Am I the only one that thinks the Banned list needs to be slimmed down and local ban lists need to be encouraged? I feel like a universal banned list is not really in the spirit of the format.
Probably not the only one, but in the minority I would guess. Its a base line for people who don't have the structure of a local group. Local ban lists are encouraged.
As someone trying to encourage more players to play the format, I would say the Ban List is probably the most frequent reason why people tell me they do not want to play the format. That is pretty sad.
I would honestly not believe them. Out of the ten's of thousands of cards available, a very slim amount is banned. And they can fix that by asking people when they start if its OK.
I get that many players feel things like Griselbrand are unfair when you have 40 life... but so is Darevi taxing you out of the game. There used to be a time when players would have to construct with their playgroup in mind and that was the social aspect of the format - which has since dissipated and lead to things like a universal banned list.
Thats a pretty silly position since the format always had a universal ban list, and the same people run the ban list now that always have.
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.
You never saw a Griselbrand EDH deck in action, I take it.
Or Ad Nauseam, or Enter the Infinite.
You can run Ad Nauseum as a commander now?
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
Personally, I'm in favor of reinstating the banned as a commander rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
Personally, I'm in favor of reinstating the banned as a commander rule.
Couldn't be bothered to read one post up to see that the pers okn to which I was replying said "commander is a game of politic and you don't always win by drawing a bunch of cards", could you? At no point was a General mentioned.
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
Personally, I'm in favor of reinstating the banned as a commander rule.
Couldn't be bothered to read one post up to see that the pers okn to which I was replying said "commander is a game of politic and you don't always win by drawing a bunch of cards", could you? At no point was a General mentioned.
Oh, I read it just fine, no need to be passive aggressive. The person you were replying to said "You never seen a Grislebrand deck in action I take it?", so yes, that implies he's talking about the card sitting in the command zone of a deck built around it. Even if he hadn't said that, I still think its an important point to bring up, because it shows the difference between the examples you tritely replied with and Grislebrand, and I think its a relevant point as to why its banned. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post where I explained why (see, that really changes the tone of the post doesn't it? Makes it insulting, dismisses your point without addressing it, really just bad form all around), so I'll highlight it:
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
So let's break it down for you then:
1. I said I believed that if banned as a commander were still a rule, he would have likely been banned as a commander
2. This means I believe he would have been legal in the 99
3. I'm not entirely sure of that though, as he plays similarly to Yawgmoth's Bargain, a banned card, and as a creature can end up with Prophet and Primetime problems, though he'd be easier to remove than an enchantment
It's kind of like how Braids is banned and Smokestack isn't. I think that GB might be safe enough in the 99, as I recall the main issue being Grislebrand decks, not Grislebrand in decks. I think having him be more fragile than an enchantment, and having to pay and draw in increments of 7 (not to mention being more expensive) makes him safer than Bargain. I'll admit that I don't have enough information to make a judgement call because when he was legal, I usually saw him as a commander, not as a card in the 99, but his effect was about on par with Necropotence, powerful but not ban worthy except that by just being in the command zone he dictated the entire game. It was a clear signal that the player was going to ramp out and draw their deck, so you had to throw everything at them. Like I said, I'm for the return of the banned as a commander rule with Rofellos, Braids, the Soratami flip card, Grislebrand, and Leovold being legal in the 99. Heck, if Grislebrand proved fine, I'd even be for unbanning Bargain on a trial basis (though only if GB wasn't borderline but clearly fine, as YB being able to draw and pay in increments of 1 and being more resilient make it better).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Nah, he'd still be banned overall, that's howhe was banned back in 2012 after all. His being a crature just makes it worse when he's in the deck vs the command zone.
Nah, he'd still be banned overall, that's howhe was banned back in 2012 after all. His being a crature just makes it worse when he's in the deck vs the command zone.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Oh, I read it just fine, no need to be passive aggressive. The person you were replying to said "You never seen a Grislebrand deck in action I take it?", so yes, that implies he's talking about the card sitting in the command zone of a deck built around it. Even if he hadn't said that, I still think its an important point to bring up, because it shows the difference between the examples you tritely replied with and Grislebrand, and I think its a relevant point as to why its banned. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post where I explained why (see, that really changes the tone of the post doesn't it? Makes it insulting, dismisses your point without addressing it, really just bad form all around), so I'll highlight it:
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
So let's break it down for you then:
1. I said I believed that if banned as a commander were still a rule, he would have likely been banned as a commander
2. This means I believe he would have been legal in the 99
3. I'm not entirely sure of that though, as he plays similarly to Yawgmoth's Bargain, a banned card, and as a creature can end up with Prophet and Primetime problems, though he'd be easier to remove than an enchantment
It's kind of like how Braids is banned and Smokestack isn't. I think that GB might be safe enough in the 99, as I recall the main issue being Grislebrand decks, not Grislebrand in decks. I think having him be more fragile than an enchantment, and having to pay and draw in increments of 7 (not to mention being more expensive) makes him safer than Bargain. I'll admit that I don't have enough information to make a judgement call because when he was legal, I usually saw him as a commander, not as a card in the 99, but his effect was about on par with Necropotence, powerful but not ban worthy except that by just being in the command zone he dictated the entire game. It was a clear signal that the player was going to ramp out and draw their deck, so you had to throw everything at them. Like I said, I'm for the return of the banned as a commander rule with Rofellos, Braids, the Soratami flip card, Grislebrand, and Leovold being legal in the 99. Heck, if Grislebrand proved fine, I'd even be for unbanning Bargain on a trial basis (though only if GB wasn't borderline but clearly fine, as YB being able to draw and pay in increments of 1 and being more resilient make it better).
There's a difference between replying to someone and adding on to them. I did read your entire post, I just didn't feel the need to comment on it because 1) it doesn't apply when I'm not talking about the distinction between a card sitting in the Command Zone and one in the 99 (the discussion I was commenting on was that drawing a ***** ton of cards doesn't always win gsmes), and 2) you were wrong anyway. Griselbrand was a card that was on the radar from day one and lasted all of one month before getting fully banned.
Bonus retort: getting rid of the BaaC list is one of the two rules changes is still disagree with since they were implemented, so we aren't exactly in disagreement I suspect.
Bonus retort: getting rid of the BaaC list is one of the two rules changes is still disagree with since they were implemented, so we aren't exactly in disagreement I suspect.
So the removal of "banned as commander" was done by considering "problematic as a commander" a reason to ban a card entirely. Would you agree with the change more if that were not the case, and being a possible commander was ignored when considering bans? The difference would probably effectively be unbanning Braids and Erayo. I think there's probably enough of an argument against Rofellos in the 99, it's the only card from the BaaC list that ever caused me consistent troubles in this format.
That's what I'd prefer, because I feel the commander of a deck is the easiest opportunity for people to take responsibility for their own fun. There are a lot of commanders with boogeyman reputation, but I haven't seen a Zur deck in like the last 10 playgroups I've interacted with. People generally don't want to pick commanders that have a bad reputation, and they know what they're doing when they do, and opponents can choose not to play with that.
Black Braids only in the 99 could appear from any black opponent and mess up my game on turn 2 without warning, and at that point I've agreed to play and taken a turn and would cause a fuss by scooping. I mean, I am the weirdo who enjoys playing with and against resource denial, so I wouldn't say no to a Braids opponent, but if someone sits down with a Braids deck, players have the opportunity to decline the match before even shuffling. I had Hokori, Dust Drinker together for a long time, and it never ruined the format for anyone because having the problem card revealed before the game starts gave people the opportunity to not play against that deck at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
I think that you could just as easily call "problematic as a commander" the existing "interacts poorly with the format" because generals are always accessible, and weigh that along with everything else in the BL philosophy, taking into consideration how a card performs in the Command Zone versus in the 99 or 98.
I fully understand the rationale of the RC for why they eliminated the list, and don't disagree with them on that. A separate ban list of only a few cards is not worth the effort. However, I thought it was a unique tool for a unique format and one which a single explanation of its existence should suffice for most players. I also feel that even if the list itself was small, there is always the potential for its growth, especially now that Wizards puts a greater focus on the format and Brawl. And it is a shame to lose a creature in the 99 because it is over the top in the Command Zone.
Oh, I read it just fine, no need to be passive aggressive. The person you were replying to said "You never seen a Grislebrand deck in action I take it?", so yes, that implies he's talking about the card sitting in the command zone of a deck built around it. Even if he hadn't said that, I still think its an important point to bring up, because it shows the difference between the examples you tritely replied with and Grislebrand, and I think its a relevant point as to why its banned. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post where I explained why (see, that really changes the tone of the post doesn't it? Makes it insulting, dismisses your point without addressing it, really just bad form all around), so I'll highlight it:
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
So let's break it down for you then:
1. I said I believed that if banned as a commander were still a rule, he would have likely been banned as a commander
2. This means I believe he would have been legal in the 99
3. I'm not entirely sure of that though, as he plays similarly to Yawgmoth's Bargain, a banned card, and as a creature can end up with Prophet and Primetime problems, though he'd be easier to remove than an enchantment
It's kind of like how Braids is banned and Smokestack isn't. I think that GB might be safe enough in the 99, as I recall the main issue being Grislebrand decks, not Grislebrand in decks. I think having him be more fragile than an enchantment, and having to pay and draw in increments of 7 (not to mention being more expensive) makes him safer than Bargain. I'll admit that I don't have enough information to make a judgement call because when he was legal, I usually saw him as a commander, not as a card in the 99, but his effect was about on par with Necropotence, powerful but not ban worthy except that by just being in the command zone he dictated the entire game. It was a clear signal that the player was going to ramp out and draw their deck, so you had to throw everything at them. Like I said, I'm for the return of the banned as a commander rule with Rofellos, Braids, the Soratami flip card, Grislebrand, and Leovold being legal in the 99. Heck, if Grislebrand proved fine, I'd even be for unbanning Bargain on a trial basis (though only if GB wasn't borderline but clearly fine, as YB being able to draw and pay in increments of 1 and being more resilient make it better).
There's a difference between replying to someone and adding on to them. I did read your entire post, I just didn't feel the need to comment on it because 1) it doesn't apply when I'm not talking about the distinction between a card sitting in the Command Zone and one in the 99 (the discussion I was commenting on was that drawing a ***** ton of cards doesn't always win gsmes)
The comment you were replying to was specifically talking about "Grislebrand decks". Maybe you should have picked a different comment to reply to? Because replying to his comment meant that "as a commander" was already a part of the conversation, whether or not you cared, and in contradiction to your sassy little response.
Bonus retort: getting rid of the BaaC list is one of the two rules changes is still disagree with since they were implemented, so we aren't exactly in disagreement I suspect.
Yep, I was wrong about it possibly being ok in the 99, already admitted that. That doesn't mean that it being legendary, and therefore able to be used as a commander, isn't relevant when comparing it to a card that can't sit there in the command zone always ready to be cast. Its a pretty important detail, and relevant to the conversation of whether the card should stay banned.
After your posts on the topic, I honestly don't know what your position is supposed to be. You've said your in favor of a more consistent banlist, but it seemed like you were agreeing that Grislebrand should be unbanned, then your latest post points out what BloodyWednesday pointed already pointed out, that it was banned outright while that list still existed (and in his link, they drew the direct comparison to Yawgmoth's Bargain which I expressed as a possible concern earlier). So unbanning him would create an even less consistent banlist. Were you just agreeing that drawing a bunch of cards doesn't always win? I mean, yeah, but that's a given and doesn't have any bearing on whether Grislebrand doesn't do that it such volume to take over games to a problematic level necessitating a ban. That's like agreeing that getting a lot of mana early doesn't always win games, that doesn't add anything to a discussion over whether Fastbond should stay banned.
And, of course, you were still being, let's see what won't get me a warning, a jerk in your initial response, for no reason other than someone posting an argument you disagreed with. It was needlessly disrespectful in defense of nothing, which I already said, and you seem intent on doubling down on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm not sure where you gleaned my stance on Griselbrand, since I never mentioned him by name except that one time. All I've said is I support a consistent ban list and I would not have gotten rid of the BaaC list. Well, I also pointed out two cards that draw you a ton of cards and tend to win the game the turn they resolve, but that seems to be a point in favor of banning GB.
I'm not sure where you gleaned my stance on Griselbrand, since I never mentioned him by name except that one time. All I've said is I support a consistent ban list and I would not have gotten rid of the BaaC list. Well, I also pointed out two cards that draw you a ton of cards and tend to win the game the turn they resolve, but that seems to be a point in favor of banning GB.
Well, the conversation that started this was, in fact, about Grislebrand. That your stance wasn't clear was the point of my last comment. What was the point of bringing up Ad Nauseum and Omniscience in that context except to compare them to Grislebrand? Replying to Lithl made it seem as though you were responding to his post with counter examples of cards that also draw a bunch of cards and win which are not banned to counter his stance on Grislebrand. I took it that way, and said why those cards are different from Grislebrand. Now, if that wasn't what you were saying, you could have just said that, especially since your post was ambiguous, and cleared it up. Instead, you got pissy for no reason. There was no need for it, you could have just said "Oh, I meant those as examples that drawing a bunch of cards does usually win the game" and that would have been that, rather than posting a dismissive and passive aggressive response and repeatedly doubling down on it.
This is going nowhere though, I'm going to take a break because its clear that you just want to argue about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Well, the conversation that started this was, in fact, about Grislebrand. That your stance wasn't clear was the point of my last comment. What was the point of bringing up Ad Nauseum and Omniscience in that context except to compare them to Grislebrand? Replying to Lithl made it seem as though you were responding to his post with counter examples of cards that also draw a bunch of cards and win which are not banned to counter his stance on Grislebrand. I took it that way, and said why those cards are different from Grislebrand. Now, if that wasn't what you were saying, you could have just said that, especially since your post was ambiguous, and cleared it up. Instead, you got pissy for no reason. There was no need for it, you could have just said "Oh, I meant those as examples that drawing a bunch of cards does usually win the game" and that would have been that, rather than posting a dismissive and passive aggressive response and repeatedly doubling down on it.
This is going nowhere though, I'm going to take a break because its clear that you just want to argue about it.
The conversation as I read it was one of a u iversal ban list versus local ban lists. Lilth took and replied to a snippet and I interpreted and entered the conversation like this:
Superna7ural: drawing cards doesn't always win you games (in reference to griselbrand being that bad)
Lithl: you never saw it in action (in reference to what happens when it lands and someone draws 30 cardz)
Me: or AN or EtI (which similarly draw you a large chunk to all of your deck)
In a casual spoken conversation, I doubt that what I said would have been confusing to follow. Did I respond to you with more snark than was required? Sure. But I also find it insulting and equally rude to point out that the cards I mentioned can't be generals, as if I somehow didn't know that rule despite playing for years. But let's drop this since we have by now hopefully cleared up any lingering confusion.
We are also derailing the thread and any potential sol ring discussion.
I just don't see a difference between the numbers and just telling people what kinds of decks you play.
Like Casual - Casual/Competitive - Competitive is basically what you are describing and there is no need for numbers to describe those to someone.
Very much incorrect, sir. Casual, competitive, and everything in between can mean something different to each person. Paring it down to numbers can give a better sense of perspective. I'll grant that even the numbers game can have different levels of meaning as well, but there's less chance of an outright misunderstanding due to personal definition.
Well we do have people claiming 75% decks should be on AT LEAST 15+ mana on T5 :
I'm assuming you don't play with a lot of ramp decks based on your apparent misconceptions about how fast things go with 75% ramp decks.. If my Gitrog deck isn't at 15+ mana by turn 5, that's pretty unusual. My record is 76 or so on turn 6 (off a t5 great aurora -> genesis wave for 17).
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.
I just don't see a difference between the numbers and just telling people what kinds of decks you play.
Like Casual - Casual/Competitive - Competitive is basically what you are describing and there is no need for numbers to describe those to someone.
Very much incorrect, sir. Casual, competitive, and everything in between can mean something different to each person. Paring it down to numbers can give a better sense of perspective. I'll grant that even the numbers game can have different levels of meaning as well, but there's less chance of an outright misunderstanding due to personal definition.
Well we do have people claiming 75% decks should be on AT LEAST 15+ mana on T5 :
I'm assuming you don't play with a lot of ramp decks based on your apparent misconceptions about how fast things go with 75% ramp decks.. If my Gitrog deck isn't at 15+ mana by turn 5, that's pretty unusual. My record is 76 or so on turn 6 (off a t5 great aurora -> genesis wave for 17).
The whole percent system for gauging deck capability is fairly arbitrary at best, but when you know what a 100% AAA list can do, beating a whole table on turn 3 or 4 without nut-hands, it's not unreasonable to assume that a 75% deck, one that hasn't won by even turn 5, should have quite an advanced board/mana position a few turns after 100% decks have won. I think the decks people call 75% decks would more accurately be 50% decks, who probably only have a few ramp pieces out by turn five. Your decks that maybe have a Sol Ring and/or cast a Cultivate by said turn wouldn't really be 3/4 of the way towards being best of the best.
I just don't see a difference between the numbers and just telling people what kinds of decks you play.
Like Casual - Casual/Competitive - Competitive is basically what you are describing and there is no need for numbers to describe those to someone.
Very much incorrect, sir. Casual, competitive, and everything in between can mean something different to each person. Paring it down to numbers can give a better sense of perspective. I'll grant that even the numbers game can have different levels of meaning as well, but there's less chance of an outright misunderstanding due to personal definition.
Well we do have people claiming 75% decks should be on AT LEAST 15+ mana on T5 :
I'm assuming you don't play with a lot of ramp decks based on your apparent misconceptions about how fast things go with 75% ramp decks.. If my Gitrog deck isn't at 15+ mana by turn 5, that's pretty unusual. My record is 76 or so on turn 6 (off a t5 great aurora -> genesis wave for 17).
The whole percent system for gauging deck capability is fairly arbitrary at best, but when you know what a 100% AAA list can do, beating a whole table on turn 3 or 4 without nut-hands, it's not unreasonable to assume that a 75% deck, one that hasn't won by even turn 5, should have quite an advanced board/mana position a few turns after 100% decks have won. I think the decks people call 75% decks would more accurately be 50% decks, who probably only have a few ramp pieces out by turn five. Your decks that maybe have a Sol Ring and/or cast a Cultivate by said turn wouldn't really be 3/4 of the way towards being best of the best.
But we can all agree that since it's not perfect, we should instead refer to all those sorts of decks as casual right? /S
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Well, the 75% philosophy was fleshed out pretty much literally to define a casual ideal for Commander purposes. It was necessary to separate casual players from bad players, to set parameters for building casually while playing competitively that still requires the thought and care we like to think Magic decks deserve. Building a tuned 75% deck is casual. So is rummaging through your last four years of draft pools and shooting for the best. At my best, I think I've been a 75% player. I've always wanted to be more, but I have to be honest with myself. Even now, where my Baral list isn't wanting for much of anything -- reliably polymorphing into an eldrazi titan or two between turns four and six, but it's not a 100%. I wouldn't deserve to sit at the same table as Zur and his league of edh legends.
Well, the 75% philosophy was fleshed out pretty much literally to define a casual ideal for Commander purposes. It was necessary to separate casual players from bad players, to set parameters for building casually while playing competitively that still requires the thought and care we like to think Magic decks deserve. Building a tuned 75% deck is casual. So is rummaging through your last four years of draft pools and shooting for the best. At my best, I think I've been a 75% player. I've always wanted to be more, but I have to be honest with myself. Even now, where my Baral list isn't wanting for much of anything -- reliably polymorphing into an eldrazi titan or two between turns four and six, but it's not a 100%. I wouldn't deserve to sit at the same table as Zur and his league of edh legends.
The idea of a 75% deck was never to quantify your tier of competition on a sliding scale. The idea is that you're actively acknowledging that your deck is deliberately not tuned to win every game and knowingly playing suboptimal card choices so that you can do something interesting and other players can still have a chance to win. If you are actively trying to tune your deck to win as many games as possible and just don't think you're succeeding, that doesn't make you less than the hypothetical "100% player," it just makes you less successful at it. Not to say you're bad, but that if you are trying your best to win starting with deck construction, you aren't the person 75% was meant to describe. There are lots of rouge deckers and budget players in competitive formats who aren't going to keep up with the top tier players, but none of them are going to replace their lightning bolts with shocks because they wan't their opponents to live longer.
The people who named the concept "75%" certainly made a mistake using a name that implies a scale (not that I know a better way to describe it), because the term wasn't made to describe how much worse than a tuned to you think you are, it was meant to describe how much worse than a tuned deck you're trying to be, and that trying is the important part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Just going to bring a bit of different perspective, which isn't really cogent to this Commander list, but Braids and Gris are unbanned in 20 life Duel Commander and they are fine. With less quick ramp to power them out, they become (Braids) a mediocre Commander and (Gris) a pretty good graveyard target (Entomb is banned over there). In other words, it rally does depend how competitive your group is. I had Braids in my Mogis deck and it was really grindy but not backbreaking. Griselbrand should never see the light of day in the 99, and is dubious as a Commander as well in regular EDH.
There's some stuff I'd take off (Coalition Victory and Prime Time come to mind, and I played against Prime Time in cEDH events), but Gifts, Gris and so on should probably stay banned.
Edit: I see Library was mentioned upstream, so just going to say /warble and end my point with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
That's pretty much it. Keep in mind Natural Order's restriction of green creatures means you usually will be aiming for high-power creatures...and then what? Green creatures usually require a 1-2 punch for the win (like AvengerHoof, which is pitifully weak when powered out that early on little land). Tinker? Have a Blightsteel Colossus. And there are many other abuseable artifacts as well.
Also, you tell me how you're gonna fire off a T1 Natural Order? Cause a simple Mana Crypt will let me do that with Tinker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
That's pretty much it. Keep in mind Natural Order's restriction of green creatures means you usually will be aiming for high-power creatures...and then what? Green creatures usually require a 1-2 punch for the win (like AvengerHoof, which is pitifully weak when powered out that early on little land). Tinker? Have a Blightsteel Colossus. And there are many other abuseable artifacts as well.
Also, you tell me how you're gonna fire off a T1 Natural Order? Cause a simple Mana Crypt will let me do that with Tinker.
I disagree that Tinker has more abusive targets than Natural Order. Almost entirely on the back of Terastodon, because there's basically nothing you can do about it. At least if they Tinker up a Blightsteel you have a turn to answer it. There's also the recently unbanned Protean Hulk to easily start an infinite when combined with any cheap sac outlet. And if you're trying to play a more "fair" game (emphasis on the air quotes there) there's everyone's favorite Praetor to generate an insurmountable resource advantage unless he's removed immediately.
Also, not really gonna sway me by pointing out a card is broken when combined with broken mana rocks. Casting it on T1 isn't really Tinker's fault, now is it? Seriously, just start paying attention to how often people complain about random cards after starting their story with some combination of Ring/Vault/Crypt. Yeah, no surprise cards become problematic when you're easily and consistently casting them significantly ahead of curve. I'm not going to hold that against the card in question.
That's pretty much it. Keep in mind Natural Order's restriction of green creatures means you usually will be aiming for high-power creatures...and then what? Green creatures usually require a 1-2 punch for the win (like AvengerHoof, which is pitifully weak when powered out that early on little land). Tinker? Have a Blightsteel Colossus. And there are many other abuseable artifacts as well.
Also, you tell me how you're gonna fire off a T1 Natural Order? Cause a simple Mana Crypt will let me do that with Tinker.
I disagree that Tinker has more abusive targets than Natural Order. Almost entirely on the back of Terastodon, because there's basically nothing you can do about it. At least if they Tinker up a Blightsteel you have a turn to answer it. There's also the recently unbanned Protean Hulk to easily start an infinite when combined with any cheap sac outlet. And if you're trying to play a more "fair" game (emphasis on the air quotes there) there's everyone's favorite Praetor to generate an insurmountable resource advantage unless he's removed immediately.
Also, not really gonna sway me by pointing out a card is broken when combined with broken mana rocks. Casting it on T1 isn't really Tinker's fault, now is it? Seriously, just start paying attention to how often people complain about random cards after starting their story with some combination of Ring/Vault/Crypt. Yeah, no surprise cards become problematic when you're easily and consistently casting them significantly ahead of curve. I'm not going to hold that against the card in question.
One difference is that the rocks not only pay the mana cost in this case, but the sac cost as well.
Even playing perfectly fairly, TDon turn 4 vs Blightsteel turn 3 is still leaning Blightsteel pretty strongly. You can put people off mana with Tdon, and against one guy yeah, turn 4 that'll be a back breaker, but against a table not so much, even a more casual table. Putting everyone back one land or rock just puts a target on your back without a way to quickly close the game. Blightsteel also outs a target on your back, so long as its out anyway, but also is itself a way to quickly close out the game. Even keeping it on curve, Tinker is easier to abuse and more likely to be problematic. Its easier to get creatures that end the game early, and easier to get a lock. Vorcinclex is probably the most problematic target for NO, able to take over the game if nobody has an answer, almost to the extent of Blightsteel, with Hoof lagging far behind because you aren't fetching it early. If you are searching up Hulk, you are trying to combo off anyway, and lets face it they are never going to end combo. At least you need another sac outlet to make Hulk work, and the benefit of NO at that point is you get a cost reduction over demonic tutor then casting Hulk. This is a cEDH issue, so irrelevant to the banlist. Tinker grabs an array of cards that on their own can decide the game and slams them onto the field turn 3, possibly turn 1. Its much more likely to cause issues in casual groups because of what it can grab.
That said, I'd support a trial run taking it off the banlist. Like Hulk, its a card that's on the line, and I think every once in awhile the RC should test these on the line cards to see how they impact the game. Hulk came in and did little in casual environments, leaving its combo game to the cEDH tables. From what I've seen, that's where NO is at its worst as well. Its entirely possible that the same would hold true for Tinker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think comapring Terastodon to Blightsteel Colossus misses the mark a bit. They are both large creatures, but one you're playing to use (or abuse) it's ETB trigger and the other is just a beater that can quickly knock out an opponent. The green equivlent of Blightsteel Colossus would be Worldspine Wurm.
BSC is a quicker clock and requires removal that exiles. WSW is best delt with by exiling it, but you can use a normal kill spell to break it into 1/3rds; which really doesn't slow down it's clock too much. I wouldn't rate it as strongly as BSC, an early WSW could take over a game and kill people in the early turns, but it's not likely to sweep the table and isn't the kind of strong target that other green creatues have been in the past.
I think it's porbably worthwhile for the RC to keep Natural Order unbanned because their strategy has been to ban the cards that it gets, since green has so many busted cratues tutors that banning one or two of them wont really stop the problam and the creatures themselves need to be dealt with. Normally, when NO becomes a 'good card' it means that WotC has printed some absurdly broken titan or primordial that BL action will need to be taken on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have seen plenty of them die to a table.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
I would honestly not believe them. Out of the ten's of thousands of cards available, a very slim amount is banned. And they can fix that by asking people when they start if its OK.
Thats a pretty silly position since the format always had a universal ban list, and the same people run the ban list now that always have.
You can run Ad Nauseum as a commander now?
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
Personally, I'm in favor of reinstating the banned as a commander rule.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Couldn't be bothered to read one post up to see that the pers okn to which I was replying said "commander is a game of politic and you don't always win by drawing a bunch of cards", could you? At no point was a General mentioned.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Oh, I read it just fine, no need to be passive aggressive. The person you were replying to said "You never seen a Grislebrand deck in action I take it?", so yes, that implies he's talking about the card sitting in the command zone of a deck built around it. Even if he hadn't said that, I still think its an important point to bring up, because it shows the difference between the examples you tritely replied with and Grislebrand, and I think its a relevant point as to why its banned. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post where I explained why (see, that really changes the tone of the post doesn't it? Makes it insulting, dismisses your point without addressing it, really just bad form all around), so I'll highlight it:
In the old days, Grislebrand would have likely been banned as a general,though Yawgmoth's Bargain being banned means he may have still been banned outright (and since he's a creature, he has the added threat of being potentially centralizing, with bribery and other effects). Today, with the elimination of that rule, he gets the Braids treatment.
So let's break it down for you then:
1. I said I believed that if banned as a commander were still a rule, he would have likely been banned as a commander
2. This means I believe he would have been legal in the 99
3. I'm not entirely sure of that though, as he plays similarly to Yawgmoth's Bargain, a banned card, and as a creature can end up with Prophet and Primetime problems, though he'd be easier to remove than an enchantment
It's kind of like how Braids is banned and Smokestack isn't. I think that GB might be safe enough in the 99, as I recall the main issue being Grislebrand decks, not Grislebrand in decks. I think having him be more fragile than an enchantment, and having to pay and draw in increments of 7 (not to mention being more expensive) makes him safer than Bargain. I'll admit that I don't have enough information to make a judgement call because when he was legal, I usually saw him as a commander, not as a card in the 99, but his effect was about on par with Necropotence, powerful but not ban worthy except that by just being in the command zone he dictated the entire game. It was a clear signal that the player was going to ramp out and draw their deck, so you had to throw everything at them. Like I said, I'm for the return of the banned as a commander rule with Rofellos, Braids, the Soratami flip card, Grislebrand, and Leovold being legal in the 99. Heck, if Grislebrand proved fine, I'd even be for unbanning Bargain on a trial basis (though only if GB wasn't borderline but clearly fine, as YB being able to draw and pay in increments of 1 and being more resilient make it better).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12073
Guess he was even worse than I remember.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
There's a difference between replying to someone and adding on to them. I did read your entire post, I just didn't feel the need to comment on it because 1) it doesn't apply when I'm not talking about the distinction between a card sitting in the Command Zone and one in the 99 (the discussion I was commenting on was that drawing a ***** ton of cards doesn't always win gsmes), and 2) you were wrong anyway. Griselbrand was a card that was on the radar from day one and lasted all of one month before getting fully banned.
Bonus retort: getting rid of the BaaC list is one of the two rules changes is still disagree with since they were implemented, so we aren't exactly in disagreement I suspect.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So the removal of "banned as commander" was done by considering "problematic as a commander" a reason to ban a card entirely. Would you agree with the change more if that were not the case, and being a possible commander was ignored when considering bans? The difference would probably effectively be unbanning Braids and Erayo. I think there's probably enough of an argument against Rofellos in the 99, it's the only card from the BaaC list that ever caused me consistent troubles in this format.
That's what I'd prefer, because I feel the commander of a deck is the easiest opportunity for people to take responsibility for their own fun. There are a lot of commanders with boogeyman reputation, but I haven't seen a Zur deck in like the last 10 playgroups I've interacted with. People generally don't want to pick commanders that have a bad reputation, and they know what they're doing when they do, and opponents can choose not to play with that.
Black Braids only in the 99 could appear from any black opponent and mess up my game on turn 2 without warning, and at that point I've agreed to play and taken a turn and would cause a fuss by scooping. I mean, I am the weirdo who enjoys playing with and against resource denial, so I wouldn't say no to a Braids opponent, but if someone sits down with a Braids deck, players have the opportunity to decline the match before even shuffling. I had Hokori, Dust Drinker together for a long time, and it never ruined the format for anyone because having the problem card revealed before the game starts gave people the opportunity to not play against that deck at all.
I fully understand the rationale of the RC for why they eliminated the list, and don't disagree with them on that. A separate ban list of only a few cards is not worth the effort. However, I thought it was a unique tool for a unique format and one which a single explanation of its existence should suffice for most players. I also feel that even if the list itself was small, there is always the potential for its growth, especially now that Wizards puts a greater focus on the format and Brawl. And it is a shame to lose a creature in the 99 because it is over the top in the Command Zone.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The comment you were replying to was specifically talking about "Grislebrand decks". Maybe you should have picked a different comment to reply to? Because replying to his comment meant that "as a commander" was already a part of the conversation, whether or not you cared, and in contradiction to your sassy little response.
Yep, I was wrong about it possibly being ok in the 99, already admitted that. That doesn't mean that it being legendary, and therefore able to be used as a commander, isn't relevant when comparing it to a card that can't sit there in the command zone always ready to be cast. Its a pretty important detail, and relevant to the conversation of whether the card should stay banned.
After your posts on the topic, I honestly don't know what your position is supposed to be. You've said your in favor of a more consistent banlist, but it seemed like you were agreeing that Grislebrand should be unbanned, then your latest post points out what BloodyWednesday pointed already pointed out, that it was banned outright while that list still existed (and in his link, they drew the direct comparison to Yawgmoth's Bargain which I expressed as a possible concern earlier). So unbanning him would create an even less consistent banlist. Were you just agreeing that drawing a bunch of cards doesn't always win? I mean, yeah, but that's a given and doesn't have any bearing on whether Grislebrand doesn't do that it such volume to take over games to a problematic level necessitating a ban. That's like agreeing that getting a lot of mana early doesn't always win games, that doesn't add anything to a discussion over whether Fastbond should stay banned.
And, of course, you were still being, let's see what won't get me a warning, a jerk in your initial response, for no reason other than someone posting an argument you disagreed with. It was needlessly disrespectful in defense of nothing, which I already said, and you seem intent on doubling down on that.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well, the conversation that started this was, in fact, about Grislebrand. That your stance wasn't clear was the point of my last comment. What was the point of bringing up Ad Nauseum and Omniscience in that context except to compare them to Grislebrand? Replying to Lithl made it seem as though you were responding to his post with counter examples of cards that also draw a bunch of cards and win which are not banned to counter his stance on Grislebrand. I took it that way, and said why those cards are different from Grislebrand. Now, if that wasn't what you were saying, you could have just said that, especially since your post was ambiguous, and cleared it up. Instead, you got pissy for no reason. There was no need for it, you could have just said "Oh, I meant those as examples that drawing a bunch of cards does usually win the game" and that would have been that, rather than posting a dismissive and passive aggressive response and repeatedly doubling down on it.
This is going nowhere though, I'm going to take a break because its clear that you just want to argue about it.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The conversation as I read it was one of a u iversal ban list versus local ban lists. Lilth took and replied to a snippet and I interpreted and entered the conversation like this:
Superna7ural: drawing cards doesn't always win you games (in reference to griselbrand being that bad)
Lithl: you never saw it in action (in reference to what happens when it lands and someone draws 30 cardz)
Me: or AN or EtI (which similarly draw you a large chunk to all of your deck)
In a casual spoken conversation, I doubt that what I said would have been confusing to follow. Did I respond to you with more snark than was required? Sure. But I also find it insulting and equally rude to point out that the cards I mentioned can't be generals, as if I somehow didn't know that rule despite playing for years. But let's drop this since we have by now hopefully cleared up any lingering confusion.
We are also derailing the thread and any potential sol ring discussion.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well we do have people claiming 75% decks should be on AT LEAST 15+ mana on T5 :
The whole percent system for gauging deck capability is fairly arbitrary at best, but when you know what a 100% AAA list can do, beating a whole table on turn 3 or 4 without nut-hands, it's not unreasonable to assume that a 75% deck, one that hasn't won by even turn 5, should have quite an advanced board/mana position a few turns after 100% decks have won. I think the decks people call 75% decks would more accurately be 50% decks, who probably only have a few ramp pieces out by turn five. Your decks that maybe have a Sol Ring and/or cast a Cultivate by said turn wouldn't really be 3/4 of the way towards being best of the best.
But we can all agree that since it's not perfect, we should instead refer to all those sorts of decks as casual right? /S
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The idea of a 75% deck was never to quantify your tier of competition on a sliding scale. The idea is that you're actively acknowledging that your deck is deliberately not tuned to win every game and knowingly playing suboptimal card choices so that you can do something interesting and other players can still have a chance to win. If you are actively trying to tune your deck to win as many games as possible and just don't think you're succeeding, that doesn't make you less than the hypothetical "100% player," it just makes you less successful at it. Not to say you're bad, but that if you are trying your best to win starting with deck construction, you aren't the person 75% was meant to describe. There are lots of rouge deckers and budget players in competitive formats who aren't going to keep up with the top tier players, but none of them are going to replace their lightning bolts with shocks because they wan't their opponents to live longer.
The people who named the concept "75%" certainly made a mistake using a name that implies a scale (not that I know a better way to describe it), because the term wasn't made to describe how much worse than a tuned to you think you are, it was meant to describe how much worse than a tuned deck you're trying to be, and that trying is the important part.
There's some stuff I'd take off (Coalition Victory and Prime Time come to mind, and I played against Prime Time in cEDH events), but Gifts, Gris and so on should probably stay banned.
Edit: I see Library was mentioned upstream, so just going to say /warble and end my point with that.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
More abuseable targets
That's pretty much it. Keep in mind Natural Order's restriction of green creatures means you usually will be aiming for high-power creatures...and then what? Green creatures usually require a 1-2 punch for the win (like AvengerHoof, which is pitifully weak when powered out that early on little land). Tinker? Have a Blightsteel Colossus. And there are many other abuseable artifacts as well.
Also, you tell me how you're gonna fire off a T1 Natural Order? Cause a simple Mana Crypt will let me do that with Tinker.
Also, not really gonna sway me by pointing out a card is broken when combined with broken mana rocks. Casting it on T1 isn't really Tinker's fault, now is it? Seriously, just start paying attention to how often people complain about random cards after starting their story with some combination of Ring/Vault/Crypt. Yeah, no surprise cards become problematic when you're easily and consistently casting them significantly ahead of curve. I'm not going to hold that against the card in question.
One difference is that the rocks not only pay the mana cost in this case, but the sac cost as well.
Even playing perfectly fairly, TDon turn 4 vs Blightsteel turn 3 is still leaning Blightsteel pretty strongly. You can put people off mana with Tdon, and against one guy yeah, turn 4 that'll be a back breaker, but against a table not so much, even a more casual table. Putting everyone back one land or rock just puts a target on your back without a way to quickly close the game. Blightsteel also outs a target on your back, so long as its out anyway, but also is itself a way to quickly close out the game. Even keeping it on curve, Tinker is easier to abuse and more likely to be problematic. Its easier to get creatures that end the game early, and easier to get a lock. Vorcinclex is probably the most problematic target for NO, able to take over the game if nobody has an answer, almost to the extent of Blightsteel, with Hoof lagging far behind because you aren't fetching it early. If you are searching up Hulk, you are trying to combo off anyway, and lets face it they are never going to end combo. At least you need another sac outlet to make Hulk work, and the benefit of NO at that point is you get a cost reduction over demonic tutor then casting Hulk. This is a cEDH issue, so irrelevant to the banlist. Tinker grabs an array of cards that on their own can decide the game and slams them onto the field turn 3, possibly turn 1. Its much more likely to cause issues in casual groups because of what it can grab.
That said, I'd support a trial run taking it off the banlist. Like Hulk, its a card that's on the line, and I think every once in awhile the RC should test these on the line cards to see how they impact the game. Hulk came in and did little in casual environments, leaving its combo game to the cEDH tables. From what I've seen, that's where NO is at its worst as well. Its entirely possible that the same would hold true for Tinker.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
BSC is a quicker clock and requires removal that exiles. WSW is best delt with by exiling it, but you can use a normal kill spell to break it into 1/3rds; which really doesn't slow down it's clock too much. I wouldn't rate it as strongly as BSC, an early WSW could take over a game and kill people in the early turns, but it's not likely to sweep the table and isn't the kind of strong target that other green creatues have been in the past.
I think it's porbably worthwhile for the RC to keep Natural Order unbanned because their strategy has been to ban the cards that it gets, since green has so many busted cratues tutors that banning one or two of them wont really stop the problam and the creatures themselves need to be dealt with. Normally, when NO becomes a 'good card' it means that WotC has printed some absurdly broken titan or primordial that BL action will need to be taken on.