Buffsam, "dies to removal" is a horribe argument on its own, because literally every card on the ban list could be taken off if that was the case and one of the ban criteria was "does this card die to removal?" But look at the creatures which are on the ban list. Almost every one provided some sort of instant impact on the game which lasted even when the card itself ate removal. The ones that didn't all either were legendary creatures which means you always had access to them, overcentralized the game (in the case of PoK), or are named Painter's Servant. Now look at Iona. She only impacts the game as long as she is on the battlefield. She doesn't grant some lasting effect or bonus to the caster, and she is not warping games by being played a lot (I continue to use scoceri's data because we have hard data to back up where those numbers come from and it appears that the other site which was referenced may be skewed). We don't hear many reports of people running more Clones, Bribery, or Reanimates in order to take advantage of other people playing her like we did with some of the other creatures on the list.
Buffsam, "dies to removal" is a horribe argument on its own, because literally every card on the ban list could be taken off if that was the case and one of the ban criteria was "does this card die to removal?" But look at the creatures which are on the ban list. Almost every one provided some sort of instant impact on the game which lasted even when the card itself ate removal. The ones that didn't all either were legendary creatures which means you always had access to them, overcentralized the game (in the case of PoK), or are named Painter's Servant. Now look at Iona. She only impacts the game as long as she is on the battlefield. She doesn't grant some lasting effect or bonus to the caster, and she is not warping games by being played a lot (I continue to use scoceri's data because we have hard data to back up where those numbers come from and it appears that the other site which was referenced may be skewed). We don't hear many reports of people running more Clones, Bribery, or Reanimates in order to take advantage of other people playing her like we did with some of the other creatures on the list.
So, A.) she is legendary, so you can always have access to her. And B.) off-color only. That's pretty warping. I'm pretty sure I explained that already.
While I do not have the data to back up reanimate/bribery/clone, I will say that in my experience, when she's availbe to the aforementioned, she is the first choice.
Also, why am I called out for "dies to removal", but nobody else is? First time it's recently(ever?) been brought up, and used to de-bunk my argument.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
So, A.) she is legendary, so you can always have access to her. And B.) off-color only. That's pretty warping. I'm pretty sure I explained that already.
While I do not have the data to back up reanimate/bribery/clone, I will say that in my experience, when she's availbe to the aforementioned, she is the first choice.
Also, why am I called out for "dies to removal", but nobody else is? First time it's recently(ever?) been brought up, and used to de-bunk my argument.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
I'm not calling you out for "dies to removal", I'm agreeing with you that it's a bad argument in a vacuum. It was the other stuff which went with the creatures on the ban list which caused their demise. No ill intent was meant.
As much as an issue Iona is for some and not for others, I don't feel this is relevant for the main discussion especially after we so gratuitously got Single card discussions for banned card or cards we feel banned. Edit: I see now that the Iona SCD is closed for the time being but that still doesn't mean we need to derail the rest of the discussion page on Iona.
Now I think one thing that is always interesting when it comes to a banned list discussion or any discussion that is prone to have passion on both sides is that the claim that the opposing views logic is flawed. Now unless someone wants to show me their Doctorate or masters on the matter then I will continue to disagree that someone's logic is flawed but rather just different than my own. Unless Someone has statistical proof with a well defined research question in mind, Im talking heavy research on the topic, anyone's claims about stats are just that, claims. We would need hard evidence to actually prove someone truly wrong in these debates and I think that is something that we all need to be reminded of. You aren't wrong in this argument but they aren't wrong either, you just have different views.
Now I'm curious what people think about if they were to adopt this view point when looking at the banned list thread if they'd find things different or not.
Just my 2 cents
Well, I think a lot of it boils down to how cards are ultimately banned. If you look at my recent posts in this thread in regards to Iona, I argue that she falls within the criteria for banning that many other banned cards already are in.
Or, how about T&N vs. Protean Hulk?
I've been down this road already and it is a pretty futile effort, but there really is no consistency in the bannings, argue that however you wish.
My biggest gripe with those who disagree with those calling for bans on cards like Iona are that they are all regurgitated responses that apply across the entirety of the MTG library. "She dies to removal" yes, all creatures do. "She's expensive" so is Sundering Titan, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, and Protean Hulk.
Then, when I(others) throw out valid arguments, we are shunned. "No, it doesn't quite work like that." Where does everybody think I get my information from? I pull it out of my rear? I'd be willing to bet I put in more MTG EDH hours than most here. Or that I just like arguing? Like I have all of this free time to just troll a thread(s) and just ask for bans all willy-nilly?
Comments like the below literally drive me insane. These are cop-out arguments as far as I'm concerned.
Taleran- Disagree, denial is a part of the game of Magic.
Those two cards I mention are immense advantage, Iona is an amount of disadvantage
It might feel like the same thing but it isn't anything close and I feel like if you want to see the perfect example
Sylvan Primordial is a card that if it only blew things up would not have been banned, but it is the fact that it provides the player putting one down immediate advantage as well as removing stuff from opponents that got it the axe (even though I disagree with the ban) it is a pretty clear example of the philosophy.
Cryogen-I don't build my ETB decks to be able to answer Torpor Orb because for whatever reason, people don't run it in my group. I don't worry too much about nonbasic hate because Blood moon is the only card which sometimes sees play. If there is a card which has an impact in your specific group, you should either adjust your deckbuilding process or talk with that player about their card choices. If that card is impacting groups all over, it is something the RC will hopefully take a look at.
What I have a problem with in these arguments is "reasonable expectation". Is it reasonable to expect a player to draw more cards than you? Yes. Is it a reasonable expectation to be mana screwed/denied/taxed? Yes. Is it a reasonable expectation to not be able to play spells because of your color choices? No, not at all. I mean Cryogens argument is that Torpor Orb shuts off his ETB, but he can still play those creatures, turn them sideways, etc. I think it was Vash who was throwing around "Play not Optimal" and that applies to Cryogens argument against mine. He still play, just not optimally. Iona shutting out a Color means "you cannot play that color", at all. In some cases, it's not optimal play, in others, it's straight up not playing at all.
The argument that Iona can be removed by others also pops up. Well, that also applies to other problematic/banned cards. So how is that a valid argument, but "she shuts out Mono-colored and commanders regardless" is not?
That is my problem, not just with Iona, but the ban list in general. I was told to approach players and ask them about card choices/house bans. I explained the RC's reluctance to ban cards based on the potential of "cascading bans", except, they have the ruling authority to not allow that to happen. How can a shop owner say "Ok folks, Iona is banned based logged complaints", then the next customer asks for X, then Y, then Z. They are better off not instituting house-bans because it opens a giant can of worms. So then I was told I need to re-evaluate my deck building. Well, that still doesn't seem ideal. Why would I remove Doom Blade for Pongify? Because Iona? Tell me that makes sense, and I'll gladly call you a liar. Would you run Dash Hopes over Counterspell?
Locks exist in the format, but as I explained, it requires 2+ cards, and also doesn't beat you down for 7. Which may not seem like much, but if you all play EDH like you say you do, you understand it's a reasonable expectation that you will spend 10-12 life/ game on misc. effects. (Shock lands, Fetches, life payments, etc.) and also that it is a reasonable expectation that you will be attacked, lowering your total further. 7 swinging into 40 isn't threatening, 7 into 21 or less? Yeah, 3 turns or less to find an answer? A off-color answer? Ok.
This sounds very "Iona", but it really encompasses my distaste for the ban list in general. What's good for P. Hulk needs to be good for T&N, and so on. I also ask that the RC realize that there will be cards that may not hit, or "highlight" the ban criteria, but that there are just cards that exist that make playing games of EDH just miserable.
Edit- And just to show that I'm not only banging the "Ban Iona" drum, why is it that Kokusho, the evening star unbanned due to the "Prevalence of grave hate", but that it doesn't apply to Protean Hulk. Or how Gifts Ungiven is any different than Intuition?
</blockquote>
I guess my answer is three fold
1) Pognify and Rapid Hybridization are great removal
2) I tend to agree on bans for gains rather than losses
3) I have never felt miserable playing a game of Commander due to the cards on the table.
Obviously I can't turn around and say wistfully "You should just be happy too" but in the case when we are discussing a thing designed primarily for fun I think people lose the lede of "the game" being fun in "this state" not being fun and use that to warp how they feel about the entire thing.
I also feel that if Iona or X other card is making it legitimately unfun you should closer examine who you are playing with. I get that people can not always change this but letting a bad player who gloats and lords over an oppressive boardstate may also be infecting the view of just the cards.
Lol has anyone been keeping up with this Top Commanders of EDH CEDH Rules Committee thing? They're saying that they've formed a "committee" with the communities of Top Commanders of EDH facebook group, the competitive EDH subreddit, and Sheldon to try and create a separate banlist for competitive EDH. Like dang what's with these guys. As far as I can tell the Top Commanders are totally talking out of their ass to get attention, as per always, but if we could get confirmation from Sheldon I'd be able to sleep at night a lot more soundly.
Also, some jumbled two cents, because I know some people who actually are reasonable and sane and not jerks are fans of the idea of competitive players splintering off--
Competitive EDH, that is, EDH at the highest levels of power and tuning that you can get in the format, isn't something you just switch into, it's, for a lot of people, something that you upgrade up to slowly and over time. If you're into super swingy spelly-heavy games that edge of the grindy/explosive side, competitive-level EDH is heaps of fun and a rewarding thing to work up to. Obviously not everyone enjoys it which is fine, it's not everyone's cup of tea. But trying to create a separate banlist for it would be an awful idea, just straight up. It's pointless, because within EDH there will always be players at that highest power/tuning level, all it would do is shift the goalposts, and it makes it a lot harder for new players to work their way into it, since obviously having two different banlists would clash heavily with the fact that casual/competitive isn't a binary, but more a bunch of sliding gradients. It's just be a huge shame that a side of EDH that can be really exciting and rewarding would be ever more difficult to get into.
Also, on Iona, and from experience playing and then ultimately cutting her--she's obviously a strong card, but she isn't as explosive as you might think, since you're dealing with three+ decks with a wide spread of color identities. I think Cryogen said it better, she's ultimately a "buy me more time card" than anything else, since unlike a lot of other banned cards she provides no immediate advantage in terms of active effects to push the Iona player ahead.
That said, I could see her taking the banhammer as well. It's a very big effect that can have a high misery-quotient and totally keep some players from playing if their deck isn't well rounded enough around a wider spread of colors, which is pretty common and understandable. But I also think it's fair for decks to change or alter their strategies over time based on new problems and challenges within metas, or heck, even new cards that get printed. Like, if you want your meta to stay the exact same for all eternity you're probs gonna be fighting a long, unrewarding uphill battle that'll just leave a lot of people frustrated.
Regarding the "Top Commanders" silliness. Sheldon has confirmed on FB and when I asked him that this is nonsense and he does not want them to suggest in any way that he is involved. It does in fact seem like they are throwing out names in order to make themselves seem more valid.
So what does everyone think of Leovold, Emissary of Trest? He is in the best colors, gives you advantage when your stuff is targeted and has a one-sided Spirit of the Labyrinth stapled on his back.
The nastiness comes when he comes out T2 then slams down a wheel T3. If he plays Teferi's Puzzle Box then the game is virtually over.
You don't really even have to build around him and just pack BUG goodstuff with wheels and he could potentially be back breaking to casual decks. And he is just begging to played with Doomsday, which a lot of BUG decks already do.
So what does everyone think of Leovold, Emissary of Trest? He is in the best colors, gives you advantage when your stuff is targeted and has a one-sided Spirit of the Labyrinth stapled on his back.
The nastiness comes when he comes out T2 then slams down a wheel T3. If he plays Teferi's Puzzle Box then the game is virtually over.
You don't really even have to build around him and just pack BUG goodstuff with wheels and he could potentially be back breaking to casual decks. And he is just begging to played with Doomsday, which a lot of BUG decks already do.
Could he join the ranks of Braids and Rofellos?
I think every situation you described is something that is likely to happen, especially when the card is a shiny new general to build around. I also think that "cast general, wheel" or Yet Another BUG Doomsday Deck is something that either grows boring or the social contract within a playgroup can handle. Otherwise, you have a Spikey player who does what they want.
In short, the card looks annoying but not something which should be banned.
I'm writing about Leovold next week. Definitely not ban-worthy, but an opportunity to make a mean deck if you so desire (which, in this case, I do--but only to irritate my closest friends).
So, Sheldon, if you'd humor me, do you find parallels between Leovold and Narset?
Personally, I think that they can easily be very mean, powerful, and "broken," but their fair uses mean that they are relatively safe since they have to deliberately become that way. Would you agree?
Second, is there any extra "consideration" a very powerful legendary creature receives because of its colors and the available alternatives? For the sake of diversity/variety, specifically for Wedge commanders where the options are incredibly limited with each having 6-7 options, would they need to be especially egregious to get banned?
So, Sheldon, if you'd humor me, do you find parallels between Leovold and Narset?
Personally, I think that they can easily be very mean, powerful, and "broken," but their fair uses mean that they are relatively safe since they have to deliberately become that way. Would you agree?
Second, is there any extra "consideration" a very powerful legendary creature receives because of its colors and the available alternatives? For the sake of diversity/variety, specifically for Wedge commanders where the options are incredibly limited with each having 6-7 options, would they need to be especially egregious to get banned?
Similarities between them didn't occur to me until you brought them up. Still, the connection is pretty loose. We consider what cards do on their own, and although no Magic card is played in a vacuum, we're careful about cards that aren't inherently bad, preferring to wait until they're demonstrably bad. There are obviously cases, like with Griselbrand, that you really don't need too much evidence. Your idea of deliberateness is a significant point. The diversity angle isn't a factor. If the lack of diversity leads players down a particular path and that path ends up in a routinely oppressive place, then we going to take a look. The lack of diversity isn't the deciding factor, it's just what allowed the circumstances to take shape.
Similarities between them didn't occur to me until you brought them up. Still, the connection is pretty loose. We consider what cards do on their own, and although no Magic card is played in a vacuum, we're careful about cards that aren't inherently bad, preferring to wait until they're demonstrably bad. There are obviously cases, like with Griselbrand, that you really don't need too much evidence. Your idea of deliberateness is a significant point. The diversity angle isn't a factor. If the lack of diversity leads players down a particular path and that path ends up in a routinely oppressive place, then we going to take a look. The lack of diversity isn't the deciding factor, it's just what allowed the circumstances to take shape.
Following up, how do you guys evaluate a card (particularly a general) when it has a more linear approach? For example, there is generally one way to build a Kaalia deck, a "right/normal" way to build Animar, Narset, etc, and Leovold has the makings for something similar in deck design. So when there is 'Commonly Seen OP Deck A' and 'Less Commonly Seen Other Builds', do you try to let them balance each other out or do you try to gauge the oppressiveness of the former?
I don't think we evaluate so much as observe. If Narset, or Zur, and Leovold become oppressive because everybody and their extended families are building the deck and you can't turn around without hitting three or four a night, then it's an issue. We don't necessarily ban stuff because it can be oppressive, we ban it when the oppression becomes the primary (and frequent) use case.
In relation to all these Commander specific questions has there been any discussion on the bringing back of Banned as Commander?
Not by us.
That is unfortunate. One of the main things holding me back from building an elf EDH deck is the inability to include Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as one of the 99. It just seems like the deck would be incomplete without him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
That is unfortunate. One of the main things holding me back from building an elf EDH deck is the inability to include Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as one of the 99. It just seems like the deck would be incomplete without him.
I've always felt that any time someone said something similar to this (like the deck was incomplete, dismantled, or worse they quit playing) all because of a single card, it was an indication that the RC made a good call by banning it.
That is unfortunate. One of the main things holding me back from building an elf EDH deck is the inability to include Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as one of the 99. It just seems like the deck would be incomplete without him.
I've always felt that any time someone said something similar to this (like the deck was incomplete, dismantled, or worse they quit playing) all because of a single card, it was an indication that the RC made a good call by banning it.
Well, you're allowed to make statements with no real basis in reality. Sometimes it's almost like people want to have those iconic tribal leaders cards in their tribal decks.
Honestly, why even make this comment? Why does someone wanting something validate the poor decision to "streamline" at the cost of losing unique cards?
That is unfortunate. One of the main things holding me back from building an elf EDH deck is the inability to include Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as one of the 99. It just seems like the deck would be incomplete without him.
I've always felt that any time someone said something similar to this (like the deck was incomplete, dismantled, or worse they quit playing) all because of a single card, it was an indication that the RC made a good call by banning it.
Not the case at all. I own one Rofellos and never had the opportunity to play with him in EDH since I only started playing mtg after he was banned. I currently have a 60-card casual deck with him and I'd need to break up the deck to make an elf EDH deck. He's the most expensive card in the 60-card deck and a cool elf, so I don't really wanna make an elf EDH deck at this time since it would entail no home for Rofellos.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Well, you're allowed to make statements with no real basis in reality. Sometimes it's almost like people want to have those iconic tribal leaders cards in their tribal decks.
Honestly, why even make this comment? Why does someone wanting something validate the poor decision to "streamline" at the cost of losing unique cards?
Sure, but we saw similar comments in this thread and elsewhere on the Internet when Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, etc. were banned. Because the reason I said "similar" comments is because it had nothing to do with people being upset at losing the BaaC list or playing a card that is irreplaceable within a specific deck, it was the notion that losing a single card in the 99 completely invalidates the deck. But that's just my opinion, which may or may not be based in reality.
Well, you're allowed to make statements with no real basis in reality. Sometimes it's almost like people want to have those iconic tribal leaders cards in their tribal decks.
Honestly, why even make this comment? Why does someone wanting something validate the poor decision to "streamline" at the cost of losing unique cards?
Sure, but we saw similar comments in this thread and elsewhere on the Internet when Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, etc. were banned. Because the reason I said "similar" comments is because it had nothing to do with people being upset at losing the BaaC list or playing a card that is irreplaceable within a specific deck, it was the notion that losing a single card in the 99 completely invalidates the deck. But that's just my opinion, which may or may not be based in reality.
Perhaps I reacted overly harsh, but someone lamenting the fact that they cannot play a unique card (one which is directly comparable to the simultaneously unbanned Metalworker) is really not something that indicates good decision making by the RC. It's no secret that I disagree with many of their policies and resent their very insular way of managing the format.
Banned as a Commander being gone still makes me sad. I'm with you, MasterSelf. Rofellos is really an irreplaceable provider of mana. That said, I think the new Selvala (also an Elf!) does a decent impression of him. My Rofellos sits in my binder because he is too strong as a commander. He is collateral damage of a rules change that I feel was unnecessary. Nothing changed about his presence in the 99, they just decided that it was simpler to just ban cards outright instead of considering legendary creatures as a commander separately from any cards in the 99, even though many other format rules show that these two categories (Commander vs. Not a Commander) receive special considerations. Why this is no longer extended to the ban list is still frustrating to me.
Rofellos and Braids, specifically, have very unique effects. Those unique effects makes them fun to put in a deck. They are also clearly powerful, but were, I think, fair when you take away the consistency and resilience of being present in the command zone. This, to me, shows that they should be considered through two lenses, but the RC, for a reason that I do not find compelling, feels differently.
I agree with your statement with regard to PoK and the like, cryogen, but I do disagree that it applies in this case towards two iconic legendary creatures who toe the line between "too broken as a commander, but totally fine in the 99". There aren't many legendary creatures that meet this standard, but losing the ones that do still stings. We're big kids. We can tell the difference between what a Commander is and what the 99 are.
Has there been any serious discussion into the banning of Mana Crypt? The RC generally co siders cards that push fair decks into the competitive range banworthy and I think Mana Crypt is a fine example of such a card. The drawback is largely negligible in a 40 life format and the acceleration is so powerful that even the fairest of decks can suddenly seem like cEDH decks just from landing an early mana crypt.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So, A.) she is legendary, so you can always have access to her. And B.) off-color only. That's pretty warping. I'm pretty sure I explained that already.
While I do not have the data to back up reanimate/bribery/clone, I will say that in my experience, when she's availbe to the aforementioned, she is the first choice.
Also, why am I called out for "dies to removal", but nobody else is? First time it's recently(ever?) been brought up, and used to de-bunk my argument.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
I'm not calling you out for "dies to removal", I'm agreeing with you that it's a bad argument in a vacuum. It was the other stuff which went with the creatures on the ban list which caused their demise. No ill intent was meant.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I guess my answer is three fold
1) Pognify and Rapid Hybridization are great removal
2) I tend to agree on bans for gains rather than losses
3) I have never felt miserable playing a game of Commander due to the cards on the table.
Obviously I can't turn around and say wistfully "You should just be happy too" but in the case when we are discussing a thing designed primarily for fun I think people lose the lede of "the game" being fun in "this state" not being fun and use that to warp how they feel about the entire thing.
I also feel that if Iona or X other card is making it legitimately unfun you should closer examine who you are playing with. I get that people can not always change this but letting a bad player who gloats and lords over an oppressive boardstate may also be infecting the view of just the cards.
Also, some jumbled two cents, because I know some people who actually are reasonable and sane and not jerks are fans of the idea of competitive players splintering off--
Competitive EDH, that is, EDH at the highest levels of power and tuning that you can get in the format, isn't something you just switch into, it's, for a lot of people, something that you upgrade up to slowly and over time. If you're into super swingy spelly-heavy games that edge of the grindy/explosive side, competitive-level EDH is heaps of fun and a rewarding thing to work up to. Obviously not everyone enjoys it which is fine, it's not everyone's cup of tea. But trying to create a separate banlist for it would be an awful idea, just straight up. It's pointless, because within EDH there will always be players at that highest power/tuning level, all it would do is shift the goalposts, and it makes it a lot harder for new players to work their way into it, since obviously having two different banlists would clash heavily with the fact that casual/competitive isn't a binary, but more a bunch of sliding gradients. It's just be a huge shame that a side of EDH that can be really exciting and rewarding would be ever more difficult to get into.
Also, on Iona, and from experience playing and then ultimately cutting her--she's obviously a strong card, but she isn't as explosive as you might think, since you're dealing with three+ decks with a wide spread of color identities. I think Cryogen said it better, she's ultimately a "buy me more time card" than anything else, since unlike a lot of other banned cards she provides no immediate advantage in terms of active effects to push the Iona player ahead.
That said, I could see her taking the banhammer as well. It's a very big effect that can have a high misery-quotient and totally keep some players from playing if their deck isn't well rounded enough around a wider spread of colors, which is pretty common and understandable. But I also think it's fair for decks to change or alter their strategies over time based on new problems and challenges within metas, or heck, even new cards that get printed. Like, if you want your meta to stay the exact same for all eternity you're probs gonna be fighting a long, unrewarding uphill battle that'll just leave a lot of people frustrated.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffMisc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The nastiness comes when he comes out T2 then slams down a wheel T3. If he plays Teferi's Puzzle Box then the game is virtually over.
You don't really even have to build around him and just pack BUG goodstuff with wheels and he could potentially be back breaking to casual decks. And he is just begging to played with Doomsday, which a lot of BUG decks already do.
Could he join the ranks of Braids and Rofellos?
I think every situation you described is something that is likely to happen, especially when the card is a shiny new general to build around. I also think that "cast general, wheel" or Yet Another BUG Doomsday Deck is something that either grows boring or the social contract within a playgroup can handle. Otherwise, you have a Spikey player who does what they want.
In short, the card looks annoying but not something which should be banned.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Personally, I think that they can easily be very mean, powerful, and "broken," but their fair uses mean that they are relatively safe since they have to deliberately become that way. Would you agree?
Second, is there any extra "consideration" a very powerful legendary creature receives because of its colors and the available alternatives? For the sake of diversity/variety, specifically for Wedge commanders where the options are incredibly limited with each having 6-7 options, would they need to be especially egregious to get banned?
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
Similarities between them didn't occur to me until you brought them up. Still, the connection is pretty loose. We consider what cards do on their own, and although no Magic card is played in a vacuum, we're careful about cards that aren't inherently bad, preferring to wait until they're demonstrably bad. There are obviously cases, like with Griselbrand, that you really don't need too much evidence. Your idea of deliberateness is a significant point. The diversity angle isn't a factor. If the lack of diversity leads players down a particular path and that path ends up in a routinely oppressive place, then we going to take a look. The lack of diversity isn't the deciding factor, it's just what allowed the circumstances to take shape.
Following up, how do you guys evaluate a card (particularly a general) when it has a more linear approach? For example, there is generally one way to build a Kaalia deck, a "right/normal" way to build Animar, Narset, etc, and Leovold has the makings for something similar in deck design. So when there is 'Commonly Seen OP Deck A' and 'Less Commonly Seen Other Builds', do you try to let them balance each other out or do you try to gauge the oppressiveness of the former?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffNot by us.
That is unfortunate. One of the main things holding me back from building an elf EDH deck is the inability to include Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as one of the 99. It just seems like the deck would be incomplete without him.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
I've always felt that any time someone said something similar to this (like the deck was incomplete, dismantled, or worse they quit playing) all because of a single card, it was an indication that the RC made a good call by banning it.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well, you're allowed to make statements with no real basis in reality. Sometimes it's almost like people want to have those iconic tribal leaders cards in their tribal decks.
Honestly, why even make this comment? Why does someone wanting something validate the poor decision to "streamline" at the cost of losing unique cards?
Not the case at all. I own one Rofellos and never had the opportunity to play with him in EDH since I only started playing mtg after he was banned. I currently have a 60-card casual deck with him and I'd need to break up the deck to make an elf EDH deck. He's the most expensive card in the 60-card deck and a cool elf, so I don't really wanna make an elf EDH deck at this time since it would entail no home for Rofellos.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Sure, but we saw similar comments in this thread and elsewhere on the Internet when Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, etc. were banned. Because the reason I said "similar" comments is because it had nothing to do with people being upset at losing the BaaC list or playing a card that is irreplaceable within a specific deck, it was the notion that losing a single card in the 99 completely invalidates the deck. But that's just my opinion, which may or may not be based in reality.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Perhaps I reacted overly harsh, but someone lamenting the fact that they cannot play a unique card (one which is directly comparable to the simultaneously unbanned Metalworker) is really not something that indicates good decision making by the RC. It's no secret that I disagree with many of their policies and resent their very insular way of managing the format.
Rofellos and Braids, specifically, have very unique effects. Those unique effects makes them fun to put in a deck. They are also clearly powerful, but were, I think, fair when you take away the consistency and resilience of being present in the command zone. This, to me, shows that they should be considered through two lenses, but the RC, for a reason that I do not find compelling, feels differently.
I agree with your statement with regard to PoK and the like, cryogen, but I do disagree that it applies in this case towards two iconic legendary creatures who toe the line between "too broken as a commander, but totally fine in the 99". There aren't many legendary creatures that meet this standard, but losing the ones that do still stings. We're big kids. We can tell the difference between what a Commander is and what the 99 are.
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