In this format, I honestly don't see many people running Amulet of Vigor without the intent to abuse it in combo or enable their combos. Should that be banned as well? And I honestly can't think of many other combos apart from Iona/Grindstone that are used; hardly "a lot of combos, especially when we look at broken combos. And yes, I'm taking you overly literally, but you've gotta qualify that at least a little more. Sure, it's a combo piece, and nothing more. But the question is, is it truly degenerate enough to warrant banning. That's the real question there, not whether or not it's simply a common combo piece.
Amulet of Vigor isn't a combo-enabler, its a combo-accelerator. It may be abused via Thawing Glaciers, but all the Amulet does is speed that combo up (from every other turn to once per turn).
Amulet of Vigor doesn't enable a combo that completely shuts down the opponent's ability to respond or end the game flat-out. Painter's Servant does both of those (Iona/Grindstone).
In this format, I honestly don't see many people running Amulet of Vigor without the intent to abuse it in combo or enable their combos. Should that be banned as well? And I honestly can't think of many other combos apart from Iona/Grindstone that are used; hardly "a lot of combos, especially when we look at broken combos. And yes, I'm taking you overly literally, but you've gotta qualify that at least a little more. Sure, it's a combo piece, and nothing more. But the question is, is it truly degenerate enough to warrant banning. That's the real question there, not whether or not it's simply a common combo piece.
I'm just trying to explain their reasoning behind the bans, not defending them.
Amulet of Vigor isn't a combo-enabler, its a combo-accelerator. It may be abused via Thawing Glaciers, but all the Amulet does is speed that combo up (from every other turn to once per turn).
Amulet of Vigor doesn't enable a combo that completely shuts down the opponent's ability to respond or end the game flat-out. Painter's Servant does both of those (Iona/Grindstone).
Disagree. I hate that I'm becoming predictable(and obnoxious!) by using examples from my Patron EDH every other post I make, but I'm gonna have to point you that direction. Patron of the Moon + Amulet of Vigor + Cloudstone Curio/Storm Cauldron. It's not necessarily a good combo(any combo where you need 3 cards is... somewhat subpar in a 100 card singleton, but it is a combo piece.
As to your second point, that bit was kind of my point. It's not that it's a combo piece, it's exactly how much crazy degeneracy it can fuel that should be the gauge, which runs counter to the arguments being put forward(though not necessarily supported, based on the comments made by the posters) that cards like Palinchron and Painter's Servant should be banned based on the argument that they are used for nothing but combo. Degeneracy and degeneracy alone is my argument, combo or not. Likewise, if we're going to ban things based on degeneracy, we ought take a look at the cards that make up the degeneracy. Painter's Servant and Grindstone both make the combo work, and if you were to take away one but leave the other the degeneracy would be gone as well. My argument is that it is Grindstone, a relatively poor choice of card in EDH, and Iona, a card that has "unfun prison" written in bold ink all over it, are more degenerate and "anti-fun" than the Servant is. Should more cards be printed that severely hate on colors, I'd be right there supporting the day Painter's Servant is banned(following it's unbanning, is my hope). But as things stand, I don't think it is truly degenerate enough to deserve its ban.
Also, @Waiting in the Weeds: Alright, thanks for the info, and I'm sorry for using you as my punching bag for the banning committee. I just don't think that's adequate logic for banning, at least, not as it stands.
I would argue that the card is not used for nothing but degeneracy. I use it in my Sliver Queen deck mainly to abuse with blink effects. I do have Wake and Reflection in there, sure, but if it were a Rasputin deck instead, I'd still be running it. The important thing though is not this (let's face it, the only cards on the banlist that would be used for nothing except degeneracy are Worldgorger, Biorhythm and LED), but the fact that it's not degenerate enough to start twisting your deck. That's why Hulk, Tinker, Recurring Nightmare, and so forth are there, if my understanding is correct - they are so powerfully degenerate that your deck will get better and better the more it focuses solely on abusing them.
I personally disagree, the effects are banned because they're functionally 1 card combos that are difficult to disrupt and can quickly provide insurmountable advantages. Recurring Nightmare is the weakest of the 3, but can fairly easily take over a game. It only gets really bad when combined with the Kamigawa dragons <cough> Yosei, Koko <cough> and, speak of the devil, Palinchron.
Your deck doesn't need to focus solely on abusing Hulk, Tinker, or Nightmare, but it doesn't need to because they're about as easy to use as a tarmogoyf, you drop them and they hit the ground running. They're all extremely good even if you aren't rocking any instant win combos, while hulk can quickly assemble a win in one or two trips to the GY because it doesn't RFG itself to use the trigger, even if you don't want to put in the pieces for a one death combo kill.
On emrakul,
Since when does casting cost mean anything? How many ways are there to cheat this thing into play turrn 5 or sooner? 20? 30?
What makes him so powerful is not his evasion with flying or his protection ability. It is the ahnihilator of 6. Cheat him into play early and the game is over.
On genesis wave,
I have never seen this card not cast for less than 25, and the 25 was on turn 5 or 6 I think. The he regrowthed it and cast it for 9, hit his fires and killed us all with infinite attacks. Just silly.
I have never seen this card not cast for less than 25, and the 25 was on turn 5 or 6 I think. The he regrowthed it and cast it for 9, hit his fires and killed us all with infinite attacks. Just silly.
I think I read that article! Still think it was an awesome play.
On emrakul,
Since when does casting cost mean anything? How many ways are there to cheat this thing into play turrn 5 or sooner? 20? 30?
What makes him so powerful is not his evasion with flying or his protection ability. It is the ahnihilator of 6. Cheat him into play early and the game is over.
The casting cost is important in Emrakul's case because you need to cast it to make it worthwhile. It's not just the annihilator 6 that makes it so powerful, it's the extra turn you get, which removes the problem of being tapped out for a whole turn, and gives your opponents very little time to deal with it before they get annihilated, as it were.
On genesis wave,
I have never seen this card not cast for less than 25, and the 25 was on turn 5 or 6 I think. The he regrowthed it and cast it for 9, hit his fires and killed us all with infinite attacks. Just silly.
If someone has 25 mana on turn five or six, they're going to do something ridiculous with it. Just because Genesis Wave is even more ridiculous than whatever else it could have been doesn't make it overpowered or ban-worthy. The same applies to any given amount of mana. It's not like Genesis Wave is even making it possible to win with less mana than it usually takes to win with a single card.
Also, @Waiting in the Weeds: Alright, thanks for the info, and I'm sorry for using you as my punching bag for the banning committee. I just don't think that's adequate logic for banning, at least, not as it stands.
It's ok, the banlist doesn't concern me much as the whole "house rules" are encouraged. I don't have to submit a report and argue on why Emrakul should be banned, because i can just talk with my friends, and agree to ban him. Same goes for unbanning, but that hasn't been an issue.
I use the banlist more of a extra umph for not running cards like tinker. I know if they unbanned something like Kukosho, i'd abuse him to hell and back, and that's how i'd win my games.
I can see why cards like Painter's Servant and recurring nightmare would be argue'd about- they're really fun cards that offer potential.
While some of these cards might be degenerate in the right scenario, they also have the potential to bring a wider variety of decks to a competitive level. One thing that plagues one LGS in my area is a lack of variety during EDH events. If cards like Recurring Nightmare and Painter's Servant were available again, players might look to decks that abuse them to shake down the tier 1 generals.
Though, I don't really hang out at that LGS much anyways.
The important thing though is not this (let's face it, the only cards on the banlist that would be used for nothing except degeneracy are Worldgorger, Biorhythm and LED), but the fact that it's not degenerate enough to start twisting your deck. That's why Hulk, Tinker, Recurring Nightmare, and so forth are there, if my understanding is correct - they are so powerfully degenerate that your deck will get better and better the more it focuses solely on abusing them.
I will agree with this on the premise that Hulk is an instant win when it triggers and something like Tinker is on the precipice of winning a game outright, but Kokusho is basically the black sheep out of all those cards. He's banned currently because he overcentralizes the game and he strongly encourages you to build around the card to get the maximum amount of mileage from him. The thing is though, Kokusho is far from being a degenerate card. Losing 5 life every now and then really isn't that bad considering it's like losing 2.5 life in normal 20 life Magic. And while the Kokshuo player just raked in a boatload of life, many EDH decks could care less about a player with massive amounts of life. General damage ignores life totals, Magister Sphinx/Sorin see a lot of play, and combo decks win without caring about life totals either.
Basically, it goes back to my main problem with how the ban list has so many inconsistencies in it. If you want to ban truly degenerate 1-card combo engines like Hulk, Gifts, and Tinker and leaving out lesser degenerate combo cards like Palinchron, I have no objections to that. But a card like Kokusho shouldn't be caught in the crossfire when using the "It warps your deck/overcentralizes the game" reasoning.
I will agree with this on the premise that Hulk is an instant win when it triggers and something like Tinker is on the precipice of winning a game outright, but Kokusho is basically the black sheep out of all those cards. He's banned currently because he overcentralizes the game and he strongly encourages you to build around the card to get the maximum amount of mileage from him. The thing is though, Kokusho is far from being a degenerate card. Losing 5 life every now and then really isn't that bad considering it's like losing 2.5 life in normal 20 life Magic. And while the Kokshuo player just raked in a boatload of life, many EDH decks could care less about a player with massive amounts of life. General damage ignores life totals, Magister Sphinx/Sorin see a lot of play, and combo decks win without caring about life totals either.
Basically, it goes back to my main problem with how the ban list has so many inconsistencies in it. If you want to ban truly degenerate 1-card combo engines like Hulk, Gifts, and Tinker and leaving out lesser degenerate combo cards like Palinchron, I have no objections to that. But a card like Kokusho shouldn't be caught in the crossfire when using the "It warps your deck/overcentralizes the game" reasoning.
Are you suggesting
+Palinchron
-Kukosho
I think when the format has no set amount of players, you could gain 30 life and deal 30 damage with a recurrable creature for 6cmc.
I think your hatred for palinchron because it's part of infinite combos is a bit unreasonable. Palinchron is a great card by itself, and not used JUST for combos.
I think when the format has no set amount of players, you could gain 30 life and deal 30 damage with a recurrable creature for 6cmc.
I think your hatred for palinchron because it's part of infinite combos is a bit unreasonable. Palinchron is a great card by itself, and not used JUST for combos.
It could be just me but I believe that I have posted in this forum long enough to consider that SC could be playing advocatus diaboli on this matter. That and earlier he did mention: -
Disclaimer: I play a lot of devil's advocate when it comes to EDH ban list discussion. I don't fully agree with the criteria used by the RC to decide what's banned, but I'll argue their criteria in arguing for/against cards for the sake of consistency. When it's all said and done, I want to see the ban list get smaller, not bigger. I don't have a problem with Palinchron being unbanned at all because its power level is totally acceptable, but I can bet there would be very few people complaining if Palinchron did get banned.
And yes, I will complain if Palinchron does get banned I am going to reiterate that while it is true that most players that play Palinchron do not use it "honestly", it is probably the point of the game for players not to use cards "honestly". Case in point, few players would use Rite of Replication on innocent critters like Llanowar Elves and few players will use Jhoira of the Ghitu to suspend something like Greater Gargadon. If anybody is to use "this card is never used honestly and therefore this card warrants a ban", they'd better draw the line somewhere; there is a very, very thin line between "broken" usage of a card and "crowning moment of awesome" use of a card.
Admittedly, the "popular" usage of Palinchron tiptoes on this line but unlike most of the other combos, it requires at the very least: -
The banlist isn't there for your playgroup. If your playgroup agrees on stuff like Power 9, then by all means go for it. The RC created these rules primarily so that when I play with you (i.e. strangers), I'm not going to be playing some jerk who combos off turn 2 for 45 minutes.
This is the reasoning I don't like. Minimizing the banned list, not zeroing it out, will not lead to turn 2 45-minute combos, and there's nothing in the rules aside from the over-grown banned list that governs expectations, aside from the "social contract" which is more of a "don't be a douchebag" than a "decks must consist of X, Y, Z with a fundamental turn of A and be incapable of winning a table prior to turn B with probability C".
Every deck SHOULD be playing 10-15 dedicated answers, and since this is multiplayer, the answers should be flexible (i.e. vindicate destroys way more permanents than red elemental blast). This is just good magic, it's not serious imposition upon your creativity or fun. A decent casual deck will probably run 6ish answers, expand the denominator and you land at roughly 10 slots in a 100 card deck. If a deck is truly too much to handle, to the point where you'd be inclined to quit for the day over it, simply ask them to swap decks or swap tables. If you don't like my deck and ask me to play at another table or change decks, I won't get butt hurt over it or call you a cry baby if you're a respectful adult about it.
If someone exhibits genuinely anti-social MTG behavior, griefing, trash-talking, etc. Then shoo them away. Otherwise, play hard and stop nerfing the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think EDH would be more fun for the majority of participants if players just showed eachother their decks rather than actually playing games out."
@Ogre: I feel that the list isn't meant to hinder your playgroup, rather (as someone else pointed out) it allows for a base set of rules which let new players to your group join in, without needing a tutorial on your house rules. My playgroup allows gold-bordered cards, as long as the entire deck is sleeved. This rule has allowed newer players the chance to obtain older, powerful cards, at an affordable price.
Taking a look at recurring nightmare, I would like to see it unbanned as well. It's extremely powerful, but so is sol ring and top, and sol ring and top don't have color restrictions.
Taking a look at recurring nightmare, I would like to see it unbanned as well. It's extremely powerful, but so is sol ring and top, and sol ring and top don't have color restrictions.
Except Sol Ring and Top are deck fixers, whereas Recurring Nightmare is a game breaking combo piece.
And before you say anything against Sol Ring, remember that it is banned in EDH. In 1v1 only. In multiplayer, Sol Ring's impact actually speeds up the matches (making it desirable to leave it legal).
Basically what fzian said. I never said I want to see Palinchron banned.
I think your hatred for palinchron because it's part of infinite combos is a bit unreasonable. Palinchron is a great card by itself, and not used JUST for combos.
What else is Palichron used for in being a standalone card? The fact that it's a free 4/5 flyer that can protect itself is definitely nice, but look at the big picture and in a person's decision to add Palinchron to their deck. If you look at a deck that has Palinchron, there is almost always a mana doubler in the deck, which pretty much confirms that Palinchron is played with the intention of using it for a combo and not because it's decent standalone card. It's no less than seeing a Power Artifact in a player's deck and seeing Grim Monolith next to it, except that's more extreme. No one is probably going to say that Power Artifact should be banned, it's pretty obvious that the card is used for virtually nothing but going infinite with Grim Monolith.
@Ogre: I feel that the list isn't meant to hinder your playgroup, rather (as someone else pointed out) it allows for a base set of rules which let new players to your group join in, without needing a tutorial on your house rules. My playgroup allows gold-bordered cards, as long as the entire deck is sleeved. This rule has allowed newer players the chance to obtain older, powerful cards, at an affordable price.
Taking a look at recurring nightmare, I would like to see it unbanned as well. It's extremely powerful, but so is sol ring and top, and sol ring and top don't have color restrictions.
Right, I agree, we as a house can say "psh, tinker's legal" but then lets say I go to the shop in my neighborhood and either forget to change my deck OR deliberately leave it in because I have determined that the RC is flat out wrong on Tinker and it is of a perfectly reasonable power level for a multi-player game against decks with access to every answer in print. Now we have several problems:
1.) Paradigm Clash - "You" say it's broken/unreasonable I say it is not, the banned list agrees with you so I have less of a foothold in the debate. I'd counter this saying that the RC's banned list is subjective and governed by an amorphous definition of fun as defined by a group of people neither of us have ever met or played with.
2.) Logistical Issue - Let's say I conceded and remove the offending Tinker. What do I do? It's not as simple as throwing an extra basic into the deck. Each card in my deck is selected for a purpose and synergy. Taking out Tinker means that the "good with Tinker" cards lose value, so the cohesion of the deck takes a hit.
3.) Morale Issue - If I cut the Tinker, any loss I suffer is "tainted" as I had to "pull punches" to play that day, if I keep the Tinker any win can be attributed to my "unfair" advantage so my wins are tainted in that scenario.
So the "suffering" here is caused by someone like me, who disagrees with the RC's banned list philosophy* (not 100%, there's some cards that I agree with) trying to play with "you", someone who agrees with the banned list. How does one compromise in a mutually agreeable way? What about using broken cards for fun/useful purposes (like tinkering out sword of kaldra in a Rafiq deck).
*which seems like an imposition of what X friends have decided is "fun" for them. I mean seriously if games devolve into invincible deck X vs all his angry friends/tablemates I think the fun withers and either the group splinters or the invincible deck pilot gets bored and makes a new deck, unless the guy is a complete clod and can't grasp that his deck makes people want to skip MTG, in that case, just stop playing with him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think EDH would be more fun for the majority of participants if players just showed eachother their decks rather than actually playing games out."
1.) Paradigm Clash - "You" say it's broken/unreasonable I say it is not, the banned list agrees with you so I have less of a foothold in the debate. I'd counter this saying that the RC's banned list is subjective and governed by an amorphous definition of fun as defined by a group of people neither of us have ever met or played with.
This is a rather slippery slope. The line is subjective, certainly, but it should be drawn somewhere. The most visible of those involved have declared that the line is here so that all may have baseline. You can make arguments for the unbanning of many cards, and make arguments for the banning of many more, but most accept that this list is reasonable for a standard.
2.) Logistical Issue - Let's say I conceded and remove the offending Tinker. What do I do? It's not as simple as throwing an extra basic into the deck. Each card in my deck is selected for a purpose and synergy. Taking out Tinker means that the "good with Tinker" cards lose value, so the cohesion of the deck takes a hit.
It's a sliding scale here. Yes, they'll be worse, but all the cards you're playing to go with Tinker should be reasonable on their own. The biggest thing though?
This is what the standardized banlist is there to prevent.
Is there really a reasonable alternative that lets people from different groups show up to a venue and play a few games without forming up a rules committee first?
3.) Morale Issue - If I cut the Tinker, any loss I suffer is "tainted" as I had to "pull punches" to play that day, if I keep the Tinker any win can be attributed to my "unfair" advantage so my wins are tainted in that scenario.
Again, with the existence of a standardized ban list, I don't see this as an real issue. I could go on about how my Sek'Kuar deck would be so much better if Recurring Nightmare wasn't banned, but that's not actually an argument for the unbanning of Recurring Nightmare, and someone is going to mention that I could play Diabolic Servitude (/Transmute Artifact) and do just fine. Also, I'm not sure how difficult it is for you to build a deck that follows the standard banned list for use outside of your regular group, but it seems like you could have 5-7 cards that would allow you to make the switch and maintain the power level of the deck.
This is a rather slippery slope. The line is subjective, certainly, but it should be drawn somewhere. The most visible of those involved have declared that the line is here so that all may have baseline. You can make arguments for the unbanning of many cards, and make arguments for the banning of many more, but most accept that this list is reasonable for a standard.
It's a sliding scale here. Yes, they'll be worse, but all the cards you're playing to go with Tinker should be reasonable on their own. The biggest thing though?
This is what the standardized banlist is there to prevent.
Is there really a reasonable alternative that lets people from different groups show up to a venue and play a few games without forming up a rules committee first?
Again, with the existence of a standardized ban list, I don't see this as an real issue. I could go on about how my Sek'Kuar deck would be so much better if Recurring Nightmare wasn't banned, but that's not actually an argument for the unbanning of Recurring Nightmare, and someone is going to mention that I could play Diabolic Servitude (/Transmute Artifact) and do just fine. Also, I'm not sure how difficult it is for you to build a deck that follows the standard banned list for use outside of your regular group, but it seems like you could have 5-7 cards that would allow you to make the switch and maintain the power level of the deck.
Use of a standardized banned list?
There's damn near always alternatives.
My point was that the banned list is arbritrarily decided by people with their own definition of fun, which is subject to change whenever. There's not really a solid rubric one can apply to future card acquisitions to determine if said card will be banned at some point. Card by card "dude wtf" for the list of cards I do not agree with being banned:
Ancestral Recall - Really? This is problematic how? I'll never own one but if you did, why the hell can't you use it here? It's good, but it won't warp/destroy the format.
Black Lotus - Really? Same argument as with Recall.
Fastbond - How does it break? Worst thing I can imagine is crucible and stripmine. A 3 card combo that doesn't guarantee victory, just gives you a strong chance at securing it...I'm sure no other combination of 3 cards does this.
Gifts Ungiven - A card practically written as though the EDH founders commissioned it themselves, banned because it's a broken/powerful tutoring engine? Intuition is still legal and a very close proxy. Insidious Dreams can be massaged to create a game winning combo. Yes this is powerful, but it rewards skill from both the caster and the pile maker, and is answerable. Please show me a Gifts 4-card selection that has 100% chance to win regardless of opponents' decks.
Kokusho - He gets worse over time. Exsanguinate scales to anything and is not vulnerable to GY hate (LLOTV or Void), Exiling (STP, PTE, etc), stealing (knowledge exploitation for exsanguinate....um why?). Sure him being a creature gives him combo potential, but really, if he's changing zones there's got to be a piece that can be taken away with a timely K-grip.
Karakas - Gets unusually powerful in EDH, but if you're Karakasing guy A, guys B, C, D are probably gearing up to smash you. Also, wasteland/strip handles this PITA.
Library of Alexandria - See Ancestral Recall
LED - Ok so it's a combo piece, sucks by itself though. This is + Auriok Salvagers is bad but any of the other dozens of infinite mana combos are ok? Just wondering.
Tolarian Academy - Cradle and Sanctum are fine, but because this makes blue it's banned. Seriously, artifacts are destructible and so is Academy. Feel free to kill it with any of the plethora of nonbasic destroyers or just take away the artifacts and turn this scary land into a non-issue. Vesuva kills Academy so fast the evil blue mage can't even draw mana from it in response to you killing it!
Channel - Turn 1/2/3 Emrakul is bad, this should not happen very often. Suck it up and play another game.
Metalworker - summoning sickness, requires help going infinite, dies to approximately anything.
Moxes - See Ancestral Recall
Panoptic Mirror - I'm on the fence. Yea, you insta-win if you sneak a time warp on it. But that's 10 mana and you have to get back around to your upkeep. I think there's time to answer it but i'd need a bit more testing.
Protean Hulk - Honestly I don't know how this insta-wins in multiplayer. Someone enlighten me.
Recurring Nightmare - An engine card. A strong one at that. GY hate can hurt it, it can be k-gripped/wipe away'd off the table if they are not using it at that moment.
Sway of the Stars - Only absolutely and insanely broken with Jhoira. If I have enough mana to cast this and cast my general I'm probably pushing like 15 or so mana, that's enough to win a game, IMO.
Time Walk - see ancestral
Tinker - Blow up what gets Tinkere'd out, the worst offender might be Dags tinkering out the last peace to a combo, but the friggin general is tinker on a stick, this is just more Dagsing if you think about it. I HIGHLY doubt turn 1-3 DS Colossus will win a game.
Upheaval - Borderline. We have lots of board resets in the game, this one seems victimized because it's blue. I never played with it in EDH so I don't know if it is truly gross. Because I used to play Upheaval-Tog I respect this card, so I'm only partially against it being banned, like 30-40% in favor of unbanning.
Worldgorger Dragon - Similar to Upheaval in that I'm only partially against keeping it banned. It's one of the riskiest and most fragile combo pieces in the game AND it's severely hamstrung by lack of redundancy in EDH (3 animate dead effects). Was this ever problematic?
Staff of Domination - Boohoo it's only used for combos, says who? It's friggin amazing even without infinite mana being poured through it. This was overkill from the anti-combo camp, IMO.
Stuff I'd keep banned:
Painter's Servant - For convenience really, he'll continue to interact with more cards over time, might as well kill him now.
Limited Resources - Gross in MP
Coalition Victory, Biorhtym - 1 card combos are a little much, especially since the window/answers to them is narrow (basically counterspells or die).
Balance - too efficient, but I'd be open to unbanning it if a good argument was made. So like 50-60% sure it needs to stay banned.
Time Vault - too easy to combo with, you should have to work a little harder to win a table. I'm only like 30-40% sure it needs to stay banned, as the combo is breakable by cards that are reasonable to run (artifact destruction).
Yawgmoth's Bargain - 70% sure it should stay banned. On the one hand it's beastly, on the other, if you drop it, pay 15 life and draw a huge grip, you're getting EVERYONE'S attention, i.e. political suicide.
So my banned list is like 5 cards, but I'm open to negotiation.
Double post merged. -viper
So that said, who the hell am I to say that my list is better than the RC's? Exactly, I'm no one. Why does the RC's list take precendence? That's the question. It's a casual format, and we do need universal rules to allow strangers to play, but, there's so much squishiness in the way the banned list is laid out that I don't feel grossly out line challenging the RC's rulings on like 90% of the banned list.
This is very different than say in Boxing where kicking is banned. The solution to avoid being kicked is to stay out of kicking range, which eliminates the ability to punch (hey we're no longer boxing) or to immobilize the feet (hey we're rock'em'sock'em robots). A fighter who disagrees with the no-kicking and wants to kick forces the other participant to stop boxing and start kick-boxing. You'd be a putz to try to say that boxing needs techniques that are on its banned list, because it becomes a different game/sport. This is NOT the same as me wanting to have fun by using banned cards that the RC said are unfun. That's a matter of taste, we're still playing EDH* if I run tinker, we're just using more cards. The solution to countering my use of tinker is to run cards you'd already run (k-grip, naturalize, vindicate, etc) so we're definitely still playing MTG/EDH.
*singleton, general, color restrictions, blah blah blah.
The RC's list takes precedence because, to put it bluntly, they understand Magic better than you. I have played with both Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall, and I assure you they would be just as back breaking in EDH as they are in other formats. There are a few cards on the ban list I don't totally agree with, but their official list is miles better than what you've suggested.
Getting back to the details of your list, a common argument you use is that "this is just one card, it probably won't come up that much and cause problems". How frequently the card will be drawn is irrelevant when deciding whether to ban the card, and I suspect this is the major reason your list looks different from the ruling council's list. The real question is how backbreaking the card will be in the games in which you DO draw it. For example, Channel is nuts when you draw it with lots of things, not just Emrakul.
The other common counter-argument you use is that, "there are answers to this card, so it's not a problem." Again, the existence of answers doesn't let a card off the hook. The question is how likely are those answers to be drawn and how much time do opponents have to draw and use them. For a card like Recurring Nightmare, there are very few cards that actually answer it, and you have very little time to draw them. Same with Metalworker, especially when he comes out on turn 2. I believe you're confusing "I have answer card X in my deck" with "I'm likely to draw answer card X when they play broken card Y".
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
The other common counter-argument you use is that, "there are answers to this card, so it's not a problem." Again, the existence of answers doesn't let a card off the hook. The question is how likely are those answers to be drawn and how much time do opponents have to draw and use them. For a card like Recurring Nightmare, there are very few cards that actually answer it, and you have very little time to draw them. Same with Metalworker, especially when he comes out on turn 2. I believe you're confusing "I have answer card X in my deck" with "I'm likely to draw answer card X when they play broken card Y".
Wow, dies to removal is actually a valid argument here? Seriously, you must pack a ton of answers. I don't know about you, but devoting that much space to just ANSWERS in a primarily casual format just so you don't get steamrollered is not a viable alternative.
The other common counter-argument you use is that, "there are answers to this card, so it's not a problem." Again, the existence of answers doesn't let a card off the hook. The question is how likely are those answers to be drawn and how much time do opponents have to draw and use them. For a card like Recurring Nightmare, there are very few cards that actually answer it, and you have very little time to draw them. Same with Metalworker, especially when he comes out on turn 2. I believe you're confusing "I have answer card X in my deck" with "I'm likely to draw answer card X when they play broken card Y".
I'll just add to that last point saying that the RC has a vision of what they think EDH should look like. This is not necessarily their subjective idea of what is fun, but what they believe will attract the most players and keep the format healthy in the long run. Cards like Metalworker or Black Braids force decks to either pack a ☺☺☺☺-ton of answers so they can reliably stop their opponents, or become a fast combo deck to compete. In the opinion of the RC, this would not be healthy for the format, so these cards are banned. If you look at the banned list in this light, a lot of the RC's decisions make a lot more sense. For example, Library of Alexandria and the power nine are banned basically for the sole reason that they make the format appear less accessible to new comers. More players having more fun is EDH's main goal.
I always see people complaining about really long combos, could someone please show me one? And as a side note if there is infact a combo that takes 45 min, why would you ever not concede in the first 2 min or so?
Basically what fzian said. I never said I want to see Palinchron banned.
What else is Palichron used for in being a standalone card? The fact that it's a free 4/5 flyer that can protect itself is definitely nice, but look at the big picture and in a person's decision to add Palinchron to their deck. If you look at a deck that has Palinchron, there is almost always a mana doubler in the deck, which pretty much confirms that Palinchron is played with the intention of using it for a combo and not because it's decent standalone card. It's no less than seeing a Power Artifact in a player's deck and seeing Grim Monolith next to it, except that's more extreme. No one is probably going to say that Power Artifact should be banned, it's pretty obvious that the card is used for virtually nothing but going infinite with Grim Monolith.
Just because it's used in a combo, doesn't mean it's ONLY used in a combo. Palinchron pays for itself, it's almost a free 4/5 flyer, with a bounce effect. It's awesome, and i'd play it in mono-blue. Same goes for power artifact- what if i just want to use it for my Tower of Calamities? It sounds like you just have a problem with combos in general- i don't know if that's actually you're opinion and you're just trying to play devil's advocate or not, but whatever. When the day comes that every deck is running Palinchron infinite combo or anti-Palinchron combo: I'll eat my hat. Whereas if i was able to run Kukosho, suddenly i'd see a lot more decks that have destroy black/flying creatures, or counter black spells.
@ogrefoot- many of the cards you mentioned were there because of the $ cost. They tried to deter people from seeing EDH as this huge money project where only the most expensive decks win. Thus power 9 cards were banned.
Protean Hulk - Honestly I don't know how this insta-wins in multiplayer. Someone enlighten me.
No offense, but if you can't see his ability's application in a 100 card deck, i don't know what to tell you.
And saying "oh this can be countered" or "oh just krosan grip it" doesn't mean the card isn't broken. It's the worst argument i've heard to understate a cards power. As someone has in their signature (well similar) a 10/3 trample haste creature for {G}{G} isn't broken... because it dies to lightning bolt. That's just silly. RC tried to take out as many cards with "this resolves, and you don't have the answer, i win" cards, or at least the cards that let you play those cards faster. As for the boxing metaphor- It's just like how you described with the store. If you and your buddies want to kick-box, go ahead. But don't go to a boxing fight, and expect to kick-box. Kicking is banned, and it's in the rules. Don't like it? Submit a report to the RC and explain why you want kicking unbanned. Or just go kick-box with your friends because you like kick-boxing more; no one is stopping you. The point of an organized banlist is so anyone who knows boxing can box normally.
The RC was created when EDH was. I think the creators get a tiny bit of credit, and they're not in the mindset of "this isn't fun, lets ban it." If that were the case, silly cards they didn't like would be banned because "it's not fun." Rather the banlist was carefully considered, and is reexamined all the time, with a huge forum on elderdragonhighlander.net and the RC.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Amulet of Vigor isn't a combo-enabler, its a combo-accelerator. It may be abused via Thawing Glaciers, but all the Amulet does is speed that combo up (from every other turn to once per turn).
Amulet of Vigor doesn't enable a combo that completely shuts down the opponent's ability to respond or end the game flat-out. Painter's Servant does both of those (Iona/Grindstone).
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
I'm just trying to explain their reasoning behind the bans, not defending them.
Disagree. I hate that I'm becoming predictable(and obnoxious!) by using examples from my Patron EDH every other post I make, but I'm gonna have to point you that direction. Patron of the Moon + Amulet of Vigor + Cloudstone Curio/Storm Cauldron. It's not necessarily a good combo(any combo where you need 3 cards is... somewhat subpar in a 100 card singleton, but it is a combo piece.
As to your second point, that bit was kind of my point. It's not that it's a combo piece, it's exactly how much crazy degeneracy it can fuel that should be the gauge, which runs counter to the arguments being put forward(though not necessarily supported, based on the comments made by the posters) that cards like Palinchron and Painter's Servant should be banned based on the argument that they are used for nothing but combo. Degeneracy and degeneracy alone is my argument, combo or not. Likewise, if we're going to ban things based on degeneracy, we ought take a look at the cards that make up the degeneracy. Painter's Servant and Grindstone both make the combo work, and if you were to take away one but leave the other the degeneracy would be gone as well. My argument is that it is Grindstone, a relatively poor choice of card in EDH, and Iona, a card that has "unfun prison" written in bold ink all over it, are more degenerate and "anti-fun" than the Servant is. Should more cards be printed that severely hate on colors, I'd be right there supporting the day Painter's Servant is banned(following it's unbanning, is my hope). But as things stand, I don't think it is truly degenerate enough to deserve its ban.
Also, @Waiting in the Weeds: Alright, thanks for the info, and I'm sorry for using you as my punching bag for the banning committee. I just don't think that's adequate logic for banning, at least, not as it stands.
I personally disagree, the effects are banned because they're functionally 1 card combos that are difficult to disrupt and can quickly provide insurmountable advantages. Recurring Nightmare is the weakest of the 3, but can fairly easily take over a game. It only gets really bad when combined with the Kamigawa dragons <cough> Yosei, Koko <cough> and, speak of the devil, Palinchron.
Your deck doesn't need to focus solely on abusing Hulk, Tinker, or Nightmare, but it doesn't need to because they're about as easy to use as a tarmogoyf, you drop them and they hit the ground running. They're all extremely good even if you aren't rocking any instant win combos, while hulk can quickly assemble a win in one or two trips to the GY because it doesn't RFG itself to use the trigger, even if you don't want to put in the pieces for a one death combo kill.
Since when does casting cost mean anything? How many ways are there to cheat this thing into play turrn 5 or sooner? 20? 30?
What makes him so powerful is not his evasion with flying or his protection ability. It is the ahnihilator of 6. Cheat him into play early and the game is over.
On genesis wave,
I have never seen this card not cast for less than 25, and the 25 was on turn 5 or 6 I think. The he regrowthed it and cast it for 9, hit his fires and killed us all with infinite attacks. Just silly.
I think I read that article! Still think it was an awesome play.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
If someone has 25 mana on turn five or six, they're going to do something ridiculous with it. Just because Genesis Wave is even more ridiculous than whatever else it could have been doesn't make it overpowered or ban-worthy. The same applies to any given amount of mana. It's not like Genesis Wave is even making it possible to win with less mana than it usually takes to win with a single card.
It's ok, the banlist doesn't concern me much as the whole "house rules" are encouraged. I don't have to submit a report and argue on why Emrakul should be banned, because i can just talk with my friends, and agree to ban him. Same goes for unbanning, but that hasn't been an issue.
I use the banlist more of a extra umph for not running cards like tinker. I know if they unbanned something like Kukosho, i'd abuse him to hell and back, and that's how i'd win my games.
I can see why cards like Painter's Servant and recurring nightmare would be argue'd about- they're really fun cards that offer potential.
Though, I don't really hang out at that LGS much anyways.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
I will agree with this on the premise that Hulk is an instant win when it triggers and something like Tinker is on the precipice of winning a game outright, but Kokusho is basically the black sheep out of all those cards. He's banned currently because he overcentralizes the game and he strongly encourages you to build around the card to get the maximum amount of mileage from him. The thing is though, Kokusho is far from being a degenerate card. Losing 5 life every now and then really isn't that bad considering it's like losing 2.5 life in normal 20 life Magic. And while the Kokshuo player just raked in a boatload of life, many EDH decks could care less about a player with massive amounts of life. General damage ignores life totals, Magister Sphinx/Sorin see a lot of play, and combo decks win without caring about life totals either.
Basically, it goes back to my main problem with how the ban list has so many inconsistencies in it. If you want to ban truly degenerate 1-card combo engines like Hulk, Gifts, and Tinker and leaving out lesser degenerate combo cards like Palinchron, I have no objections to that. But a card like Kokusho shouldn't be caught in the crossfire when using the "It warps your deck/overcentralizes the game" reasoning.
Are you suggesting
+Palinchron
-Kukosho
I think when the format has no set amount of players, you could gain 30 life and deal 30 damage with a recurrable creature for 6cmc.
I think your hatred for palinchron because it's part of infinite combos is a bit unreasonable. Palinchron is a great card by itself, and not used JUST for combos.
It could be just me but I believe that I have posted in this forum long enough to consider that SC could be playing advocatus diaboli on this matter. That and earlier he did mention: -
And yes, I will complain if Palinchron does get banned I am going to reiterate that while it is true that most players that play Palinchron do not use it "honestly", it is probably the point of the game for players not to use cards "honestly". Case in point, few players would use Rite of Replication on innocent critters like Llanowar Elves and few players will use Jhoira of the Ghitu to suspend something like Greater Gargadon. If anybody is to use "this card is never used honestly and therefore this card warrants a ban", they'd better draw the line somewhere; there is a very, very thin line between "broken" usage of a card and "crowning moment of awesome" use of a card.
Admittedly, the "popular" usage of Palinchron tiptoes on this line but unlike most of the other combos, it requires at the very least: -
This is not one of those combos you can pull off on turn 2-3 and nothing that most decent decks couldn't disrupt.
This is the reasoning I don't like. Minimizing the banned list, not zeroing it out, will not lead to turn 2 45-minute combos, and there's nothing in the rules aside from the over-grown banned list that governs expectations, aside from the "social contract" which is more of a "don't be a douchebag" than a "decks must consist of X, Y, Z with a fundamental turn of A and be incapable of winning a table prior to turn B with probability C".
Every deck SHOULD be playing 10-15 dedicated answers, and since this is multiplayer, the answers should be flexible (i.e. vindicate destroys way more permanents than red elemental blast). This is just good magic, it's not serious imposition upon your creativity or fun. A decent casual deck will probably run 6ish answers, expand the denominator and you land at roughly 10 slots in a 100 card deck. If a deck is truly too much to handle, to the point where you'd be inclined to quit for the day over it, simply ask them to swap decks or swap tables. If you don't like my deck and ask me to play at another table or change decks, I won't get butt hurt over it or call you a cry baby if you're a respectful adult about it.
If someone exhibits genuinely anti-social MTG behavior, griefing, trash-talking, etc. Then shoo them away. Otherwise, play hard and stop nerfing the format.
Taking a look at recurring nightmare, I would like to see it unbanned as well. It's extremely powerful, but so is sol ring and top, and sol ring and top don't have color restrictions.
My H/W list
Except Sol Ring and Top are deck fixers, whereas Recurring Nightmare is a game breaking combo piece.
And before you say anything against Sol Ring, remember that it is banned in EDH. In 1v1 only. In multiplayer, Sol Ring's impact actually speeds up the matches (making it desirable to leave it legal).
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
Basically what fzian said. I never said I want to see Palinchron banned.
What else is Palichron used for in being a standalone card? The fact that it's a free 4/5 flyer that can protect itself is definitely nice, but look at the big picture and in a person's decision to add Palinchron to their deck. If you look at a deck that has Palinchron, there is almost always a mana doubler in the deck, which pretty much confirms that Palinchron is played with the intention of using it for a combo and not because it's decent standalone card. It's no less than seeing a Power Artifact in a player's deck and seeing Grim Monolith next to it, except that's more extreme. No one is probably going to say that Power Artifact should be banned, it's pretty obvious that the card is used for virtually nothing but going infinite with Grim Monolith.
Right, I agree, we as a house can say "psh, tinker's legal" but then lets say I go to the shop in my neighborhood and either forget to change my deck OR deliberately leave it in because I have determined that the RC is flat out wrong on Tinker and it is of a perfectly reasonable power level for a multi-player game against decks with access to every answer in print. Now we have several problems:
1.) Paradigm Clash - "You" say it's broken/unreasonable I say it is not, the banned list agrees with you so I have less of a foothold in the debate. I'd counter this saying that the RC's banned list is subjective and governed by an amorphous definition of fun as defined by a group of people neither of us have ever met or played with.
2.) Logistical Issue - Let's say I conceded and remove the offending Tinker. What do I do? It's not as simple as throwing an extra basic into the deck. Each card in my deck is selected for a purpose and synergy. Taking out Tinker means that the "good with Tinker" cards lose value, so the cohesion of the deck takes a hit.
3.) Morale Issue - If I cut the Tinker, any loss I suffer is "tainted" as I had to "pull punches" to play that day, if I keep the Tinker any win can be attributed to my "unfair" advantage so my wins are tainted in that scenario.
So the "suffering" here is caused by someone like me, who disagrees with the RC's banned list philosophy* (not 100%, there's some cards that I agree with) trying to play with "you", someone who agrees with the banned list. How does one compromise in a mutually agreeable way? What about using broken cards for fun/useful purposes (like tinkering out sword of kaldra in a Rafiq deck).
*which seems like an imposition of what X friends have decided is "fun" for them. I mean seriously if games devolve into invincible deck X vs all his angry friends/tablemates I think the fun withers and either the group splinters or the invincible deck pilot gets bored and makes a new deck, unless the guy is a complete clod and can't grasp that his deck makes people want to skip MTG, in that case, just stop playing with him.
This is a rather slippery slope. The line is subjective, certainly, but it should be drawn somewhere. The most visible of those involved have declared that the line is here so that all may have baseline. You can make arguments for the unbanning of many cards, and make arguments for the banning of many more, but most accept that this list is reasonable for a standard.
It's a sliding scale here. Yes, they'll be worse, but all the cards you're playing to go with Tinker should be reasonable on their own. The biggest thing though?
This is what the standardized banlist is there to prevent.
Is there really a reasonable alternative that lets people from different groups show up to a venue and play a few games without forming up a rules committee first?
Again, with the existence of a standardized ban list, I don't see this as an real issue. I could go on about how my Sek'Kuar deck would be so much better if Recurring Nightmare wasn't banned, but that's not actually an argument for the unbanning of Recurring Nightmare, and someone is going to mention that I could play Diabolic Servitude (/Transmute Artifact) and do just fine. Also, I'm not sure how difficult it is for you to build a deck that follows the standard banned list for use outside of your regular group, but it seems like you could have 5-7 cards that would allow you to make the switch and maintain the power level of the deck.
Use of a standardized banned list?
There's damn near always alternatives.
My point was that the banned list is arbritrarily decided by people with their own definition of fun, which is subject to change whenever. There's not really a solid rubric one can apply to future card acquisitions to determine if said card will be banned at some point. Card by card "dude wtf" for the list of cards I do not agree with being banned:
Ancestral Recall - Really? This is problematic how? I'll never own one but if you did, why the hell can't you use it here? It's good, but it won't warp/destroy the format.
Black Lotus - Really? Same argument as with Recall.
Fastbond - How does it break? Worst thing I can imagine is crucible and stripmine. A 3 card combo that doesn't guarantee victory, just gives you a strong chance at securing it...I'm sure no other combination of 3 cards does this.
Gifts Ungiven - A card practically written as though the EDH founders commissioned it themselves, banned because it's a broken/powerful tutoring engine? Intuition is still legal and a very close proxy. Insidious Dreams can be massaged to create a game winning combo. Yes this is powerful, but it rewards skill from both the caster and the pile maker, and is answerable. Please show me a Gifts 4-card selection that has 100% chance to win regardless of opponents' decks.
Kokusho - He gets worse over time. Exsanguinate scales to anything and is not vulnerable to GY hate (LLOTV or Void), Exiling (STP, PTE, etc), stealing (knowledge exploitation for exsanguinate....um why?). Sure him being a creature gives him combo potential, but really, if he's changing zones there's got to be a piece that can be taken away with a timely K-grip.
Karakas - Gets unusually powerful in EDH, but if you're Karakasing guy A, guys B, C, D are probably gearing up to smash you. Also, wasteland/strip handles this PITA.
Library of Alexandria - See Ancestral Recall
LED - Ok so it's a combo piece, sucks by itself though. This is + Auriok Salvagers is bad but any of the other dozens of infinite mana combos are ok? Just wondering.
Tolarian Academy - Cradle and Sanctum are fine, but because this makes blue it's banned. Seriously, artifacts are destructible and so is Academy. Feel free to kill it with any of the plethora of nonbasic destroyers or just take away the artifacts and turn this scary land into a non-issue. Vesuva kills Academy so fast the evil blue mage can't even draw mana from it in response to you killing it!
Channel - Turn 1/2/3 Emrakul is bad, this should not happen very often. Suck it up and play another game.
Metalworker - summoning sickness, requires help going infinite, dies to approximately anything.
Moxes - See Ancestral Recall
Panoptic Mirror - I'm on the fence. Yea, you insta-win if you sneak a time warp on it. But that's 10 mana and you have to get back around to your upkeep. I think there's time to answer it but i'd need a bit more testing.
Protean Hulk - Honestly I don't know how this insta-wins in multiplayer. Someone enlighten me.
Recurring Nightmare - An engine card. A strong one at that. GY hate can hurt it, it can be k-gripped/wipe away'd off the table if they are not using it at that moment.
Sway of the Stars - Only absolutely and insanely broken with Jhoira. If I have enough mana to cast this and cast my general I'm probably pushing like 15 or so mana, that's enough to win a game, IMO.
Time Walk - see ancestral
Tinker - Blow up what gets Tinkere'd out, the worst offender might be Dags tinkering out the last peace to a combo, but the friggin general is tinker on a stick, this is just more Dagsing if you think about it. I HIGHLY doubt turn 1-3 DS Colossus will win a game.
Upheaval - Borderline. We have lots of board resets in the game, this one seems victimized because it's blue. I never played with it in EDH so I don't know if it is truly gross. Because I used to play Upheaval-Tog I respect this card, so I'm only partially against it being banned, like 30-40% in favor of unbanning.
Worldgorger Dragon - Similar to Upheaval in that I'm only partially against keeping it banned. It's one of the riskiest and most fragile combo pieces in the game AND it's severely hamstrung by lack of redundancy in EDH (3 animate dead effects). Was this ever problematic?
Staff of Domination - Boohoo it's only used for combos, says who? It's friggin amazing even without infinite mana being poured through it. This was overkill from the anti-combo camp, IMO.
Stuff I'd keep banned:
Painter's Servant - For convenience really, he'll continue to interact with more cards over time, might as well kill him now.
Limited Resources - Gross in MP
Coalition Victory, Biorhtym - 1 card combos are a little much, especially since the window/answers to them is narrow (basically counterspells or die).
Balance - too efficient, but I'd be open to unbanning it if a good argument was made. So like 50-60% sure it needs to stay banned.
Time Vault - too easy to combo with, you should have to work a little harder to win a table. I'm only like 30-40% sure it needs to stay banned, as the combo is breakable by cards that are reasonable to run (artifact destruction).
Yawgmoth's Bargain - 70% sure it should stay banned. On the one hand it's beastly, on the other, if you drop it, pay 15 life and draw a huge grip, you're getting EVERYONE'S attention, i.e. political suicide.
So my banned list is like 5 cards, but I'm open to negotiation.
Double post merged. -viper
So that said, who the hell am I to say that my list is better than the RC's? Exactly, I'm no one. Why does the RC's list take precendence? That's the question. It's a casual format, and we do need universal rules to allow strangers to play, but, there's so much squishiness in the way the banned list is laid out that I don't feel grossly out line challenging the RC's rulings on like 90% of the banned list.
This is very different than say in Boxing where kicking is banned. The solution to avoid being kicked is to stay out of kicking range, which eliminates the ability to punch (hey we're no longer boxing) or to immobilize the feet (hey we're rock'em'sock'em robots). A fighter who disagrees with the no-kicking and wants to kick forces the other participant to stop boxing and start kick-boxing. You'd be a putz to try to say that boxing needs techniques that are on its banned list, because it becomes a different game/sport. This is NOT the same as me wanting to have fun by using banned cards that the RC said are unfun. That's a matter of taste, we're still playing EDH* if I run tinker, we're just using more cards. The solution to countering my use of tinker is to run cards you'd already run (k-grip, naturalize, vindicate, etc) so we're definitely still playing MTG/EDH.
*singleton, general, color restrictions, blah blah blah.
Just think about that for a moment. You actually suggested that Painter's Servant is a bigger problem than Ancestral Recall.
Getting back to the details of your list, a common argument you use is that "this is just one card, it probably won't come up that much and cause problems". How frequently the card will be drawn is irrelevant when deciding whether to ban the card, and I suspect this is the major reason your list looks different from the ruling council's list. The real question is how backbreaking the card will be in the games in which you DO draw it. For example, Channel is nuts when you draw it with lots of things, not just Emrakul.
The other common counter-argument you use is that, "there are answers to this card, so it's not a problem." Again, the existence of answers doesn't let a card off the hook. The question is how likely are those answers to be drawn and how much time do opponents have to draw and use them. For a card like Recurring Nightmare, there are very few cards that actually answer it, and you have very little time to draw them. Same with Metalworker, especially when he comes out on turn 2. I believe you're confusing "I have answer card X in my deck" with "I'm likely to draw answer card X when they play broken card Y".
Wow, dies to removal is actually a valid argument here? Seriously, you must pack a ton of answers. I don't know about you, but devoting that much space to just ANSWERS in a primarily casual format just so you don't get steamrollered is not a viable alternative.
I'll just add to that last point saying that the RC has a vision of what they think EDH should look like. This is not necessarily their subjective idea of what is fun, but what they believe will attract the most players and keep the format healthy in the long run. Cards like Metalworker or Black Braids force decks to either pack a ☺☺☺☺-ton of answers so they can reliably stop their opponents, or become a fast combo deck to compete. In the opinion of the RC, this would not be healthy for the format, so these cards are banned. If you look at the banned list in this light, a lot of the RC's decisions make a lot more sense. For example, Library of Alexandria and the power nine are banned basically for the sole reason that they make the format appear less accessible to new comers. More players having more fun is EDH's main goal.
I always see people complaining about really long combos, could someone please show me one? And as a side note if there is infact a combo that takes 45 min, why would you ever not concede in the first 2 min or so?
Sharuum the Hegemon
Mayael the Anima
Wort, Boggart Auntie
Sliver Overlord
Drana Kalastria Bloodchief
99 mountain Ashling
Just because it's used in a combo, doesn't mean it's ONLY used in a combo. Palinchron pays for itself, it's almost a free 4/5 flyer, with a bounce effect. It's awesome, and i'd play it in mono-blue. Same goes for power artifact- what if i just want to use it for my Tower of Calamities? It sounds like you just have a problem with combos in general- i don't know if that's actually you're opinion and you're just trying to play devil's advocate or not, but whatever. When the day comes that every deck is running Palinchron infinite combo or anti-Palinchron combo: I'll eat my hat. Whereas if i was able to run Kukosho, suddenly i'd see a lot more decks that have destroy black/flying creatures, or counter black spells.
@ogrefoot- many of the cards you mentioned were there because of the $ cost. They tried to deter people from seeing EDH as this huge money project where only the most expensive decks win. Thus power 9 cards were banned.
No offense, but if you can't see his ability's application in a 100 card deck, i don't know what to tell you.
And saying "oh this can be countered" or "oh just krosan grip it" doesn't mean the card isn't broken. It's the worst argument i've heard to understate a cards power. As someone has in their signature (well similar) a 10/3 trample haste creature for {G}{G} isn't broken... because it dies to lightning bolt. That's just silly. RC tried to take out as many cards with "this resolves, and you don't have the answer, i win" cards, or at least the cards that let you play those cards faster. As for the boxing metaphor- It's just like how you described with the store. If you and your buddies want to kick-box, go ahead. But don't go to a boxing fight, and expect to kick-box. Kicking is banned, and it's in the rules. Don't like it? Submit a report to the RC and explain why you want kicking unbanned. Or just go kick-box with your friends because you like kick-boxing more; no one is stopping you. The point of an organized banlist is so anyone who knows boxing can box normally.
The RC was created when EDH was. I think the creators get a tiny bit of credit, and they're not in the mindset of "this isn't fun, lets ban it." If that were the case, silly cards they didn't like would be banned because "it's not fun." Rather the banlist was carefully considered, and is reexamined all the time, with a huge forum on elderdragonhighlander.net and the RC.