I'm extremely upset that Sheldon would stoop to a Strawman argument against MLD. His argument is not only "inherently flawed," but it's also cowardly.
He says that MLD isn't a good counter to Ramp. The people who play MLD know this. We've never claimed that it was. No good Magic player would.
It's an argument that gets made routinely both online and in-person conversation. A quick glance at the last couple pages of the banned list discussion thread yields:
I still do not understand the holy EDH mantra of "do not touch lands." It's border line stupid that people complain about ramp, but hate the answer to ramp.
What we do claim is that the threat of MLD is a good counter to Ramp. When MLD can happen, the Ramp dude doesn't just go out of control. It's like what happens when you don't allow counterspells: Combo goes out of control (no pun intended). Wrath of God is fair because people should be smart and not overextend. The same is true for Armageddon...
This sort of seems like a distinction without a difference, but I'm not sure it works well even taken at face value. Barring a few narrow circumstances (like decks all-in on Boundless Realms), most ramp decks are working off multiple card types to produce mana. So unless you're hoping to get a Jokulhaups off, there are going to be a lot of ramp decks that simply don't care about you threatening them with land destruction.
You also get into situations where even if the opposing ramp IS running a deck that's just depending on lands for mana, that player decides to call you on your threatened 'geddon, and dumps all their lands on to the table and makes you his or her priority target. Sometimes you get off the Armageddon for the blown out, but he or she still has a legitimate chance to crush you before that happens.
Here's an idea: Don't derp every land you have onto the board. That's the same as overextending with creatures.
The problem is that it's not 1999 anymore. Wizards made a conscious decision many years ago to stop supporting MLD decks in 40- and 60-card formats, and as a result no one who started playing in the last 10 years sandbags lands against Armageddon. Unless you're trying to bluff or play around Wasteland, holding on to your lands is a bad plan in every other format. It's also awful in EDH groups where no one's playing MLD.
If you want to talk down to players for not playing Magic the way you think they should, that's your prerogative, but it kinda comes across as a "Kids these days..." rant.
Unless you're trying to bluff or play around Wasteland, holding on to your lands is a bad plan in every other format. It's also awful in EDH groups where no one's playing MLD.
I'll agree that holding lands when you have things to cast is frequently a poor decision, but I disagree that holding onto lands "is a bad plan in every other format". The fact that I hold lands in EDH is a carryover from the formats I played before EDH, and I've never seen a reason to stop doing so. I would go so far as to say that holding lands has been more helpful in EDH than playing those same lands could have been, thanks to cards like Molten Psyche, Teferi's Puzzle Box, and Scroll Rack.
This sort of seems like a distinction without a difference,
If you think it's a distinction without difference, then ask yourself this:
"Does a ramp deck play differently in a meta where MLD occurs than it does in a meta where MLD cannot occur?"
The simple fact is that ramp is exposed to MLD as a weakness. If Ramp knows its weakness is not present, it will have no reason to hold back. I did the same thing with my enchantment control deck in a meta that never bothered with enchantment removal. I could overextend without worry and I dominated the meta... until everyone realized what they needed to do. Now I have to hold back, and even though the sweepers rarely happen, my deck is much more "in control" than it used to be.
The problem is that it's not 1999 anymore. Wizards made a conscious decision many years ago to stop supporting MLD decks in 40- and 60-card formats, and as a result no one who started playing in the last 10 years sandbags lands against Armageddon.
This is EDH, not standard and certainly not draft. If you graduate to a larger card pool, you need to recognize it. Anyone who plays the eternal formats knows that land destruction and resource denial are things to keep in mind.
If you want to talk down to players for not playing Magic the way you think they should, that's your prerogative, but it kinda comes across as a "Kids these days..." rant.
I'm not talking down to anyone and I'm not saying how they "should" play. I'm saying that if they want to be better at Magic (i.e. make more optimal decisions and improve their win percentage), they need to keep in mind that everything is a resource and everything is vulnerable to something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
As someone who plays with one or two of said cards, i have to agree, that many of them are obnoxious and "must answer" cards that can immediately ruin the fun of the game. The big ones being jin gitaxis, humility, and geddon.
"The issue is the ramp player (WHO PLAYS LANDS TO RAMP) with Armageddon effects, who is already ahead on resources, making any comebacks (which can create those memorable games) highly unlikely. "
Right. Nobody must play mana rocks.
While it's probably true Sheldon has a more diverse play group than anything I've seen, how he meets up with these particular people takes an interest to me.
Stax is one of the most fun things to play with and against imo. And I love LD. I love all elements of magic.
It's like Commander needs different graduating belts for students of this disipline.
Black Belt - Can play against all degenercy
White belt - No MLD, Stax
etc...
Sheesh
If there is a continueing trend to make this game easier and easier to play, at what point does it simply become as easy as tic tac toe?
"The issue is the ramp player (WHO PLAYS LANDS TO RAMP) with Armageddon effects, who is already ahead on resources, making any comebacks (which can create those memorable games) highly unlikely. "
Right. Nobody must play mana rocks.
While it's probably true Sheldon has a more diverse play group than anything I've seen, how he meets up with these particular people takes an interest to me.
Stax is one of the most fun things to play with and against imo. And I love LD. I love all elements of magic.
It's like Commander needs different graduating belts for students of this disipline.
Black Belt - Can play against all degenercy
White belt - No MLD, Stax
etc...
Sheesh
If there is a continueing trend to make this game easier and easier to play, at what point does it simply become as easy as tic tac toe?
Interesting Tic Tac Toe comparison. Since that game, is a game of futility.
"The only winning move is not to play...How about a nice game of chess?"
I imagine Sheldon plays with an ever changing group of people that come into a magic store, hence the diversity.
[card=Dismal Failure]"Two magi could trade spells all day and never crown a victor.
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you." —Venser[/card]
I found it somewhat hard to take the list seriously when he puts Vicious Shadows and Wound Reflection on there and then and then specifically mentions Palinchron as a card that he wouldn't put on there... a card that has no other purpose than to be a top-deck "Oops, I win", one card infinite combo.
I found it somewhat hard to take the list seriously when he puts Vicious Shadows and Wound Reflection on there and then and then specifically mentions Palinchron as a card that he wouldn't put on there... a card that has no other purpose than to be a top-deck "Oops, I win", one card infinite combo.
The only one card possible insta wins I know of are
T&N
SotF
Hermit Druid
Ad Nausem
Imperial Recruiter
-Just about any tutor with X mana
Which require other cards to win, sure, but they by themself allow you to access the other cards. Perhaps there are more, but those are pretty much it. I don't know about palin being a one card insta.
Interesting that only one of the cards on the list is green...
Very interesting and telling at the same time. Why did he even bother to produce this list? I don't care what he feels he'd be better without. All I care about is what is on the banned list.
Which require other cards to win, sure, but they by themself allow you to access the other cards. Perhaps there are more, but those are pretty much it. I don't know about palin being a one card insta.
It requires one or two other cards (as do most the cards you mentioned), but it's really easy to make infinite mana with it, at which point you can cast somewhere between anything and everything to actually seal the deal.
It requires one or two other cards (as do most the cards you mentioned), but it's really easy to make infinite mana with it, at which point you can cast somewhere between anything and everything to actually seal the deal.
That was indeed my point. Pretty much every card requires at least some support to go off. What makes Palinchron stand out is that it has so many options that you never really have to search very deep. The only requirements for instantly winning are that you: a) can produce at least 12 mana with up to 7 lands (11 mana will do if you only care about certain triggers or storm count) and b) have something to do with infinite mana.
Requirement a) is not that difficult considering how ubiquitous mana doublers are and given that there are two lands that can do it even without those doublers (used to be three, but at least they banned the worst offender). And given how popular ramp strategies are, most people run these cards anyway. As for requirement b), I cannot even begin to list the options for infinite mana and even if you don't win immediately with that, it's at the very worst an Omniscience that comes with build in self-protection and automatic infinite storm count and infinite ETB triggers.
Many other combos require at least some build up and the presence of identifiable combo pieces. Palinchron has this annoying "Top deck, Oops, I win" factor in many average board states. To make it worse, it serves no other purpose than to do this. Without the intention of going infinite, Palinchron is an overcosted generic flyer with unimpressive stats. Even for something like Tooth and Nail (even though I dislike that card as well), you can at least reasonably make the argument that you have it in your deck to search for specific answers or get some good fatties to seal the deal without needing to use it as an infinite combo piece.
I don't have anything against infinite combos by itself. I just don't like cards that can drop in an average or large variety of board states and win out of nowhere. If you drop Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker in a deck that also runs blue, then a skilled playgroup should know to be ready for Pestermite. If someone puts Exquisite Blood on the table, then you better keep mana open to somehow deal with a possible Sanguine Bond. But it's very difficult to expect everyone to start sniping all ramp cards, mana doublers or multi-mana lands to stop someone from winning with that damn Palinchron. Even Coalition Victory requires at least a somewhat predictable and disruptable board state before it drops.
I wish it were that easy. I simply cannot ignore the underhanded tactics he used to discredit and misrepresent certain groups of players. This article is going to be touted around by way too many people screaming "but Sheldon said you shouldn't use these, and if you do, you're a bully* and a bad player!**"
Misrepresentation number one: Real competitiveness isn't about winning fast or controlling the game. It's about winning reliably and getting better every time you play. The guys that just want to roflstomp a table are bullies and have nothing competitive about them.
Misrepresentation number two: I've written books on this in the thread already. Suffice to say he's lying about the argument MLD people use for why it counters ramp.
I partially agree. First though, I will say to your previous comments that 99% of the time the internet says that something is a Strawman, it's actually just someone arguing against a position that the accuser just doesn't happen to hold. So while I agree (and Maro historically agrees as well) that what motivates competitives is the drive to get better in building and in play, Sheldon might be arguing against players (if any) who just want to win. As to whether those actually exist, I happen to think they do because I consistently see the same people on MODO show up with T5 combo decks in public games. He's saying that he's not really going to cater to those people.
Likewise with MLD, he's saying that people can't justify it as a naked answer against ramp. That's not necessarily saying that's the only thing to recommend it. He's just saying that it doesn't counter ramp. Which is deceptively true. You can't just slide it into your deck. What you have to do is build a control deck around resource denial, or to sensibly fit it in and use it in an aggro deck. So if you're in the boat crying that you need MLD against ramp, then he's saying you're wrong, but if you're not in that boat he's not arguing against your position. No strawman.
But I do agree that he's being a bit deceptive in places. It's almost Napoleonic when he says that most people came up with things that they themselves refuse to play rather than disallowing from others, when the very title of the thread he used here to elicit feedback was, "things YOU might consider not using". He seems to be pinpointing the group he wants to talk to and play with, then using the fact of those discussions and those games as support for the conclusion that this is what all or most EDH'ers are. Elsewhere, his lack of knowledge of the format seems to come from legitimate lack of play against competent decks, rather than deliberately singling them out. The fact that he doesn't like Vicious Shadows, a card that never wins before Turn 10, says a lot about the kinds of decks he faces.
In fact, that struck me a lot. It's evident that his experience with the format is widely different from my own, and so I find myself wishing his feedback were more constructive in the setting that I play. I think you can essentially divide the format into three groups:
1) The, "It sucks you played Vicious Shadows because otherwise my Decree of Pain would've kept me alive" group. The 5 board wipes in every deck group because creatures are the only thing that wins group. Apparently, Sheldon's group.
2) The group that doesn't do anything super-fast at the expense of being uninteractive but nevertheless builds decks that win by Turn 9-10 group. The Survival-Mimeoplasm, BUG Combo-Control, Zur, Arcum, UBx Orb Stax, Obliterate.dec group. The I don't care about board wipes group. Probably the fastest growing group, to my eye at least.
3) The Tier-0, never get tired of Hermit Druid group. Nuff said.
It seems that 2 and 3 seem like the exact same thing to group 1. And it seems that no respect is being paid to group 2 when they complain about degenerate cards, and most of all, they're not being evaluated for whether their games are interactive and in the "spirit of EDH". They're just labeled tryhards when Rite of Replication on top of a 7-drop isn't their win-con. And the apparent fact that Sheldon's never played in Group 2 is disappointing to me.
One more thing that I found troubling - the Dream Theater example. In any controversy, one party has to carry what's called the burden of persuasion. That party's case is evaluated, and if it's insufficient, things stay on the status quo without the other party having to make its counter-case. Who has the burden of persuasion on what kind of play should be allowed in EDH is cripplingly unclear, and nothing in that article clarified it. In the Dream Theater example, it's one thing to not listen to that band when the two are "hanging out". It's another thing to go passive-aggressive and delete the songs from the other person's iPod. But the real comparison is whether to go to the concert of a band that covers 90's music generally, or whether there should be both DT and non-DT playlists of 90's music. Who has the burden of persuasion? Should you have to tell me that you don't like DT before I pop in my mix CD, or should I know beforehand somehow?
Because there's a category of cards that are allowed and not allowed in EDH as per the RC banlist. It seems to me that anyone arguing against a card not on that list has the burden of persuasion. Yet this article along with the house-rule mentality in it seems to suggest that people who want to run legal cards that are nevertheless undesirable under a set of unofficial, nebulous criteria have the burden of persuasion shifted to them instead. It suggests that people have to open up the discussion every time a game is had so that this house-rule crowd has its legally guaranteed say-so. This group has judicial protection against things it doesn't like, because the banlist is just a "starting point" preparatory to this group's right. It's just shifting the burden of persuasion. And so the existence of a ban list simultaneously with the peremptory right of this group to have their first say is a source of enormous confusion in the format, and I don't even see any acknowledgment paid to that.
So Sheldon professes tolerance for other styles of play and vows to keep the banlist uncluttered owing to that respect, but meanwhile, the whole format is just procedurally stacked in favor of the unspoken majority that Sheldon and others apparently see.
Also troubling from the opposite angle is the RC commitment not to enforce their ideals on anyone else, when in fact, every other established format has had no problem with Wizards responsibly enforcing its own vision of it. If people want to play Cloutpost in Modern, too bad, because it's outside for Wizards vision of the format. And rather than being worse off, it's actually better because of the responsible oversight is coupled with a vision of play that a lot of people (not everyone) can find fun. That there are other types of fun outside that format has never bothered any rules body ever before.
Honestly, that makes me suspect it's something else. Fear of backlash. Perceived difficulty of regulating the format. Something. Evidently belonging to group 1 above maybe leads to some doubt about whether the RC can even evaluate the validity of group 2's interests, much less enforce a vision that's acceptable to both, which is in my opinion possible.
Uhm, no. Just as you wouldn't cast Wrath of God when you have a dominant creature board state, you're not gonna cast Armageddon if it doesn't hurt your opponents more than you, or you aren't setup for it. Your argument is ridiculous, and if you use MLD like that... well.. that's your problem.
"Hurting your opponents more than you" Is a tad bit different when talking lands or creatures.
How is my argument ridiculous when we are both arguing the same thing. All I said is that MLD is a card that is only played when it will guarantee you victory and doing so requires the removal of an opponents number of options.
A spiteful MLD when someone is struggling to get land will probably end up hurting the person who cast it more than the person who hasn't drawn that many lands yest.
Because lands are so important to how the game works it adds a level of complexity to when you use cards that remove all of them it also requires you not wanting to play everything else that is in your hand as well.
Which is a common misconception people seem to have about people who use those cards, we like casting all the other fun toys too.
Also troubling from the opposite angle is the RC commitment not to enforce their ideals on anyone else, when in fact, every other established format has had no problem with Wizards responsibly enforcing its own vision of it. If people want to play Cloutpost in Modern, too bad, because it's outside for Wizards vision of the format. And rather than being worse off, it's actually better because of the responsible oversight is coupled with a vision of play that a lot of people (not everyone) can find fun. That there are other types of fun outside that format has never bothered any rules body ever before.
Honestly, that makes me suspect it's something else. Fear of backlash. Perceived difficulty of regulating the format. Something. Evidently belonging to group 1 above maybe leads to some doubt about whether the RC can even evaluate the validity of group 2's interests, much less enforce a vision that's acceptable to both, which is in my opinion possible.
Excellent post, and I definitely think this is a good point. I wish the RC would have a little more backbone about homogenizing the format - endorsing "house rules" is great for people playing in very stable long-term groups, but a lot of us are roaming around finding games in various stores and such, and the idea of having a different banlist for each group makes me ill. Luckily I've yet to meet anyone who didn't follow the normal banlist (in a few cases the 1v1 banlist), so I think it's mostly just an image change.
To be fair, though, they've made improvements in this regard. At one point, the list was just "discouraged cards" or some such crap. Can't remember when they made the switch to officially calling it the banlist.
@Justice Your posts always have a lot of validity to them. This one is no different and on that point I'd like to add: Imagine how hard it must be, not being a part of WotC at all and lacking all the resources there of and trying to regulate a format which I would go out on a limb and say is large than Legacy. I've never met a person who plays Legacy much less has a competitively tuned Legacy deck. (I realize how big of a statement that is but it says a lot about my meta. Standard is God around here and Modern is just for people who just enjoy the game that much). Maybe I'm wrong about the size of the format but for me it seems huge, at least on par with the smallest of tournament formats. The RC doesn't have access to the resources WotC does when making ban decisions and they don't have week after week of tournament top 32 deck lists they can look over for information on what is appearing too often.
That being said I think my personal play group belongs to a fourth type, though I don't know what I'd call it. We don't rule out any strategies but don't often come across oppressive stax decks or consistent early turn combos, most of us just don't own the cards to do it (or in a few situations can't evaluate the cards well enough to figure out that you could do it). We don't necessarily play a lot of creatures, spell decks are viable and it has nothing to do with the number of sweepers run, because there aren't many. You can be very competitive and skilled with the cards you have access to, which is kind of our group, the "play it if you got it" group. You just have to be the best you can with what you have, and some people win with under optimized lists because they can read board states really well. Others of us win because we know how to pack answers and dig for them. We balance ourselves because none of us are really skilled at every facet of the game, but all of us have a facet we are better at than others, and we don't always build our decks to utilize those strengths. One of my friends is really good at the late game if he can get you there. He can't always, but if he does, expect to lose. Sometimes he plays low curve 'aggro' decks. He pilots them like **** but if it gets post 6 mana he'll probably beat you still. Another of our friends is a 12 turns ahead kind of guy, extremely good at predicting other players moves (not down to a specific card, but a card type like "will play a creature" "will hold the removal" etc). He wins by predicting future board states and managing to hold just the right card, or wait just long enough. Honestly, I feel like half the cards he puts in his deck are junk but its kind of like that "Tariel: you'll think for this later" deck, really efficient use of super narrow answers because he can figure out when to use them better than most.
That's something that seems to be oddly missing from any discussion I've seen thus far regarding any magic discussion, the idea of player specialties. People call it player preference or talk about good and bad players but no one seems to talk about the idea that there are certain aspects of the game some people are just really good at and some that people really suck at. I hate playing counterspells because I don't know what to use them against. I'm R/B at heart, I'm a proactive player not a reactive one because I can't see that far down the line. My friend however is inhumanly good at it but occasionally my impulsive plays which catch him way off guard, it wasn't that I used Rakdos Cackler instead of Goblin Guide and the card quality won the day, its that he was expecting a threat, any threat, and got a "do nothing" enchantment instead. All those cards he was hording to answer my "threat" are useless. I didn't do it on purpose, it was a gut decision.
Things like that can fundamentally change the way a game is played or how good a card is. The thing is that situations like that don't effect how good a card like Tooth and Nail is and what you should fetch with it. To me it seems like that is what this article (for the most part), and most of the complaints I find on these forums, seem to be railing against so hard. I hate to say it, but people hate playing against Good stuff decks. If you pack your deck full of cards that are good in every conceivable game state, well people don't want to play against that, and some cards epitomize that more than others. Some cards are annoying because they kick the little guy when he's down as much as trying to hurt the big guy (Geddon and Sylvan) and get just as much hate as a result. (I'm not advocating this thought process, just trying to identify it more substantially than I believe it has been thus far). I don't think its the cards mind you, its the players.
There is an element of suspense when another player starts their turn, that "what's he going to do" feeling. When people see Tooth and Nail that excitement is destroyed. They know what you are going to grab even if they don't know your decklist, even if they can't name the cards, they know what its going to be. To me it feels like the article is advocating removing cards that produce that "dread" whenever you see it. Play cards that bring the excitement, not ones that smash it to pieces. Its going to be different for everyone but certain cards get brought up an awful lot around here and I'm not saying there's a reason why, but there's a reason why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The following link is an invitation to join Pucatrade (card trading service though similar to TCGPLayer). If you follow the link then it awards me with tokens to exchange for actual cards. Thanks! https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
I think Sheldon's points on group communication and finding a way to have your fun while showing regard to another person's play experience are the key takeaways. Forget the list. It will never be the same one between any two players. What is important is that social context.
Great summary. I take great pains to say "this isn't the only way to play, but the way I prefer." Variable is right; social context is the main point here.
I think that it's worth noting that I've played all the cards in this format with the exceptions of Stasis and Static Orb. I found them annoying to play, so I can surmise that they're annoying to play against.
I don't think it's reasonable to take away from this article the idea that I'm saying someone is a bad human being for liking/wanting to play with these cards. This was in no way an effort to bludgeon people into a style (although I'll say that fellow RC member Toby Elliott warned me that some people would see it that way). I'm saying that if you try benching them for a while, you might end up with more fun games. I get that some people don't want fun games, they want to win (or that they want to win more than they want fun).
People aren't better or worse people for liking a particular style of play. If you don't think that Dream Theater rules, that's something different.
Great summary. I take great pains to say "this isn't the only way to play, but the way I prefer." Variable is right; social context is the main point here.
I think that it's worth noting that I've played all the cards in this format with the exceptions of Stasis and Static Orb. I found them annoying to play, so I can surmise that they're annoying to play against.
I don't think it's reasonable to take away from this article the idea that I'm saying someone is a bad human being for liking/wanting to play with these cards. This was in no way an effort to bludgeon people into a style (although I'll say that fellow RC member Toby Elliott warned me that some people would see it that way). I'm saying that if you try benching them for a while, you might end up with more fun games. I get that some people don't want fun games, they want to win (or that they want to win more than they want fun).
People aren't better or worse people for liking a particular style of play. If you don't think that Dream Theater rules, that's something different.
Sheldon, I think it's safe to say that most of us on here respect you and understood your intent. It's just that we know that as a member of the Rules Committee and pretty much the figurehead of the format, your words carry additional weight with them, regardless of any sort of preface.
And for many of us, it's not that we find metas where half the decks are packing Armageddon and the other half Smokestack to be the only way to have fun, it's that many of us grow tired of seeing this great format being encouraged to play more Primal Surges and less Spell Crumples, more Diluvian Primordials and less Torpor Orbs. This isn't an assault on you, because Wizards shares a mentality of excess without reprocussion.
We recognize that there is a problem of encouraging excess, and instead of teaching valuable lessons about the price of over-extending, we are instead viewed like we kicked someone's dog because another player isn't having fun being able to play their deck uninterrupted.
I think that it's worth noting that I've played all the cards in this format with the exceptions of Stasis and Static Orb. I found them annoying to play, so I can surmise that they're annoying to play against.
I don't think it's reasonable to take away from this article the idea that I'm saying someone is a bad human being for liking/wanting to play with these cards. This was in no way an effort to bludgeon people into a style (although I'll say that fellow RC member Toby Elliott warned me that some people would see it that way). I'm saying that if you try benching them for a while, you might end up with more fun games. I get that some people don't want fun games, they want to win (or that they want to win more than they want fun).
Here's my thing regarding this: Part of what I find fun in Magic is playing, and playing against, a wide variety of decks. The fact that EDH offers this more than does any other format is a big part of why I love EDH so much. But part of why this is the case is that things like Stax decks and MLD decks and control decks and all sorts of other things are both possible and potentially viable in this format. In contrast, I am not very fond of Standard in large part because there are relatively few viable options at any given point in time.
I currently have 23 active EDH decks. One of them is a dedicated Stax deck (Nath). I also run a Heidar mono-blue control deck that includes much of what many people hate about mono-blue, including the possibility of setting up a Stasis lock. I play these because they are among the different ways to play the game, and because I find it interesting to play and win using different strategies. I enjoy playing against those same strategies. It's a good challenge to see if I can pull off a win when one or more opponents are running control while I am running aggro.
I also have voltron decks (Rafiq, Geist of St Traft) and "steal everything" decks (Rubinia Soulsinger) and tribal decks (Marrow Gnawer, Garza Zol, Karona 5-color allies) and "ramp and dump fatties onto the board" decks (Borborygmos, Mayael) and token decks (Rhys the Redeemed) and an infect deck (Jor Kadeen) and a reanimator deck (Geth) and sac/recursion decks (Glissa, Teysa) and a whole bunch of other decks. They run the gamut.
So, I frequently "bench" the stax/stasis stuff and play something else, but I also sometimes go from the "something else" to stax, or whatever, and to me, that option - and the possibility that I will run into a whole bunch of different strategies my opponents are running - is what makes for fun games for me.
Beyond that, I think a respect for, and openness to, diversity of play and deck styles makes for a pretty healthy social context.
Great summary. I take great pains to say "this isn't the only way to play, but the way I prefer." Variable is right; social context is the main point here.
I think that it's worth noting that I've played all the cards in this format with the exceptions of Stasis and Static Orb. I found them annoying to play, so I can surmise that they're annoying to play against.
I don't think it's reasonable to take away from this article the idea that I'm saying someone is a bad human being for liking/wanting to play with these cards. This was in no way an effort to bludgeon people into a style (although I'll say that fellow RC member Toby Elliott warned me that some people would see it that way). I'm saying that if you try benching them for a while, you might end up with more fun games. I get that some people don't want fun games, they want to win (or that they want to win more than they want fun).
People aren't better or worse people for liking a particular style of play. If you don't think that Dream Theater rules, that's something different.
I don't play Static Orb because I'm a Spike who values winning over a good time. Static Orb and resource denial strategies allow me to play games that are appreciably different from what many EDH players are accustomed to. I enjoy when my opponents escape the prison I create just as much as I enjoy watching them squirm as they slowly die to a Scavenging Ooze equipped with a Sword of War and Peace. The scorn you have directed towards resource denial strategies while showing no apparent issues with cards that homogenize deck building and play like Primordials, Tooth and Nail, and Consecrated Sphinx is distressing. I understand you have no intention of ever bringing down the old banhammer down on my Stax cards. I just want to make it clear that Stax players are not joyless Spikes.
Sheldon, I think it's safe to say that most of us on here respect you and understood your intent. It's just that we know that as a member of the Rules Committee and pretty much the figurehead of the format, your words carry additional weight with them, regardless of any sort of preface.
And for many of us, it's not that we find metas where half the decks are packing Armageddon and the other half Smokestack to be the only way to have fun, it's that many of us grow tired of seeing this great format being encouraged to play more Primal Surges and less Spell Crumples, more Diluvian Primordials and less Torpor Orbs. This isn't an assault on you, because Wizards shares a mentality of excess without reprocussion.
We recognize that there is a problem of encouraging excess, and instead of teaching valuable lessons about the price of over-extending, we are instead viewed like we kicked someone's dog because another player isn't having fun being able to play their deck uninterrupted.
I couldn't have said it better. I don't think the article's intent was to cause issues, but because Sheldon wrote it, it did. I already had someone tell me I shouldn't play humility because of the article. "Even the guy who invented Edh thinks it's bad."
I don't want to have to deal with that during games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Sheldon, I think it's safe to say that most of us on here respect you and understood your intent. It's just that we know that as a member of the Rules Committee and pretty much the figurehead of the format, your words carry additional weight with them, regardless of any sort of preface.
And for many of us, it's not that we find metas where half the decks are packing Armageddon and the other half Smokestack to be the only way to have fun, it's that many of us grow tired of seeing this great format being encouraged to play more Primal Surges and less Spell Crumples, more Diluvian Primordials and less Torpor Orbs. This isn't an assault on you, because Wizards shares a mentality of excess without reprocussion.
We recognize that there is a problem of encouraging excess, and instead of teaching valuable lessons about the price of over-extending, we are instead viewed like we kicked someone's dog because another player isn't having fun being able to play their deck uninterrupted.
Great post, with a lot of important points. I'd just like to expand on a few of them.
Sheldon, the problem with this article being written by you, is that you are the public face of the format. Regardless of your intent, the article is seen as word from the Rules Committee. Even if you put aside the fact that you are on the Committee, you are the most public face for the format. If that article had come from the Serious Fun column on Wizards page, for example, it would have received a few of the same responses, but it would have felt less like us being told what not to play and more like someone's opinion on what unfun cards are (which is what I assume your intent was). There is no denying that your position in the format leads people to believe what you say is representative of the direction the format is moving in.
With that in mind, a lot of us don't appreciate the public shaming of cards we would like to play. Indeed, some of the cards you mentioned (I'm not going to say which ones and go down that route; it won't serve the purposes of this post) are cards that see play in some of the most casual of circles. Even Timmy thinks that some of those cards are out-of-this-world awesome. But regardless of those opinions, you do the community no favors by steering it in a direction that eschews a strategy. The greatest thing about EDH, as commented by yourself at times, is that it lets you play cards that other formats won't. Where else can you play some of the big swingy spells that the format has become known for? But similarly, where else can we play Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, Humility, Wound Reflection, Vorinclex etc? You're isolating a part of the community with the way you write, and some of the things you choose to write about. Not to be cliche, but isolating players isn't very in-line with your "spirit of EDH," is it?
As pointed out in the quoted post, wizards is already doing this for you anyway. We aren't getting Grand Arbiters or Armageddons anymore. We won't have a chance to play these kinds of cards ever again. Instead we are getting ubiquitous ETB creatures which, from the sound of your article, are probably the style of play you prefer. So please don't try to take from those of us who do like those effects the only place where we can actually play them. Some of us like it, and others enjoy the challenge of beating it. In a social format embracing players and strategies of all types seems like the right way to go, instead of isolating them.
And just to reiterate, as many of my points seem to hinge on the idea that your word is the word of god Sheldon, please be a bit more considerate about what you say in public. You are the face of the format, and you do the format a lot of service, but biasing people against certain strategies isn't one of them.
He's not cool with Contamination but apparently is with Blood Moon, an even worse offender since Red is less used in EDH? I'm going to assume it was implied...
He's not cool with Contamination but apparently is with Blood Moon, an even worse offender since Red is less used in EDH? I'm going to assume it was implied...
I'm not going to take part in any of the thread's discussions, but I'd like to point out they're both very different cards, Contamination is for all lands while Blood Moon only hits non-basics. You can still use your basics while Blood Moon is shining, but are reliant on artifacts around a Contamination.
It's an argument that gets made routinely both online and in-person conversation. A quick glance at the last couple pages of the banned list discussion thread yields:
It may not be an argument you would make, but that doesn't mean Sheldon's resorting to strawmen.
This sort of seems like a distinction without a difference, but I'm not sure it works well even taken at face value. Barring a few narrow circumstances (like decks all-in on Boundless Realms), most ramp decks are working off multiple card types to produce mana. So unless you're hoping to get a Jokulhaups off, there are going to be a lot of ramp decks that simply don't care about you threatening them with land destruction.
You also get into situations where even if the opposing ramp IS running a deck that's just depending on lands for mana, that player decides to call you on your threatened 'geddon, and dumps all their lands on to the table and makes you his or her priority target. Sometimes you get off the Armageddon for the blown out, but he or she still has a legitimate chance to crush you before that happens.
The problem is that it's not 1999 anymore. Wizards made a conscious decision many years ago to stop supporting MLD decks in 40- and 60-card formats, and as a result no one who started playing in the last 10 years sandbags lands against Armageddon. Unless you're trying to bluff or play around Wasteland, holding on to your lands is a bad plan in every other format. It's also awful in EDH groups where no one's playing MLD.
If you want to talk down to players for not playing Magic the way you think they should, that's your prerogative, but it kinda comes across as a "Kids these days..." rant.
I'll agree that holding lands when you have things to cast is frequently a poor decision, but I disagree that holding onto lands "is a bad plan in every other format". The fact that I hold lands in EDH is a carryover from the formats I played before EDH, and I've never seen a reason to stop doing so. I would go so far as to say that holding lands has been more helpful in EDH than playing those same lands could have been, thanks to cards like Molten Psyche, Teferi's Puzzle Box, and Scroll Rack.
If you think it's a distinction without difference, then ask yourself this:
"Does a ramp deck play differently in a meta where MLD occurs than it does in a meta where MLD cannot occur?"
The simple fact is that ramp is exposed to MLD as a weakness. If Ramp knows its weakness is not present, it will have no reason to hold back. I did the same thing with my enchantment control deck in a meta that never bothered with enchantment removal. I could overextend without worry and I dominated the meta... until everyone realized what they needed to do. Now I have to hold back, and even though the sweepers rarely happen, my deck is much more "in control" than it used to be.
This is EDH, not standard and certainly not draft. If you graduate to a larger card pool, you need to recognize it. Anyone who plays the eternal formats knows that land destruction and resource denial are things to keep in mind.
This makes it sound like you don't play "every other format."
Duh. These are the same groups that are overrun by ramp strategies.
If you don't know what the meta contains, don't overextend your lands (or ramp rocks, or mana dorks).
I'm not talking down to anyone and I'm not saying how they "should" play. I'm saying that if they want to be better at Magic (i.e. make more optimal decisions and improve their win percentage), they need to keep in mind that everything is a resource and everything is vulnerable to something.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
GB [Primer][Competitive][Stax][Combo] Meren of Clan Nel Toth 95% RETIRED
UW [Primer][Competitive][Combo][Stax] Brago, King Eternal RETIRED
BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots (75%)
G Titania - 75%
W SRAM - Welcome to the cheeri0s jam 95%
U Teferi - stax 100%
R Neheb - janky mono red eggs combo 90%
B Gonti - 50% valuetown
Right. Nobody must play mana rocks.
While it's probably true Sheldon has a more diverse play group than anything I've seen, how he meets up with these particular people takes an interest to me.
Stax is one of the most fun things to play with and against imo. And I love LD. I love all elements of magic.
It's like Commander needs different graduating belts for students of this disipline.
Black Belt - Can play against all degenercy
White belt - No MLD, Stax
etc...
Sheesh
If there is a continueing trend to make this game easier and easier to play, at what point does it simply become as easy as tic tac toe?
Interesting Tic Tac Toe comparison. Since that game, is a game of futility.
"The only winning move is not to play...How about a nice game of chess?"
I imagine Sheldon plays with an ever changing group of people that come into a magic store, hence the diversity.
:symr::symu: Reality Bites
:symr::symu: Delver Cyclops
:symr::symu: Niv Control EDH
:symg::symw: Sigarda EDH
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you."
—Venser[/card]
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
The only one card possible insta wins I know of are
T&N
SotF
Hermit Druid
Ad Nausem
Imperial Recruiter
-Just about any tutor with X mana
Which require other cards to win, sure, but they by themself allow you to access the other cards. Perhaps there are more, but those are pretty much it. I don't know about palin being a one card insta.
Very interesting and telling at the same time. Why did he even bother to produce this list? I don't care what he feels he'd be better without. All I care about is what is on the banned list.
It requires one or two other cards (as do most the cards you mentioned), but it's really easy to make infinite mana with it, at which point you can cast somewhere between anything and everything to actually seal the deal.
That was indeed my point. Pretty much every card requires at least some support to go off. What makes Palinchron stand out is that it has so many options that you never really have to search very deep. The only requirements for instantly winning are that you: a) can produce at least 12 mana with up to 7 lands (11 mana will do if you only care about certain triggers or storm count) and b) have something to do with infinite mana.
Requirement a) is not that difficult considering how ubiquitous mana doublers are and given that there are two lands that can do it even without those doublers (used to be three, but at least they banned the worst offender). And given how popular ramp strategies are, most people run these cards anyway. As for requirement b), I cannot even begin to list the options for infinite mana and even if you don't win immediately with that, it's at the very worst an Omniscience that comes with build in self-protection and automatic infinite storm count and infinite ETB triggers.
Many other combos require at least some build up and the presence of identifiable combo pieces. Palinchron has this annoying "Top deck, Oops, I win" factor in many average board states. To make it worse, it serves no other purpose than to do this. Without the intention of going infinite, Palinchron is an overcosted generic flyer with unimpressive stats. Even for something like Tooth and Nail (even though I dislike that card as well), you can at least reasonably make the argument that you have it in your deck to search for specific answers or get some good fatties to seal the deal without needing to use it as an infinite combo piece.
I don't have anything against infinite combos by itself. I just don't like cards that can drop in an average or large variety of board states and win out of nowhere. If you drop Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker in a deck that also runs blue, then a skilled playgroup should know to be ready for Pestermite. If someone puts Exquisite Blood on the table, then you better keep mana open to somehow deal with a possible Sanguine Bond. But it's very difficult to expect everyone to start sniping all ramp cards, mana doublers or multi-mana lands to stop someone from winning with that damn Palinchron. Even Coalition Victory requires at least a somewhat predictable and disruptable board state before it drops.
I partially agree. First though, I will say to your previous comments that 99% of the time the internet says that something is a Strawman, it's actually just someone arguing against a position that the accuser just doesn't happen to hold. So while I agree (and Maro historically agrees as well) that what motivates competitives is the drive to get better in building and in play, Sheldon might be arguing against players (if any) who just want to win. As to whether those actually exist, I happen to think they do because I consistently see the same people on MODO show up with T5 combo decks in public games. He's saying that he's not really going to cater to those people.
Likewise with MLD, he's saying that people can't justify it as a naked answer against ramp. That's not necessarily saying that's the only thing to recommend it. He's just saying that it doesn't counter ramp. Which is deceptively true. You can't just slide it into your deck. What you have to do is build a control deck around resource denial, or to sensibly fit it in and use it in an aggro deck. So if you're in the boat crying that you need MLD against ramp, then he's saying you're wrong, but if you're not in that boat he's not arguing against your position. No strawman.
But I do agree that he's being a bit deceptive in places. It's almost Napoleonic when he says that most people came up with things that they themselves refuse to play rather than disallowing from others, when the very title of the thread he used here to elicit feedback was, "things YOU might consider not using". He seems to be pinpointing the group he wants to talk to and play with, then using the fact of those discussions and those games as support for the conclusion that this is what all or most EDH'ers are. Elsewhere, his lack of knowledge of the format seems to come from legitimate lack of play against competent decks, rather than deliberately singling them out. The fact that he doesn't like Vicious Shadows, a card that never wins before Turn 10, says a lot about the kinds of decks he faces.
In fact, that struck me a lot. It's evident that his experience with the format is widely different from my own, and so I find myself wishing his feedback were more constructive in the setting that I play. I think you can essentially divide the format into three groups:
1) The, "It sucks you played Vicious Shadows because otherwise my Decree of Pain would've kept me alive" group. The 5 board wipes in every deck group because creatures are the only thing that wins group. Apparently, Sheldon's group.
2) The group that doesn't do anything super-fast at the expense of being uninteractive but nevertheless builds decks that win by Turn 9-10 group. The Survival-Mimeoplasm, BUG Combo-Control, Zur, Arcum, UBx Orb Stax, Obliterate.dec group. The I don't care about board wipes group. Probably the fastest growing group, to my eye at least.
3) The Tier-0, never get tired of Hermit Druid group. Nuff said.
It seems that 2 and 3 seem like the exact same thing to group 1. And it seems that no respect is being paid to group 2 when they complain about degenerate cards, and most of all, they're not being evaluated for whether their games are interactive and in the "spirit of EDH". They're just labeled tryhards when Rite of Replication on top of a 7-drop isn't their win-con. And the apparent fact that Sheldon's never played in Group 2 is disappointing to me.
One more thing that I found troubling - the Dream Theater example. In any controversy, one party has to carry what's called the burden of persuasion. That party's case is evaluated, and if it's insufficient, things stay on the status quo without the other party having to make its counter-case. Who has the burden of persuasion on what kind of play should be allowed in EDH is cripplingly unclear, and nothing in that article clarified it. In the Dream Theater example, it's one thing to not listen to that band when the two are "hanging out". It's another thing to go passive-aggressive and delete the songs from the other person's iPod. But the real comparison is whether to go to the concert of a band that covers 90's music generally, or whether there should be both DT and non-DT playlists of 90's music. Who has the burden of persuasion? Should you have to tell me that you don't like DT before I pop in my mix CD, or should I know beforehand somehow?
Because there's a category of cards that are allowed and not allowed in EDH as per the RC banlist. It seems to me that anyone arguing against a card not on that list has the burden of persuasion. Yet this article along with the house-rule mentality in it seems to suggest that people who want to run legal cards that are nevertheless undesirable under a set of unofficial, nebulous criteria have the burden of persuasion shifted to them instead. It suggests that people have to open up the discussion every time a game is had so that this house-rule crowd has its legally guaranteed say-so. This group has judicial protection against things it doesn't like, because the banlist is just a "starting point" preparatory to this group's right. It's just shifting the burden of persuasion. And so the existence of a ban list simultaneously with the peremptory right of this group to have their first say is a source of enormous confusion in the format, and I don't even see any acknowledgment paid to that.
So Sheldon professes tolerance for other styles of play and vows to keep the banlist uncluttered owing to that respect, but meanwhile, the whole format is just procedurally stacked in favor of the unspoken majority that Sheldon and others apparently see.
Also troubling from the opposite angle is the RC commitment not to enforce their ideals on anyone else, when in fact, every other established format has had no problem with Wizards responsibly enforcing its own vision of it. If people want to play Cloutpost in Modern, too bad, because it's outside for Wizards vision of the format. And rather than being worse off, it's actually better because of the responsible oversight is coupled with a vision of play that a lot of people (not everyone) can find fun. That there are other types of fun outside that format has never bothered any rules body ever before.
Honestly, that makes me suspect it's something else. Fear of backlash. Perceived difficulty of regulating the format. Something. Evidently belonging to group 1 above maybe leads to some doubt about whether the RC can even evaluate the validity of group 2's interests, much less enforce a vision that's acceptable to both, which is in my opinion possible.
"Hurting your opponents more than you" Is a tad bit different when talking lands or creatures.
How is my argument ridiculous when we are both arguing the same thing. All I said is that MLD is a card that is only played when it will guarantee you victory and doing so requires the removal of an opponents number of options.
A spiteful MLD when someone is struggling to get land will probably end up hurting the person who cast it more than the person who hasn't drawn that many lands yest.
Because lands are so important to how the game works it adds a level of complexity to when you use cards that remove all of them it also requires you not wanting to play everything else that is in your hand as well.
Which is a common misconception people seem to have about people who use those cards, we like casting all the other fun toys too.
Excellent post, and I definitely think this is a good point. I wish the RC would have a little more backbone about homogenizing the format - endorsing "house rules" is great for people playing in very stable long-term groups, but a lot of us are roaming around finding games in various stores and such, and the idea of having a different banlist for each group makes me ill. Luckily I've yet to meet anyone who didn't follow the normal banlist (in a few cases the 1v1 banlist), so I think it's mostly just an image change.
To be fair, though, they've made improvements in this regard. At one point, the list was just "discouraged cards" or some such crap. Can't remember when they made the switch to officially calling it the banlist.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
That being said I think my personal play group belongs to a fourth type, though I don't know what I'd call it. We don't rule out any strategies but don't often come across oppressive stax decks or consistent early turn combos, most of us just don't own the cards to do it (or in a few situations can't evaluate the cards well enough to figure out that you could do it). We don't necessarily play a lot of creatures, spell decks are viable and it has nothing to do with the number of sweepers run, because there aren't many. You can be very competitive and skilled with the cards you have access to, which is kind of our group, the "play it if you got it" group. You just have to be the best you can with what you have, and some people win with under optimized lists because they can read board states really well. Others of us win because we know how to pack answers and dig for them. We balance ourselves because none of us are really skilled at every facet of the game, but all of us have a facet we are better at than others, and we don't always build our decks to utilize those strengths. One of my friends is really good at the late game if he can get you there. He can't always, but if he does, expect to lose. Sometimes he plays low curve 'aggro' decks. He pilots them like **** but if it gets post 6 mana he'll probably beat you still. Another of our friends is a 12 turns ahead kind of guy, extremely good at predicting other players moves (not down to a specific card, but a card type like "will play a creature" "will hold the removal" etc). He wins by predicting future board states and managing to hold just the right card, or wait just long enough. Honestly, I feel like half the cards he puts in his deck are junk but its kind of like that "Tariel: you'll think for this later" deck, really efficient use of super narrow answers because he can figure out when to use them better than most.
That's something that seems to be oddly missing from any discussion I've seen thus far regarding any magic discussion, the idea of player specialties. People call it player preference or talk about good and bad players but no one seems to talk about the idea that there are certain aspects of the game some people are just really good at and some that people really suck at. I hate playing counterspells because I don't know what to use them against. I'm R/B at heart, I'm a proactive player not a reactive one because I can't see that far down the line. My friend however is inhumanly good at it but occasionally my impulsive plays which catch him way off guard, it wasn't that I used Rakdos Cackler instead of Goblin Guide and the card quality won the day, its that he was expecting a threat, any threat, and got a "do nothing" enchantment instead. All those cards he was hording to answer my "threat" are useless. I didn't do it on purpose, it was a gut decision.
Things like that can fundamentally change the way a game is played or how good a card is. The thing is that situations like that don't effect how good a card like Tooth and Nail is and what you should fetch with it. To me it seems like that is what this article (for the most part), and most of the complaints I find on these forums, seem to be railing against so hard. I hate to say it, but people hate playing against Good stuff decks. If you pack your deck full of cards that are good in every conceivable game state, well people don't want to play against that, and some cards epitomize that more than others. Some cards are annoying because they kick the little guy when he's down as much as trying to hurt the big guy (Geddon and Sylvan) and get just as much hate as a result. (I'm not advocating this thought process, just trying to identify it more substantially than I believe it has been thus far). I don't think its the cards mind you, its the players.
There is an element of suspense when another player starts their turn, that "what's he going to do" feeling. When people see Tooth and Nail that excitement is destroyed. They know what you are going to grab even if they don't know your decklist, even if they can't name the cards, they know what its going to be. To me it feels like the article is advocating removing cards that produce that "dread" whenever you see it. Play cards that bring the excitement, not ones that smash it to pieces. Its going to be different for everyone but certain cards get brought up an awful lot around here and I'm not saying there's a reason why, but there's a reason why.
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
if this is some kind of quasi ban list, then just man up and ban the cards.
if this is just an article about 21 cards that one dude doesn't like, why would anyone care?
I hope no money changed hands here.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
Great summary. I take great pains to say "this isn't the only way to play, but the way I prefer." Variable is right; social context is the main point here.
I think that it's worth noting that I've played all the cards in this format with the exceptions of Stasis and Static Orb. I found them annoying to play, so I can surmise that they're annoying to play against.
I don't think it's reasonable to take away from this article the idea that I'm saying someone is a bad human being for liking/wanting to play with these cards. This was in no way an effort to bludgeon people into a style (although I'll say that fellow RC member Toby Elliott warned me that some people would see it that way). I'm saying that if you try benching them for a while, you might end up with more fun games. I get that some people don't want fun games, they want to win (or that they want to win more than they want fun).
People aren't better or worse people for liking a particular style of play. If you don't think that Dream Theater rules, that's something different.
Sheldon, I think it's safe to say that most of us on here respect you and understood your intent. It's just that we know that as a member of the Rules Committee and pretty much the figurehead of the format, your words carry additional weight with them, regardless of any sort of preface.
And for many of us, it's not that we find metas where half the decks are packing Armageddon and the other half Smokestack to be the only way to have fun, it's that many of us grow tired of seeing this great format being encouraged to play more Primal Surges and less Spell Crumples, more Diluvian Primordials and less Torpor Orbs. This isn't an assault on you, because Wizards shares a mentality of excess without reprocussion.
We recognize that there is a problem of encouraging excess, and instead of teaching valuable lessons about the price of over-extending, we are instead viewed like we kicked someone's dog because another player isn't having fun being able to play their deck uninterrupted.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Here's my thing regarding this: Part of what I find fun in Magic is playing, and playing against, a wide variety of decks. The fact that EDH offers this more than does any other format is a big part of why I love EDH so much. But part of why this is the case is that things like Stax decks and MLD decks and control decks and all sorts of other things are both possible and potentially viable in this format. In contrast, I am not very fond of Standard in large part because there are relatively few viable options at any given point in time.
I currently have 23 active EDH decks. One of them is a dedicated Stax deck (Nath). I also run a Heidar mono-blue control deck that includes much of what many people hate about mono-blue, including the possibility of setting up a Stasis lock. I play these because they are among the different ways to play the game, and because I find it interesting to play and win using different strategies. I enjoy playing against those same strategies. It's a good challenge to see if I can pull off a win when one or more opponents are running control while I am running aggro.
I also have voltron decks (Rafiq, Geist of St Traft) and "steal everything" decks (Rubinia Soulsinger) and tribal decks (Marrow Gnawer, Garza Zol, Karona 5-color allies) and "ramp and dump fatties onto the board" decks (Borborygmos, Mayael) and token decks (Rhys the Redeemed) and an infect deck (Jor Kadeen) and a reanimator deck (Geth) and sac/recursion decks (Glissa, Teysa) and a whole bunch of other decks. They run the gamut.
So, I frequently "bench" the stax/stasis stuff and play something else, but I also sometimes go from the "something else" to stax, or whatever, and to me, that option - and the possibility that I will run into a whole bunch of different strategies my opponents are running - is what makes for fun games for me.
Beyond that, I think a respect for, and openness to, diversity of play and deck styles makes for a pretty healthy social context.
I don't play Static Orb because I'm a Spike who values winning over a good time. Static Orb and resource denial strategies allow me to play games that are appreciably different from what many EDH players are accustomed to. I enjoy when my opponents escape the prison I create just as much as I enjoy watching them squirm as they slowly die to a Scavenging Ooze equipped with a Sword of War and Peace. The scorn you have directed towards resource denial strategies while showing no apparent issues with cards that homogenize deck building and play like Primordials, Tooth and Nail, and Consecrated Sphinx is distressing. I understand you have no intention of ever bringing down the old banhammer down on my Stax cards. I just want to make it clear that Stax players are not joyless Spikes.
I couldn't have said it better. I don't think the article's intent was to cause issues, but because Sheldon wrote it, it did. I already had someone tell me I shouldn't play humility because of the article. "Even the guy who invented Edh thinks it's bad."
I don't want to have to deal with that during games.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Great post, with a lot of important points. I'd just like to expand on a few of them.
Sheldon, the problem with this article being written by you, is that you are the public face of the format. Regardless of your intent, the article is seen as word from the Rules Committee. Even if you put aside the fact that you are on the Committee, you are the most public face for the format. If that article had come from the Serious Fun column on Wizards page, for example, it would have received a few of the same responses, but it would have felt less like us being told what not to play and more like someone's opinion on what unfun cards are (which is what I assume your intent was). There is no denying that your position in the format leads people to believe what you say is representative of the direction the format is moving in.
With that in mind, a lot of us don't appreciate the public shaming of cards we would like to play. Indeed, some of the cards you mentioned (I'm not going to say which ones and go down that route; it won't serve the purposes of this post) are cards that see play in some of the most casual of circles. Even Timmy thinks that some of those cards are out-of-this-world awesome. But regardless of those opinions, you do the community no favors by steering it in a direction that eschews a strategy. The greatest thing about EDH, as commented by yourself at times, is that it lets you play cards that other formats won't. Where else can you play some of the big swingy spells that the format has become known for? But similarly, where else can we play Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, Humility, Wound Reflection, Vorinclex etc? You're isolating a part of the community with the way you write, and some of the things you choose to write about. Not to be cliche, but isolating players isn't very in-line with your "spirit of EDH," is it?
As pointed out in the quoted post, wizards is already doing this for you anyway. We aren't getting Grand Arbiters or Armageddons anymore. We won't have a chance to play these kinds of cards ever again. Instead we are getting ubiquitous ETB creatures which, from the sound of your article, are probably the style of play you prefer. So please don't try to take from those of us who do like those effects the only place where we can actually play them. Some of us like it, and others enjoy the challenge of beating it. In a social format embracing players and strategies of all types seems like the right way to go, instead of isolating them.
And just to reiterate, as many of my points seem to hinge on the idea that your word is the word of god Sheldon, please be a bit more considerate about what you say in public. You are the face of the format, and you do the format a lot of service, but biasing people against certain strategies isn't one of them.
Niv-Mizzet Ramp 'n' Wheel
Godo: Strap him up and turn him sideways!
I'm not going to take part in any of the thread's discussions, but I'd like to point out they're both very different cards, Contamination is for all lands while Blood Moon only hits non-basics. You can still use your basics while Blood Moon is shining, but are reliant on artifacts around a Contamination.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.