Youtube recommended a video of people playing EDH to me, and with plenty of free time, I decided to take the offer.
One player had Sol Ring on turn 2 and by the end of turn 4 had 5 lands, Sol Ring, Golgari Thug, Oracle of Mul Daya, and the Gitrog Monster. The other players recognize the giant lead but don't seem to put together what happened, wondering out loud at one point how one player is starting to threaten victory while another just has a magnifying glass. Sol Ring is already determining the course of the game.
It turns into archenemy. The Gitrog Monster player takes every piece of hate for 2 times around the table, and the other players are finally satisfied that the lead is gone once he's been reduced to nothing but 2 lands and the frog. Sol Ring didn't win the game for him, but it did unbalance the game into a scenario that would be unacceptable otherwise at almost any table. Nobody wants that level of focused hate, and the player was definitely not happy to be systematically removed from relevance.
Then a bit later, someone plays Wheel of Fortune. On their turn a player with Primeval Bounty (who would eventually win the game) uses their fresh hand to spam spells to get +1/+1 counters, and the free nature of Sol Ring puts him over the edge to have lethal on an opponent. That player died to Sol Ring.
And then after the game, a large part of the discussion was about how explosive the Gitrog Monster deck was at the beginning, and not one of the 4 players acknowledges that the Sol Ring was responsible. The player espouses regret having made himself the threat right away, and they go on to talk about how everyone was worst off when they made themselves archenemy... but every deck was playing Sol Ring.
None of this is horribly out of hand, but it was one game with a good illustration of everything I want to say.
a) It doesn't take a cutthroat meta to go out of hand with an early Sol Ring.
b) An early Sol Ring doesn't need to instantly win to leave someone miserable.
c) Drawing a Sol Ring later in the game isn't bad and is absolutely capable of deciding the winner.
d) For some reason, normal players are totally blind to Sol Ring.
d-part 2) ... even though it's in every deck they own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.
So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.
By your definition, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. In actual practice, though, it's anything but. True, you can win the game, but the experience is what typically matters more than winning. The same goes for Commander.
Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.
Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.
Case in point, if rules are added that make the objective of Cards Against Humanity more clear, then you probably just improved the game. If there were a problem with the competitve aspect of the game, such as a "death" card that immediately ends a round whenever it was presented without the other cards being read, awarding that player a win, then removing the "death" card probably just improved the game. If any other improvements you can think of to the competitive character of that game are made, likewise you probably just improved the game. The fact that adding "funnier" or "cooler" cards to the game arguably amounts to MORE of an improvement doesn't bear at all on the fact that it is a game with a competitive character. That element being one of those that characterizes the game, improving that element is an overall game improvement.
Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.
Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.
This really sounds like you're applying a different definition of "competitive" to what someone was saying, in order to take their post out of context. Regardless of your disagreement over the word choice/definition, the context of "competitive" as discussed to EDH tends to have a different connotation to what you're discussing here, and any posts referring to it should be read in the light that they are intended.
That said, any casual vs. competitive discussion, and what defines one or the other really belong in the 'Casual' versus 'Competitive' Commander thread. I know it's been buried a long time, but this thread is for the banlist.
I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.
So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.
By your definition, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. In actual practice, though, it's anything but. True, you can win the game, but the experience is what typically matters more than winning. The same goes for Commander.
The problem with this assessment is that the this is Magic: The Gathering before its commander, and MTG is a game to be played to win. You have a starting life total. The goal of the gane is to reduce that to zero, or any of the other ways to win. The only way you win, is if you compete. If you don't want your games to be competetive, don't keep track of life totals, and nobody loses, then you have a valid argument.
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Warning for ignoring a moderator request.
Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.
Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.
This really sounds like you're applying a different definition of "competitive" to what someone was saying, in order to take their post out of context. Regardless of your disagreement over the word choice/definition, the context of "competitive" as discussed to EDH tends to have a different connotation to what you're discussing here, and any posts referring to it should be read in the light that they are intended.
That said, any casual vs. competitive discussion, and what defines one or the other really belong in the 'Casual' versus 'Competitive' Commander thread. I know it's been buried a long time, but this thread is for the banlist.
The original context of this discussion was the ban list. Here's the original quote:
The reality is, a very large amount of the disagreements about the banned list come down to competitive players not liking the current list because it doesn't really reflect their priorities. Some others reflect some players not liking certain strategies, usually more controlling ones such as MLD and stax. Most of the rest of the disagreements are about how powerful or annoying or ubiquitous something needs to be before it is considered for banning. The remainder - a very small percentage - tend to be self-serving ones like "Blood Moon should be banned because I want to run 3-5 color decks without having to worry about someone shutting down my greedy mana bases." I think if the competitive folk took their zeal and their well-reasoned understanding of the demands of competitive magic and applied that to making a competitive Commander format, this thread would probably see about 50% less traffic, and a lot of players - competitive and less-competitive alike - would probably be happier.
The reality is that the word "competitive" has been misused and abused so many times that it's devoid of its real meaning. The only thing it indicates here is whether someone is for or against the status quo.
Someone wants a card banned? It must be because they want more balance in their competitive games. Why don't they just get that they are the problem?
Someone wants a card unbanned? The card is broken, bruh. Only competitive players want to abuse broken cards. Why don't they just get it?
I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.
So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.
So, I'd appreciate it to have the entire context of the point in question reviewed before Mod Text is used.
On that topic, I get that the word "competitive" is sometimes used to connote someone who has a particularly intense desire to win and compete, not necessarily the character of an activity that involves competition. I'm not trying to sidestep the first definition as a legitimate use of the word. But it's precisely my point that this feeds into a fallacy of equivocation, where one meaning of the term is used in one portion of the argument and the other is used in different portions. It goes like this:
Person A: Banning or unbanning card X would make competition in this game more balanced, since people would stop getting blown out, so on.
Person B: You don't get it. EDH isn't about competition, it's about having fun.
These two people are talking past one another, because A is using one meaning and B is using an entirely different meaning. The danger is that someone proceeding under this confusion is going to be convinced that no effort to balance gameplay in EDH is fruitful, because that indicates that players are too invested in winning. As you can see, the fact of a game having competition is no indication of the other definition of "competitive", where players have an intense desire to win. The two not being the same thing at all is exactly my point.
I must say that i feel that Mindslaver should be banned. It is unfair for someone to have a way to completely nullify your deck by removing your commander form the game. If your deck does not recur creatures just sending it to the grave is tough. If you don;t have a lot of tutors, in your deck is just as bad, but RFG, that is just not fair, you have no way of getting it back. As a player you will never do that. But sine you do not get to decided where your commander goes during the turn, its is gone for good if it gets exiled in any way. be it your own cards in hand, they decide to play Path during your turn or maybe a third player will play a card to exile knowing full well the guy controlling your turn will not let you get it back.
Then to add to it the cad is so powerful and it is far too easy to recur. 9 times out of ten when my friend gets Mindslaver he slavers locks a player and proceeds to win. Goblin welder and artifact creation. People say "Just play some removal" That is great, if your were not tapped out every turn so i cannot pay removal spells, then again doens't really matter because any removal spell i already have in hand will be used on my commander to get rid of him permanently.
The game instantly stops being fun the second that card hits the field, its not a matter of losing, its just its no longer fun because I am no longer playing the game. He plays his turn, and my turn, and if he is feeling up to it a third players turn as well.
On that topic, I get that the word "competitive" is sometimes used to connote someone who has a particularly intense desire to win and compete, not necessarily the character of an activity that involves competition. I'm not trying to sidestep the first definition as a legitimate use of the word. But it's precisely my point that this feeds into a fallacy of equivocation, where one meaning of the term is used in one portion of the argument and the other is used in different portions. It goes like this:
Person A: Banning or unbanning card X would make competition in this game more balanced, since people would stop getting blown out, so on.
Person B: You don't get it. EDH isn't about competition, it's about having fun.
These two people are talking past one another, because A is using one meaning and B is using an entirely different meaning. The danger is that someone proceeding under this confusion is going to be convinced that no effort to balance gameplay in EDH is fruitful, because that indicates that players are too invested in winning. As you can see, the fact of a game having competition is no indication of the other definition of "competitive", where players have an intense desire to win. The two not being the same thing at all is exactly my point.
THIS
I feel like people can't get away from the fact I play prized tournaments to have an opinion that is reflective of all demographics of the format. They assume my definition of competitive is purely in regards to the high level, degenerate play groups only caring about the win; what I'm really referring to is the concept of what makes the game playable for all levels. Because of this my opinion CONSTANTLY is stated to be "not for EDH players" and I should make opinions for that niche group else where. It's a really uncool way to not humor the ideas being posted and it leads to frustratingly huge posts to clarify these false assumptions (and personally it feels hostile sometimes).
I agree that the card's owner should decide where the Commander goes, and Mindslaver is unfun. This seems like something you need to houserule in though. Just ask your friend not to loop it our play it. If he won't stop, pack more graveyard hate or something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
Sheldon's stance on Mindslaver, and one that I've come to respect is "Once is fine, Repetitive isn't fun for anyone."
Years ago there was one player that played Midslaver, but it never got recurred. It led to hilarious games as every time he aimed it at me was when I had Chain of Acid in hand, or he drew it for me on that turn. As a true champ and a gentleman, he was kind enough to leave me my lands, though he did cast out as much of my hand as possible and then clear everything that wasn't a land.
The ability to exile Commanders is an unfortunate mis-use of power, I feel. If that's your reason for running the mind slaver, perhaps this isn't the spirit you're looking for?
The original context of this discussion was the ban list. Here's the original quote:
So, I'd appreciate it to have the entire context of the point in question reviewed before Mod Text is used.
On that topic, I get that the word "competitive" is sometimes used to connote someone who has a particularly intense desire to win and compete, not necessarily the character of an activity that involves competition. I'm not trying to sidestep the first definition as a legitimate use of the word. But it's precisely my point that this feeds into a fallacy of equivocation, where one meaning of the term is used in one portion of the argument and the other is used in different portions. It goes like this:
Person A: Banning or unbanning card X would make competition in this game more balanced, since people would stop getting blown out, so on.
Person B: You don't get it. EDH isn't about competition, it's about having fun.
These two people are talking past one another, because A is using one meaning and B is using an entirely different meaning. The danger is that someone proceeding under this confusion is going to be convinced that no effort to balance gameplay in EDH is fruitful, because that indicates that players are too invested in winning. As you can see, the fact of a game having competition is no indication of the other definition of "competitive", where players have an intense desire to win. The two not being the same thing at all is exactly my point.
This discussion has gone beyond the original context and is now debating whether Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. At no point was the ban list being discussed, which is why bobthefunny requested that the discussion be moved to the appropriate thread. This thread is for the ban list. We don't care if you want to talk about the moon landing, as long as you tie it into the EDH ban list. (Obvious exaggeration, but you get my point)
Sheldon's stance on Mindslaver, and one that I've come to respect is "Once is fine, Repetitive isn't fun for anyone."
Years ago there was one player that played Midslaver, but it never got recurred. It led to hilarious games as every time he aimed it at me was when I had Chain of Acid in hand, or he drew it for me on that turn. As a true champ and a gentleman, he was kind enough to leave me my lands, though he did cast out as much of my hand as possible and then clear everything that wasn't a land.
The ability to exile Commanders is an unfortunate mis-use of power, I feel. If that's your reason for running the mind slaver, perhaps this isn't the spirit you're looking for?
My buddy would not do that, he would cast as much as he could and then wipe everything.
I use to play slaverlock in a deck. But it only happened once or twice in 100 games.
Once it did win me a game. It was three people and I am dead in the water, i have nothing left to save me. I am down to my last legs and the guy just before my turn is pondering who to kill, the guy who has less tan 10 health and nothing to help him win. or another guy who has been a much larger threat the entire game. So he kills off the other guy, Now i was winning to accept defeat at this point knowing i was dead next turn, i was just wanting to finish the match as gentleman, That never came to pass. I drew Mindlaver and won by slaver-lock. But the game was over with slaverlock we knew I won, he conceded, while laughing because we just agreed to finish like gentlemen, and then i was a dick.
But that is not the main issue, its what you can do with slaver. I play Mizzix. That deck si powerful with mizzix, and when youa re having to cast him for 12 mana, THAT IS A LOT OF MANA Already he is tough to cast, sure you may have 11 EXP counters but they only do stuff with Mizzix on the field. Path, Swords, Kill spells, Counterspells... it is a gauntlet just to get him on the field. But my deck needs that reduced cost to win. It is not extremly mana heavy, sure i may be able to play turnabout and Reverberate buyback, but without that reduced cost it is not going to be as easy.
So when they can exile your commander permanently you're stuck. If your deck requires your commander to make winning easier, or win period, unable to stop it does become an issue.
As for grave hate, what will that do? I don't get a turn anymore. I can't cast spells during my turn as i don;t control my turn, and i can't do it during someone else's turn, as i never have mana open as it is always tapped out.
Sheldon's stance on Mindslaver, and one that I've come to respect is "Once is fine, Repetitive isn't fun for anyone."
I'm on board with that position, too. My league has a penalty for 'slavering the same person twice, but hitting each opponent once is fine.
That said, not even my theft deck is running Mindslaver any more, because frankly there are more effective cards. It can be strong, but it can also be a 10-mana Time Walk, depending on the board state and what's in your opponent's hand.
Sheldon's stance on Mindslaver, and one that I've come to respect is "Once is fine, Repetitive isn't fun for anyone."
I'm on board with that position, too. My league has a penalty for 'slavering the same person twice, but hitting each opponent once is fine.
That said, not even my theft deck is running Mindslaver any more, because frankly there are more effective cards. It can be strong, but it can also be a 10-mana Time Walk, depending on the board state and what's in your opponent's hand.
Sheldon's stance on Mindslaver, and one that I've come to respect is "Once is fine, Repetitive isn't fun for anyone."
I'm on board with that position, too. My league has a penalty for 'slavering the same person twice, but hitting each opponent once is fine.
That said, not even my theft deck is running Mindslaver any more, because frankly there are more effective cards. It can be strong, but it can also be a 10-mana Time Walk, depending on the board state and what's in your opponent's hand.
or a 4 mana sorin ult.
I have literally never seen someone activate Mindslaver at any point in time later than "immediately after entering the battlefield". That doesn't necessarily mean that the player has just cast it for its full price -- cheating it into play with other cards is certainly a thing -- but a 10-mana Mindslaver is the only way you're popping a Mindslaver without the assistance of at least one other non-mana source card.
Granted, Sorin Markov is only a 6-mana investment, but I have also literally never seen someone use Sorin Markov's ultimate. It also requires Sorin surviving two turn cycles unmolested while doing practically nothing to even attempt. (Or be BGx with Doubling Season, but I've also never seen Sorin and Doubling Season in the same deck.)
Worst Fears splits the difference on cost between Sorin and Minslaver+Activate, but it also exiles itself, forcing you into the one-time use that I've already said I agree is fair for Mindslaver.
Granted, Sorin Markov is only a 6-mana investment, but I have also literally never seen someone use Sorin Markov's ultimate. It also requires Sorin surviving two turn cycles unmolested while doing practically nothing to even attempt. (Or be BGx with Doubling Season, but I've also never seen Sorin and Doubling Season in the same deck.)
I've been trying to find room for it in my Damia list, which does indeed run Doubling Season.
Granted, Sorin Markov is only a 6-mana investment, but I have also literally never seen someone use Sorin Markov's ultimate. It also requires Sorin surviving two turn cycles unmolested while doing practically nothing to even attempt. (Or be BGx with Doubling Season, but I've also never seen Sorin and Doubling Season in the same deck.)
I've been trying to find room for it in my Damia list, which does indeed run Doubling Season.
I mean, theoretically my Thada deck could get a Doubling Season with Steal Enchantment (which reminds me of Sandal from the Dragon Age games every time I think about the card. En-CHANT-Ment!) and Spelljack or Commandeer a Sorin, but that's got so many moving parts it's ridiculous.
Also, the number of Sorin Markovs I see has declined sharply since I got into EDH when SOM was released. He's simply not very impressive. Even if you have an opponent at 40+ life when you cast him so that he's 30+ damage for 6 mana, you still need 10 more damage to kill them, and Sorin's certainly not going to be the one to do it. At least Magister Sphinx leaves you with a 5/5 evasive creature to punch them in the face with, and even then, once that person is eliminated, you have your other opponent(s) to deal with.
I wanted to wait until I had a second to read your whole post and really respond. I can understand more where you are coming from now, but I still find it interesting the way that you are trying to blend multiple levels of competitiveness. It's interesting because it only works if the ban list changes to reflect competitive concerns in order to prevent the stomping of weaker decks, which I very much understand.
If the broader EDH community were a meta like yours, I'd probably support the changes that you would like to see happen to the list. The issue, however, is that your meta seems to be an anomaly where most other metas (read: playgroups) exist as either competitive or casual or somewhere in between, but generally not more than one of those.
So, it really comes down to this (based off of your statements): I feel like you want the ban list to ban cards that lead to fast, explosive, typically combo based wins. You want to do this for the right reasons, in my opinion, in that you want to protect the weaker players in your meta and give them a chance to compete and really play in these games, even if they do not win by slowing down the maximum speed of the game. Your goal is to avoid competitive players blowing out casual players (only casual as it pertains to deck construction, not skill level).
It's a noble pursuit and one that I think you should not leave up to the RC because you are likely to be disappointed. Your meta seems to be more or less contained to the shop(s) that you all play at. You have a unique perspective on the landscape that exists in those decks. I'd recommend that you find the most egregious offenders (even in your deck) and ban those cards while trying to keep the cards that are banned to a minimum. Ideally, if you only had to ban 10 cards in order to roughly guarantee the enjoyment of casual built decks against cutthroat/tuned lists, that would probably be a worthwhile addition to the official banlist. I fear, though, that this would not be the case and many more than 10 cards would have to be banned in order to accomplish what you want.
With the stated purpose of the banlist being for it to serve as a guideline for the types of games that the RC believes to be ideal, I just don't see it being changed in order to protect the casual player from the competitive one because the competitive one, in the view of the RC, shouldn't exist without abiding by the social contract. Part of that social contract is having all players trying to play the same sort of game. Where one player intends to win on turn 3 and the other intends to win by turn 23, the difference is just too great for a banlist to accommodate both sides. So, instead, it accommodates the player that wants to win on turn 23 and does not concern itself with the player that wants to win on turn 3 because that player won't be reined in by a simplistic "lead by example" banlist of the types of cards that don't lead to fun, memorable games of Magic. The turn 3 player is going to run the absolute best cards that are available. Banning 10, 15, 20 cards won't make the experience that much better for the turn 23 player. For that reason, the banlist will never be competitively balanced as you want it to be. There are just too many cards that would need to go if that were within the purview. You can't ban cards that are ruining casual games while also banning cards that ruin competitive games. The dichotomy between the two is too great.
I know you aren't going to change your mind, so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but I'd be very interested what your playgroup/meta does with a small addition to the official banlist of 10-15 cards. Would taking away some of the more lethal fast mana and fast combo pieces for these un-interactive decks you despise improve things for the casual players? What cards would you sacrifice from your stax list in order to rein yourself in as you'd assumedly run wild without glass cannon combo to hold you in check? If the concern is archetype viability and casual list viability, every competitive list would need to lose some of its most potent pieces.
The question I have then is fourfold:
1) How many cards would you need to ban while still keeping a minimalist approach to the banlist? 2) What cards would you ban in your meta in order to "balance" it for both competitive and casual players? 3) Would banning those cards actually change the results if those players just go to the next best option? 4) Would those players going to the next option mean that you need to ban more cards than the original 10-15?
I'm not sure what the answers to these questions are. They aren't rhetorical; as I am not a competitive player or in your meta, I just really do not know. I really do encourage you to try and answer them and then try to implement them, for some period of time, in your local meta and see what happens. There is nothing to support an argument quite like empirical data.
The real challenge isn't just making additions to the official banlist to consider competitive play, it is keeping those additions to a low enough number that it is worthwhile without making the banlist a mile long.
DISCLAIMER: So no one misquotes me, a banlist is absolutely needed for the health of the format. Kappa.
Banlist would not need to be a mile long, its just that the RC does not focus on actual problems.
For example, Tooth and Nail, one argument to not ban it was that someone can go look for a birds of Paradise and Wood elves. Now while true tell me, who is going to spend 9 mana to go get some mana accel creatures? Tooth and nail is a card that can win games very early. Tanks to green's ramp I have seen Tooth and nail win a game turn 4.
Yeah, Tooth and Nail vs Protean Hulk is one of those points where the banlist simply doesn't make sense. Protean Hulk needs many more moving parts to go infinite with and it's much more likely to be used just to pull up some value creatures, and I can't even see it being the Nr. 1 reanimation/clone target unlike some that did hit the banlist (Prime Time, Sylvan Prime) whereas in most metas a resolved Tooth and Nail means good game. A swap of those two on the list would seem to me to promote more interesting games to me as the Hulk just has a lot more options for actually interesting combinations.
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.
I would not mind a tooth and nail ban, but I don't think hulk should be taken off just because T&N is still legal.
Also for more sol ring stories. Got 5 games in tonight, 4-mans. In two separate games an opponent got a T1 sol ring and won. In another game I got the T1 sol ring, and the only reasons why I didn't win were because...
1) Two of the three opponents (anya, merciless angel and karlov of the ghost council) fired all their removal and attacks at me (for example, the karlov player fired an anguished unmaking at my collective restraint around turn 6 or so, so his general could get in more damage against me, when the azusa opponent had a full grip of cards and like 15 lands in play, meanwhile I had maybe 10-11 mana out at the time and less cards than the azusa player). It's the correct strategy to disrupt me (the T1 sol ring player) early on, but they did not display proper assessment when they didn't realize the moment the azusa player became a bigger threat than me.
2) I was last, so that slowed things down effectively by a full turn.
2) I was using my Progenitus deck, which is basically a pile of *****.
I would not mind a tooth and nail ban, but I don't think hulk should be taken off just because T&N is still legal.
You're right. Protean Hulk should be taken off because it's simply not banworthy and it's a demon from the past, having lost it's relevance much like Staff of Domination, Kokusho, the Evening Star, Worldgorger Dragon and Metalworker before it. Aside from Metalworker, none of those old demons from the past ever get brought up for a re-ban anymore.
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.
While I'm not a fan of sol ring the statement "someone got turn 1 sol ring they won" is beyond useless. You told me nothing about the game you may as well have said "the guy eating Doritos won both games" even when you describe why you don't win you don't mention what sol ring dies for you or how it's relevant to the flow of that game. I also don't see how a game where Simonesyong 15 lands and players have what you consider poor threat assessment to be relevant. Without a play by play or there testimony you do you really know they were still hitting you for a sol ring? Does it matter on context to a ban discussion? No.
Sol ring is a vintage power card it's broken. The RC bans for people who play 15 + turn games on AVERAGE they don't feel its impact like you do. If your meta is faster oh well you house rule it out or realize your playing a vintage power format and not every card you draw is going to be lotus or recall. The formats fun with there ban list it's fun with a more strict one and it's fun with none I've tried it all flavors they are great. by now it should be incredibly obvious which flavor the RC is going for. If your group doesn't play the way they intended the format then adopt your own banlist. Group full of uncompromising butt heads who can only stubbornly agree to look to a list that makes no sense for them instead of coming to an agreement? That sucks it really does, but it's your own fault and doesn't change the fact that the list your looking to does not cater to you. Suck it up realize that you agreed to THAT compromise since you could not come to your own and enjoy the game. What you and anyone else should not be doing is arguing about the cardboard from a position that is obviously not the kind of table the RC is going for it doesn't make sense.
It is interesting because I have the inverse situation. I very rarely see a turn 1 Sol Ring in my weekly games, and a certainly haven't been able to point at it as the deciding factor of a game or guaranteeing a win for that player. I don't say this to discredit anyone else since I'm not in a position to call them liars about games in which I wasn't.present, but to offer my own acedotal evidence.
While I'm not a fan of sol ring the statement "someone got turn 1 sol ring they won" is beyond useless. You told me nothing about the game you may as well have said "the guy eating Doritos won both games" even when you describe why you don't win you don't mention what sol ring dies for you or how it's relevant to the flow of that game. I also don't see how a game where Simonesyong 15 lands and players have what you consider poor threat assessment to be relevant. Without a play by play or there testimony you do you really know they were still hitting you for a sol ring? Does it matter on context to a ban discussion? No.
Sol ring is a vintage power card it's broken. The RC bans for people who play 15 + turn games on AVERAGE they don't feel its impact like you do. If your meta is faster oh well you house rule it out or realize your playing a vintage power format and not every card you draw is going to be lotus or recall. The formats fun with there ban list it's fun with a more strict one and it's fun with none I've tried it all flavors they are great. by now it should be incredibly obvious which flavor the RC is going for. If your group doesn't play the way they intended the format then adopt your own banlist. Group full of uncompromising butt heads who can only stubbornly agree to look to a list that makes no sense for them instead of coming to an agreement? That sucks it really does, but it's your own fault and doesn't change the fact that the list your looking to does not cater to you. Suck it up realize that you agreed to THAT compromise since you could not come to your own and enjoy the game. What you and anyone else should not be doing is arguing about the cardboard from a position that is obviously not the kind of table the RC is going for it doesn't make sense.
Dude, what is this? Really? He specifically stated that in a 4-man game, sol ring was the deciding factor. You don't need the play by play. A turn 1 sol ring does way more than just add 2 colorless. It's essentially a timewalk, netting you +2 against the other players who didn't land it. If you don't think being ahead by 2 mana all game doesn't decide games, or that a single card that turns commander into archenemy is ok, then I truely question whether or not you play this game.
Back to house rules, again. If you do house rules, you don't need a banned list. This has pretty much been discussed to DEATH. Secondly, you didn't even read the entire post, or reference his priors. By the sounds of it, his group is a mixed bag of competetive and casual, turn 1 Sol Ring is broken, turn 4 Sol ring is broken, turn 12 sol ring is broken, regardless of the deck/player types.
The rest just looks like an uneducated attack on the guy.
Oh, and FWIW, if this is a "Vintage" format, as you say, why are the P9 banned?
And finally, I've never, EVER, experienced a game that went 15+ turns with an early Sol Ring. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sure that percentage is less than half of the games that don't see Sol Ring, early or not.
It is interesting because I have the inverse situation. I very rarely see a turn 1 Sol Ring in my weekly games, and a certainly haven't been able to point at it as the deciding factor of a game or guaranteeing a win for that player. I don't say this to discredit anyone else since I'm not in a position to call them liars about games in which I wasn't.present, but to offer my own acedotal evidence.
The player who drops a turn 1 Sol Ring gets focused hard in my playgroups until it's obvious they aren't a threat or the Ring is killed. In my experience it isn't Sol Ring itself that is the problem but the entire deck. Sol Ring in Nantuko tribal is meaningless.
One player had Sol Ring on turn 2 and by the end of turn 4 had 5 lands, Sol Ring, Golgari Thug, Oracle of Mul Daya, and the Gitrog Monster. The other players recognize the giant lead but don't seem to put together what happened, wondering out loud at one point how one player is starting to threaten victory while another just has a magnifying glass. Sol Ring is already determining the course of the game.
It turns into archenemy. The Gitrog Monster player takes every piece of hate for 2 times around the table, and the other players are finally satisfied that the lead is gone once he's been reduced to nothing but 2 lands and the frog. Sol Ring didn't win the game for him, but it did unbalance the game into a scenario that would be unacceptable otherwise at almost any table. Nobody wants that level of focused hate, and the player was definitely not happy to be systematically removed from relevance.
Then a bit later, someone plays Wheel of Fortune. On their turn a player with Primeval Bounty (who would eventually win the game) uses their fresh hand to spam spells to get +1/+1 counters, and the free nature of Sol Ring puts him over the edge to have lethal on an opponent. That player died to Sol Ring.
And then after the game, a large part of the discussion was about how explosive the Gitrog Monster deck was at the beginning, and not one of the 4 players acknowledges that the Sol Ring was responsible. The player espouses regret having made himself the threat right away, and they go on to talk about how everyone was worst off when they made themselves archenemy... but every deck was playing Sol Ring.
None of this is horribly out of hand, but it was one game with a good illustration of everything I want to say.
a) It doesn't take a cutthroat meta to go out of hand with an early Sol Ring.
b) An early Sol Ring doesn't need to instantly win to leave someone miserable.
c) Drawing a Sol Ring later in the game isn't bad and is absolutely capable of deciding the winner.
d) For some reason, normal players are totally blind to Sol Ring.
d-part 2) ... even though it's in every deck they own.
Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.
Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.
Case in point, if rules are added that make the objective of Cards Against Humanity more clear, then you probably just improved the game. If there were a problem with the competitve aspect of the game, such as a "death" card that immediately ends a round whenever it was presented without the other cards being read, awarding that player a win, then removing the "death" card probably just improved the game. If any other improvements you can think of to the competitive character of that game are made, likewise you probably just improved the game. The fact that adding "funnier" or "cooler" cards to the game arguably amounts to MORE of an improvement doesn't bear at all on the fact that it is a game with a competitive character. That element being one of those that characterizes the game, improving that element is an overall game improvement.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThat said, any casual vs. competitive discussion, and what defines one or the other really belong in the 'Casual' versus 'Competitive' Commander thread. I know it's been buried a long time, but this thread is for the banlist.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
The problem with this assessment is that the this is Magic: The Gathering before its commander, and MTG is a game to be played to win. You have a starting life total. The goal of the gane is to reduce that to zero, or any of the other ways to win. The only way you win, is if you compete. If you don't want your games to be competetive, don't keep track of life totals, and nobody loses, then you have a valid argument.
The original context of this discussion was the ban list. Here's the original quote:
So, I'd appreciate it to have the entire context of the point in question reviewed before Mod Text is used.
On that topic, I get that the word "competitive" is sometimes used to connote someone who has a particularly intense desire to win and compete, not necessarily the character of an activity that involves competition. I'm not trying to sidestep the first definition as a legitimate use of the word. But it's precisely my point that this feeds into a fallacy of equivocation, where one meaning of the term is used in one portion of the argument and the other is used in different portions. It goes like this:
Person A: Banning or unbanning card X would make competition in this game more balanced, since people would stop getting blown out, so on.
Person B: You don't get it. EDH isn't about competition, it's about having fun.
These two people are talking past one another, because A is using one meaning and B is using an entirely different meaning. The danger is that someone proceeding under this confusion is going to be convinced that no effort to balance gameplay in EDH is fruitful, because that indicates that players are too invested in winning. As you can see, the fact of a game having competition is no indication of the other definition of "competitive", where players have an intense desire to win. The two not being the same thing at all is exactly my point.
Then to add to it the cad is so powerful and it is far too easy to recur. 9 times out of ten when my friend gets Mindslaver he slavers locks a player and proceeds to win. Goblin welder and artifact creation. People say "Just play some removal" That is great, if your were not tapped out every turn so i cannot pay removal spells, then again doens't really matter because any removal spell i already have in hand will be used on my commander to get rid of him permanently.
The game instantly stops being fun the second that card hits the field, its not a matter of losing, its just its no longer fun because I am no longer playing the game. He plays his turn, and my turn, and if he is feeling up to it a third players turn as well.
There are other cards that should be banned as well such as tooth and nail, Cyclonic Rift, Omniscience. But the one that is really unfun is Mindslaver.
They should also change the rules that the owner of the card decides where the commander goes, not the one controlling the turn, but they won't.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
THIS
I feel like people can't get away from the fact I play prized tournaments to have an opinion that is reflective of all demographics of the format. They assume my definition of competitive is purely in regards to the high level, degenerate play groups only caring about the win; what I'm really referring to is the concept of what makes the game playable for all levels. Because of this my opinion CONSTANTLY is stated to be "not for EDH players" and I should make opinions for that niche group else where. It's a really uncool way to not humor the ideas being posted and it leads to frustratingly huge posts to clarify these false assumptions (and personally it feels hostile sometimes).
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffYears ago there was one player that played Midslaver, but it never got recurred. It led to hilarious games as every time he aimed it at me was when I had Chain of Acid in hand, or he drew it for me on that turn. As a true champ and a gentleman, he was kind enough to leave me my lands, though he did cast out as much of my hand as possible and then clear everything that wasn't a land.
The ability to exile Commanders is an unfortunate mis-use of power, I feel. If that's your reason for running the mind slaver, perhaps this isn't the spirit you're looking for?
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
This discussion has gone beyond the original context and is now debating whether Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. At no point was the ban list being discussed, which is why bobthefunny requested that the discussion be moved to the appropriate thread. This thread is for the ban list. We don't care if you want to talk about the moon landing, as long as you tie it into the EDH ban list. (Obvious exaggeration, but you get my point)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I use to play slaverlock in a deck. But it only happened once or twice in 100 games.
Once it did win me a game. It was three people and I am dead in the water, i have nothing left to save me. I am down to my last legs and the guy just before my turn is pondering who to kill, the guy who has less tan 10 health and nothing to help him win. or another guy who has been a much larger threat the entire game. So he kills off the other guy, Now i was winning to accept defeat at this point knowing i was dead next turn, i was just wanting to finish the match as gentleman, That never came to pass. I drew Mindlaver and won by slaver-lock. But the game was over with slaverlock we knew I won, he conceded, while laughing because we just agreed to finish like gentlemen, and then i was a dick.
But that is not the main issue, its what you can do with slaver. I play Mizzix. That deck si powerful with mizzix, and when youa re having to cast him for 12 mana, THAT IS A LOT OF MANA Already he is tough to cast, sure you may have 11 EXP counters but they only do stuff with Mizzix on the field. Path, Swords, Kill spells, Counterspells... it is a gauntlet just to get him on the field. But my deck needs that reduced cost to win. It is not extremly mana heavy, sure i may be able to play turnabout and Reverberate buyback, but without that reduced cost it is not going to be as easy.
So when they can exile your commander permanently you're stuck. If your deck requires your commander to make winning easier, or win period, unable to stop it does become an issue.
As for grave hate, what will that do? I don't get a turn anymore. I can't cast spells during my turn as i don;t control my turn, and i can't do it during someone else's turn, as i never have mana open as it is always tapped out.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
That said, not even my theft deck is running Mindslaver any more, because frankly there are more effective cards. It can be strong, but it can also be a 10-mana Time Walk, depending on the board state and what's in your opponent's hand.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
or a 4 mana sorin ult.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Granted, Sorin Markov is only a 6-mana investment, but I have also literally never seen someone use Sorin Markov's ultimate. It also requires Sorin surviving two turn cycles unmolested while doing practically nothing to even attempt. (Or be BGx with Doubling Season, but I've also never seen Sorin and Doubling Season in the same deck.)
Worst Fears splits the difference on cost between Sorin and Minslaver+Activate, but it also exiles itself, forcing you into the one-time use that I've already said I agree is fair for Mindslaver.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I've been trying to find room for it in my Damia list, which does indeed run Doubling Season.
Also, the number of Sorin Markovs I see has declined sharply since I got into EDH when SOM was released. He's simply not very impressive. Even if you have an opponent at 40+ life when you cast him so that he's 30+ damage for 6 mana, you still need 10 more damage to kill them, and Sorin's certainly not going to be the one to do it. At least Magister Sphinx leaves you with a 5/5 evasive creature to punch them in the face with, and even then, once that person is eliminated, you have your other opponent(s) to deal with.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I wanted to wait until I had a second to read your whole post and really respond. I can understand more where you are coming from now, but I still find it interesting the way that you are trying to blend multiple levels of competitiveness. It's interesting because it only works if the ban list changes to reflect competitive concerns in order to prevent the stomping of weaker decks, which I very much understand.
If the broader EDH community were a meta like yours, I'd probably support the changes that you would like to see happen to the list. The issue, however, is that your meta seems to be an anomaly where most other metas (read: playgroups) exist as either competitive or casual or somewhere in between, but generally not more than one of those.
So, it really comes down to this (based off of your statements): I feel like you want the ban list to ban cards that lead to fast, explosive, typically combo based wins. You want to do this for the right reasons, in my opinion, in that you want to protect the weaker players in your meta and give them a chance to compete and really play in these games, even if they do not win by slowing down the maximum speed of the game. Your goal is to avoid competitive players blowing out casual players (only casual as it pertains to deck construction, not skill level).
It's a noble pursuit and one that I think you should not leave up to the RC because you are likely to be disappointed. Your meta seems to be more or less contained to the shop(s) that you all play at. You have a unique perspective on the landscape that exists in those decks. I'd recommend that you find the most egregious offenders (even in your deck) and ban those cards while trying to keep the cards that are banned to a minimum. Ideally, if you only had to ban 10 cards in order to roughly guarantee the enjoyment of casual built decks against cutthroat/tuned lists, that would probably be a worthwhile addition to the official banlist. I fear, though, that this would not be the case and many more than 10 cards would have to be banned in order to accomplish what you want.
With the stated purpose of the banlist being for it to serve as a guideline for the types of games that the RC believes to be ideal, I just don't see it being changed in order to protect the casual player from the competitive one because the competitive one, in the view of the RC, shouldn't exist without abiding by the social contract. Part of that social contract is having all players trying to play the same sort of game. Where one player intends to win on turn 3 and the other intends to win by turn 23, the difference is just too great for a banlist to accommodate both sides. So, instead, it accommodates the player that wants to win on turn 23 and does not concern itself with the player that wants to win on turn 3 because that player won't be reined in by a simplistic "lead by example" banlist of the types of cards that don't lead to fun, memorable games of Magic. The turn 3 player is going to run the absolute best cards that are available. Banning 10, 15, 20 cards won't make the experience that much better for the turn 23 player. For that reason, the banlist will never be competitively balanced as you want it to be. There are just too many cards that would need to go if that were within the purview. You can't ban cards that are ruining casual games while also banning cards that ruin competitive games. The dichotomy between the two is too great.
I know you aren't going to change your mind, so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but I'd be very interested what your playgroup/meta does with a small addition to the official banlist of 10-15 cards. Would taking away some of the more lethal fast mana and fast combo pieces for these un-interactive decks you despise improve things for the casual players? What cards would you sacrifice from your stax list in order to rein yourself in as you'd assumedly run wild without glass cannon combo to hold you in check? If the concern is archetype viability and casual list viability, every competitive list would need to lose some of its most potent pieces.
The question I have then is fourfold:
1) How many cards would you need to ban while still keeping a minimalist approach to the banlist?
2) What cards would you ban in your meta in order to "balance" it for both competitive and casual players?
3) Would banning those cards actually change the results if those players just go to the next best option?
4) Would those players going to the next option mean that you need to ban more cards than the original 10-15?
I'm not sure what the answers to these questions are. They aren't rhetorical; as I am not a competitive player or in your meta, I just really do not know. I really do encourage you to try and answer them and then try to implement them, for some period of time, in your local meta and see what happens. There is nothing to support an argument quite like empirical data.
The real challenge isn't just making additions to the official banlist to consider competitive play, it is keeping those additions to a low enough number that it is worthwhile without making the banlist a mile long.
DISCLAIMER: So no one misquotes me, a banlist is absolutely needed for the health of the format. Kappa.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
Banlist would not need to be a mile long, its just that the RC does not focus on actual problems.
For example, Tooth and Nail, one argument to not ban it was that someone can go look for a birds of Paradise and Wood elves. Now while true tell me, who is going to spend 9 mana to go get some mana accel creatures? Tooth and nail is a card that can win games very early. Tanks to green's ramp I have seen Tooth and nail win a game turn 4.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Also for more sol ring stories. Got 5 games in tonight, 4-mans. In two separate games an opponent got a T1 sol ring and won. In another game I got the T1 sol ring, and the only reasons why I didn't win were because...
1) Two of the three opponents (anya, merciless angel and karlov of the ghost council) fired all their removal and attacks at me (for example, the karlov player fired an anguished unmaking at my collective restraint around turn 6 or so, so his general could get in more damage against me, when the azusa opponent had a full grip of cards and like 15 lands in play, meanwhile I had maybe 10-11 mana out at the time and less cards than the azusa player). It's the correct strategy to disrupt me (the T1 sol ring player) early on, but they did not display proper assessment when they didn't realize the moment the azusa player became a bigger threat than me.
2) I was last, so that slowed things down effectively by a full turn.
2) I was using my Progenitus deck, which is basically a pile of *****.
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)
You're right. Protean Hulk should be taken off because it's simply not banworthy and it's a demon from the past, having lost it's relevance much like Staff of Domination, Kokusho, the Evening Star, Worldgorger Dragon and Metalworker before it. Aside from Metalworker, none of those old demons from the past ever get brought up for a re-ban anymore.
Sol ring is a vintage power card it's broken. The RC bans for people who play 15 + turn games on AVERAGE they don't feel its impact like you do. If your meta is faster oh well you house rule it out or realize your playing a vintage power format and not every card you draw is going to be lotus or recall. The formats fun with there ban list it's fun with a more strict one and it's fun with none I've tried it all flavors they are great. by now it should be incredibly obvious which flavor the RC is going for. If your group doesn't play the way they intended the format then adopt your own banlist. Group full of uncompromising butt heads who can only stubbornly agree to look to a list that makes no sense for them instead of coming to an agreement? That sucks it really does, but it's your own fault and doesn't change the fact that the list your looking to does not cater to you. Suck it up realize that you agreed to THAT compromise since you could not come to your own and enjoy the game. What you and anyone else should not be doing is arguing about the cardboard from a position that is obviously not the kind of table the RC is going for it doesn't make sense.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Dude, what is this? Really? He specifically stated that in a 4-man game, sol ring was the deciding factor. You don't need the play by play. A turn 1 sol ring does way more than just add 2 colorless. It's essentially a timewalk, netting you +2 against the other players who didn't land it. If you don't think being ahead by 2 mana all game doesn't decide games, or that a single card that turns commander into archenemy is ok, then I truely question whether or not you play this game.
Back to house rules, again. If you do house rules, you don't need a banned list. This has pretty much been discussed to DEATH. Secondly, you didn't even read the entire post, or reference his priors. By the sounds of it, his group is a mixed bag of competetive and casual, turn 1 Sol Ring is broken, turn 4 Sol ring is broken, turn 12 sol ring is broken, regardless of the deck/player types.
The rest just looks like an uneducated attack on the guy.
Oh, and FWIW, if this is a "Vintage" format, as you say, why are the P9 banned?
And finally, I've never, EVER, experienced a game that went 15+ turns with an early Sol Ring. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm sure that percentage is less than half of the games that don't see Sol Ring, early or not.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe player who drops a turn 1 Sol Ring gets focused hard in my playgroups until it's obvious they aren't a threat or the Ring is killed. In my experience it isn't Sol Ring itself that is the problem but the entire deck. Sol Ring in Nantuko tribal is meaningless.