I agree with having a banlist, but there are too many cards that ruin the fun.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
but really there are also influxes in balance. Academy is banned, but Cradle gets to stay? Green FOCUSES on creatures. Coffers is also good, when urborg is out, i feel it is not even close to the same power as Cradle.
there are many factors i feel the RC ignore which is why i claim they are in their own little bubble. I feel the ban list support their games and not games we play.
The problem is that everything is subjective, be it deck power, fun, what "competitive" means, you name it. At some point you just have to pick what you think the generally preferred baseline is and run with that. Or in the case of the RC, they appear to have chosen what they prefer as a particular style of play and focus on that, while acknowledging that not everyone plays in that fashion. And this is why people tend to clash, because when there is this "well I dont like stax but some people do so I won't ban it" you get arguments over who is right and wrong. Same with cEDH style of play and arguing over banning fast mana and broken tutors. It's better in my opinion to focus on cards that are detrimental to the format across different play styles and trust on the social contract and open dialogue to help keep the rest in check. That's why cards like Sol Ring and Iona should demand attention but Smokestack and Hermit Druid don't.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
Could you expand on why you think the 'P9 plus Balance' ban list would shift the tactics of the community if the current one does not? I don't seem to see the logical connection.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
The problem is that everything is subjective, be it deck power, fun, what "competitive" means, you name it. At some point you just have to pick what you think the generally preferred baseline is and run with that. Or in the case of the RC, they appear to have chosen what they prefer as a particular style of play and focus on that, while acknowledging that not everyone plays in that fashion. And this is why people tend to clash, because when there is this "well I dont like stax but some people do so I won't ban it" you get arguments over who is right and wrong. Same with cEDH style of play and arguing over banning fast mana and broken tutors. It's better in my opinion to focus on cards that are detrimental to the format across different play styles and trust on the social contract and open dialogue to help keep the rest in check. That's why cards like Sol Ring and Iona should demand attention but Smokestack and Hermit Druid don't.
Oh wow, it has been forever since I have seen a hermit druid deck.
I did run Leovold at one point, and it was the only deck that was able to hold that guy;s derevi at bay. and then they banned leovold and again the derevi went back to being public enemy number one. (Leovold is still in my binder in case they ever unban him)
But that is just it, they banned an answer to a deck that we did not enjoy playing against (We, As in my LGS) yet they let Derevi (A mistake wizards has already apologized for (I cannot find article, i have been asked to find it before, but i remember reading it)
But yes, ever since he left (Moved for work) the attendees to Thursday night EDH has become anyone's game.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If thats enemy #1, why is it still allowed in the store? Seems like a pretty tight group with known people.
Yeah, this does seem to me a perfect example of where meta communication comes in. If it's that oppressive, y'all are well within your rights to ask your friend to give it a rest with Derevi, even if it's just once in a while.
If thats enemy #1, why is it still allowed in the store? Seems like a pretty tight group with known people.
Yeah, this does seem to me a perfect example of where meta communication comes in. If it's that oppressive, y'all are well within your rights to ask your friend to give it a rest with Derevi, even if it's just once in a while.
We did, many times. His rakdos, kozi and mudrotha were not much nicer.
I am actually glad p9 are banned as he had copies (plural) of each.
Sounds like the sort of guy I just wouldn't play against, to be honest. If he's going to be an ********, boycott him. Sounds like the situation sorted itself, but I'd definitely have told him where to stick his bird wizard if it didn't.
I agree with having a banlist, but there are too many cards that ruin the fun.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
but really there are also influxes in balance. Academy is banned, but Cradle gets to stay? Green FOCUSES on creatures. Coffers is also good, when urborg is out, i feel it is not even close to the same power as Cradle.
there are many factors i feel the RC ignore which is why i claim they are in their own little bubble. I feel the ban list support their games and not games we play.
The problem is that everything is subjective, be it deck power, fun, what "competitive" means, you name it. At some point you just have to pick what you think the generally preferred baseline is and run with that. Or in the case of the RC, they appear to have chosen what they prefer as a particular style of play and focus on that, while acknowledging that not everyone plays in that fashion. And this is why people tend to clash, because when there is this "well I dont like stax but some people do so I won't ban it" you get arguments over who is right and wrong. Same with cEDH style of play and arguing over banning fast mana and broken tutors. It's better in my opinion to focus on cards that are detrimental to the format across different play styles and trust on the social contract and open dialogue to help keep the rest in check. That's why cards like Sol Ring and Iona should demand attention but Smokestack and Hermit Druid don't.
TBH, a lot of Stax players don't play Smokestack that much anymore. It's too slow. It costs 4, does nothing until your next turn. It's still playable in some decks, but it's slow af.
Iona, however, is a huge problem. Kaalia can bring her out, reanimator can bring her out, and if you're a monocolored player, anything that isn't an artifact or land (or maybe an Eldrazi now and then or a morph) is just a blank slip of paper.
But as I said, we need control as a viable strategy. It's literally the only thing keeping a lot of other busted decks from dominating the meta. It's this weird tension in formatcraft. Control doesn't have to be the top strategy, but it does have to be a viable strategy. But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
TBH, a lot of Stax players don't play Smokestack that much anymore. It's too slow. It costs 4, does nothing until your next turn. It's still playable in some decks, but it's slow af.
Iona, however, is a huge problem. Kaalia can bring her out, reanimator can bring her out, and if you're a monocolored player, anything that isn't an artifact or land (or maybe an Eldrazi now and then or a morph) is just a blank slip of paper.
But as I said, we need control as a viable strategy. It's literally the only thing keeping a lot of other busted decks from dominating the meta. It's this weird tension in formatcraft. Control doesn't have to be the top strategy, but it does have to be a viable strategy. But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
I was just grabbing well known cards to illustrate the point that stax and hypercompetitive combo has a stigma but is not a widespread problem which the RC needs to address.
But as I said, we need control as a viable strategy. It's literally the only thing keeping a lot of other busted decks from dominating the meta. It's this weird tension in formatcraft. Control doesn't have to be the top strategy, but it does have to be a viable strategy. But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves, really. For myself, control is my preferential style of play. It doesn't mean denying the game to the rest of the table, it just means subtly manipulating the game to suit your plans moreso than anyone else's. That being said, control strategies do sometimes draw on stax and land destruction - stax is control's older meaner brother to me. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with incorporating some of those elements should your meta, or the game you're joining, suit that vibe either. End of the day, every player has bugbears and play styles that irk them, and no one view is wrong or right. The key is talking these preferences over so that irritation is minimised and everyone's happy enough.
I am actually glad p9 are banned as he had copies (plural) of each.
I think we all are. Could you could go back and answer my question about the 'P9 plus balance ban list' question? I know it got a little run over, just looking for a follow up.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
Could you expand on why you think the 'P9 plus Balance' ban list would shift the tactics of the community if the current one does not? I don't seem to see the logical connection.
Cards like Channel, Leovold, Worldfire would all become available to players meaning that a lot more decks and strategies could be used. Tolarian acadmey would be available to players to counteract Cradle, i mean balance does not have to be banned but it is like a P9 to me. I would ban timtwister as well as it is still a P9.
That is where the shift begins, Casuals unable to keep playing as people get the more expensive (time vault) cards and start going ham. I would probably find a way to make Thursday night EDH just with friends, we may meet up but not play against people running 10k decks. I run a 10k deck but it is just expensive lands (The rest of the deck costs like, maybe $100, IF THAT)
I play new people all the time but if I am going to start constantly playing people who run decks that start running you over, its no longer fun. People hate my Jhoira deck, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
Could you expand on why you think the 'P9 plus Balance' ban list would shift the tactics of the community if the current one does not? I don't seem to see the logical connection.
Cards like Channel, Leovold, Worldfire would all become available to players meaning that a lot more decks and strategies could be used. Tolarian acadmey would be available to players to counteract Cradle, i mean balance does not have to be banned but it is like a P9 to me. I would ban timtwister as well as it is still a P9.
That is where the shift begins, Casuals unable to keep playing as people get the more expensive (time vault) cards and start going ham. I would probably find a way to make Thursday night EDH just with friends, we may meet up but not play against people running 10k decks. I run a 10k deck but it is just expensive lands (The rest of the deck costs like, maybe $100, IF THAT)
I play new people all the time but if I am going to start constantly playing people who run decks that start running you over, its no longer fun. People hate my Jhoira deck, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM.
My playgroup has "No Bans" Once a month where we use Proxies..it..is pretty gross..I legit stopped playing Saheeli the Gifted those weeks after a turn 1.5 Emrakul.
[quote from="cryogen »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/803496-what-scg-con-taught-sheldon-about-commander-and?comment=132"]But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
That kind of thinking is why I took an immediate dislike to the whole "75% Commander" thing, even though I agree with the 75%ers on a lot of things. I'm fine with most people in social games not wanting to play against hard stax or MLD decks. I like most of my games to be that way too. I have only a couple of decks where MLD can happen (usually combining something like Elesh Norn with a spell that turns lands into creatures or an effect like Kamahl), and I play my Nath Stax deck only occasionally and only if everyone else in the pod is cool with it, but control is an absolutely essential aspect of Magic, and the idea that nobody should ever stop you except by blowing up your stuff after it's in play is an idiotic one.
He really needs to have his head surgically removed from his ass. Every time I see an article by him it seems so out of touch, like he is living in some kind of secluded dream world where people should only play cards he thinks are fun.
i agree with this completely.
his stances on different cards, and even more so on certain strategies are very... well they're suited to craw wurm style magic where no one does anything but poop out a generic creature and march it into someone. almost every article i read of his demonstrates just how out of touch he is with the common edh group, and i disagree with the majority of his assessments.
i mean i get it, there are a lot of casual players that echo his sentiments of thats not fair, or thats against the spirit of edh. honestly though, when you start moving down that road... well the majority of those players just want to win their way, they don't want to adapt, they don't want to change their decks, they don't want to do anything but have the game played their way. throwing competitive decks into a pod can be unfair, but it can also encourage sloppy players to hone their skills and play better cards. in doing so the game becomes far, far, far more interactive as everyone is not only trying to win, but trying to stop wins. i see it constantly with newer players that show up to our edh night, they either start getting better, start winning, or they whine about how they cant' compete but won't bother to change a single card while their decks interact with nothing and do nothing. the player that wins every game through 'goldfishing' isn't aiming to. they're aiming to win and they want someone to step up and stop them. they burn out just as hard as the player that plays 99 craw wurms for the exact opposite reasons, but they're not obligated to play a bad deck just because you do.
for a guy on the rules committee, for a guy who is basically the face of edh, it always feels like he needs to be exposed to more games of edh, with different players, who have different goals.
i'm not a fan of his writings because of the elitism and disconnection from the every day edh group.t his article is yet another that solidifies my feelings.
well they're suited to craw wurm style magic where no one does anything but poop out a generic creature and march it into someone.
Maybe that's exactly the kind of player he wants to be?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
It really baffles me that people keep stating the RC/Sheldon is "in a bubble" and needs to see the world more and "acknowledge the common edh group" and then proceed to cite their own experiences as though those are the experiences of the "common edh group" when there is no statistic behind to prove how many people it is common to in order to validate its position as such, which makes those experiences essentially a bubble in by itself.
On top of that, the relevance of the whole thing isn't there - it's professionalism that prevents the RC from applying their bubble onto the whole format. Likewise, even if they saw the whole world and actually calculated what the "the most common group" is, the very policy prevents them from catering to it, because the largest, most common group is still simply put, the largest bubble and the policy behind the RC is to allow for the diversity of bubbles, not to identify and cater to the largest bubble of them all.
One can disagree with the policy, but boy does the pretentiousness that one's own experiences is actually the "common/average one" really rubs me the wrong way, doubly so when people accuse the RC of doing that, when the policy they may or may not agree with actually indicates they do not let their experiences define their decision-making, so what is there for them to be pretentious about if they didn't reinforce their bubble with bans so we have to play it "their way"?
First and foremost, I believe that the format has outgrown the RC's ability to properly manage it. Sheldon himself is a mixed bag for me. I do like some of his insights, but he comes off as smarmy, and frankly, I don't care about his wine cellar and I'm sick of hearing about it.
I love EDH when it's tooth-and-nail battlecruiser magic, not some boring, masturbatory race to combo out. I guess I agree with him there. That still leaves a pretty wide spectrum of viable decks and strategies. Of course, though, if you have a group that loves stax, MLD and combo-ing out, go for it. I just think those players should be aware of the frosty reception they'll receive from strangers when playing those decks.
Side note, I want tuck back. I really, really want it back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
This piece was about confronting and improving upon our individual prejudices, especially as they apply to Commander. If that's not the central message you took away, then that was my failing as a writer. My "surprise" was intentionally overstated for dramatic effect, but that device seems to have missed the mark.
To be clear, I do not believe there is a "right" way to play Commander. Sure, I have my preferences (which I freely share), and there's a way that the RC promotes (ditto), but we recognize that the player base is far too large for one size to fit all; in fact, trying to make Commander all things to all players is a fool's errand.
One of the secondary messages of the piece was that good communication is the key to our interactions, especially in unknown environments. The best Commander games are the ones in which everyone is on the same page, whether that's a dramatic and intense cEDH game that's intended to end in just a few turns or the battlecruiser durdle-fest that's meant to take a while. To wit, "are you the type of person?" was poor communication, when the question was better put "what kind of deck are you playing?" I was there as SCG's guest to play with whomever was in the Command Zone, so even if the answer is "I'm going to do my best to combo you out Turn 1," then I would invite them to sit. I might try to convince them that the other folks at the table might not enjoy that, but in the end would accept whatever they wanted to play.
Thanks to everyone who offered constructive criticism; I'll do my best to take to heart what you had to say. For those of you who believe that I and/or the RC are out of touch, let's see what we can do to convince you otherwise.
It's nice to hear this reiterated, Sheldon. This discussion got stupendously derailed by banlist discussion and the role of the RC, when that really had nothing to do with the original premises of the article. It appears that for some it was lost in translation, but the central tenet for me was reiterating that open, constructive communication is crucial to this format being satisfactory for its participants.
I think the format needs its share of near-broken and 'unfun' (though I wouldn't call them such) cards. Why? Because they, like everything else, incentivize building decks that are prepared to deal with them. Those cards of the format, in my view, overall promote deeper thought in deck construction and strategy, which results in those decks being more prepared for other similar game states that those power cards might not necessarily produce, but may be reached by other means. Aside from sol ring, nothing in the format is really an 'instant slot' in any deck that shares its color, and sol ring is a card that helps push many decks that otherwise wouldn't be all that good into having some form of a chance against decks that are naturally much stronger. Some are too strong, sure, and I'm pretty satisfied with the current banlist anyway aside from maybe 2 or 3 cards that I don't think should be on it. Furthermore, because it seems commander is a growing format, I think wizards needs to keep reprinting staples and many other various but otherwise expensive but good commander-worthy cards frequently, in order to promote accessibility across the playerbase and make it easier for people to close the power gaps in their playgroups.
While some cards I can definitely say should go in 95%+ of the decks in their colors (the cheap tutors, and cheap mana rocks), there are some decks where they wouldnt work. For example, I don't run any of the colorless rocks in my Animar, Soul of the Elements deck since the main limiting factor in that deck is not colorless mana. I do however, run every way that temur has to generate colored mana for one or less mana. That being said the fact that most decks are not really 99 individual cards, but closer to 80-90, once staples are accounted for, is a potential deck building issue.
While some cards I can definitely say should go in 95%+ of the decks in their colors (the cheap tutors, and cheap mana rocks), there are some decks where they wouldnt work.
95% is more than enough to say that a card is so generic and versatile enough to be ubiquitious for the format. I mean, even Mox Pearl would be a bad card in Kataki, War's Wage, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be played in just almost every other deck (if it was economically cheaper of course).
95% seems like a vast overestimation to me. Even the best cards in their colors, I figure *might* make it into 50% of decks in their colors, if that. Now, if all cards costed a penny each to get, maybe we'd really see how cards are preferenced, but otherwise I tend to see people build decks more often along the lines of a certain thing they're trying to do and with much less concern of 'having this particular piece of goodstuff' unless if it explicitly helps them in what they're trying to do.
The problem is that everything is subjective, be it deck power, fun, what "competitive" means, you name it. At some point you just have to pick what you think the generally preferred baseline is and run with that. Or in the case of the RC, they appear to have chosen what they prefer as a particular style of play and focus on that, while acknowledging that not everyone plays in that fashion. And this is why people tend to clash, because when there is this "well I dont like stax but some people do so I won't ban it" you get arguments over who is right and wrong. Same with cEDH style of play and arguing over banning fast mana and broken tutors. It's better in my opinion to focus on cards that are detrimental to the format across different play styles and trust on the social contract and open dialogue to help keep the rest in check. That's why cards like Sol Ring and Iona should demand attention but Smokestack and Hermit Druid don't.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Oh wow, it has been forever since I have seen a hermit druid deck.
I did run Leovold at one point, and it was the only deck that was able to hold that guy;s derevi at bay. and then they banned leovold and again the derevi went back to being public enemy number one. (Leovold is still in my binder in case they ever unban him)
But that is just it, they banned an answer to a deck that we did not enjoy playing against (We, As in my LGS) yet they let Derevi (A mistake wizards has already apologized for (I cannot find article, i have been asked to find it before, but i remember reading it)
But yes, ever since he left (Moved for work) the attendees to Thursday night EDH has become anyone's game.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Yeah, this does seem to me a perfect example of where meta communication comes in. If it's that oppressive, y'all are well within your rights to ask your friend to give it a rest with Derevi, even if it's just once in a while.
We did, many times. His rakdos, kozi and mudrotha were not much nicer.
I am actually glad p9 are banned as he had copies (plural) of each.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
TBH, a lot of Stax players don't play Smokestack that much anymore. It's too slow. It costs 4, does nothing until your next turn. It's still playable in some decks, but it's slow af.
Iona, however, is a huge problem. Kaalia can bring her out, reanimator can bring her out, and if you're a monocolored player, anything that isn't an artifact or land (or maybe an Eldrazi now and then or a morph) is just a blank slip of paper.
But as I said, we need control as a viable strategy. It's literally the only thing keeping a lot of other busted decks from dominating the meta. It's this weird tension in formatcraft. Control doesn't have to be the top strategy, but it does have to be a viable strategy. But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
On phasing:
I was just grabbing well known cards to illustrate the point that stax and hypercompetitive combo has a stigma but is not a widespread problem which the RC needs to address.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves, really. For myself, control is my preferential style of play. It doesn't mean denying the game to the rest of the table, it just means subtly manipulating the game to suit your plans moreso than anyone else's. That being said, control strategies do sometimes draw on stax and land destruction - stax is control's older meaner brother to me. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with incorporating some of those elements should your meta, or the game you're joining, suit that vibe either. End of the day, every player has bugbears and play styles that irk them, and no one view is wrong or right. The key is talking these preferences over so that irritation is minimised and everyone's happy enough.
Cards like Channel, Leovold, Worldfire would all become available to players meaning that a lot more decks and strategies could be used. Tolarian acadmey would be available to players to counteract Cradle, i mean balance does not have to be banned but it is like a P9 to me. I would ban timtwister as well as it is still a P9.
That is where the shift begins, Casuals unable to keep playing as people get the more expensive (time vault) cards and start going ham. I would probably find a way to make Thursday night EDH just with friends, we may meet up but not play against people running 10k decks. I run a 10k deck but it is just expensive lands (The rest of the deck costs like, maybe $100, IF THAT)
I play new people all the time but if I am going to start constantly playing people who run decks that start running you over, its no longer fun. People hate my Jhoira deck, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
My playgroup has "No Bans" Once a month where we use Proxies..it..is pretty gross..I legit stopped playing Saheeli the Gifted those weeks after a turn 1.5 Emrakul.
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
That kind of thinking is why I took an immediate dislike to the whole "75% Commander" thing, even though I agree with the 75%ers on a lot of things. I'm fine with most people in social games not wanting to play against hard stax or MLD decks. I like most of my games to be that way too. I have only a couple of decks where MLD can happen (usually combining something like Elesh Norn with a spell that turns lands into creatures or an effect like Kamahl), and I play my Nath Stax deck only occasionally and only if everyone else in the pod is cool with it, but control is an absolutely essential aspect of Magic, and the idea that nobody should ever stop you except by blowing up your stuff after it's in play is an idiotic one.
i agree with this completely.
his stances on different cards, and even more so on certain strategies are very... well they're suited to craw wurm style magic where no one does anything but poop out a generic creature and march it into someone. almost every article i read of his demonstrates just how out of touch he is with the common edh group, and i disagree with the majority of his assessments.
i mean i get it, there are a lot of casual players that echo his sentiments of thats not fair, or thats against the spirit of edh. honestly though, when you start moving down that road... well the majority of those players just want to win their way, they don't want to adapt, they don't want to change their decks, they don't want to do anything but have the game played their way. throwing competitive decks into a pod can be unfair, but it can also encourage sloppy players to hone their skills and play better cards. in doing so the game becomes far, far, far more interactive as everyone is not only trying to win, but trying to stop wins. i see it constantly with newer players that show up to our edh night, they either start getting better, start winning, or they whine about how they cant' compete but won't bother to change a single card while their decks interact with nothing and do nothing. the player that wins every game through 'goldfishing' isn't aiming to. they're aiming to win and they want someone to step up and stop them. they burn out just as hard as the player that plays 99 craw wurms for the exact opposite reasons, but they're not obligated to play a bad deck just because you do.
for a guy on the rules committee, for a guy who is basically the face of edh, it always feels like he needs to be exposed to more games of edh, with different players, who have different goals.
i'm not a fan of his writings because of the elitism and disconnection from the every day edh group.t his article is yet another that solidifies my feelings.
Maybe that's exactly the kind of player he wants to be?
On top of that, the relevance of the whole thing isn't there - it's professionalism that prevents the RC from applying their bubble onto the whole format. Likewise, even if they saw the whole world and actually calculated what the "the most common group" is, the very policy prevents them from catering to it, because the largest, most common group is still simply put, the largest bubble and the policy behind the RC is to allow for the diversity of bubbles, not to identify and cater to the largest bubble of them all.
One can disagree with the policy, but boy does the pretentiousness that one's own experiences is actually the "common/average one" really rubs me the wrong way, doubly so when people accuse the RC of doing that, when the policy they may or may not agree with actually indicates they do not let their experiences define their decision-making, so what is there for them to be pretentious about if they didn't reinforce their bubble with bans so we have to play it "their way"?
I love EDH when it's tooth-and-nail battlecruiser magic, not some boring, masturbatory race to combo out. I guess I agree with him there. That still leaves a pretty wide spectrum of viable decks and strategies. Of course, though, if you have a group that loves stax, MLD and combo-ing out, go for it. I just think those players should be aware of the frosty reception they'll receive from strangers when playing those decks.
Side note, I want tuck back. I really, really want it back.
My 720 Peasant Cube
To be clear, I do not believe there is a "right" way to play Commander. Sure, I have my preferences (which I freely share), and there's a way that the RC promotes (ditto), but we recognize that the player base is far too large for one size to fit all; in fact, trying to make Commander all things to all players is a fool's errand.
One of the secondary messages of the piece was that good communication is the key to our interactions, especially in unknown environments. The best Commander games are the ones in which everyone is on the same page, whether that's a dramatic and intense cEDH game that's intended to end in just a few turns or the battlecruiser durdle-fest that's meant to take a while. To wit, "are you the type of person?" was poor communication, when the question was better put "what kind of deck are you playing?" I was there as SCG's guest to play with whomever was in the Command Zone, so even if the answer is "I'm going to do my best to combo you out Turn 1," then I would invite them to sit. I might try to convince them that the other folks at the table might not enjoy that, but in the end would accept whatever they wanted to play.
Thanks to everyone who offered constructive criticism; I'll do my best to take to heart what you had to say. For those of you who believe that I and/or the RC are out of touch, let's see what we can do to convince you otherwise.
To me stuff like mana drain, mana crypt, demonic tutor or serra ascendant seem to fit that definition, they just do so much with such little cost and almost meaningless drawbacks.
While some cards I can definitely say should go in 95%+ of the decks in their colors (the cheap tutors, and cheap mana rocks), there are some decks where they wouldnt work. For example, I don't run any of the colorless rocks in my Animar, Soul of the Elements deck since the main limiting factor in that deck is not colorless mana. I do however, run every way that temur has to generate colored mana for one or less mana. That being said the fact that most decks are not really 99 individual cards, but closer to 80-90, once staples are accounted for, is a potential deck building issue.
95% is more than enough to say that a card is so generic and versatile enough to be ubiquitious for the format. I mean, even Mox Pearl would be a bad card in Kataki, War's Wage, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be played in just almost every other deck (if it was economically cheaper of course).