I hereby declare myself Captain Casual and thoroughly refute this point. For every one time a player uses a tutor or fast mana to power out their game plan, there are 3 other times in a 4 man pod that they have to deal with somebody else doing it. The benefit of a Sol Ring ban would be triple the loss.
What this leads me to is always the following question: why is there even a ban list? If people are using their moxen and ruining your games with turn 1-2 combos, then tell them that is not cool with you and your buddies. I am absolutely certain that a casual player will not care if someone is powering out their ancient ooze on the back of a mox emerald.
And you always get the same answer : A base list for people who don't play together. 'Nothing is banned' sends the wrong message about this as a casual format. But I think you honestly know that.
The only cards that really need to be banned for casual groups are things like the power 9, for being absurd cards, being expensive / hard to find, and being staples in every single deck, and cards that seem innocent to casual players (primeval titan, sylvan primordial, sol ring, etc.). Fast mana seems innocent, but imo actually ruins games completely. Turn 1 sol ring into turn 2 explosive vegetation (or various other 4-mana double-land accelerators) into turn 3 7 mana? That's absurd. Why is Braids, Cabal Minion banned? No casual group is going to let people play with that as their commander or even as part of the deck, anyway. Competitive players would probably enjoy messing around with something like that (like me haha). No casual player is going to accidentally use braids as their commander and ruin some games - just like people won't accidentally ruin games when they run armageddon or jokulhaups (which are not banned).
The ban list is inconsistent, and, as is, probably doesn't even need to exist.
That's just hyperbole on top of hyperbole. The ban list does not need to exist into 'except these OBVIOUS examples'. Its a ludicrous position.
Just going to use the google definition for hyperbole:
"exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
What I said was not meant to be exaggerated and I meant every word. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by hyperbole (I don't usually use this word).
I really did mean to say that Braids, cabal minion as a commander is a dick move, but so is running jokulhaups and armageddon. Maybe it's worse because it is your commander, but the moment you sit down at a table, everyone already knows you plan on being that dick (since they can see your commander but not the wildfire and friends in your Keranos, god of storms deck). They can immediately address the issue (unlike times where the problem cards are hidden in the other 99 cards).
If I show up to a table with a hermit druid combo deck and play against casuals, they're going to tell me to go away / stop playing that deck or be very sad until I do one of those things. I am not a dick, so I would not do that to people (I also don't have a hermit druid combo deck). There is nothing on the current ban list to stop this deck from being built.
The easiest way to handle playing with a new group of people is to use a special deck for it. Personally, I use my Karona, False God deck which runs as many charms as I could fit in it and tries to get people to kill each other with Karona. Overall, the deck is really bad, but usually fun in any group where it doesn't just get rolled over by stronger decks. If it doesn't hold up to the group, I switch decks. I'd rather lose game 1 to figure out the power level of the group. A casual player probably wouldn't have the luxury of having a separate deck for this, but their deck will most likely not be of a power level that is not fun for another casual group.
With all that said, the ban list does not stop me from making a stupid deck that no one would want to play with, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do that (since it is a "social" format). The ban list literally does nothing in this case. All the people can do is say it is against the "social contract", which it is (and the ban list doesn't make the social contract exist).
1. What data?
2. What do you mean "people like you?"
3. What do you mean by "dubious position of power?"
4. How would you propose funding all that data collection and analysis?
5. What does a REAL banned list look like and what does it achieve?
6. No, really, what do you mean "people like you?"
Maybe instead of a "ban list" you should call it a "guideline" or "dangerous cards list" or something.
What we have now is: "Here is an incomplete list of banned cards. Do not play the listed cards. Also, figure out for yourself what the other cards should be on the list, and don't play those either."
I have mentioned that before too - using the term ban list is problematic when the list isn't trying to achieve the same goals, nor has the structure, of a traditional ban list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH playing competitive Magic cast away
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
The data that you, Toby, and Gavin have collected by talking to people at events and at local gameshops when you travel.
2. What do you mean "people like you?"
People in a position of power to determine the direction and feel of an entire popular format. So other than you and the rest of the RC, I guess this would include whoever at Wizards manages their formats?
3. What do you mean by "dubious position of power?"
Apparently it is Umaro's thought that you do not fully realize the extent of the power you wield over us mortals, nor do you appreciate having that power.
4. How would you propose funding all that data collection and analysis?
Online surveys are free, and setting up delegates in other areas is simply the work of volunteers (until they sue you claiming to be employees!). For example, the Duel Commander Rules Committee has this year initiated a set of "Regional Coordinators" in order to facilitate data collection from areas outside of their own influence.
5. What does a REAL banned list look like and what does it achieve?
The only other basis we have for banlists are the competitive banlists from WotC, I assume Umaro means those. Ban lists with the goal of balancing gameplay accross a set competitive goal.
===
I think the biggest disconnect here is illustrated in your second part to question 5: "What does it achieve?" The goals of EDH are vastly different than every other format. Other formats are built to be competitive, so have banlists focused on competitive elements. EDH is meant to be more social and to engineer 'feel-good' moments, so the banlist is based on
social aspects and limits 'feel-bad' moments.
The most important part to focus on when discussing bannings isn't how powerful the card is, but what the table's reactions to it were. Some 'feel-bad' cards are needed - no one likes to have their board wrathed, but there is a question of scope and culpabiulity. "Does this reset me once, or prevent me from ever playing again?" "How much of having nothing to do is my fault for overextending, and would be mitigated by better or more careful play?"
I have mentioned that before too - using the term ban list is problematic when the list isn't trying to achieve the same goals, nor has the structure, of a traditional ban list.
Exactly - and despite not having the goals or structure of a ban list, it functions as one.
When you show up at a game store looking for pickup EDH with strangers, the list is not a "guideline" or "recommendation." It says there are banned cards. If you attempt to play them you will cause unnecessary friction. You will have to explain why you are playing banned cards.
The real effect of the current "ban list" is I want to play protean hulk for value, but if I do I risk alienating myself or others and painting a target on myself in-game. Meanwhile, at the same time, players can drop universally groan-inducing spells like tooth and nail and time stretch, and that behavior is implicitly acceptable because we have a "ban list" and those cards aren't on it.
The ban list we currently have, in my experience, only exacerbates social gaming issues and divides players, and solves no problems.
If you expect players to abide by a "social contract" then you should not have a ban list that contradicts that.
If you expect players to abide by a ban list then you should not advocate a "social contract" that contradicts that.
I have mentioned that before too - using the term ban list is problematic when the list isn't trying to achieve the same goals, nor has the structure, of a traditional ban list.
To be fair, EDH isn't really a traditional format, so I don't see a problem with the way the term is used.
---
Given the current goals of the format, it's difficult to flat argue for a "better" ban list, because everyone here has a different idea of what would make it better. Jusstice's ides of better isn't necessarily better for me, my idea of better isnt necessarily better for Sheldon, etc. With the current goals the RC has for the format, I think the ban list is fine in that context. Could an argument be made to change those goals? Sure, but we'll be blue in the face arguing about what those goals should be until the cows come home.
I have mentioned that before too - using the term ban list is problematic when the list isn't trying to achieve the same goals, nor has the structure, of a traditional ban list.
To be fair, EDH isn't really a traditional format, so I don't see a problem with the way the term is used.
---
Given the current goals of the format, it's difficult to flat argue for a "better" ban list, because everyone here has a different idea of what would make it better. Jusstice's ides of better isn't necessarily better for me, my idea of better isnt necessarily better for Sheldon, etc. With the current goals the RC has for the format, I think the ban list is fine in that context. Could an argument be made to change those goals? Sure, but we'll be blue in the face arguing about what those goals should be until the cows come home.
As I may have argued before, a ban list by its nature affects public play in a certain way. That effect really doesn't change based on what you think its goals are, what you'd like those goals to be, or what you've publicly stated that the effect should be. It's a ban list, just like all the ban lists of all other formats in all TCG's, ever. The space it occupies is that of official rules, not the space of "suggestions you can feel free to follow or not, but we hope you can get behind our rationale and look out for cards that might be similar also".
I'm still interested to know what the stages of evolution were of the official ban list, progressing from a non-exhaustive list of soft-banned cards used by one group into the universally published and marketed list used to govern all public play. I don't take it as a given that it was intended to be the latter, which is why it would be interesting to know, but it definitely has become that. But in any case now, it's only academic what such and such intent was. What we have is an "Offical Multiplayer Ban List". Intent, mission statements, so on have zero bearing on the definition of the term "Official Multiplayer Ban List".
Accordingly, a card like Armageddon might not have complete support in public play as a fair card. But Gifts Ungiven has zero (or near zero) support in public play, because it's on the ban list. The rules are that you can't play Gifts. The rules are that you can play Armageddon. It's pointless to discuss the game in terms that the rules are anything different.
Seeing as how the format got a massive endorsement from WOTC and will most likely grow further in popularity, have you considered the implications that absorbing MORE players into the player base will have on the current social banned list?
Yes, in fact we have. One of the things we're doing for the December 20 update is firming up the language on the banned list to make it clear that there's a single, official banned list. Although I really am happy with local groups doing whatever they want to enjoy their own play, strong and clear centralized management will be even more important as the format grows. We'd prefer that there's no confusion about the list, which list is the ‘real' one, and for most play, it's more than just a suggestion. Again, a local group deciding that they also want to ban Magister Sphinx is fine, but I'd rather avoid situations, especially at large-scale events (like PTs and SCG Opens and so forth), where someone shows up sporting Tinker and forces an uncomfortable decision on everyone else, making them choose between being a ‘good guy' and playing the format they came prepared to play. After all, a difference in the one guy's deck isn't the only factor. One of the things you do in the format is to prepare answers for what cards you might reasonably expect to see. It would be unreasonable to expect players to come to events packing answers for cards that are on the Banned List, just so you can play that Tinker.
Side note: “I only use it in a fair way” is most often a lie, or in the best case, self-delusion.
I would be interested to know if this is still the prevailing opinion of the RC.
EDIT: There is no date on this article, but from the context it sounds like late 2010-ish.
As I may have argued before, a ban list by its nature affects public play in a certain way. That effect really doesn't change based on what you think its goals are, what you'd like those goals to be, or what you've publicly stated that the effect should be. It's a ban list, just like all the ban lists of all other formats in all TCG's, ever. The space it occupies is that of official rules, not the space of "suggestions you can feel free to follow or not, but we hope you can get behind our rationale and look out for cards that might be similar also".
I'm still interested to know what the stages of evolution were of the official ban list, progressing from a non-exhaustive list of soft-banned cards used by one group into the universally published and marketed list used to govern all public play. I don't take it as a given that it was intended to be the latter, which is why it would be interesting to know, but it definitely has become that. But in any case now, it's only academic what such and such intent was. What we have is an "Offical Multiplayer Ban List". Intent, mission statements, so on have zero bearing on the definition of the term "Official Multiplayer Ban List".
Accordingly, a card like Armageddon might not have complete support in public play as a fair card. But Gifts Ungiven has zero (or near zero) support in public play, because it's on the ban list. The rules are that you can't play Gifts. The rules are that you can play Armageddon. It's pointless to discuss the game in terms that the rules are anything different.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree. I may not agree with the RC and their current philosophy, but I would be very against such a black and white approach to the banlist without a very good reason for it. I think that there's to much variation between groups to take a hard stance on it.
jusstice, do you agree with my posts on this page?
I agree with this point:
The ban list we currently have, in my experience, only exacerbates social gaming issues and divides players, and solves no problems.
If you expect players to abide by a "social contract" then you should not have a ban list that contradicts that.
If you expect players to abide by a ban list then you should not advocate a "social contract" that contradicts that.
It seems to me that a "social contract" should be pre-supposed within any group of players who sit down together in public to play a game. The "social contract" as an excuse for why we don't have a better ban list has never really jived with me.
If the intent with the ban list is anything other than making an Official Multiplayer Ban List to set the rules for Offical Multiplayer play, whether it's a supplement to this "social contract" or what have you, then the list isn't doing anyone who'd actually use it any favors.
Seeing as how the format got a massive endorsement from WOTC and will most likely grow further in popularity, have you considered the implications that absorbing MORE players into the player base will have on the current social banned list?
Yes, in fact we have. One of the things we're doing for the December 20 update is firming up the language on the banned list to make it clear that there's a single, official banned list. Although I really am happy with local groups doing whatever they want to enjoy their own play, strong and clear centralized management will be even more important as the format grows. We'd prefer that there's no confusion about the list, which list is the ‘real' one, and for most play, it's more than just a suggestion. Again, a local group deciding that they also want to ban Magister Sphinx is fine, but I'd rather avoid situations, especially at large-scale events (like PTs and SCG Opens and so forth), where someone shows up sporting Tinker and forces an uncomfortable decision on everyone else, making them choose between being a ‘good guy' and playing the format they came prepared to play. After all, a difference in the one guy's deck isn't the only factor. One of the things you do in the format is to prepare answers for what cards you might reasonably expect to see. It would be unreasonable to expect players to come to events packing answers for cards that are on the Banned List, just so you can play that Tinker.
Side note: “I only use it in a fair way” is most often a lie, or in the best case, self-delusion.
I would be interested to know if this is still the prevailing opinion of the RC.
EDIT: There is no date on this article, but from the context it sounds like late 2010-ish.
Seeing as how the format got a massive endorsement from WOTC and will most likely grow further in popularity, have you considered the implications that absorbing MORE players into the player base will have on the current social banned list?
Yes, in fact we have. One of the things we're doing for the December 20 update is firming up the language on the banned list to make it clear that there's a single, official banned list. Although I really am happy with local groups doing whatever they want to enjoy their own play, strong and clear centralized management will be even more important as the format grows. We'd prefer that there's no confusion about the list, which list is the ‘real' one, and for most play, it's more than just a suggestion. Again, a local group deciding that they also want to ban Magister Sphinx is fine, but I'd rather avoid situations, especially at large-scale events (like PTs and SCG Opens and so forth), where someone shows up sporting Tinker and forces an uncomfortable decision on everyone else, making them choose between being a ‘good guy' and playing the format they came prepared to play. After all, a difference in the one guy's deck isn't the only factor. One of the things you do in the format is to prepare answers for what cards you might reasonably expect to see. It would be unreasonable to expect players to come to events packing answers for cards that are on the Banned List, just so you can play that Tinker.
Side note: “I only use it in a fair way” is most often a lie, or in the best case, self-delusion.
I would be interested to know if this is still the prevailing opinion of the RC.
EDIT: There is no date on this article, but from the context it sounds like late 2010-ish.
Yes, it still is the prevailing opinion.
That last side note about "fair use" being a lie creates an odd disconnect between obvious offenders like T&N not being banned because they can be used fairly.
That last side note about "fair use" being a lie creates an odd disconnect between obvious offenders like T&N not being banned because they can be used fairly.
I think there can be a strong distinction between 'I only use X fairly' and the RC saying 'We generally see Y used fairly, and expect social interaction to eliminate use of Y outside a groups normal dynamic'.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I think there can be a strong distinction between 'I only use X fairly' and the RC saying 'We generally see Y used fairly, and expect social interaction to eliminate use of Y outside a groups normal dynamic'.
I more often see Tooth and Nail being used to end the game on the spot than used fairly. Although I was surprised last night when it fetched up Sun Titan and Herald of Leshrac.
I think there can be a strong distinction between 'I only use X fairly' and the RC saying 'We generally see Y used fairly, and expect social interaction to eliminate use of Y outside a groups normal dynamic'.
I more often see Tooth and Nail being used to end the game on the spot than used fairly. Although I was surprised last night when it fetched up Sun Titan and Herald of Leshrac.
But it doesn't matter what anyone but the RC sees. If it's not a problem for them, it's our fault if it's a problem for us.
I drafted T&N in our Commander Rotisserie League, and I'm going to use it to fetch Wall of Reverence and Serra Avatar.
Isn't this an unfair statement? Of course T&N can be used fairly, but everyone realistically knows it isn't unless you're actively trying. And that sort of reasoning works with any other 'broken' card as well. I
m not saying T&N is broken but I think that sort of reasoning is a little dishonest.
I think there can be a strong distinction between 'I only use X fairly' and the RC saying 'We generally see Y used fairly, and expect social interaction to eliminate use of Y outside a groups normal dynamic'.
I more often see Tooth and Nail being used to end the game on the spot than used fairly. Although I was surprised last night when it fetched up Sun Titan and Herald of Leshrac.
But it doesn't matter what anyone but the RC sees. If it's not a problem for them, it's our fault if it's a problem for us.
I see it used for value, never for combo or game win (Avenger/Hoof), so I don't see your point. Why keep creating an 'Us versus Them' when we are all trying to play a game? Do you not have the option to speak to the person you feel is "a problem"?
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 drafted T&N in our Commander Rotisserie League, and I'm going to use it to fetch Wall of Reverence and Serra Avatar.
If those aren't the best two creatures in your deck, then you're breaking the "build casually, play competitively" philosophy.
If those are the best two creatures in your deck and you're playing Tooth and Nail, then you're not building casually, you're just building dumb. That's like playing Boundless Realms in a deck with 6 basics. Why... just why?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just going to use the google definition for hyperbole:
"exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
What I said was not meant to be exaggerated and I meant every word. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by hyperbole (I don't usually use this word).
I really did mean to say that Braids, cabal minion as a commander is a dick move, but so is running jokulhaups and armageddon. Maybe it's worse because it is your commander, but the moment you sit down at a table, everyone already knows you plan on being that dick (since they can see your commander but not the wildfire and friends in your Keranos, god of storms deck). They can immediately address the issue (unlike times where the problem cards are hidden in the other 99 cards).
If I show up to a table with a hermit druid combo deck and play against casuals, they're going to tell me to go away / stop playing that deck or be very sad until I do one of those things. I am not a dick, so I would not do that to people (I also don't have a hermit druid combo deck). There is nothing on the current ban list to stop this deck from being built.
The easiest way to handle playing with a new group of people is to use a special deck for it. Personally, I use my Karona, False God deck which runs as many charms as I could fit in it and tries to get people to kill each other with Karona. Overall, the deck is really bad, but usually fun in any group where it doesn't just get rolled over by stronger decks. If it doesn't hold up to the group, I switch decks. I'd rather lose game 1 to figure out the power level of the group. A casual player probably wouldn't have the luxury of having a separate deck for this, but their deck will most likely not be of a power level that is not fun for another casual group.
With all that said, the ban list does not stop me from making a stupid deck that no one would want to play with, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do that (since it is a "social" format). The ban list literally does nothing in this case. All the people can do is say it is against the "social contract", which it is (and the ban list doesn't make the social contract exist).
1. What data?
2. What do you mean "people like you?"
3. What do you mean by "dubious position of power?"
4. How would you propose funding all that data collection and analysis?
5. What does a REAL banned list look like and what does it achieve?
6. No, really, what do you mean "people like you?"
I was personally reading that as "aardvark enthusiasts."
What we have now is: "Here is an incomplete list of banned cards. Do not play the listed cards. Also, figure out for yourself what the other cards should be on the list, and don't play those either."
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
check out my EDH and Pauper EDH decks here
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe data that you, Toby, and Gavin have collected by talking to people at events and at local gameshops when you travel.
People in a position of power to determine the direction and feel of an entire popular format. So other than you and the rest of the RC, I guess this would include whoever at Wizards manages their formats?
Apparently it is Umaro's thought that you do not fully realize the extent of the power you wield over us mortals, nor do you appreciate having that power.
Online surveys are free, and setting up delegates in other areas is simply the work of volunteers (until they sue you claiming to be employees!). For example, the Duel Commander Rules Committee has this year initiated a set of "Regional Coordinators" in order to facilitate data collection from areas outside of their own influence.
The only other basis we have for banlists are the competitive banlists from WotC, I assume Umaro means those. Ban lists with the goal of balancing gameplay accross a set competitive goal.
===
I think the biggest disconnect here is illustrated in your second part to question 5: "What does it achieve?" The goals of EDH are vastly different than every other format. Other formats are built to be competitive, so have banlists focused on competitive elements. EDH is meant to be more social and to engineer 'feel-good' moments, so the banlist is based on
social aspects and limits 'feel-bad' moments.
The most important part to focus on when discussing bannings isn't how powerful the card is, but what the table's reactions to it were. Some 'feel-bad' cards are needed - no one likes to have their board wrathed, but there is a question of scope and culpabiulity. "Does this reset me once, or prevent me from ever playing again?" "How much of having nothing to do is my fault for overextending, and would be mitigated by better or more careful play?"
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Exactly - and despite not having the goals or structure of a ban list, it functions as one.
When you show up at a game store looking for pickup EDH with strangers, the list is not a "guideline" or "recommendation." It says there are banned cards. If you attempt to play them you will cause unnecessary friction. You will have to explain why you are playing banned cards.
The real effect of the current "ban list" is I want to play protean hulk for value, but if I do I risk alienating myself or others and painting a target on myself in-game. Meanwhile, at the same time, players can drop universally groan-inducing spells like tooth and nail and time stretch, and that behavior is implicitly acceptable because we have a "ban list" and those cards aren't on it.
The ban list we currently have, in my experience, only exacerbates social gaming issues and divides players, and solves no problems.
If you expect players to abide by a "social contract" then you should not have a ban list that contradicts that.
If you expect players to abide by a ban list then you should not advocate a "social contract" that contradicts that.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
check out my EDH and Pauper EDH decks here
---
Given the current goals of the format, it's difficult to flat argue for a "better" ban list, because everyone here has a different idea of what would make it better. Jusstice's ides of better isn't necessarily better for me, my idea of better isnt necessarily better for Sheldon, etc. With the current goals the RC has for the format, I think the ban list is fine in that context. Could an argument be made to change those goals? Sure, but we'll be blue in the face arguing about what those goals should be until the cows come home.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
As I may have argued before, a ban list by its nature affects public play in a certain way. That effect really doesn't change based on what you think its goals are, what you'd like those goals to be, or what you've publicly stated that the effect should be. It's a ban list, just like all the ban lists of all other formats in all TCG's, ever. The space it occupies is that of official rules, not the space of "suggestions you can feel free to follow or not, but we hope you can get behind our rationale and look out for cards that might be similar also".
I'm still interested to know what the stages of evolution were of the official ban list, progressing from a non-exhaustive list of soft-banned cards used by one group into the universally published and marketed list used to govern all public play. I don't take it as a given that it was intended to be the latter, which is why it would be interesting to know, but it definitely has become that. But in any case now, it's only academic what such and such intent was. What we have is an "Offical Multiplayer Ban List". Intent, mission statements, so on have zero bearing on the definition of the term "Official Multiplayer Ban List".
Accordingly, a card like Armageddon might not have complete support in public play as a fair card. But Gifts Ungiven has zero (or near zero) support in public play, because it's on the ban list. The rules are that you can't play Gifts. The rules are that you can play Armageddon. It's pointless to discuss the game in terms that the rules are anything different.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
check out my EDH and Pauper EDH decks here
I would be interested to know if this is still the prevailing opinion of the RC.
EDIT: There is no date on this article, but from the context it sounds like late 2010-ish.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I agree with this point:
It seems to me that a "social contract" should be pre-supposed within any group of players who sit down together in public to play a game. The "social contract" as an excuse for why we don't have a better ban list has never really jived with me.
If the intent with the ban list is anything other than making an Official Multiplayer Ban List to set the rules for Offical Multiplayer play, whether it's a supplement to this "social contract" or what have you, then the list isn't doing anyone who'd actually use it any favors.
Yes, it still is the prevailing opinion.
That last side note about "fair use" being a lie creates an odd disconnect between obvious offenders like T&N not being banned because they can be used fairly.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
I more often see Tooth and Nail being used to end the game on the spot than used fairly. Although I was surprised last night when it fetched up Sun Titan and Herald of Leshrac.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But it doesn't matter what anyone but the RC sees. If it's not a problem for them, it's our fault if it's a problem for us.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffIsn't this an unfair statement? Of course T&N can be used fairly, but everyone realistically knows it isn't unless you're actively trying. And that sort of reasoning works with any other 'broken' card as well. I
m not saying T&N is broken but I think that sort of reasoning is a little dishonest.
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
If those aren't the best two creatures in your deck, then you're breaking the "build casually, play competitively" philosophy.
If those are the best two creatures in your deck and you're playing Tooth and Nail, then you're not building casually, you're just building dumb. That's like playing Boundless Realms in a deck with 6 basics. Why... just why?