Sylvan Primordial, how this isn't banned is beyond stupid. It's worse then Primetime and just as degenerate as Sundering.
I will not play with this card, ever. If someone has one in their deck, they die first, I will gladly sacrifice myself just to kick them out of the game. Or I'll be a complete dick and lock them out of the game maybe via some king of Isochron Sceptor and Silence. **** that card, and **** the people who play it.
I'm interested in seeing the article if only so I can wrap my head around the rules committee's thought process when they consider whether a given card is ban-worthy.
2UURRniv mizzet, the firemind endless fiery mind wheels of death 3WRjor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever 3RRzirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers 4:SymRG::SymRG:wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable 2WUkangee, aerie keeper birds 1UBRjeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
Sylvan Primordial, how this isn't banned is beyond stupid. It's worse then Primetime and just as degenerate as Sundering.
I will not play with this card, ever. If someone has one in their deck, they die first, I will gladly sacrifice myself just to kick them out of the game. Or I'll be a complete dick and lock them out of the game maybe via some king of Isochron Sceptor and Silence. **** that card, and **** the people who play it.
I don't really see how horrible it is to fetch a bunch of forests and each player loses a single non-creature permanent. Are the other primordials as annoying?
Well the thing about Sylvan Primordial is you can play it on turn 2 with flash, using no ramp at all, get ramped, push your opponents back a turn and get 3 additional or more lands, so you can do crazy things... At least that's what I used to do, or EOT Entomb into Animate Dead/Dance of the Dead/Reanimate, although that's not as good as the flash option, simply due to amount of clones played in EDH which result in everyone at the table getting Primordials, now a days I'm much more careful about what I'm gonna get out on the table early. So Elesh Norn or Jin-Gitaxias are much better early on
Ah, I see. I was imagining it coming down turn 5+, where it wouldn't have quite the same impact.
I don't need any of the cards and I know people don't like playing against them, so I make sure to avoid using them.
It really isn't hard to make decks without cards like this.
Sylvan Primordial, how this isn't banned is beyond stupid. It's worse then Primetime and just as degenerate as Sundering.
I will not play with this card, ever. If someone has one in their deck, they die first, I will gladly sacrifice myself just to kick them out of the game. Or I'll be a complete dick and lock them out of the game maybe via some king of Isochron Sceptor and Silence. **** that card, and **** the people who play it.
I doubt they really have one at this point.
Sundering titan is unfun, even unintentionally, because it ONLY destroys lands when it enters the battlefield AND when it leaves the battlefield, and it can destroy up to five whenever it does either.
In contrast, sylvan primordial only does its thing once, when it enters the battlefield, can only destroy one noncreature permanent per opponent (so 3 on average) and can only tutor up lands with the forest subtype.
Sure, that can get you a shockland with the forest suptybe or a dryad arbor, but it enters the battlefield tapped anyway. You're almost getting a guildgate at that point.
Before I get to which cards I would put on a list like this I want to point out which cards I don't consider on a list like this. Sheldon, you point out in your intro post that you are, "...mostly going with cards that in some way take away others' ability to play the game" For me, Magic is a competitive game. Even when I sit down with friends we're all trying to win the game. If that means making it so that someone can't cast their spells, well, that's part of the game. People should have answers in their decks for cards or archtypes that they anticipate will stop them from winning.
In my eyes, if you're not trying your best to win, then its not really a victory to beat you and that is the real waste of time for me. (Yes there is a social aspect to sitting down with friends to play a game. However, if you're not trying to win you might as well just drink some beers, forget the game and just hang out.)
That said, I still do have a list of cards that I don't play. They mostly fit the category of cards that make the person playing them win (not that stop me from playing). I fully admit that these cards are powerful and the only reason I have for not playing them is that they leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is too easy to win with them and if I did it wouldn't be much of a victory.
Gaea's Cradle
Palinchron (or any creatures of that cycle)
Hermit Druid
Jin-Gitaxias
Maelstrom Wanderer (to a lesser extent)
Animar (to a lesser extent)
Seedborn Muse (Playing more green, this card is impossible to pass up)
Tooth and Nail (Playing more green, this card is impossible to pass up)
Mana Drain (I own one and have been playing with it alot. I've been passing it up because it just seems to be head and shoulders above what everyone else is playing and it doesn't seem quite as fair.)
I would add Sol Ring except its a must have for every deck for everyone, so I don't really consider not playing it. However, I would be much happier with the format if everyone stopped playing it.
Two asides
I'd also like to add that people playing this format have a significant tenancy to play cards that advance their game state over cards that will hinder their opponent's no matter how big the disparity between the two are. As evidence I'll point to everyone who has a problem with Deadeye-Navigator. He isn't really that hard to kill if you know how soulbond works. His ability to impact the game state is only as good as the card he is paired with. If people played more cards to stop him and less cards to advance their game state he wouldn't be such a problem (and the other cards that you have that advance your game state would be more effective).
I'm also curious about these players who were kicked (or almost kicked) for playing Humility. Beyond the cards that they played, did you enjoy this person's company? I have a strong feeling that these people's potential for being kicked from the group had less to do with their card selection and more to do with their personality.
If the person showed up just to make everyone's game miserable, it really has less to do with which cards that they choose to do that with and their decision to make other people unhappy. Alternatively if a person is playing Humility as a viable means to a victory (say that they had no creatures in their deck and this is ment to stop the creature decks from killing him) I think its hardly fair to punish him for playing a card that helps him win.
Answer me this: If the problem was the card and not the person, wouldn't you just ban the card from the playgroup? If you're banning the person, that tells me that its the person you have a problem with, not the card.
None. If your deck is fun and creative and if you're sociable and respectful, I don't care what deck you play and which cards you play with.
I'm a strong proponent of responsibility in EDH. Know when to throw haymakers and know when to pull your punches. Understand broken cards and interactions and how they can negatively affect the "fun and flow" of a game. Respect the social contract and realize that everyone's fun is everybody's responsibility.
Working title now "Cards Your Games Might Be Better Without."
I still believe this promotes "bad attitudes" towards certain cards.
Again, I'd strongly advize you teach tolerance instead. "How to enjoy each meta-game" or "How to Improve your meta-game" (with options for either removing certain "bad karma" cards or seeing them as a challenge).
I still believe this promotes "bad attitudes" towards certain cards.
Again, I'd strongly advize you teach tolerance instead. "How to enjoy each meta-game" or "How to Improve your meta-game" (with options for either removing certain "bad karma" cards or seeing them as a challenge).
I'll say it again, teach tolerance not hate.
He can't win can he? Everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree with him.
Tooth and Nail probably won't be banned any time soon, but I can't say I like it all that much. It's too easy to set up Mike/Trike Kiki-Jiki/Zealous Conscripts etc and just go off. I simply don't have much fun with it. That's the long and short of it, really.
He can't win can he? Everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree with him.
Ehh, how is this the case? All I'm pointing at is his approach to his subject, It's not even a case of disagreeing.
What relevance is that post of yours anyway? Sheldon can form an opinion on what I say himself, he can ignore it/take it into consideration or use it. It's up to him I'm not forcing him nor saying he's wrong in any way.
I don't even see where you get "everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree" from. How, where, what? Could you instead give your opinion on my post? Maybe some backing to where you get such accusations?
Worldslayer is a card I initially wanted to build Tajic, Blade of the Legion around. And then I realised that beating everyone down with a 2/2 while destroying all permanents every combat step is probably not worth the time (sometimes people won't scoop). I tried to set up situations to ensure Battalion activated, but then I needed three indestructible creatures on the board... urgh too hard. Cut Worldslayer. Problem solved
Worldslayer is a card I initially wanted to build Tajic, Blade of the Legion around. And then I realised that beating everyone down with a 2/2 while destroying all permanents every combat step is probably not worth the time (sometimes people won't scoop). I tried to set up situations to ensure Battalion activated, but then I needed three indestructible creatures on the board... urgh too hard. Cut Worldslayer. Problem solved
Idk, that seems like a pretty solid strategy. The only thing you'd really have to worry about is a wayward Path, Swords to Plowshares or Condemn... I guess it would be irritating to play a game to the bitter end because people wouldn't scoop. I know I even get a little frustrated when my own blue deck just can't find the one card and I have to dig through my whole deck. Just a wee bet tedious sometimes.
Yes it is a great strategy. But it can lead to a long grindy game where I have to kill 3 players with a 2/2. At least he's my general, but potentially that is 33 combat steps.
Not even close to the first time either. "Restriction breeds creativity" is a pretty common concept in creative industries, but I don't think they usually mean "to the point where nothing can happen." There is a paralysis that occurs when you have 100% creative flexibility and most people tend to fall back on their own psychological (or deck building) crutches when there are no limitations. While I do agree that banning all the Top-50 cards would yield more "creative" decks, "creative" isn't really the measure of a good deck if it's a piece of ****.
Ehh, how is this the case? All I'm pointing at is his approach to his subject, It's not even a case of disagreeing.
What relevance is that post of yours anyway? Sheldon can form an opinion on what I say himself, he can ignore it/take it into consideration or use it. It's up to him I'm not forcing him nor saying he's wrong in any way.
I don't even see where you get "everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree" from. How, where, what? Could you instead give your opinion on my post? Maybe some backing to where you get such accusations?
Maybe I'm taking this too personal, sorry.
I 100% agree with juwdah Sheldon's entire attitude of "my way of playing edh is better" just pisses me off. More than anything he's probly just advertising his upcoming article but I doubt he understands how toxic what he says really is. Hey Sheldon maybe try a less assuming and condescending title like "cards I don't like to use in edh". Or " cards you shouldn't bring to an unknown meta to avoid crybabies acting like you just slapped Thier mother" . Yes tell me why you like the format and how you play awesome. DO NOT publish an article that poisons the opinions of potential new players to try to coax then into your camp let them decide on Thier own. In general I like Sheldon's articles guess I'll have to wait and see he's a reasonable guy but Judah's not the only one who made a sour face reading Sheldon's " funny titles"
To a point. Creativity without the hope for quality is sort of pointless.
Not even close to the first time either. "Restriction breeds creativity" is a pretty common concept in creative industries, but I don't think they usually mean "to the point where nothing can happen." There is a paralysis that occurs when you have 100% creative flexibility and most people tend to fall back on their own psychological (or deck building) crutches when there are no limitations. While I do agree that banning all the Top-50 cards would yield more "creative" decks, "creative" isn't really the measure of a good deck if it's a piece of ****.
I don't belive in creativity in magic. In the context most people use it it seems like "unpopular" or "unseen" but I find the reason for this is not that no one thought of it before but becuase "there bad". Maybe I'm a cynic but I think if all cards were free most decks would be compeitive top tier decks. Unfortunately good cards cost $$ and not everyone has that. I dont know I have never felt the need to feel unique playing a card game I just want to drink beer and play a strategy game.
Edit : sorry fit double post gals panics was not Thier when I made my first one
I 100% agree with juwdah Sheldon's entire attitude of "my way of playing edh is better" just pisses me off.
Wait, I didn't say anything like that..
I get where you're coming from though.
My point was mainly that the approach of his article can have a lot of difference. Considering he is a "front man" of EDH I would, personally, like it if he promoted tolerance, acceptance of strategies and overall fun with each card. Articles like these make me shiver because, even if there's truth it's not something you want to pass on. It will result in more bad situations and less fun, the opposite of what he wants, I believe.
A (weird) comparison would be racism, if you teach a kid to dislike different colored people, you'll take away the fun he can have with those kind of people and create hate.
If you teach a kid to dislike certain cards, you'll take away the fun he can have with those kind of cards and create hate.
Maybe you were raised with the belief that Armageddon isn't fun, but this doesn't mean other people want to avoid this card. If you "preach" tolerance and ways to answer/adapt the world will be in a better place than saying "I'd rather avoid these cards, and you should too". It's just bad policy, really.
Well, that's my two cents.
Edit: Sorry, not sure if this is off-topic if it refers to his title of the article, sorry if it is.
I will not play with this card, ever. If someone has one in their deck, they die first, I will gladly sacrifice myself just to kick them out of the game. Or I'll be a complete dick and lock them out of the game maybe via some king of Isochron Sceptor and Silence. **** that card, and **** the people who play it.
I doubt they really have one at this point.
3WR jor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever
3RR zirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers
4:SymRG::SymRG: wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable
2WU kangee, aerie keeper birds
1UBR jeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
3UWR numot, the devastator of [the spirit of edh]
Is there some degenerate combo with Sylvan Primordial?
I don't really see how horrible it is to fetch a bunch of forests and each player loses a single non-creature permanent. Are the other primordials as annoying?
Ah, I see. I was imagining it coming down turn 5+, where it wouldn't have quite the same impact.
sorin markov, land destruction that kills board position as well(ie creatures artifacts with the land), triskellion, omniscience, enter the infinite and humility.
I don't need any of the cards and I know people don't like playing against them, so I make sure to avoid using them.
It really isn't hard to make decks without cards like this.
Sundering titan is unfun, even unintentionally, because it ONLY destroys lands when it enters the battlefield AND when it leaves the battlefield, and it can destroy up to five whenever it does either.
Primeval titan is broken because it tutors up nonbasics like valakut, the molten pinnacle or cabal coffers+urborg, tomb of yawgmoth, both when it enters the battlefield AND whenever it attacks.
In contrast, sylvan primordial only does its thing once, when it enters the battlefield, can only destroy one noncreature permanent per opponent (so 3 on average) and can only tutor up lands with the forest subtype.
Sure, that can get you a shockland with the forest suptybe or a dryad arbor, but it enters the battlefield tapped anyway. You're almost getting a guildgate at that point.
Your comparisons aren't even close.
In my eyes, if you're not trying your best to win, then its not really a victory to beat you and that is the real waste of time for me. (Yes there is a social aspect to sitting down with friends to play a game. However, if you're not trying to win you might as well just drink some beers, forget the game and just hang out.)
That said, I still do have a list of cards that I don't play. They mostly fit the category of cards that make the person playing them win (not that stop me from playing). I fully admit that these cards are powerful and the only reason I have for not playing them is that they leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is too easy to win with them and if I did it wouldn't be much of a victory.
Gaea's Cradle
Palinchron (or any creatures of that cycle)
Hermit Druid
Jin-Gitaxias
Maelstrom Wanderer (to a lesser extent)
Animar (to a lesser extent)
Seedborn Muse (Playing more green, this card is impossible to pass up)
Tooth and Nail (Playing more green, this card is impossible to pass up)
Mana Drain (I own one and have been playing with it alot. I've been passing it up because it just seems to be head and shoulders above what everyone else is playing and it doesn't seem quite as fair.)
I would add Sol Ring except its a must have for every deck for everyone, so I don't really consider not playing it. However, I would be much happier with the format if everyone stopped playing it.
Two asides
If the person showed up just to make everyone's game miserable, it really has less to do with which cards that they choose to do that with and their decision to make other people unhappy. Alternatively if a person is playing Humility as a viable means to a victory (say that they had no creatures in their deck and this is ment to stop the creature decks from killing him) I think its hardly fair to punish him for playing a card that helps him win.
Answer me this: If the problem was the card and not the person, wouldn't you just ban the card from the playgroup? If you're banning the person, that tells me that its the person you have a problem with, not the card.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=63536
Don't for get to put have and want tags in your trade threads! If you want to know how, ask!
I'm a strong proponent of responsibility in EDH. Know when to throw haymakers and know when to pull your punches. Understand broken cards and interactions and how they can negatively affect the "fun and flow" of a game. Respect the social contract and realize that everyone's fun is everybody's responsibility.
I still believe this promotes "bad attitudes" towards certain cards.
Again, I'd strongly advize you teach tolerance instead. "How to enjoy each meta-game" or "How to Improve your meta-game" (with options for either removing certain "bad karma" cards or seeing them as a challenge).
I'll say it again, teach tolerance not hate.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
Deadeye navigator
Terastodon
mindslaver
Sorin MArkov
Magister Sphinx
Living Death
Omniscience
coming from a guy who plays Maelstrom Wanderer
i will also say that Possibility Storm as been the MOST fun i have had in years in EDH i love when i draw that card.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Removal of choice = more creative deckbuilding.
You heard it here guys.
I might suggest to my playgroup for 1 game pretend there's a Possibility Storm emblem on the field that affects all spells.
He can't win can he? Everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree with him.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Ehh, how is this the case? All I'm pointing at is his approach to his subject, It's not even a case of disagreeing.
What relevance is that post of yours anyway? Sheldon can form an opinion on what I say himself, he can ignore it/take it into consideration or use it. It's up to him I'm not forcing him nor saying he's wrong in any way.
I don't even see where you get "everytime he says something you'll find a way to disagree" from. How, where, what? Could you instead give your opinion on my post? Maybe some backing to where you get such accusations?
Maybe I'm taking this too personal, sorry.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
Idk, that seems like a pretty solid strategy. The only thing you'd really have to worry about is a wayward Path, Swords to Plowshares or Condemn... I guess it would be irritating to play a game to the bitter end because people wouldn't scoop. I know I even get a little frustrated when my own blue deck just can't find the one card and I have to dig through my whole deck. Just a wee bet tedious sometimes.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Yes it is a great strategy. But it can lead to a long grindy game where I have to kill 3 players with a 2/2. At least he's my general, but potentially that is 33 combat steps.
The problem is that condemn, swords to plowshares, path to exile, chain of vapor, innocent blood, disfigure (unlikely in EDH, but still), unsummon (also unlikely), etc will kill my 2/2, which basically means I reset the game and haven't won and people have 33 turns to find a land and an answer.
Not playing Worldslayer turned out to be the best way to actually end games.
To a point. Creativity without the hope for quality is sort of pointless.
Not even close to the first time either. "Restriction breeds creativity" is a pretty common concept in creative industries, but I don't think they usually mean "to the point where nothing can happen." There is a paralysis that occurs when you have 100% creative flexibility and most people tend to fall back on their own psychological (or deck building) crutches when there are no limitations. While I do agree that banning all the Top-50 cards would yield more "creative" decks, "creative" isn't really the measure of a good deck if it's a piece of ****.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I 100% agree with juwdah Sheldon's entire attitude of "my way of playing edh is better" just pisses me off. More than anything he's probly just advertising his upcoming article but I doubt he understands how toxic what he says really is. Hey Sheldon maybe try a less assuming and condescending title like "cards I don't like to use in edh". Or " cards you shouldn't bring to an unknown meta to avoid crybabies acting like you just slapped Thier mother" . Yes tell me why you like the format and how you play awesome. DO NOT publish an article that poisons the opinions of potential new players to try to coax then into your camp let them decide on Thier own. In general I like Sheldon's articles guess I'll have to wait and see he's a reasonable guy but Judah's not the only one who made a sour face reading Sheldon's " funny titles"
I don't belive in creativity in magic. In the context most people use it it seems like "unpopular" or "unseen" but I find the reason for this is not that no one thought of it before but becuase "there bad". Maybe I'm a cynic but I think if all cards were free most decks would be compeitive top tier decks. Unfortunately good cards cost $$ and not everyone has that. I dont know I have never felt the need to feel unique playing a card game I just want to drink beer and play a strategy game.
Edit : sorry fit double post gals panics was not Thier when I made my first one
Merged double post. - cryogen
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Wait, I didn't say anything like that..
I get where you're coming from though.
My point was mainly that the approach of his article can have a lot of difference. Considering he is a "front man" of EDH I would, personally, like it if he promoted tolerance, acceptance of strategies and overall fun with each card. Articles like these make me shiver because, even if there's truth it's not something you want to pass on. It will result in more bad situations and less fun, the opposite of what he wants, I believe.
A (weird) comparison would be racism, if you teach a kid to dislike different colored people, you'll take away the fun he can have with those kind of people and create hate.
If you teach a kid to dislike certain cards, you'll take away the fun he can have with those kind of cards and create hate.
Maybe you were raised with the belief that Armageddon isn't fun, but this doesn't mean other people want to avoid this card. If you "preach" tolerance and ways to answer/adapt the world will be in a better place than saying "I'd rather avoid these cards, and you should too". It's just bad policy, really.
Well, that's my two cents.
Edit: Sorry, not sure if this is off-topic if it refers to his title of the article, sorry if it is.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.