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.
I agree with this, it doesn't actually matter what cards are in your deck if you break the social contract, if you are an ******** or have a bad enough attitude / mindset people will just stop playing with you.
And there is no real way to craft a ban list to compliment that because of how subjective it is.
True, you craft the ban list so people who do not know each other have a starting point for what TO play. It then adjusts from there as they get to know one another.
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.
This recent discussion about the Banned List vs the Social Contract certainly went in depth.
Not exactly a summary (of anyone's opinions), but what I've got out of it was:
The Banned List is the "base Social Contract" of any random group you walked into.
You can walk into a random playgroup playing Tooth and Nail (regardless of fairly or not), only to find out that they banned the card, but at least you didn't outright break any social contracts if you didn't know that beforehand. You cannot do the same with Protean Hulk, because there's a very, very good chance you broke the social contract of that group at the very start of the game.
Both "Social Contract Bans and Unbans" are only formed over time, but the unban part is a lot trickier because the Banned List is the "base Social Contract" - at least with "Social Contract Bans", the mistake is made from either a lack of knowledge (which most groups would forgive the first time) or they did it despite knowing it (someone's getting the boot from the group). But with "Social Contract Unbans", it's unlikely people outside the group have any knowledge and unlike with bans, it might become a disadvantage instead. So in short, "Social Contract Unbans" are more likely to isolate a group than the other way round.
Well, on the surface this doesn't sound like much a problem with the groups just play with themselves, but it's also the reason why groups in the end usually don't bother with the "Social Contract Bans/Unbans", because either way, it makes the group "less social" to outside parties and EDH is partially a "Social Game" where you want to invite people for games and the only common Social Contract known by the public is the Banned List. The same issue is also held for all competitive games held by stores. In fact it's so prevalent I noticed a lot of stores around me opt to choose 1v1 to avoid the other competitive problems of Multiplayer (reasonable), but choose to utilize the Multiplayer Banned List instead, simply because the "base social contract" is there (some stores did attempt the 1v1 Banned List before, but seeing the change now convinced me that at least for my area, this is obviously prevalent.) So, no matter how tuned the 1v1 Banned List is, it turned out people honored the "base Social Contract" which was the Multiplayer Banned List more and vastly preferred to keep all their games (1v1 or Multiplayer) as such.
Well, I went one big redundant round to the point that the Multiplayer Banned List is a lot more influential than the "Social Contract", because it has been taken to be the "Social Contract" and as such, it is a very important job of the Committee to maintain it. Note that I didn't say "balance" - I understand that with the nature of the format plus simply the lack of resources of the Committee to gather worldwide data means it's quite impossible to truly gather data the likes of other Constructed formats (even the 1v1 list is a diamond roughing its way out).
However, one must also remember that one of the alluring factors of EDH is simply the ability to use obscure, but powerful cards that would otherwise see no play in other formats. Yes, it's likely to be fighting with the concept of "balance", but it is also a major factor of what makes EDH EDH.
I hate the raise this card from the grave (but Sheldon said we won already anyway), but if Sol Ring was banned for "balancing" reasons, but I wanted to play with it, I would be breaking the "base Social Contract" of most groups I walked into. But on the other hand (as my above paragraphs already stated), as it stands now, a group can "Social Contract Ban" it at the cost of isolation, but it is not a frequent affair and puts that group at a disadvantage (or isolated from) other groups / competitions.
So it all boils down to this - there is only one main (and it is almost every) Social Contract that matters - the Banned List. What cards qualify to be banned are those who qualified to be run at the cost of breaking almost every Social Contract out there? It need not be necessary be power or speed - it must be the willingness (and capability) to answer the card. Almost (if not all) cards/combos have a counter for it, but are the people who hold the cards willing to do so when a card is used at it's pinnacle of strength?
Primeval Titan is the pinnacle of such a problem - it can be answered, but everyone else is more concerned about getting advantage out of it at its strongest (well it's more or less always at its strongest) if they can rather than remove it. Tooth and Nail, however, is almost always getting countered by someone if they can as long as they suspect it's played for the win. "Social Contracts" may let it off if the players know it's just used for value, but the main point is that even at it's most powerful (aka Competitive), a counter is very real and possible.
You don't even know his General or strat, but yea judge a deck on 3 cards...
Roon blink was the intention before the draft at the very least. Though the 3 cards mentioned weren't in his plan, so maybe he ended up with something completely different.
If he did end up with a blink deck, I can't see picking Wall of Reverence when you could have an etb trigger like Trostani instead, and I can't imagine the one other person with selesnya drafted Trostani high. But then reading through that article just gives me more ammunition, because what person who has played the card would ever say "Edric, Spymaster of Trest (this is a Fog because it makes people not attack you)." If there's a play group where that is true, we've fallen off the edge of the casual/competitive scale into the pit of "we just want to shuffle our big decks and the rest doesn't really matter."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
So it all boils down to this - there is only one main (and it is almost every) Social Contract that matters - the Banned List. What cards qualify to be banned are those who qualified to be run at the cost of breaking almost every Social Contract out there? It need not be necessary be power or speed - it must be the willingness (and capability) to answer the card. Almost (if not all) cards/combos have a counter for it, but are the people who hold the cards willing to do so when a card is used at it's pinnacle of strength?
Well said. In addition to what to expect when you're getting a public game, the ban list also affects private groups in terms of how socially open they want to be. I don't think I've ever seen a group who will welcome a new player by explaining all of their house bans and asking the new guy to remove any offenders from his/her deck.
Also, if a card has a clear answer, as T&N does for example, those are not the boogey-men of the card pool. It's the cards the dictate the game flow and have insufficient answer that need to be looked at. All the Green fatties banned over the last little while seem to fit there, but there are a lot of others (imo) that just drive the game to an end without much that can be done.
So it all boils down to this - there is only one main (and it is almost every) Social Contract that matters - the Banned List. What cards qualify to be banned are those who qualified to be run at the cost of breaking almost every Social Contract out there? It need not be necessary be power or speed - it must be the willingness (and capability) to answer the card. Almost (if not all) cards/combos have a counter for it, but are the people who hold the cards willing to do so when a card is used at it's pinnacle of strength?
Well said. In addition to what to expect when you're getting a public game, the ban list also affects private groups in terms of how socially open they want to be. I don't think I've ever seen a group who will welcome a new player by explaining all of their house bans and asking the new guy to remove any offenders from his/her deck.
Also, if a card has a clear answer, as T&N does for example, those are not the boogey-men of the card pool. It's the cards the dictate the game flow and have insufficient answer that need to be looked at. All the Green fatties banned over the last little while seem to fit there, but there are a lot of others (imo) that just drive the game to an end without much that can be done.
Can you list a few? I am curious what those cards would be like.
I think the real problem with Tooth and Nail is that it, by my knowledge, is the only card not on the banlist that can without any prior setup be used to say "I win the game." I mean, literally the ONLY restriction T&N puts on you is that the creatures you want on the field aren't already in the grave or exile. That's it. Any other card that wins the game either requires at least some presence already. Even boogeymen like Deadeye Navigator, Protean Hulk, Iona, Shield of Emeria...cards that can definitely win the game almost single handedly, cannot win the game just by casting them. Even landing something as big as Omniscience does not guarantee a win since if you're without drawpower, you'll end up emptying your hand...and then you're stuck.
Here's a thing. Mikaeus, the Unhallowed...Triskelion...Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker...Zealous Conscripts...Restoration Angel...Avenger of Zendikar...Craterhoof Behemoth...all these are common suspects when Tooth and Nail is being talked about. And each of those can, to a certain degree, be played with fair intentions. Sure, they're known for their "not so fair" uses, but nobody will argue that Mikaeus in, say, Zombie Tribal or general Bx goodstuff is just a very good and powerful card. A must-answer, certainly, but not broken.
Tooth and Nail, however, does not work that way. Sure, you could run the card while avoiding infinites and I'm sure people do. But if they're in your deck, you have no reason not to pull them out onto the field because we do play to win in the end. If you can end the game, you do.
Going back to my earlier point, Tooth and Nail on it's own ends the game like no other card does. So what, I can already hear you say, at 9 mana you should be able to end the game. Yes and no. I agree that for 9 mana, you should get a lot of bang for your buck. But it shouldn't end the game on it's own. If someone lays down a combo, chances are the total mana invested is above that of T&N's cost. And again, it requires multiple cards, not just the one. Even something as silly as High Tide + Palinchron is NOT ENOUGH to end the game - you still need an outlet for that mana, after all.
This is why Tooth and Nail heavily clashes with the banlist philosophy. It can be used in a fair way, but at that point you're either breaking the build casually, play competitively rule, or you simply don't own the combo yet. Yes it can be used to fetch two answers or two high value plays but really, that's a rarity.
And yes, this is also a thin-veiled attempt at a pro-protean hulk post as indeed the Hulk does not ever end the game on it's own. Anyone saying it does: No, you do not just cast it on an empty board and win. Period.
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.
I think the real problem with Tooth and Nail is that it, by my knowledge, is the only card not on the banlist that can without any prior setup be used to say "I win the game."... Going back to my earlier point, Tooth and Nail on it's own ends the game like no other card does.
As a person who does not think T+N should be banned (currently) I get this position. My immediate reaction was 'Sure there are', and then proceeded to search and find nothing. Now a Kiki as General into Zealous is close since one can be had anytime you have mana, but thats as close as I got.
And yes, this is also a thin-veiled attempt at a pro-protean hulk post as indeed the Hulk does not ever end the game on it's own. Anyone saying it does: No, you do not just cast it on an empty board and win. Period.
I think the issue you run into is Greens ability to FIND Hulk anytime it likes, and other people's use of it after you tutor it out and don't win because you are doing stuff 'fairly'. And to comendere your point, if you don't have a combo in the deck that wins when you sac Hulk, isnt that the beef you have with people who use T+N for value?
A long time ago I was of the opinion Hulk and T+N should share a fate, then changed to 'the current list is OK'. I have to say with the items presented in this and other threads its back to 'they need to share a fate'. Either you are allowed to do either for value, or auto-win if thats your cup of tea, or both should be off the island. Since the RC has said for a while T+N is kosher, let the Hulk come out and play. If its bonkers, give him the Rofellos treatment and slam him back on.
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.
While I concede your point, there's still the flaw that any colour that can actually combo with the Hulk (You'll need either White or Black, and Black happens to be the one with an actual Hulkable sac outlet that's actually good) and when you're in Black, you don't have issues finding T&N either. Much like how in Blue that's the same. Hulk is not a one-card combo and on that notion alone I think it deserves time off. It's the same reason why I'm leery about Gifts Ungiven as it can actually get an infinite combo on its own with no prior boardstate.
My main point is that T&N's legality on the banlist simply clashes badly with Sheldon's own statements. I'd love to see it get swapped with Hulk.
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.
As you'll see next week, I did indeed draft the Roon deck (and Keith drafted Trostani with his 11th pick). I was being glib about T&N for Wall of Reverence and Serra Avatar (although there's little enough targeted removal in the decks to give it a whirl). In the draft I just put together, T&N and Serra Avatar didn't make the cut, and the Wall is on the bubble--since I'd forgotten that I can play Derevi as 1 of 99. And even agreeing that people play Edric for other reasons, it's definitely a Fog, for precisely the reason I listed--just like Planeswalkers are Fogs, since people attack them instead of you.
Now I'm just wondering how many weeks I can go without playing Draining Whelk and Mystic Snake before the other guys, who have been playing around them, realize they're not in the deck.
Any new thoughts on T+N vs Hulk from the recent discussion? It really does seem they are much more alike than different. And Hulk could be argued to be tougher to combo than T+N.
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.
Any new thoughts on T+N vs Hulk from the recent discussion? It really does seem they are much more alike than different. And Hulk could be argued to be tougher to combo than T+N.
You can replace "could be argued" with "it's a true fact". The only argument in favor of T&N is that in Selesnya, Hulk is easier to tutor for. In Golgari nor Simic it doesn't matter. And again, T&N on an empty board is gg. Hulk isn't. Finally, Hulk can, by my knowledge, not go infinite in Gruul or Simic, which T&N definitely can (Deadeye/Palinchron - Kiki/Conscripts)
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.
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.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list. If either of those are the case, than a lot of cards on the banlist make zero sense. Why is Gifts banned if all I do is use it to put zombies in my grave for U/B Zombie tribal? Why is Erayo banned when I only use it in my Moonfolk tribal that can't flip it very often?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
QFT. I don't think that there's a single deck I have in which this would be the case. The only deck in which I have Craterhoof Behemoth, I also have Avenger of Zendikar, so I guess that might count. Otherwise, I don't see any auto-wins.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
QFT. I don't think that there's a single deck I have in which this would be the case. The only deck in which I have Craterhoof Behemoth, I also have Avenger of Zendikar, so I guess that might count. Otherwise, I don't see any auto-wins.
That's nice. So because you are the exception, we all get to suffer?
There are a ton of different infinite combos requiring just 2 creatures. Many of these use powerful creatures on their own. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the group that dictates the entire ban list somehow does not run any of the infinites and tooth and nail. That's like someone building "competitive" Prossh, but excluding Food Chain. Just because your group doesn't do that doesn't mean that the majority of other groups don't either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
QFT. I don't think that there's a single deck I have in which this would be the case. The only deck in which I have Craterhoof Behemoth, I also have Avenger of Zendikar, so I guess that might count. Otherwise, I don't see any auto-wins.
So by that logic, Protean Hulk should be unbanned because I have no decks that feature Viscera Seer + Phyrexian Delver + Triskelion + Mikaeaus, the Unhallowed or Saffi Eriksdotter + Karmic Guide + Reveillark + A sac outlet, right? (Actually I do have the first but that one is in Rakdos, so Hulk doesn't fly there) Sure, there's people who run T&N to pull out two answers, or a threat and a stabilizer or god knows what else. But if "some people use it fair" is a criteria for the banlist even for a card that, on it's own, on YOUR OWN empty board can win a game with no single other investment...then I'm not sure what can and can't be banned. Gifts Ungiven can do the same thing - win the game while it's the only card you have (it and mana) and is rightfully so banned. Protean Hulk requires a lot more effort and specific deck building and moving pieces that cannot be in your hand to combo off. Where is the logic in that?
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.
That's nice. So because you are the exception, we all get to suffer?
This kind of hyperbole isn't going to help anything. You don't suffer when someone plays those cards, you lose a game if NO ONE has an answer. And no one makes you play against it.
We should be moving to unbanning Hulk, T+N seems a lost cause.
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.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list. If either of those are the case, than a lot of cards on the banlist make zero sense. Why is Gifts banned if all I do is use it to put zombies in my grave for U/B Zombie tribal? Why is Erayo banned when I only use it in my Moonfolk tribal that can't flip it very often?
This still isn't even true.
Empty Board does not also mean Empty Hand and Tapped Out Mana
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list.
You're right, in situation with zero of your cards in graveyard, zero of your cards in exile, with 7GG available, with the right creature cards in your deck, no other permanents in play other than basic lands, and none of your opponents holding any counterspells or instant speed removal...
Yes, it is possible to win with Tooth and Nail on the spot.
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list.
You're right, in situation with zero of your cards in graveyard, zero of your cards in exile, with 7GG available, with the right creature cards in your deck, no other permanents in play other than basic lands, and none of your opponents holding any counterspells or instant speed removal...
Yes, it is possible to win with Tooth and Nail on the spot.
True. And in a situation where you have at least 1 creature, no one else has any creatures, all mana is tapped, no one has counter spells or instant speed removal, Biorhythm ends the game.
Every card on the ban list can be countered or stopped in some way, shape or form. How cards should be judged is on what happens when they actually get played. For me, the last ten times T&N has been cast, the game ended instantly, despite a variety of different commanders and situations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
That's nice. So because you are the exception, we all get to suffer?
This kind of hyperbole isn't going to help anything. You don't suffer when someone plays those cards, you lose a game if NO ONE has an answer. And no one makes you play against it.
We should be moving to unbanning Hulk, T+N seems a lost cause.
"No one makes you play against it"
So what, I should scoop instantly if my opponent has green and a off chance that T&N could be in their deck?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I think the real problem with Tooth and Nail is that it, by my knowledge, is the only card not on the banlist that can without any prior setup be used to say "I win the game."... Going back to my earlier point, Tooth and Nail on it's own ends the game like no other card does.
As a person who does not think T+N should be banned (currently) I get this position. My immediate reaction was 'Sure there are', and then proceeded to search and find nothing. Now a Kiki as General into Zealous is close since one can be had anytime you have mana, but thats as close as I got.
There are actually so many of these cards that they've earned their own name - "1-card combos". They include Hermit Druid, Survival of the Fittest, Ad Nauseam, Doomsday, and possibly a few others that I'm neglecting to remember. I don't see why discussion should begin with the one that costs the most mana, rather than the ones that cost the least.
Sure T&N wins out of nothing but it also falls down to removal as much ore more than any card in the game.
+1
Now, there's why the ones that cost the most mana are less of a problem. If you are sitting across from a BUG deck with T&N combo finishes, and you're in a playgroup that doesn't mind such things, then you have until they get to 9 mana to find an Instant to interact with that. And, it can be pretty much any Instant. Sure, one counterspell is a blowout. But also just run anything that can kill a creature. Nuke Mike when the Undying trigger is on the stack. Nuke Palinchron when it's ETB is still on the stack, same with Kikki. If they spend the first few turns fishing for Boseju or some other card that prevents Instant speed interaction, you can exploit the compact, less-efficient nature of that deck by running more efficient combo's. Or if your group leans more toward Control, then start running graveyard-based combo's like Karmic-Lark or Living Death where any answers without graveyard exile to back them up will only delay the process. If you are going to play combo, welcome to the world of combo. Enjoy it.
Now, if we are going to look at 1-card combo's for being too efficient and compact, the crusade should start with Survival. The only window of disruption that really presents is when you finally for it, and even then, the ability to tutor back in the deck recursion means you only delayed the combo. It also shares the same overlap with T&N in that Timmy is just going to run it out and think it's cool, without necessarily having to hone the strategy in order for it to be imbalanced. Just an absurd card that is rightly banned everywhere else.
No, it CAN be. It quite often is not to many a player here.
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list. If either of those are the case, than a lot of cards on the banlist make zero sense. Why is Gifts banned if all I do is use it to put zombies in my grave for U/B Zombie tribal? Why is Erayo banned when I only use it in my Moonfolk tribal that can't flip it very often?
This still isn't even true.
Empty Board does not also mean Empty Hand and Tapped Out Mana
If the only answer for a card is for all players to hold up answers because the green player has 9 mana, or the game instantly ends, I think that's the actual definition of a format centralizing card. Not because the green player has any threats, not because the green player has setup anything, just because the green player has 9 mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with this, it doesn't actually matter what cards are in your deck if you break the social contract, if you are an ******** or have a bad enough attitude / mindset people will just stop playing with you.
And there is no real way to craft a ban list to compliment that because of how subjective it is.
Not exactly a summary (of anyone's opinions), but what I've got out of it was:
The Banned List is the "base Social Contract" of any random group you walked into.
You can walk into a random playgroup playing Tooth and Nail (regardless of fairly or not), only to find out that they banned the card, but at least you didn't outright break any social contracts if you didn't know that beforehand. You cannot do the same with Protean Hulk, because there's a very, very good chance you broke the social contract of that group at the very start of the game.
Both "Social Contract Bans and Unbans" are only formed over time, but the unban part is a lot trickier because the Banned List is the "base Social Contract" - at least with "Social Contract Bans", the mistake is made from either a lack of knowledge (which most groups would forgive the first time) or they did it despite knowing it (someone's getting the boot from the group). But with "Social Contract Unbans", it's unlikely people outside the group have any knowledge and unlike with bans, it might become a disadvantage instead. So in short, "Social Contract Unbans" are more likely to isolate a group than the other way round.
Well, on the surface this doesn't sound like much a problem with the groups just play with themselves, but it's also the reason why groups in the end usually don't bother with the "Social Contract Bans/Unbans", because either way, it makes the group "less social" to outside parties and EDH is partially a "Social Game" where you want to invite people for games and the only common Social Contract known by the public is the Banned List. The same issue is also held for all competitive games held by stores. In fact it's so prevalent I noticed a lot of stores around me opt to choose 1v1 to avoid the other competitive problems of Multiplayer (reasonable), but choose to utilize the Multiplayer Banned List instead, simply because the "base social contract" is there (some stores did attempt the 1v1 Banned List before, but seeing the change now convinced me that at least for my area, this is obviously prevalent.) So, no matter how tuned the 1v1 Banned List is, it turned out people honored the "base Social Contract" which was the Multiplayer Banned List more and vastly preferred to keep all their games (1v1 or Multiplayer) as such.
Well, I went one big redundant round to the point that the Multiplayer Banned List is a lot more influential than the "Social Contract", because it has been taken to be the "Social Contract" and as such, it is a very important job of the Committee to maintain it. Note that I didn't say "balance" - I understand that with the nature of the format plus simply the lack of resources of the Committee to gather worldwide data means it's quite impossible to truly gather data the likes of other Constructed formats (even the 1v1 list is a diamond roughing its way out).
However, one must also remember that one of the alluring factors of EDH is simply the ability to use obscure, but powerful cards that would otherwise see no play in other formats. Yes, it's likely to be fighting with the concept of "balance", but it is also a major factor of what makes EDH EDH.
I hate the raise this card from the grave (but Sheldon said we won already anyway), but if Sol Ring was banned for "balancing" reasons, but I wanted to play with it, I would be breaking the "base Social Contract" of most groups I walked into. But on the other hand (as my above paragraphs already stated), as it stands now, a group can "Social Contract Ban" it at the cost of isolation, but it is not a frequent affair and puts that group at a disadvantage (or isolated from) other groups / competitions.
So it all boils down to this - there is only one main (and it is almost every) Social Contract that matters - the Banned List. What cards qualify to be banned are those who qualified to be run at the cost of breaking almost every Social Contract out there? It need not be necessary be power or speed - it must be the willingness (and capability) to answer the card. Almost (if not all) cards/combos have a counter for it, but are the people who hold the cards willing to do so when a card is used at it's pinnacle of strength?
Primeval Titan is the pinnacle of such a problem - it can be answered, but everyone else is more concerned about getting advantage out of it at its strongest (well it's more or less always at its strongest) if they can rather than remove it. Tooth and Nail, however, is almost always getting countered by someone if they can as long as they suspect it's played for the win. "Social Contracts" may let it off if the players know it's just used for value, but the main point is that even at it's most powerful (aka Competitive), a counter is very real and possible.
Roon blink was the intention before the draft at the very least. Though the 3 cards mentioned weren't in his plan, so maybe he ended up with something completely different.
If he did end up with a blink deck, I can't see picking Wall of Reverence when you could have an etb trigger like Trostani instead, and I can't imagine the one other person with selesnya drafted Trostani high. But then reading through that article just gives me more ammunition, because what person who has played the card would ever say "Edric, Spymaster of Trest (this is a Fog because it makes people not attack you)." If there's a play group where that is true, we've fallen off the edge of the casual/competitive scale into the pit of "we just want to shuffle our big decks and the rest doesn't really matter."
Well said. In addition to what to expect when you're getting a public game, the ban list also affects private groups in terms of how socially open they want to be. I don't think I've ever seen a group who will welcome a new player by explaining all of their house bans and asking the new guy to remove any offenders from his/her deck.
Also, if a card has a clear answer, as T&N does for example, those are not the boogey-men of the card pool. It's the cards the dictate the game flow and have insufficient answer that need to be looked at. All the Green fatties banned over the last little while seem to fit there, but there are a lot of others (imo) that just drive the game to an end without much that can be done.
Here's a thing. Mikaeus, the Unhallowed...Triskelion...Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker...Zealous Conscripts...Restoration Angel...Avenger of Zendikar...Craterhoof Behemoth...all these are common suspects when Tooth and Nail is being talked about. And each of those can, to a certain degree, be played with fair intentions. Sure, they're known for their "not so fair" uses, but nobody will argue that Mikaeus in, say, Zombie Tribal or general Bx goodstuff is just a very good and powerful card. A must-answer, certainly, but not broken.
Tooth and Nail, however, does not work that way. Sure, you could run the card while avoiding infinites and I'm sure people do. But if they're in your deck, you have no reason not to pull them out onto the field because we do play to win in the end. If you can end the game, you do.
Going back to my earlier point, Tooth and Nail on it's own ends the game like no other card does. So what, I can already hear you say, at 9 mana you should be able to end the game. Yes and no. I agree that for 9 mana, you should get a lot of bang for your buck. But it shouldn't end the game on it's own. If someone lays down a combo, chances are the total mana invested is above that of T&N's cost. And again, it requires multiple cards, not just the one. Even something as silly as High Tide + Palinchron is NOT ENOUGH to end the game - you still need an outlet for that mana, after all.
This is why Tooth and Nail heavily clashes with the banlist philosophy. It can be used in a fair way, but at that point you're either breaking the build casually, play competitively rule, or you simply don't own the combo yet. Yes it can be used to fetch two answers or two high value plays but really, that's a rarity.
And yes, this is also a thin-veiled attempt at a pro-protean hulk post as indeed the Hulk does not ever end the game on it's own. Anyone saying it does: No, you do not just cast it on an empty board and win. Period.
I think the issue you run into is Greens ability to FIND Hulk anytime it likes, and other people's use of it after you tutor it out and don't win because you are doing stuff 'fairly'. And to comendere your point, if you don't have a combo in the deck that wins when you sac Hulk, isnt that the beef you have with people who use T+N for value?
A long time ago I was of the opinion Hulk and T+N should share a fate, then changed to 'the current list is OK'. I have to say with the items presented in this and other threads its back to 'they need to share a fate'. Either you are allowed to do either for value, or auto-win if thats your cup of tea, or both should be off the island. Since the RC has said for a while T+N is kosher, let the Hulk come out and play. If its bonkers, give him the Rofellos treatment and slam him back on.
My main point is that T&N's legality on the banlist simply clashes badly with Sheldon's own statements. I'd love to see it get swapped with Hulk.
Now I'm just wondering how many weeks I can go without playing Draining Whelk and Mystic Snake before the other guys, who have been playing around them, realize they're not in the deck.
You can replace "could be argued" with "it's a true fact". The only argument in favor of T&N is that in Selesnya, Hulk is easier to tutor for. In Golgari nor Simic it doesn't matter. And again, T&N on an empty board is gg. Hulk isn't. Finally, Hulk can, by my knowledge, not go infinite in Gruul or Simic, which T&N definitely can (Deadeye/Palinchron - Kiki/Conscripts)
The only time T&N is not game over on an empty board is when the pilot is playing sub optimally or is intentionally running a sub optimal list. If either of those are the case, than a lot of cards on the banlist make zero sense. Why is Gifts banned if all I do is use it to put zombies in my grave for U/B Zombie tribal? Why is Erayo banned when I only use it in my Moonfolk tribal that can't flip it very often?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
QFT. I don't think that there's a single deck I have in which this would be the case. The only deck in which I have Craterhoof Behemoth, I also have Avenger of Zendikar, so I guess that might count. Otherwise, I don't see any auto-wins.
That's nice. So because you are the exception, we all get to suffer?
There are a ton of different infinite combos requiring just 2 creatures. Many of these use powerful creatures on their own. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the group that dictates the entire ban list somehow does not run any of the infinites and tooth and nail. That's like someone building "competitive" Prossh, but excluding Food Chain. Just because your group doesn't do that doesn't mean that the majority of other groups don't either.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
So by that logic, Protean Hulk should be unbanned because I have no decks that feature Viscera Seer + Phyrexian Delver + Triskelion + Mikaeaus, the Unhallowed or Saffi Eriksdotter + Karmic Guide + Reveillark + A sac outlet, right? (Actually I do have the first but that one is in Rakdos, so Hulk doesn't fly there) Sure, there's people who run T&N to pull out two answers, or a threat and a stabilizer or god knows what else. But if "some people use it fair" is a criteria for the banlist even for a card that, on it's own, on YOUR OWN empty board can win a game with no single other investment...then I'm not sure what can and can't be banned. Gifts Ungiven can do the same thing - win the game while it's the only card you have (it and mana) and is rightfully so banned. Protean Hulk requires a lot more effort and specific deck building and moving pieces that cannot be in your hand to combo off. Where is the logic in that?
We should be moving to unbanning Hulk, T+N seems a lost cause.
This still isn't even true.
Empty Board does not also mean Empty Hand and Tapped Out Mana
You're right, in situation with zero of your cards in graveyard, zero of your cards in exile, with 7GG available, with the right creature cards in your deck, no other permanents in play other than basic lands, and none of your opponents holding any counterspells or instant speed removal...
Yes, it is possible to win with Tooth and Nail on the spot.
True. And in a situation where you have at least 1 creature, no one else has any creatures, all mana is tapped, no one has counter spells or instant speed removal, Biorhythm ends the game.
Every card on the ban list can be countered or stopped in some way, shape or form. How cards should be judged is on what happens when they actually get played. For me, the last ten times T&N has been cast, the game ended instantly, despite a variety of different commanders and situations.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
"No one makes you play against it"
So what, I should scoop instantly if my opponent has green and a off chance that T&N could be in their deck?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
There are actually so many of these cards that they've earned their own name - "1-card combos". They include Hermit Druid, Survival of the Fittest, Ad Nauseam, Doomsday, and possibly a few others that I'm neglecting to remember. I don't see why discussion should begin with the one that costs the most mana, rather than the ones that cost the least.
+1
Now, there's why the ones that cost the most mana are less of a problem. If you are sitting across from a BUG deck with T&N combo finishes, and you're in a playgroup that doesn't mind such things, then you have until they get to 9 mana to find an Instant to interact with that. And, it can be pretty much any Instant. Sure, one counterspell is a blowout. But also just run anything that can kill a creature. Nuke Mike when the Undying trigger is on the stack. Nuke Palinchron when it's ETB is still on the stack, same with Kikki. If they spend the first few turns fishing for Boseju or some other card that prevents Instant speed interaction, you can exploit the compact, less-efficient nature of that deck by running more efficient combo's. Or if your group leans more toward Control, then start running graveyard-based combo's like Karmic-Lark or Living Death where any answers without graveyard exile to back them up will only delay the process. If you are going to play combo, welcome to the world of combo. Enjoy it.
Now, if we are going to look at 1-card combo's for being too efficient and compact, the crusade should start with Survival. The only window of disruption that really presents is when you finally for it, and even then, the ability to tutor back in the deck recursion means you only delayed the combo. It also shares the same overlap with T&N in that Timmy is just going to run it out and think it's cool, without necessarily having to hone the strategy in order for it to be imbalanced. Just an absurd card that is rightly banned everywhere else.
If the only answer for a card is for all players to hold up answers because the green player has 9 mana, or the game instantly ends, I think that's the actual definition of a format centralizing card. Not because the green player has any threats, not because the green player has setup anything, just because the green player has 9 mana.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."