I'm over the moon that they finally removed their house rules section. It was really causing a divide at LGS(s).
Thank you.
What was causing a divide? The sideboard rule is relatively straightforward and has little reason to not be allowed. The RC still endorses people making house rules. I'm confused as to what the issue would be.
The issue was that players were looking at the house rules page, picking what they wanted (like sideboards) and telling people they were official.
Hmm... I guess I never really saw this. That said, I always just ask "Is it okay if I run a 10 card sideboard for Burning Wish?" (for example) and have never heard a negative answer on that.
External aspects include perceived/actual price to enter at various levels of play, social dynamic (kinda both external and internal), comparison to other formats... Essentially, "What attracts people to this format?"
And you think the RC spends no time on this? What makes you draw that conclusion?
While I think the majority of the playerbase is happy with the format, I'd be very surprised if the majority of the playerbase would be actively upset if some of the commonly requested changes over time were implemented (e.g. Banning Sol Ring + Mana Crypt, Banning Iona, Shield of Emeria, Unbanning Gifts Ungiven, Unbanning Painter's Servant, etc.)
That does not mean its a good idea. I agree a lot of the items there are the edges I speak of that get a large part of the discussion. But I dont think the majority of the playerbase would be "actively upset" if you made any of the fringe decisions, ban list or other. You would hear about it because there is always a vocal response to change. I think if you go to far one way or the other, THEN you run into the risk of actual discontent.
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.
And you think the RC spends no time on this? What makes you draw that conclusion?
I think they spend very little time on this. At least in appearance (and this is very subjective), they try to bring people in, but they don't try to market it, and they don't try to fix the turn-offs that often come up for new players. And that's fine. That's their prerogative. But it's not clear if that's actually sustainable, especially while also not fixing turn-offs for enfranchised players. And I think that the spawning of other related formats (E.g. Duel Commander, Pauper Commander, ) has been largely inspired by both the previously mentioned discontent, and the lack of focus on attraction of new players in Rules formation.
While I agree in theory with the desire for a small banlist, in practice I think that the banlist could increase in size by 25% and still not really be unwieldy, while covering most of the problem cards that come up in a large variety of metas and games across the world. And, similarly, but kinda the opposite, the wishy-washy spots here and there in philosophy and rules statements could probably be reduced, but don't necessarily have to be.
These cards (and others like them) should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game.
This statement and others about house rules, especially "(and others like them)," opens up a can of worms of player judgment that most playgroups at best ignore. I mean, for Pete's sake, "(and others like them)" means that in discussion before sitting down to play a game with a group of people, you should explicitly discuss whether it's okay to play Sol Ring. And NOONE DOES THIS. And on the flip side, playgroups get extremely frustrated when someone even suggests that they might play with a banned card. And playgroups get into large arguments about house rules that ruin any pretense of enjoyable games, let alone attempting to play by a social contract. I like this format a lot, but blind idealism backed up by handwaving is disturbing.
Abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the game (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf) do not function in Commander without prior agreement on their scope from the playgroup.
Over the course of more than 12 playgroups across the country, over the course of 6-7 years, besides one instance just a few days ago on one of either this forum or MTGCommander, I have never personally heard of a playgroup that had a problem with a Wishboard. With a Sideboard, certainly. E.g. "I don't want you to side in grave-hate cards before a game if I'm playing The Mimeoplasm." And I have mixed feelings on that myself. But a Wishboard? Not a single one. So why do away with the 10-card sideboard rule? Heck, they could even make it parallel to the regular rule now and it wouldn't affect people significantly ("You may play with a 0-10 card sideboard").
I believe that the wishy-washiness is actually an instance of focusing too much on trying to please everyone in a manner that pleases nobody and irritates some people.
Up your post with regards to the first point, and I can't stress this enough. There's a lack motivation, a lack of investment (time, doesn't hafta be $$), a lack of effort.
For starters, any given format, any given game should be newbie-friendly.
EDH is like a sea with barriers for safe swimming, just that there are sharks in it.
These cards (and others like them) should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game.
This statement and others about house rules, especially "(and others like them)," opens up a can of worms of player judgment that most playgroups at best ignore. I mean, for Pete's sake, "(and others like them)" means that in discussion before sitting down to play a game with a group of people, you should explicitly discuss whether it's okay to play Sol Ring. And NOONE DOES THIS. And on the flip side, playgroups get extremely frustrated when someone even suggests that they might play with a banned card. And playgroups get into large arguments about house rules that ruin any pretense of enjoyable games, let alone attempting to play by a social contract. I like this format a lot, but blind idealism backed up by handwaving is disturbing.
+1
And I thought I’d add also, the handwaving completely disregards the fact that the format is gaining traction for public games.
Case in point for what I envision as the prototypical experience for a new player. I walked into an LGS this week and bought a precon, where plenty of players were playing EDH. I didn’t know any of them, and they didn’t know each other either except for two playing in separate games, but sat down for a game with the new deck. Not one single player asked another for anything like an agreement on which cards would be played.
And, I saw Mana Crypts from two of the three players in my pod, Necropotence from one, D-tutor from the third, and Survival from the last one. I was drawing to a Green source to be able to play my general and the last card in my hand. By turn 4-5, every opponent had enough cards and mana to last them the rest of the game. Nobody combo’d off or locked anyone else out, but the Necropotence player had 6-7 mana and Capsize in hand, when a Seedborn Muse from him was countered. Game ended when the Meren player powered out a Primordial over and over with Survival.
Maybe some players would look at that as an example of how “good” Primordials and Seedborn Muse are. Neither get argued for bans. But decks fleshed out with cards that solve any and all issues with variance and inconsistency by granting busted amounts card draw, deck search, and mana can do literally anything they want, and they will win just because they have those cards.
Me putting myself in the shoes of a new player, I’m stuck with a regular hand of 7 cards trying to play 5 drops and up, within a game that starts you off with about a 3 mana average in hand. It’s just such a different level between public EDH and RC-brand EDH.
Case in point for what I envision as the prototypical experience for a new player. I walked into an LGS this week and bought a precon, where plenty of players were playing EDH. I didn’t know any of them, and they didn’t know each other either except for two playing in separate games, but sat down for a game with the new deck. Not one single player asked another for anything like an agreement on which cards would be played.
So why didnt you? I am not laying any sort of blame, thats exactly how I see it go 99% of the time. I am honestly curious why someone who thinks that should be done, does 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.
Case in point for what I envision as the prototypical experience for a new player. I walked into an LGS this week and bought a precon, where plenty of players were playing EDH. I didn’t know any of them, and they didn’t know each other either except for two playing in separate games, but sat down for a game with the new deck. Not one single player asked another for anything like an agreement on which cards would be played.
So why didnt you? I am not laying any sort of blame, thats exactly how I see it go 99% of the time. I am honestly curious why someone who thinks that should be done, does not.
I'm not saying it *should* be done. The post above mine mentioned that it was unrealistic hand-waving to expect players to do that, and I agree. When sitting down at a public game like that, players want to play, not give discourses on what style of game they like.
What actually happens with public play of Commander is that players carry assumptions about what kind of games they think *everyone* likes. They don't think any discussion needs to be had, because if you don't play that way, it must be because you're a jerk and love kicking puppies.
I don't have as much issue with the above type of public play, in itself, as much as it just gives needless rise to disputes. One, that style of play doesn't require cards like D-tutor, Sol Ring, etc, at all. Two, it falls prey to strategies that would be many turns slower or possibly unplayable if the format didn't include those cards. And to top it off, three, you would probably get booed and asked to play a different deck if actually you did show up with the commonly seen UGx Vintage staple good stuff at a table with the RC, the players who are actually regulating the list.
Sum total, we are being told by players that don't play those cards that those cards are fine, and if there are any issues with the cards, it must be the players causing the problems, not the cards, because people who don't play those cards are just fine with the format having those cards.
*Mox Crystal was a 5-color only "promotional" card that cost and tapped for colorless mana
To give you some added perspective, the format was played for ante so this doesn't include the ante cards. Falling Star and Chaos Orb were also legal. This was also just after Time Spiral was released, so 32 sets plus all the Commander, Conspiracy, Planechase, Archenemeny, and a bunch of Core Set cards have been printed since then. I think that this was right about when they figured out that the format was just too broken to try to and fix via a banned list. When you have to go so deep to try and ban tutors that you are banning transmute cards and things like Divining Witch, you've gotta know that something is just fundamentally wrong.
What actually happens with public play of Commander is that players carry assumptions about what kind of games they think *everyone* likes. They don't think any discussion needs to be had, because if you don't play that way, it must be because you're a jerk and love kicking puppies.
Even for you that seems hyperbolic. I play in plenty of public games, and most work just fine. Sure people make a complaint now and then, but no one gets actually mad. And most people I run into DO like the same types of games, so its rarely a bad assumption. It is however why a short discussion can be useful with brand new people.
Sum total, we are being told by players that don't play those cards that those cards are fine, and if there are any issues with the cards, it must be the players causing the problems, not the cards, because people who don't play those cards are just fine with the format having those cards.
Thats demonstrably false. We have access to decklists and we know they run Sol Ring, and Birthing Pod and Genesis wave (just grabbed one from his last article), cards that can be used miserably but aren't. So ya, sometimes its the people.
Adding a bunch of cards to the list is just, as you alluded to earlier, someone elses ideal version of fun. And yet no one will ever agree on that, so why not stay minimalist?
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.
What actually happens with public play of Commander is that players carry assumptions about what kind of games they think *everyone* likes. They don't think any discussion needs to be had, because if you don't play that way, it must be because you're a jerk and love kicking puppies.
Even for you that seems hyperbolic. I play in plenty of public games, and most work just fine. Sure people make a complaint now and then, but no one gets actually mad. And most people I run into DO like the same types of games, so its rarely a bad assumption. It is however why a short discussion can be useful with brand new people.
So, you are basically saying that public games are fine, because all of the people you run into actually do like the same type of game. Little bit circular, no?
I’m not going to say that you’re going to definitely see Turn 5 graveyard combo when you walk into any local LGS. That’s probably not going to be the case. It’s more to do with the fact that getting better and improving your playstyle in EDH, the way the card pool is set up now, will lead you into abuse of overpowered Vintage cards. Not as a function of anything to do with multiplayer Magic, much the opposite, that it’s a function of the card pool.
And until you see that arms race, it’s premature to say how the public player base reacts to it. If you’re on MODO, look for Moxnix. Plays a lot of Storm. The first time I’d heard the term “hate wait”, it was from one of those games. And no, Storm doesn’t work very well once you take out all the Legacy banned stuff like tutors and YagWin.
Sum total, we are being told by players that don't play those cards that those cards are fine, and if there are any issues with the cards, it must be the players causing the problems, not the cards, because people who don't play those cards are just fine with the format having those cards.
Thats demonstrably false. We have access to decklists and we know they run Sol Ring, and Birthing Pod and Genesis wave (just grabbed one from his last article), cards that can be used miserably but aren't. So ya, sometimes its the people.
Adding a bunch of cards to the list is just, as you alluded to earlier, someone elses ideal version of fun. And yet no one will ever agree on that, so why not stay minimalist?
If Pod and Genesis Wave are someone’s idea of miserable cards, that is really not reflected in the ban list. Only a matter of time before someone using those cards “miserably” learns how to use them miserably better, off of the back of the same old culprits, or substitutes Survival for Pod, so on.
Can you point to a decklist posted by one of the RC that has any of the Legacy banned cards discussed on the last page (excluding Wheel, Sol Ring, Windfall, etc)? I don’t think I have ever seen a list of theirs posted with Necropotence, maybe one sample list with Hermit Druid, mostly in proof that it can be used fairly, and I don’t recall ever seeing SurvivalAd Naus, YagWin, Mana Crypt, Mana Drain, so on.
I have Mana Drain in my Intet deck, but that's about it. I may have once had Necropotence and Repay in Kind as a weird combo thing in a deck, but I'm pretty sure that got disassembled.
I would like to challenge the notion put forth that "getting better and improving your playstyle" is in direct correlation to acquiring and running more vintage broken cards. If anything, improvement in a broken format like this is being able to function without those cards, because the format is solved in an extent. If I fill every deck with these cards I am using them like a crutch and relying on them. To truly test my skill I should look outside the box and build differently.
I agree that you often become a "better" player by working with less "lethal" resources in terms of card selection in your decks. That gets amplified if those you are playing against are using those resources that you've chosen to exclude. Otherwise I guess it still makes you a better player if you are playing with the same relative "power" of cards as your opponents by not having a crutch against them, but that also assumes they are already as good of a player as you are or are better than you.
All that said, players should do what is fun. Using powerful cards isn't an indication of being too competitive by any means. Not really a reason to consider banning something, certainly. In any casual/social format, deference and good judgment are keys to having fun.
There is the skill of playing, the skill of deck building, and the skill of knowing a deck intimately (the amalgam of the two). They are three different skills, but related to one another.
If you’re talking about running Pod and G-wave being more skill testing than Survival and T&N, then you’re talking about play skill. Running worse cards is not testing your skill of deck building. It’s smothering it with a pillow as it screams for help.
So, you are basically saying that public games are fine, because all of the people you run into actually do like the same type of game. Little bit circular, no?
No. I am saying a lot of people, including me, have run into a majority of these players based on personal discussion and relations on these boards. I dont think the majority of people having a good time is a circular logic to the game being setup well for the majority of people.
I’m not going to say that you’re going to definitely see Turn 5 graveyard combo when you walk into any local LGS. That’s probably not going to be the case. It’s more to do with the fact that getting better and improving your playstyle in EDH, the way the card pool is set up now, will lead you into abuse of overpowered Vintage cards. Not as a function of anything to do with multiplayer Magic, much the opposite, that it’s a function of the card pool.
These are not facts, yet you assume them to be true. You dismiss people who don't want to do that, when thats a skill too. Playing into a group to have fun and getting the same back can be just as likely, it seems moreso for some.
Can you point to a decklist posted by one of the RC that has any of the Legacy banned cards discussed on the last page (excluding Wheel, Sol Ring, Windfall, etc)? I don’t think I have ever seen a list of theirs posted with Necropotence, maybe one sample list with Hermit Druid, mostly in proof that it can be used fairly, and I don’t recall ever seeing SurvivalAd Naus, YagWin, Mana Crypt, Mana Drain, so on.
No I probably cant, but you purposely excluding Sol, Wheel, Necro, Hermit et. al. just proves my point : Not everything on that list is worth a slot on the EDH list. Sure one or two I would probably be behind, but thats a lot different than a banlist thats 'Legacy plus EDH stuff'.
And until you see that arms race, it’s premature to say how the public player base reacts to it. If you’re on MODO, look for Moxnix. Plays a lot of Storm. The first time I’d heard the term “hate wait”, it was from one of those games. And no, Storm doesn’t work very well once you take out all the Legacy banned stuff like tutors and YagWin.
I do not deny people play like that, I deny it is the majority or that it can be addressed with bans alone. And I dont think you can do it without a huge fun suck for me, and others like me. And no one supporting your position has been able to show my why thats a desirable, or achievable, goal.
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.
And I dont think you can do it without a huge fun suck for me, and others like me.
While I think the legacy banlist is not an unreasonable solution, I don't think it's the best solution. So I'm somewhere in the middle, I guess.
What intrigues me though, is your "fun suck" comment. Let's look at the difference between lists:
Bazaar of Baghdad
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Dig Through Time
Earthcraft
Flash
Frantic Search
Goblin Recruiter
Gush
Hermit Druid
Imperial Seal
Mana Crypt
Mana Drain
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Mental Misstep
Mind Twist
Mind's Desire
Mishra's Workshop
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Oath of Druids
Skullclamp
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Survival of the Fittest
Timetwister
Treasure Cruise
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Windfall
Yawgmoth's Will
How many of those are contributing significantly to your fun? Keep in mind the number of cards currently printed.
Also, and more importantly, if single cards make or break the fun of the game, that's problematic.
That's a loaded statement and you know it. Elixir of Immortality isn't a fun card. Doom Blade isn't a fun card. Forest isn't a fun card. Should we ban these? (Fun is also entirely subjective unless we approach it from larger trends.)
"Fun" doesn't become an issue until there is a massive outcry that it's NOT fun. Turn that question around and ask yourself which cards on that list have caused a large number of players to complain about them. Five? Ten?
Turn that question around and ask yourself which cards on that list have caused a large number of players to complain about them. Five? Ten?
I counted 16.
But it's a matter of scale, as well. There's about 16.5 thousand magic cards, several orders of magnitude higher than the number of cards on the banlist whether that number is 10, 35, 60, or heck, 90. There's over 5x10^256 EDH deck possibilities (A bit smaller when you rule out silly decks). Saying that the banning of 20-30 more cards would be a problem doesn't really make sense.
"Fun" doesn't become an issue until there is a massive outcry that it's NOT fun.
The above said, the desire to keep the list manageably small is a good one which I agree with for the most part. And the compromise solution to the conflict is to be more friendly to change. Duel Commander regularly provides a great example of this. And at the same time, the Duel Commander banlist hits most of the most egregious of problem cards that people play in multiplayer. And while it's not a multiplayer banlist, for many playgroups it works better for that purpose. Besides, any "massive outcry" can be written off as regular grumbling ala Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
Let's take the most objective data point we currently have: the ban list polls. "Massive outcry" cards like Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and Iona sharply drop off from there. I get that there is a vocal minority who think a great number of legal cards are detrimental to the format. I'm not going to try to pretend that I have a good idea as to the scope of their numbers because I only frequent two forums regularly enough to have a pulse on the moods of certain cards.
I also don't see the point in comparing DC to regular EDH. Both formats have a vision which they stick to quite well: edh wants to be a kitchen table format that favors the experience of the game and players getting to sling spells while they kick back, and DC wants to be a competitive format where the players who enjoy EDH can test their skill against one another in best of the best competition. You can see this reflected in their methodology of banning cards. The RC got rid of tuck because it felt bad, and banned a creature that dies to Lightning Bolt. Meanwhile, the DC RC continues to change fundamental rules like life totals and general damage.
So, you are basically saying that public games are fine, because all of the people you run into actually do like the same type of game. Little bit circular, no?
No. I am saying a lot of people, including me, have run into a majority of these players based on personal discussion and relations on these boards. I dont think the majority of people having a good time is a circular logic to the game being setup well for the majority of people.
Well, it may be that the game works. But this is the thread about the Official Multiplayer Ban List. If the game works because people actually do have expectations outside the ban list for what they expect to see, then it’s not the ban list that leads the game to be working well for the majority.
That’s my point. The ban list ought to do that. It doesn’t. Instead, something else does it, which isn’t designed for doing that and isn’t as good at doing it. That’s the problem.
I’m not going to say that you’re going to definitely see Turn 5 graveyard combo when you walk into any local LGS. That’s probably not going to be the case. It’s more to do with the fact that getting better and improving your playstyle in EDH, the way the card pool is set up now, will lead you into abuse of overpowered Vintage cards. Not as a function of anything to do with multiplayer Magic, much the opposite, that it’s a function of the card pool.
These are not facts, yet you assume them to be true. You dismiss people who don't want to do that, when thats a skill too. Playing into a group to have fun and getting the same back can be just as likely, it seems moreso for some.
Not wanting to build your deck in a way that better achieves the game objectives is a skill? If that’s a skill, then I’m going to be the best at it. I’ll sleeve up Nicol Bolas with 99 Mountains in the deck.
If what you mean by that is that building decks to have fun is a skill, then again, it’s not the ban list that does that. It’s something else. Because what the ban list does is put busted Vintage enablers into people’s decks to Storm off with Yagwin. And this is the thread to discuss the ban list, after all.
I do not deny people play like that, I deny it is the majority or that it can be addressed with bans alone. And I dont think you can do it without a huge fun suck for me, and others like me. And no one supporting your position has been able to show my why thats a desirable, or achievable, goal.
That's a loaded statement and you know it. Elixir of Immortality isn't a fun card. Doom Blade isn't a fun card. Forest isn't a fun card. Should we ban these? (Fun is also entirely subjective unless we approach it from larger trends.)
"Fun" doesn't become an issue until there is a massive outcry that it's NOT fun. Turn that question around and ask yourself which cards on that list have caused a large number of players to complain about them. Five? Ten?
The “fun” concept I see more as a burden of proof issue, like osieorb18 is saying. To a certain player set, a card is fun unless it’s on the ban list for Vintage (ante, manual dexterity, etc). To another player set, any card on the Legacy ban list is proven unfun. Those two sides are what the debate is about. No one is arguing that fun is not subjective, or that a ban list is entirely sufficient to remove unfun scenarios from the game. Both solutions are probably imperfect, and to say that one is better because it reflects the status quo is completely circular (It’s better because it’s what we have). The argument is actually about whether the current Vintage baseline is more or less fun than a hypothetical Legacy baseline.
And like oseorb18 is saying above, it is really hard to point to any of the cards on that list and say that the amount of fun it creates is greater than the likelihood of unfun. And, there’s abundant evidence for that conclusion within EDH itself. The players who consider themselves the best at creating fun games are exactly the players who have voluntarily dropped most of these cards from their decks.
What you are looking for in an “outcry of unfun” has really only happened for cards that are nowhere on the radar of unfun, or have been printed recently, since that track record creates a presumption of fun. When that presumption doesn’t hold for EDH (PoK, PT, SP), then you get this outcry because people on the other side will continue to play them.
Not so for these Vintage cards. In my eye, the majority of the player base considers them unfun. A good section of players voluntarily stop playing them. Lots of people seem to be taking refusal to play them as evidence that the “format is working”. That may be so, but that’s no evidence that the ban list is working. Players at large taking historically unwholesome cards and neglecting to play them, even absent a ban. You can’t get stronger evidence than that on whether the community would like a ban.
Let's take the most objective data point we currently have: the ban list polls. "Massive outcry" cards like Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and Iona sharply drop off from there. I get that there is a vocal minority who think a great number of legal cards are detrimental to the format. I'm not going to try to pretend that I have a good idea as to the scope of their numbers because I only frequent two forums regularly enough to have a pulse on the moods of certain cards.
There is a set of variables in polling data that make them unwieldy vehicles for teasing out unpopular opinions. There are people who answer against their actual conscious beliefs just to meddle with the results, people who subconsciously believe something different than what they consciously state in a poll, and people who consciously believe something but fail to respond to an outgroup's label of that thing. Those constants somewhere around 20-40% of a polling body, depending on the issue. It is similar to a rating scale of 1-5 stars, where the result of 3 is a legitimately unsatisfied person, and 1-2 stars is someone consciously trying to send a message, and most results are 4 or 5. Point is, you would very, very rarely expect to see a strict majority come out in support of a viewpoint that is un-popularized, or would have the tendency to hurt feelings, etc.
The case here, we have an official multiplayer ban list that is routinely defended by the creators of the format. That’s the status quo. Polling which players don’t agree with that is like polling a bunch of sick, poor people in the US on whether public health care is a good idea. A huge constant of people will say no, despite needing health care, simply because of the fact that there is no public health care in the US. Some of them have also formed conscious beliefs that it’s a bad idea, but still might be objectively happier if there were public health care.
So to look at any result north of 40-50% in favor of banning a card that is not currently banned, that is actually a huge, huge outcry. That would actually be well over the required amount to get a policy approved in a real world democratic system. Even polling results north of 20% or so would be a huge source of concern, and probably encompasses the majority, once you take out those constants that are always polling status quo. One thing’s certain, if you take any result less than 50% as wholehearted majority support of the ban list, the issue really will get nowhere.
Iona - 41%
Mana Crypt - 30%
Sol Ring - 29%
Deadeye Navigator, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail - 18%
Ad Nauseum, Gaea's Cradle - 17%
Consecrated Sphinx, Cyclonic Rift - 16%
Hermit Druid, Mana Vault, Serra Ascendant - 14%
Vintage level cards aren't the problem among users on this forum that voted. I fully understand and have often stated why the polls are flawed and not representative but they still give us a set of data that isn't one person's subjective opinion.
If players are choosing to not play to their maximum potential within the defined rules and ban list then that should be a testament to the influence of the format philosophy. Like Sheldon said a while back, there's no law Against cutting in line but you still don't do it even though you could.
Thank you.
What was causing a divide? The sideboard rule is relatively straightforward and has little reason to not be allowed. The RC still endorses people making house rules. I'm confused as to what the issue would be.
Hmm... I guess I never really saw this. That said, I always just ask "Is it okay if I run a 10 card sideboard for Burning Wish?" (for example) and have never heard a negative answer on that.
That does not mean its a good idea. I agree a lot of the items there are the edges I speak of that get a large part of the discussion. But I dont think the majority of the playerbase would be "actively upset" if you made any of the fringe decisions, ban list or other. You would hear about it because there is always a vocal response to change. I think if you go to far one way or the other, THEN you run into the risk of actual discontent.
I think they spend very little time on this. At least in appearance (and this is very subjective), they try to bring people in, but they don't try to market it, and they don't try to fix the turn-offs that often come up for new players. And that's fine. That's their prerogative. But it's not clear if that's actually sustainable, especially while also not fixing turn-offs for enfranchised players. And I think that the spawning of other related formats (E.g. Duel Commander, Pauper Commander, ) has been largely inspired by both the previously mentioned discontent, and the lack of focus on attraction of new players in Rules formation.
While I agree in theory with the desire for a small banlist, in practice I think that the banlist could increase in size by 25% and still not really be unwieldy, while covering most of the problem cards that come up in a large variety of metas and games across the world. And, similarly, but kinda the opposite, the wishy-washy spots here and there in philosophy and rules statements could probably be reduced, but don't necessarily have to be.
This statement and others about house rules, especially "(and others like them)," opens up a can of worms of player judgment that most playgroups at best ignore. I mean, for Pete's sake, "(and others like them)" means that in discussion before sitting down to play a game with a group of people, you should explicitly discuss whether it's okay to play Sol Ring. And NOONE DOES THIS. And on the flip side, playgroups get extremely frustrated when someone even suggests that they might play with a banned card. And playgroups get into large arguments about house rules that ruin any pretense of enjoyable games, let alone attempting to play by a social contract. I like this format a lot, but blind idealism backed up by handwaving is disturbing.
Over the course of more than 12 playgroups across the country, over the course of 6-7 years, besides one instance just a few days ago on one of either this forum or MTGCommander, I have never personally heard of a playgroup that had a problem with a Wishboard. With a Sideboard, certainly. E.g. "I don't want you to side in grave-hate cards before a game if I'm playing The Mimeoplasm." And I have mixed feelings on that myself. But a Wishboard? Not a single one. So why do away with the 10-card sideboard rule? Heck, they could even make it parallel to the regular rule now and it wouldn't affect people significantly ("You may play with a 0-10 card sideboard").
I believe that the wishy-washiness is actually an instance of focusing too much on trying to please everyone in a manner that pleases nobody and irritates some people.
For starters, any given format, any given game should be newbie-friendly.
EDH is like a sea with barriers for safe swimming, just that there are sharks in it.
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
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
+1
And I thought I’d add also, the handwaving completely disregards the fact that the format is gaining traction for public games.
Case in point for what I envision as the prototypical experience for a new player. I walked into an LGS this week and bought a precon, where plenty of players were playing EDH. I didn’t know any of them, and they didn’t know each other either except for two playing in separate games, but sat down for a game with the new deck. Not one single player asked another for anything like an agreement on which cards would be played.
And, I saw Mana Crypts from two of the three players in my pod, Necropotence from one, D-tutor from the third, and Survival from the last one. I was drawing to a Green source to be able to play my general and the last card in my hand. By turn 4-5, every opponent had enough cards and mana to last them the rest of the game. Nobody combo’d off or locked anyone else out, but the Necropotence player had 6-7 mana and Capsize in hand, when a Seedborn Muse from him was countered. Game ended when the Meren player powered out a Primordial over and over with Survival.
Maybe some players would look at that as an example of how “good” Primordials and Seedborn Muse are. Neither get argued for bans. But decks fleshed out with cards that solve any and all issues with variance and inconsistency by granting busted amounts card draw, deck search, and mana can do literally anything they want, and they will win just because they have those cards.
Me putting myself in the shoes of a new player, I’m stuck with a regular hand of 7 cards trying to play 5 drops and up, within a game that starts you off with about a 3 mana average in hand. It’s just such a different level between public EDH and RC-brand EDH.
I'm not saying it *should* be done. The post above mine mentioned that it was unrealistic hand-waving to expect players to do that, and I agree. When sitting down at a public game like that, players want to play, not give discourses on what style of game they like.
What actually happens with public play of Commander is that players carry assumptions about what kind of games they think *everyone* likes. They don't think any discussion needs to be had, because if you don't play that way, it must be because you're a jerk and love kicking puppies.
I don't have as much issue with the above type of public play, in itself, as much as it just gives needless rise to disputes. One, that style of play doesn't require cards like D-tutor, Sol Ring, etc, at all. Two, it falls prey to strategies that would be many turns slower or possibly unplayable if the format didn't include those cards. And to top it off, three, you would probably get booed and asked to play a different deck if actually you did show up with the commonly seen UGx Vintage staple good stuff at a table with the RC, the players who are actually regulating the list.
Sum total, we are being told by players that don't play those cards that those cards are fine, and if there are any issues with the cards, it must be the players causing the problems, not the cards, because people who don't play those cards are just fine with the format having those cards.
Real head-scratcher.
December 2006 - 5-color had 27 banned cards and 77 restricted cards.
1 Bringer Of The Back Dawn
1 Bronze Tablet
1 Crucible of Worlds
1 Darkpact
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Earthcraft
1 Gifts Ungiven
1 Holistic Wisdom
1 Imperial Seal
1 Insidious Dreams
1 Intuition
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Oath of Druids
1 Panoptic Mirror
1 Parallel Thoughts
1 Personal Tutor
1 Phyrexian Portal
1 Shahrazad
1 Sundering Titan
1 Survival of the Fittest
1 Time Walk
1 Tinker
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Wild Research
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Ancestral Recall
1 All Sun's Dawn
1 Balance
1 Black Lotus
1 Braingeyser
1 Bribery
1 Burning Wish
1 Chaos Orb
1 Channel
1 Citanul Flute
1 Contract From Below
1 Crop Rotation
1 Cruel Tutor
1 Cunning Wish
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Diabolic Tutor
1 Diabolic Intent
1 Diminishing Returns
1 Dimir Infiltrator
1 Dimir Machinations
1 Divining Witch
1 Dizzy Spell
1 Doomsday
1 Drift of Phantasms
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Eternal Witness
1 Fabricate
1 Fastbond
1 Future Sight
1 Gamble
1 Grinning Totem
1 Grim Monolith
1 Grim Tutor
1 Hermit Druid
1 Infernal Tutor
1 Isochron Scepter
1 Land Tax
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Life from the Loam
1 Living Wish
1 Long-term Plans
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Memory Jar
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Mind Twist
1 Mishra's Workshop
1 Mox Crystal*
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Muddle the Mixture
1 Nostalgic Dreams
1 Perplex
1 Planar Portal
1 Recollect
1 Recoup
1 Regrowth
1 Replenish
1 Rhystic Tutor
1 Shred Memory
1 Skullclamp
1 Sol Ring
1 Sterling Grove
1 Strip Mine
1 Stroke of Genius
1 Sylvan Scrying
1 Time Spiral
1 Timetwister
1 Transmute Artifact
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Weathered Wayfarer
1 Windfall
*Mox Crystal was a 5-color only "promotional" card that cost
Thats demonstrably false. We have access to decklists and we know they run Sol Ring, and Birthing Pod and Genesis wave (just grabbed one from his last article), cards that can be used miserably but aren't. So ya, sometimes its the people.
Adding a bunch of cards to the list is just, as you alluded to earlier, someone elses ideal version of fun. And yet no one will ever agree on that, so why not stay minimalist?
So, you are basically saying that public games are fine, because all of the people you run into actually do like the same type of game. Little bit circular, no?
I’m not going to say that you’re going to definitely see Turn 5 graveyard combo when you walk into any local LGS. That’s probably not going to be the case. It’s more to do with the fact that getting better and improving your playstyle in EDH, the way the card pool is set up now, will lead you into abuse of overpowered Vintage cards. Not as a function of anything to do with multiplayer Magic, much the opposite, that it’s a function of the card pool.
And until you see that arms race, it’s premature to say how the public player base reacts to it. If you’re on MODO, look for Moxnix. Plays a lot of Storm. The first time I’d heard the term “hate wait”, it was from one of those games. And no, Storm doesn’t work very well once you take out all the Legacy banned stuff like tutors and YagWin.
If Pod and Genesis Wave are someone’s idea of miserable cards, that is really not reflected in the ban list. Only a matter of time before someone using those cards “miserably” learns how to use them miserably better, off of the back of the same old culprits, or substitutes Survival for Pod, so on.
Can you point to a decklist posted by one of the RC that has any of the Legacy banned cards discussed on the last page (excluding Wheel, Sol Ring, Windfall, etc)? I don’t think I have ever seen a list of theirs posted with Necropotence, maybe one sample list with Hermit Druid, mostly in proof that it can be used fairly, and I don’t recall ever seeing SurvivalAd Naus, YagWin, Mana Crypt, Mana Drain, so on.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
All that said, players should do what is fun. Using powerful cards isn't an indication of being too competitive by any means. Not really a reason to consider banning something, certainly. In any casual/social format, deference and good judgment are keys to having fun.
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
If you’re talking about running Pod and G-wave being more skill testing than Survival and T&N, then you’re talking about play skill. Running worse cards is not testing your skill of deck building. It’s smothering it with a pillow as it screams for help.
These are not facts, yet you assume them to be true. You dismiss people who don't want to do that, when thats a skill too. Playing into a group to have fun and getting the same back can be just as likely, it seems moreso for some.
No I probably cant, but you purposely excluding Sol, Wheel, Necro, Hermit et. al. just proves my point : Not everything on that list is worth a slot on the EDH list. Sure one or two I would probably be behind, but thats a lot different than a banlist thats 'Legacy plus EDH stuff'.
I do not deny people play like that, I deny it is the majority or that it can be addressed with bans alone. And I dont think you can do it without a huge fun suck for me, and others like me. And no one supporting your position has been able to show my why thats a desirable, or achievable, goal.
While I think the legacy banlist is not an unreasonable solution, I don't think it's the best solution. So I'm somewhere in the middle, I guess.
What intrigues me though, is your "fun suck" comment. Let's look at the difference between lists:
Bazaar of Baghdad
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Dig Through Time
Earthcraft
Flash
Frantic Search
Goblin Recruiter
Gush
Hermit Druid
Imperial Seal
Mana Crypt
Mana Drain
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Mental Misstep
Mind Twist
Mind's Desire
Mishra's Workshop
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Oath of Druids
Skullclamp
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Survival of the Fittest
Timetwister
Treasure Cruise
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Windfall
Yawgmoth's Will
How many of those are contributing significantly to your fun? Keep in mind the number of cards currently printed.
Also, and more importantly, if single cards make or break the fun of the game, that's problematic.
"Fun" doesn't become an issue until there is a massive outcry that it's NOT fun. Turn that question around and ask yourself which cards on that list have caused a large number of players to complain about them. Five? Ten?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I counted 16.
But it's a matter of scale, as well. There's about 16.5 thousand magic cards, several orders of magnitude higher than the number of cards on the banlist whether that number is 10, 35, 60, or heck, 90. There's over 5x10^256 EDH deck possibilities (A bit smaller when you rule out silly decks). Saying that the banning of 20-30 more cards would be a problem doesn't really make sense.
The above said, the desire to keep the list manageably small is a good one which I agree with for the most part. And the compromise solution to the conflict is to be more friendly to change. Duel Commander regularly provides a great example of this. And at the same time, the Duel Commander banlist hits most of the most egregious of problem cards that people play in multiplayer. And while it's not a multiplayer banlist, for many playgroups it works better for that purpose. Besides, any "massive outcry" can be written off as regular grumbling ala Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.
I also don't see the point in comparing DC to regular EDH. Both formats have a vision which they stick to quite well: edh wants to be a kitchen table format that favors the experience of the game and players getting to sling spells while they kick back, and DC wants to be a competitive format where the players who enjoy EDH can test their skill against one another in best of the best competition. You can see this reflected in their methodology of banning cards. The RC got rid of tuck because it felt bad, and banned a creature that dies to Lightning Bolt. Meanwhile, the DC RC continues to change fundamental rules like life totals and general damage.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well, it may be that the game works. But this is the thread about the Official Multiplayer Ban List. If the game works because people actually do have expectations outside the ban list for what they expect to see, then it’s not the ban list that leads the game to be working well for the majority.
That’s my point. The ban list ought to do that. It doesn’t. Instead, something else does it, which isn’t designed for doing that and isn’t as good at doing it. That’s the problem.
Not wanting to build your deck in a way that better achieves the game objectives is a skill? If that’s a skill, then I’m going to be the best at it. I’ll sleeve up Nicol Bolas with 99 Mountains in the deck.
If what you mean by that is that building decks to have fun is a skill, then again, it’s not the ban list that does that. It’s something else. Because what the ban list does is put busted Vintage enablers into people’s decks to Storm off with Yagwin. And this is the thread to discuss the ban list, after all.
The “fun” concept I see more as a burden of proof issue, like osieorb18 is saying. To a certain player set, a card is fun unless it’s on the ban list for Vintage (ante, manual dexterity, etc). To another player set, any card on the Legacy ban list is proven unfun. Those two sides are what the debate is about. No one is arguing that fun is not subjective, or that a ban list is entirely sufficient to remove unfun scenarios from the game. Both solutions are probably imperfect, and to say that one is better because it reflects the status quo is completely circular (It’s better because it’s what we have). The argument is actually about whether the current Vintage baseline is more or less fun than a hypothetical Legacy baseline.
And like oseorb18 is saying above, it is really hard to point to any of the cards on that list and say that the amount of fun it creates is greater than the likelihood of unfun. And, there’s abundant evidence for that conclusion within EDH itself. The players who consider themselves the best at creating fun games are exactly the players who have voluntarily dropped most of these cards from their decks.
What you are looking for in an “outcry of unfun” has really only happened for cards that are nowhere on the radar of unfun, or have been printed recently, since that track record creates a presumption of fun. When that presumption doesn’t hold for EDH (PoK, PT, SP), then you get this outcry because people on the other side will continue to play them.
Not so for these Vintage cards. In my eye, the majority of the player base considers them unfun. A good section of players voluntarily stop playing them. Lots of people seem to be taking refusal to play them as evidence that the “format is working”. That may be so, but that’s no evidence that the ban list is working. Players at large taking historically unwholesome cards and neglecting to play them, even absent a ban. You can’t get stronger evidence than that on whether the community would like a ban.
There is a set of variables in polling data that make them unwieldy vehicles for teasing out unpopular opinions. There are people who answer against their actual conscious beliefs just to meddle with the results, people who subconsciously believe something different than what they consciously state in a poll, and people who consciously believe something but fail to respond to an outgroup's label of that thing. Those constants somewhere around 20-40% of a polling body, depending on the issue. It is similar to a rating scale of 1-5 stars, where the result of 3 is a legitimately unsatisfied person, and 1-2 stars is someone consciously trying to send a message, and most results are 4 or 5. Point is, you would very, very rarely expect to see a strict majority come out in support of a viewpoint that is un-popularized, or would have the tendency to hurt feelings, etc.
The case here, we have an official multiplayer ban list that is routinely defended by the creators of the format. That’s the status quo. Polling which players don’t agree with that is like polling a bunch of sick, poor people in the US on whether public health care is a good idea. A huge constant of people will say no, despite needing health care, simply because of the fact that there is no public health care in the US. Some of them have also formed conscious beliefs that it’s a bad idea, but still might be objectively happier if there were public health care.
So to look at any result north of 40-50% in favor of banning a card that is not currently banned, that is actually a huge, huge outcry. That would actually be well over the required amount to get a policy approved in a real world democratic system. Even polling results north of 20% or so would be a huge source of concern, and probably encompasses the majority, once you take out those constants that are always polling status quo. One thing’s certain, if you take any result less than 50% as wholehearted majority support of the ban list, the issue really will get nowhere.
Mana Crypt - 30%
Sol Ring - 29%
Deadeye Navigator, Palinchron, Tooth and Nail - 18%
Ad Nauseum, Gaea's Cradle - 17%
Consecrated Sphinx, Cyclonic Rift - 16%
Hermit Druid, Mana Vault, Serra Ascendant - 14%
Vintage level cards aren't the problem among users on this forum that voted. I fully understand and have often stated why the polls are flawed and not representative but they still give us a set of data that isn't one person's subjective opinion.
If players are choosing to not play to their maximum potential within the defined rules and ban list then that should be a testament to the influence of the format philosophy. Like Sheldon said a while back, there's no law Against cutting in line but you still don't do it even though you could.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg