two diametrically opposed camps that don't really exist in an effort to push through your own agenda.
It's not me that's creating such a wide divide, just for the sake of argument. It's the format. The widening happens from one end via a card pool that includes cards banned even in Legacy. And then, it's widened on the other side via a ban list philosophy that entitles everyone to argue, complain, and lobby for house bans every time they feel like they're at a disadvantage. As I said, it's a question of degree and frequency. Power disparities and skill disparities exist all the time. But in, say, the Standard format, the best deck is maybe 80-20(?) against a "casual" deck like Mono-W, Mono-R, or some such. Subjectively then, that player certainly doesn't feel like it's pointless to sit down, and that he has no shot. If he does, there's a fairly obvious series of improvements to be made to get better performance, while keeping games linear and interactive. But in EDH, these disparities are so frequent that it's nearly impossible to play with unknowns, and they are so entrenched that even set playgroups will often not see eye to eye, and the knee-jerk reaction will be to house ban rather than interact. No game ever made will always work to everyone's expectations. And I'm not saying EDH never works, either. But the frequency at which the format gives rise to these issues is extraordinarily and needlessly high, as a result of current policy.
Your original point was that when someone plays a broken deck, it's not the RC's fault, it's the player's. That no ban list of any length can stop people from making "unfun" decks. When I said you missed the point, what you're not picking up is why these "fun/unfun" squabbles happen, how often they happen, and how workable the solutions are. You just made the point that different players will have fun in different games, true of any game ever, and call it a day. That's not where the dispute is. The question is about the causes, severity, and the feasibility of solutions. Whether the RC is feeding ammunition to the infighting, whether groups really need decidedly unwholesome cards to have fun, etc. Saying that some groups make it work is totally sidestepping the issue.
If there was such a huge divide, how is this becoming so popular a format?
Funny that Papa Funk said about the same thing a while back. I expect this all-or-nothing rationale is pretty transparent to most people. MySpace was popular late 90's, and you could've said the same thing. Then Facebook came along. And neither is perfect. If there are obvious things to be fixed in EDH, I hope it won't be a victim of its own success.
If there really is only 2 or 3 viable "optimal strategies", how do we have a forum with thousands of threads with decklists? How is it that there are 100 or so "highly playable" commanders and not just 3 or 4? Why is it that a card like Hermit Druid or Ad Nauseam aren't in the Top 100 cards played in this format?
Because no one likes playing with Hermit Druid/Ad Naus?
It's not so much that these cards and fast combo generally are driving the format themselves, but the format being so quick in the average goldfish possible definitely leaves a lot of room for people to feel justified in doing a lot of other stuff. Say I cast Survival of the Fittest Turn 5 and combo off Turn 6. Fair right? I mean, it's not HD or Ad Naus. Whether it's a busted enough engine to get banned in Legacy, no matter. EDH is for "fun" cards that you don't get to play in other formats! The gulf of things that are too quick for Control to do anything against is pretty wide. Most importantly, the number of things that can be done with Vintage tutors, fast mana, and all the non-casual cards in this casual format is so wide that really any ongoing process of engagement with this game will take you there. And all of it is going to use these broken cards, because they're impossible t ignore.
There's also just the silent, invisible effect that comes from knowing that no matter how much better you understand the format and build decks for it, you aren't really getting better because you're still at the mercy of these decks. Say you are playing an MMO where everyone at max level is of one particular class, because that class is imbalanced to a degree that every other class is worse at everything. How excited are you to hit max level? Not very. In EDH, you're not interested in making improvements to your game because there is no point. This is more or less essential to any game, but if anything, the RC seems deliberately committed to keeping the self-improvement process out of this format.
Essentially, few might be playing at the most speedy, uninteractive way possible, but allowing busted cards has a certain set of unquantifiable effects. People don't want to play busted combo. They want to have interactive games at some slower, traditional level, and busted cards do nothing but get in the way of that, whether they are even played or not.
How many people would actually be upset if some broken cards were banned? The only one that everyone has that I think should be banned is sol ring. How many people actually run demonic tutor and think the card is fun and okay for the format? How about mana crypt or vampiric tutor?
I know I use mana crypt and think its fun, I know a couple people who use demonic and vampiric tutor and think there fun, there would be quite a few people pissed off.
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
I think you GREATLY overestimate the number of groups using house bans, which is central to your position. Of course there is no way to know for sure, maybe I only run into groups that have no house rules by chance.
They're not always explicit house-bans, they are pretty much just gentleman's agreement - or just me seeing that other people are not having fun because my deck is too oppressive (in which case I switch deck). But I have played with groups that essentially eject a player from the game if they win by combo and then continue until someone else wins and I've heard many times "tutors ruin this game" or other things that are similar.
I know we won't agree on the points for the most part, but house banned cards and gentlemen's agreement are VERY different things. Even if the ban list were to change do you think people getting ejected for combo would change? A lot of people just strongly dislike the archetype, and should be free to find people who play that way as well. If one person is running combo and the other 3-4 are not, its on the single to matchup with the group. If one person does not like combo, but the groups does, learn to live with it.
People saying "X ruins the game" is not new, nor will it ever go away, no matter the format or ban list.
How many people would actually be upset if some broken cards were banned? The only one that everyone has that I think should be banned is sol ring. How many people actually run demonic tutor and think the card is fun and okay for the format? How about mana crypt or vampiric tutor?
Tons of people run most of those cards, that's part of the format: Running old, powerful, cards to do fun stuff. People have to be mature enough to do so without wrecking the game. "Broken" is a subjective term, every card on the ban list is an opinion, but right now the RC's opinion runs pretty close to my own, and I hope they keep on running the list this way.
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 the idea is that it's not fair for casual players to have to regulate their groups with house rules. Kind of silly but there you have it.
That's not the point. No list will be perfect, this one leans towards the groups that can have a social contract, and keeping the ban list short is a priority. People want to have access to great cards without running the game for everyone as soon as possible. Putting all the burden to change the list via house rule on the significant majority of the players is just a bad idea.
Every other format is set for tournament, competitive play. This one does not need to go there.
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
I just want to point out that players can implement house rules (i.e. balancing) regardless of how competitive they are.
Competitive players should probably do it more than they do if they are unhappy with their current list. They're generally going to be more knowledgeable about which cards are the strongest anyway, and the RC has made it clear that they aren't going to cater to competitive play.
I know we won't agree on the points for the most part, but house banned cards and gentlemen's agreement are VERY different things. Even if the ban list were to change do you think people getting ejected for combo would change? A lot of people just strongly dislike the archetype, and should be free to find people who play that way as well. If one person is running combo and the other 3-4 are not, its on the single to matchup with the group. If one person does not like combo, but the groups does, learn to live with it.
People saying "X ruins the game" is not new, nor will it ever go away, no matter the format or ban list.
There's a difference between people who don't like combo being able to avoid playing it, and those who DO like combo NOT being able to play it because of it being too powerful.
This "social contract", no winning before Turn 10, however you want to call it, that's basically the same for every game ever. It's not fun for me to play Chess against the computer on the hard setting, so I don't play. It's not going to change either with a more restrictive ban list, or without any ban list at all. People exercise awareness of things they don't want to play against. For them, the beginning and the end of the ban list's effect is this baked-in idea that they have to be on the lookout for stuff they don't like, because it's advertised as not comprehensive. Oh, and a small set of cards that the RC doesn't like, just because they want everyone else to have similar tastes.
But when the ban list deliberately plants a set of cards that are too powerful in the hands of Combo decks, in every format they've ever been played in, the effect is that people who may not mind combo in the abstract still won't play it because it's too powerful. Lots of the combo's I've seen are Palinchron, Kikki-Jikki, Karmic Guide, Ghave, most of which can be stopped by any single counterspell, creature removal, or basically any card that targets anything. Sure, some people will always hate those things because they are abrupt. Others actually don't mind having to play removal against decent decks. Also on the other side, tons of people don't find it fresh or unique or a "crazy play" when Puppeteer Clique gets cloned 10 times. A certain crowd will watch that same show over and over like they're a 10 year old watching Frozen for the 50th time. The point is that a lot of the reason why these cards are kept legal is because the RC wants the combo players using them to be exposed, then expelled from the format. It's a trap deliberately set so that people can't get better at the game, and can't play the type of game they want to have.
It's not at all about making combo into a prolific boogey-man at a casual table. Which we all agree will never happen.
But when the ban list deliberately plants a set of cards that are too powerful in the hands of Combo decks, in every format they've ever been played in, the effect is that people who may not mind combo in the abstract still won't play it because it's too powerful. Lots of the combo's I've seen are Palinchron, Kikki-Jikki, Karmic Guide, Ghave, most of which can be stopped by any single counterspell, creature removal, or basically any card that targets anything. Sure, some people will always hate those things because they are abrupt. Others actually don't mind having to play removal against decent decks. Also on the other side, tons of people don't find it fresh or unique or a "crazy play" when Puppeteer Clique gets cloned 10 times. A certain crowd will watch that same show over and over like they're a 10 year old watching Frozen for the 50th time. The point is that a lot of the reason why these cards are kept legal is because the RC wants the combo players using them to be exposed, then expelled from the format. It's a trap deliberately set so that people can't get better at the game, and can't play the type of game they want to have.
I ha no idea anyone actually thought this, people who do things that are un-fun are entrapped by the RC's ban list so people won't play with them? I guess we have to disagree and move on.
My opinion is a some people like to play combo, and there is plenty of room for that in EDH as long as everyone knows what's up IN ADVANCE. 'Gotcha' combo against an unknown meta is lame.
My main point is most of players are not 10 year old people and can be expected to use some observation to know what's going on in a particular setting and adjust. The counter point to that seems to be 'people want to play competitive and will do anything within the bounds of the rules, so the rules need to adjust to that group'. I disagree strongly because that's just people refusing to adjust to other people in life.
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.
Funny that Papa Funk said about the same thing a while back. I expect this all-or-nothing rationale is pretty transparent to most people. MySpace was popular late 90's, and you could've said the same thing. Then Facebook came along. And neither is perfect. If there are obvious things to be fixed in EDH, I hope it won't be a victim of its own success.
Not trying to be a stickler, but MySpace was founded in 2003, was only popular for 2 years (from 2004-2006).
EDH needs to have a playgroup mentality. The banlist is meant to be something to help universally, and I would say it does. People know whether or not their deck is competitive or not, which is why I have multiple. Because of this, when I sit down to play with strangers, I ask them how serious their decks are, if they say balls to the wall, I get out Jin, if they say more chill, I get out Karador, that simple. Words can solve these problems, simply ask.
As for the cards that need to be banned, only ones that are format warping. Fast mana doesn't warp the format, it actually helps balance it. It allows mono blue to be able to keep up with Azusa, and in multiplayer games, when someone sees someone else pull ahead early with a Sol Ring, it directs hate, which is a good thing. That logic isn't ubiquitous, however, as Black Lotus and the Moxes aren't legal (I see no reason why they aren't, don't think they would break the format) but for the most part, powerful cards are part of EDH and it should be that way. I HATE Cyclonic Rift(largely because, outside of countermagic, there is no way to stop it), but it does have a spot in EDH since it is a very powerful card, similar to Tooth and Nail (also dislike) or Staff of Domination.
Final thing to be noted; I have never played with the intention of testing whether a card is good enough to be banned. I have been frustrated at certain cards and disliked them enough to complain, but never extensively tried to figure out what is the most healthy for EDH. Just because I didn't abuse Sylvan Primordial doesn't mean it wasn't near universally, and just because I abuse Survival of the Fittest doesn't mean it is universally. When a card becomes a universal problem (Primeval Titan) or too easily abuseable (Sundering Titan/Protean Hulk)or not widely enough accessible whilst being powerful (Mana Crypt is main offender here, though I own one I would accept its' banning sorrowfully despite approximately 150,000 were printed), that is when it should be banned. No other instances in my opinion.
It's a trap deliberately set so that people can't get better at the game, and can't play the type of game they want to have.
Quote from Admiral Ackbar »
It's a trap!!!!!
Going into elaborate conspiracy theory territory now, are we? I don't think you'll get anyone to agree that this is all some carefully planned subterfuge...
Quote from "Jusstice" »
Most importantly, the number of things that can be done with Vintage tutors, fast mana, and all the non-casual cards in this casual format is so wide that really any ongoing process of engagement with this game will take you there. And all of it is going to use these broken cards, because they're impossible t ignore.
And I think that the vast majority of people who play this format would disagree with you; that there is no reason to "go there" and that abusing "broken cards" is actually fairly easy to ignore by just not doing it. There is very little to be gained by building the ultimate EDH combo deck except in the rare instances where a group decides that this is what they want to do.
It's a trap deliberately set so that people can't get better at the game, and can't play the type of game they want to have.
Quote from Admiral Ackbar »
It's a trap!!!!!
Going into elaborate conspiracy theory territory now, are we? I don't think you'll get anyone to agree that this is all some carefully planned subterfuge...
Read post histories in this very thread. Put in whatever way it was originally put, the RC has said that one of the reasons they don't make whatever bans is because they don't want to give the impression that the format is fixed and/or could support "competitive" play. Which really means that the idea is for players to always, always be able to say that so and so is not doing it right, despite the legality of whatever cards they use. When there are cards that every rules body ever has banned/restricted and EDH keeps them legal, it's evident that the RC envisions other players to argue with someone who uses them and get them to either play something different or quit the format.
And I think that the vast majority of people who play this format would disagree with you; that there is no reason to "go there" and that abusing "broken cards" is actually fairly easy to ignore by just not doing it. There is very little to be gained by building the ultimate EDH combo deck except in the rare instances where a group decides that this is what they want to do.
You're missing the point again.
First, there might be people who want to play Combo. It's fun. Whether that is the busted, degenerate Combo under this ban list or Combo more along the pace of Turn 6 or 7, who is any of us to say that there is "little to be gained" from playing an EDH combo deck? You might as well say the opposite, that there is "little to be gained" in seeing Rite of Replication kicked over and over. The question isn't whether I think what Player X, Y, or Z does is fun, it's whether it's fun to them, and if so, whether there are the tools available to me to interact with it. The opponent playing with the cards they chose preserves their fun, and my ability to interact with it and do my own thing preserves mine. At least that's how it works in every healthy format in Magic.
Second, there's a difference between just agreeing not to play the dreaded "speedball Combo" decks, and cutting off any long-term process of learning and engagement with the game. Something that even the holy founders would agree with, when someone plays a given deck, you're supposed to try to interact with that. You can do that reactively or actively. And one of the best, proven ways to interact with a slow, linear deck like Aggro or Midrange is to actively win the game faster than they can. Only when you do that in EDH, you begin to learn how to cheat on mana costs, access to your deck, and every fundamental aspect of what makes a card game a card game. Which ultimately leads you to using cards that are simply too powerful for control to deal with in a singleton format. But, who's to say when you've crossed the line from trying to get better to abusing the game? Some player who gripes about everything he loses to? If so, then you've just cut off the long-term engagement with the game because now you aren't allowed to get better. Maybe a specific list of cards that everyone knows they shouldn't play? But, but, how would we ever agree on what that list of cards is? Oh right, we can have a ban list!!!
We've gone over this a couple times now. This stance that everyone knows what they should or shouldn't do and they're good at policing themselves is probably taking an individual case of a group that just happens to have reached an agreement on the issue by happenstance. Just as likely is the case of a group who's had to dissolve because they can't agree, and the card pool is busted. I know of at least 2 or 3 groups that have been like that, and that's just counting the ones I haven't participated in myself. It's a whole lot more complicated than it is simple, my friend.
Read post histories in this very thread. Put in whatever way it was originally put, the RC has said that one of the reasons they don't make whatever bans is because they don't want to give the impression that the format is fixed and/or could support "competitive" play. Which really means that the idea is for players to always, always be able to say that so and so is not doing it right, despite the legality of whatever cards they use. When there are cards that every rules body ever has banned/restricted and EDH keeps them legal, it's evident that the RC envisions other players to argue with someone who uses them and get them to either play something different or quit the format.
Egro, the trap.
Setting people up to communicate and setting them up to get shunned are very different things. Adding the next 10 (or 20 or 50) most degenerate cards to the ban list will never change that you can break EDH if you try to. The point is to find people who try at approximately the same level you do.
We've gone over this a couple times now. This stance that everyone knows what they should or shouldn't do and they're good at policing themselves is probably taking an individual case of a group that just happens to have reached an agreement on the issue by happenstance. Just as likely is the case of a group who's had to dissolve because they can't agree, and the card pool is busted. I know of at least 2 or 3 groups that have been like that, and that's just counting the ones I haven't participated in myself. It's a whole lot more complicated than it is simple, my friend.
Of course groups will dissolve if they cant agree on what is "OK", but expanding the ban list won't do that, it will only decrease the number of people that want to play. Just like you can't make people stop being tools about anything, all you can do is decide if you want to deal with that level of person. No magic ban list will make everyone happy and agree what is "OK" in EDH.
Is your position that if the ban list was 'set in stone' and the RC told everyone 'any strat/combo/use is OK by us as long as you don't use a banned card' would fix this issue?
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.
Read post histories in this very thread. Put in whatever way it was originally put, the RC has said that one of the reasons they don't make whatever bans is because they don't want to give the impression that the format is fixed and/or could support "competitive" play. Which really means that the idea is for players to always, always be able to say that so and so is not doing it right, despite the legality of whatever cards they use. When there are cards that every rules body ever has banned/restricted and EDH keeps them legal, it's evident that the RC envisions other players to argue with someone who uses them and get them to either play something different or quit the format.
Egro, the trap.
Setting people up to communicate and setting them up to get shunned are very different things. Adding the next 10 (or 20 or 50) most degenerate cards to the ban list will never change that you can break EDH if you try to. The point is to find people who try at approximately the same level you do.
People communicating and people being shunned is actually the same thing when what's being communicated about is someone being shunned. It's a bit circular.
On the "it will always be broken if you break it" canard, you're going to have to have some context of what "broken" is before you can even make that statement. If you take Sheldon's statement on Vicious Shadows being unfun to mean that it's "broken", as will just about everyone who loses to Vicious Shadows and wants their opponent to stop playing it, then it's only in that case of an extremely broad read of "broken" that the statement is true. In just about every realistic idea of "broken" it may not be true.
Most importantly though, and to the point of the actual issue, a card like D-Tutor probably fits close to no one's honest definition of not "broken". Just as every rules body ever has banned it or restricted it.
Of course groups will dissolve if they cant agree on what is "OK", but expanding the ban list won't do that, it will only decrease the number of people that want to play. Just like you can't make people stop being tools about anything, all you can do is decide if you want to deal with that level of person. No magic ban list will make everyone happy and agree what is "OK" in EDH.
Is your position that if the ban list was 'set in stone' and the RC told everyone 'any strat/combo/use is OK by us as long as you don't use a banned card' would fix this issue?
To the first, if you say that having everyone agree with what is "OK" is the goal, then you can always be your own self-defeating counterexample by just complaining. You can arbitrarily complain about anything, regardless of the potential responses to it. Which people do a lot of, sheltered by the idea that they have to be on the lookout for these "broken" things that the RC warned them of. So the actual issue isn't what people say they want, because they are insincere, but what they really do want. I tend to believe that people want to pursue victory in ways that are more linear than not, they want interaction to be possible within the card pool, and they want to have a strategic balance so that they can adapt to other players. And what they don't want is to be subject to a volatile range of expectations of them such that there are constant complaints. It's not going to be a hit in every individual player's case, but the idea is that you get as narrow of a range of player expectations as possible so that people can actually sit down, play, and be able to interact in the game. And yeah, expanding the ban list will do that.
To the second, it's not the role of the RC or any rules body to tell players that everything not on the banned list is "OK". If I show up to a shop with a Modern deck that is legal, but somebody doesn't want to play against it due to a poor matchup or whatever, then obviously any two players who speak the same language can figure something out. It's the job of a rules body to make sure that players have the resources within the pool of legal cards to interact with one another, and that the legal pool of cards represents a fair enough balance between strategies. No statement is necessary about what a ban list is supposed to be for or that things not on it are legal. That is what a ban list is. The card is legal if it's not on it. If you don't like it nevertheless, then say so. But at that point, it's on that person or that group to prove their case. People should not come pre-equipped with accusations that whatever they don't like on that particular day is against the spirit of EDH, because the RC said so. That is not the function of a rules body.
Specifically on whether making a series of 10 bans would "fix the issue", it would allow people to play Control against Combo and beat it, wherever one player is inclined to play Combo and another Control. It's obviously not going to make Combo unplayable everywhere, which is an absurd goal if that's what anyone has in mind. It won't make everyone sing songs about how they love each other as if they were on Barney and Friends. What it will do is town down the cards players have available to the level of the responses that opponents have available to stop them. And that tends to give people the kind of linear, incremental games they want.
People communicating and people being shunned is actually the same thing when what's being communicated about is someone being shunned. It's a bit circular.
Only if the only thing being communicated is 'We don't like X, get out of here'. I know that's the position you are supporting, but it is not reality in any case I have seen.
On the "it will always be broken if you break it" canard, you're going to have to have some context of what "broken" is before you can even make that statement. If you take Sheldon's statement on Vicious Shadows being unfun to mean that it's "broken", as will just about everyone who loses to Vicious Shadows and wants their opponent to stop playing it, then it's only in that case of an extremely broad read of "broken" that the statement is true. In just about every realistic idea of "broken" it may not be true.
Most importantly though, and to the point of the actual issue, a card like D-Tutor probably fits close to no one's honest definition of not "broken". Just as every rules body ever has banned it or restricted it.
That's a fine opinion to have, but it is just that. And I would have no personal issue with D Tutor being banned if I really thought it would improve the game, the issue is I don't think it would. D Tutor can get ANSWERS and allow them to be played the same turn. That's a thing that needs to happen. Sure it is under cost for the effect, but it does nothing by itself, as opposed to Balance or some such.
To the first, if you say that having everyone agree with what is "OK" is the goal, then you can always be your own self-defeating counterexample by just complaining. You can arbitrarily complain about anything, regardless of the potential responses to it. Which people do a lot of, sheltered by the idea that they have to be on the lookout for these "broken" things that the RC warned them of. So the actual issue isn't what people say they want, because they are insincere, but what they really do want. I tend to believe that people want to pursue victory in ways that are more linear than not, they want interaction to be possible within the card pool, and they want to have a strategic balance so that they can adapt to other players. And what they don't want is to be subject to a volatile range of expectations of them such that there are constant complaints. It's not going to be a hit in every individual player's case, but the idea is that you get as narrow of a range of player expectations as possible so that people can actually sit down, play, and be able to interact in the game. And yeah, expanding the ban list will do that.
Agreed an expanded ban list would go that direction, but I don't think to level you are arguing. Is making it .0002% better worth banning 10 cards?
To the second, it's not the role of the RC or any rules body to tell players that everything not on the banned list is "OK". If I show up to a shop with a Modern deck that is legal, but somebody doesn't want to play against it due to a poor matchup or whatever, then obviously any two players who speak the same language can figure something out. It's the job of a rules body to make sure that players have the resources within the pool of legal cards to interact with one another, and that the legal pool of cards represents a fair enough balance between strategies. No statement is necessary about what a ban list is supposed to be for or that things not on it are legal. That is what a ban list is. The card is legal if it's not on it. If you don't like it nevertheless, then say so. But at that point, it's on that person or that group to prove their case. People should not come pre-equipped with accusations that whatever they don't like on that particular day is against the spirit of EDH, because the RC said so. That is not the function of a rules body.
That is true of tournament play, but not social play. We will never agree about that, so lets skip it.
Specifically on whether making a series of 10 bans would "fix the issue", it would allow people to play Control against Combo and beat it, wherever one player is inclined to play Combo and another Control. It's obviously not going to make Combo unplayable everywhere, which is an absurd goal if that's what anyone has in mind. It won't make everyone sing songs about how they love each other as if they were on Barney and Friends. What it will do is town down the cards players have available to the level of the responses that opponents have available to stop them. And that tends to give people the kind of linear, incremental games they want.
This just is not accurate. Banning 10 cards will not make control statistically more viable against dedicated combo, you would need many more than 10 and that's just not worth it to the non-combo players.
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.
On the "it will always be broken if you break it" canard, you're going to have to have some context of what "broken" is before you can even make that statement. If you take Sheldon's statement on Vicious Shadows being unfun to mean that it's "broken", as will just about everyone who loses to Vicious Shadows and wants their opponent to stop playing it, then it's only in that case of an extremely broad read of "broken" that the statement is true. In just about every realistic idea of "broken" it may not be true.
Most importantly though, and to the point of the actual issue, a card like D-Tutor probably fits close to no one's honest definition of not "broken". Just as every rules body ever has banned it or restricted it.
That's a fine opinion to have, but it is just that. And I would have no personal issue with D Tutor being banned if I really thought it would improve the game, the issue is I don't think it would. D Tutor can get ANSWERS and allow them to be played the same turn. That's a thing that needs to happen. Sure it is under cost for the effect, but it does nothing by itself, as opposed to Balance or some such.
Why does it need to happen? Slower tutors for answers will answer slower tutors for combos. It's the same thing with fast mana. You don't need fast mana for anything except busting out high-cost cards too early or for catching up to the guy who already did so.
To the first, if you say that having everyone agree with what is "OK" is the goal, then you can always be your own self-defeating counterexample by just complaining. You can arbitrarily complain about anything, regardless of the potential responses to it. Which people do a lot of, sheltered by the idea that they have to be on the lookout for these "broken" things that the RC warned them of. So the actual issue isn't what people say they want, because they are insincere, but what they really do want. I tend to believe that people want to pursue victory in ways that are more linear than not, they want interaction to be possible within the card pool, and they want to have a strategic balance so that they can adapt to other players. And what they don't want is to be subject to a volatile range of expectations of them such that there are constant complaints. It's not going to be a hit in every individual player's case, but the idea is that you get as narrow of a range of player expectations as possible so that people can actually sit down, play, and be able to interact in the game. And yeah, expanding the ban list will do that.
Agreed an expanded ban list would go that direction, but I don't think to level you are arguing. Is making it .0002% better worth banning 10 cards?
I think you underestimate how much better the game could be with just 10 more cards on the ban list. Maybe it wouldn't affect non-competitive games much or even at all, but that's the point. Why exclude competitive players from your game when you could include them at very little, if even any, cost.
Specifically on whether making a series of 10 bans would "fix the issue", it would allow people to play Control against Combo and beat it, wherever one player is inclined to play Combo and another Control. It's obviously not going to make Combo unplayable everywhere, which is an absurd goal if that's what anyone has in mind. It won't make everyone sing songs about how they love each other as if they were on Barney and Friends. What it will do is town down the cards players have available to the level of the responses that opponents have available to stop them. And that tends to give people the kind of linear, incremental games they want.
This just is not accurate. Banning 10 cards will not make control statistically more viable against dedicated combo, you would need many more than 10 and that's just not worth it to the non-combo players.
Again, I think this is an underestimate of how much 10 bans could change the game for competitive players.
Why does it need to happen? Slower tutors for answers will answer slower tutors for combos. It's the same thing with fast mana. You don't need fast mana for anything except busting out high-cost cards too early or for catching up to the guy who already did so.
Answering board states is a lot different than answering fast mana. If someone has critical mass for an attack to kill me, or everyone, next turn I need an answer. This has nothing to do with combo, of course combo benefits from tutors.
I think you underestimate how much better the game could be with just 10 more cards on the ban list. Maybe it wouldn't affect non-competitive games much or even at all, but that's the point. Why exclude competitive players from your game when you could include them at very little, if even any, cost.
Of course it would affect "non-competitive" games, as I have described. On top of that people want to play big stuff, Sol Ring and D Tutor help them do that. I do not deny it would improve competitive games, I am saying that's not a good enough reason to negatively affect the majority of EDH.
I am not saying I will quit, or it will ruin EDH, or anything like that. I am pointing out why adding 10 cards to the ban list won't make the shift people are claiming.
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.
Answering board states is a lot different than answering fast mana. If someone has critical mass for an attack to kill me, or everyone, next turn I need an answer. This has nothing to do with combo, of course combo benefits from tutors.
If your opponent is about to win/kill you you need to have broken cards in your deck to stop them?
Quote from MRHblue »
I am not saying I will quit, or it will ruin EDH, or anything like that. I am pointing out why adding 10 cards to the ban list won't make the shift people are claiming.
At the expense of other groups? Why?
I think it is easy because there are clear problem cards that damage competitive games and they could just be placed into the current ban list. Best of both worlds. It feels like the current ban list just totally neglects competitive groups/players for the hell of it. Even just a start, like the 4 changes Cryogen mentioned, would be a step in the right direction.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
I think the idea is that it's not fair for casual players to have to regulate their groups with house rules. Kind of silly but there you have it.
They already have to because they don't want people with extremely optimised decks to come in and combo before turn 5-10. If that's how the format should be played, then why are so many cards that allow these kinds of things to happen not on the ban list? I think that adding some of the cards that competitive players think are broken to the ban list would cause casual games to either be better or to not change (since no one is running the cards anyway). On top of that, competitive deck lists won't just run over casual groups when they happen to play with each other since the maximum power level of competitive decks will be reduced. In the end, everyone benefits.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
If more playgroups were like this then this thread might only be 5 or 10 pages. I'm glad most of my groups are similar to yours.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
Every other format is set for tournament, competitive play. This one does not need to go there.
They already have this burden and the RC encourages them to do this. If you have a deck full of incredibly broken tutors and fast mana I'd think it would be a good idea to ask a new group if running those cards is acceptable instead of just assuming they must be fine.
Not using powerful cards to end the game super quickly (ie fast mana into real game enders or tutoring for combo pieces) is already house-rules. The only reason people don't do that very often is because they would be shunned for it - on top of that, even more competitive players may not do it simply because they don't enjoy it. But then when they play someone who is trying their hardest to win, there's no way around it. Either way, less competitive groups will house rule things how they want, and because of that, the ban list will be much less important to them (though hard bans on certain cards is very helpful for them - such as primeval titan and sylvan primordial).
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
I'm not sure if you're feigning ignorance here but the majority of groups and casuals I run into have 2 primary unwritten rules: No combo, no mass LD. That's a house ban on a ton of cards.
They're not always explicit house-bans, they are pretty much just gentleman's agreement - or just me seeing that other people are not having fun because my deck is too oppressive (in which case I switch deck). But I have played with groups that essentially eject a player from the game if they win by combo and then continue until someone else wins and I've heard many times "tutors ruin this game" or other things that are similar.
How many people would actually be upset if some broken cards were banned? The only one that everyone has that I think should be banned is sol ring. How many people actually run demonic tutor and think the card is fun and okay for the format? How about mana crypt or vampiric tutor?
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
It's not me that's creating such a wide divide, just for the sake of argument. It's the format. The widening happens from one end via a card pool that includes cards banned even in Legacy. And then, it's widened on the other side via a ban list philosophy that entitles everyone to argue, complain, and lobby for house bans every time they feel like they're at a disadvantage. As I said, it's a question of degree and frequency. Power disparities and skill disparities exist all the time. But in, say, the Standard format, the best deck is maybe 80-20(?) against a "casual" deck like Mono-W, Mono-R, or some such. Subjectively then, that player certainly doesn't feel like it's pointless to sit down, and that he has no shot. If he does, there's a fairly obvious series of improvements to be made to get better performance, while keeping games linear and interactive. But in EDH, these disparities are so frequent that it's nearly impossible to play with unknowns, and they are so entrenched that even set playgroups will often not see eye to eye, and the knee-jerk reaction will be to house ban rather than interact. No game ever made will always work to everyone's expectations. And I'm not saying EDH never works, either. But the frequency at which the format gives rise to these issues is extraordinarily and needlessly high, as a result of current policy.
Your original point was that when someone plays a broken deck, it's not the RC's fault, it's the player's. That no ban list of any length can stop people from making "unfun" decks. When I said you missed the point, what you're not picking up is why these "fun/unfun" squabbles happen, how often they happen, and how workable the solutions are. You just made the point that different players will have fun in different games, true of any game ever, and call it a day. That's not where the dispute is. The question is about the causes, severity, and the feasibility of solutions. Whether the RC is feeding ammunition to the infighting, whether groups really need decidedly unwholesome cards to have fun, etc. Saying that some groups make it work is totally sidestepping the issue.
Funny that Papa Funk said about the same thing a while back. I expect this all-or-nothing rationale is pretty transparent to most people. MySpace was popular late 90's, and you could've said the same thing. Then Facebook came along. And neither is perfect. If there are obvious things to be fixed in EDH, I hope it won't be a victim of its own success.
Because no one likes playing with Hermit Druid/Ad Naus?
It's not so much that these cards and fast combo generally are driving the format themselves, but the format being so quick in the average goldfish possible definitely leaves a lot of room for people to feel justified in doing a lot of other stuff. Say I cast Survival of the Fittest Turn 5 and combo off Turn 6. Fair right? I mean, it's not HD or Ad Naus. Whether it's a busted enough engine to get banned in Legacy, no matter. EDH is for "fun" cards that you don't get to play in other formats! The gulf of things that are too quick for Control to do anything against is pretty wide. Most importantly, the number of things that can be done with Vintage tutors, fast mana, and all the non-casual cards in this casual format is so wide that really any ongoing process of engagement with this game will take you there. And all of it is going to use these broken cards, because they're impossible t ignore.
There's also just the silent, invisible effect that comes from knowing that no matter how much better you understand the format and build decks for it, you aren't really getting better because you're still at the mercy of these decks. Say you are playing an MMO where everyone at max level is of one particular class, because that class is imbalanced to a degree that every other class is worse at everything. How excited are you to hit max level? Not very. In EDH, you're not interested in making improvements to your game because there is no point. This is more or less essential to any game, but if anything, the RC seems deliberately committed to keeping the self-improvement process out of this format.
Essentially, few might be playing at the most speedy, uninteractive way possible, but allowing busted cards has a certain set of unquantifiable effects. People don't want to play busted combo. They want to have interactive games at some slower, traditional level, and busted cards do nothing but get in the way of that, whether they are even played or not.
I know I use mana crypt and think its fun, I know a couple people who use demonic and vampiric tutor and think there fun, there would be quite a few people pissed off.
People saying "X ruins the game" is not new, nor will it ever go away, no matter the format or ban list.
Tons of people run most of those cards, that's part of the format: Running old, powerful, cards to do fun stuff. People have to be mature enough to do so without wrecking the game. "Broken" is a subjective term, every card on the ban list is an opinion, but right now the RC's opinion runs pretty close to my own, and I hope they keep on running the list this way.
Competitive players should probably do it more than they do if they are unhappy with their current list. They're generally going to be more knowledgeable about which cards are the strongest anyway, and the RC has made it clear that they aren't going to cater to competitive play.
There's a difference between people who don't like combo being able to avoid playing it, and those who DO like combo NOT being able to play it because of it being too powerful.
This "social contract", no winning before Turn 10, however you want to call it, that's basically the same for every game ever. It's not fun for me to play Chess against the computer on the hard setting, so I don't play. It's not going to change either with a more restrictive ban list, or without any ban list at all. People exercise awareness of things they don't want to play against. For them, the beginning and the end of the ban list's effect is this baked-in idea that they have to be on the lookout for stuff they don't like, because it's advertised as not comprehensive. Oh, and a small set of cards that the RC doesn't like, just because they want everyone else to have similar tastes.
But when the ban list deliberately plants a set of cards that are too powerful in the hands of Combo decks, in every format they've ever been played in, the effect is that people who may not mind combo in the abstract still won't play it because it's too powerful. Lots of the combo's I've seen are Palinchron, Kikki-Jikki, Karmic Guide, Ghave, most of which can be stopped by any single counterspell, creature removal, or basically any card that targets anything. Sure, some people will always hate those things because they are abrupt. Others actually don't mind having to play removal against decent decks. Also on the other side, tons of people don't find it fresh or unique or a "crazy play" when Puppeteer Clique gets cloned 10 times. A certain crowd will watch that same show over and over like they're a 10 year old watching Frozen for the 50th time. The point is that a lot of the reason why these cards are kept legal is because the RC wants the combo players using them to be exposed, then expelled from the format. It's a trap deliberately set so that people can't get better at the game, and can't play the type of game they want to have.
It's not at all about making combo into a prolific boogey-man at a casual table. Which we all agree will never happen.
My opinion is a some people like to play combo, and there is plenty of room for that in EDH as long as everyone knows what's up IN ADVANCE. 'Gotcha' combo against an unknown meta is lame.
My main point is most of players are not 10 year old people and can be expected to use some observation to know what's going on in a particular setting and adjust. The counter point to that seems to be 'people want to play competitive and will do anything within the bounds of the rules, so the rules need to adjust to that group'. I disagree strongly because that's just people refusing to adjust to other people in life.
Not trying to be a stickler, but MySpace was founded in 2003, was only popular for 2 years (from 2004-2006).
EDH needs to have a playgroup mentality. The banlist is meant to be something to help universally, and I would say it does. People know whether or not their deck is competitive or not, which is why I have multiple. Because of this, when I sit down to play with strangers, I ask them how serious their decks are, if they say balls to the wall, I get out Jin, if they say more chill, I get out Karador, that simple. Words can solve these problems, simply ask.
As for the cards that need to be banned, only ones that are format warping. Fast mana doesn't warp the format, it actually helps balance it. It allows mono blue to be able to keep up with Azusa, and in multiplayer games, when someone sees someone else pull ahead early with a Sol Ring, it directs hate, which is a good thing. That logic isn't ubiquitous, however, as Black Lotus and the Moxes aren't legal (I see no reason why they aren't, don't think they would break the format) but for the most part, powerful cards are part of EDH and it should be that way. I HATE Cyclonic Rift(largely because, outside of countermagic, there is no way to stop it), but it does have a spot in EDH since it is a very powerful card, similar to Tooth and Nail (also dislike) or Staff of Domination.
Final thing to be noted; I have never played with the intention of testing whether a card is good enough to be banned. I have been frustrated at certain cards and disliked them enough to complain, but never extensively tried to figure out what is the most healthy for EDH. Just because I didn't abuse Sylvan Primordial doesn't mean it wasn't near universally, and just because I abuse Survival of the Fittest doesn't mean it is universally. When a card becomes a universal problem (Primeval Titan) or too easily abuseable (Sundering Titan/Protean Hulk)or not widely enough accessible whilst being powerful (Mana Crypt is main offender here, though I own one I would accept its' banning sorrowfully despite approximately 150,000 were printed), that is when it should be banned. No other instances in my opinion.
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
Going into elaborate conspiracy theory territory now, are we? I don't think you'll get anyone to agree that this is all some carefully planned subterfuge...
And I think that the vast majority of people who play this format would disagree with you; that there is no reason to "go there" and that abusing "broken cards" is actually fairly easy to ignore by just not doing it. There is very little to be gained by building the ultimate EDH combo deck except in the rare instances where a group decides that this is what they want to do.
Read post histories in this very thread. Put in whatever way it was originally put, the RC has said that one of the reasons they don't make whatever bans is because they don't want to give the impression that the format is fixed and/or could support "competitive" play. Which really means that the idea is for players to always, always be able to say that so and so is not doing it right, despite the legality of whatever cards they use. When there are cards that every rules body ever has banned/restricted and EDH keeps them legal, it's evident that the RC envisions other players to argue with someone who uses them and get them to either play something different or quit the format.
Egro, the trap.
You're missing the point again.
First, there might be people who want to play Combo. It's fun. Whether that is the busted, degenerate Combo under this ban list or Combo more along the pace of Turn 6 or 7, who is any of us to say that there is "little to be gained" from playing an EDH combo deck? You might as well say the opposite, that there is "little to be gained" in seeing Rite of Replication kicked over and over. The question isn't whether I think what Player X, Y, or Z does is fun, it's whether it's fun to them, and if so, whether there are the tools available to me to interact with it. The opponent playing with the cards they chose preserves their fun, and my ability to interact with it and do my own thing preserves mine. At least that's how it works in every healthy format in Magic.
Second, there's a difference between just agreeing not to play the dreaded "speedball Combo" decks, and cutting off any long-term process of learning and engagement with the game. Something that even the holy founders would agree with, when someone plays a given deck, you're supposed to try to interact with that. You can do that reactively or actively. And one of the best, proven ways to interact with a slow, linear deck like Aggro or Midrange is to actively win the game faster than they can. Only when you do that in EDH, you begin to learn how to cheat on mana costs, access to your deck, and every fundamental aspect of what makes a card game a card game. Which ultimately leads you to using cards that are simply too powerful for control to deal with in a singleton format. But, who's to say when you've crossed the line from trying to get better to abusing the game? Some player who gripes about everything he loses to? If so, then you've just cut off the long-term engagement with the game because now you aren't allowed to get better. Maybe a specific list of cards that everyone knows they shouldn't play? But, but, how would we ever agree on what that list of cards is? Oh right, we can have a ban list!!!
We've gone over this a couple times now. This stance that everyone knows what they should or shouldn't do and they're good at policing themselves is probably taking an individual case of a group that just happens to have reached an agreement on the issue by happenstance. Just as likely is the case of a group who's had to dissolve because they can't agree, and the card pool is busted. I know of at least 2 or 3 groups that have been like that, and that's just counting the ones I haven't participated in myself. It's a whole lot more complicated than it is simple, my friend.
Of course groups will dissolve if they cant agree on what is "OK", but expanding the ban list won't do that, it will only decrease the number of people that want to play. Just like you can't make people stop being tools about anything, all you can do is decide if you want to deal with that level of person. No magic ban list will make everyone happy and agree what is "OK" in EDH.
Is your position that if the ban list was 'set in stone' and the RC told everyone 'any strat/combo/use is OK by us as long as you don't use a banned card' would fix this issue?
People communicating and people being shunned is actually the same thing when what's being communicated about is someone being shunned. It's a bit circular.
On the "it will always be broken if you break it" canard, you're going to have to have some context of what "broken" is before you can even make that statement. If you take Sheldon's statement on Vicious Shadows being unfun to mean that it's "broken", as will just about everyone who loses to Vicious Shadows and wants their opponent to stop playing it, then it's only in that case of an extremely broad read of "broken" that the statement is true. In just about every realistic idea of "broken" it may not be true.
Most importantly though, and to the point of the actual issue, a card like D-Tutor probably fits close to no one's honest definition of not "broken". Just as every rules body ever has banned it or restricted it.
To the first, if you say that having everyone agree with what is "OK" is the goal, then you can always be your own self-defeating counterexample by just complaining. You can arbitrarily complain about anything, regardless of the potential responses to it. Which people do a lot of, sheltered by the idea that they have to be on the lookout for these "broken" things that the RC warned them of. So the actual issue isn't what people say they want, because they are insincere, but what they really do want. I tend to believe that people want to pursue victory in ways that are more linear than not, they want interaction to be possible within the card pool, and they want to have a strategic balance so that they can adapt to other players. And what they don't want is to be subject to a volatile range of expectations of them such that there are constant complaints. It's not going to be a hit in every individual player's case, but the idea is that you get as narrow of a range of player expectations as possible so that people can actually sit down, play, and be able to interact in the game. And yeah, expanding the ban list will do that.
To the second, it's not the role of the RC or any rules body to tell players that everything not on the banned list is "OK". If I show up to a shop with a Modern deck that is legal, but somebody doesn't want to play against it due to a poor matchup or whatever, then obviously any two players who speak the same language can figure something out. It's the job of a rules body to make sure that players have the resources within the pool of legal cards to interact with one another, and that the legal pool of cards represents a fair enough balance between strategies. No statement is necessary about what a ban list is supposed to be for or that things not on it are legal. That is what a ban list is. The card is legal if it's not on it. If you don't like it nevertheless, then say so. But at that point, it's on that person or that group to prove their case. People should not come pre-equipped with accusations that whatever they don't like on that particular day is against the spirit of EDH, because the RC said so. That is not the function of a rules body.
Specifically on whether making a series of 10 bans would "fix the issue", it would allow people to play Control against Combo and beat it, wherever one player is inclined to play Combo and another Control. It's obviously not going to make Combo unplayable everywhere, which is an absurd goal if that's what anyone has in mind. It won't make everyone sing songs about how they love each other as if they were on Barney and Friends. What it will do is town down the cards players have available to the level of the responses that opponents have available to stop them. And that tends to give people the kind of linear, incremental games they want.
That's a fine opinion to have, but it is just that. And I would have no personal issue with D Tutor being banned if I really thought it would improve the game, the issue is I don't think it would. D Tutor can get ANSWERS and allow them to be played the same turn. That's a thing that needs to happen. Sure it is under cost for the effect, but it does nothing by itself, as opposed to Balance or some such.
Agreed an expanded ban list would go that direction, but I don't think to level you are arguing. Is making it .0002% better worth banning 10 cards?
That is true of tournament play, but not social play. We will never agree about that, so lets skip it.
This just is not accurate. Banning 10 cards will not make control statistically more viable against dedicated combo, you would need many more than 10 and that's just not worth it to the non-combo players.
Why does it need to happen? Slower tutors for answers will answer slower tutors for combos. It's the same thing with fast mana. You don't need fast mana for anything except busting out high-cost cards too early or for catching up to the guy who already did so.
I think you underestimate how much better the game could be with just 10 more cards on the ban list. Maybe it wouldn't affect non-competitive games much or even at all, but that's the point. Why exclude competitive players from your game when you could include them at very little, if even any, cost.
Again, I think this is an underestimate of how much 10 bans could change the game for competitive players.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
Of course it would affect "non-competitive" games, as I have described. On top of that people want to play big stuff, Sol Ring and D Tutor help them do that. I do not deny it would improve competitive games, I am saying that's not a good enough reason to negatively affect the majority of EDH.
I am not saying I will quit, or it will ruin EDH, or anything like that. I am pointing out why adding 10 cards to the ban list won't make the shift people are claiming.
If your opponent is about to win/kill you you need to have broken cards in your deck to stop them?
How could you know this?