I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
That thread wasn’t circular at all. It was a very small group of people, yourself included, applying the same reasoning you did here for why she shouldn’t be banned. I just find it odd that you continually dismiss ones anecdotal evidence with your own, like somehow your experiences hold more weight than others.
As for the bold bit, well, that would put you incredibly out of touch with reality. Reddit, numerous podcasts and YouTube videos, other blogs. Hell, it even came up in “ask the RC” Q&A, which if I’m not mistaken, brought us back to this discussion in the first place. I just find that to be an ignorant and self serving statement.
More proof? How about the dream banlist poll? Iona is routinely right there with fast mana, going back as far as 2015. So, your opinion that a “small group of loud people” are the reason we talk about Iona is incorrect.
You make a claim that this website is a small sliver of Commander players (I agree with that) and then you use this website?
Any ways just because someone or somepeople have dissenting opinions that comes from their experience and thoughts about the game does not also mean they believe that it means that they think that their opinions hold more sway over the conversation or truth of the matter.
A difference of opinion on the power the uniqueness is probably why the card is not banned.
(I am generally of the opinion that online Commander discourse no matter where it is is a small % that gets even further broken down)
It is indeed a small percent. But, funny thing, any sample is typically a rather small percent of a population.
What you are doing is being dismissive of others views on the card by attempting to minimize their concerns. You dismiss other posters experience as anecdotal, then submit your own anecdote to counter it. You accused someone of engaging in logical fallacy when they did no such thing (though to me it looks more like you just misused the word fallacy for dramatic effect as a way to make the other users argument appear weaker by implying they aren't as smart as you, but the attempt to assert intellectual dominance blew up when the user called you on it). You then try to dismiss out of hand everyone on here who makes points in favor of banning Iona by using the poor logic that since mtgsalvation users are just a small percentage of the player base, the arguments made here aren't really worthy of consideration.
There nothing wrong with you feeling that Iona doesn't deserve to be banned, but you're resorting to being dismissive of other peoples points when you can't seem to refute them. In reality, many unbanned cards have legitimate points in favor of being banned that can't really be answered, but they remain unbanned because those points just aren't enough to push them over the line. Your best argument is that Iona just isn't ubiquitous enough to warrant a ban, which may very well be true. The power level argument is irrelevant, the RC doesn't ban based on power level (though power level does impact most of the criteria they do look for). At this point, there's a lot of evidence that Iona is played a lot, as itss a frequent topic of conversation on podcasts and message boards, but there is also evidence that it isn't, such as a small showing on edh rec. My own personal experience is that I run into it less often than I used to (it was very common on mtgo 5 years ago), to the point where I would no longer say its a staple of white decks. I have stopped including it in decks because its such a toxic card, and it falls into a particularly nasty role where it both ruins games and there are other options at similar costs that do more to make you win. I really think that Avacyn, in particular, has taken over its slot. However, though I see it less, I still see it, and often enough that I wouldn't call it a rare occurrence. And when it shows up, it mostly just ruins games (I think I saw it name blue once and stop a combo, so it can, on rare occasion, do something ok rather than be
You are sure reading extremely deeply into a quickly chosen word I decided to use here.
I am also not dismissing anecdotes I am dissmissing a single anecdote because it is hyperbolic and untrue there is a very major difference.
I have no doubt that people have problems with Iona to think otherwise after so many posts would be foolish or acting in extreme bad faith.
My problem is those experiences are not dissimilar to other stories I have heard people bring up around other cards, with no more or less fervor.
My final point about all this is I feel often that it comes across that changing the banlist will change players behavior. The person who plays Iona to just spitefully knock someone out the game were Iona banned probably just find another way to be that spiteful.
This is also not to say too bad so sad if you feel you are being picked on or bullied by someones choice of cards however that problem is not within the cards.
No changes. I would have liked a couple (see some posts back) but can live with this.
I would personally like to have seen some more typical fans of the format on the CAG, as opposed to more Magic officials and MtG celebrities like the Command Zone guy. I can think of a half-dozen people who post on here and on other Commander/EDH sites who probably would have been as good or better choices, but whatever. More input is good, and this is a nice FU to the people who cry out for WotC to take over the format.
No changes. I would have liked a couple (see some posts back) but can live with this.
I would personally like to have seen some more typical fans of the format on the CAG, as opposed to more Magic officials and MtG celebrities like the Command Zone guy. I can think of a half-dozen people who post on here and on other Commander/EDH sites who probably would have been as good or better choices, but whatever. More input is good, and this is a nice FU to the people who cry out for WotC to take over the format.
The way I interpreted the announcement, they probably did consider established forum users. I would argue though that because of how increasingly vocal the community has been in disparaging the credibility of the RC, an anonymous forum member would not help very much, and would likely give people more things to complain about (I can't believe they selected that guy, I am way more active on that forum).
No changes. I would have liked a couple (see some posts back) but can live with this.
I would personally like to have seen some more typical fans of the format on the CAG, as opposed to more Magic officials and MtG celebrities like the Command Zone guy. I can think of a half-dozen people who post on here and on other Commander/EDH sites who probably would have been as good or better choices, but whatever. More input is good, and this is a nice FU to the people who cry out for WotC to take over the format.
I'm curious as to what your metrics are for considering someone a better choice. Take into account they have to be a better individual choice PLUS be better as part of the team. There are lots of people who might have been "as good," but as we say in the announcement, there are a far more of them than we have room for. What do you do when you have 25 or 50 equally-qualified candidates for something and only 5-7 spots?
I'm curious as to what your metrics are for considering someone a better choice. Take into account they have to be a better individual choice PLUS be better as part of the team. There are lots of people who might have been "as good," but as we say in the announcement, there are a far more of them than we have room for. What do you do when you have 25 or 50 equally-qualified candidates for something and only 5-7 spots?
I've been reading a couple different places and talking with people this morning. JWK's reaction towards your selection is pretty typical so far. Some of your choices resonated with people, while others did not.
The question still stands. It's easy to say "this person would be as good or better," but that's only part of the equation. To quote Jed Bartlet, now give me the next ten words.
No changes. I would have liked a couple (see some posts back) but can live with this.
I would personally like to have seen some more typical fans of the format on the CAG, as opposed to more Magic officials and MtG celebrities like the Command Zone guy. I can think of a half-dozen people who post on here and on other Commander/EDH sites who probably would have been as good or better choices, but whatever. More input is good, and this is a nice FU to the people who cry out for WotC to take over the format.
I'm curious as to what your metrics are for considering someone a better choice. Take into account they have to be a better individual choice PLUS be better as part of the team. There are lots of people who might have been "as good," but as we say in the announcement, there are a far more of them than we have room for. What do you do when you have 25 or 50 equally-qualified candidates for something and only 5-7 spots?
I don't have any issues with any of the specific folk you chose. I simply think it would be good to have more people on there who are just well-established, committed fans of the format, in addition to people professionally involved in the game, judges and celebrities. Having members reflecting a wider range of involvement with the format would likely bring a greater variety of perspectives. The advantage of going the way the RC chose to go is that you get known quantities, though if you contacted some well-established forum participants, I think that would still apply to some degree. You certainly wouldn't want to pick someone who is just "random online forum player," but I'm not suggesting that. My point is that "just regular players" who have demonstrated a commitment to the format can bring something to the table, too. Big names aren't the only people who can have good ideas.
JWK, absolutely agree with you that good ideas can come from everywhere. The heart of my question is what would be your discriminators for picking a less-known person (let's call them VSFP (very smart forum poster)? Content creators have a demonstrable body of work to draw on; it's much more difficult to distill what VSFP has to say, since unlike the content creator, they haven't assembled and focused it. The follow-on remains then how to discriminate between all of the VSFPs out there.
Yeah, picking forum users doesn't really seem like that great of an idea. I haven't heard of any of the people who got picked, but I'm sure more people know about them than they would know about our VSFP.
If anything I have a bit of trouble with the phrase
Quote from Sheldon »
it’s important for the Rules Committee to hear from a broader range of voices who share our vision of Commander and can contribute new and novel methods of implementing that vision."
since it comes off a bit echo-chambery and I feel like it would be more beneficial to have contrasting opinions.. but again, I don't know anyone in that list so..
Yeah, picking forum users doesn't really seem like that great of an idea. I haven't heard of any of the people who got picked, but I'm sure more people know about them than they would know about our VSFP.
If anything I have a bit of trouble with the phrase
Quote from Sheldon »
it’s important for the Rules Committee to hear from a broader range of voices who share our vision of Commander and can contribute new and novel methods of implementing that vision."
since it comes off a bit echo-chambery and I feel like it would be more beneficial to have contrasting opinions.. but again, I don't know anyone in that list so..
While I agree that it could lead to a bit of an echo chamber, having a shared vision doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t have contrasting views on how to achieve vision. If anything, it will force the format upwards rather than outwards, if that makes sense. EDH has a very solid base, the goal here is to build upon it, not expand or alter the foundation.
JWK, absolutely agree with you that good ideas can come from everywhere. The heart of my question is what would be your discriminators for picking a less-known person (let's call them VSFP (very smart forum poster)? Content creators have a demonstrable body of work to draw on; it's much more difficult to distill what VSFP has to say, since unlike the content creator, they haven't assembled and focused it. The follow-on remains then how to discriminate between all of the VSFPs out there.
VSFPs who would really be considered would also presumably have a body of work, albeit of a different sort - things they have posted online. Let's say, purely as an example, y'all were considering Cryogen as a potential CAG member. You could go on the forum and look at his history of posts to see if his perspective on the format broadly matches what the RC is looking for while also bringing something new and interesting to the table. Then it would be a matter of someone reaching out and talking to him, to see if he was interested and if he seemed like someone who can play well with others, just like was presumably the case with the people the RC vetted and ended up choosing for the CAG.
Is this potentially a bit riskier than going with more well-known individuals? Possibly, I guess. But if one really wants to bring a wider range of perspectives to the table, it might be worth taking that bit of risk. I personally think the potential benefits outweigh the risk, YMMV, of course. In any case, I do think the basic idea of the CAG, and any attempt to bring in more input, is good. I simply would have liked to see that take a slightly different form.
That's obviously possible, like I said, my issue is more with how it was stated as I don't know any of the members. As for simply wanting to build upwards, that's fine and all, but the format is still as popular as ever and there haven't been any banlist/rules changes in over a year and a half so the upward build doesn't seem too necessary. I'd argue that at this point it'd be more important for the RC to get more in touch with the community to understand how they play, even if in some cases it differs from their vision and even if it doesn't cause any changes.
For the sake of giving the RC one dedicated thread for this subject rather than this cstch-all thread, could we please start using the discussion thread I created?
I think you misunderstood the reference. It's part of a larger quote: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It has nothing to do with murder or other criminal punishments, it's a pro-gun argument. The implication here is that gun control is mostly meaningless because a bad actor will simply find another way to commit their crime while responsible gun owners are unfairly punished by having their guns taken away.
Laying aside the real world politics (in which this is a flawed and terrible idea) it translates pretty well to EDH. We all know that the ban list is kind of a joke from a competitive point of view. The RC has admitted as much and said they don't particularly care about that aspect. But if you're already letting people run around with Stasis and Doomsday, is there really any reason to keep something like Balance on the list? If people want to ruin games, they're going to ruin games. I guess the EDH corollary would be "cards don't ruin games, people ruin games". There is some merit in the idea of just straight up removing the ban list and trusting people to play in a social way. Isn't that the entire point of the format in the first place?
I'm quite familiar with the saying, and it's a ridiculous argument that tries to take a complicated debate and package it into a simple catchphrase. But I'm also for stricter gun control, so there's that.
Since we don't need to have a debate on gun control I'll skip a lousy analogy that would get nitpicked. Instead, I'll just say that the idea of the ban list is to remove the cards which go against the RC's philosophy document, as well as the cards which run afoul of the target demographic (which isn't to say that people not of that demographic are being excluded, simply that the ban list is not being maintained with them in mind). So no, I xont think there is merit to the notion that since people are already ruining games by not engaging in social behaviour which will enable better games, removing the ban list will somehow encourage that social behaviour. I think it will just exaggerate the problem even more and cause people to quit the format or retreat from public games altogether.
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing. Too many people belong to the group that never discusses anything and at best they say they want "a casual edh game" (which means nothing). The less we have those the better.
I think you misunderstood the reference. It's part of a larger quote: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It has nothing to do with murder or other criminal punishments, it's a pro-gun argument. The implication here is that gun control is mostly meaningless because a bad actor will simply find another way to commit their crime while responsible gun owners are unfairly punished by having their guns taken away.
Laying aside the real world politics (in which this is a flawed and terrible idea) it translates pretty well to EDH. We all know that the ban list is kind of a joke from a competitive point of view. The RC has admitted as much and said they don't particularly care about that aspect. But if you're already letting people run around with Stasis and Doomsday, is there really any reason to keep something like Balance on the list? If people want to ruin games, they're going to ruin games. I guess the EDH corollary would be "cards don't ruin games, people ruin games". There is some merit in the idea of just straight up removing the ban list and trusting people to play in a social way. Isn't that the entire point of the format in the first place?
I'm quite familiar with the saying, and it's a ridiculous argument that tries to take a complicated debate and package it into a simple catchphrase. But I'm also for stricter gun control, so there's that.
Since we don't need to have a debate on gun control I'll skip a lousy analogy that would get nitpicked. Instead, I'll just say that the idea of the ban list is to remove the cards which go against the RC's philosophy document, as well as the cards which run afoul of the target demographic (which isn't to say that people not of that demographic are being excluded, simply that the ban list is not being maintained with them in mind). So no, I xont think there is merit to the notion that since people are already ruining games by not engaging in social behaviour which will enable better games, removing the ban list will somehow encourage that social behaviour. I think it will just exaggerate the problem even more and cause people to quit the format or retreat from public games altogether.
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing.
Let me stop you right there. Don’t care about the repercussions, but this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum, and that is truly saying something. Somebody with that mindset doesn’t deserve to have enjoyable play experiences and is the furthest thing from a “target audience”. If that’s the way you feel, maybe take your own advice and hit the bricks.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for flaming (predictably)
I don't think I would have worded it quite like Buffsam did, but I have to agree with them that encouraging people to quit a format is a bad idea and one that is not healthy for the long-term growth of the format.
I don't think I would have worded it quite like Buffsam did, but I have to agree with them that encouraging people to quit a format is a bad idea and one that is not healthy for the long-term growth of the format.
Well, sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade. It’s an elitist attitude and honestly has no place in this format or the game in general.
Listen, I’m all for playing games to get your own personal enjoyment out of them. That’s the reason you play them to begin with. But, sometimes you need take a step back and realize the game you are about to play is a little bit bigger than yourself. 99% of the time, I never remember who won or who lost, but I will always remember the overall experience, and I’d like to think that is true for most players.
Beyond that, one thing I cannot stand about comments like that(among some other comments made by other users in this thread) is it furthers the negative stereotype about MTG players or those with similar hobbies. While I understand this is an online forum for MTG, with the way world works nowadays, I have very little faith that most of this banter is just “keyboard warrior” talk and that this is truly the way people portray themselves out in the wild.
I think you misunderstood the reference. It's part of a larger quote: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It has nothing to do with murder or other criminal punishments, it's a pro-gun argument. The implication here is that gun control is mostly meaningless because a bad actor will simply find another way to commit their crime while responsible gun owners are unfairly punished by having their guns taken away.
Laying aside the real world politics (in which this is a flawed and terrible idea) it translates pretty well to EDH. We all know that the ban list is kind of a joke from a competitive point of view. The RC has admitted as much and said they don't particularly care about that aspect. But if you're already letting people run around with Stasis and Doomsday, is there really any reason to keep something like Balance on the list? If people want to ruin games, they're going to ruin games. I guess the EDH corollary would be "cards don't ruin games, people ruin games". There is some merit in the idea of just straight up removing the ban list and trusting people to play in a social way. Isn't that the entire point of the format in the first place?
I'm quite familiar with the saying, and it's a ridiculous argument that tries to take a complicated debate and package it into a simple catchphrase. But I'm also for stricter gun control, so there's that.
Since we don't need to have a debate on gun control I'll skip a lousy analogy that would get nitpicked. Instead, I'll just say that the idea of the ban list is to remove the cards which go against the RC's philosophy document, as well as the cards which run afoul of the target demographic (which isn't to say that people not of that demographic are being excluded, simply that the ban list is not being maintained with them in mind). So no, I xont think there is merit to the notion that since people are already ruining games by not engaging in social behaviour which will enable better games, removing the ban list will somehow encourage that social behaviour. I think it will just exaggerate the problem even more and cause people to quit the format or retreat from public games altogether.
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing. Too many people belong to the group that never discusses anything and at best they say they want "a casual edh game" (which means nothing). The less we have those the better.
I keep trying to reason my way through this idea but I can't what a boneheaded idea this is from beginning to end.
My god, a post so bad that its bringing the whole forum together in agreement over how bad it is.
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!
The banlist lets you go to any shop in the country and get a decent game of EDH if you're playing a deck that is in between CEDH and Trash. That's been my experience. There is no additional "social contract" required here, there's just a banlist that encourages the type of play that would align with a social contract were there one (e.g. you're playing with your buddies).
It's not perfect. But it does a damned good job. Something about the varied level of power of the cards on the banlist just seems to get people building tuned decks but not too crazy.
The EDH banlist is kind of like a really good baseline framework for the social contract to fill out.
I understand all the arguments people make but perhaps rather than the Calvinball analogy, consider Dungeons and Dragons - there's a baseline ruleset of D&D that tells you how stuff works, you can go and play literally anywhere and join any playgroup. But you're going to get a different experience every time, because each group has a different cooperative social contract.
Because one GM has house ruled something doesn't mean you go to Wizards and tell them to eliminate that rule entirely and let people figure it out on their own.
Example: GM says they want a gritty game so they halve the amount you heal as you rest. Player response is not to call Wizards up and say "listen can you just delete all the rules about healing so we can figure it out on our own?" There're baseline rules.
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
Yeah that's less the card being bad for the format and more people being bad for your playgroup.
I play Engine in Jhoira and Ayli. Neither can lose when the Engine is online, and I play them because I know I can shortcut and win in 2-3 minutes because my playgroup is old Legacy players who've dealt with ANT, Storm, Elfball, etc.
Paradox Engine should remain in the format because it outs the malicious people who just want to grief, and gives your playgroup tools to ask them to improve or leave.
Some decks just aren't for some kind of players. If you can't think in advance Burn isn't for you, if you can't hierarchize threats Draw Go isn't for you. The same is true of some cards like Engine, Armageddon, Cyclonic Rift, etc. They can be solid pillars of particular deck archetypes, they can be inexperiencedly durdled with by players who genuinelly want to learn the correct way to play them, or they can be played with the explicit intent of ruining the game for everyone. It's time we stop blaming the inanimate objects for the malice of toxic people within our playgroups.
Some decks just aren't for some kind of players. If you can't think in advance Burn isn't for you, if you can't hierarchize threats Draw Go isn't for you. The same is true of some cards like Engine, Armageddon, Cyclonic Rift, etc. They can be solid pillars of particular deck archetypes, they can be inexperiencedly durdled with by players who genuinelly want to learn the correct way to play them, or they can be played with the explicit intent of ruining the game for everyone. It's time we stop blaming the inanimate objects for the malice of toxic people within our playgroups.
Sheldon did say "The secret of this format is in not breaking it." and I'd say its applicable to every individual card as well, but the RC has to observe that on a global scale. Many cards are powerful, and many of those are also easily breakable by individuals for want to break them for the intent but at the same time can be used "fairly". The RC has to analyze how responsibly we (as a whole) use each card and that is not an easy metric to measure.
Not a lot of cards invoke enough "malice" across enough of the entire playerbase to get the hammer. Primeval Titan is the poster card that fell into this category and it took a very, very long time before the RC confirmed the hammer because it wasn't easy to accurately assess the data and attribute it to this factor (it was a relatively recent card between its time of print and ban).
There are many other factors that come into play for different cards (Leovold I would attribute to how-easy-it-is-to-fall-into-said-malice instead of the typical "malice-measurements" across the board, especially due to its Commander status and Prophet is a mix of the two - too powerful to be used as an absolute staple, resulting in "fell-into-unintended-malice-of-the-masses" instead) but many of the commonly complained-about cards seem to currently fall on the safer-end of this factor.
They also say the grass is greener on the other side and two greencards which once stood on opposite fields of grass have proved that. Both could be used irresponsibly by the entire masses like Titan was if we somehow so desired and agreed to do so, but clearly they never reached that level (and in a fit of irony the less potent-one when used fairly was the one hammered down). The RC feared Hulk more because on the basis it was easier for people to abuse it (and hence more people will) due to it being a creature but since its release turns out not a lot of people really wanted to do that (and as a result I actually see less Hulks than TNs around since Hulk was bluntly put just underwhelming when used fairly, even if it was easier to activate).
As mentioned in the post above - EDH is MTG D&D, the RC/Banned List is not even the DM, they're the base guideline rulebook whose changes are dependent on how well the global playerbase is behaving in regards to each individual card.
I originally thought PE might just be a combo engine for semi-competitive people who like pubstomping.
Unfortunately that's not been the case. I still see it everywhere. There're a handful of commanders that use it as a buildaround engine (Selvala, Sisay, Muzzio, etc). It's used in mana dork decks, artifact ramp decks, as a combo piece primarily but as a durdly ass combo piece that takes forever to win for most people.
It's basically exactly in Prophet of Kruphix territory for me. I see it almost as often but it does the same annoying stuff -- make people take very long turns and stumble into a win or it gets removed, often taking sub-turns multiple times in other people's turns.
Pretty much poster child for a card that should be banned in my opinion.
It's rapidly becoming "acceptable" in the same way POK was from what I can tell and that's the place it breaks for me.
the way Prophet generally worked when it did (I still don't necessarily even agree with that ban) is its abilities started providing value before it came back to you the turn you cast it. PE is a very different thing with very different abilities.
You are sure reading extremely deeply into a quickly chosen word I decided to use here.
I am also not dismissing anecdotes I am dissmissing a single anecdote because it is hyperbolic and untrue there is a very major difference.
I have no doubt that people have problems with Iona to think otherwise after so many posts would be foolish or acting in extreme bad faith.
My problem is those experiences are not dissimilar to other stories I have heard people bring up around other cards, with no more or less fervor.
My final point about all this is I feel often that it comes across that changing the banlist will change players behavior. The person who plays Iona to just spitefully knock someone out the game were Iona banned probably just find another way to be that spiteful.
This is also not to say too bad so sad if you feel you are being picked on or bullied by someones choice of cards however that problem is not within the cards.
I would personally like to have seen some more typical fans of the format on the CAG, as opposed to more Magic officials and MtG celebrities like the Command Zone guy. I can think of a half-dozen people who post on here and on other Commander/EDH sites who probably would have been as good or better choices, but whatever. More input is good, and this is a nice FU to the people who cry out for WotC to take over the format.
The way I interpreted the announcement, they probably did consider established forum users. I would argue though that because of how increasingly vocal the community has been in disparaging the credibility of the RC, an anonymous forum member would not help very much, and would likely give people more things to complain about (I can't believe they selected that guy, I am way more active on that forum).
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'm curious as to what your metrics are for considering someone a better choice. Take into account they have to be a better individual choice PLUS be better as part of the team. There are lots of people who might have been "as good," but as we say in the announcement, there are a far more of them than we have room for. What do you do when you have 25 or 50 equally-qualified candidates for something and only 5-7 spots?
I've been reading a couple different places and talking with people this morning. JWK's reaction towards your selection is pretty typical so far. Some of your choices resonated with people, while others did not.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't have any issues with any of the specific folk you chose. I simply think it would be good to have more people on there who are just well-established, committed fans of the format, in addition to people professionally involved in the game, judges and celebrities. Having members reflecting a wider range of involvement with the format would likely bring a greater variety of perspectives. The advantage of going the way the RC chose to go is that you get known quantities, though if you contacted some well-established forum participants, I think that would still apply to some degree. You certainly wouldn't want to pick someone who is just "random online forum player," but I'm not suggesting that. My point is that "just regular players" who have demonstrated a commitment to the format can bring something to the table, too. Big names aren't the only people who can have good ideas.
If anything I have a bit of trouble with the phrase since it comes off a bit echo-chambery and I feel like it would be more beneficial to have contrasting opinions.. but again, I don't know anyone in that list so..
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/804537-discussion-thread-for-the-rules-committee
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
While I agree that it could lead to a bit of an echo chamber, having a shared vision doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t have contrasting views on how to achieve vision. If anything, it will force the format upwards rather than outwards, if that makes sense. EDH has a very solid base, the goal here is to build upon it, not expand or alter the foundation.
VSFPs who would really be considered would also presumably have a body of work, albeit of a different sort - things they have posted online. Let's say, purely as an example, y'all were considering Cryogen as a potential CAG member. You could go on the forum and look at his history of posts to see if his perspective on the format broadly matches what the RC is looking for while also bringing something new and interesting to the table. Then it would be a matter of someone reaching out and talking to him, to see if he was interested and if he seemed like someone who can play well with others, just like was presumably the case with the people the RC vetted and ended up choosing for the CAG.
Is this potentially a bit riskier than going with more well-known individuals? Possibly, I guess. But if one really wants to bring a wider range of perspectives to the table, it might be worth taking that bit of risk. I personally think the potential benefits outweigh the risk, YMMV, of course. In any case, I do think the basic idea of the CAG, and any attempt to bring in more input, is good. I simply would have liked to see that take a slightly different form.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing. Too many people belong to the group that never discusses anything and at best they say they want "a casual edh game" (which means nothing). The less we have those the better.
Let me stop you right there. Don’t care about the repercussions, but this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum, and that is truly saying something. Somebody with that mindset doesn’t deserve to have enjoyable play experiences and is the furthest thing from a “target audience”. If that’s the way you feel, maybe take your own advice and hit the bricks.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well, sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade. It’s an elitist attitude and honestly has no place in this format or the game in general.
Listen, I’m all for playing games to get your own personal enjoyment out of them. That’s the reason you play them to begin with. But, sometimes you need take a step back and realize the game you are about to play is a little bit bigger than yourself. 99% of the time, I never remember who won or who lost, but I will always remember the overall experience, and I’d like to think that is true for most players.
Beyond that, one thing I cannot stand about comments like that(among some other comments made by other users in this thread) is it furthers the negative stereotype about MTG players or those with similar hobbies. While I understand this is an online forum for MTG, with the way world works nowadays, I have very little faith that most of this banter is just “keyboard warrior” talk and that this is truly the way people portray themselves out in the wild.
-End Rant
I keep trying to reason my way through this idea but I can't what a boneheaded idea this is from beginning to end.
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!
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
Some decks just aren't for some kind of players. If you can't think in advance Burn isn't for you, if you can't hierarchize threats Draw Go isn't for you. The same is true of some cards like Engine, Armageddon, Cyclonic Rift, etc. They can be solid pillars of particular deck archetypes, they can be inexperiencedly durdled with by players who genuinelly want to learn the correct way to play them, or they can be played with the explicit intent of ruining the game for everyone. It's time we stop blaming the inanimate objects for the malice of toxic people within our playgroups.
Sheldon did say "The secret of this format is in not breaking it." and I'd say its applicable to every individual card as well, but the RC has to observe that on a global scale. Many cards are powerful, and many of those are also easily breakable by individuals for want to break them for the intent but at the same time can be used "fairly". The RC has to analyze how responsibly we (as a whole) use each card and that is not an easy metric to measure.
Not a lot of cards invoke enough "malice" across enough of the entire playerbase to get the hammer. Primeval Titan is the poster card that fell into this category and it took a very, very long time before the RC confirmed the hammer because it wasn't easy to accurately assess the data and attribute it to this factor (it was a relatively recent card between its time of print and ban).
There are many other factors that come into play for different cards (Leovold I would attribute to how-easy-it-is-to-fall-into-said-malice instead of the typical "malice-measurements" across the board, especially due to its Commander status and Prophet is a mix of the two - too powerful to be used as an absolute staple, resulting in "fell-into-unintended-malice-of-the-masses" instead) but many of the commonly complained-about cards seem to currently fall on the safer-end of this factor.
They also say the grass is greener on the other side and two green cards which once stood on opposite fields of grass have proved that. Both could be used irresponsibly by the entire masses like Titan was if we somehow so desired and agreed to do so, but clearly they never reached that level (and in a fit of irony the less potent-one when used fairly was the one hammered down). The RC feared Hulk more because on the basis it was easier for people to abuse it (and hence more people will) due to it being a creature but since its release turns out not a lot of people really wanted to do that (and as a result I actually see less Hulks than TNs around since Hulk was bluntly put just underwhelming when used fairly, even if it was easier to activate).
As mentioned in the post above - EDH is MTG D&D, the RC/Banned List is not even the DM, they're the base guideline rulebook whose changes are dependent on how well the global playerbase is behaving in regards to each individual card.
Unfortunately that's not been the case. I still see it everywhere. There're a handful of commanders that use it as a buildaround engine (Selvala, Sisay, Muzzio, etc). It's used in mana dork decks, artifact ramp decks, as a combo piece primarily but as a durdly ass combo piece that takes forever to win for most people.
It's basically exactly in Prophet of Kruphix territory for me. I see it almost as often but it does the same annoying stuff -- make people take very long turns and stumble into a win or it gets removed, often taking sub-turns multiple times in other people's turns.
Pretty much poster child for a card that should be banned in my opinion.
It's rapidly becoming "acceptable" in the same way POK was from what I can tell and that's the place it breaks for me.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall