Here's the problem though. Magic cards are printed for, tested for, and designed for, by and large, two-player formats where players have twenty life, consistency, etc. Cards like Sylvan Primordial are fair there - a reanimator deck with the commander card pool is going to be going for Iona, J-Tax, maybe some other toolboxy ones. But in a format where not only does it set three players back a turn in development at worst, and it ramps you three... that's just too good. There are lots of cards that need to be banned because of how they interact with how the format is structured. Ad Nauseam is another good example - it draws twice as many cards as it does in the formats it was designed for. Trade Secrets.
I may post an article on the subject within the next month or so.
Here's the problem though. Magic cards are printed for, tested for, and designed for, by and large, two-player formats where players have twenty life, consistency, etc. Cards like Sylvan Primordial are fair there - a reanimator deck with the commander card pool is going to be going for Iona, J-Tax, maybe some other toolboxy ones. But in a format where not only does it set three players back a turn in development at worst, and it ramps you three... that's just too good. There are lots of cards that need to be banned because of how they interact with how the format is structured. Ad Nauseam is another good example - it draws twice as many cards as it does in the formats it was designed for. Trade Secrets.
I may post an article on the subject within the next month or so.
which is why if you really wanted to make a competitive ruleset for edh you should set the life total back to 20 :/ you would have to ban way less cards and it would fix more problems than any 50 + bans combine and open up the card pool vastly. 40 life is not fair as far as competition goes its flat out stupid about the only thing more broken is the command zone but i find that pretty format defining you alredy need to deal 3x as much damage to kill a table at 20 life 40 life makes many cards a joke even something as simple as gitaxian probe no longer functions properly if you or any of your friends over at competitive reddit ever seriously attempt a competitive banlist for multiplayer I STRONGLY suggest 20 life. Ad Nauseam could end up being just fine heck even necropotence could be fine if your killing vintage power rocks along with the life total change i think i ranted about thsi on my channel at some point. If your going to go about making a competitive banlist these kinds of changes should be the number 1 priority. While i can understand it would mean more work as you obviously would need to test cards in this setting it in my mind is an absolute MUST.
I'm fairly new to edh and magic in general (under a year) and have built probably 9 decks. They range from stax evil to combos of doom.
My favorite deck though? Pheldagriff group hug. Not having to worry about winning and making the game magical with unique and bizarre spells and effects (hence the game being called magic) is what makes the game for me. This deck and my new chaos deck has caused our edh table to laugh like maniacs countless times.
My competitive decks along with others just cause too much stress and negativity for the whole table. This on top of, well... as mean as it sounds... Some of the poor social skills found in a selection of players of the magic community have cause needless issues fast.
I will also say deck style and attitude styles cause a huge difference on how I view people. I have two friends who have much better decks and better magic skills. One I love playing with, and the other I can't stand. The one I like will dominate us, but by some silly combo that makes his monsters huge or some nonsense. My other friend... Always tries to lock people out and becomes a jerk when targeted or countered, stating he's being victimized.
Biggest pet peeve though is someone taking longer doing plays on MY turn then me on my actual turn... For every turn. Just obnoxious.
Group hug is worse than stax, MLD, and combo. I also go from group hug first (and most people I know) due to how they warp the game. Heck, I've had a Karn ult twice to restart everything.
Depends on how you warp the game, how often you play it, and the people you play with.
Giving lands and draw warps the game granted but it's not as effective as say apocalypse.
Playing it every game, like playing anything every game, gets tiresome quick. I'll tell you what though, the occasional bizarreness is a fresh feeling from consistent arm race games.
It took me a long time, but some discussion in this thread combined with other articles and discussion in the Banlist Thread compelled me to write this article.
Do you think it would be a good idea to create a seperate banlist, let's call it "cEDH-banlist"? This way you could sit down with any group of strangers and say:
"my deck is built according to the "cEDH-banlist". Is that okay with you?"
Personally I wouldn't do this. Then you'd have to explain what and where this list is, blah blah blah.
What I've done before is things like bringing arcum to a table of less powerful decks and agreeing to avoid using disk+forge and infinite combos, and to only use aggro to kill people. I've also made gentleman's agreements playing captain sisay to avoid anything that destroys lands or renders them useless.
Well to be honest, to split up a format that is so small and make it even smaller might not be the best action to do.
Isn't bringing a cEDH deck to a table by definition already trying to split up the format? The majority of EDH players don't want to, to quote the article, "interact with turn 3 kills" and I assume the majority of cEDH players don't want to "dumb down" their decks to play against casuals either.
Well to be honest, to split up a format that is so small and make it even smaller might not be the best action to do.
Isn't bringing a cEDH deck to a table by definition already trying to split up the format? The majority of EDH players don't want to, to quote the article, "interact with turn 3 kills" and I assume the majority of cEDH players don't want to "dumb down" their decks to play against casuals either.
As has been pointed out in the past, the line between casual and competitive EDH is very very difficult to draw. Some people start out playing casually, but find themselves tuning their decks more and more. Some people already play strong decks, but refuse to commit to cutthroat in-game decisions. For a person who is not at the absolute ends of the casual-competitive spectrum, choosing a banlist would be tedious and unnecessary.
It took me a long time, but some discussion in this thread combined with other articles and discussion in the Banlist Thread compelled me to write this article.
I am interested in any feedback you guys might have.
So, I haven't kept up with the banned list thread in quite some time nor have I really delved into this thread in any great length, but I did decide to read the article you linked. I read it twice actually because I value what you have to say. As a writer, I can tell that you invested a sizable amount of energy into your work. Having said that, I feel like your article really didn't deliver.
The crux of your article, for me at least, was convincing the reader that the Commander banned list should be driven towards balance rather than vision. Here, you failed to convince me. Why should the banned list be driven towards balance?
Why, then, should we have a banned list aimed at balance? If the format is already playable, why do we need more balance? The answer is to promote fairer strategies.
I felt like you lost me at this point in the article. What exactly do you mean by fairer strategies? How are some strategies fair and other strategies unfair? Aren't all strategies fair? Most of all, if all strategies are not fair, why do I want them to be so?
Rather than answering these questions, you instead proceed to discuss how Commander's competitive metagame influences deck construction; competitive players have to be prepared for turn three wins. This misses the point entirely. While your observation regarding competitive Commander may be true, it's moot. Commander was never designed or intended to be played in a competitive fashion. Commander's rules do not reflect this, and Commander's banned list does not reflect this either. Any repercussions that occur to Commander's competitive metagame are inconsequential for that reason, so to use those consequences as an example for why the banned list should orient towards balance instead of vision is missing the point.
There isn't anything wrong with wanting to play Commander in a competitive manner, but you must understand that if somebody chooses to do so they're going to find faults in it because Commander was never designed or intended to be played that way. To make an analogy, playing Commander competitively is a lot like using a flathead screwdriver as a can opener. Sure, you can do it. It isn't as easy as using a can opener, but flathead screwdrivers weren't made to open cans; they were made to drive screws. To find fault in the screwdriver for failing to be an excellent can opener would be ridiculous. Similarly, to find fault in Commander's banned list because it doesn't pander to competitive players would be equally so.
Now, please don't mistake me for trying to argue what Commander should be. That isn't what I'm trying to do here. All I'm trying to say is that Commander wasn't created for what you want it to be; it was created for different purposes. You could still make an argument — albeit a difficult one — that the banned list should cater towards balance, but citing evidence regarding the state of Commander's competitive metagame as a reason for why it should be just doesn't jive. Your arguments need to reflect how gearing the banned list towards balance would improve upon what Commander was created for, not for what it wasn't.
You later go on to mention that changing the banned list to reflect balance instead of vision won't cause harm to anyone wishing to play the game at low-power levels.
On the contrary, I do not believe that changing the banned list such this way harms players who want to play low-power EDH.
I believe this to be untrue, but this is likely just a difference of opinion, and I'm not quite following your explanation for why you believe this to be so. Would you be willing to clarify this more for me? Your article doesn't quite make clear to me why such a change would be harmless to low-power Commander players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
If you want a competive change that valences card archetypes diversity and nerds combo elements I can personally say that changing the life total to 20 and removing just crypt and ring sets quite a different stage. I feel this is one of the main reasons trying to cater to big is silly. I don't think casual tables want less than 40 life but the best way to balence the format is to reduce it. In fact I find most people even who want balence are unwilling to dive all the way to 20 life for reasons unrelated to balence at all. I do think you should give this a try in your personally groups however raz. Yes it changes quite a bit about the format but I find it much better from a competive standpoint. Instead of banning tons of cards to compensate for the doubled life total you simple eliminate it. I can't even begin to describe how much this not only valences the current card pool but increase the variety of good playable cards.
Read the article but was unsatisfied. You raised the question of what should be banned for diversity and balance yet ended the article without addressing the issue. As an example, my preference is to play creature-based lists. But a creature-based deck cannot and will never match the efficiency of UBX combo without tilting heavily towards a stax strategy to buy enough time to survive into the midgame: Ad Nauseam, Necropotence, and Doomsday are too fast, too efficient. So I find myself putting in stax elements into every creature-based deck concept I explore. I feel this does not promote diversity
I may post an article on the subject within the next month or so.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
which is why if you really wanted to make a competitive ruleset for edh you should set the life total back to 20 :/ you would have to ban way less cards and it would fix more problems than any 50 + bans combine and open up the card pool vastly. 40 life is not fair as far as competition goes its flat out stupid about the only thing more broken is the command zone but i find that pretty format defining you alredy need to deal 3x as much damage to kill a table at 20 life 40 life makes many cards a joke even something as simple as gitaxian probe no longer functions properly if you or any of your friends over at competitive reddit ever seriously attempt a competitive banlist for multiplayer I STRONGLY suggest 20 life. Ad Nauseam could end up being just fine heck even necropotence could be fine if your killing vintage power rocks along with the life total change i think i ranted about thsi on my channel at some point. If your going to go about making a competitive banlist these kinds of changes should be the number 1 priority. While i can understand it would mean more work as you obviously would need to test cards in this setting it in my mind is an absolute MUST.
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
Group hug is worse than stax, MLD, and combo. I also go from group hug first (and most people I know) due to how they warp the game. Heck, I've had a Karn ult twice to restart everything.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Giving lands and draw warps the game granted but it's not as effective as say apocalypse.
Playing it every game, like playing anything every game, gets tiresome quick. I'll tell you what though, the occasional bizarreness is a fresh feeling from consistent arm race games.
http://www.5colorcombo.com/draft/2016/09/07/edh-banlist-observations.html
I am interested in any feedback you guys might have.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
What I've done before is things like bringing arcum to a table of less powerful decks and agreeing to avoid using disk+forge and infinite combos, and to only use aggro to kill people. I've also made gentleman's agreements playing captain sisay to avoid anything that destroys lands or renders them useless.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Isn't bringing a cEDH deck to a table by definition already trying to split up the format? The majority of EDH players don't want to, to quote the article, "interact with turn 3 kills" and I assume the majority of cEDH players don't want to "dumb down" their decks to play against casuals either.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
So, I haven't kept up with the banned list thread in quite some time nor have I really delved into this thread in any great length, but I did decide to read the article you linked. I read it twice actually because I value what you have to say. As a writer, I can tell that you invested a sizable amount of energy into your work. Having said that, I feel like your article really didn't deliver.
The crux of your article, for me at least, was convincing the reader that the Commander banned list should be driven towards balance rather than vision. Here, you failed to convince me. Why should the banned list be driven towards balance?
I felt like you lost me at this point in the article. What exactly do you mean by fairer strategies? How are some strategies fair and other strategies unfair? Aren't all strategies fair? Most of all, if all strategies are not fair, why do I want them to be so?
Rather than answering these questions, you instead proceed to discuss how Commander's competitive metagame influences deck construction; competitive players have to be prepared for turn three wins. This misses the point entirely. While your observation regarding competitive Commander may be true, it's moot. Commander was never designed or intended to be played in a competitive fashion. Commander's rules do not reflect this, and Commander's banned list does not reflect this either. Any repercussions that occur to Commander's competitive metagame are inconsequential for that reason, so to use those consequences as an example for why the banned list should orient towards balance instead of vision is missing the point.
There isn't anything wrong with wanting to play Commander in a competitive manner, but you must understand that if somebody chooses to do so they're going to find faults in it because Commander was never designed or intended to be played that way. To make an analogy, playing Commander competitively is a lot like using a flathead screwdriver as a can opener. Sure, you can do it. It isn't as easy as using a can opener, but flathead screwdrivers weren't made to open cans; they were made to drive screws. To find fault in the screwdriver for failing to be an excellent can opener would be ridiculous. Similarly, to find fault in Commander's banned list because it doesn't pander to competitive players would be equally so.
Now, please don't mistake me for trying to argue what Commander should be. That isn't what I'm trying to do here. All I'm trying to say is that Commander wasn't created for what you want it to be; it was created for different purposes. You could still make an argument — albeit a difficult one — that the banned list should cater towards balance, but citing evidence regarding the state of Commander's competitive metagame as a reason for why it should be just doesn't jive. Your arguments need to reflect how gearing the banned list towards balance would improve upon what Commander was created for, not for what it wasn't.
You later go on to mention that changing the banned list to reflect balance instead of vision won't cause harm to anyone wishing to play the game at low-power levels.
I believe this to be untrue, but this is likely just a difference of opinion, and I'm not quite following your explanation for why you believe this to be so. Would you be willing to clarify this more for me? Your article doesn't quite make clear to me why such a change would be harmless to low-power Commander players.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
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
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL