The reason that this reason doesn't make sense, completely, is because of some cards that are currently on the banned list that fit this same description. (Albeit possibly to a lesser extent: Gifts Ungiven, Painter's Servant, Protean Hulk, and Recurring Nightmare are some cards I think may fall into this category)
The context in which gris, bargain, HD were compared: "they can open up a ridiculous resource advantage for a single player"
Those cards you listed do not fit that at all.
that is exactly my point, actually. (I apologize if it was unclear.) Your original given reason for why hermit druid isn't banned while griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain are was because they don't require you to build around them to become broken. In the middle of the game, even in a non-optimized list, those cards can lop side the game toward them too much out of sheer card immediate advantage. (We all know this, and this is why I agree.) But the other cards that I listed, I believe, also require some build around (maybe less than hermit druid, I'll admit). But they can indeed be used in a fun, fair way as long as the player doesn't attempt to build their deck around that certain card. (I believe.) And I also believe that none of the cards I listed truly create unstoppable, unquestionable, immediate, lopsided card advantage as griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain do. I hope that I made myself clearer here and that I didn't accidentally misunderstand anything you've said, either.
But the difference is our playgroup matured and our decks got more and more efficient over time. We are not the red-haired stepchild who should be shunned by the RC and its followers. We are you 2-3 years from now: players deeply committed to the game with a firm understanding of good/efficient deckbuilding whom enjoy games with players at our level.
This is one of the most laughable things I've read on this forum. Casual DOES NOT mean inexperienced/new at deck-building and playing. Many people prefer to build and play casually. Some people just find optimized good-stuff to be boring (me included), but are experienced deckbuilders/players looking for a different kind of experience out of this format.
But the difference is our playgroup matured and our decks got more and more efficient over time. We are not the red-haired stepchild who should be shunned by the RC and its followers. We are you 2-3 years from now: players deeply committed to the game with a firm understanding of good/efficient deckbuilding whom enjoy games with players at our level.
This is one of the most laughable things I've read on this forum. Casual DOES NOT mean inexperienced/new at deck-building and playing. Many people prefer to build and play casually. Some people just find optimized good-stuff to be boring (me included), but are experienced deckbuilders/players looking for a different kind of experience out of this format.
I stated, quite clearly, that competitive players evolved from casual groups. Casual by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding. Whether or not your playgroup chooses to embrace efficiency is a question for your playgroup to decide. If you have fun playing casually props to you. I just think the natural evolution most groups go through pushes its players toward efficiency. I mean you build a deck, and you play it. Do you just not improve it?
Cyrogen: you aren't a spike. When you stated earlier you weren't willing to pull Hermit Druid from your list for alternatives, that is what a spike would say. Spikes don't settle for anything less than the most efficient way to get there. Now you say you would pull it and not blink an eye, that made me sad
@Swift2210: I believe that your definition of casual and competitive are incorrect, or at least you are massively outnumbered in your belief of those things. Just because you enjoy playing casually, does not make you not competitive. Competitive and casual are not simply black and white, though there are examples of the blackest black (5C Hermit Druid) and the whitest white (99 randoms and a legend), there are many, many variations of deck strength in between here. That is why a deck cannot be judged by its contents alone; the pilot of that deck is probably just as important, if not more important than the deck itself. Just because a deck has hermit druid in it, does jot mean that it is a competitive deck, and the same is true for many cards that people deem "good" or "broken". Casual just means that when you are playing whatever deck you're playing, your first and foremost concern is to make sure you are having fun with it. Winning is fun, so many people will glide toward making better deck building choices, but it is not the only concern, either. For if in a group of 6, your deck becomes too "good" and no one else has fun, most people will start to think that that same deck isn't as fun anymore (despite winning). This is the concept that the RC has. It's been said before, but "Build competitively, play casually" is really the definition of the format, here. That doesn't cover all of the bases, though, as you've pointed out, if you are building competitively, then it can be harder and harder to play casually. But this is exactly why groups will deem some cards/interactions/etc. "unfun" and they will hopefully move on. It is not a perfect system, and I would also like to see the RC (or another group, perhaps WotC) attempt to balance both with a separate list or something because from where I am currently sitting, the ban list doesn't seem to match the current RC's goals for the format i.e. I am seeing cards on and off the ban lost that don't fit and fit (respectively) the criteria, but aren't going anywhere. Perhaps a reiteration of a lot of questionable cards from the RC could "clear the air" on this, but who knows.
The reason why the RC should ban Hermit Druid is the same reason why Yawgmoth's Bargain and Griselbrand were axed: they can open up a ridiculous resource advantage for a single player. And Hermit Druid does so for all of 2 mana. He can flip your entire library or a good portion of it, depending on how many basics you put in. You may argue there are fair uses for Hermit Druid. And I'd retort many casual players would also, only use Griselbrand and Yawgmoth's Bargain in fair ways. Just the competitive players would break them. So why should they be banned? Tell us. And why wouldn't the same argument apply to Hermit Druid?
How would you EVER use Griselbrand and Yawgmoth's Bargain 'fairly'? I would put at least one of those two in any deck that is playing black, if it would be allowed, and the decks would become drastically stronger. Now Hermit Druid is available and it is in none of my decks. Simply because they don't have that much interactions with graveyards. And that is the big difference between Griselbrand and Yawgmoth's Bargain as opposed to Hermit Druid. Nearly every deck would profit from one of those two black cards, whereas a deck needs to be build to gain advantage from Hermit Druid. If you want to compare the black draw monsters with a green card, Fastbond will be a likely candidate. A card comparable in power and need of dedication to Hermit Druid would probably be Ad Nauseam. I see your point and while I don't care one bit about the green dude, please don't use such comparisons which actually hurt your arguments.
Casual by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding.
It's crazy to me that people think this way. Optimization is easy, in my opinion balancing a deck to fit a playgroup requires a much deeper understanding of the game and is something I find challenging and fun. We're not going to agree, and that's fine, plus this is getting off-topic.
Back to Hermit Druid: Where is this card remotely problematic outside of HDcombo.dec?
Necropotence has a reputation for being 'fair' when used only for 1-3 cards per turn as a way to stay at 7 cards in hand. Bargain and Gris could also be used the same way.
Necropotence has a reputation for being 'fair' when used only for 1-3 cards per turn as a way to stay at 7 cards in hand. Bargain and Gris could also be used the same way.
I don't think I have ever seen someone cast a Necropotence and thought that they used it fairly. Most of the people who would not break the card are those who would not run it in the first place due to it being a confusing old card. If you understand the card and are running it, its probably to go running through the streets shouting "I HAVE THE GOLDEN TICKET".
As much as I love breaking necro, I don't feel I have ever been part of a game made better by the fact that it is not banned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Casual by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding.
It's crazy to me that people think this way. Optimization is easy, in my opinion balancing a deck to fit a playgroup requires a much deeper understanding of the game and is something I find challenging and fun. We're not going to agree, and that's fine, plus this is getting off-topic.
Back to Hermit Druid: Where is this card remotely problematic outside of HDcombo.dec?
anyone who says "optimization is easy" obviously hasn't ever really optimized a deck.
The idea that casual "by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding" is flat out wrong.
I'm a casual player, but I pay attention to a lot of "good deckbuilding" ideas - I calculate my mana base probabilities, I plot my curve, I count my card draw, removal suites, I tend to pick more efficient cards over less, etc. But I don't hyper-optimize my decks to be as strong as they possibly can, usually because I'm either trying to achieve a theme or because I'm self-neutering to keep my deck consistent with my meta's power level.
Casual isn't a direct opposite of competitive either though it's often used as shorthand for that.
There're a lot of different things to think about, but there're multiple spectra at work here:
Strong vs. Weak decks (Hermit druid/Derevi lockdown vs. Rafiq goodstuff vs. Khemba voltron)
Good vs. bad play (e.g. missing triggers, letting people roll back actions when they miss something in the board state, etc.)
In addition to the optimization thing there's kind of a sub-element I tend to think of as "theme" - which is where you use artificial constraints like an Enchantress, Tribal, or Reanimator theme (or sub-theme) to guide your deck construction, but within those constraints you make the best choices you can.
Example: My Ephara deck has a theme of "use creatures to replace everything you can, flash where possible" - within that framework I pick the best stuff I can and design as best I can to be competitive.
Guys, the casual vs competitive thread can be found here. The RC has already stated that while they appreciate feedback, the objective banlist is not geared for higher competition so I don't know what exactly we are debating here. If you have a remark on a card's discussion that ties into casual v competitive please make it quickly. The goal of this thread is not to debate the discussion of casual vs competitive and it is not to label ourselves or others as either of these.
Please keep things on topic and please stop putting labels and names on other users.
Necropotence has a reputation for being 'fair' when used only for 1-3 cards per turn as a way to stay at 7 cards in hand. Bargain and Gris could also be used the same way.
I don't think I have ever seen someone cast a Necropotence and thought that they used it fairly. Most of the people who would not break the card are those who would not run it in the first place due to it being a confusing old card. If you understand the card and are running it, its probably to go running through the streets shouting "I HAVE THE GOLDEN TICKET".
As much as I love breaking necro, I don't feel I have ever been part of a game made better by the fact that it is not banned.
This. I love me some Necropotence. In my opinion, it is one of the most fun cards to actually use. However, I also agree that using Necropotence "fairly" is almost impossible. Much like Survival of the Fittest, if you think you are using it fairly, you are probably kidding yourself.
"Fair" Necro usually draws its controller back up to 7+ cards immediately and then gives 2 to 3 cards per turn on top of that, undoubtedly fueling Gray Merchant of Asphodel shenanigans. Actually fair Necro is called Phyrexian Arena. I've never been in a game that was made better by an opponent having Necropotence in play.
I don't know if I'd ban it without also banning other stuff first, but I would totally understand if it went away.
@ Keller - Actually you have it backwards. The mantra is "build casually, play competitively". The idea is that you build a deck that is as enjoyable for your group as it is for you, but when you play it you aren't apologetic and pull no punches.
Please bring the current discussion back to how it applies to the ban list or change the subject. We have a dedicated thread if you wish to discuss the nature of casual vs competitive.
So, the problem that I am noticing here, now, is that both sides have the same argument over the same issue. The problem here being that the RC is fully on the casual's side, and not the competitive's. If a card is only ever a problem in competitive decks, then the RC turns a blind eye to it, and it seems competitive's will just have to get used to that. (And hopefully be able to somehow get a house ban on mainly problematic cards, for now.) It's a sad truth for them, but the truth it is. Which is another reason, IMO, that a separate competitive list be made, somehow. I can see this route having benefits for the competitive side, at least.
But then you have cards like PoK and DEN that cause plenty of trouble at casual tables (or people trying to build less competitive decks) that are allowed to run free. The decks I play that don't care about PoK are the decks that the RC doesn't want people to play. I'm getting mixed messages here.
PoK and DEN are both quite answerable. They are very strong cards, and you're correct that they tend to be more problematic among more casual players than among the very competitive ones (who largely won't run either), but how strong does a card have to be before it's considered too strong? For creatures, that bar is set pretty high. Griselbrand, Emrakul, Prime Time, etc. I've never seen either Prophet or Deadeye straight-out enable a win the way Metalworker can (and has, multiple times, in my Kurkesh deck), and I think unbanning Metalworker was at most a questionable decision, since all you have to do to make him bonkers is run him along with a lot of artifacts.
Deadeye and Palinchron is ridiculous, but the real problem is Palinchron, and let's face it, nobody puts Palinchron in their deck planning for anything but huge mana shenanigans. Deadeye and Acidic Slime? Against multiple players, it's going to start taking out threats (or maybe lands) at a pretty quick rate, but unless the Deadeye player has already pulled together an infinite mana combo, it's sort of self-limiting. Late in a game, when it's the Deadeye Slimer with lots of mana vs. one other surviving player, sure, that might soon lead to game over, but so might any number of cards, and you're talking about a color combination that allows for options like Zegana or (by adding one more color to the mix) Rafiq, which will often have ended the game long before the Deadeye Slime bombardment is likely to kick in, or Craterhoof Behemoth, who enables "out of nowhere" wins when just combined with a handful of creatures.
Some cards are always going to be stronger than others, and those cards will see play. How much stronger and how ubiquitous does a card have to be before it is bannable? That's something the RC obviously considers all the time, and so far they don't feel Prophet or Deadeye have hit that mark. I happen to agree with them, but there's reasonable room for disagreement there, which is why they keep getting discussed.
I've got to say, I have a developed a very respectable collection of decks from rampy battlecruiser to more tuned control lists. I have done my best to represent a spectrum of playstyles and competitiveness. There are some very clear distinctions as to where PoK just becomes an insurmountable obstacle. For example, Wort, Boggart Auntie goblin tribal is one of my more casual decks with light removal and a focus on building a goblin-y board; it only runs about 6 point removal spells and 1 board wipe. PoK is just game over for me if I don't happen to have a Lightning Bolt or Go for the Throat handy. On the other hand, against my Ghave stax, it's unlikely my opponent will be able to maintain 5 mana. In the meta that the RC seems to support, PoK often becomes 1 turn per opponent.
I think he's saying people would use it like most people supposedly use Necropotence right now, like a Damia Sage of Stone Effect. It's not the best comparison, because you can play a card with Yawgmoth's Bargain then draw another card immediately, where Necropotence you have to wait until the end of the turn to see the card. Honestly, Necropotence should probably be banned to. It's drawback is practically nothing compared to how much value it gives to a player.
"Maybe, but you add all those up as the cards come off the table to foster competitive situations, and its death by a thousand paper cuts." is like a textbook example of a slippery slope. Nobody wants to see a thousand card banlist, least of all me. So far the RC has proven capable of avoiding cascading bans, I see no reason to believe that a more fairly minded RC would fall prey to it as well.
Of course it was hyperbole, that's the saying. I know you don't think it would take a thousand cards.
I've actually thought about what I'd want the banlist to look like, and if I only added cards to it, it'd probably be about 14 cards bigger. If I was permitted to take cards off, it'd end up about the same size. I have little doubt that the RC could come up with a better list for competition without turning it into a hundred card affair. They are after all, pretty competent individuals.
And your opinion is the one that matters, to you. Of course they could make a competitive ban list, but you are blowing smoke if you think 14 cards would do it.
Necropotence has a reputation for being 'fair' when used only for 1-3 cards per turn as a way to stay at 7 cards in hand. Bargain and Gris could also be used the same way.
Necro has very specific timing requirements and exiles anything discarded. Not even close
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 don't think they want this discussion in the thread anymore. You're free to PM me and I can tell you why you're wrong in that forum without bothering the mods of this one anymore.
I don't think they want this discussion in the thread anymore. You're free to PM me and I can tell you why you're wrong in that forum without bothering the mods of this one anymore.
As long as you're talking about the ban list, go ahead. Judging by the common denominators in this thread, a "competitive" ban list (keeping the stock list intact but adding to it) would add around 15 cards between mana rocks, tutors, and the various Druid level fast wincons. I don't know if that would necessarily balance the format like some think, because even if the format got fundamentally slowed down, the hyper competitive groups would still turn to the next fastest decks.
Right, there will always be a next fastest deck. I think the key is doing what the french guys do and banning under a certain turn threshold of fast. My approach for a banlist would be to take the legacy banlist, and the EDH banlist and merge them, while cutting the things on the legacy list that don't really make sense for EDH, like, but not limited to, Goblin Recruiter, Flash, Mental Misstep, etc. This gets the most efficient tutors and mana rocks in the format. I think when I was working this out, it came out to 14 cards on the banlist to be tested.
An interesting question that just occurred to me: Would Hermit Druid/Ad Nauseam.decs be the most powerful decks in the format in a format where the legacy banlist was a base (ignoring for the moment that Hermit Druid is banned in legacy)? Perhaps those decks would be more "fair" if the singleton nature of the format was actually relevant due to a lack of over powered tutors.
Finally, one other thing I think I would ban, not necessarily from a power level concern, would be Sidisi, Undead Vizier as a commander. I think she's powerful, but mostly I think having an unconditional repeatable tutor in the command zone doesn't mesh well with the nature of the format at all levels of play.
I've got to say, I have a developed a very respectable collection of decks from rampy battlecruiser to more tuned control lists. I have done my best to represent a spectrum of playstyles and competitiveness. There are some very clear distinctions as to where PoK just becomes an insurmountable obstacle. For example, Wort, Boggart Auntie goblin tribal is one of my more casual decks with light removal and a focus on building a goblin-y board; it only runs about 6 point removal spells and 1 board wipe. PoK is just game over for me if I don't happen to have a Lightning Bolt or Go for the Throat handy. On the other hand, against my Ghave stax, it's unlikely my opponent will be able to maintain 5 mana. In the meta that the RC seems to support, PoK often becomes 1 turn per opponent.
I would say that in a given meta, if Prophet (or anything) becomes too much of a problem, it probably is a good idea if people start packing more in the way of answers. A lot of people seem to resist playing cards aimed at dealing with their opponents' game play, wanting instead to focus on maximizing their own plan. That itself isn't a particularly social-game attitude, because social games tend to be interactive, vs. "race to the win."
I myself have some decks that would have a hard time handling a Prophet unless I happened to have spot removal in hand, but not very many, as I run an amount of spot removal that seems pretty adequate to the needs of my metagame, which certainly includes Prophet as a frequent participant. Last week, three games in a row, a guy playing a Riku deck put down Prophet only to immediately have someone deal with it via Chaos Warp, theft (only to have someone else quickly Swords it) and with a boardwipe. It being a Riku deck, the Prophet thankfully wasn't heavily backed up by counterspells; if it had been a Simic control deck, the Prophet might well have stuck.
Making the game about having your own Prophet isn't a great sign that it's making the game better, though. I personally don't have a big problem with the card (I understand how good it is, but I have a hard time getting up enough care about it to make a stand) but it does seem to be high on the "town bicycle" chart.
I stated, quite clearly, that competitive players evolved from casual groups. Casual by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding. Whether or not your playgroup chooses to embrace efficiency is a question for your playgroup to decide. If you have fun playing casually props to you. I just think the natural evolution most groups go through pushes its players toward efficiency. I mean you build a deck, and you play it. Do you just not improve it?
Cyrogen: you aren't a spike. When you stated earlier you weren't willing to pull Hermit Druid from your list for alternatives, that is what a spike would say. Spikes don't settle for anything less than the most efficient way to get there. Now you say you would pull it and not blink an eye, that made me sad
I'm a pretty hardcore Spike in all other formats except EDH. If I want to play Land Destruction, Stasis, Mindslaver locks, Stax, or any one of a myriad of resource denial archetypes (I've pretty much played them all; prison is definitely my favorite overall archetype) or if I want to play any of the combo decks that have been (or are) legal in Standard, Modern, Legacy, or Vintage then I'll play Standard, Modern, Legacy, or Vintage... EDH is a different format altogether. Playing decks that lock up the game state or that win with the exact same combo over and over just have no appeal to me in a format where the opponents are hamstrung by not having ready access to cards like Force of Will or Duress that help formats like Legacy and Vintage survive.
And the natural evolution of any deck or deckbuilder is towards efficiency, but you need to step back and think about what exactly are you trying to be efficient at doing. Efficiency doesn't always mean streamlining your deck down to just mana, card draw, tutors, counters, removal, and the infinite combo of choice....
We have asked that the thread go back on topic of the ban list. - cryogen
that is exactly my point, actually. (I apologize if it was unclear.) Your original given reason for why hermit druid isn't banned while griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain are was because they don't require you to build around them to become broken. In the middle of the game, even in a non-optimized list, those cards can lop side the game toward them too much out of sheer card immediate advantage. (We all know this, and this is why I agree.) But the other cards that I listed, I believe, also require some build around (maybe less than hermit druid, I'll admit). But they can indeed be used in a fun, fair way as long as the player doesn't attempt to build their deck around that certain card. (I believe.) And I also believe that none of the cards I listed truly create unstoppable, unquestionable, immediate, lopsided card advantage as griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain do. I hope that I made myself clearer here and that I didn't accidentally misunderstand anything you've said, either.
This is one of the most laughable things I've read on this forum. Casual DOES NOT mean inexperienced/new at deck-building and playing. Many people prefer to build and play casually. Some people just find optimized good-stuff to be boring (me included), but are experienced deckbuilders/players looking for a different kind of experience out of this format.
I stated, quite clearly, that competitive players evolved from casual groups. Casual by definition doesn't care about efficiency or follow any tenets of good deckbuilding. Whether or not your playgroup chooses to embrace efficiency is a question for your playgroup to decide. If you have fun playing casually props to you. I just think the natural evolution most groups go through pushes its players toward efficiency. I mean you build a deck, and you play it. Do you just not improve it?
Cyrogen: you aren't a spike. When you stated earlier you weren't willing to pull Hermit Druid from your list for alternatives, that is what a spike would say. Spikes don't settle for anything less than the most efficient way to get there. Now you say you would pull it and not blink an eye, that made me sad
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
It's crazy to me that people think this way. Optimization is easy, in my opinion balancing a deck to fit a playgroup requires a much deeper understanding of the game and is something I find challenging and fun. We're not going to agree, and that's fine, plus this is getting off-topic.
Back to Hermit Druid: Where is this card remotely problematic outside of HDcombo.dec?
I don't think I have ever seen someone cast a Necropotence and thought that they used it fairly. Most of the people who would not break the card are those who would not run it in the first place due to it being a confusing old card. If you understand the card and are running it, its probably to go running through the streets shouting "I HAVE THE GOLDEN TICKET".
As much as I love breaking necro, I don't feel I have ever been part of a game made better by the fact that it is not banned.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
anyone who says "optimization is easy" obviously hasn't ever really optimized a deck.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
I'm a casual player, but I pay attention to a lot of "good deckbuilding" ideas - I calculate my mana base probabilities, I plot my curve, I count my card draw, removal suites, I tend to pick more efficient cards over less, etc. But I don't hyper-optimize my decks to be as strong as they possibly can, usually because I'm either trying to achieve a theme or because I'm self-neutering to keep my deck consistent with my meta's power level.
Casual isn't a direct opposite of competitive either though it's often used as shorthand for that.
There're a lot of different things to think about, but there're multiple spectra at work here:
Strong vs. Weak decks (Hermit druid/Derevi lockdown vs. Rafiq goodstuff vs. Khemba voltron)
Good vs. bad play (e.g. missing triggers, letting people roll back actions when they miss something in the board state, etc.)
In addition to the optimization thing there's kind of a sub-element I tend to think of as "theme" - which is where you use artificial constraints like an Enchantress, Tribal, or Reanimator theme (or sub-theme) to guide your deck construction, but within those constraints you make the best choices you can.
Example: My Ephara deck has a theme of "use creatures to replace everything you can, flash where possible" - within that framework I pick the best stuff I can and design as best I can to be competitive.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Please keep things on topic and please stop putting labels and names on other users.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
"Fair" Necro usually draws its controller back up to 7+ cards immediately and then gives 2 to 3 cards per turn on top of that, undoubtedly fueling Gray Merchant of Asphodel shenanigans. Actually fair Necro is called Phyrexian Arena. I've never been in a game that was made better by an opponent having Necropotence in play.
I don't know if I'd ban it without also banning other stuff first, but I would totally understand if it went away.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Please bring the current discussion back to how it applies to the ban list or change the subject. We have a dedicated thread if you wish to discuss the nature of casual vs competitive.
Edit: Nathed by ISB
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I've got to say, I have a developed a very respectable collection of decks from rampy battlecruiser to more tuned control lists. I have done my best to represent a spectrum of playstyles and competitiveness. There are some very clear distinctions as to where PoK just becomes an insurmountable obstacle. For example, Wort, Boggart Auntie goblin tribal is one of my more casual decks with light removal and a focus on building a goblin-y board; it only runs about 6 point removal spells and 1 board wipe. PoK is just game over for me if I don't happen to have a Lightning Bolt or Go for the Throat handy. On the other hand, against my Ghave stax, it's unlikely my opponent will be able to maintain 5 mana. In the meta that the RC seems to support, PoK often becomes 1 turn per opponent.
And your opinion is the one that matters, to you. Of course they could make a competitive ban list, but you are blowing smoke if you think 14 cards would do it.
Necro has very specific timing requirements and exiles anything discarded. Not even close
Edit: Wow, I guess I answered this a little late. Cryogen covered the same thing I meant to say.
R8whackR
WUBGAtraxa Stax-Superfriends *Under Construction*WUBG
As long as you're talking about the ban list, go ahead. Judging by the common denominators in this thread, a "competitive" ban list (keeping the stock list intact but adding to it) would add around 15 cards between mana rocks, tutors, and the various Druid level fast wincons. I don't know if that would necessarily balance the format like some think, because even if the format got fundamentally slowed down, the hyper competitive groups would still turn to the next fastest decks.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
An interesting question that just occurred to me: Would Hermit Druid/Ad Nauseam.decs be the most powerful decks in the format in a format where the legacy banlist was a base (ignoring for the moment that Hermit Druid is banned in legacy)? Perhaps those decks would be more "fair" if the singleton nature of the format was actually relevant due to a lack of over powered tutors.
Finally, one other thing I think I would ban, not necessarily from a power level concern, would be Sidisi, Undead Vizier as a commander. I think she's powerful, but mostly I think having an unconditional repeatable tutor in the command zone doesn't mesh well with the nature of the format at all levels of play.
I would say that in a given meta, if Prophet (or anything) becomes too much of a problem, it probably is a good idea if people start packing more in the way of answers. A lot of people seem to resist playing cards aimed at dealing with their opponents' game play, wanting instead to focus on maximizing their own plan. That itself isn't a particularly social-game attitude, because social games tend to be interactive, vs. "race to the win."
I myself have some decks that would have a hard time handling a Prophet unless I happened to have spot removal in hand, but not very many, as I run an amount of spot removal that seems pretty adequate to the needs of my metagame, which certainly includes Prophet as a frequent participant. Last week, three games in a row, a guy playing a Riku deck put down Prophet only to immediately have someone deal with it via Chaos Warp, theft (only to have someone else quickly Swords it) and with a boardwipe. It being a Riku deck, the Prophet thankfully wasn't heavily backed up by counterspells; if it had been a Simic control deck, the Prophet might well have stuck.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I'm a pretty hardcore Spike in all other formats except EDH. If I want to play Land Destruction, Stasis, Mindslaver locks, Stax, or any one of a myriad of resource denial archetypes (I've pretty much played them all; prison is definitely my favorite overall archetype) or if I want to play any of the combo decks that have been (or are) legal in Standard, Modern, Legacy, or Vintage then I'll play Standard, Modern, Legacy, or Vintage... EDH is a different format altogether. Playing decks that lock up the game state or that win with the exact same combo over and over just have no appeal to me in a format where the opponents are hamstrung by not having ready access to cards like Force of Will or Duress that help formats like Legacy and Vintage survive.
And the natural evolution of any deck or deckbuilder is towards efficiency, but you need to step back and think about what exactly are you trying to be efficient at doing. Efficiency doesn't always mean streamlining your deck down to just mana, card draw, tutors, counters, removal, and the infinite combo of choice....
We have asked that the thread go back on topic of the ban list. - cryogen