I'm going to ask that we not insult other users or the RC. I understand that this is a hot topic, but please discuss it in a civil manner. There is a difference between insults and personal attacks, and disagreement.
The last Tooth and Nail I saw in my meta (and they are infrequent) got the person a Scourge of Valkas and an Utvara Hellkite. No haste on board. I have a picture of it, because when I saw that, I thought of the banlist thread, and all the people saying that this never happens.
That was probably one of the stronger TnNs we've seen in a while. It's in the tribal Dragon deck to pull out more dragons.
The only place I've ever observed this is in isolated playgroups that all start together at the same time. Commander is a social format, and I always try and teach those new to the format what the format is all about, and encourage others to do the same.
I think you underestimate the prevalence of isolated playgroups. A lot of people, particularly young people, enter into Magic just picking up precons at a Target and playing with their friends. They have neither the access nor desire to play with deeply invested veterans. If the ban list is less about balancing the format and more about communicating a philosophy of playing, I'm behind that all the way, but if you think of it only in terms of the people who already understand the philosophy you make it worthless.
Take the tooth and nail discussion, for example. The logic goes that if people are using it fairly in good faith then it doesn't need to be banned, and if people are using it to instant win repeatedly than they aren't playing the format as envisioned and should be ignored. But that only works for people who know what they're doing. It completely ignores the people too new to the game to realize one card instant wins are lame, and these are the people who most need guidance. The entire ban list conceptually could have this applied to it. If you're an experienced competent player who would slam Time Vault and Balance into your decks, then a 1000 card list isn't going to keep you tame, and if you're an experienced competent player who voluntarily avoids overpowered strategies, then the ban list doesn't effect you at all since you pseudo-ban things for just yourself. The only people whose experiences are really shaped by what cards are banned are inexperienced players, and that is the most ignored group in these discussions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
The last Tooth and Nail I saw in my meta (and they are infrequent) got the person a Scourge of Valkas and an Utvara Hellkite. No haste on board. I have a picture of it, because when I saw that, I thought of the banlist thread, and all the people saying that this never happens.
That was probably one of the stronger TnNs we've seen in a while. It's in the tribal Dragon deck to pull out more dragons.
That's an exception, and a pretty powerful one at that. The last 3 ones I saw were Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts, Mikaeus and Triskelion and Kiki-Jiki and Restoration Angel. Which sample is worth more?
I still don't see any valid reason as to why Protean Hulk is banned and Tooth and Nail isn't, ESPECIALLY within the view of the RC.
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.
Yeah, I wasn't sure where he was going with that. That scenario, to me, is against the RC vision. "Creates unfavorable board states", well, 10 (flying)power across 2 creatures, and a Lightning Bolt's worth of damage sounds exactly like that. Compound that by the fact that if you survive the turn cycle, it just increases the power. At that point, the game goes from "Playing with you" to "Playing against you", which leads to competition, which leads to exactly what the RC (as stated so many times) doesn't want out of this format.
Quite the contradiction. Sure, you can have a discussion, but remember, what you're discussing is against the RC's vision. (Summarized it for you)
I didn't say when those plays were being made, quite the assumption there. T&N isn't broken because it grabs combo elements. What's the purpose of T&N? Do you cast an Entwined T&N to grab a pair of vanilla creatures? Do you play it to grab cards who would otherwise cost less than an entwined tooth and nail? Do you grab cards that interact poorly with the current board state? No, you don't, casually or competitively, because it makes no logical sense. I made it far enough to cast T&N, but I'm going to grab Arbor Elf and Garruks Companion.
You can have a discussion within the strictures of the ban list. The ban list is not competitive or balanced (by any measure, really). Deal with it.
T&N is perfectly fine in almost any situation except when it goes and gets something that ends the game instantly, which is outside something the format considers because that isn't something a casual player does. Sure, I can go grab Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger and Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre in my Omnath, Locus of Mana and that puts me in a great board position, but it doesn't win me the game outright. What do you expect for 9 mana? Yes, it is very, very strong, but no, that doesn't mean it is just broken and there is no debate otherwise. The world where T&N is probably too much to be legal in EDH is a world where the RC is considering competitive balance. Comparing it to something like Protean Hulk, for example, Hulk is a creature which is easier for Green to search and also easier for other players to copy/reanimate and generally abuse. This makes Hulk overly centralizing, where every game where it is legal will quickly devolve into who can play the Hulk and recur the Hulk. T&N does not have those same pitfalls because, as a sorcery, it is generally a one and done as opposed to Hulk that will likely see the battlefield several times over before the game either ends or it is exiled.
^THAT is an example of debating things within the content of the banlist. Yeah, there is a discussion. As Lou has brought up before, T&N is often played at its most "toxic" in decks that have black, which takes away some of the "inability to abuse sorceries" since they can be tutored for and makes it possibly more centralizing.
Saying T&N is just too strong is not something that warrants ban consideration. And the context in which I put those plays are the only times in which they are actually broken. T6 Sol Ring? Never a problem. T7 Reanimate Jin? Not a problem. Those plays happening earlier and ruining/ending the game before it has really had a chance to play out are hallmarks of competitive play and those are not reasons to ban any of those cards. The player that is going to T1 Entomb a Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur and T2 Reanimate or Animate Dead does not care about the social contract. That kind of play is also outside of the purview of the RC as far as banning cards. The player who has a deck so tuned that they routinely run away with a game after landing a T1 Sol Ring or Mana Crypt? That sort of deck construction is not considered when those cards are allowed to be legal by the RC.
Your argument has to be something more that "this card is too strong" and I haven't seen that from you, which indicates that you really don't understand the banlist for this format or the philosophy behind it.
Lastly, Sheldon saying that the format is the way it is and it isn't going to change for competitive players is not a middle finger; it is the truth. If you can't accept that, maybe this format isn't for you.
Yeah, I wasn't sure where he was going with that. That scenario, to me, is against the RC vision. "Creates unfavorable board states", well, 10 (flying)power across 2 creatures, and a Lightning Bolt's worth of damage sounds exactly like that. Compound that by the fact that if you survive the turn cycle, it just increases the power. At that point, the game goes from "Playing with you" to "Playing against you", which leads to competition, which leads to exactly what the RC (as stated so many times) doesn't want out of this format.
This is an obscene cherry picking of "issues." For 9 mana, that kind of power is reasonable. Additionally, the philosophy is "Build Casually, Play Competitively" which a cursory glance over this thread would reveal as the phrase comes up often and is Sheldon's own words. A player putting themselves in a winning position or demanding that their board be answered by the other players in the game is not "competitive" in the sense that the banlist is not tailored to competitive play. It is competitive in that players are playing a game of magic where big, splashy plays are the goal and players are doing their best to win in the game, not in their deck construction.
I'd go as far to say that the T&N with 2 dragons is EXACTLY the kind of plays that this format loves and wants to see more of.
Players at the table having to respond to some sort of adversity is not cutthroat or competitive in the way it has been used in this thread. You're making a game being played where players are trying to win as the definition of "competitive/competition" when you know full well that the competitive nature everyone is referring to is in the deck construction and not the in-game play. That's a pretty disingenuous argument to try and make. You can't just change the meaning of words or the context in which they are said to try and argue yourself out of a paper bag.
That's an exception, and a pretty powerful one at that. The last 3 ones I saw were Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts, Mikaeus and Triskelion and Kiki-Jiki and Restoration Angel. Which sample is worth more?
I still don't see any valid reason as to why Protean Hulk is banned and Tooth and Nail isn't, ESPECIALLY within the view of the RC.
Well, it sounds like your group actively tries to be competitive, so my group might just fit the RC vision more (Note, I don't necessarily include myself in 'my group,' as I am by far the spikyest player there; I'm working on it though).
Yeah, I wasn't sure where he was going with that. That scenario, to me, is against the RC vision. "Creates unfavorable board states", well, 10 (flying)power across 2 creatures, and a Lightning Bolt's worth of damage sounds exactly like that. Compound that by the fact that if you survive the turn cycle, it just increases the power. At that point, the game goes from "Playing with you" to "Playing against you", which leads to competition, which leads to exactly what the RC (as stated so many times) doesn't want out of this format.
1) 10 flying damage and a lightning bolt is not a huge board, by Commander means.
2) Building large or powerful boardstates is not necessarily "unfavorable." Building good boardstates is simply what Magic is. "Unfavorable" would have been one of the instant win boring game states described after the fact. Or for a boardstate that doesn't let anyone else do anything.
3) Both dragons were dead before he even passed the turn. Even if not, a creature based, combat reliant, multi-turn needed synergy isn't exactly game breaking. A Wrath at any point in the next 2 turns would answer it quite acceptably.
And that was a strong TnN for my meta. Typically, the decks have some good fat stuff, and maybe some synnergistic stuff, so a TnN pulls out some good sized threats, or a decent-ish engine, and play goes on as people adapt to the new board.
You may have been infracted for this, but I 100% support your sentiment. The RC's attitude towards competitive players is dreadful. No other rules committee/ban list team so actively and vocally talks ***** about their own players.
I don't see the vintage banlist catering to keeping Casual players happy. Or the Modern banlist towards keeping multiplayer people happy.
This isn't a competitive format. The RC doesn't view the competitive players as 'their' players.
I have said, over and over and over, that I do not play competitively. I see a huge problem with a (when entwined) 9-mana sorcery producing 19 mana worth of value. Combined with one being incredibly hard to deal with, and the other creating a time-walk for them being answered. What makes that different than playing Yawgmoth's Bargain?
"Commander:Where big, flashy plays are encouraged, except they aren't."
This is an obscene cherry picking of "issues." For 9 mana, that kind of power is reasonable. Additionally, the philosophy is "Build Casually, Play Competitively" which a cursory glance over this thread would reveal as the phrase comes up often and is Sheldon's own words. A player putting themselves in a winning position or demanding that their board be answered by the other players in the game is not "competitive" in the sense that the banlist is not tailored to competitive play. It is competitive in that players are playing a game of magic where big, splashy plays.
I'd go as far to say that the T&N with 2 dragons is EXACTLY the kind of plays that this format loves and wants to see more of.
Whoa, what? Cherry picking? I responded to the exact information in that post, and gave my personal opinion. How is it ok for you, and not for me?
Build casually/play competitively is a direct contradiction to your entire post, and the RC.
That's an exception, and a pretty powerful one at that. The last 3 ones I saw were Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts, Mikaeus and Triskelion and Kiki-Jiki and Restoration Angel. Which sample is worth more?
I still don't see any valid reason as to why Protean Hulk is banned and Tooth and Nail isn't, ESPECIALLY within the view of the RC.
Well, it sounds like your group actively tries to be competitive, so my group might just fit the RC vision more (Note, I don't necessarily include myself in 'my group,' as I am by far the spikyest player there; I'm working on it though).
Take a gander at my decks. Consider that they are among the spikiest of the playgroup (Well, the ones above Olivia). Grenzo almost never gets played because it's too spiky. Still think we're too competitive for the RC vision? No, two of those three T&N's came from a newer player who just happened to have the Kiki + whatever he thought to be awesome in his deck, the third one was a BG value Meren deck. Far from hyper spikey decks, but they happen.
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 have said, over and over and over, that I do not play competitively.
And yet you talked about issues like entombed and reanimated Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Thats not exactly a casual play. Saying you 'do not play competitively' means different things to different people, so you can't just throw 'I don't play competitively' at every remark.
I see a huge problem with a (when entwined) 9-mana sorcery producing 19 mana worth of value. Combined with one being incredibly hard to deal with, and the other creating a time-walk for them being answered.
No one is saying you can't take issue with it, what I am saying is I don't. Why is what you are saying more relevant to the discussion than the counter point?
You are not limited to creatures, can immediately dig for more answers if something gets answered, dont get extra mana for playing EDH like you do life. I mean the cards aren't even in the same stratosphere, casual or not.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Sheldon, do you want SCG to stop hosting EDH pods at Opens? People play in those, for money. That is a competitive environment and it needs a competitive ban list so that the games can be fair and fun. I'm honestly curious what you think of those, as their very existence seems wholly at odds with what you want from the format.
Secondly, what point is the banlist if its not going to cater to competitive players? Wizards doesn't put out a Kitchen Table format ban list; casual groups self police. Every single one of them will handle a player who plays something that is disruptive to that particular group. The only people who need a ban list are the players who play competitively, which is an increasing group of players.
So I don't understand your position at all. I assume that I'm missing something, but it seems to me like ignoring competitive play is naive; if nothing else, SCG is supporting competitive EDH and that will guarantee that it's a thing. Meanwhile, I don't know who you're helping with "non-competitive" banlist. I don't know who that's for. Casual players don't need ban lists.
The last Tooth and Nail I saw in my meta (and they are infrequent) got the person a Scourge of Valkas and an Utvara Hellkite. No haste on board. I have a picture of it, because when I saw that, I thought of the banlist thread, and all the people saying that this never happens.
That was probably one of the stronger TnNs we've seen in a while. It's in the tribal Dragon deck to pull out more dragons.
I think the last one I saw grabbed Herald of Leshrac and something g
Else weird that I can't remember. It definitely surprised me.
You may have been infracted for this, but I 100% support your sentiment. The RC's attitude towards competitive players is dreadful. No other rules committee/ban list team so actively and vocally talks ***** about their own players.
Do Wizards employees even talk to the public about why they made changes to their formats (beyond one sided articles)? Can you have back and forth conversations with them when a card in Modern gets banned, only to be unbanned six months later?
I have said, over and over and over, that I do not play competitively. I see a huge problem with a (when entwined) 9-mana sorcery producing 19 mana worth of value. Combined with one being incredibly hard to deal with, and the other creating a time-walk for them being answered. What makes that different than playing Yawgmoth's Bargain?
"Commander:Where big, flashy plays are encouraged, except they aren't."
Now you're just being obtuse. There is a massive difference between the two, most notably that T&N costs 2 mana more, deals with creatures that need to win through combat damage (within the vision of the RC), and you need to get to a combat step ON YOUR NEXT TURN in order to reap its benefits. So, in green, you need to dodge removal, counterspells, board wipes, edicts, and lord knows what else so your two creatures can turn sideways.
Yawg's, on the other hand, gives you access to roughly 1/3 of your deck on the spot. You can't honestly be comparing these two cards. I'd really appreciate it if you made genuine arguments rather than sensationalist claims.
Oh yeah, and that 19 mana worth of value gets bent by a 1 mana white instant.
Public Mod Note
(Jivanmukta):
Warning for Flaming/Trolling -Jiv
I think you underestimate the prevalence of isolated playgroups. A lot of people, particularly young people, enter into Magic just picking up precons at a Target and playing with their friends. They have neither the access nor desire to play with deeply invested veterans. If the ban list is less about balancing the format and more about communicating a philosophy of playing, I'm behind that all the way, but if you think of it only in terms of the people who already understand the philosophy you make it worthless.
The problem with this argument is that the philosophy is clearly stated on the RC's site, right next to the banlist. If players can't bother themselves with learning the philosophy of the format, a banlist will won't mean anything to them.
This, along with the complexity of multiplayer dynamics, is why Commander isn't always the best way to get into Magic. It can be done pretty smoothly if you have a willing teacher in the group though.
deals with creatures that need to win through combat damage (within the vision of the RC)
Even in casual games, that seems pretty naive. It's not always a two card instant win (although most T&Ns I see are) but it's usually some powerful effect that effects the board not by swinging, but by locking other players out, or granting you some powerful effect, etc. No one is grabbing two beaters with no other effect with T&N except for the newest of players.
I have said, over and over and over, that I do not play competitively.
And yet you talked about issues like entombed and reanimated Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Thats not exactly a casual play. Saying you 'do not play competitively' means different things to different people, so you can't just throw 'I don't play competitively' at every remark.
I see a huge problem with a (when entwined) 9-mana sorcery producing 19 mana worth of value. Combined with one being incredibly hard to deal with, and the other creating a time-walk for them being answered.
No one is saying you can't take issue with it, what I am saying is I don't. Why is what you are saying more relevant to the discussion than the counter point?
You are not limited to creatures, can immediately dig for more answers if something gets answered, dont get extra mana for playing EDH like you do life. I mean the cards aren't even in the same stratosphere, casual or not.
Where did I say that it was an Entombed Jin? I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
YawBar requires a life payment. It doesn't win you the game, ecspecially the turn it comes down. So B can't do broken things, but G can?
That second point, yikes, another contradiction. "If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me, therefore it is no longer ok for you". Got it.
Meanwhile, I don't know who you're helping with "non-competitive" banlist. I don't know who that's for. Casual players don't need ban lists.
You have been told, in this thread, who it is for: People who don't have a regular play group. When they sit down with unknowns a base line is VERY helpful to know what to build to. If you go back to the same place or whatever, adjustments can occur. You are ignoring this, and I do not know why.
Where did I say that it was an Entombed Jin? I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
My apologies, I misread that. The point stands, reanimating something that makes everyone dump their hand is hardly a casual play.
That second point, yikes, another contradiction. "If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me, therefore it is no longer ok for you". Got it.
Not at all what I said. I said you take an issue with it, others do not. Your position is not inherently correct, neither is mine. Feel free to debate them on merit.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
The problem with this argument is that the philosophy is clearly stated on the RC's site, right next to the banlist. If players can't bother themselves with learning the philosophy of the format, a banlist will won't mean anything to them.
This, along with the complexity of multiplayer dynamics, is why Commander isn't always the best way to get into Magic. It can be done pretty smoothly if you have a willing teacher in the group though.
I've suggested it before to Sheldon that Wizards include more than just the basic rules on the precon packaging and around the website. If they truly want to embrace the format they should push it with the rc's vision in mind.
Where did I say that it was an Entombed Jin? I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
YawBar requires a life payment. It doesn't win you the game, ecspecially the turn it comes down. So B can't do broken things, but G can?
That second point, yikes, another contradiction. "If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me, therefore it is no longer ok for you". Got it.
It is heavily implied that it was Entombed or put in the yard early on through some other method. How else did it get in the yard so early that it being reanimated is more problematic than playing it outright? You're being deliberately combative without actually making points. Make real arguments. Please.
deals with creatures that need to win through combat damage (within the vision of the RC)
Even in casual games, that seems pretty naive. It's not always a two card instant win (although most T&Ns I see are) but it's usually some powerful effect that effects the board not by swinging, but by locking other players out, or granting you some powerful effect, etc. No one is grabbing two beaters with no other effect with T&N except for the newest of players.
I agree with you somewhat. There are nigh infinite possibilities for what 2 creatures to grab. In my mono-green, I generally want things that let me create more mana, control opponents' boards, give me a lethal board presence. While all of these things are strong and I probably build my lists to be a bit more powerful than the intended format audience (which I recognize when I wouldn't have problems playing with some banned cards like PoK, Rofellos, et al.), they don't end the game instantly.
Even early on in my durdly Riku list, I had included a Kiki-Jiki because more copies of copies is pretty cool right? Well, at some point, I'd put Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch in the list and tried to go infinite because I thought it would be cool. I successfully went off once and got stopped once. Then I took the combo out of the deck because there were more fun things I could be doing. That is the true essence of what EDH is. It is not always making the most absolute cutthroat or "goodstuff" decision when building a deck, rather deciding to go with a play that you think is fun. I run Godsend and Jeskai Ascendancy because I love the cards, not because they are that great in EDH, at least in the builds I have them in. T&N lets you do some big flashy stuff, which is a lot of fun and even when it has immediate value, it not winning the game without being deliberately designed to do so is why it remains legal.
Meanwhile, I don't know who you're helping with "non-competitive" banlist. I don't know who that's for. Casual players don't need ban lists.
You have been told, in this thread, who it is for: People who don't have a regular play group. When they sit down with unknowns a base line is VERY helpful to know what to build to. If you go back to the same place or whatever, adjustments can occur. You are ignoring this, and I do not know why.
I'll tell you why. Because it does nothing to deal with that problem, at all. I play with different players when I play EDH. And I have to ask every single time, what power level do you want? I cannot just take out any deck and have fun, and that's true no matter what play group I've ever sat down with. Part of the issue is that sometimes, a play group will tell me, bring out your toughest decks, that their decks are all turned and ready to go. So I'll take out a tuned deck, sit down, and one of them will put out a turn 1 Llanowar Elves and act like it's the best possible turn 1. Then I'll play sol ring, mana crypt, mox opal, entombing some combo piece, and the whole table will go nuts because they didn't know power like that was possible.
Other times, I'll sit down, get told the group is pretty low powered and it's a bunch of guys with tuned 75 decks and my random crap deck can't keep up.
My point is that different people have very different conceptions of what power level means. Entrenched players are generally better at it, but even then there's plenty of problems. So getting rid of only the most obvious overpowered but inexpensive cards (because the RC has ignored what Richard Garfield learned 22 years ago; players will buy what's good, no matter now rare) all you do is make sure that small group of casual players who follow the ban list in detail is handled. Competitive players, casual players, none of them are helped by the ban list. And random players in stores with no play group aren't helped either because the ban list is so small an unfocused that you still need to have a complex conversation before starting a game of EDH. Every time I've failed to have that detailed comversation, to discuss what power really means, someone has been uphappy.
The ban list can and should be made a lot better to fix that.
Where did I say that it was an Entombed Jin? I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
YawBar requires a life payment. It doesn't win you the game, ecspecially the turn it comes down. So B can't do broken things, but G can?
That second point, yikes, another contradiction. "If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me, therefore it is no longer ok for you". Got it.
It is heavily implied that it was Entombed or put in the yard early on through some other method. How else did it get in the yard so early that it being reanimated is more problematic than playing it outright? You're being deliberately combative without actually making points. Make real arguments. Please.
Heavily implied how? I don't think I said it, therefore it cannot be implied. I never even said early, which would be an implication.
Not being combative, either. If I'm being combative, then so is this entire thread. Just because I don't agree with your line of thinking means I'm being combative. We're not Sheeple.
I'll tell you why. Because it does nothing to deal with that problem, at all. I play with different players when I play EDH. And I have to ask every single time, what power level do you want? I cannot just take out any deck and have fun, and that's true no matter what play group I've ever sat down with. Part of the issue is that sometimes, a play group will tell me, bring out your toughest decks, that their decks are all turned and ready to go. So I'll take out a tuned deck, sit down, and one of them will put out a turn 1 Llanowar Elves and act like it's the best possible turn 1. Then I'll play sol ring, mana crypt, mox opal, entombing some combo piece, and the whole table will go nuts because they didn't know power like that was possible.
Yes, if you want to have a good time in a broken format you have to talk to people. No where in that discussion did you have to talk about a ban list, because it is known.
Since you clearly had the answer on deck, why say you don't know what the ban list is for when you clearly DID know?
The ban list can and should be made a lot better to fix that.
By banning a bunch of stuff other people use at a reasonable pace and power? I have no issues sitting down at 1 of 4 LGS and have a reasonable game of EDH with a minimal conversation : 30 seconds tops. Is it possible you are the outlier here? I mean others share the same story, I do not doubt it to be accurate. But if the vast majority of people can just sit down and have a fun game, is there really an issue with the list? I am not saying my experience is definitely the majority, but IF it is, does the list actually need to change?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Every time I've failed to have that detailed comversation, to discuss what power really means, someone has been uphappy.
The ban list can and should be made a lot better to fix that.
I think the ban list does a pretty good job of fixing things that the "target audience" would generally see as problematic. Players over or underestimating the power of their decks isn't something that a banlist or a philosophy can fix.
You are, however, subscribing to the social contract of the format and I commend you for that. Having those conversations about the kind of game that players want prior to starting (miscommunication aside) is EXACTLY what is supposed to happen in public games. While I'd advise that you clarify what "power" they are expecting a bit better (something you've clearly already realized) I think that you are participating in exactly the sort of social interactions the format intended. You aren't trying to crash into players with vastly inferior or superior lists on either side because that isn't fun. The banlist is just a jumping off point and your interactions with others prior to starting a game is the other half of the equation.
The RC quite literally would rather discourage those Spikey new players from EDH than deviate from their vision
This is 100% correct, with no apologies.
How do you define 'Spikey'? What is "competitive"? There are so many skewed ideas on how "competitive" decks and players play EDH, and honestly, it feels *****ty and incredibly discouraging to be told "you don't belong here, sorry, go away and make your own format" based on statements that don't even represent you.
The most unfair, disingenuous statement that gets tossed around is "casual players play for fun, competitive players play to win." For starters, there just isn't that clean a split between "casual" and "competitive." At the end of the day, EDH is still a game, and winning or losing will still be a part of it no matter what you do, which means there will always be overlap between the various different power levels and mindsets within the format since, at the end of the day, we're all playing the same thing. The whole "asking baseball players not to tackle, the merits of football, etc" analogy doesn't work, because even in the most laid-back playgroups winning, losing, and ending a match are still there, and they shape how the game is played. Whacky Eye of the Storm chaos decks, for example, are still based on a goal that depends on that dynamic: muck up the game and obstruct people from winning.
Which brings up the power levels of decks. It's not like there are two sides, casual players over here, competitive players over there. There's a huge sliding spectrum of power levels and approaches to the game. For example, Mass Land Destruction is seen by some groups, who identify as "casual," to be an a-okay method for balancing out a game, while other groups will say MLD is an unfair tactic that has no place in EDH. Decks that fall to a perfectly tuned Zur Doomsday might be far too "competitive" (I think "high-powered" and "low-powered" are better words tbh) for other, lower powered playgroups. Should a deck just not improve? Should players not try to grow and power-up their pet deck? What's that cut-off point for people who play the game as it's meant to be played, and people who don't?
That's why the social contract is there. Believe it or not, the social contract exists for competitive EDH as well. Razzliox, who pioneered the Jarad Graveyard deck, has a very interesting article on EDH here, and he hits the nail on the head: "When four casuals sit down and play a game, the game goes to turn fifteen, someone hardcasts an Eldrazi Titan, someone gets to draw sixty cards in a turn, and the game is glorious. When four of the more competitive players sit down together, it’s an intense struggle over resources, and the game could end at any point, making it an interesting, tense game with lots of skill and diversity. When one spikier player sits down against three casuals, the casuals are denied their battlecruiser, Timmy-esque games, the competitive player is denied her skill-testing, intense game, and goes for an easy win. Everyone walks away dissatisfied."
But I disagree on the whole casual/competitive binary that Razz's post suggest. Like I've mentioned before, there's a insanely wide spectrum of power levels and amounts of "competitiveness," and trying to group it into casual players who play the game purely as it's meant to be played, and competitive players who only play to win and crush opponents isn't representative of the format.
Back to the earlier question. What is "competitive"? As I mentioned earlier, people will say every single time it's brought up, "casual players play for fun, competitive players play to win." But competitive players don't play for the sake of winning. That's why most people who've tuned their decks to hell and back won't just go around preying on groups of lower-powered strangers. Everyone in the format plays for fun, it's a game, you don't play it unless you're playing to have fun, and there's this huge sentiment a lot of EDH players carry that there's fun EDH, and unfun EDH, and that these are the clear definitions of how the game is enjoyed. "Competitive" approaches to the game don't "play to win" over enjoying the game, they play in order to play to win. The victory itself doesn't matter, but challenging yourself and playing a deck to the best of its ability does. This isn't a mindset that people have or don't have, it's a mindset that everyone can have at different degrees, the simple act of enjoying the play and experience of the game. Which is why the social contract is there. So much of it is a question of not having mismatched decks at the same table. Four lower power decks can enjoy themselves, and four higher power decks can enjoy themselves, and at the end of the day it's the exact same thing, playing EDH.
EDH isn't, by nature, a casual format. What it is is a format with an insane amount of versatility and variability. More than anything else in Magic. That's the defining trait, the trait that's not built into mindsets or feelings, but built into the rules and mechanics of EDH. A raw, unparalleled ability to build and play with versatility and variability. It's those aspects that enable a more casual approach to the game in the first place. It's what gives the format so much room for experimentation and brewing, letting new, weirder decks like Karona compete with established decks like Brago. Higher power decks and playstyles are building on the exact same thing low-power and/or more casual playstyles do.
So far, all the recent bannings and rule changes haven't gone to ensuring a uniform, casual playstyle within the format, but they have ensured variability. Prophet of Kruphix, for example, was one of the best UG cards and was pushing UG green decks to run the same strategy. The unbanned Tooth and Nail, on the other hand, provides players with a big, flashy win condition, but it leaves lots of room for a wide variety of creatures and combos to search out, as well as a variety of routes to get to the T&N.
Which is why it's unfair to just tell people to go away, or make their own format. People aren't playing a different format when they play higher power decks, or try harder or less hard to win a game. It's still EDH. And a tighter banlist, first and foremost, limits the variability of the format that makes it great in the first place. Telling people to just make their own format would totally disenfranchise players who want to play higher power decks in EDH, since there'd be no way to make a banlist as widely known and followed as the one the RC has made, and it'd be near-impossible to play with different people in different groups. This is especially true since any casual group can houseban or create custom rulings, but groups that approach EDH more competitively can't, since they need a list that can be shared across playgroups and metas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThat was probably one of the stronger TnNs we've seen in a while. It's in the tribal Dragon deck to pull out more dragons.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I think you underestimate the prevalence of isolated playgroups. A lot of people, particularly young people, enter into Magic just picking up precons at a Target and playing with their friends. They have neither the access nor desire to play with deeply invested veterans. If the ban list is less about balancing the format and more about communicating a philosophy of playing, I'm behind that all the way, but if you think of it only in terms of the people who already understand the philosophy you make it worthless.
Take the tooth and nail discussion, for example. The logic goes that if people are using it fairly in good faith then it doesn't need to be banned, and if people are using it to instant win repeatedly than they aren't playing the format as envisioned and should be ignored. But that only works for people who know what they're doing. It completely ignores the people too new to the game to realize one card instant wins are lame, and these are the people who most need guidance. The entire ban list conceptually could have this applied to it. If you're an experienced competent player who would slam Time Vault and Balance into your decks, then a 1000 card list isn't going to keep you tame, and if you're an experienced competent player who voluntarily avoids overpowered strategies, then the ban list doesn't effect you at all since you pseudo-ban things for just yourself. The only people whose experiences are really shaped by what cards are banned are inexperienced players, and that is the most ignored group in these discussions.
That's an exception, and a pretty powerful one at that. The last 3 ones I saw were Kiki-Jiki and Zealous Conscripts, Mikaeus and Triskelion and Kiki-Jiki and Restoration Angel. Which sample is worth more?
I still don't see any valid reason as to why Protean Hulk is banned and Tooth and Nail isn't, ESPECIALLY within the view of the RC.
You can have a discussion within the strictures of the ban list. The ban list is not competitive or balanced (by any measure, really). Deal with it.
T&N is perfectly fine in almost any situation except when it goes and gets something that ends the game instantly, which is outside something the format considers because that isn't something a casual player does. Sure, I can go grab Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger and Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre in my Omnath, Locus of Mana and that puts me in a great board position, but it doesn't win me the game outright. What do you expect for 9 mana? Yes, it is very, very strong, but no, that doesn't mean it is just broken and there is no debate otherwise. The world where T&N is probably too much to be legal in EDH is a world where the RC is considering competitive balance. Comparing it to something like Protean Hulk, for example, Hulk is a creature which is easier for Green to search and also easier for other players to copy/reanimate and generally abuse. This makes Hulk overly centralizing, where every game where it is legal will quickly devolve into who can play the Hulk and recur the Hulk. T&N does not have those same pitfalls because, as a sorcery, it is generally a one and done as opposed to Hulk that will likely see the battlefield several times over before the game either ends or it is exiled.
^THAT is an example of debating things within the content of the banlist. Yeah, there is a discussion. As Lou has brought up before, T&N is often played at its most "toxic" in decks that have black, which takes away some of the "inability to abuse sorceries" since they can be tutored for and makes it possibly more centralizing.
Saying T&N is just too strong is not something that warrants ban consideration. And the context in which I put those plays are the only times in which they are actually broken. T6 Sol Ring? Never a problem. T7 Reanimate Jin? Not a problem. Those plays happening earlier and ruining/ending the game before it has really had a chance to play out are hallmarks of competitive play and those are not reasons to ban any of those cards. The player that is going to T1 Entomb a Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur and T2 Reanimate or Animate Dead does not care about the social contract. That kind of play is also outside of the purview of the RC as far as banning cards. The player who has a deck so tuned that they routinely run away with a game after landing a T1 Sol Ring or Mana Crypt? That sort of deck construction is not considered when those cards are allowed to be legal by the RC.
Your argument has to be something more that "this card is too strong" and I haven't seen that from you, which indicates that you really don't understand the banlist for this format or the philosophy behind it.
Lastly, Sheldon saying that the format is the way it is and it isn't going to change for competitive players is not a middle finger; it is the truth. If you can't accept that, maybe this format isn't for you.
This is an obscene cherry picking of "issues." For 9 mana, that kind of power is reasonable. Additionally, the philosophy is "Build Casually, Play Competitively" which a cursory glance over this thread would reveal as the phrase comes up often and is Sheldon's own words. A player putting themselves in a winning position or demanding that their board be answered by the other players in the game is not "competitive" in the sense that the banlist is not tailored to competitive play. It is competitive in that players are playing a game of magic where big, splashy plays are the goal and players are doing their best to win in the game, not in their deck construction.
I'd go as far to say that the T&N with 2 dragons is EXACTLY the kind of plays that this format loves and wants to see more of.
Players at the table having to respond to some sort of adversity is not cutthroat or competitive in the way it has been used in this thread. You're making a game being played where players are trying to win as the definition of "competitive/competition" when you know full well that the competitive nature everyone is referring to is in the deck construction and not the in-game play. That's a pretty disingenuous argument to try and make. You can't just change the meaning of words or the context in which they are said to try and argue yourself out of a paper bag.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staff1) 10 flying damage and a lightning bolt is not a huge board, by Commander means.
2) Building large or powerful boardstates is not necessarily "unfavorable." Building good boardstates is simply what Magic is. "Unfavorable" would have been one of the instant win boring game states described after the fact. Or for a boardstate that doesn't let anyone else do anything.
3) Both dragons were dead before he even passed the turn. Even if not, a creature based, combat reliant, multi-turn needed synergy isn't exactly game breaking. A Wrath at any point in the next 2 turns would answer it quite acceptably.
And that was a strong TnN for my meta. Typically, the decks have some good fat stuff, and maybe some synnergistic stuff, so a TnN pulls out some good sized threats, or a decent-ish engine, and play goes on as people adapt to the new board.
I don't see the vintage banlist catering to keeping Casual players happy. Or the Modern banlist towards keeping multiplayer people happy.
This isn't a competitive format. The RC doesn't view the competitive players as 'their' players.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I have said, over and over and over, that I do not play competitively. I see a huge problem with a (when entwined) 9-mana sorcery producing 19 mana worth of value. Combined with one being incredibly hard to deal with, and the other creating a time-walk for them being answered. What makes that different than playing Yawgmoth's Bargain?
"Commander:Where big, flashy plays are encouraged, except they aren't."
This is an obscene cherry picking of "issues." For 9 mana, that kind of power is reasonable. Additionally, the philosophy is "Build Casually, Play Competitively" which a cursory glance over this thread would reveal as the phrase comes up often and is Sheldon's own words. A player putting themselves in a winning position or demanding that their board be answered by the other players in the game is not "competitive" in the sense that the banlist is not tailored to competitive play. It is competitive in that players are playing a game of magic where big, splashy plays.
I'd go as far to say that the T&N with 2 dragons is EXACTLY the kind of plays that this format loves and wants to see more of.
Whoa, what? Cherry picking? I responded to the exact information in that post, and gave my personal opinion. How is it ok for you, and not for me?
Build casually/play competitively is a direct contradiction to your entire post, and the RC.
Take a gander at my decks. Consider that they are among the spikiest of the playgroup (Well, the ones above Olivia). Grenzo almost never gets played because it's too spiky. Still think we're too competitive for the RC vision? No, two of those three T&N's came from a newer player who just happened to have the Kiki + whatever he thought to be awesome in his deck, the third one was a BG value Meren deck. Far from hyper spikey decks, but they happen.
Secondly, what point is the banlist if its not going to cater to competitive players? Wizards doesn't put out a Kitchen Table format ban list; casual groups self police. Every single one of them will handle a player who plays something that is disruptive to that particular group. The only people who need a ban list are the players who play competitively, which is an increasing group of players.
So I don't understand your position at all. I assume that I'm missing something, but it seems to me like ignoring competitive play is naive; if nothing else, SCG is supporting competitive EDH and that will guarantee that it's a thing. Meanwhile, I don't know who you're helping with "non-competitive" banlist. I don't know who that's for. Casual players don't need ban lists.
I think the last one I saw grabbed Herald of Leshrac and something g
Else weird that I can't remember. It definitely surprised me.
Do Wizards employees even talk to the public about why they made changes to their formats (beyond one sided articles)? Can you have back and forth conversations with them when a card in Modern gets banned, only to be unbanned six months later?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Now you're just being obtuse. There is a massive difference between the two, most notably that T&N costs 2 mana more, deals with creatures that need to win through combat damage (within the vision of the RC), and you need to get to a combat step ON YOUR NEXT TURN in order to reap its benefits. So, in green, you need to dodge removal, counterspells, board wipes, edicts, and lord knows what else so your two creatures can turn sideways.
Yawg's, on the other hand, gives you access to roughly 1/3 of your deck on the spot. You can't honestly be comparing these two cards. I'd really appreciate it if you made genuine arguments rather than sensationalist claims.
Oh yeah, and that 19 mana worth of value gets bent by a 1 mana white instant.
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
The problem with this argument is that the philosophy is clearly stated on the RC's site, right next to the banlist. If players can't bother themselves with learning the philosophy of the format, a banlist will won't mean anything to them.
This, along with the complexity of multiplayer dynamics, is why Commander isn't always the best way to get into Magic. It can be done pretty smoothly if you have a willing teacher in the group though.
Where did I say that it was an Entombed Jin? I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
YawBar requires a life payment. It doesn't win you the game, ecspecially the turn it comes down. So B can't do broken things, but G can?
That second point, yikes, another contradiction. "If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me, therefore it is no longer ok for you". Got it.
My apologies, I misread that. The point stands, reanimating something that makes everyone dump their hand is hardly a casual play.Not at all what I said. I said you take an issue with it, others do not. Your position is not inherently correct, neither is mine. Feel free to debate them on merit.
I don't actually follow the format. My point still stands though.
I've suggested it before to Sheldon that Wizards include more than just the basic rules on the precon packaging and around the website. If they truly want to embrace the format they should push it with the rc's vision in mind.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It is heavily implied that it was Entombed or put in the yard early on through some other method. How else did it get in the yard so early that it being reanimated is more problematic than playing it outright? You're being deliberately combative without actually making points. Make real arguments. Please.
I agree with you somewhat. There are nigh infinite possibilities for what 2 creatures to grab. In my mono-green, I generally want things that let me create more mana, control opponents' boards, give me a lethal board presence. While all of these things are strong and I probably build my lists to be a bit more powerful than the intended format audience (which I recognize when I wouldn't have problems playing with some banned cards like PoK, Rofellos, et al.), they don't end the game instantly.
Even early on in my durdly Riku list, I had included a Kiki-Jiki because more copies of copies is pretty cool right? Well, at some point, I'd put Pestermite or Deceiver Exarch in the list and tried to go infinite because I thought it would be cool. I successfully went off once and got stopped once. Then I took the combo out of the deck because there were more fun things I could be doing. That is the true essence of what EDH is. It is not always making the most absolute cutthroat or "goodstuff" decision when building a deck, rather deciding to go with a play that you think is fun. I run Godsend and Jeskai Ascendancy because I love the cards, not because they are that great in EDH, at least in the builds I have them in. T&N lets you do some big flashy stuff, which is a lot of fun and even when it has immediate value, it not winning the game without being deliberately designed to do so is why it remains legal.
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
I'll tell you why. Because it does nothing to deal with that problem, at all. I play with different players when I play EDH. And I have to ask every single time, what power level do you want? I cannot just take out any deck and have fun, and that's true no matter what play group I've ever sat down with. Part of the issue is that sometimes, a play group will tell me, bring out your toughest decks, that their decks are all turned and ready to go. So I'll take out a tuned deck, sit down, and one of them will put out a turn 1 Llanowar Elves and act like it's the best possible turn 1. Then I'll play sol ring, mana crypt, mox opal, entombing some combo piece, and the whole table will go nuts because they didn't know power like that was possible.
Other times, I'll sit down, get told the group is pretty low powered and it's a bunch of guys with tuned 75 decks and my random crap deck can't keep up.
My point is that different people have very different conceptions of what power level means. Entrenched players are generally better at it, but even then there's plenty of problems. So getting rid of only the most obvious overpowered but inexpensive cards (because the RC has ignored what Richard Garfield learned 22 years ago; players will buy what's good, no matter now rare) all you do is make sure that small group of casual players who follow the ban list in detail is handled. Competitive players, casual players, none of them are helped by the ban list. And random players in stores with no play group aren't helped either because the ban list is so small an unfocused that you still need to have a complex conversation before starting a game of EDH. Every time I've failed to have that detailed comversation, to discuss what power really means, someone has been uphappy.
The ban list can and should be made a lot better to fix that.
Heavily implied how? I don't think I said it, therefore it cannot be implied. I never even said early, which would be an implication.
Not being combative, either. If I'm being combative, then so is this entire thread. Just because I don't agree with your line of thinking means I'm being combative. We're not Sheeple.
Since you clearly had the answer on deck, why say you don't know what the ban list is for when you clearly DID know?
By banning a bunch of stuff other people use at a reasonable pace and power? I have no issues sitting down at 1 of 4 LGS and have a reasonable game of EDH with a minimal conversation : 30 seconds tops. Is it possible you are the outlier here? I mean others share the same story, I do not doubt it to be accurate. But if the vast majority of people can just sit down and have a fun game, is there really an issue with the list? I am not saying my experience is definitely the majority, but IF it is, does the list actually need to change?
I think the ban list does a pretty good job of fixing things that the "target audience" would generally see as problematic. Players over or underestimating the power of their decks isn't something that a banlist or a philosophy can fix.
You are, however, subscribing to the social contract of the format and I commend you for that. Having those conversations about the kind of game that players want prior to starting (miscommunication aside) is EXACTLY what is supposed to happen in public games. While I'd advise that you clarify what "power" they are expecting a bit better (something you've clearly already realized) I think that you are participating in exactly the sort of social interactions the format intended. You aren't trying to crash into players with vastly inferior or superior lists on either side because that isn't fun. The banlist is just a jumping off point and your interactions with others prior to starting a game is the other half of the equation.
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
How do you define 'Spikey'? What is "competitive"? There are so many skewed ideas on how "competitive" decks and players play EDH, and honestly, it feels *****ty and incredibly discouraging to be told "you don't belong here, sorry, go away and make your own format" based on statements that don't even represent you.
The most unfair, disingenuous statement that gets tossed around is "casual players play for fun, competitive players play to win." For starters, there just isn't that clean a split between "casual" and "competitive." At the end of the day, EDH is still a game, and winning or losing will still be a part of it no matter what you do, which means there will always be overlap between the various different power levels and mindsets within the format since, at the end of the day, we're all playing the same thing. The whole "asking baseball players not to tackle, the merits of football, etc" analogy doesn't work, because even in the most laid-back playgroups winning, losing, and ending a match are still there, and they shape how the game is played. Whacky Eye of the Storm chaos decks, for example, are still based on a goal that depends on that dynamic: muck up the game and obstruct people from winning.
Which brings up the power levels of decks. It's not like there are two sides, casual players over here, competitive players over there. There's a huge sliding spectrum of power levels and approaches to the game. For example, Mass Land Destruction is seen by some groups, who identify as "casual," to be an a-okay method for balancing out a game, while other groups will say MLD is an unfair tactic that has no place in EDH. Decks that fall to a perfectly tuned Zur Doomsday might be far too "competitive" (I think "high-powered" and "low-powered" are better words tbh) for other, lower powered playgroups. Should a deck just not improve? Should players not try to grow and power-up their pet deck? What's that cut-off point for people who play the game as it's meant to be played, and people who don't?
That's why the social contract is there. Believe it or not, the social contract exists for competitive EDH as well. Razzliox, who pioneered the Jarad Graveyard deck, has a very interesting article on EDH here, and he hits the nail on the head: "When four casuals sit down and play a game, the game goes to turn fifteen, someone hardcasts an Eldrazi Titan, someone gets to draw sixty cards in a turn, and the game is glorious. When four of the more competitive players sit down together, it’s an intense struggle over resources, and the game could end at any point, making it an interesting, tense game with lots of skill and diversity. When one spikier player sits down against three casuals, the casuals are denied their battlecruiser, Timmy-esque games, the competitive player is denied her skill-testing, intense game, and goes for an easy win. Everyone walks away dissatisfied."
But I disagree on the whole casual/competitive binary that Razz's post suggest. Like I've mentioned before, there's a insanely wide spectrum of power levels and amounts of "competitiveness," and trying to group it into casual players who play the game purely as it's meant to be played, and competitive players who only play to win and crush opponents isn't representative of the format.
Back to the earlier question. What is "competitive"? As I mentioned earlier, people will say every single time it's brought up, "casual players play for fun, competitive players play to win." But competitive players don't play for the sake of winning. That's why most people who've tuned their decks to hell and back won't just go around preying on groups of lower-powered strangers. Everyone in the format plays for fun, it's a game, you don't play it unless you're playing to have fun, and there's this huge sentiment a lot of EDH players carry that there's fun EDH, and unfun EDH, and that these are the clear definitions of how the game is enjoyed. "Competitive" approaches to the game don't "play to win" over enjoying the game, they play in order to play to win. The victory itself doesn't matter, but challenging yourself and playing a deck to the best of its ability does. This isn't a mindset that people have or don't have, it's a mindset that everyone can have at different degrees, the simple act of enjoying the play and experience of the game. Which is why the social contract is there. So much of it is a question of not having mismatched decks at the same table. Four lower power decks can enjoy themselves, and four higher power decks can enjoy themselves, and at the end of the day it's the exact same thing, playing EDH.
EDH isn't, by nature, a casual format. What it is is a format with an insane amount of versatility and variability. More than anything else in Magic. That's the defining trait, the trait that's not built into mindsets or feelings, but built into the rules and mechanics of EDH. A raw, unparalleled ability to build and play with versatility and variability. It's those aspects that enable a more casual approach to the game in the first place. It's what gives the format so much room for experimentation and brewing, letting new, weirder decks like Karona compete with established decks like Brago. Higher power decks and playstyles are building on the exact same thing low-power and/or more casual playstyles do.
So far, all the recent bannings and rule changes haven't gone to ensuring a uniform, casual playstyle within the format, but they have ensured variability. Prophet of Kruphix, for example, was one of the best UG cards and was pushing UG green decks to run the same strategy. The unbanned Tooth and Nail, on the other hand, provides players with a big, flashy win condition, but it leaves lots of room for a wide variety of creatures and combos to search out, as well as a variety of routes to get to the T&N.
Which is why it's unfair to just tell people to go away, or make their own format. People aren't playing a different format when they play higher power decks, or try harder or less hard to win a game. It's still EDH. And a tighter banlist, first and foremost, limits the variability of the format that makes it great in the first place. Telling people to just make their own format would totally disenfranchise players who want to play higher power decks in EDH, since there'd be no way to make a banlist as widely known and followed as the one the RC has made, and it'd be near-impossible to play with different people in different groups. This is especially true since any casual group can houseban or create custom rulings, but groups that approach EDH more competitively can't, since they need a list that can be shared across playgroups and metas.