Biorhythm is different though. Tooth and Nail has fair uses also, and provides ways to interact with the tutored combo, so you kill the creature and the game continues. But with Biorhythm there is only one use, to win the game on the spot, and not in a very anti-climatic way either. The only interaction is to either counter it, or Doom Blade their creature and everyone loses.
Why is that the only possible use of Biorhythm? Why can't I cast it after vomiting 80 tokens onto the field to gain life?
EDIT: I don't think "can be used fairly" is incorrect of any card.
I could Ad Nauseam to draw 5 cards.
I can Hermit Druid to get 10 cards in my graveyard.
I can Sundering Titan with no plans to blink or flicker it to slow down my opponents a bit.
I can cast Worldfire without floating mana to cast my commander, because I'm behind and putting everyone into topdeck mode offers better odds than my current ones.
I'm pretty sure I can show a "fair" use for every card in the game.
Quotation marks used because I find the idea that a card is "unfair" to be preposterous. It's either against the rules to use it, or it's fair in my mind. But I know what is generally meant by it, and every card in the game has a casual approved use.
@atlashugged: Because that could "accidentally" kill every other player also... I think that comparing T&N and Biorhythm is incorrect. They interact with games totally differently as Biorhythm directly affects players life where T&N actually only puts 2 dudes from your library into play. Whether or not those dudes affect players life totals immediately in similar fashion to Biorhythm is totally up the the casting player. Biorhythm is accidentally degenerate where T&N is not. I do, however, believe that T&N needs to be continued to be looked at. The most common argument against banning it (that I've seen) is that it costs 9 mana... But 9 mana means nothing in EDH, and especially nothing in green, which just happens to be its color. I am unsure whether it actually needs banned, but everytime I look at the card, it seems unfair.
The same thing can be said about T&N. If we're talking about being honest, a conscious choice to use T&N fairly is no different than someone choosing to use biorhythm is a suboptimal way. I wouldn't play biorhythm and I don't play T&N as a combo win even though I could. It's the exact same decision.
Furthermore, why is doom blade an acceptable check, but counterspell isn't? My point is that the RC list is both inconsistent and disingenuous.
What's wrong with the Nemata, Grove Guardian token swarm player using biorhythm to turn the life totals in his favor? Why is that less valid of a "fair use" than that same player using T&N for 2 fatties instead of craterhoof/avenger or mike/trike in another deck? The RC uses a set of moving goalposts to decide ban worthiness for this format because their criteria, for the most part, are incredibly nebulous.
Why is that the only possible use of Biorhythm? Why can't I cast it after vomiting 80 tokens onto the field to gain life?
I don't think people were actually playing it that way, whereas Tooth and Nail sees all sorts of non-combo play. Biorhythm is one of the first cards that got banned, so it probably wouldn't be banned if it weren't already on the list. So I guess the counterpoint I should actually be making is, what is the compelling reason for wanting it off the list?
I dunno. I can tell you that I've never actually seen Hermit Druid played "fairly" (the only player I know who does is Sheldon himself, but as we discussed a couple pages back, Sheldon is about as representative of the format's players as a 5color "unfair" hermit druid player is). I've never seen Ad Nauseam played "fairly". Yet these cards are unbanned. If that's the case, can what's likely to happen have anything to do with it?
I dunno. I can tell you that I've never actually seen Hermit Druid played "fairly" (the only player I know who does is Sheldon himself, but as we discussed a couple pages back, Sheldon is about as representative of the format's players as a 5color "unfair" hermit druid player is). I've never seen Ad Nauseam played "fairly". Yet these cards are unbanned. If that's the case, can what's likely to happen have anything to do with it?
You can add me to the list of people who have used Hermit Druid fairly. I use him in Karador to stock my graveyard in short bursts. Of course, I have also used him to dump my entire library and win, so there's that.
I think the big difference between Biorhythm and Tooth and Nail is: We are playing a 40 life format and Biorhythm just nullifies this. Yes, it can be played to generate life, and yes, it can be played to win on the spot, but it always nullifies the effect of having 40 starting lifes. Used to set everyone to 5 life is far more devasting than winning on the spot from a game/format mechanic viewpoint.
The banlist doesn't really care for broken cards, unless they're format warping. And Biorhythm is clearly not broken and would probably be not format warping, but it behaves just bad with the format as a whole.
I think, comparing Biorhythm and Tooth and Nail for banning reasons is not fair. Comparing Biorhythm with a card that would leave every player with only up to two creature cards in his (or her) library would be far more appropiate.
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
I seem to recall Sheldon saying that Biorhythm was the first candidate for the EDH ban list, so my guess is it will be one of the last candidates for removal, especially since three other cards are banned for similar reasons (Sway of the Stars, Worldfire, and Coalition Victory).
Someone mentioned Panoptic Mirror a few pages back and it got me thinking about the similarities it shares with Deadeye Navigator. The more I think about it, the more similar they seem. I mean, I could list a number of ways they differ, but I believe those differences are all red herrings in this context. I am now to the point that I strongly believe they should share a fate: either ban DEN, or unban Mirror.
Someone mentioned Panoptic Mirror a few pages back and it got me thinking about the similarities it shares with Deadeye Navigator. The more I think about it, the more similar they seem. I mean, I could list a number of ways they differ, but I believe those differences are all red herrings in this context. I am now to the point that I strongly believe they should share a fate: either ban DEN, or unban Mirror.
Thoughts?
Could you elaborate more on why you think they are similar and deserve to be treated the same?
The first comparison that came to my mind between the two cards is that each one probably has many many cards that they interact in a non broken way with, but they also have a few cards that they can completely break and cause the game to be ruined.
Time Magic is the problem for mirror, meaning that one player is now in permanent solitaire once the first extra turn resolves. I also can see an argument that imprinting a card like Armageddon or Pox leads to unfun game states that are only possible due to mirror's effect.
With DEN, the problem ETB creatures are counterspells, like Mystic Snake and Draining Whelk. I'm coming to a bit of a loss when dreaming up other cards that DEN can really break open a game with. Two of the most powerful ETB creatures ever, SP and ST, are already banned. DEN does go infinite with Pallinchron/Great Whale but Pallinchron already has a reputation as a infinite mana enabler even when not paired with DEN. Maybe Sepulcher Primordial is the card that really breaks DEN, but I've never seen DEN in a deck with black; I do expect it out of Simic, Bant and RUG decks.
Thinking more about DEN, it seems that the case for banning him really depends not on his strongest possible synergies; but what you think of the smaller synergies that would have a statistically greater chance to occur whenever a DEN is in play. Does the ability of DEN to repeatedly flicker a card like Karmic Guide or Acidic Slime really ruin the game?
I've certainly had past commander games against Bant Flicker decks where it felt like the Bant deck was destined to inevitably win against all odds, even when facing a 3v1 alliance. You just let them have a few creatures and blink them out and the CA/effects gotten from the blinks quickly adds up and overwhelms the other players. (This is probably a bigger issue in meta like mine that discourages infinite combos.) I'm sure not many of those games hinged on the power of a single card like DEN. While some undoubtedly did, those decks have a plethora of options for gaining more ETB triggers. It seems like flicker decks would be just fine even with a DEN ban as long as it can still play Roon, Riku, PoK, and Conjurer's Closet.
I'm having trouble seeing the case of either both PM and DEN to be banned or both unbanned. When I was thinking about PM, I came up with 3 cards very quickly that could lead to an instant win or an likely to be unfun game state. I'm certain there are other cards that break PM that other users will mention, With DEN, the glaring problem is his ability to establish a lock with counterspell creatures, but the rest of the ETB creatures don't seem to break specifically when paired with DEN, rather it's when they can be triggered several times regardless of the source that there ETB effects can slowly grow their controllers position and lead to a take over of the game.
Am I missing something? Is there some card that pairs with DEN that just gets way out of hand?
To drag up another banned card, Painter's Servant seems very close to both Mirror and DEN. It only has 2 main cards that it can break the game with, Iona and the recent release Ugin. PS also has tons of cards that it interacts perfectly fairly with and in no way breaks them any more then Shifting Sky would. That is some food for thought.
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Okay, perhaps a better thing to ask is, do you think it is fair or responsible to take such a selfish view on a homebrew format that has affected MtG so much that the developers of the game specifically make products for it?
I just have to say that I have played magic for years and I have played all over the east coast due to job-related moving. I have watched 60 card casual become supplanted and all but destroyed by EDH in multiple groups across multiple states. I have watched EDH become a format in which people use the shield of "the RC's vision of the format" and "spirit of EDH" to browbeat others into their method of play. This is by no means an isolated incident and a large factor in it is the feelings-first approach. Rather than being able to say "X is banned because of Y, so Z is banned because of Y as well," you are left with very large and very visible grey areas.
I know why biorhythm is banned, I do get it. My point with it is that cards like that represent an inconsistency. They way cards are used is a function of the player, not the ephemeral concept of "the spirit of the format." A consistent banned list would go a long way toward making the format something that is actually inclusive to multiple styles of play.
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
The disconnect comes in where the idea is to do that, however it comes out as "play how we play" not "play how you want to, within reason".
"House rule ban" should be taken out of the RC vocabulary btw. It's never as simple as "just house rule it". For example- I think sol ring and mana crypt should be banned. A few other players in my group don't think they need banning. So we come at an impasse. After debating it at length, the only thing left to do (that still keeps the group together) is to just follow the official banned list. That's just my 2 cents while you're here - I realize you are not = to the RC btw, so don't think I'm coming down hard on you.
Yeah, house ruling simply doesn't work. Part of my playgroup has softbanned Prophet of Kruphix due to it being boring, interacting poorly with multiple players and in general just being too much of an "Alright now I'm going to win" card, and a few others haven't, because they want to play with what's presented to them. "Find another group", you say? Alright, you're paying my gas costs? "Play with others." Sure, sure, if you help getting more people to my LGS.
HOUSE. RULING. RARELY. WORKS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Why is that the only possible use of Biorhythm? Why can't I cast it after vomiting 80 tokens onto the field to gain life?
EDIT: I don't think "can be used fairly" is incorrect of any card.
I could Ad Nauseam to draw 5 cards.
I can Hermit Druid to get 10 cards in my graveyard.
I can Sundering Titan with no plans to blink or flicker it to slow down my opponents a bit.
I can cast Worldfire without floating mana to cast my commander, because I'm behind and putting everyone into topdeck mode offers better odds than my current ones.
I'm pretty sure I can show a "fair" use for every card in the game.
Quotation marks used because I find the idea that a card is "unfair" to be preposterous. It's either against the rules to use it, or it's fair in my mind. But I know what is generally meant by it, and every card in the game has a casual approved use.
Missed this but I wanted to touch on it. The two cards you listed which are legal are ones that when used with the direct mindset to sculpt your deck around the card as THE wincon, are utterly broken. When used just like you mentioned, they are good but not back-breaking. The two cards you listed which are banned can be played like you mentioned, but players who used Sundering Titan demonstrated that no matter how they used it, the card was painful and created unintended collateral damage. And Worldfire interacted poorly with the format, an exploit which the RC did not wish to leave available.
I would also ban deadeye navigator. Power level aside, anytime a DEN is out, everyone else is completely unhappy with what's going on, because the DEN controller is usually flickering something that removes stuff, and repeatedly getting your **** killed is not a fun feeling.
To also pile on other posts, painter's servant is another example of the RC's inconsistent ban list. Yes, it's really stupid with certain cards/interactions (like Iona). There are also cards/interactions where servant isn't broken (like, say, playing it, naming green, and then playing a regal force or something). Servant can be built in a fair way and an unfair way. However, the same argument could be made for, say, Hermit Druid. Druid can be built in a completely unfair way, and it can be built in a fair way. By this logic, I see no reason why one should be banned and the other shouldn't. Is it unfun to play painter and then iona and locking everyone out of the game? Sure. It's also unfun when Hermit Druid just wins the game on turn 2.
I would also ban deadeye navigator. Power level aside, anytime a DEN is out, everyone else is completely unhappy with what's going on, because the DEN controller is usually flickering something that removes stuff, and repeatedly getting your **** killed is not a fun feeling.
Seriously? Your rationale for banning something is that removal is unfun? "I don't like it when my toys get taken away" as ban criteria? Is someone using Attrition + Gravecrawler also unfun, and potentially bannable?
Social gaming is one thing. Entitlement is another.
MtG is a game of threats and answers. If you don't like people playing answers to your stuff, then play answers to their answers.
Thanks for the thinly-veiled jab at me. One must wonder how much of my post you actually read when you took something I said out of context and blew it out of proportion.
First of all, I said "power level aside". That implies I do not think it is a problematic card in sheer power level and I am quite aware of the ways to neuter DEN strategies (including Torpor Orb, which has the benefit of being a colorless card that can go into any deck). However just because you have certain countermeasures against certain strategies or cards doesn't mean you have to completely embrace said strategy with open arms and a wide stupid *****-eating grin like you seem to imply. I have ways to deal with DEN, it doesn't mean I have to like it.
In addition, the recent conversation in this topic has steered towards the RC and their reasons for banning and unbanning cards because of the "spirit of the format", which the RC is leaving incredibly vague. DEN is a card that everytime it's in play, unless it's dealt with immediately (and believe it or not, you won't always have the answer to certain problems no matter how good of a deckbuilder or player you are), everyone else in the game is miserable, which would certainly fall under "spirit fo the format". That is what I've seen with the hundred or so people that I've played with in EDH and not only that, you can read the last 20 or so posts and see that other people in this topic don't agree with how the RC is handling DEN. One interpretation of "spirit of the format" is whether or not the card can be played in a fair or unfair way, and several people in this topic in the last 20 or so posts have used currently banned cards as an example of why DEN does not seem to be held with a consistent view by the RC.
Also, speaking of the RC, one of the reasons why the RC nerfed tuck is that losing your general was a "feel bad". I didn't like the tuck change because obviously good players build decks around tuck, but I am simply saying that should the RC nerf tuck because of that "feel bad", I say that the RC should ban DEN because losing your entire board is more of a "feel bad" than simply losing your general. I don't necessarily say that it's something I agree with, but that's the argument the RC has used.
Finally, your attrition gravecrawler example is so far away from deadeye navigator + anything that kills something when it ETBs. Repeatedly killing creatures (and not only that, it has to be nonblack) is MUCH different than repeatedly killing anything at all, since you can soulbond DEN to acidic slime, mystic snake, angel of despair, eternal witness to get back time warp, etc. DEN + any relevant ETB creature will put a game away much more efficiently than your attrition gravecrawler example. The countermeasures to your example are also more common than countermeasures to DEN, since any kind of graveyard hate will stop your example, while the answer to DEN are more narrow (and since DEN can stick to mystic snake/venser/etc., it's more difficult to even get your answer out).
DEN has Kira-like protection. The trick is to hit it on the soulbond trigger. It also cannot evade boardwipes. Furthermore, it's an initial cost of 8 mana to get value out of it once. These are points that DEN-ban-fans tend to miss and ignore.
DEN is only "broken" by some other cards around it. Most notably Prophet of Kruphix, which allows it to flash in, and immediately start abusing the flickering from that point on. Hey, wasn't Prophet also one of those hate-worthy cards? Another one is Palinchron, but that card is the posterchild of "Nobody ever did anything fun with THAT." anyway. Aside from that, nothing truly breaks DEN.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
There are tons of good answers to DEN bouncing Mystic Snake, Acidic Slime, Eternal Witness etc. Torpor Orb, Hushwing Griff, Containment Priest, Elesh Norn, Aether Flash, Sudden Spoiling... seriously, one can go on and on. If whole tables of people are frequently having DEN ruin their games, then maybe those players should run some more of these sorts of answers, or otherwise adjust. And yes, sometimes one will even run answers but not have them in play or in hand when needed, and the Navigator might then win someone the game. That's okay. Games end, people shuffle up, the next game starts.
I run Deadeye in decks, and have played against it many times. Sometimes it's won me games, sometimes I've lost to it, other times it gets answered readily enough and doesn't have a huge impact. As opposed to your statement, I've rarely seen everyone become miserable and stop having fun because it was played. Even when it won someone a game, people just went on to the next game.
One thing I think we agree on is that "feel bad" is a really lame basis for ban decisions, and this ties back to my comment about entitlement, and back to why I think the tuck change was a bad idea. A subset of players seems to have this idea that not only should you not keep people from doing stuff (as typified in the 75% Commander movement), but also that the stuff, once there, shouldn't be answered. What this essentially comes down to is that a) some people really dislike control/removal being played against them, and b) some people don't like having to worry about things like resource-management, over-extending or running cards to counter others' strategies. These players "feel bad" when these things are applied against them or come back to bite them in the rear. I don't think anyone, including the RC, should be catering to that sort of mentality. That mentality is the opposite of what one should want in a social game, because social games are about balance and interaction, not just whomever can rush out the biggest stompy or the flashiest combo unopposed.
Part of what EDH is supposed to be about is playing the big stuff that never gets played in the competitive formats and which can enable big, splashy plays. In that regard, DEN strikes me as pretty much a perfect EDH card, albeit potentially an unusually powerful one when played intelligently.
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then why are enchantments allowed in the game when red and black can't deal with those?
Banned list update: enchantment cards are now banned
Why is that the only possible use of Biorhythm? Why can't I cast it after vomiting 80 tokens onto the field to gain life?
EDIT: I don't think "can be used fairly" is incorrect of any card.
I could Ad Nauseam to draw 5 cards.
I can Hermit Druid to get 10 cards in my graveyard.
I can Sundering Titan with no plans to blink or flicker it to slow down my opponents a bit.
I can cast Worldfire without floating mana to cast my commander, because I'm behind and putting everyone into topdeck mode offers better odds than my current ones.
I'm pretty sure I can show a "fair" use for every card in the game.
Quotation marks used because I find the idea that a card is "unfair" to be preposterous. It's either against the rules to use it, or it's fair in my mind. But I know what is generally meant by it, and every card in the game has a casual approved use.
I don't think people were actually playing it that way, whereas Tooth and Nail sees all sorts of non-combo play. Biorhythm is one of the first cards that got banned, so it probably wouldn't be banned if it weren't already on the list. So I guess the counterpoint I should actually be making is, what is the compelling reason for wanting it off the list?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I dunno. I can tell you that I've never actually seen Hermit Druid played "fairly" (the only player I know who does is Sheldon himself, but as we discussed a couple pages back, Sheldon is about as representative of the format's players as a 5color "unfair" hermit druid player is). I've never seen Ad Nauseam played "fairly". Yet these cards are unbanned. If that's the case, can what's likely to happen have anything to do with it?
You can add me to the list of people who have used Hermit Druid fairly. I use him in Karador to stock my graveyard in short bursts. Of course, I have also used him to dump my entire library and win, so there's that.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The banlist doesn't really care for broken cards, unless they're format warping. And Biorhythm is clearly not broken and would probably be not format warping, but it behaves just bad with the format as a whole.
I think, comparing Biorhythm and Tooth and Nail for banning reasons is not fair. Comparing Biorhythm with a card that would leave every player with only up to two creature cards in his (or her) library would be far more appropiate.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Someone mentioned Panoptic Mirror a few pages back and it got me thinking about the similarities it shares with Deadeye Navigator. The more I think about it, the more similar they seem. I mean, I could list a number of ways they differ, but I believe those differences are all red herrings in this context. I am now to the point that I strongly believe they should share a fate: either ban DEN, or unban Mirror.
Thoughts?
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Could you elaborate more on why you think they are similar and deserve to be treated the same?
The first comparison that came to my mind between the two cards is that each one probably has many many cards that they interact in a non broken way with, but they also have a few cards that they can completely break and cause the game to be ruined.
Time Magic is the problem for mirror, meaning that one player is now in permanent solitaire once the first extra turn resolves. I also can see an argument that imprinting a card like Armageddon or Pox leads to unfun game states that are only possible due to mirror's effect.
With DEN, the problem ETB creatures are counterspells, like Mystic Snake and Draining Whelk. I'm coming to a bit of a loss when dreaming up other cards that DEN can really break open a game with. Two of the most powerful ETB creatures ever, SP and ST, are already banned. DEN does go infinite with Pallinchron/Great Whale but Pallinchron already has a reputation as a infinite mana enabler even when not paired with DEN. Maybe Sepulcher Primordial is the card that really breaks DEN, but I've never seen DEN in a deck with black; I do expect it out of Simic, Bant and RUG decks.
Thinking more about DEN, it seems that the case for banning him really depends not on his strongest possible synergies; but what you think of the smaller synergies that would have a statistically greater chance to occur whenever a DEN is in play. Does the ability of DEN to repeatedly flicker a card like Karmic Guide or Acidic Slime really ruin the game?
I've certainly had past commander games against Bant Flicker decks where it felt like the Bant deck was destined to inevitably win against all odds, even when facing a 3v1 alliance. You just let them have a few creatures and blink them out and the CA/effects gotten from the blinks quickly adds up and overwhelms the other players. (This is probably a bigger issue in meta like mine that discourages infinite combos.) I'm sure not many of those games hinged on the power of a single card like DEN. While some undoubtedly did, those decks have a plethora of options for gaining more ETB triggers. It seems like flicker decks would be just fine even with a DEN ban as long as it can still play Roon, Riku, PoK, and Conjurer's Closet.
I'm having trouble seeing the case of either both PM and DEN to be banned or both unbanned. When I was thinking about PM, I came up with 3 cards very quickly that could lead to an instant win or an likely to be unfun game state. I'm certain there are other cards that break PM that other users will mention, With DEN, the glaring problem is his ability to establish a lock with counterspell creatures, but the rest of the ETB creatures don't seem to break specifically when paired with DEN, rather it's when they can be triggered several times regardless of the source that there ETB effects can slowly grow their controllers position and lead to a take over of the game.
Am I missing something? Is there some card that pairs with DEN that just gets way out of hand?
To drag up another banned card, Painter's Servant seems very close to both Mirror and DEN. It only has 2 main cards that it can break the game with, Iona and the recent release Ugin. PS also has tons of cards that it interacts perfectly fairly with and in no way breaks them any more then Shifting Sky would. That is some food for thought.
DEN eternal witness and (whatever busted thing in graveyard). DEN Derevi is pretty good, combos favorably with tons of crap. DEN Venser Shaper Savant.
He enables more combos than almost any card in the format.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Okay, perhaps a better thing to ask is, do you think it is fair or responsible to take such a selfish view on a homebrew format that has affected MtG so much that the developers of the game specifically make products for it?
I just have to say that I have played magic for years and I have played all over the east coast due to job-related moving. I have watched 60 card casual become supplanted and all but destroyed by EDH in multiple groups across multiple states. I have watched EDH become a format in which people use the shield of "the RC's vision of the format" and "spirit of EDH" to browbeat others into their method of play. This is by no means an isolated incident and a large factor in it is the feelings-first approach. Rather than being able to say "X is banned because of Y, so Z is banned because of Y as well," you are left with very large and very visible grey areas.
I know why biorhythm is banned, I do get it. My point with it is that cards like that represent an inconsistency. They way cards are used is a function of the player, not the ephemeral concept of "the spirit of the format." A consistent banned list would go a long way toward making the format something that is actually inclusive to multiple styles of play.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
The disconnect comes in where the idea is to do that, however it comes out as "play how we play" not "play how you want to, within reason".
"House rule ban" should be taken out of the RC vocabulary btw. It's never as simple as "just house rule it". For example- I think sol ring and mana crypt should be banned. A few other players in my group don't think they need banning. So we come at an impasse. After debating it at length, the only thing left to do (that still keeps the group together) is to just follow the official banned list. That's just my 2 cents while you're here - I realize you are not = to the RC btw, so don't think I'm coming down hard on you.
HOUSE. RULING. RARELY. WORKS.
Missed this but I wanted to touch on it. The two cards you listed which are legal are ones that when used with the direct mindset to sculpt your deck around the card as THE wincon, are utterly broken. When used just like you mentioned, they are good but not back-breaking. The two cards you listed which are banned can be played like you mentioned, but players who used Sundering Titan demonstrated that no matter how they used it, the card was painful and created unintended collateral damage. And Worldfire interacted poorly with the format, an exploit which the RC did not wish to leave available.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
To also pile on other posts, painter's servant is another example of the RC's inconsistent ban list. Yes, it's really stupid with certain cards/interactions (like Iona). There are also cards/interactions where servant isn't broken (like, say, playing it, naming green, and then playing a regal force or something). Servant can be built in a fair way and an unfair way. However, the same argument could be made for, say, Hermit Druid. Druid can be built in a completely unfair way, and it can be built in a fair way. By this logic, I see no reason why one should be banned and the other shouldn't. Is it unfun to play painter and then iona and locking everyone out of the game? Sure. It's also unfun when Hermit Druid just wins the game on turn 2.
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
Seriously? Your rationale for banning something is that removal is unfun? "I don't like it when my toys get taken away" as ban criteria? Is someone using Attrition + Gravecrawler also unfun, and potentially bannable?
Social gaming is one thing. Entitlement is another.
MtG is a game of threats and answers. If you don't like people playing answers to your stuff, then play answers to their answers.
First of all, I said "power level aside". That implies I do not think it is a problematic card in sheer power level and I am quite aware of the ways to neuter DEN strategies (including Torpor Orb, which has the benefit of being a colorless card that can go into any deck). However just because you have certain countermeasures against certain strategies or cards doesn't mean you have to completely embrace said strategy with open arms and a wide stupid *****-eating grin like you seem to imply. I have ways to deal with DEN, it doesn't mean I have to like it.
In addition, the recent conversation in this topic has steered towards the RC and their reasons for banning and unbanning cards because of the "spirit of the format", which the RC is leaving incredibly vague. DEN is a card that everytime it's in play, unless it's dealt with immediately (and believe it or not, you won't always have the answer to certain problems no matter how good of a deckbuilder or player you are), everyone else in the game is miserable, which would certainly fall under "spirit fo the format". That is what I've seen with the hundred or so people that I've played with in EDH and not only that, you can read the last 20 or so posts and see that other people in this topic don't agree with how the RC is handling DEN. One interpretation of "spirit of the format" is whether or not the card can be played in a fair or unfair way, and several people in this topic in the last 20 or so posts have used currently banned cards as an example of why DEN does not seem to be held with a consistent view by the RC.
Also, speaking of the RC, one of the reasons why the RC nerfed tuck is that losing your general was a "feel bad". I didn't like the tuck change because obviously good players build decks around tuck, but I am simply saying that should the RC nerf tuck because of that "feel bad", I say that the RC should ban DEN because losing your entire board is more of a "feel bad" than simply losing your general. I don't necessarily say that it's something I agree with, but that's the argument the RC has used.
Finally, your attrition gravecrawler example is so far away from deadeye navigator + anything that kills something when it ETBs. Repeatedly killing creatures (and not only that, it has to be nonblack) is MUCH different than repeatedly killing anything at all, since you can soulbond DEN to acidic slime, mystic snake, angel of despair, eternal witness to get back time warp, etc. DEN + any relevant ETB creature will put a game away much more efficiently than your attrition gravecrawler example. The countermeasures to your example are also more common than countermeasures to DEN, since any kind of graveyard hate will stop your example, while the answer to DEN are more narrow (and since DEN can stick to mystic snake/venser/etc., it's more difficult to even get your answer out).
WUBRGProgenitus
URGMaelstrom Wanderer
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic
WURZedruu, the Greathearted
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher ($100)
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician ($100)
UGKruphix, God of Horizons ($100)(retired)UTalrand, Sky Summoner (French 1v1, $100)
DEN is only "broken" by some other cards around it. Most notably Prophet of Kruphix, which allows it to flash in, and immediately start abusing the flickering from that point on. Hey, wasn't Prophet also one of those hate-worthy cards? Another one is Palinchron, but that card is the posterchild of "Nobody ever did anything fun with THAT." anyway. Aside from that, nothing truly breaks DEN.
I run Deadeye in decks, and have played against it many times. Sometimes it's won me games, sometimes I've lost to it, other times it gets answered readily enough and doesn't have a huge impact. As opposed to your statement, I've rarely seen everyone become miserable and stop having fun because it was played. Even when it won someone a game, people just went on to the next game.
One thing I think we agree on is that "feel bad" is a really lame basis for ban decisions, and this ties back to my comment about entitlement, and back to why I think the tuck change was a bad idea. A subset of players seems to have this idea that not only should you not keep people from doing stuff (as typified in the 75% Commander movement), but also that the stuff, once there, shouldn't be answered. What this essentially comes down to is that a) some people really dislike control/removal being played against them, and b) some people don't like having to worry about things like resource-management, over-extending or running cards to counter others' strategies. These players "feel bad" when these things are applied against them or come back to bite them in the rear. I don't think anyone, including the RC, should be catering to that sort of mentality. That mentality is the opposite of what one should want in a social game, because social games are about balance and interaction, not just whomever can rush out the biggest stompy or the flashiest combo unopposed.
Part of what EDH is supposed to be about is playing the big stuff that never gets played in the competitive formats and which can enable big, splashy plays. In that regard, DEN strikes me as pretty much a perfect EDH card, albeit potentially an unusually powerful one when played intelligently.
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.