The reason most any tutor is fine in EDH is that what is being searched for by the tutor is generally matched to the type of player who is using it. A competitive player may be aggressively digging for their combo, but a casual player is just searching up a piece of removal or a big splashy creature to play, or, generally, an answer to what their opponents are playing rather than just playing solitaire with tutors to end the game. Just because the things you would do with Tooth and Nail or Demonic Tutor would end the game quickly does not mean that I or another, more casual player, would do the same. The very fun uses of those cards for casual players are exactly why they will remain legal.
And now I get to steal an argument for my own nefarious purposes, tacking on nicely to the mention of a card in a couple other posts recently!
Why doesn't this argument apply to Braids? The people who are going to Dark Ritual or Sol Ring into Braids t2 know exactly what horrifically oppressive thing they're doing in a casual context and how it would affect the game, and they aren't nearly the only people who would run Braids. The only deck I've run Braids in while she was legal juggled all kinds of things into and out of graveyards for sweet LtB/EtB effects and value, it didn't just drop her as soon as possible to crush people's early board states into oblivion. And oh my, does it ever miss her. She was a great, easily recurrable engine to feed creatures into to reuse, and in combination with other cards, she managed opponents' board states fairly well. I have met one person, in almost eight years of playing this format, who tried to break Braids, and it honestly wasn't any worse than your typical competitive Zur build. And even if it were particularly oppressive to play her as a commander in a competitive context... so what? Doesn't the argument that casual players aren't going to be doing anything close to what competitive players would do apply here too?
This actually makes perfect sense IMO.
I think the reasoning is that cards like Braids are "fall guys", i.e. an explicit ban that is supposed to set an example for other cards for playgroup-level implicit bans:
Quote from mtgcommander.net »
These cards (and others like them) should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game.
Emphasis added. In short, it is social engineering via legislation, and probably the root cause of many (most?) of the inconsistencies of the ban list. Nothing else makes sense.
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
Except in practice it ends up being "This is the way we are doing it, tough ***** if you want to play the cards we banned"
Overcoming the inertia of the ban list in anything other than a small house group is nearly impossible. House ruling anything for me is actually impossible. So now I'm stuck with a bunch of cards I can't run because of inconsistent, arbitrary reasons.
There are cards on there for power reasons only. There are cards that aren't on the ban list because banning for power isn't enough.
There are cards on there just because they are expensive. There are cards not on it because expense isn't a reason to ban a card.
Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
Now you just need to do the opposite and listen to me when I say that playing without Sol Ring has been successful for me and my friends and you really should come along.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
The thing is, due the nature of a BAN list, your message actually is "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
What do you think of changing it to a "recommended ban list" or "guideline ban list" or some such instead? That would be a much more accurate translation of your message as you stated it here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
The thing is, due the nature of a BAN list, your message actually is "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
What do you think of changing it to a "recommended ban list" or "guideline ban list" or some such instead? That would be a much more accurate translation of your message as you stated it here.
I don't think that will do anything. The format is too well established now.
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
The thing is, due the nature of a BAN list, your message actually is "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
What do you think of changing it to a "recommended ban list" or "guideline ban list" or some such instead? That would be a much more accurate translation of your message as you stated it here.
Calling it a banlist allows for players who don't know each other to have a stable and constant ruleset to play by. Once you officially call it a guideline you render public games unplayable.
survival of the fittest is one of the most broken cards in magic and should be put on the ban list. It ruins the inconsistent nature of the format, it is expensive, and is too strong at what it does.
Survival certainly isn't a budget card, but it's far from a barrier-to-entry level price. TCG mid has it at $42.11 right now. Scalding Tarn costs more than twice that ($86.39). Strong cards playable in multiple formats that haven't been reprinted in a long time simply have high-demand, low-supply and thus cost more. Economics 101.
That said, if Survival were banned, I'd be sad for my Ezuri deck where Masked Admirers lets be build up a huge threat of elves, but it's about it. I would find a replacement, and I wouldn't complain very much (certainly I'd be less upset than when the deck lost Rofellos).
Two things to remember. One, we don't do cascading bans. In other words, we avoid, "this, so that," because that's a path to an unmanageable list. Two, we think about the format in terms of bringing people over to our way of thinking, not homogenizing the format so that it fits all tastes. I know this one is a little hard to swallow for some folks, but it would be disingenuous to proclaim otherwise. Our consistent message has been "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
The thing is, due the nature of a BAN list, your message actually is "this is the way we're doing it, hope you come along."
What do you think of changing it to a "recommended ban list" or "guideline ban list" or some such instead? That would be a much more accurate translation of your message as you stated it here.
Calling it a banlist allows for players who don't know each other to have a stable and constant ruleset to play by. Once you officially call it a guideline you render public games unplayable.
"Unplayable" is serious hyberbole. I think it would just remove some of the stigma when you want to play a card on the list.
Could also call it a "dangerous cards list" or something. Cards that have high potential for "bad" games, use at your own risk. Drink responsibly. Surgeon general's commander's warning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
Might be hyperbole. But I've seen enough games absolutely ruined due to arguing over "what is legal". The banlist being "official" keeps games safer in general.
Might be hyperbole. But I've seen enough games absolutely ruined due to arguing over "what is legal". The banlist being "official" keeps games safer in general.
I've seen people getting assaulted with a 12 inch cheese pretzel over rubbing in the prime time ban to someone that liked the card. Beer was involved, but smart players scooped before that spilled. Spoiler alert: beer in card sleeves sucks.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
This interchange with Carthage was yet another example of why people are banging their heads against the wall over the ban list.
Carthage: If power level isn't a criteria and we're only talking about accidental abuse here, Tinker, Gifts, Time Vault, Bargain, Tolarian Academy should come off. Response: Wow, you must want Blue artifacts to be a super powerful deck. Good thing the RC doesn't make the list for competitive players like you, or we'd all be getting rekt by Blue artifacts.
Carthage: Ok, if we actually are concerned with policing overpowered decks, then Sol Ring, Crypt, D-Tutor, Survival, Necropotence, etc, should be on the list. Response; It sounds like you just want the list balanced for competitve play. Good thing the RC doesn't make the list for competitive players like you, or it would be gloves off for combo decks not using those cards.
Whatever route you take, there is some sort of practiced Ad Hominem retort to discredit the person as being "competitive". And evidently, these competitives want to both abuse powerful cards and to have them banned so that they can abuse the next most powerful cards. Basically, if you notice any gameplay issue with any card whatsoever, then that fact itself is prima facie evidence that you are the problem, not the card.
It is one thing to have a ban list that is inconsistent here and there on individual cards. It's another thing though when the core precepts of rationale behind the list are circular and self-defeating. Together with this idea that "competitiveness" is beind every proposed ban list change, ever, here's another short list of patent contraditions in the philosophy:
1) The ban list isn't intended to balance the format for public play, despite the fact that it's the only thing available for public play to regulate itself and private groups have other options. The old "Such and such card isn't a problem in my local group where I got others to stop playing it" line.
2) The definition for what "power level" is subjective, despite the fact that it's not. The old "a tutor is only as broken as the intent of the person who uses it" line.
3) The RC doesn't ban on power level, except when they do. The old "Gifts/Bargain are obviously broken, but Intuition/Necropotence are clearly ok" line.
4) A card being an offender in other eternal formats of years past has no bearing on its legality in EDH, except when it does. The old "Painter's Servant/Protean Hulk/Time Vault/etc are clearly not for this format, but Survival is awesome" line.
survival of the fittest is one of the most broken cards in magic and should be put on the ban list. It ruins the inconsistent nature of the format, it is expensive, and is too strong at what it does.
Survival certainly isn't a budget card, but it's far from a barrier-to-entry level price. TCG mid has it at $42.11 right now. Scalding Tarn costs more than twice that ($86.39). Strong cards playable in multiple formats that haven't been reprinted in a long time simply have high-demand, low-supply and thus cost more. Economics 101.
That said, if Survival were banned, I'd be sad for my Ezuri deck where Masked Admirers lets be build up a huge threat of elves, but it's about it. I would find a replacement, and I wouldn't complain very much (certainly I'd be less upset than when the deck lost Rofellos).
It costs more than an entire pre constructed commander deck for a single card.
And it's closest replacement, fauna shaman, is also not a budget card.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
survival of the fittest is one of the most broken cards in magic and should be put on the ban list. It ruins the inconsistent nature of the format, it is expensive, and is too strong at what it does.
Survival certainly isn't a budget card, but it's far from a barrier-to-entry level price. TCG mid has it at $42.11 right now. Scalding Tarn costs more than twice that ($86.39). Strong cards playable in multiple formats that haven't been reprinted in a long time simply have high-demand, low-supply and thus cost more. Economics 101.
That said, if Survival were banned, I'd be sad for my Ezuri deck where Masked Admirers lets be build up a huge threat of elves, but it's about it. I would find a replacement, and I wouldn't complain very much (certainly I'd be less upset than when the deck lost Rofellos).
It costs more than an entire pre constructed commander deck for a single card.
And it's closest replacement, fauna shaman, is also not a budget card.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
And my Mishra's Workshop costs more than any two of my constructed (not preconstructed MSRP) decks, except my 5C one which has a full set of duals and my Karn deck which contains Workshop. Workshop is by far the best single card in the deck. Sure, I could replace it with a Wastes, but by the same logic you can replace Demonic Tutor with Diabolic Tutor, or replace Survival with Mwonvuli Beast Tracker.
Or how about Crucible of Worlds? That's not a replicable effect. You might be able to justify replacing it with a Sun Titan or something, but it's nowhere near the same thing, especially if additional land drops (Oracle of Mul Daya, etc.) get involved. Crucible costs another 50% more than Survival, and it can be put into every single deck, instead of being limited to Gx decks which care about their creatures. (Which, admittedly, is most Gx decks.)
The specific price of a card is not nearly as relevant as how necessary it is percieved. And Survival is cheaper than a lot of other staples in the format, many of which are considered more important to have than Survival is.
survival of the fittest is one of the most broken cards in magic and should be put on the ban list. It ruins the inconsistent nature of the format, it is expensive, and is too strong at what it does.
Survival certainly isn't a budget card, but it's far from a barrier-to-entry level price. TCG mid has it at $42.11 right now. Scalding Tarn costs more than twice that ($86.39). Strong cards playable in multiple formats that haven't been reprinted in a long time simply have high-demand, low-supply and thus cost more. Economics 101.
That said, if Survival were banned, I'd be sad for my Ezuri deck where Masked Admirers lets be build up a huge threat of elves, but it's about it. I would find a replacement, and I wouldn't complain very much (certainly I'd be less upset than when the deck lost Rofellos).
It costs more than an entire pre constructed commander deck for a single card.
And it's closest replacement, fauna shaman, is also not a budget card.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
And my Mishra's Workshop costs more than any two of my constructed (not preconstructed MSRP) decks, except my 5C one which has a full set of duals and my Karn deck which contains Workshop. Workshop is by far the best single card in the deck. Sure, I could replace it with a Wastes, but by the same logic you can replace Demonic Tutor with Diabolic Tutor, or replace Survival with Mwonvuli Beast Tracker.
Or how about Crucible of Worlds? That's not a replicable effect. You might be able to justify replacing it with a Sun Titan or something, but it's nowhere near the same thing, especially if additional land drops (Oracle of Mul Daya, etc.) get involved. Crucible costs another 50% more than Survival, and it can be put into every single deck, instead of being limited to Gx decks which care about their creatures. (Which, admittedly, is most Gx decks.)
The specific price of a card is not nearly as relevant as how necessary it is percieved. And Survival is cheaper than a lot of other staples in the format, many of which are considered more important to have than Survival is.
Well then I'll echo the other sentiments. I've personally avoided Survival because, like Prime Time, I feel like it is inherently against one of the tenets of EDH. Repeatable tutoring, especially on something that isn't really disadvantageous, destroys the highlander nature of this format. I've never been afraid of a Survival across the table; I don't think it's too powerful. But I believe it far surpasses something like Painter's Servant for "going against the spirit of the format", or "not made with this format in mind."
This argument certainly extends to other tutors, and excessive draw engines, as well as heavily focused combo decks like Ad Nauseum. The thing is that Ad Nauseum is just one deck. Survival of the Fittest is a lot of decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
As said earlier, the reason why some of us are displeased with the ban list is because it's inconsistent... The other main point is that the "spirit of the format" argument is ridiculously vague and unclear and it is more like a crutch people use to say "well that's not what we mean" when they don't like someone's argument or don't want to make a move.
At some point don't you just say 'well the RC refuses to runs things in a way I find consistent', and live with the result? Or do you think if enough people say it they will change? Genuine question, we dont share an opinion on this so I am interested in your response.
Whatever route you take, there is some sort of practiced Ad Hominem retort to discredit the person as being "competitive". And evidently, these competitives want to both abuse powerful cards and to have them banned so that they can abuse the next most powerful cards. Basically, if you notice any gameplay issue with any card whatsoever, then that fact itself is prima facie evidence that you are the problem, not the card.
Can't the answer be in the middle? I know both sides want black and white, but is the real answer is in the middle? Like the stuff (all opinion by a single group) thats 'too broken' to play is banned, but the stuff thats 'mildly broken' is OK as long as people play nice. I get that no opinion where that line is would be right, but isnt the existence of the line good?
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.
If you're bored, I'd appreciate if you didn't troll the thread with intentionally awful arguments. I'm not going to address it directly, Carthage, because that would be a waste of my time.
The reason most any tutor is fine in EDH is that what is being searched for by the tutor is generally matched to the type of player who is using it. A competitive player may be aggressively digging for their combo, but a casual player is just searching up a piece of removal or a big splashy creature to play, or, generally, an answer to what their opponents are playing rather than just playing solitaire with tutors to end the game. Just because the things you would do with Tooth and Nail or Demonic Tutor would end the game quickly does not mean that I or another, more casual player, would do the same. The very fun uses of those cards for casual players are exactly why they will remain legal.
Each time you think a card should be banned for some reason that amounts more or less to purely "too powerful," I recommend that you take an introspective look at yourself to see if it is you that are a problem in the format and not the card.
I'd consider this a waste of my time replying to this nonsense. You can still hammer nails without a hammer. The logic of "You can run broken cards, but you can't do broken things with it" is quite the stretch. The toolbox that accompanies Survival of the Fittest doesn't make it broken, it does that no matter what creatures you run in your deck. Why even ban cards with your ridiculous reasoning? The onus can't be on the player to play "fairly" because nobody does, or will. Would you buy a corvette, and then throw a Prius power plant into it? No, you wouldn't, ever. Same logic applies.
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Infraction for trolling.
Whatever route you take, there is some sort of practiced Ad Hominem retort to discredit the person as being "competitive". And evidently, these competitives want to both abuse powerful cards and to have them banned so that they can abuse the next most powerful cards. Basically, if you notice any gameplay issue with any card whatsoever, then that fact itself is prima facie evidence that you are the problem, not the card.
Can't the answer be in the middle? I know both sides want black and white, but is the real answer is in the middle? Like the stuff (all opinion by a single group) thats 'too broken' to play is banned, but the stuff thats 'mildly broken' is OK as long as people play nice. I get that no opinion where that line is would be right, but isnt the existence of the line good?
Ok, it's possible that Necropotence-Bargain is just a bad example, since Bargain happens to be the more powerful card. Because the rationale isn't that Bargain is just too powerful of a card for the format, it's that it's "accidentally" too powerful in the hands of players with pure intent, while most of the time the player is the problem. So if it were just an issue of line-drawing, there wouldn't be so much dissonance. The problem is with drawing a line, then denying that any such line was drawn and labeling those who see a line as obtuse try-hards who have no sense of fun.
In other words as above, the power-level difference between Necro and Bargain can't possibly be the difference why one is banned and the other isn't. The difference is marginal. If it were otherwise, there would probably not be so many people who voluntarily have decided not to play Necropotence. The difference is the "because I said so" factor. But anyone who points that out, either leaning on a ban of Necro or an unban of Bargain, is going to be first spoon fed the power-level difference, and then smacked on their bottom and sent on their way with admonitions that it's only "try-hards" who care about power-level.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
I think Evolutionary Leap is the closest thing we have to a replacement. The card's not terrible, just far from Survival of the Fittest power because you need the creatures in play to use and the ones you get back are random. But hey, it's a sweet sac outlet.
Also for the purposes of debating over how the ban list is set up I do have to side with the "unban the other powerful cards" side of the line. Right now I am happy with how my games play out and am not too concerned about what should or shouldn't be banned. However, there are some cards on the list that seem to strike me as odd like the VERY much talked about Protean Hulk and some others. The problem with all of this debating though is that we're still at the mercy of what the RC deems ban worthy or not. From some comments before on this thread and others I do know they read our comments and see the feedback. How much of that feedback actually matters in their testing and decisions? I have no idea, but I'd guess very little. There is something good to be said about that though. Even though the fundamental guidelines of the format are constantly being scrutinized and argued over, the format is still good enough to continue playing and enjoying regardless. I guess that means they're doing something right since we're still all playing EDH. I'd only prefer that the members of the RC communicate more thoroughly about what cards are being tested to come off and or go on the list. Maybe they do and I just haven't payed close enough attention.
In other words as above, the power-level difference between Necro and Bargain can't possibly be the difference why one is banned and the other isn't. The difference is marginal. If it were otherwise, there would probably not be so many people who voluntarily have decided not to play Necropotence. The difference is the "because I said so" factor. But anyone who points that out, either leaning on a ban of Necro or an unban of Bargain, is going to be first spoon fed the power-level difference, and then smacked on their bottom and sent on their way with admonitions that it's only "try-hards" who care about power-level.
I appreciate the response, but I see a real issue here. Not getting the cards immediately, having to exile any discards, plus getting the cards right before the end of your turn actually does seem like plenty to draw a line between. I don't mean to feed into your rhetoric, but I genuinely see the difference. I don't think people who discredit the difference are 'try-hards', we just dont agree. I see why in a 'competitive' meta they would be a lot closer in power level, but I think denial of their power difference in a casual meta seems suspect as not trying to understand someone else's POV.
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.
Try hards definitely understand the difference between Bargain and Necropotence. Resolving Bargain is 39+- cards drawn, and the controller will win.
Necropotence, while allowing you to dig, at least doesn't allow you a grip of 30+ cards that any well built deck with Bargain can cast in the same turn. You at least have to go down to 7, and you don't get them until end of turn.
This is like comparing Griselbrand to Damia, Sage of Stone, as they don't serve the same purpose but one is infinitely more powerful than the other at enabling stupid numbers of combos after resolution.
There's no way yawgmoth's bargain hits the table and doesn't completely warp the game around messing with the controller: You'll gave to, or you'll lose.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
I think Evolutionary Leap is the closest thing we have to a replacement. The card's not terrible, just far from Survival of the Fittest power because you need the creatures in play to use and the ones you get back are random. But hey, it's a sweet sac outlet.
Also for the purposes of debating over how the ban list is set up I do have to side with the "unban the other powerful cards" side of the line. Right now I am happy with how my games play out and am not too concerned about what should or shouldn't be banned. However, there are some cards on the list that seem to strike me as odd like the VERY much talked about Protean Hulk and some others. The problem with all of this debating though is that we're still at the mercy of what the RC deems ban worthy or not. From some comments before on this thread and others I do know they read our comments and see the feedback. How much of that feedback actually matters in their testing and decisions? I have no idea, but I'd guess very little. There is something good to be said about that though. Even though the fundamental guidelines of the format are constantly being scrutinized and argued over, the format is still good enough to continue playing and enjoying regardless. I guess that means they're doing something right since we're still all playing EDH. I'd only prefer that the members of the RC communicate more thoroughly about what cards are being tested to come off and or go on the list. Maybe they do and I just haven't payed close enough attention.
Birthing Pod is a lot closer to Survival than Evolutionary Leap. Don't let the similar mana costs fool you. Leap is more like an Abundance/Carnage Altar hybrid.
Had my "omg they banned prophet...but not the 10 other more broken cards" argument at my weekly tournament. They argued most the cards are in niche deck builds and prophet gets banned because it's in every GU. Proceed to lose finals to two turn 1 mana crypts (one into a rhystic study, other went Yisan) as I'm going last...because damn if that card is not in literally every deck that can afford one and is way more broken than prophet. I get a lot of fun out of losing turn 3 in EDH.
The only reason I can see this card as not being banned is for the fun factor of using a card with no other applicable format and the money invested by EDH players, since it goes in 99.9% of deck builds and costs $150+. On the flipside I hate telling new players this card belongs in every deck they own and they're missing out if they don't pay up. Most expensive cards can be avoided by not building a certain deck that requires this...but every player without a mana crypt is missing an expensive "must have" no matter what they build.
I think the reasoning is that cards like Braids are "fall guys", i.e. an explicit ban that is supposed to set an example for other cards for playgroup-level implicit bans:
Emphasis added. In short, it is social engineering via legislation, and probably the root cause of many (most?) of the inconsistencies of the ban list. Nothing else makes sense.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Except in practice it ends up being "This is the way we are doing it, tough ***** if you want to play the cards we banned"
Overcoming the inertia of the ban list in anything other than a small house group is nearly impossible. House ruling anything for me is actually impossible. So now I'm stuck with a bunch of cards I can't run because of inconsistent, arbitrary reasons.
There are cards on there for power reasons only. There are cards that aren't on the ban list because banning for power isn't enough.
There are cards on there just because they are expensive. There are cards not on it because expense isn't a reason to ban a card.
In the end, it's a mess.
Now you just need to do the opposite and listen to me when I say that playing without Sol Ring has been successful for me and my friends and you really should come along.
The thing is, due the nature of a BAN list, your message actually is "this is the way we're doing it,
hopeyou come along."What do you think of changing it to a "recommended ban list" or "guideline ban list" or some such instead? That would be a much more accurate translation of your message as you stated it here.
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 don't think that will do anything. The format is too well established now.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffCalling it a banlist allows for players who don't know each other to have a stable and constant ruleset to play by. Once you officially call it a guideline you render public games unplayable.
That said, if Survival were banned, I'd be sad for my Ezuri deck where Masked Admirers lets be build up a huge threat of elves, but it's about it. I would find a replacement, and I wouldn't complain very much (certainly I'd be less upset than when the deck lost Rofellos).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
"Unplayable" is serious hyberbole. I think it would just remove some of the stigma when you want to play a card on the list.
Could also call it a "dangerous cards list" or something. Cards that have high potential for "bad" games, use at your own risk. Drink responsibly. Surgeon
general'scommander's warning.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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI've seen people getting assaulted with a 12 inch cheese pretzel over rubbing in the prime time ban to someone that liked the card. Beer was involved, but smart players scooped before that spilled. Spoiler alert: beer in card sleeves sucks.
Carthage: If power level isn't a criteria and we're only talking about accidental abuse here, Tinker, Gifts, Time Vault, Bargain, Tolarian Academy should come off.
Response: Wow, you must want Blue artifacts to be a super powerful deck. Good thing the RC doesn't make the list for competitive players like you, or we'd all be getting rekt by Blue artifacts.
Carthage: Ok, if we actually are concerned with policing overpowered decks, then Sol Ring, Crypt, D-Tutor, Survival, Necropotence, etc, should be on the list.
Response; It sounds like you just want the list balanced for competitve play. Good thing the RC doesn't make the list for competitive players like you, or it would be gloves off for combo decks not using those cards.
Whatever route you take, there is some sort of practiced Ad Hominem retort to discredit the person as being "competitive". And evidently, these competitives want to both abuse powerful cards and to have them banned so that they can abuse the next most powerful cards. Basically, if you notice any gameplay issue with any card whatsoever, then that fact itself is prima facie evidence that you are the problem, not the card.
It is one thing to have a ban list that is inconsistent here and there on individual cards. It's another thing though when the core precepts of rationale behind the list are circular and self-defeating. Together with this idea that "competitiveness" is beind every proposed ban list change, ever, here's another short list of patent contraditions in the philosophy:
1) The ban list isn't intended to balance the format for public play, despite the fact that it's the only thing available for public play to regulate itself and private groups have other options. The old "Such and such card isn't a problem in my local group where I got others to stop playing it" line.
2) The definition for what "power level" is subjective, despite the fact that it's not. The old "a tutor is only as broken as the intent of the person who uses it" line.
3) The RC doesn't ban on power level, except when they do. The old "Gifts/Bargain are obviously broken, but Intuition/Necropotence are clearly ok" line.
4) A card being an offender in other eternal formats of years past has no bearing on its legality in EDH, except when it does. The old "Painter's Servant/Protean Hulk/Time Vault/etc are clearly not for this format, but Survival is awesome" line.
It costs more than an entire pre constructed commander deck for a single card.
And it's closest replacement, fauna shaman, is also not a budget card.
It's not like scalding tarn, which is a utility effect that you can replace quite easily( a new player won't worry too much about having perfect mana, replacing duals with basics is not a big deal ). But you can't replace survival with a similar effect, because one doesn't exist.
Or how about Crucible of Worlds? That's not a replicable effect. You might be able to justify replacing it with a Sun Titan or something, but it's nowhere near the same thing, especially if additional land drops (Oracle of Mul Daya, etc.) get involved. Crucible costs another 50% more than Survival, and it can be put into every single deck, instead of being limited to Gx decks which care about their creatures. (Which, admittedly, is most Gx decks.)
The specific price of a card is not nearly as relevant as how necessary it is percieved. And Survival is cheaper than a lot of other staples in the format, many of which are considered more important to have than Survival is.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
You are focusing too heavily on the cost aspect.
That was only one part of why I said it was bad.
It is expensive ON TOP of everything else.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This argument certainly extends to other tutors, and excessive draw engines, as well as heavily focused combo decks like Ad Nauseum. The thing is that Ad Nauseum is just one deck. Survival of the Fittest is a lot of decks.
I'd consider this a waste of my time replying to this nonsense. You can still hammer nails without a hammer. The logic of "You can run broken cards, but you can't do broken things with it" is quite the stretch. The toolbox that accompanies Survival of the Fittest doesn't make it broken, it does that no matter what creatures you run in your deck. Why even ban cards with your ridiculous reasoning? The onus can't be on the player to play "fairly" because nobody does, or will. Would you buy a corvette, and then throw a Prius power plant into it? No, you wouldn't, ever. Same logic applies.
Ok, it's possible that Necropotence-Bargain is just a bad example, since Bargain happens to be the more powerful card. Because the rationale isn't that Bargain is just too powerful of a card for the format, it's that it's "accidentally" too powerful in the hands of players with pure intent, while most of the time the player is the problem. So if it were just an issue of line-drawing, there wouldn't be so much dissonance. The problem is with drawing a line, then denying that any such line was drawn and labeling those who see a line as obtuse try-hards who have no sense of fun.
In other words as above, the power-level difference between Necro and Bargain can't possibly be the difference why one is banned and the other isn't. The difference is marginal. If it were otherwise, there would probably not be so many people who voluntarily have decided not to play Necropotence. The difference is the "because I said so" factor. But anyone who points that out, either leaning on a ban of Necro or an unban of Bargain, is going to be first spoon fed the power-level difference, and then smacked on their bottom and sent on their way with admonitions that it's only "try-hards" who care about power-level.
I think Evolutionary Leap is the closest thing we have to a replacement. The card's not terrible, just far from Survival of the Fittest power because you need the creatures in play to use and the ones you get back are random. But hey, it's a sweet sac outlet.
Also for the purposes of debating over how the ban list is set up I do have to side with the "unban the other powerful cards" side of the line. Right now I am happy with how my games play out and am not too concerned about what should or shouldn't be banned. However, there are some cards on the list that seem to strike me as odd like the VERY much talked about Protean Hulk and some others. The problem with all of this debating though is that we're still at the mercy of what the RC deems ban worthy or not. From some comments before on this thread and others I do know they read our comments and see the feedback. How much of that feedback actually matters in their testing and decisions? I have no idea, but I'd guess very little. There is something good to be said about that though. Even though the fundamental guidelines of the format are constantly being scrutinized and argued over, the format is still good enough to continue playing and enjoying regardless. I guess that means they're doing something right since we're still all playing EDH. I'd only prefer that the members of the RC communicate more thoroughly about what cards are being tested to come off and or go on the list. Maybe they do and I just haven't payed close enough attention.
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls - Knowledge is Power U [Primer]
R Heartless Hidetsugu - The Art of Ending Games R
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - The Cluster HungersBG
Necropotence, while allowing you to dig, at least doesn't allow you a grip of 30+ cards that any well built deck with Bargain can cast in the same turn. You at least have to go down to 7, and you don't get them until end of turn.
This is like comparing Griselbrand to Damia, Sage of Stone, as they don't serve the same purpose but one is infinitely more powerful than the other at enabling stupid numbers of combos after resolution.
There's no way yawgmoth's bargain hits the table and doesn't completely warp the game around messing with the controller: You'll gave to, or you'll lose.
Sig and Avatar drawn by me.
Birthing Pod is a lot closer to Survival than Evolutionary Leap. Don't let the similar mana costs fool you. Leap is more like an Abundance/Carnage Altar hybrid.
The only reason I can see this card as not being banned is for the fun factor of using a card with no other applicable format and the money invested by EDH players, since it goes in 99.9% of deck builds and costs $150+. On the flipside I hate telling new players this card belongs in every deck they own and they're missing out if they don't pay up. Most expensive cards can be avoided by not building a certain deck that requires this...but every player without a mana crypt is missing an expensive "must have" no matter what they build.
[/rant][/salt][/tableflip]