Well obviously you know how to make the next meeting more interesting. On-topic, did anything interesting happen in the meeting that you can freely share with us? We need SOMETHING juicy to hold us over for the next three months.
Not something that happened in the Rule Committee meeting, but how about this tidbit? In order to try and balance archetypes in Duel Commander and give aggro decks a fighting chance (on top of already lowering the life total to 30 and having only one opponent) Marath, Will of the Wild is now banned as a commander in Duel Commander. Now if that doesn't make the whole idea of format "balance" make you want to puke, I don't know what will. I think it's fairly proof-positive that archetype balance in multiplayer commander would be nigh impossible.
I take the Marath ban more along the lines of diversity and fun rather than balance. As a point of comparison, take the SP, PT and Prophet bans in Multiplayer. It’s not that these were the backbone of some set of overrepresented, powerhouse decks, but just that they were drowning out one particular archetype and making any lines of play involving other cards pointless in that setup. With Marath, if you were playing any sort of non-combo, non-control or even non-Blue deck, then you were playing Marath. Among creature based decks, it had the best longevity in the Command Zone, the best counterplay against Elves and other creature based decks, and the most compact combos. Whether it still loses to UBx Combo/Control was not as much of an issue, just that no other decks of a similar type were getting played. And just like the Multiplayer RC evidently cares a ton about UGx goodstuff, the Duel Rules body seems to care a lot that there are some avenues to explore with creature based decks in their format, not just Combo and Control.
More interesting for multiplayer implications is the Necrotic Ooze ban. Over the last year or so, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in BGx, UBx, and even Mono-Black decks that feature the Ooze combo with Devourer/Triskelion. It’s like the Karmic-Lark combo in that you can’t interact with it via spot removal, but you can’t interact with exile removal like StP either. Necrotic Ooze combos are available to any color combination containing Black though, so they are everywhere, and they’re getting really samey. EDH will probably follow a progression from the quickest combos on to the most resilient ones, and so stuff like Necrotic Ooze should start getting harder looks from those who care about both diversity and balance.
Well obviously you know how to make the next meeting more interesting. On-topic, did anything interesting happen in the meeting that you can freely share with us? We need SOMETHING juicy to hold us over for the next three months.
Not something that happened in the Rule Committee meeting, but how about this tidbit? In order to try and balance archetypes in Duel Commander and give aggro decks a fighting chance (on top of already lowering the life total to 30 and having only one opponent) Marath, Will of the Wild is now banned as a commander in Duel Commander. Now if that doesn't make the whole idea of format "balance" make you want to puke, I don't know what will. I think it's fairly proof-positive that archetype balance in multiplayer commander would be nigh impossible.
I take the Marath ban more along the lines of diversity and fun rather than balance. As a point of comparison, take the SP, PT and Prophet bans in Multiplayer. It’s not that these were the backbone of some set of overrepresented, powerhouse decks, but just that they were drowning out one particular archetype and making any lines of play involving other cards pointless in that setup. With Marath, if you were playing any sort of non-combo, non-control or even non-Blue deck, then you were playing Marath. Among creature based decks, it had the best longevity in the Command Zone, the best counterplay against Elves and other creature based decks, and the most compact combos. Whether it still loses to UBx Combo/Control was not as much of an issue, just that no other decks of a similar type were getting played. And just like the Multiplayer RC evidently cares a ton about UGx goodstuff, the Duel Rules body seems to care a lot that there are some avenues to explore with creature based decks in their format, not just Combo and Control.
More interesting for multiplayer implications is the Necrotic Ooze ban. Over the last year or so, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in BGx, UBx, and even Mono-Black decks that feature the Ooze combo with Devourer/Triskelion. It’s like the Karmic-Lark combo in that you can’t interact with it via spot removal, but you can’t interact with exile removal like StP either. Necrotic Ooze combos are available to any color combination containing Black though, so they are everywhere, and they’re getting really samey. EDH will probably follow a progression from the quickest combos on to the most resilient ones, and so stuff like Necrotic Ooze should start getting harder looks from those who care about both diversity and balance.
Doesn't Ooze run into the same argument problems that Ad Nauseum and Hermit Druid do, that you have to built hyper-competitively for them to be a factor, and therefore isn't a factor in bans?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Probably, but Time Vault is also banned, while being nothing more than an extremely fragile Magosi, the Waterveil unless you "build hyper-competitively around it".
Basically, I'm not inclined to believe that all of the circular arguments offered in favor of the status quo are actually what lead to bans. By the RC's own admission even, they just take a vote on what should be banned. The reason could be nothing more than, "it's broken, bruh". Time Vault is evidently broken bruh, while other cards are not broken. Bruh. Who really knows whether Ooze or anything meets that threshold, because who knows what the actual threshold is?
Probably, but Time Vault is also banned, while being nothing more than an extremely fragile Magosi, the Waterveil unless you "build hyper-competitively around it".
Not really. There's so many incidental artifact untappers that, even price aside (which is one of the reasons power 9 started out banned) it would just be too strong.
Magosi needs much, much more than just an untapper (cards that place eon counters aren't that common).
Cards that combo with Ooze are rarely good enough to see play on their own. Cards that combo with Vault are often good on their own.
That doesn't change the fact, if you play untappers with Time Vault you are the same sort of asshat that plays Devoted Druid with Necrotic Ooze. Only, one of those asshats is outlawed and the other is not. So, it defeats the rationale that combo pieces are only banned when they are not deliberate, because all combos (not to mention everything else done in the game) is deliberate.
That doesn't change the fact, if you play untappers with Time Vault you are the same sort of asshat that plays Devoted Druid with Necrotic Ooze. Only, one of those asshats is outlawed and the other is not. So, it defeats the rationale that combo pieces are only banned when they are not deliberate, because all combos (not to mention everything else done in the game) is deliberate.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
That doesn't change the fact, if you play untappers with Time Vault you are the same sort of asshat that plays Devoted Druid with Necrotic Ooze. Only, one of those asshats is outlawed and the other is not. So, it defeats the rationale that combo pieces are only banned when they are not deliberate, because all combos (not to mention everything else done in the game) is deliberate.
Time Vault does nothing by itself. The only reason you would play it is if you intend to combo with it, and intentional combos are not what the ban list is supposed to prevent (e.g. Worldgorger Dragon). Time Vault is super powerful due to its combo potential, but neither is power level sufficient to ban a card, by the RCs stated criteria.
There really is no "accidental" combo with Time Vault because no one "accidentally" owns a Time Vault. I tend to agree with Jusstice on this one.
There really is no "accidental" combo with Time Vault because no one "accidentally" owns a Time Vault. I tend to agree with Jusstice on this one.
Eh, I don't know about this last. I've literally had a ton of old cards in boxes that I don't use. Nova Pentacle, Gemstone Mines, a Time Vault two or three years ago, beta elves...older players will just accumulate fun stuff and store it away for a rainy day. I don't especially want Time Vault unbanned, as I'd need to procure a beta or alpha version, but if someone in our group had one and we decided to just houserule it to needing a skipped turn or whatever, it would be fine.
That aside, are there any cards in multi that are asking for the banhammer? Everything seems pretty quiet right now around here. I mean, I wouldn't cry if Mana Crypt got kicked out, or Iona or whatnot, but PRophet was really the last really stupid annoying card that I'd frothed at the mouth over seeing.
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.
So in the hypothetical situation that the RC unbans Time Vault, there's some sort of peer pressure on you to procure/acquire it?
The things that drive people... Sometimes I don't really get. I find that alot of your reasons (for almost anything here) is based on personal feelings rather than base it off social "feelings"; aka the game and the people you play with.
So, has anyone noticed an uptick in "bad" Mana Crypt experiences since it was printed? (I won't say reprinted because this is its first real printing.)
I was a bit nervous, initially, that an actual printing making it somewhat affordable would make it widespread enough that it gets banned (which I think increased availability factoring so much into it would be silly, for the record) and I didn't really want to spend 60 bucks on a card that was about to get axed. I've gotten the impression that it is more available, players that wanted/needed a copy have it, and the world keeps spinning. Thoughts?
I've definitely noticed Mana Crypt showing up in my league, but I don't recall it being a problem. In fact, the player who dropped it this week died a turn sooner because the flip damage bolted him three times in a row.
I've definitely noticed Mana Crypt showing up in my league, but I don't recall it being a problem. In fact, the player who dropped it this week died a turn sooner because the flip damage bolted him three times in a row.
That's one side of the coin. I've had the opposite experience more often than not lately. It's pushed some decks in the groups I've played in way over the edge. Basically anything that plays with life totals. Marchesa, Oloro, and Karlov have all been borderline unbeatable of late when they hit M.Crypt. Karlov especially. Turn 1 M. Crypt and Sun Droplet and possibly a Soul Sister is incredibly difficult to overcome, considering a lost flip lets Karlov exile as soon as turn 3 with the above scenario. Not a welcome addition at all.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
Same here, I got one for my Zegana where Mana Crypt is one of the least broken parts of the deck, hilariously enough.
I think the only thing that still needs to happen is Protean Hulk but Sheldon effectively silenced that discussion because his playgroup seems to be one of the very few to have actual negative experiences with the card, and yet they see no problem with Tooth and Nail, so...I doubt anything will happen there.
Oh and Iona can die in a fire, but that's not nearly as offensive as the current Hulk/T&N situation.
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.
The MTGO Commander games are absolutely overrun with Mana Crypt. I’m sure the ~1 ticket price point has a lot to do with that. Honestly, It’s such a struggle to keep those games fun anymore, that I know quite a few players who traded away their collections. A lot of it is due to the general crappiness of multiplayer on that client (and cards that are inexplicably not available online like Altar of Bone, Soldevi Adnate, Soul Barrier), but most of it is that about half the public games you try to set up end either with someone comboing out during the first 5-6 turns, someone conceding within the first 10 minutes, or someone playing a deck like Hazezon Tamar or Zedruu and getting salty about their deck not standing up to interaction.
What they would say is that you should use MTGO to set up “trusted” games instead. But, if I have anything like a weekly time slot that I can just set aside, there’s no reason I can’t play paper Magic. MTGO is for those free hours in the evenings. And evidently for Vintage now. No real plan from WOTC to get any further support for what’s possibly the most popular form of Magic right now.
That's part of the reason that I have no interest in playing MTGO, Jusstice. I generally want to play 75% Magic and getting everyone to agree to that online and having a fun time (due to that social contract thing) is like finding a particular needle in a stack of needles. It is unfortunate that you are more likely to get a fun game on Cockatrice than you are on the official MTG Online client. I think the anonymity of being behind a computer screen also fundamentally undermines the role of the social contract in the format, which is why online experiences are not considered by the RC. They're a lot like the ESRB in that regard, because "game experience may change during online play". They can really only control the face to face part of the game where you can be shamed and held accountable, for lack of a better word, when you're a jerk. Online, that person just does their thing and disappears like a thief in the night.
I'm sad that is the experience you have online, though, as I think paper Magic is always preferable. WotC would do well to figure out how to properly support Commander on MTGO. Maybe that would even mean we get BaaC back. *Removes Tinfoil Hat*
I think the public-private consideration is more of a spectrum, though. Granted, Cockatrice and MTGO are on the most extreme end of that spectrum. On the other end, there are super-private games of EDH, say on the kitchen table between a never-changing group of long-time friends, but most groups are in-between. There are groups that want to be open to new members without giving them a deck check. There are “private” groups that advertise their contact info in places like this site to get new people, and there are even card shops where you can get pickup games or find a Commander night.
So if there are issues at a venue like MODO that are attributable to the ban list, those are issues that also exist further down the spectrum. The issues being managed by people just lessens the impact, it doesn’t mean that there’s no issue. To be specific, if just about every deck to combo off Turn 5 and earlier uses a certain set of cards (Mana Crypt, Survival, etc), then those cards pose a threat to the player expectation of not being combo’ed out Turn 5. If nothing else, groups now have to tell each other not to run them, not to combo out on Turn 5, so on.
The problem with the ban list philosophy is that it factors in whether groups are able to manage issues before making a ban, but it doesn’t gauge where a group would have to be in this public-private spectrum to be able to manage it. As a result, a ban will only come down when an issue is affecting the most private of groups. For everyone else, the implicit answer is to make your group more private (problems with the player not the card, only a problem for “competitive” play, have an intervention with that player, what not). All of these oft-used rationales essentially boil down to making your group more private and exclusionary.
But, people don’t want to make their groups more private. They would rather play Magic with people than tell them they can’t come play unless they take out Winter Orb. Wizards evidently doesn’t want to make them more private either, based precisely on the fact that they are supporting Commander products on MODO, FNM’s, and with yearly Commander products.
Otherwise, for any kind of issue management mechanism to have any sway in public venues, a stigma in the community needs to be cultivated around some tacit, presumed list of don’ts. It’s a constant, immense political campaign to cultivate that stigma, and as I’m sure we’ve all seen, it can get hostile.
The other rationale (read excuse) is that the RC has no way of knowing what suits each individual play group, and so for that reason they have to maintain a list that is not hostile to the less-interactive forms of Magic (combo, mana denial, etc). Of course, that runs into a couple of issues. The first of which, the cultivated reliance on issue management means that the format-wide community actually has had to come down with an implicit set of expectations. That set of expectations is drawn more narrowly than those of the list of players the RC alleges to want to include. So, an RC member like Sheldon might write about cases where Armageddon is needed to balance out some dominant deck in the sort term, but the fact remains, players at an FNM will scowl at you if you play it.
The second thing, those groups where those less-interactive styles of Magic are played bear a strong correlation with those groups who don’t rely on a ban list to set the tenor of their gameplay. They are just as happy with one list as another, as long as it’s public and mutually agreed. What they care about is an equal-playing field, regardless of what that field is. So, you end up tying yourself in knots trying to include people who are at no risk of ever feeling excluded by the content of the ban list.
An alternative approach would be a pragmatic one, rather than a dogmatic one. Take the entire set of all venues where Commander is being played, then assess whether the sum total effects of a ban would be a net positive or a net negative. If positive, make the ban. If some minority groups take it as a negative, that can only serve to align their play expectations more toward that area of the public-private spectrum that the rest of the community finds itself on. Hey, maybe my Livonya Silone Warrior Tribal can’t play Turn 3 Livonia anymore off of a Mana Crypt, but look at all these people I can play with at my card shop without suffering through early turn blowouts.
Same here, I got one for my Zegana where Mana Crypt is one of the least broken parts of the deck, hilariously enough.
I think the only thing that still needs to happen is Protean Hulk but Sheldon effectively silenced that discussion because his playgroup seems to be one of the very few to have actual negative experiences with the card, and yet they see no problem with Tooth and Nail, so...I doubt anything will happen there.
Oh and Iona can die in a fire, but that's not nearly as offensive as the current Hulk/T&N situation.
I wish there was more passion in the T&N and Hulk threads than the Iona one... I feel strongly that getting rid of T&N would do wonders to improving EDH's casual nature. That card is what ruined my casual group and turned us into more competitive players.
An alternative approach would be a pragmatic one, rather than a dogmatic one. Take the entire set of all venues where Commander is being played, then assess whether the sum total effects of a ban would be a net positive or a net negative. If positive, make the ban. If some minority groups take it as a negative, that can only serve to align their play expectations more toward that area of the public-private spectrum that the rest of the community finds itself on. Hey, maybe my Livonya Silone Warrior Tribal can’t play Turn 3 Livonia anymore off of a Mana Crypt, but look at all these people I can play with at my card shop without suffering through early turn blowouts.
/endrant
That would be a great way to go about this, but the practical execution of it would be hard because the casual nature of the format and the kitchen tables it is played around. Maybe take in experiences from major shops throughout regional areas?
I wish there was more passion in the T&N and Hulk threads than the Iona one... I feel strongly that getting rid of T&N would do wonders to improving EDH's casual nature. That card is what ruined my casual group and turned us into more competitive players.
There was, but Sheldon killed that discussion so...
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 wish there was more passion in the T&N and Hulk threads than the Iona one... I feel strongly that getting rid of T&N would do wonders to improving EDH's casual nature. That card is what ruined my casual group and turned us into more competitive players.
There was, but Sheldon killed that discussion so...
Even the T&N one? I haven't read through it all yet.
why would there a discussion again T&N anyway?
its easily handled
Really? You always have answers to one of the many instant-wins T&N can come up with? Or how about an early ramped out T&N that fetches a Terastodon to nuke your lands and an Avacyn to grant some pretty beefy protection (Which is considered a "fair" play by most metricS). T&N isn't easily answered. Protean Hulk is.
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.
Really? You always have answers to one of the many instant-wins T&N can come up with? Or how about an early ramped out T&N that fetches a Terastodon to nuke your lands and an Avacyn to grant some pretty beefy protection (Which is considered a "fair" play by most metricS). T&N isn't easily answered. Protean Hulk is.
You capture the issue I have with T&N right there - the fact that resolving that card can suddenly just end the game or provide such advantage without any deckbuilding changes pushes it over the edge for me. Similar cards that put things directly into play, such as Green Sun's Zenith, Chord of Calling, Genesis Wave, and Primal Surge either have built in restrictions or require deckbuilding adaptation to make them game ending.
It also mentions "falling back to" Partial Paris, which AFAIK isn't actually explained on the rules page anymore.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
I take the Marath ban more along the lines of diversity and fun rather than balance. As a point of comparison, take the SP, PT and Prophet bans in Multiplayer. It’s not that these were the backbone of some set of overrepresented, powerhouse decks, but just that they were drowning out one particular archetype and making any lines of play involving other cards pointless in that setup. With Marath, if you were playing any sort of non-combo, non-control or even non-Blue deck, then you were playing Marath. Among creature based decks, it had the best longevity in the Command Zone, the best counterplay against Elves and other creature based decks, and the most compact combos. Whether it still loses to UBx Combo/Control was not as much of an issue, just that no other decks of a similar type were getting played. And just like the Multiplayer RC evidently cares a ton about UGx goodstuff, the Duel Rules body seems to care a lot that there are some avenues to explore with creature based decks in their format, not just Combo and Control.
More interesting for multiplayer implications is the Necrotic Ooze ban. Over the last year or so, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in BGx, UBx, and even Mono-Black decks that feature the Ooze combo with Devourer/Triskelion. It’s like the Karmic-Lark combo in that you can’t interact with it via spot removal, but you can’t interact with exile removal like StP either. Necrotic Ooze combos are available to any color combination containing Black though, so they are everywhere, and they’re getting really samey. EDH will probably follow a progression from the quickest combos on to the most resilient ones, and so stuff like Necrotic Ooze should start getting harder looks from those who care about both diversity and balance.
Doesn't Ooze run into the same argument problems that Ad Nauseum and Hermit Druid do, that you have to built hyper-competitively for them to be a factor, and therefore isn't a factor in bans?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Basically, I'm not inclined to believe that all of the circular arguments offered in favor of the status quo are actually what lead to bans. By the RC's own admission even, they just take a vote on what should be banned. The reason could be nothing more than, "it's broken, bruh". Time Vault is evidently broken bruh, while other cards are not broken. Bruh. Who really knows whether Ooze or anything meets that threshold, because who knows what the actual threshold is?
Not really. There's so many incidental artifact untappers that, even price aside (which is one of the reasons power 9 started out banned) it would just be too strong.
Magosi needs much, much more than just an untapper (cards that place eon counters aren't that common).
Cards that combo with Ooze are rarely good enough to see play on their own. Cards that combo with Vault are often good on their own.
Except that you don't really have to try. You can just throw Time Vault into pretty much any deck and it benefits from already commonly-played cards such as Kiora's Follower, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, Dominus of Fealty, Tidal Force, Ral Zarek,and Rings of Brighthearth, and that's ignoring the obvious offenders like Tezzeret the Seeker, Voltaic Key, Clock of Omens and friends.
There really is no "accidental" combo with Time Vault because no one "accidentally" owns a Time Vault. I tend to agree with Jusstice on this one.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Eh, I don't know about this last. I've literally had a ton of old cards in boxes that I don't use. Nova Pentacle, Gemstone Mines, a Time Vault two or three years ago, beta elves...older players will just accumulate fun stuff and store it away for a rainy day. I don't especially want Time Vault unbanned, as I'd need to procure a beta or alpha version, but if someone in our group had one and we decided to just houserule it to needing a skipped turn or whatever, it would be fine.
That aside, are there any cards in multi that are asking for the banhammer? Everything seems pretty quiet right now around here. I mean, I wouldn't cry if Mana Crypt got kicked out, or Iona or whatnot, but PRophet was really the last really stupid annoying card that I'd frothed at the mouth over seeing.
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.
The things that drive people... Sometimes I don't really get. I find that alot of your reasons (for almost anything here) is based on personal feelings rather than base it off social "feelings"; aka the game and the people you play with.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I was a bit nervous, initially, that an actual printing making it somewhat affordable would make it widespread enough that it gets banned (which I think increased availability factoring so much into it would be silly, for the record) and I didn't really want to spend 60 bucks on a card that was about to get axed. I've gotten the impression that it is more available, players that wanted/needed a copy have it, and the world keeps spinning. Thoughts?
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
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
That's one side of the coin. I've had the opposite experience more often than not lately. It's pushed some decks in the groups I've played in way over the edge. Basically anything that plays with life totals. Marchesa, Oloro, and Karlov have all been borderline unbeatable of late when they hit M.Crypt. Karlov especially. Turn 1 M. Crypt and Sun Droplet and possibly a Soul Sister is incredibly difficult to overcome, considering a lost flip lets Karlov exile as soon as turn 3 with the above scenario. Not a welcome addition at all.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I think the only thing that still needs to happen is Protean Hulk but Sheldon effectively silenced that discussion because his playgroup seems to be one of the very few to have actual negative experiences with the card, and yet they see no problem with Tooth and Nail, so...I doubt anything will happen there.
Oh and Iona can die in a fire, but that's not nearly as offensive as the current Hulk/T&N situation.
What they would say is that you should use MTGO to set up “trusted” games instead. But, if I have anything like a weekly time slot that I can just set aside, there’s no reason I can’t play paper Magic. MTGO is for those free hours in the evenings. And evidently for Vintage now. No real plan from WOTC to get any further support for what’s possibly the most popular form of Magic right now.
I'm sad that is the experience you have online, though, as I think paper Magic is always preferable. WotC would do well to figure out how to properly support Commander on MTGO. Maybe that would even mean we get BaaC back. *Removes Tinfoil Hat*
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
So if there are issues at a venue like MODO that are attributable to the ban list, those are issues that also exist further down the spectrum. The issues being managed by people just lessens the impact, it doesn’t mean that there’s no issue. To be specific, if just about every deck to combo off Turn 5 and earlier uses a certain set of cards (Mana Crypt, Survival, etc), then those cards pose a threat to the player expectation of not being combo’ed out Turn 5. If nothing else, groups now have to tell each other not to run them, not to combo out on Turn 5, so on.
The problem with the ban list philosophy is that it factors in whether groups are able to manage issues before making a ban, but it doesn’t gauge where a group would have to be in this public-private spectrum to be able to manage it. As a result, a ban will only come down when an issue is affecting the most private of groups. For everyone else, the implicit answer is to make your group more private (problems with the player not the card, only a problem for “competitive” play, have an intervention with that player, what not). All of these oft-used rationales essentially boil down to making your group more private and exclusionary.
But, people don’t want to make their groups more private. They would rather play Magic with people than tell them they can’t come play unless they take out Winter Orb. Wizards evidently doesn’t want to make them more private either, based precisely on the fact that they are supporting Commander products on MODO, FNM’s, and with yearly Commander products.
Otherwise, for any kind of issue management mechanism to have any sway in public venues, a stigma in the community needs to be cultivated around some tacit, presumed list of don’ts. It’s a constant, immense political campaign to cultivate that stigma, and as I’m sure we’ve all seen, it can get hostile.
The other rationale (read excuse) is that the RC has no way of knowing what suits each individual play group, and so for that reason they have to maintain a list that is not hostile to the less-interactive forms of Magic (combo, mana denial, etc). Of course, that runs into a couple of issues. The first of which, the cultivated reliance on issue management means that the format-wide community actually has had to come down with an implicit set of expectations. That set of expectations is drawn more narrowly than those of the list of players the RC alleges to want to include. So, an RC member like Sheldon might write about cases where Armageddon is needed to balance out some dominant deck in the sort term, but the fact remains, players at an FNM will scowl at you if you play it.
The second thing, those groups where those less-interactive styles of Magic are played bear a strong correlation with those groups who don’t rely on a ban list to set the tenor of their gameplay. They are just as happy with one list as another, as long as it’s public and mutually agreed. What they care about is an equal-playing field, regardless of what that field is. So, you end up tying yourself in knots trying to include people who are at no risk of ever feeling excluded by the content of the ban list.
An alternative approach would be a pragmatic one, rather than a dogmatic one. Take the entire set of all venues where Commander is being played, then assess whether the sum total effects of a ban would be a net positive or a net negative. If positive, make the ban. If some minority groups take it as a negative, that can only serve to align their play expectations more toward that area of the public-private spectrum that the rest of the community finds itself on. Hey, maybe my Livonya Silone Warrior Tribal can’t play Turn 3 Livonia anymore off of a Mana Crypt, but look at all these people I can play with at my card shop without suffering through early turn blowouts.
/endrant
EDIT:
That would be a great way to go about this, but the practical execution of it would be hard because the casual nature of the format and the kitchen tables it is played around. Maybe take in experiences from major shops throughout regional areas?
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
There was, but Sheldon killed that discussion so...
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Really? You always have answers to one of the many instant-wins T&N can come up with? Or how about an early ramped out T&N that fetches a Terastodon to nuke your lands and an Avacyn to grant some pretty beefy protection (Which is considered a "fair" play by most metricS). T&N isn't easily answered. Protean Hulk is.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar