So I've been playing Balance for a healthy long while in mono white. In my experience, this is what the card does:
It wreaths the board, on the condition that one player at least has zero creatures in play.
It evens out hand sizes, so the blue player that just drew 20 cards while sitting in a reliquary tower is angry, but the red Mage who's been on three cards for the last two turns is excited to be back in the game.
It balances out lands, bringing the kid who just boundless realms'd for half of his land base back down to everyone else's level.
Playing against decks such as Karador reanimator, Zur control/combo, Khalia good stuff, Azami combo, Uril voltron, Narset control, and a few others, it's been made obvious that the card has never been tested in the format; any time I or anyone else played the card and won because of it, we were already winning. It's always either a wrath effect, a half-assed Armageddon, a single sire of insanity trigger, or a whacky combination of the three. For lack of a better term, it's a "win more" card.
For two mana I agree that it's good. But it's certainly not ban worthy. Getting into a board state that the card will lead you to victory is highly uncommon and requires such overextending that should you be stopped, you probably won't recover. Every other time the spell is cast all that happens is that the game slows down and allows whoever was furthest behind to catch up.
What I'm asking I guess is for someone to explain why this card is ban worthy, give an example of a board state that would cause you to win immediately, and in what kind of deck it would be played in where you're effectively playing solitaire in that nobody can stop you from doing this, but in which it wouldn't be possible to win without it.
Because from experience and not just here say, the card is banned soley on it's reputation and not because it's an actual threat. You know, like ad nauseum and hermit Druid, which actually do win you the game reliably and are somehow not banned yet. Or even mana crypt. Mana crypt has won me the game on turn two in two seperate decks. Balance hasn't won any of us a game yet.
I don't like this because it gives my opponents free information.
At first, I didn't know how serious this was to be taken. As Yatsufusa already pointed out, there is no way to give out free mulligans for unplayable hands without either revealing your hand or just opening it up for abuse to take literally as many free mulligans as you want without revaling.
Then I realized, of course. People who would abuse this rule, as Lou put it, are dicks. They're not just rational, self-interested players. They are dicks. And because they can do a number of mean things, some of which can't be effectively prohibited by the rules, we just won't consider those players at any level when it comes to EDH. So when balancing any of the needs of the players who act in their own interest against the considerations of the true EDH audience, which is trained to sometimes act against their interest, then there's just no balance. Something as minor as revealing information, when it's a consideration of these true EDH players, trumps any need of the self-interested EDH player, no matter how fundamental and comprehensive that player's need is. I think I got this governing principle more or less right.
But, wait a minute. If you're one of these true spirit of EDH players, aren't you supposed to only be playing within a dedicated playgroup that you've likewise vetted for their trueness to EDH? Won't it always be the case, outside of the very first time you play a deck, that everyone at the table more or less knows the contents of your deck? In that case, revealing what you're about to mulligan isn't supposed to really give them any info they don't already have. And wouldn't playing with a deck against players who don't know you be one of those things that those scuzzy, self-interested, dick players do?
I mean, it's almost as if a public game, by defintion taking place among players who are "dicks", is the only situation where you would need a rule on mulligans, or a rule on anything for that matter, since inside a group that really "gets" EDH, there's no "dick" behavior to be prohibited.
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that this is something that we keep coming back to. Like you said:
This goes back to the argument which some people on here feels is a cop out, which is that if you ban cards to stop a mentality you are hurting your target audience.
It's just that the hurt you are doing to your "target audience" is that they can't take a free mulligan without revealing their hand, the contents of which should already be mostly known if they are really your "target audience", as it's been described. And the harm being done to the rest of the player base who's not this "target audience", most of whom may even just be players playing at the LGS where they bought the Commander products, is to hypothetically give a self-interested player the rules justification to take an unlimited number of mulligans. Which could almost certainly be used to destroy the game, at anyone's whim.
At first, I didn't know how serious this was to be taken. As Yatsufusa already pointed out, there is no way to give out free mulligans for unplayable hands without either revealing your hand or just opening it up for abuse to take literally as many free mulligans as you want without revaling.
Then I realized, of course. People who would abuse this rule, as Lou put it, are dicks. They're not just rational, self-interested players. They are dicks. And because they can do a number of mean things, some of which can't be effectively prohibited by the rules, we just won't consider those players at any level when it comes to EDH. So when balancing any of the needs of the players who act in their own interest against the considerations of the true EDH audience, which is trained to sometimes act against their interest, then there's just no balance. Something as minor as revealing information, when it's a consideration of these true EDH players, trumps any need of the self-interested EDH player, no matter how fundamental and comprehensive that player's need is. I think I got this governing principle more or less right.
But, wait a minute. If you're one of these true spirit of EDH players, aren't you supposed to only be playing within a dedicated playgroup that you've likewise vetted for their trueness to EDH? Won't it always be the case, outside of the very first time you play a deck, that everyone at the table more or less knows the contents of your deck? In that case, revealing what you're about to mulligan isn't supposed to really give them any info they don't already have. And wouldn't playing with a deck against players who don't know you be one of those things that those scuzzy, self-interested, dick players do?
I mean, it's almost as if a public game, by defintion taking place among players who are "dicks", is the only situation where you would need a rule on mulligans, or a rule on anything for that matter, since inside a group that really "gets" EDH, there's no "dick" behavior to be prohibited.
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that this is something that we keep coming back to. Like you said:
It's just that the hurt you are doing to your "target audience" is that they can't take a free mulligan without revealing their hand, the contents of which should already be mostly known if they are really your "target audience", as it's been described. And the harm being done to the rest of the player base who's not this "target audience", most of whom may even just be players playing at the LGS where they bought the Commander products, is to hypothetically give a self-interested player the rules justification to take an unlimited number of mulligans. Which could almost certainly be used to destroy the game, at anyone's whim.
I don't quite know what you're actually asking me (or think I said).
My quoted response was because as I understood him, his proposed mulligan required you to reveal your hand each time you mulligan. Which I disagree with because I don't want to have to reveal more info than I have to. No one does, it's just common sense. Now, if he was talking about the already commonly used variant of revealing a zero land hand for a free mull, than cool. I've never had a problem with that because you can't abuse it and it helps prevent mana-screwed hands.
If you're saying how the RC has a catch-22 for trying to manage the format by making it more receptive to casual players while at the same time making it harder for competitive players to break, well great. We agree on something for once. I already said that on the last page, specifically about how the mulligan rule works fine for groups that aren't trying to abuse it, but leads to hand sculpting for someone trying to craft their opening hand.
If you're just trying to accuse me of being a dick and acting out of my own self-interest rather than for the betterment of the format, and take more pot shots at the RC, well then cool story bro. At this point you just go out of your way already, and I'm past the need to defend myself or them.
YAY! more inaction from the rules committee, do they even care anymore? seems like all they do is play with like-minded people all crammed into one hiveminded little box and don't care how the rest of us feel at all...
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
YAY! more inaction from the rules committee, do they even care anymore? seems like all they do is play with like-minded people all crammed into one hiveminded little box and don't care how the rest of us feel at all...
Moral of the story: A player may know what he/she wants but that doesn't mean it is the best thing for the format. Collectively, we as players probably agree with the RC more than the naysayers like to believe.
Moral of the story: A player may know what he/she wants but that doesn't mean it is the best thing for the format. Collectively, we as players probably agree with the RC more than the naysayers like to believe.
I say nay.
The unbanned card with the most votes to ban that meets all of the banning criteriaisn't even being tested. It's pretty safe to say they aren't investing 100% into listening to the community. And why should they? I firmly believe that they have no obligation to listen to us or sculpt the rules/banlist for balance or community enjoyment. And... well... they aren't and there's nothing wrong with that. They set out to create a variant for themselves. The problem is that it went on to became a format.
So what's next? I'd like to request some honest opinions on where the format can go from here.
- Option number one is creating a separate balanced banlist here on mtgsalvation. I don't think this is all that difficult... some forum member did it a while back with a pretty hefty show of agreement and not very many cards. The main problem here is branching the community (having to ask "are we using the balanced banlist or the 'official' one?")
- Option number two is sending open letters to Wizards in the hopes that they "take over". This seems like the better option, as they (a) interact with the community better, (b) have funding to investigate lots of playgroups and stores and gather data, (c) would be actually trying to balance the format, (d) have a better grasp of what cards are harmful for the format, (e) actually make cards for the format, (f) would grow the community with advertisement and events, etc.
At first, I didn't know how serious this was to be taken. As Yatsufusa already pointed out, there is no way to give out free mulligans for unplayable hands without either revealing your hand or just opening it up for abuse to take literally as many free mulligans as you want without revaling.
Then I realized, of course. People who would abuse this rule, as Lou put it, are dicks. They're not just rational, self-interested players. They are dicks. And because they can do a number of mean things, some of which can't be effectively prohibited by the rules, we just won't consider those players at any level when it comes to EDH. So when balancing any of the needs of the players who act in their own interest against the considerations of the true EDH audience, which is trained to sometimes act against their interest, then there's just no balance. Something as minor as revealing information, when it's a consideration of these true EDH players, trumps any need of the self-interested EDH player, no matter how fundamental and comprehensive that player's need is. I think I got this governing principle more or less right.
But, wait a minute. If you're one of these true spirit of EDH players, aren't you supposed to only be playing within a dedicated playgroup that you've likewise vetted for their trueness to EDH? Won't it always be the case, outside of the very first time you play a deck, that everyone at the table more or less knows the contents of your deck? In that case, revealing what you're about to mulligan isn't supposed to really give them any info they don't already have. And wouldn't playing with a deck against players who don't know you be one of those things that those scuzzy, self-interested, dick players do?
I mean, it's almost as if a public game, by defintion taking place among players who are "dicks", is the only situation where you would need a rule on mulligans, or a rule on anything for that matter, since inside a group that really "gets" EDH, there's no "dick" behavior to be prohibited.
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that this is something that we keep coming back to. Like you said:
It's just that the hurt you are doing to your "target audience" is that they can't take a free mulligan without revealing their hand, the contents of which should already be mostly known if they are really your "target audience", as it's been described. And the harm being done to the rest of the player base who's not this "target audience", most of whom may even just be players playing at the LGS where they bought the Commander products, is to hypothetically give a self-interested player the rules justification to take an unlimited number of mulligans. Which could almost certainly be used to destroy the game, at anyone's whim.
I don't quite know what you're actually asking me (or think I said).
My quoted response was because as I understood him, his proposed mulligan required you to reveal your hand each time you mulligan. Which I disagree with because I don't want to have to reveal more info than I have to. No one does, it's just common sense. Now, if he was talking about the already commonly used variant of revealing a zero land hand for a free mull, than cool. I've never had a problem with that because you can't abuse it and it helps prevent mana-screwed hands.
If you're saying how the RC has a catch-22 for trying to manage the format by making it more receptive to casual players while at the same time making it harder for competitive players to break, well great. We agree on something for once. I already said that on the last page, specifically about how the mulligan rule works fine for groups that aren't trying to abuse it, but leads to hand sculpting for someone trying to craft their opening hand.
If you're just trying to accuse me of being a dick and acting out of my own self-interest rather than for the betterment of the format, and take more pot shots at the RC, well then cool story bro. At this point you just go out of your way already, and I'm past the need to defend myself or them.
I'm not accusing you of being a dick, since I'm assuming you've gotten some sort of free mulligan system to work. It's people who haven't, for reasons like not being able to get opponents to agree to things that aren't in the rules, that were getting referred to like that.
On what I was trying to say, the discussion up to that point had been about those who wanted some sort of free mulligan for low-land or no-land hands. And the principle Papa Funk stated on the previous page was that they like to give players free mulligans, as long as it's not abused. Then someone stated a possible official rule that would give players free qualifying mulligans, provided they revealed their hand in order to limit abuse. Then, you cited one minor disadvantage that would have. The thrust of that was that no small amount of disadvantage over the principle of "do whatever you want, don't abuse it" should need to be considered.
Then, I admit, I sort of expanded on that to elucidate the underlying principle there. The governing principle that if those who "get" the format can deal with it, then there is no problem. That shows up in various forms in EDH'ology, including ban discussions on cards - "if it's not broken unless you try to break it, then it's not broken" and so on. I don't think that's a good governing principle, for the reasons I stated.
A simpler thing to say would have been, hey, how about those who have private playgroups who all agree on things put minor consideratoins aside, such as revealing information on a mull, and support things that would work as official rules for the rest of us.
I'm also pointing out the strangeness of wanting to conceal information from the other players, in light of the type of games the RC has indicated you need to have in order to make this format work. I mean I agree, common sense and any interest in winning support the preference to not reveal the contents of your hand. But in private games your opponents will mostly know your deck based on the general you reveal, even if they don't recognize your sleeves. And the RC members have stated that there are inherent issues with public games and online games, issues which they don't intend to solve. Apologies if I should've raised those facts again. But the point is, keeping to a "mulligan however you want, don't abuse it rule" over a free qualifying mulligan rule seems pointed at securing for groups that can get the "scout's honor" idea to work something that they've already mostly given up by making their games private in the first place. That supports the recurring point that I make, that offical rules should be for public games first, because private games are good enough at keeping things together themselves.
He said, and I quote because I went back to see if I in fact misinterpreted him, "When you mulligan, exile your hand face-up instead of shuffling it into your library." That is literally the only reason I disliked it. As I said, I have no qualms about revealing a *****ty opening hand to get a free mull off it.
I agree with you. I think it does suck that there is a large group of players who play in a public setting which makes the social contract more difficult to enforce. I've played on MTGO and I know how frustrating it is when you load a game and someone jumps in with Armageddon, or someone randomly decides that he's pissed at you for attacking with a Llanowar Elf and quits the game (but doesn't actually quit and you can't boot him). But at the same time, I don't know that the alternatives are any better. There are users who want two (or more) ban lists. Most recently on the poll thread one user suggested two lists, one "list" with nothing banned, and another list much longer than the current list. I think both those options sound equally horrible. There are users who would like to see the RC cater towards one extreme of the player base at the expense of the other (it really doesn't matter which side gets caters because either way it is a bad idea). There are users who would like to see Wizards take control of the format. Yet the most high profile employee there has stated numerous times that they don't have the resources to adequately playtest for Commander, and I highly doubt that anyone there cares as much about the format as anyone in the RC. So I remain skeptical that Wizards would manage it any better than the RC.
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
We use the 0,1,6,7 land mull rules at most of the shops I play at (and I pretty much never see 6 or 7 land hands, so we just call it "The 0&1") and we don't get any of the hand-sculpting I see at my other shops that prefer partials.
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
So basically you're saying "The default mulligan style is X, but you can houserule it to Y" ? Kind of like with, you know, the official banlist? Of which it has long been determined that houseruling rarely works in the real world?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
So basically you're saying "The default mulligan style is X, but you can houserule it to Y" ? Kind of like with, you know, the official banlist? Of which it has long been determined that houseruling rarely works in the real world?
House ruling very much works in the real world, maybe you meant to say with random dudes at the LGS. almost every kitchen table I have played at uses house rules. Also the current partial pars mulligan rule seems to work quite well for groups who share the rcs vision and who it's aimed at. Most complaints I see stem from 2 things groups who do not follow this vision blindly following rules meant to be changed to an individual groups needs because for whatever reason they are unable to compromise and need an authority figure to tell them how to play or they otherwise cannot agree. This extends to playing online or in an unknown group but in those settings a casual rule system will never be what is optimal unfortunately for those groups they are not the ones the RC has in mind when setting thier baseline rules of play. This is never going to change so it would make sense for these groups to use house rules I'm not sure why more people don't but I would assume that's a player issue not a cardboard issue. For me if I intend to go to a LGS I just being decks of varying power levels as I can essentially balance myself to the needs of any group with any set of rules. On mtgo I'll label my game compeitve if that's what I'm looking for or select a weaker deck if the game is tagged casual unfortunately they don't have a feature to let you make custom bans on mtgo but it's very easy to link your game as casual or "no mld" etc. Sometimes people don't read this but it's the Internet what do you expect. Like anything in life if you want a more enjoyable experience you put in effort. If you play with the same group every week talking to each other to decide wether your unbanning black lotus and have no problems with all proxys or banning every broken card to make games less swingy will very. It will also take some of your time but it's well worth the effort. I think it's pretty easy to tell when your deck outclasses the others at the table or something you are doing is enjoyable for those you play with and fairly simple to fix. The RC has done an excellent job of growing this format under thier current philosophy and as far as I'm concerned that's thier number 1 job not to tell Frankie the butthole in your group you don't enjoy his palinchron combo for you.
- Option number two is sending open letters to Wizards in the hopes that they "take over". This seems like the better option, as they (a) interact with the community better, (b) have funding to investigate lots of playgroups and stores and gather data, (c) would be actually trying to balance the format, (d) have a better grasp of what cards are harmful for the format, (e) actually make cards for the format, (f) would grow the community with advertisement and events, etc.
Wizards has minimal interest in competitive Commander. The whole reason they like and support this format is because it appeals to casual players in ways that all their other formats don't. They already do e, though. The new cards in the Commander product should give you a pretty good idea who they're aiming for with the format; we're not telling them they need to make those cards.
Every once in a rare while, they'll mention a card that hey, maybe we should take a look at. The last three have less than 50 votes in the current banlist poll, *combined*. None of them were suggested because they were unbalanced. They were suggested because they were perceived as possibly problematic in casual play.
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
So basically you're saying "The default mulligan style is X, but you can houserule it to Y" ? Kind of like with, you know, the official banlist? Of which it has long been determined that houseruling rarely works in the real world?
House ruling very much works in the real world, maybe you meant to say with random dudes at the LGS. almost every kitchen table I have played at uses house rules. Also the current partial pars mulligan rule seems to work quite well for groups who share the rcs vision and who it's aimed at. Most complaints I see stem from 2 things groups who do not follow this vision blindly following rules meant to be changed to an individual groups needs because for whatever reason they are unable to compromise and need an authority figure to tell them how to play or they otherwise cannot agree. This extends to playing online or in an unknown group but in those settings a casual rule system will never be what is optimal unfortunately for those groups they are not the ones the RC has in mind when setting thier baseline rules of play. This is never going to change so it would make sense for these groups to use house rules I'm not sure why more people don't but I would assume that's a player issue not a cardboard issue. For me if I intend to go to a LGS I just being decks of varying power levels as I can essentially balance myself to the needs of any group with any set of rules. On mtgo I'll label my game compeitve if that's what I'm looking for or select a weaker deck if the game is tagged casual unfortunately they don't have a feature to let you make custom bans on mtgo but it's very easy to link your game as casual or "no mld" etc. Sometimes people don't read this but it's the Internet what do you expect. Like anything in life if you want a more enjoyable experience you put in effort. If you play with the same group every week talking to each other to decide wether your unbanning black lotus and have no problems with all proxys or banning every broken card to make games less swingy will very. It will also take some of your time but it's well worth the effort. I think it's pretty easy to tell when your deck outclasses the others at the table or something you are doing is enjoyable for those you play with and fairly simple to fix. The RC has done an excellent job of growing this format under thier current philosophy and as far as I'm concerned that's thier number 1 job not to tell Frankie the butthole in your group you don't enjoy his palinchron combo for you.
Our group exists of a main core of 6 players with about 10 others floating around it. There's no way house bans work with us because there's simply too many opinions. Several of us have self-banned Prophet of Kruphix, but a few others run it and if we try to force the ban on them, they'll leave the group. Housebans only really work for small groups that come together a lot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Wizards has minimal interest in competitive Commander. The whole reason they like and support this format is because it appeals to casual players in ways that all their other formats don't. They already do e, though. The new cards in the Commander product should give you a pretty good idea who they're aiming for with the format; we're not telling them they need to make those cards.
Every once in a rare while, they'll mention a card that hey, maybe we should take a look at. The last three have less than 50 votes in the current banlist poll, *combined*. None of them were suggested because they were unbalanced. They were suggested because they were perceived as possibly problematic in casual play.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I wish you could tell us the "problematic" card, but obviously if you could/wanted to, you would have already.
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
So basically you're saying "The default mulligan style is X, but you can houserule it to Y" ? Kind of like with, you know, the official banlist? Of which it has long been determined that houseruling rarely works in the real world?
House ruling very much works in the real world, maybe you meant to say with random dudes at the LGS. almost every kitchen table I have played at uses house rules. Also the current partial pars mulligan rule seems to work quite well for groups who share the rcs vision and who it's aimed at. Most complaints I see stem from 2 things groups who do not follow this vision blindly following rules meant to be changed to an individual groups needs because for whatever reason they are unable to compromise and need an authority figure to tell them how to play or they otherwise cannot agree. This extends to playing online or in an unknown group but in those settings a casual rule system will never be what is optimal unfortunately for those groups they are not the ones the RC has in mind when setting thier baseline rules of play. This is never going to change so it would make sense for these groups to use house rules I'm not sure why more people don't but I would assume that's a player issue not a cardboard issue. For me if I intend to go to a LGS I just being decks of varying power levels as I can essentially balance myself to the needs of any group with any set of rules. On mtgo I'll label my game compeitve if that's what I'm looking for or select a weaker deck if the game is tagged casual unfortunately they don't have a feature to let you make custom bans on mtgo but it's very easy to link your game as casual or "no mld" etc. Sometimes people don't read this but it's the Internet what do you expect. Like anything in life if you want a more enjoyable experience you put in effort. If you play with the same group every week talking to each other to decide wether your unbanning black lotus and have no problems with all proxys or banning every broken card to make games less swingy will very. It will also take some of your time but it's well worth the effort. I think it's pretty easy to tell when your deck outclasses the others at the table or something you are doing is enjoyable for those you play with and fairly simple to fix. The RC has done an excellent job of growing this format under thier current philosophy and as far as I'm concerned that's thier number 1 job not to tell Frankie the butthole in your group you don't enjoy his palinchron combo for you.
Our group exists of a main core of 6 players with about 10 others floating around it. There's no way house bans work with us because there's simply too many opinions. Several of us have self-banned Prophet of Kruphix, but a few others run it and if we try to force the ban on them, they'll leave the group. Housebans only really work for small groups that come together a lot.
So if you try to force a pok ban they will quit but if the RC does they are fine? This is pretty much exactly what I described and a player issue. The players in your mets are unable to compromise and disagree and must have an authority figure tell them how to play. It's apparently not so cut and dry that pok is a problem card for your group as it seems half of them want to play it. If it is and they just don't care because it's "not banned" then they are butt heads and it's not the rcs job too ban your problem Card for your personal PG because it includes butt heads. I bet it's possible for them to still use pok and have a good game if the overall power level of thier decks was decreased. In fact if they are trying to win a disproportionate amount of games if you do ban pok what's to say they then won't choose another oppressive strategy that makes games no fun? This is a player issue.
For two mana I agree that it's good. But it's certainly not ban worthy. Getting into a board state that the card will lead you to victory is highly uncommon and requires such overextending that should you be stopped, you probably won't recover. Every other time the spell is cast all that happens is that the game slows down and allows whoever was furthest behind to catch up.
What I'm asking I guess is for someone to explain why this card is ban worthy, give an example of a board state that would cause you to win immediately, and in what kind of deck it would be played in where you're effectively playing solitaire in that nobody can stop you from doing this, but in which it wouldn't be possible to win without it.
Because from experience and not just here say, the card is banned soley on it's reputation and not because it's an actual threat. You know, like ad nauseum and hermit Druid, which actually do win you the game reliably and are somehow not banned yet. Or even mana crypt. Mana crypt has won me the game on turn two in two seperate decks. Balance hasn't won any of us a game yet.
We, collectively, don't see the threat.
It looks like you are playing Balance fairly though, which is awesome.
I can guarantee if Balance comes off the list I will build around it and no one will have fun, ever.
I will attempt to play as many 0 mana artifacts (Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, Mox Diamond, Mana Crypt) and tutors (Vampiric, Mystical, Demonic) to get it into my hand as early as possible, then cast it to wreck the game.
And then I'll add Regrowth effects to re-Balance and wreck the game again.
Why? Because I'm allowed to by the card being unbanned.
Even without going so hardcore about it, Balance is just going to turf games for no reason because people have 1W open. Landscrewed? Balance. Opponents have too many guys? Balance. Opponents have too many cards in hand? Balance.
Things getting dicey? Eternal Witness the Balance, Balance.
The card adds literally nothing to the format. There are multidinous Wrath and sweeper effects, why add a card which basically reads: 1W, Sorcery: Cripple your opponents with no penalty to yourself?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
It looks like you are playing Balance fairly though, which is awesome.
I can guarantee if Balance comes off the list I will build around it and no one will have fun, ever.
I will attempt to play as many 0 mana artifacts (Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, Mox Diamond, Mana Crypt) and tutors (Vampiric, Mystical, Demonic) to get it into my hand as early as possible, then cast it to wreck the game.
And then I'll add Regrowth effects to re-Balance and wreck the game again.
Why? Because I'm allowed to by the card being unbanned.
Even without going so hardcore about it, Balance is just going to turf games for no reason because people have 1W open. Landscrewed? Balance. Opponents have too many guys? Balance. Opponents have too many cards in hand? Balance.
Things getting dicey? Eternal Witness the Balance, Balance.
The card adds literally nothing to the format. There are multidinous Wrath and sweeper effects, why add a card which basically reads: 1W, Sorcery: Cripple your opponents with no penalty to yourself?
You being a jerk isn't a reason to keep a card banned, because you'll do the same thing with Craw Wurm if you desired. (I know you're not actually a jerk, and are just illustrating a mentality.)
This second scenario is the reality of why Balance is banned. The effect is something that is good for white and should be legal, but not for 1W.
i don't think white should have the ability to disrupt handcards.
also about balance its like in real life:
there are fractions that say what they do is good and fair and legit and everyone has to follow them orders blalba(white)
and then there is those guys doing illegal things. bad stuff, at least they don't lie about their doing.
so there you have Pox. go and play it. thats the real balance.
I play in one playgroup now but in the past was in two and also play at stores occasionally. I'd prefer the banlist be slightly more aggressive about cheap tutors and busted artifact ramp just to level the playing field a smidge myself I hate running into that mana crypt combo guy all the time. That's my only slightly updated take on the banlist.
Big thing is, the banlist is there for people who have more than one playgroup or an unsculptable one (like Lou's). I think it's silly to say that everything can be solved with house rules - in a perfect world where everyone had a group of well-adjusted adults, sure
This second scenario is the reality of why Balance is banned. The effect is something that is good for white and should be legal, but not for 1W.
Not just that, but it's too easy to control how much of what gets sacrificed, unlike symmetrical effects like Cataclysm or Pox. I've played the game long enough to remember when Balance + Zuran Orb was a thing. You can only play it on your turn, but that doesn't matter, because you can float mana to recast your commander or cast Faith's Reward or something. And yeah, you get to punish the player who Boundless Realms-ed, but everyone else suffers, too.
- Option number two is sending open letters to Wizards in the hopes that they "take over". This seems like the better option, as they (a) interact with the community better, (b) have funding to investigate lots of playgroups and stores and gather data, (c) would be actually trying to balance the format, (d) have a better grasp of what cards are harmful for the format, (e) actually make cards for the format, (f) would grow the community with advertisement and events, etc.
Wizards has minimal interest in competitive Commander. The whole reason they like and support this format is because it appeals to casual players in ways that all their other formats don't. They already do e, though. The new cards in the Commander product should give you a pretty good idea who they're aiming for with the format; we're not telling them they need to make those cards.
Every once in a rare while, they'll mention a card that hey, maybe we should take a look at. The last three have less than 50 votes in the current banlist poll, *combined*. None of them were suggested because they were unbalanced. They were suggested because they were perceived as possibly problematic in casual play.
Cool of you to share that. I just wonder what exactly is the difference between "unbalanced" and "problematic in casual play". If something is unblanced, it seems to me like it would be problematic in all kinds of play, including casual. At the very least, it would be "always run", and would get stale quickly by being better than everything else at what it does. For example, Primeval Titan is unbalanced because it's so much better at doing what it does than anything else. A deck can win without running it, so maybe the overall game isn't unbalanced, but the card itself is still unbalanced. So if you get games where it's in everyone's goals to hoard a bunch of land, that game would have a balance problem.
And is there something problematic for casual that's not unbalanced too? If it's balanced, then there's either a good answer to it or it's comparable to enough other things at doing what it does. Maybe if the answer is really specific, and so casual players wouldn't want to run it? If so, maybe there really is no good answer to it, and then it probably fits the category of unbalanced.
I guess game balance is just something I look at as being important to a game, whether it's a casual game or not, so I'm not seeing the difference between the two.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It wreaths the board, on the condition that one player at least has zero creatures in play.
It evens out hand sizes, so the blue player that just drew 20 cards while sitting in a reliquary tower is angry, but the red Mage who's been on three cards for the last two turns is excited to be back in the game.
It balances out lands, bringing the kid who just boundless realms'd for half of his land base back down to everyone else's level.
Playing against decks such as Karador reanimator, Zur control/combo, Khalia good stuff, Azami combo, Uril voltron, Narset control, and a few others, it's been made obvious that the card has never been tested in the format; any time I or anyone else played the card and won because of it, we were already winning. It's always either a wrath effect, a half-assed Armageddon, a single sire of insanity trigger, or a whacky combination of the three. For lack of a better term, it's a "win more" card.
For two mana I agree that it's good. But it's certainly not ban worthy. Getting into a board state that the card will lead you to victory is highly uncommon and requires such overextending that should you be stopped, you probably won't recover. Every other time the spell is cast all that happens is that the game slows down and allows whoever was furthest behind to catch up.
What I'm asking I guess is for someone to explain why this card is ban worthy, give an example of a board state that would cause you to win immediately, and in what kind of deck it would be played in where you're effectively playing solitaire in that nobody can stop you from doing this, but in which it wouldn't be possible to win without it.
Because from experience and not just here say, the card is banned soley on it's reputation and not because it's an actual threat. You know, like ad nauseum and hermit Druid, which actually do win you the game reliably and are somehow not banned yet. Or even mana crypt. Mana crypt has won me the game on turn two in two seperate decks. Balance hasn't won any of us a game yet.
We, collectively, don't see the threat.
WWWAvacyn: We Can Make The World StopWWW
At first, I didn't know how serious this was to be taken. As Yatsufusa already pointed out, there is no way to give out free mulligans for unplayable hands without either revealing your hand or just opening it up for abuse to take literally as many free mulligans as you want without revaling.
Then I realized, of course. People who would abuse this rule, as Lou put it, are dicks. They're not just rational, self-interested players. They are dicks. And because they can do a number of mean things, some of which can't be effectively prohibited by the rules, we just won't consider those players at any level when it comes to EDH. So when balancing any of the needs of the players who act in their own interest against the considerations of the true EDH audience, which is trained to sometimes act against their interest, then there's just no balance. Something as minor as revealing information, when it's a consideration of these true EDH players, trumps any need of the self-interested EDH player, no matter how fundamental and comprehensive that player's need is. I think I got this governing principle more or less right.
But, wait a minute. If you're one of these true spirit of EDH players, aren't you supposed to only be playing within a dedicated playgroup that you've likewise vetted for their trueness to EDH? Won't it always be the case, outside of the very first time you play a deck, that everyone at the table more or less knows the contents of your deck? In that case, revealing what you're about to mulligan isn't supposed to really give them any info they don't already have. And wouldn't playing with a deck against players who don't know you be one of those things that those scuzzy, self-interested, dick players do?
I mean, it's almost as if a public game, by defintion taking place among players who are "dicks", is the only situation where you would need a rule on mulligans, or a rule on anything for that matter, since inside a group that really "gets" EDH, there's no "dick" behavior to be prohibited.
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that this is something that we keep coming back to. Like you said:
It's just that the hurt you are doing to your "target audience" is that they can't take a free mulligan without revealing their hand, the contents of which should already be mostly known if they are really your "target audience", as it's been described. And the harm being done to the rest of the player base who's not this "target audience", most of whom may even just be players playing at the LGS where they bought the Commander products, is to hypothetically give a self-interested player the rules justification to take an unlimited number of mulligans. Which could almost certainly be used to destroy the game, at anyone's whim.
I don't quite know what you're actually asking me (or think I said).
My quoted response was because as I understood him, his proposed mulligan required you to reveal your hand each time you mulligan. Which I disagree with because I don't want to have to reveal more info than I have to. No one does, it's just common sense. Now, if he was talking about the already commonly used variant of revealing a zero land hand for a free mull, than cool. I've never had a problem with that because you can't abuse it and it helps prevent mana-screwed hands.
If you're saying how the RC has a catch-22 for trying to manage the format by making it more receptive to casual players while at the same time making it harder for competitive players to break, well great. We agree on something for once. I already said that on the last page, specifically about how the mulligan rule works fine for groups that aren't trying to abuse it, but leads to hand sculpting for someone trying to craft their opening hand.
If you're just trying to accuse me of being a dick and acting out of my own self-interest rather than for the betterment of the format, and take more pot shots at the RC, well then cool story bro. At this point you just go out of your way already, and I'm past the need to defend myself or them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Current Decks
GTitania midrange
RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal
GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron
U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher
RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
Well the "rest of us" include:
Moral of the story: A player may know what he/she wants but that doesn't mean it is the best thing for the format. Collectively, we as players probably agree with the RC more than the naysayers like to believe.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The unbanned card with the most votes to ban that meets all of the banning criteria isn't even being tested. It's pretty safe to say they aren't investing 100% into listening to the community. And why should they? I firmly believe that they have no obligation to listen to us or sculpt the rules/banlist for balance or community enjoyment. And... well... they aren't and there's nothing wrong with that. They set out to create a variant for themselves. The problem is that it went on to became a format.
So what's next? I'd like to request some honest opinions on where the format can go from here.
- Option number one is creating a separate balanced banlist here on mtgsalvation. I don't think this is all that difficult... some forum member did it a while back with a pretty hefty show of agreement and not very many cards. The main problem here is branching the community (having to ask "are we using the balanced banlist or the 'official' one?")
- Option number two is sending open letters to Wizards in the hopes that they "take over". This seems like the better option, as they (a) interact with the community better, (b) have funding to investigate lots of playgroups and stores and gather data, (c) would be actually trying to balance the format, (d) have a better grasp of what cards are harmful for the format, (e) actually make cards for the format, (f) would grow the community with advertisement and events, etc.
When the mulligan rule states this, you can make your case.
I'm not accusing you of being a dick, since I'm assuming you've gotten some sort of free mulligan system to work. It's people who haven't, for reasons like not being able to get opponents to agree to things that aren't in the rules, that were getting referred to like that.
On what I was trying to say, the discussion up to that point had been about those who wanted some sort of free mulligan for low-land or no-land hands. And the principle Papa Funk stated on the previous page was that they like to give players free mulligans, as long as it's not abused. Then someone stated a possible official rule that would give players free qualifying mulligans, provided they revealed their hand in order to limit abuse. Then, you cited one minor disadvantage that would have. The thrust of that was that no small amount of disadvantage over the principle of "do whatever you want, don't abuse it" should need to be considered.
Then, I admit, I sort of expanded on that to elucidate the underlying principle there. The governing principle that if those who "get" the format can deal with it, then there is no problem. That shows up in various forms in EDH'ology, including ban discussions on cards - "if it's not broken unless you try to break it, then it's not broken" and so on. I don't think that's a good governing principle, for the reasons I stated.
A simpler thing to say would have been, hey, how about those who have private playgroups who all agree on things put minor consideratoins aside, such as revealing information on a mull, and support things that would work as official rules for the rest of us.
I'm also pointing out the strangeness of wanting to conceal information from the other players, in light of the type of games the RC has indicated you need to have in order to make this format work. I mean I agree, common sense and any interest in winning support the preference to not reveal the contents of your hand. But in private games your opponents will mostly know your deck based on the general you reveal, even if they don't recognize your sleeves. And the RC members have stated that there are inherent issues with public games and online games, issues which they don't intend to solve. Apologies if I should've raised those facts again. But the point is, keeping to a "mulligan however you want, don't abuse it rule" over a free qualifying mulligan rule seems pointed at securing for groups that can get the "scout's honor" idea to work something that they've already mostly given up by making their games private in the first place. That supports the recurring point that I make, that offical rules should be for public games first, because private games are good enough at keeping things together themselves.
He said, and I quote because I went back to see if I in fact misinterpreted him, "When you mulligan, exile your hand face-up instead of shuffling it into your library." That is literally the only reason I disliked it. As I said, I have no qualms about revealing a *****ty opening hand to get a free mull off it.
I agree with you. I think it does suck that there is a large group of players who play in a public setting which makes the social contract more difficult to enforce. I've played on MTGO and I know how frustrating it is when you load a game and someone jumps in with Armageddon, or someone randomly decides that he's pissed at you for attacking with a Llanowar Elf and quits the game (but doesn't actually quit and you can't boot him). But at the same time, I don't know that the alternatives are any better. There are users who want two (or more) ban lists. Most recently on the poll thread one user suggested two lists, one "list" with nothing banned, and another list much longer than the current list. I think both those options sound equally horrible. There are users who would like to see the RC cater towards one extreme of the player base at the expense of the other (it really doesn't matter which side gets caters because either way it is a bad idea). There are users who would like to see Wizards take control of the format. Yet the most high profile employee there has stated numerous times that they don't have the resources to adequately playtest for Commander, and I highly doubt that anyone there cares as much about the format as anyone in the RC. So I remain skeptical that Wizards would manage it any better than the RC.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Going back through some old D&D books, I'm struck by the similarity of mulligans with ability score generation.
Those books (more or less) say "Here's this main rule most people use. When in doubt, use this rule:...
But, if your group is mutually agreeable to it, here's a few different ways you might go about this process instead:..."
Would it not be possible to do that ? Would it splinter and stratify the players too much ?
We use the 0,1,6,7 land mull rules at most of the shops I play at (and I pretty much never see 6 or 7 land hands, so we just call it "The 0&1") and we don't get any of the hand-sculpting I see at my other shops that prefer partials.
That's basically how it is now. Yes, the site says "official", and on MTGO you don't have a choice, but every time there is a thread about mulligans there are always multiple groups with different rules. Speaking only for my own group, every time we have a new player join and ask how we mulligan, we have never had someone retort with "but the official mulligan is....".
But I agree with you that rewording it to something like "the default mulligan style is <x>, but groups are free to use any style which suits their desires."
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So basically you're saying "The default mulligan style is X, but you can houserule it to Y" ? Kind of like with, you know, the official banlist? Of which it has long been determined that houseruling rarely works in the real world?
House ruling very much works in the real world, maybe you meant to say with random dudes at the LGS. almost every kitchen table I have played at uses house rules. Also the current partial pars mulligan rule seems to work quite well for groups who share the rcs vision and who it's aimed at. Most complaints I see stem from 2 things groups who do not follow this vision blindly following rules meant to be changed to an individual groups needs because for whatever reason they are unable to compromise and need an authority figure to tell them how to play or they otherwise cannot agree. This extends to playing online or in an unknown group but in those settings a casual rule system will never be what is optimal unfortunately for those groups they are not the ones the RC has in mind when setting thier baseline rules of play. This is never going to change so it would make sense for these groups to use house rules I'm not sure why more people don't but I would assume that's a player issue not a cardboard issue. For me if I intend to go to a LGS I just being decks of varying power levels as I can essentially balance myself to the needs of any group with any set of rules. On mtgo I'll label my game compeitve if that's what I'm looking for or select a weaker deck if the game is tagged casual unfortunately they don't have a feature to let you make custom bans on mtgo but it's very easy to link your game as casual or "no mld" etc. Sometimes people don't read this but it's the Internet what do you expect. Like anything in life if you want a more enjoyable experience you put in effort. If you play with the same group every week talking to each other to decide wether your unbanning black lotus and have no problems with all proxys or banning every broken card to make games less swingy will very. It will also take some of your time but it's well worth the effort. I think it's pretty easy to tell when your deck outclasses the others at the table or something you are doing is enjoyable for those you play with and fairly simple to fix. The RC has done an excellent job of growing this format under thier current philosophy and as far as I'm concerned that's thier number 1 job not to tell Frankie the butthole in your group you don't enjoy his palinchron combo for you.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
Wizards has minimal interest in competitive Commander. The whole reason they like and support this format is because it appeals to casual players in ways that all their other formats don't. They already do e, though. The new cards in the Commander product should give you a pretty good idea who they're aiming for with the format; we're not telling them they need to make those cards.
Every once in a rare while, they'll mention a card that hey, maybe we should take a look at. The last three have less than 50 votes in the current banlist poll, *combined*. None of them were suggested because they were unbalanced. They were suggested because they were perceived as possibly problematic in casual play.
Our group exists of a main core of 6 players with about 10 others floating around it. There's no way house bans work with us because there's simply too many opinions. Several of us have self-banned Prophet of Kruphix, but a few others run it and if we try to force the ban on them, they'll leave the group. Housebans only really work for small groups that come together a lot.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I wish you could tell us the "problematic" card, but obviously if you could/wanted to, you would have already.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So if you try to force a pok ban they will quit but if the RC does they are fine? This is pretty much exactly what I described and a player issue. The players in your mets are unable to compromise and disagree and must have an authority figure tell them how to play. It's apparently not so cut and dry that pok is a problem card for your group as it seems half of them want to play it. If it is and they just don't care because it's "not banned" then they are butt heads and it's not the rcs job too ban your problem Card for your personal PG because it includes butt heads. I bet it's possible for them to still use pok and have a good game if the overall power level of thier decks was decreased. In fact if they are trying to win a disproportionate amount of games if you do ban pok what's to say they then won't choose another oppressive strategy that makes games no fun? This is a player issue.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
It looks like you are playing Balance fairly though, which is awesome.
I can guarantee if Balance comes off the list I will build around it and no one will have fun, ever.
I will attempt to play as many 0 mana artifacts (Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond, Mox Diamond, Mana Crypt) and tutors (Vampiric, Mystical, Demonic) to get it into my hand as early as possible, then cast it to wreck the game.
And then I'll add Regrowth effects to re-Balance and wreck the game again.
Why? Because I'm allowed to by the card being unbanned.
Even without going so hardcore about it, Balance is just going to turf games for no reason because people have 1W open. Landscrewed? Balance. Opponents have too many guys? Balance. Opponents have too many cards in hand? Balance.
Things getting dicey? Eternal Witness the Balance, Balance.
The card adds literally nothing to the format. There are multidinous Wrath and sweeper effects, why add a card which basically reads: 1W, Sorcery: Cripple your opponents with no penalty to yourself?
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
You being a jerk isn't a reason to keep a card banned, because you'll do the same thing with Craw Wurm if you desired. (I know you're not actually a jerk, and are just illustrating a mentality.)
This second scenario is the reality of why Balance is banned. The effect is something that is good for white and should be legal, but not for 1W.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffWhite can still do discard via Balancing Act and Restore Balance.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Big thing is, the banlist is there for people who have more than one playgroup or an unsculptable one (like Lou's). I think it's silly to say that everything can be solved with house rules - in a perfect world where everyone had a group of well-adjusted adults, sure
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Not just that, but it's too easy to control how much of what gets sacrificed, unlike symmetrical effects like Cataclysm or Pox. I've played the game long enough to remember when Balance + Zuran Orb was a thing. You can only play it on your turn, but that doesn't matter, because you can float mana to recast your commander or cast Faith's Reward or something. And yeah, you get to punish the player who Boundless Realms-ed, but everyone else suffers, too.
Cool of you to share that. I just wonder what exactly is the difference between "unbalanced" and "problematic in casual play". If something is unblanced, it seems to me like it would be problematic in all kinds of play, including casual. At the very least, it would be "always run", and would get stale quickly by being better than everything else at what it does. For example, Primeval Titan is unbalanced because it's so much better at doing what it does than anything else. A deck can win without running it, so maybe the overall game isn't unbalanced, but the card itself is still unbalanced. So if you get games where it's in everyone's goals to hoard a bunch of land, that game would have a balance problem.
And is there something problematic for casual that's not unbalanced too? If it's balanced, then there's either a good answer to it or it's comparable to enough other things at doing what it does. Maybe if the answer is really specific, and so casual players wouldn't want to run it? If so, maybe there really is no good answer to it, and then it probably fits the category of unbalanced.
I guess game balance is just something I look at as being important to a game, whether it's a casual game or not, so I'm not seeing the difference between the two.