Well the RC doesn't design the ban list to improve competitive metas, nor do they ban for weak players.
Then who are they banning for? Cause let me tell you, I never had a problem with Primeval Titan. It hit the field, it died, it was about the efficiency of a Reap and Sow. Or it hit the field, it got 4 or six lands, and then someone else combo won anyway. When people describe horror stories of the game going to hell because nobody kills it and everyone just copies it and makes their own, I always think of that as bad players. Cloning it instead of killing it is pretty much the exact same decision process as accepting one of the "tempting offer" cards, which is almost always the wrong decision. I personally view the ban on Prime Time as a ban specifically to improve the experience of weak players.
If you are playing with a mulligan rule that Wizards refuses to use because of how easy it makes hand sculpting then of course you will see a higher percentage of games open with a Sol Ring. Abusing the system is still abusing the system, whether it's digging for a Sol Ring, Serra Ascendant, or Pithing Needle.
Now acknowledge my argument. I'm saying in all other things, we don't try to accommodate for people abusing the system to get ahead. We assume that in a casual, social format, people will police themselves to avoid being abusive. The ban list is conceptually formed around this idea that bans are made to improve the experience of normal players, not for cut throat players. You don't have to deliberately dig for sol ring to see it more often in opening hands while doing partial paris, it just happens more often naturally. We're not planning for the people that can use partial paris to make turn 1 doomsday, we're planning for the people who use partial paris to make sure they have all their colors of mana ready to go. Hand sculpting mulligan system is not an inherent evil, it's only bad if you can plan a way to run away with the game in the first 2 or 3 turns. The only card that leads to situations like that that is widely enough used to care about is Sol Ring.
I chose "arbitrary" things that Primeval Titan is good at because these are the things that made it such a good card and widely played to the point where it was banned.
Ok, 2 things.
1) Once again, I have to mention, Sol Ring and Primeval Titan aren't good at the same things. Prime Time doesn't get you to 4 mana on turn 2. Your arguement that your 6 drop gets you more extra mana than a 1 drop is like saying Worldspine Wurm has more power than Tarmogoyf. It's true, but it's a totally irrelevant statement.
2) I'm pretty sure that Sol Ring has a greater saturation in the entire format than Primeval Titan did in just mono-green decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Cloning it instead of killing it is pretty much the exact same decision process as accepting one of the "tempting offer" cards, which is almost always the wrong decision.
How about letting somebody else use countermagic on it, then reanimating it from the graveyard?
Cloning it instead of killing it is pretty much the exact same decision process as accepting one of the "tempting offer" cards, which is almost always the wrong decision.
How about letting somebody else use countermagic on it, then reanimating it from the graveyard?
To also note on tsorm823's comparison, this comparison is no where near the same. The "tempting offer" cards offer each other person the same thing as you, yes. But for each person who does accept the offer, the controller of the offer gets ANOTHER of whatever was offered. Cloning anything is not equivalent to this at all as no one else gets a copy of your clone just because you cloned something.
If you are playing with a mulligan rule that Wizards refuses to use because of how easy it makes hand sculpting then of course you will see a higher percentage of games open with a Sol Ring. Abusing the system is still abusing the system, whether it's digging for a Sol Ring, Serra Ascendant, or Pithing Needle.
I though that Serra Ascendant was errata'ed to only be activated when your life total is 10 above the starting to stop abusing of it. Was that a change that only happened in the video games?
I'm not aware of that errata (it's certainly not on gatherer) and last I checked MTGO still has it active at 30hp.
I can't say what any of the other video Game versions have (Duel of the Planeswalkers, ect...).
If you are playing with a mulligan rule that Wizards refuses to use because of how easy it makes hand sculpting then of course you will see a higher percentage of games open with a Sol Ring. Abusing the system is still abusing the system, whether it's digging for a Sol Ring, Serra Ascendant, or Pithing Needle.
I though that Serra Ascendant was errata'ed to only be activated when your life total is 10 above the starting to stop abusing of it. Was that a change that only happened in the video games?
This change appeared in at least one MTG video game, but this change is incorrect. Serra Ascendant's true wording can be found on gatherer. I believe it is the same as the orginal card text.
It was definitely changed in the game. I greatly suspect that is the only place it was changed.
EDIT: Upon looking around, I see that there was a little discussion about making the errata follow through to EDH rules due to the higher life total
of this gametype. But it was waved due to the fact that EDH simply has far many more options and ever changing strategies to deal
with such a card as Serra Ascendant, despite it being abused. While the video game did not.
Kinda interesting. I think people have made points here about Sol Ring that are in a similar line. That there are answers to Sol Ring as an early boost. And as new cards get printed in more sets, these early threats power are diluted.
I though that Serra Ascendant was errata'ed to only be activated when your life total is 10 above the starting to stop abusing of it. Was that a change that only happened in the video games?
That only happened on Duels. AFAIK it has never received any official errata.
A sol ring ban is unlikely to ever happen
Online play isn't a factor in ban list changes
Competie blance isn't a factor in ban list dicussions
Sadly due to time moving forward,direct quotes are unable to be found requiring the list of things the RC has stated.
In my local Meta ,we dont have an issue with T1 sol rings or anyone abusing partial paris. We have one player who plays goodstuff decks, but he doesn't win all the time or even half the time due to everyone else deck.
Ofcourse I'm focussing on the early turns. That's what Sol Ring does, it makes early turns way too explosive.
If you play something like Civilization, you may be aware of snowballing advantage. Get to a tech first and you get a headstart, which you can use to pull further ahead. Sol Ring allows for the same kind of plays.
So do you feel that Serra Ascendant should be banned? It's an explosive first turn play which gives you a headstart. Of course, it puts a bullseye on your head, is easy to remove, and is a lackluster draw later in the game.
If you claim that Sol Ring is balanced by it being in every deck, you're dead wrong - whoever draws it first has a big advantage, as they can snowball on. So while I'm developing my field and ramping off the back of Sol Ring, you're lagging behind, so by the time you get to your Ring, I'm already essentially 2/3 turns ahead of you.
Explosive starts happen, but Sol Ring gives just too much incentive for it.
No I never suggested it was balanced by being in every deck.
Also, Prime Time is not a turn 1 thing like Sol Ring (Usually). Prime Time also did not fit in every deck. You can't really compare the two, as you're comparing a foundation with a set of brick walls. They do different things, one starts you off blisteringly fast, the other ensures your midgame is going to be amazing. Prime Time sits nicely on the banlist, my comparison was simply there to show how Sol Ring is just as broken, if not much moreso.
It was in every green deck. The only thing stopping it from being even more ubiquitous than Sol Ring was its color identity. To say it didn't go in as many decks is unfair.
Sol Ring ensures a lottery. Draw it first, and you're just that much better off.[/quote]
Better off doesn't mean you'll win the game, like people in this thread would like you to believe.
Then who are they banning for? Cause let me tell you, I never had a problem with Primeval Titan. It hit the field, it died, it was about the efficiency of a Reap and Sow. Or it hit the field, it got 4 or six lands, and then someone else combo won anyway. When people describe horror stories of the game going to hell because nobody kills it and everyone just copies it and makes their own, I always think of that as bad players. Cloning it instead of killing it is pretty much the exact same decision process as accepting one of the "tempting offer" cards, which is almost always the wrong decision. I personally view the ban on Prime Time as a ban specifically to improve the experience of weak players.
Double Reap and Sow actually, and it left behind a 6/6 trampling body. For less mana.
Now acknowledge my argument. I'm saying in all other things, we don't try to accommodate for people abusing the system to get ahead. We assume that in a casual, social format, people will police themselves to avoid being abusive. The ban list is conceptually formed around this idea that bans are made to improve the experience of normal players, not for cut throat players. You don't have to deliberately dig for sol ring to see it more often in opening hands while doing partial paris, it just happens more often naturally. We're not planning for the people that can use partial paris to make turn 1 doomsday, we're planning for the people who use partial paris to make sure they have all their colors of mana ready to go. Hand sculpting mulligan system is not an inherent evil, it's only bad if you can plan a way to run away with the game in the first 2 or 3 turns. The only card that leads to situations like that that is widely enough used to care about is Sol Ring.
I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact is that Partial Paris gives you a higher probability of a better quality opening hand. With a normal mulligan if you get 3 lands, a couple of decent cards and a couple of chaff you probably snap keep. You may not have a super great hand, but you've got mana and a couple of spells, and you risk all that by taking a mulligan. With that same hand and Partial Paris, there is zero risk to throw away those two chaff cards. Sure you'll go down a card, but you might get something better. Drew a zero land hand with a Sol Ring? Risk keeping it with normal mulligans or throw away 6 cards with Partial Paris. One of the things the RC looks at is whether a card leads to unfun gameplay when you aren't trying to abuse it (the principle that keeps Hermit Druid legal). My opinion is that PP mulligan makes hand sculpting easier when you aren't trying, and downright abusive when you are trying.
How about letting somebody else use countermagic on it, then reanimating it from the graveyard?
That's a fine play. I don't think the ban on Primeval Titan led to people removing counterspells or reanimation from their decks. And if that's a frequent event in your meta, the person casting Primeval Titan unprotected might want to rethink their strategy.
To also note on tsorm823's comparison, this comparison is no where near the same. The "tempting offer" cards offer each other person the same thing as you, yes. But for each person who does accept the offer, the controller of the offer gets ANOTHER of whatever was offered. Cloning anything is not equivalent to this at all as no one else gets a copy of your clone just because you cloned something.
It is if the choice is clone it or kill it, as I specified. Killing it means that they lost the creature and just got two lands. Cloning it means you both have a Primeval Titan, and they keep theirs potentially long enough to swing. It's allowing the caster to have more because you got greedy yourself.
Double Reap and Sow actually, and it left behind a 6/6 trampling body. For less mana.
The comparison I was going for was Reap and Sow entwined. Same converted mana cost, same two land advantage over the next strongest player. It would be functionally equivalent to double sow, but Sow's lands come into play untapped, so the mana sort of evens out. Either way, getting only the one etb trigger from Primeval Titan would be a perfectly fair spell if that was the end of it.
My opinion is that PP mulligan makes hand sculpting easier when you aren't trying, and downright abusive when you are trying.
And I think when your best option for an opening hand is just finding the mana for your commander, hand sculpting is a good thing that leads to more consistently satisfying games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
The comparison I was going for was Reap and Sow entwined. Same converted mana cost, same two land advantage over the next strongest player. It would be functionally equivalent to double sow, but Sow's lands come into play untapped, so the mana sort of evens out. Either way, getting only the one etb trigger from Primeval Titan would be a perfectly fair spell if that was the end of it.
It would be perfectly fair if it didn't search out any land. We had two very different experiences with the card as you've indicated above. I participated in games where the common play was watching one hit the field and then get cloned, controlled, doomed, and reanimated up until someone finally pulled something more permanent like Swords. I also saw decks that shouldn't be able to support cards like Coffers/Urborg (like 5c decks) run the pair because the chances of getting either your own or someone elses PT were decent.
And I think when your best option for an opening hand is just finding the mana for your commander, hand sculpting is a good thing that leads to more consistently satisfying games.
Bolded for emphasis. The RC thinks so also, which is why it's the official mulligan rule. I disagree with them and so does my league so we use normal mulligan (first one free for multiplayer) rule. The problem I suspect many groups have is that players aren't just using the mull to ensure an opening hand that will let them cast some spells.
Ofcourse I'm focussing on the early turns. That's what Sol Ring does, it makes early turns way too explosive.
If you play something like Civilization, you may be aware of snowballing advantage. Get to a tech first and you get a headstart, which you can use to pull further ahead. Sol Ring allows for the same kind of plays. If you claim that Sol Ring is balanced by it being in every deck, you're dead wrong - whoever draws it first has a big advantage, as they can snowball on. So while I'm developing my field and ramping off the back of Sol Ring, you're lagging behind, so by the time you get to your Ring, I'm already essentially 2/3 turns ahead of you.
Explosive starts happen, but Sol Ring gives just too much incentive for it.
Also, Prime Time is not a turn 1 thing like Sol Ring (Usually). Prime Time also did not fit in every deck. You can't really compare the two, as you're comparing a foundation with a set of brick walls. They do different things, one starts you off blisteringly fast, the other ensures your midgame is going to be amazing. Prime Time sits nicely on the banlist, my comparison was simply there to show how Sol Ring is just as broken, if not much moreso.
Sol Ring ensures a lottery. Draw it first, and you're just that much better off.
I don't agree that Sol Ring is "just as broken, if not much more so" then Primeval Titan.
Firstly, while Sol Ring does remove removal better than Primeval Titan does due to its cost, PT's future advantage doesn't actually die along with it, every time. PT gets two lands that remain on the battlefield, and increasing every turn it survives. In a sense, removing PT is just removing the player's future advantage to get more future advantage, it doesn't deal with the future advantage that has already been provided. 3 turns, and he's still 6 mana ahead of every player for every future turn, along with every other problem that 2 mana and 4 mana provided the past 2 turns.
The closest Sol Ring can do to achieve that is your scenario of Sol Ring followed by a bunch of Signets. While a lot more explosive at the start of the game, requires a lot more specific draws (since PT searches) and you did spend the time and mana to cast the Signets, whereas PT simply searches the lands, freeing up mana of already existent lands to bring more trouble in a shorter time.
Yes, Sol Ring creates a lottery for the early turns due to its cost. PT is dead weight if you can't cast it, but the second you can, it is a "guaranteed Lottery Win" (I didn't say Game Win), put in the "Lottery of Bribery and reanimation chances for earlier turns" whereas Sol Ring's effectiveness goes down straight in the late game, which is why PT is always the more broken of the two.
I'm not commenting on whether Sol Ring is broken enough for the list, I'm just stating my stand that PT is definitely ahead of Sol Ring in terms of brokenness in Multiplayer EDH. A resilient future advantage so great that games revolve around making sure you're the only player with PT - people aren't cloning it, they're also getting rid of yours immediately afterwards. People aren't removing it, they're definitely reanimating it for themselves later. Yes, not all groups/games were like that, but it was still way more common than turn 1 Sol Ring - Signet explosive starts despite being color-restricted.
1. Sol Ring's chances of being banned are somewhere between slim and none.
2. Our focus is neither the competitive nor online crowds (although we recognize the existence of both).
It would be perfectly fair if it didn't search out any land. We had two very different experiences with the card as you've indicated above. I participated in games where the common play was watching one hit the field and then get cloned, controlled, doomed, and reanimated up until someone finally pulled something more permanent like Swords. I also saw decks that shouldn't be able to support cards like Coffers/Urborg (like 5c decks) run the pair because the chances of getting either your own or someone elses PT were decent.
I don't think that one Prime Time trigger on a 6 mana sorcery would be a problematic card, especially since the most notorious double fetch is urborg + coffers, and 6 mana to double your mana is already a thing. At any rate, if the person casting Prime Time can't ensure it will do more for them than it does for others, they should cut it from the deck. For example, no combination of decks willing to abuse Primeval Titan could ever make it as centralizing a board presence as Eye of the Storm. When Eye of the Storm hits the table, every decision revolves around how to best abuse it or get rid of it, all other things are unimportant. If someone plays Eye of the Storm and others are more prepared for it than they are, it's their fault when the game gets out of hand and they lose. Either way, the card is a more of a trap than it is a powerhouse without very careful play. It sounds like Prime Time did that for you.
Bolded for emphasis. The RC thinks so also, which is why it's the official mulligan rule. I disagree with them and so does my league so we use normal mulligan (first one free for multiplayer) rule. The problem I suspect many groups have is that players aren't just using the mull to ensure an opening hand that will let them cast some spells.
And it seems like that is your group. Perhaps you are the one outside the spirit of the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
All these comparisons to PT seem pointless in the first place. PT is banned. So unless someone's going to call the college freshman logical fallacy police on me again, that only shows that PT surpasses the threshold that warrants a ban and another card only needs to meet, not exceed, that threshold to get its own ban. In other words, PT/SP don't set the minimum standard for a ban. So even if somehow Sol Ring/Vault aren't as big of a problem as PT, that can't be used to show they don't merit their own ban.
Besides, everything indicates that the PT/SP bans are sui generis. We have cards that aren't destroying the cyclical balance among stratgies, whose speed isn't substantially faster than responses available against them, and which don't end games by themselves. Making a ban on those cards on the grounds of fun seems like the exception, not the rule. And if you are prepared to say that should be the rule, to the exlusion of any other possible critieria, then you should probably take a bunch of cards off the list, up to and including stuff like Time Vault. I accidentally put Time Vault into my deck without Voltaic Key, so now I can't do anything but skip my turns and hope it doesn't get blown up, right?
Ofcourse I'm focussing on the early turns. That's what Sol Ring does, it makes early turns way too explosive.
If you play something like Civilization, you may be aware of snowballing advantage. Get to a tech first and you get a headstart, which you can use to pull further ahead. Sol Ring allows for the same kind of plays. If you claim that Sol Ring is balanced by it being in every deck, you're dead wrong - whoever draws it first has a big advantage, as they can snowball on. So while I'm developing my field and ramping off the back of Sol Ring, you're lagging behind, so by the time you get to your Ring, I'm already essentially 2/3 turns ahead of you.
Explosive starts happen, but Sol Ring gives just too much incentive for it.
Also, Prime Time is not a turn 1 thing like Sol Ring (Usually). Prime Time also did not fit in every deck. You can't really compare the two, as you're comparing a foundation with a set of brick walls. They do different things, one starts you off blisteringly fast, the other ensures your midgame is going to be amazing. Prime Time sits nicely on the banlist, my comparison was simply there to show how Sol Ring is just as broken, if not much moreso.
Sol Ring ensures a lottery. Draw it first, and you're just that much better off.
I do like this comparison. Another favorite game of mine is Starcraft, and there's a saying with that game that goes "when ahead, get more ahead". A Sol Ring/Crypt like effect in that game would be something along the lines of an icon on the map that immediately builds a new base for you, complete with as many workers as your first one has. Whether multiplayer or 1v1, anyone arguing that wouldn't be a decisive advantage, on grounds that it doesn't do the actual killing, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Point is, people run cards that help them win the resource accumulation game, together with cards that help them close out once they've won that game. Case in point, the prevailing wisdom in Battlecruiser EDH is to not run a bunch of cards that are easily answered by board wipes, in the first place. So, the counsel to players is not to run 6cmc cards that are answered by 6cmc board wipes, but somehow when that 6cmc thing comes down on Turn 2-3 because of Vintage cards, of course all that needs to happen is for the table to wait 4-6 turns for somebody to play Akroma's Vengeance. If that doesn't happen, what in the world is wrong with your playgroup, right? The same cards that are commonplace in "fair" games are now an indication of mean-spiritedness when played with Vintage fast mana.
In other news from Jusstice-land, I had a few really deflating games this weekend. In one game, someone landed a Turn 1 Burgeoning in a 5-player game, then someone ahead of them was on a Mana Crypt-Signet draw that encouraged them to Wheel on Turn 2. Turn 2 for the Burgeoning player was Prossh, Gaea's Cradle as the land for the turn, then it didn't matter. Good thing for me that I drew one of the few 2cmc counters in the format, rather than a 3cmc one, otherwise I couldn't have countered his Turn 3 Warp World. I was literally sitting with a single Hallowed Fountain in front of me when the Prossh player was on 12+ mana. Then they went to 20+ mana after making a Garruk. Now, how many people think that the one counterspell I stuck was enough to salvage that game? No takers? Right, all we needed was a board wipe.
See, I don't begrudge anyone their play in that game. God hands happen. I'm not sure other players at that table felt the same way, though. Everyone was just playing their cards, it's the cards that make enemies out of people. Warp World on Turn 6-7, what jolly good fun! Warp World on Turn 3 when everyone acting behind you has only 2 land, what a fun-ruining try-hard! ...???
I do like this comparison. Another favorite game of mine is Starcraft, and there's a saying with that game that goes "when ahead, get more ahead". A Sol Ring/Crypt like effect in that game would be something along the lines of an icon on the map that immediately builds a new base for you, complete with as many workers as your first one has. Whether multiplayer or 1v1, anyone arguing that wouldn't be a decisive advantage, on grounds that it doesn't do the actual killing, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
This comparison isn't apt.
First off, it would be like having that icon on the map in an ffa, but as soon as you take it, every other player gains vision of you and becomes allied with each other.
Secondly, resource acquisition works far differently in SC, where each additional set of resources gives compound interest on acquiring further resources. In short, there is no limiting factor in SC until you hit the supply cap, and even there every race has ways to manage that cap. In magic, you are limited far earlier due to the card limit and draw limitations. Every card that you use to ramp doesn't do action, unless you refill your hand (with a wheel, say), but that will take up the mana that you ramped, at least for a turn. In SC, you don't have as much of that dichotomy. If you have gained a resource lead on an opponent, you don't have the same kinds of limiting factors.
Point is, people run cards that help them win the resource accumulation game, together with cards that help them close out once they've won that game. Case in point, the prevailing wisdom in Battlecruiser EDH is to not run a bunch of cards that are easily answered by board wipes, in the first place. So, the counsel to players is not to run 6cmc cards that are answered by 6cmc board wipes, but somehow when that 6cmc thing comes down on Turn 2-3 because of Vintage cards, of course all that needs to happen is for the table to wait 4-6 turns for somebody to play Akroma's Vengeance. If that doesn't happen, what in the world is wrong with your playgroup, right? The same cards that are commonplace in "fair" games are now an indication of mean-spiritedness when played with Vintage fast mana.
This is a little-bit straw-man-esque, unless I'm not understanding where you're coming from. The reason to not play into wraths isn't because those 6 drops are necessarily bad, but rather that wraths are so abundant in order to glean card advantage, that everything has the possibility of being collateral damage. As such, typically value plays are preferred since they give immediate gratification.
Further, it's not the issue with fast mana that something big comes out early, you can just as easily use the same small plays, but simply do more of them. I don't think there is really any notable correlation between a big play being good or bad and the existence of fast mana.
In other news from Jusstice-land, I had a few really deflating games this weekend. In one game, someone landed a Turn 1 Burgeoning in a 5-player game, then someone ahead of them was on a Mana Crypt-Signet draw that encouraged them to Wheel on Turn 2. Turn 2 for the Burgeoning player was Prossh, Gaea's Cradle as the land for the turn, then it didn't matter. Good thing for me that I drew one of the few 2cmc counters in the format, rather than a 3cmc one, otherwise I couldn't have countered his Turn 3 Warp World. I was literally sitting with a single Hallowed Fountain in front of me when the Prossh player was on 12+ mana. Then they went to 20+ mana after making a Garruk. Now, how many people think that the one counterspell I stuck was enough to salvage that game? No takers? Right, all we needed was a board wipe.
See, I don't begrudge anyone their play in that game. God hands happen. I'm not sure other players at that table felt the same way, though. Everyone was just playing their cards, it's the cards that make enemies out of people. Warp World on Turn 6-7, what jolly good fun! Warp World on Turn 3 when everyone acting behind you has only 2 land, what a fun-ruining try-hard! ...???
Why did someone wheel when there was a Burgeoning out? That sounds like a terrible idea.
In short, that is one player removing that limitation I talked about earlier for the other player. Even if the prosh player had a wheel themselves, it would have taken up a turn, or most of their turn to cast it, giving everyone else more time to catch up. And if that Prosh player did burgeoning into their own wheel, if every single player at that point did not focus every bit of removal against everything that player did, there would be something awkward, I would feel.
It's like, I played a game with Wildfire's cube, and drafted burgeoning and necropotence, and despite getting both early in two games, I never once got to play them together, because as soon as I dropped both on the table, one or both of them immediately died (usually necro) with removal coming from multiple different players. Once game I managed to recur the necro twice more, and it died before my turn ended, each time.
My friends and I consistently joke that "In commander you technically have 98 cards to work with; your deck starts with your general, and Sol Ring".
Sol Ring is one of the few cards that I could care less if it was banned, despite how much I use it and how many I have (coming up on 5 of them). While it's legal there's absolutely no reason for any deck to not run it. The games where you have it in your opening hand versus those you don't are like night and day. It's practically the whole reason why Trinket Mage is run in almost every blue deck, and why Thada Adel, Acquisitor can even be considered in the 99. I know it will never happen, but banning Sol Ring IMO would be healthier for the format overall. It would open up many slots in many decks.
I do like this comparison. Another favorite game of mine is Starcraft, and there's a saying with that game that goes "when ahead, get more ahead". A Sol Ring/Crypt like effect in that game would be something along the lines of an icon on the map that immediately builds a new base for you, complete with as many workers as your first one has. Whether multiplayer or 1v1, anyone arguing that wouldn't be a decisive advantage, on grounds that it doesn't do the actual killing, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
This comparison isn't apt.
First off, it would be like having that icon on the map in an ffa, but as soon as you take it, every other player gains vision of you and becomes allied with each other.
Secondly, resource acquisition works far differently in SC, where each additional set of resources gives compound interest on acquiring further resources. In short, there is no limiting factor in SC until you hit the supply cap, and even there every race has ways to manage that cap. In magic, you are limited far earlier due to the card limit and draw limitations. Every card that you use to ramp doesn't do action, unless you refill your hand (with a wheel, say), but that will take up the mana that you ramped, at least for a turn. In SC, you don't have as much of that dichotomy. If you have gained a resource lead on an opponent, you don't have the same kinds of limiting factors.
Point taken.
My comparison wasn't intended to suggest that Magic is as much of a resource based game as Starcraft (or Civilization). It was to show that it is a resource accumulation game, not a game where you win by some trump card, or some other type of game. There's room for discussion on what degree each game depends on resource accumulation and resource denial, but I think the point stands. It's not what you do with Sol Ring, it's if Sol Ring gives you resources and this is a resource based game, then it's its own problem.
Point is, people run cards that help them win the resource accumulation game, together with cards that help them close out once they've won that game. Case in point, the prevailing wisdom in Battlecruiser EDH is to not run a bunch of cards that are easily answered by board wipes, in the first place. So, the counsel to players is not to run 6cmc cards that are answered by 6cmc board wipes, but somehow when that 6cmc thing comes down on Turn 2-3 because of Vintage cards, of course all that needs to happen is for the table to wait 4-6 turns for somebody to play Akroma's Vengeance. If that doesn't happen, what in the world is wrong with your playgroup, right? The same cards that are commonplace in "fair" games are now an indication of mean-spiritedness when played with Vintage fast mana.
This is a little-bit straw-man-esque, unless I'm not understanding where you're coming from. The reason to not play into wraths isn't because those 6 drops are necessarily bad, but rather that wraths are so abundant in order to glean card advantage, that everything has the possibility of being collateral damage. As such, typically value plays are preferred since they give immediate gratification.
If I had a nickel for every time the internet said something was a straw man... The fair response to that in nearly every case - if the shoe fits, wear it.
If you do or don't think that value-plays at 6-mana are good plays, not a concern. I'm not trying to argue by saying that such and such position on a Sol Ring ban necessarily holds that they are good plays. What I'm saying is that if you do argue that 6-drops and so forth should accumulate resources on their way to some end goal, you've now disqualified yourself from saying that the next board wipe should be able to resolve whatever Sol Ring enables, and that therefore Sol Ring is not a problem. It's a double standard, and if it doens't apply to you or any individual, that's not central to the argument.
The argument continues to be that multiplayer EDH is a resource based game, Sol Ring gives you resources, therefore Sol Ring is its own problem.
Further, it's not the issue with fast mana that something big comes out early, you can just as easily use the same small plays, but simply do more of them. I don't think there is really any notable correlation between a big play being good or bad and the existence of fast mana.
So you're saying that a "good play" is no better when cast using fast mana than it is without?
In other news from Jusstice-land, I had a few really deflating games this weekend. In one game, someone landed a Turn 1 Burgeoning in a 5-player game, then someone ahead of them was on a Mana Crypt-Signet draw that encouraged them to Wheel on Turn 2. Turn 2 for the Burgeoning player was Prossh, Gaea's Cradle as the land for the turn, then it didn't matter. Good thing for me that I drew one of the few 2cmc counters in the format, rather than a 3cmc one, otherwise I couldn't have countered his Turn 3 Warp World. I was literally sitting with a single Hallowed Fountain in front of me when the Prossh player was on 12+ mana. Then they went to 20+ mana after making a Garruk. Now, how many people think that the one counterspell I stuck was enough to salvage that game? No takers? Right, all we needed was a board wipe.
See, I don't begrudge anyone their play in that game. God hands happen. I'm not sure other players at that table felt the same way, though. Everyone was just playing their cards, it's the cards that make enemies out of people. Warp World on Turn 6-7, what jolly good fun! Warp World on Turn 3 when everyone acting behind you has only 2 land, what a fun-ruining try-hard! ...???
Why did someone wheel when there was a Burgeoning out? That sounds like a terrible idea.
In short, that is one player removing that limitation I talked about earlier for the other player. Even if the prosh player had a wheel themselves, it would have taken up a turn, or most of their turn to cast it, giving everyone else more time to catch up. And if that Prosh player did burgeoning into their own wheel, if every single player at that point did not focus every bit of removal against everything that player did, there would be something awkward, I would feel.
It's like, I played a game with Wildfire's cube, and drafted burgeoning and necropotence, and despite getting both early in two games, I never once got to play them together, because as soon as I dropped both on the table, one or both of them immediately died (usually necro) with removal coming from multiple different players. Once game I managed to recur the necro twice more, and it died before my turn ended, each time.
I think everyone knows the mechanics of why giving a player on Burgeoning a new hand leads to that game state. It could be debated whether that was a good play.
But to say that's relevant to ban list discussion, you'd have to say that balance issues under optimal play from opponents is the critieria. Maybe that's the way it should be, but that idea happens to contradict other conditions that have to be in place according to arguments by those who support fast mana being legal.
They expect sub-optimal play from those playing fast mana in order for it not to become a problem, but then optimal play is expected from opponents in dealing with them? You're allowed to play with busted cards like Wheel, but then if they cause issues you have to sit in the hole that you dug for yourself? The argument is that cards are only problems if you can just walk into them, accidentally, and then have to repeatedly deal with busted game states as a result. Such as PT, everybody accidentally slides it into their decks, then accidentally clones it over and over, and then they can't help themselves and they need the RC to rescue them. So, it would seem that if boneheadedly playing a card because you drew it creates an unfun gamestate, that's exactly the card that would fit into that criteria.
For balance considerations too though, it may as well have just been the same person playing Burgeoning as the one who played Wheel. One conclusion you can draw though, when multiple broken cards exist in players hands in the early game, silly crap happens that just shouldn't happen.
For the games-resource comparison: If we stick to Civilization V, it's better comparable to getting a free Library. That one library early game isn't going to do much, but it'll catapult you ahead in science, enabling you to reach other tresholds much earlier than others. It's value diminishes over time, but the impact is still felt until far along into the game.
It's part of why the Maya are so OP - they get science before other civs, but this isn't a CiV discussion.
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 did someone wheel when there was a Burgeoning out? That sounds like a terrible idea.
The game was already over on turn 2 and I saw what Prossh had in his hand (5 players have a hard time holding cards close to their chests) and realized that giving him more mana was just as bad as the tutor in his hand. So, it was a turn 2 hail mary that I dropped in order to maybe refuel my hand to hit Humility or Aether Flash.
Also, the games were just total ***** that night and everyone was just annoyed.
My comparison wasn't intended to suggest that Magic is as much of a resource based game as Starcraft (or Civilization). It was to show that it is a resource accumulation game, not a game where you win by some trump card, or some other type of game. There's room for discussion on what degree each game depends on resource accumulation and resource denial, but I think the point stands. It's not what you do with Sol Ring, it's if Sol Ring gives you resources and this is a resource based game, then it's its own problem.
Sure, resources giving resources in a resource-based game is always an issue, but that's the point of a resource based game. The question here is whether there are too many resources being given too quickly, and what is done with it.
In short, a few examples:
A turn 1 sol ring to play a turn 2 Hero of Bladehold is strong, but not even remotely close to broken. Serra Ascendant is as much a value play. This is using fast mana to make a quick value play. Followed by a Armageddon, this play could be brutal, but still not broken; it's 3 good cards doing exactly what they're supposed to do, and even then a Swords or Path mostly resets the state.
A turn 1 Burgeoning to play a turn 2 Necropotence is strong, and gets even stronger. This is using resources to accumulate more resources, and especially offsetting the liabilities of both.
So, how do these scenarios fit into the banlist, and whether these situations are too powerful? First, Commander gives us 4 major changes from standard rules: Multiplayer, Singleton, Color Identity, and Casual.
In single player, advancing by two mana against a single opponent is by and far broken, and will likely let you win the game quickly. It allows you to advance your own board state, while also keeping mana open to respond to your opponent, potentially on a 1-1, mana wise. In multiplayer, this is less true. If you are known to be a broken/degenerate player, advancing to 3 mana turn 1 immediately sets you up as a 1v3, at least until/if the state equalizes more. This means that for your 3 mana, your opponents now have 3 mana. There are differences in that they can't share their mana/resources, so they can't forbid what you're doing on turn 1, but they also inherently get more cards as well, unless you dedicate your mana to expanding that resource (if you dedicate mana to equalizing the cards, say 3 mana for 2 cards(typical return) on turn 2, you now have 1 mana left vs 6 of that your opponents have for that turn, just to break even on cards for that turn), at which point for that turn (at least) they out-mana you. You really need to follow up with either more advantage generating cards, or advantage destroying cards consistently in order to maintain that advantage, since each other player will be advancing their own advantages, you need to out-race by a factor of 3, and magic for the most part has diminishing returns. This will tie into two further points (singleton, casual).
The next point, which directly ties into this is the Singleton aspect. Due to the nature of deck construction (barring our strange mulligan rules), the likelihood of having a specific card in your hand is decreased; likewise, the chances of having specific 2 or 3 specific cards is considerably decreased from 4-of formats. While there are redundant options (eg. a good 3-4 different wheel types), this remains a limiting factor, and reduces the consistency mentioned above, both in burst start, and sustained for the period of the game.
Color Identity is another (minor) factor. I believe that removing sol ring will empower Green ever so slightly. While the argument can be made that sol ring can be used in green decks to power out more ramp faster, this is a bit of a diminished value, as every piece of ramp slightly devalues other pieces of ramp.
Casual is the last big factor. Certainly not everyone builds to be casual, but the scenario you described is distinctly the opposite of it. If a player's deck is geared to try and outrace 3 other people at once, sol ring isn't the problem, the player is the problem. It's a bit of an escapist answer, but it holds some water here. A good example of what's possible in this regard would be Moxnix's atogatog storm deck. If you want to play that, no amount of bannings will stop you. The question is where you draw the line. You seem to want it on one side of sol ring. This leads into two questions:
Where exactly do you draw the line? Technically Burgeoning can ramp you more, faster, but costs more cards, but again, this is easily fixed. Exploration on the other side ramps you less on t1, but equalizes on turn 2, but gives you available mana t1 and t2, and allows it to be colored. Again, more cards though. What about the lesser moxen? More cards used, but colored available and a better cost-effect ratio (mana wise), each giving you a total of 2 mana t1 as well, but colored, again.
What is the value of removing Sol Ring, versus the value of keeping it? The value of removing it would be to reduce the explosive competitive starts, such as the one described. But, how much fun does that save vs how much interest having sol ring gives to other players. How does that balance vs. the t2 hero of bladehold plays/stories told, and the excitement it generates, in an innocuous manner? The measure of this would be directly measured in the playerbase of the format.
Do I believe that banning Sol Ring would immediately cause a notable drop in the playerbase? No, not really. But I do think that there will be a much greater collective response of "Aw what? Really?!?" rather than cheers of joy, which is distinctly opposite of what the response for Sundering Titan, and even Primeval Titan were.
If I had a nickel for every time the internet said something was a straw man... The fair response to that in nearly every case - if the shoe fits, wear it.
If you do or don't think that value-plays at 6-mana are good plays, not a concern. I'm not trying to argue by saying that such and such position on a Sol Ring ban necessarily holds that they are good plays. What I'm saying is that if you do argue that 6-drops and so forth should accumulate resources on their way to some end goal, you've now disqualified yourself from saying that the next board wipe should be able to resolve whatever Sol Ring enables, and that therefore Sol Ring is not a problem. It's a double standard, and if it doens't apply to you or any individual, that's not central to the argument.
The argument continues to be that multiplayer EDH is a resource based game, Sol Ring gives you resources, therefore Sol Ring is its own problem.
Hence why I said I wasn't sure if I was reading you correctly. I'm still not 100% sure what you're trying to say.
If you're saying in essence that there may be advantage left over from whatever you played off of sol ring, even after it (and the thing cast) is removed, say perhaps a Consecrated Sphinx drawing 2 cards before it dies to a wrath, then yeah sure, that exists. That just sounds like choosing good cards that can give you value before they go away though to me. I don't attribute that as much to the value of sol ring, as to simply being the value of the card you played.
While cards inherently add to the value of other cards played with them, they are still in effect their own value as well. I don't think that sol ring inherently absorbs the value of every other card in your deck.
So you're saying that a "good play" is no better when cast using fast mana than it is without?
That is not at all what I said. I said that I did not see any inherent manner in which a 6 cost card is bad if run without sol ring, but suddenly becomes good when run with sol ring.
Certainly a value play done earlier and faster may give more value at a point of the game than other things that could be played at a comparable time of the game without the boost; but my point was that casting a 6 cost spell when typically only a 3 cost spell is available will give you value; but likewise casting two 3 cost spells when typically only a 3 cost spell is available still gives you more value on that turn compared to what is expected.
The paragraph you wrote seemed to indicate that 6 cost spells are typically bad, but become good with sol ring, and I was simply stating confusion in that I didn't see a correlation in that statement; rather that any value play done earlier than expected would be expected to give a higher return than expected for that point in the game. That statement though isn't limited to Sol Ring and applies to any and every form of any type of acceleration.
They expect sub-optimal play from those playing fast mana in order for it not to become a problem, but then optimal play is expected from opponents in dealing with them? You're allowed to play with busted cards like Wheel, but then if they cause issues you have to sit in the hole that you dug for yourself?
I expect optimal play from all players. Except myself, because I always realize my optimal play about 5 seconds after I did something else.
My point with wheel is that it's a powerful card, but requires gamestate awareness, much like a wrath. You don't cast wrath when it doesn't give you the greatest advantage. You don't cast wheel when it gives someone else greatest advantage. Simple math.
The argument is that cards are only problems if you can just walk into them, accidentally, and then have to repeatedly deal with busted game states as a result. Such as PT, everybody accidentally slides it into their decks, then accidentally clones it over and over, and then they can't help themselves and they need the RC to rescue them. So, it would seem that if boneheadedly playing a card because you drew it creates an unfun gamestate, that's exactly the card that would fit into that criteria.
And my point is that you don't accidentally walk into a sol ring the way you did Prime Time.
No player "accidentally" went sol ring signet into t2 gilded lotus armageddon.
For balance considerations too though, it may as well have just been the same person playing Burgeoning as the one who played Wheel. One conclusion you can draw though, when multiple broken cards exist in players hands in the early game, silly crap happens that just shouldn't happen.
Why did someone wheel when there was a Burgeoning out? That sounds like a terrible idea.
The game was already over on turn 2 and I saw what Prossh had in his hand (5 players have a hard time holding cards close to their chests) and realized that giving him more mana was just as bad as the tutor in his hand. So, it was a turn 2 hail mary that I dropped in order to maybe refuel my hand to hit Humility or Aether Flash.
Also, the games were just total ***** that night and everyone was just annoyed.
I can get behind that, I've done the Hail Mary plays before. I should have prefaced that statement a bit, I suppose. One thing that always enraged me from the "Terrible Plays" types of reports (aside from heavy bias) is that you simply don't have full knowledge of your opponent's position. Perhaps the threat isn't as big to them as you believe it is, (perhaps you're underplaying the value of threat destroyed instead). Perhaps by destroying your threat instead, they are enticing the other player by making you a more attractive target and are using that player as a resource. In short, your viewpoint to their response is a flawed perception.
There are certainly places where a wheel can be a correct play there, and without being in that situation, you really can't judge.
For clarity, my comment was based off of the following general assessment/logic. If a player got enough mana off of burgeoning to be a threat, that means they have very few cards in hand. Either they are then out of resources in cards and topdecking, thereby threat=commander (which can typically be answered via removal or wrath); or the remaining card is set up to refill their missing resource (buys everyone a turn to catch up while they refill, or more if it's slower draw, during which they are not casting a direct threat, allowing players to spend that turn ramping to catch up). Worst case, he has his own wheel in hand, at which point I'd rather let him use his mana to give me a new hand (taking a turn from him, and allowing mana open for me), rather than limiting my response options (mana wise) and freeing up future mana for him. Absolute worst case, that final card issome sort of insta-death combo(Food Chain?), at which point nothing was accidental and the game is done anyways.
That is of course very generic off of limited information given, but was just my thought process based on that information: Burgeoning = more land out than sol ring start+signet, =4-5 lands +1 land to cast + burgeon = 6-7 cards used, out of 8-9 available = max 3 cards available in hand t2 with 5 mana available. Although I guess rav bounce lands could offset that amount of cards/mana higher, but apparently those are terrible in all situations and should never be played.
What is the value of removing Sol Ring, versus the value of keeping it? The value of removing it would be to reduce the explosive competitive starts, such as the one described. But, how much fun does that save vs how much interest having sol ring gives to other players. How does that balance vs. the t2 hero of bladehold plays/stories told, and the excitement it generates, in an innocuous manner? The measure of this would be directly measured in the playerbase of the format.
Nobody tells the story of the fun time turn 2 Hero of Bladehold happened. If somebody plays Hero of Bladehold on turn two and manages to beat the whole table with it, the story will be entirely about how pissed people were that they lost before having a chance to fight back. If somebody plays Hero of Bladehold on turn two and loses, nobody will remember the story at all. The only plays Sol Ring matters to are the ones that happen in the first few turns, and those are boring miserable games like the one described a few posts up by Jusstice, because nobody wants to lose before they get to play the game.
Ban Sol Ring and nothing of value will be lost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Where exactly do you draw the line? Technically Burgeoning can ramp you more, faster, but costs more cards, but again, this is easily fixed. Exploration on the other side ramps you less on t1, but equalizes on turn 2, but gives you available mana t1 and t2, and allows it to be colored. Again, more cards though. What about the lesser moxen? More cards used, but colored available and a better cost-effect ratio (mana wise), each giving you a total of 2 mana t1 as well, but colored, again.
Burgeoning requires that you have lands in hand to play and can be controlled to a degree by other players. It's also an enchantment and has no immediate impact the turn you play it at all. It's still very powerful in the right situation but that situation is a heck of alot more limited than Sol Ring's. Exploration has many of the same drawbacks as Burgeoning though at least it's proactive to differentiate it. As for the lesser mox, I talked about them like two pages back but the highlights include heavy restrictions are indeed restricting. None of those cards are anywhere near as powerful as sol ring nor are they played in most decks (note I said most, some decks do indeed use them). Sol Ring is however run in 99% of decks for a reason...
What is the value of removing Sol Ring, versus the value of keeping it? The value of removing it would be to reduce the explosive competitive starts, such as the one described. But, how much fun does that save vs how much interest having sol ring gives to other players. How does that balance vs. the t2 hero of bladehold plays/stories told, and the excitement it generates, in an innocuous manner? The measure of this would be directly measured in the playerbase of the format.
I have never hear a "Wow Sol Ring was such a fun card..." or "Dude, remember that time I use Sol Ring and..." "Yeah man it was great!" at all. I have heard many a "Yeah, Bob had a turn 1 Sol Ring and spammed his hand to the board so that game was a wash" or "99 slots other than you Commander? Might as well say you have 98 slots since Sol Ring is a gimme." Might just be me though.
Then who are they banning for? Cause let me tell you, I never had a problem with Primeval Titan. It hit the field, it died, it was about the efficiency of a Reap and Sow. Or it hit the field, it got 4 or six lands, and then someone else combo won anyway. When people describe horror stories of the game going to hell because nobody kills it and everyone just copies it and makes their own, I always think of that as bad players. Cloning it instead of killing it is pretty much the exact same decision process as accepting one of the "tempting offer" cards, which is almost always the wrong decision. I personally view the ban on Prime Time as a ban specifically to improve the experience of weak players.
Now acknowledge my argument. I'm saying in all other things, we don't try to accommodate for people abusing the system to get ahead. We assume that in a casual, social format, people will police themselves to avoid being abusive. The ban list is conceptually formed around this idea that bans are made to improve the experience of normal players, not for cut throat players. You don't have to deliberately dig for sol ring to see it more often in opening hands while doing partial paris, it just happens more often naturally. We're not planning for the people that can use partial paris to make turn 1 doomsday, we're planning for the people who use partial paris to make sure they have all their colors of mana ready to go. Hand sculpting mulligan system is not an inherent evil, it's only bad if you can plan a way to run away with the game in the first 2 or 3 turns. The only card that leads to situations like that that is widely enough used to care about is Sol Ring.
Ok, 2 things.
1) Once again, I have to mention, Sol Ring and Primeval Titan aren't good at the same things. Prime Time doesn't get you to 4 mana on turn 2. Your arguement that your 6 drop gets you more extra mana than a 1 drop is like saying Worldspine Wurm has more power than Tarmogoyf. It's true, but it's a totally irrelevant statement.
2) I'm pretty sure that Sol Ring has a greater saturation in the entire format than Primeval Titan did in just mono-green decks.
How about letting somebody else use countermagic on it, then reanimating it from the graveyard?
To also note on tsorm823's comparison, this comparison is no where near the same. The "tempting offer" cards offer each other person the same thing as you, yes. But for each person who does accept the offer, the controller of the offer gets ANOTHER of whatever was offered. Cloning anything is not equivalent to this at all as no one else gets a copy of your clone just because you cloned something.
I though that Serra Ascendant was errata'ed to only be activated when your life total is 10 above the starting to stop abusing of it. Was that a change that only happened in the video games?
I can't say what any of the other video Game versions have (Duel of the Planeswalkers, ect...).
This change appeared in at least one MTG video game, but this change is incorrect. Serra Ascendant's true wording can be found on gatherer. I believe it is the same as the orginal card text.
It was definitely changed in the game. I greatly suspect that is the only place it was changed.
EDIT: Upon looking around, I see that there was a little discussion about making the errata follow through to EDH rules due to the higher life total
of this gametype. But it was waved due to the fact that EDH simply has far many more options and ever changing strategies to deal
with such a card as Serra Ascendant, despite it being abused. While the video game did not.
Kinda interesting. I think people have made points here about Sol Ring that are in a similar line. That there are answers to Sol Ring as an early boost. And as new cards get printed in more sets, these early threats power are diluted.
That only happened on Duels. AFAIK it has never received any official errata.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
A sol ring ban is unlikely to ever happen
Online play isn't a factor in ban list changes
Competie blance isn't a factor in ban list dicussions
Sadly due to time moving forward,direct quotes are unable to be found requiring the list of things the RC has stated.
In my local Meta ,we dont have an issue with T1 sol rings or anyone abusing partial paris. We have one player who plays goodstuff decks, but he doesn't win all the time or even half the time due to everyone else deck.
So do you feel that Serra Ascendant should be banned? It's an explosive first turn play which gives you a headstart. Of course, it puts a bullseye on your head, is easy to remove, and is a lackluster draw later in the game.
No I never suggested it was balanced by being in every deck.
It was in every green deck. The only thing stopping it from being even more ubiquitous than Sol Ring was its color identity. To say it didn't go in as many decks is unfair.
Sol Ring ensures a lottery. Draw it first, and you're just that much better off.[/quote]
Better off doesn't mean you'll win the game, like people in this thread would like you to believe.
Double Reap and Sow actually, and it left behind a 6/6 trampling body. For less mana.
I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact is that Partial Paris gives you a higher probability of a better quality opening hand. With a normal mulligan if you get 3 lands, a couple of decent cards and a couple of chaff you probably snap keep. You may not have a super great hand, but you've got mana and a couple of spells, and you risk all that by taking a mulligan. With that same hand and Partial Paris, there is zero risk to throw away those two chaff cards. Sure you'll go down a card, but you might get something better. Drew a zero land hand with a Sol Ring? Risk keeping it with normal mulligans or throw away 6 cards with Partial Paris. One of the things the RC looks at is whether a card leads to unfun gameplay when you aren't trying to abuse it (the principle that keeps Hermit Druid legal). My opinion is that PP mulligan makes hand sculpting easier when you aren't trying, and downright abusive when you are trying.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
That's a fine play. I don't think the ban on Primeval Titan led to people removing counterspells or reanimation from their decks. And if that's a frequent event in your meta, the person casting Primeval Titan unprotected might want to rethink their strategy.
It is if the choice is clone it or kill it, as I specified. Killing it means that they lost the creature and just got two lands. Cloning it means you both have a Primeval Titan, and they keep theirs potentially long enough to swing. It's allowing the caster to have more because you got greedy yourself.
The comparison I was going for was Reap and Sow entwined. Same converted mana cost, same two land advantage over the next strongest player. It would be functionally equivalent to double sow, but Sow's lands come into play untapped, so the mana sort of evens out. Either way, getting only the one etb trigger from Primeval Titan would be a perfectly fair spell if that was the end of it.
And I think when your best option for an opening hand is just finding the mana for your commander, hand sculpting is a good thing that leads to more consistently satisfying games.
It would be perfectly fair if it didn't search out any land. We had two very different experiences with the card as you've indicated above. I participated in games where the common play was watching one hit the field and then get cloned, controlled, doomed, and reanimated up until someone finally pulled something more permanent like Swords. I also saw decks that shouldn't be able to support cards like Coffers/Urborg (like 5c decks) run the pair because the chances of getting either your own or someone elses PT were decent.
Bolded for emphasis. The RC thinks so also, which is why it's the official mulligan rule. I disagree with them and so does my league so we use normal mulligan (first one free for multiplayer) rule. The problem I suspect many groups have is that players aren't just using the mull to ensure an opening hand that will let them cast some spells.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't agree that Sol Ring is "just as broken, if not much more so" then Primeval Titan.
Firstly, while Sol Ring does remove removal better than Primeval Titan does due to its cost, PT's future advantage doesn't actually die along with it, every time. PT gets two lands that remain on the battlefield, and increasing every turn it survives. In a sense, removing PT is just removing the player's future advantage to get more future advantage, it doesn't deal with the future advantage that has already been provided. 3 turns, and he's still 6 mana ahead of every player for every future turn, along with every other problem that 2 mana and 4 mana provided the past 2 turns.
The closest Sol Ring can do to achieve that is your scenario of Sol Ring followed by a bunch of Signets. While a lot more explosive at the start of the game, requires a lot more specific draws (since PT searches) and you did spend the time and mana to cast the Signets, whereas PT simply searches the lands, freeing up mana of already existent lands to bring more trouble in a shorter time.
Yes, Sol Ring creates a lottery for the early turns due to its cost. PT is dead weight if you can't cast it, but the second you can, it is a "guaranteed Lottery Win" (I didn't say Game Win), put in the "Lottery of Bribery and reanimation chances for earlier turns" whereas Sol Ring's effectiveness goes down straight in the late game, which is why PT is always the more broken of the two.
I'm not commenting on whether Sol Ring is broken enough for the list, I'm just stating my stand that PT is definitely ahead of Sol Ring in terms of brokenness in Multiplayer EDH. A resilient future advantage so great that games revolve around making sure you're the only player with PT - people aren't cloning it, they're also getting rid of yours immediately afterwards. People aren't removing it, they're definitely reanimating it for themselves later. Yes, not all groups/games were like that, but it was still way more common than turn 1 Sol Ring - Signet explosive starts despite being color-restricted.
I don't think that one Prime Time trigger on a 6 mana sorcery would be a problematic card, especially since the most notorious double fetch is urborg + coffers, and 6 mana to double your mana is already a thing. At any rate, if the person casting Prime Time can't ensure it will do more for them than it does for others, they should cut it from the deck. For example, no combination of decks willing to abuse Primeval Titan could ever make it as centralizing a board presence as Eye of the Storm. When Eye of the Storm hits the table, every decision revolves around how to best abuse it or get rid of it, all other things are unimportant. If someone plays Eye of the Storm and others are more prepared for it than they are, it's their fault when the game gets out of hand and they lose. Either way, the card is a more of a trap than it is a powerhouse without very careful play. It sounds like Prime Time did that for you.
And it seems like that is your group. Perhaps you are the one outside the spirit of the format.
Besides, everything indicates that the PT/SP bans are sui generis. We have cards that aren't destroying the cyclical balance among stratgies, whose speed isn't substantially faster than responses available against them, and which don't end games by themselves. Making a ban on those cards on the grounds of fun seems like the exception, not the rule. And if you are prepared to say that should be the rule, to the exlusion of any other possible critieria, then you should probably take a bunch of cards off the list, up to and including stuff like Time Vault. I accidentally put Time Vault into my deck without Voltaic Key, so now I can't do anything but skip my turns and hope it doesn't get blown up, right?
Not buying it? Didn't think so.
I do like this comparison. Another favorite game of mine is Starcraft, and there's a saying with that game that goes "when ahead, get more ahead". A Sol Ring/Crypt like effect in that game would be something along the lines of an icon on the map that immediately builds a new base for you, complete with as many workers as your first one has. Whether multiplayer or 1v1, anyone arguing that wouldn't be a decisive advantage, on grounds that it doesn't do the actual killing, wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Point is, people run cards that help them win the resource accumulation game, together with cards that help them close out once they've won that game. Case in point, the prevailing wisdom in Battlecruiser EDH is to not run a bunch of cards that are easily answered by board wipes, in the first place. So, the counsel to players is not to run 6cmc cards that are answered by 6cmc board wipes, but somehow when that 6cmc thing comes down on Turn 2-3 because of Vintage cards, of course all that needs to happen is for the table to wait 4-6 turns for somebody to play Akroma's Vengeance. If that doesn't happen, what in the world is wrong with your playgroup, right? The same cards that are commonplace in "fair" games are now an indication of mean-spiritedness when played with Vintage fast mana.
In other news from Jusstice-land, I had a few really deflating games this weekend. In one game, someone landed a Turn 1 Burgeoning in a 5-player game, then someone ahead of them was on a Mana Crypt-Signet draw that encouraged them to Wheel on Turn 2. Turn 2 for the Burgeoning player was Prossh, Gaea's Cradle as the land for the turn, then it didn't matter. Good thing for me that I drew one of the few 2cmc counters in the format, rather than a 3cmc one, otherwise I couldn't have countered his Turn 3 Warp World. I was literally sitting with a single Hallowed Fountain in front of me when the Prossh player was on 12+ mana. Then they went to 20+ mana after making a Garruk. Now, how many people think that the one counterspell I stuck was enough to salvage that game? No takers? Right, all we needed was a board wipe.
See, I don't begrudge anyone their play in that game. God hands happen. I'm not sure other players at that table felt the same way, though. Everyone was just playing their cards, it's the cards that make enemies out of people. Warp World on Turn 6-7, what jolly good fun! Warp World on Turn 3 when everyone acting behind you has only 2 land, what a fun-ruining try-hard! ...???
First off, it would be like having that icon on the map in an ffa, but as soon as you take it, every other player gains vision of you and becomes allied with each other.
Secondly, resource acquisition works far differently in SC, where each additional set of resources gives compound interest on acquiring further resources. In short, there is no limiting factor in SC until you hit the supply cap, and even there every race has ways to manage that cap. In magic, you are limited far earlier due to the card limit and draw limitations. Every card that you use to ramp doesn't do action, unless you refill your hand (with a wheel, say), but that will take up the mana that you ramped, at least for a turn. In SC, you don't have as much of that dichotomy. If you have gained a resource lead on an opponent, you don't have the same kinds of limiting factors.
This is a little-bit straw-man-esque, unless I'm not understanding where you're coming from. The reason to not play into wraths isn't because those 6 drops are necessarily bad, but rather that wraths are so abundant in order to glean card advantage, that everything has the possibility of being collateral damage. As such, typically value plays are preferred since they give immediate gratification.
Further, it's not the issue with fast mana that something big comes out early, you can just as easily use the same small plays, but simply do more of them. I don't think there is really any notable correlation between a big play being good or bad and the existence of fast mana.
Why did someone wheel when there was a Burgeoning out? That sounds like a terrible idea.
In short, that is one player removing that limitation I talked about earlier for the other player. Even if the prosh player had a wheel themselves, it would have taken up a turn, or most of their turn to cast it, giving everyone else more time to catch up. And if that Prosh player did burgeoning into their own wheel, if every single player at that point did not focus every bit of removal against everything that player did, there would be something awkward, I would feel.
It's like, I played a game with Wildfire's cube, and drafted burgeoning and necropotence, and despite getting both early in two games, I never once got to play them together, because as soon as I dropped both on the table, one or both of them immediately died (usually necro) with removal coming from multiple different players. Once game I managed to recur the necro twice more, and it died before my turn ended, each time.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Sol Ring is one of the few cards that I could care less if it was banned, despite how much I use it and how many I have (coming up on 5 of them). While it's legal there's absolutely no reason for any deck to not run it. The games where you have it in your opening hand versus those you don't are like night and day. It's practically the whole reason why Trinket Mage is run in almost every blue deck, and why Thada Adel, Acquisitor can even be considered in the 99. I know it will never happen, but banning Sol Ring IMO would be healthier for the format overall. It would open up many slots in many decks.
Just my 2 cents.
UWU/W BlinkUW
BMono-Black ControlB
Commander:
GWUJenaraGWU
BGeth MBCB
RGXenagosRG
WUBSharuumWUB (retired)
Modern:
xAffinityx (starting)
Standard:
Ha! That's a good one.
Point taken.
My comparison wasn't intended to suggest that Magic is as much of a resource based game as Starcraft (or Civilization). It was to show that it is a resource accumulation game, not a game where you win by some trump card, or some other type of game. There's room for discussion on what degree each game depends on resource accumulation and resource denial, but I think the point stands. It's not what you do with Sol Ring, it's if Sol Ring gives you resources and this is a resource based game, then it's its own problem.
If I had a nickel for every time the internet said something was a straw man... The fair response to that in nearly every case - if the shoe fits, wear it.
If you do or don't think that value-plays at 6-mana are good plays, not a concern. I'm not trying to argue by saying that such and such position on a Sol Ring ban necessarily holds that they are good plays. What I'm saying is that if you do argue that 6-drops and so forth should accumulate resources on their way to some end goal, you've now disqualified yourself from saying that the next board wipe should be able to resolve whatever Sol Ring enables, and that therefore Sol Ring is not a problem. It's a double standard, and if it doens't apply to you or any individual, that's not central to the argument.
The argument continues to be that multiplayer EDH is a resource based game, Sol Ring gives you resources, therefore Sol Ring is its own problem.
So you're saying that a "good play" is no better when cast using fast mana than it is without?
I think everyone knows the mechanics of why giving a player on Burgeoning a new hand leads to that game state. It could be debated whether that was a good play.
But to say that's relevant to ban list discussion, you'd have to say that balance issues under optimal play from opponents is the critieria. Maybe that's the way it should be, but that idea happens to contradict other conditions that have to be in place according to arguments by those who support fast mana being legal.
They expect sub-optimal play from those playing fast mana in order for it not to become a problem, but then optimal play is expected from opponents in dealing with them? You're allowed to play with busted cards like Wheel, but then if they cause issues you have to sit in the hole that you dug for yourself? The argument is that cards are only problems if you can just walk into them, accidentally, and then have to repeatedly deal with busted game states as a result. Such as PT, everybody accidentally slides it into their decks, then accidentally clones it over and over, and then they can't help themselves and they need the RC to rescue them. So, it would seem that if boneheadedly playing a card because you drew it creates an unfun gamestate, that's exactly the card that would fit into that criteria.
For balance considerations too though, it may as well have just been the same person playing Burgeoning as the one who played Wheel. One conclusion you can draw though, when multiple broken cards exist in players hands in the early game, silly crap happens that just shouldn't happen.
It's part of why the Maya are so OP - they get science before other civs, but this isn't a CiV discussion.
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.
Also, the games were just total ***** that night and everyone was just annoyed.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
In short, a few examples:
So, how do these scenarios fit into the banlist, and whether these situations are too powerful? First, Commander gives us 4 major changes from standard rules: Multiplayer, Singleton, Color Identity, and Casual.
Do I believe that banning Sol Ring would immediately cause a notable drop in the playerbase? No, not really. But I do think that there will be a much greater collective response of "Aw what? Really?!?" rather than cheers of joy, which is distinctly opposite of what the response for Sundering Titan, and even Primeval Titan were.
Hence why I said I wasn't sure if I was reading you correctly. I'm still not 100% sure what you're trying to say.
If you're saying in essence that there may be advantage left over from whatever you played off of sol ring, even after it (and the thing cast) is removed, say perhaps a Consecrated Sphinx drawing 2 cards before it dies to a wrath, then yeah sure, that exists. That just sounds like choosing good cards that can give you value before they go away though to me. I don't attribute that as much to the value of sol ring, as to simply being the value of the card you played.
While cards inherently add to the value of other cards played with them, they are still in effect their own value as well. I don't think that sol ring inherently absorbs the value of every other card in your deck.
That is not at all what I said. I said that I did not see any inherent manner in which a 6 cost card is bad if run without sol ring, but suddenly becomes good when run with sol ring.
Certainly a value play done earlier and faster may give more value at a point of the game than other things that could be played at a comparable time of the game without the boost; but my point was that casting a 6 cost spell when typically only a 3 cost spell is available will give you value; but likewise casting two 3 cost spells when typically only a 3 cost spell is available still gives you more value on that turn compared to what is expected.
The paragraph you wrote seemed to indicate that 6 cost spells are typically bad, but become good with sol ring, and I was simply stating confusion in that I didn't see a correlation in that statement; rather that any value play done earlier than expected would be expected to give a higher return than expected for that point in the game. That statement though isn't limited to Sol Ring and applies to any and every form of any type of acceleration.
I expect optimal play from all players. Except myself, because I always realize my optimal play about 5 seconds after I did something else.
My point with wheel is that it's a powerful card, but requires gamestate awareness, much like a wrath. You don't cast wrath when it doesn't give you the greatest advantage. You don't cast wheel when it gives someone else greatest advantage. Simple math.
And my point is that you don't accidentally walk into a sol ring the way you did Prime Time.
No player "accidentally" went sol ring signet into t2 gilded lotus armageddon.
But that situation does not occur by accident.
I can get behind that, I've done the Hail Mary plays before. I should have prefaced that statement a bit, I suppose. One thing that always enraged me from the "Terrible Plays" types of reports (aside from heavy bias) is that you simply don't have full knowledge of your opponent's position. Perhaps the threat isn't as big to them as you believe it is, (perhaps you're underplaying the value of threat destroyed instead). Perhaps by destroying your threat instead, they are enticing the other player by making you a more attractive target and are using that player as a resource. In short, your viewpoint to their response is a flawed perception.
There are certainly places where a wheel can be a correct play there, and without being in that situation, you really can't judge.
For clarity, my comment was based off of the following general assessment/logic. If a player got enough mana off of burgeoning to be a threat, that means they have very few cards in hand. Either they are then out of resources in cards and topdecking, thereby threat=commander (which can typically be answered via removal or wrath); or the remaining card is set up to refill their missing resource (buys everyone a turn to catch up while they refill, or more if it's slower draw, during which they are not casting a direct threat, allowing players to spend that turn ramping to catch up). Worst case, he has his own wheel in hand, at which point I'd rather let him use his mana to give me a new hand (taking a turn from him, and allowing mana open for me), rather than limiting my response options (mana wise) and freeing up future mana for him. Absolute worst case, that final card issome sort of insta-death combo(Food Chain?), at which point nothing was accidental and the game is done anyways.
That is of course very generic off of limited information given, but was just my thought process based on that information: Burgeoning = more land out than sol ring start+signet, =4-5 lands +1 land to cast + burgeon = 6-7 cards used, out of 8-9 available = max 3 cards available in hand t2 with 5 mana available. Although I guess rav bounce lands could offset that amount of cards/mana higher, but apparently those are terrible in all situations and should never be played.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Nobody tells the story of the fun time turn 2 Hero of Bladehold happened. If somebody plays Hero of Bladehold on turn two and manages to beat the whole table with it, the story will be entirely about how pissed people were that they lost before having a chance to fight back. If somebody plays Hero of Bladehold on turn two and loses, nobody will remember the story at all. The only plays Sol Ring matters to are the ones that happen in the first few turns, and those are boring miserable games like the one described a few posts up by Jusstice, because nobody wants to lose before they get to play the game.
Ban Sol Ring and nothing of value will be lost.
I have never hear a "Wow Sol Ring was such a fun card..." or "Dude, remember that time I use Sol Ring and..." "Yeah man it was great!" at all. I have heard many a "Yeah, Bob had a turn 1 Sol Ring and spammed his hand to the board so that game was a wash" or "99 slots other than you Commander? Might as well say you have 98 slots since Sol Ring is a gimme." Might just be me though.