Saying an argument doesn't hold water because it is a singleton format and obviously as such is built on a lot of random chance is also an argument that doesn't hold any water by the way.
T&N removes randomness, as does every tutor. The format was built, and sustained it's success, based solely on randomness.
One-liners like this is the exact reason discussions in these threads always derail.
You ignoring the point of that one line is actually what derails things because the previous post you were basically saying the game is random so nothing else matters at all. Which is a rather foolish stance to take. Everyone goes into it knowing that I may not have the card or one of X cards I need in hand when this event happens, it has happened to EVERY person who has ever played this game. That is not a thing unique to Tooth & Nail.
T&N (not TNN, that card is True Name Nemesis) is not as busted as Biorhythm because the three combos that people dislike- Kiki/Resto, Deadeye/Palinchron, and Mike/Trike- can all be answered with instant-speed removal. I don't really see why asking people to play some interactive cards is so problematic. It sounds like the people who dislike it want to play something slow with no answers, and it's easy to envision a dozen decks that prey on something like that.
I've lost to T&N over two dozen times. If it has ever resolved, it has instantly ended the game. I guess I must run zero interaction in my deck.
Oh wait. I run 14-18 pieces of instant speed removal. Too bad the Geth's Verdict was used on a Narset that was about to go to infinite turns town. Too bad Path had to get Zurgo out of the way before he equipped the Sword of Feast and Famine and Jitte. Swords to Plowshares already took care of Sun Titan.
THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH REMOVAL YOU CAN RUN.
This sounds like a good game that you lost, not a problem with a specific card.
The game ended Turn 6. Hardly a good game. Narset tried to go wild on 4, Zurgo tried to suit up on 5 and then tried Titan on 6 after Zurgo smashed his Jitte, Zegana Mystical Tutored for T&N at EoT and cast it on 6, finding Palinchron and Deadeye for game. I kept a hand with four lands, three kill spells. Other than Verdict, Swords, and Path, the only other card I played the whole game was Phyrexian Arena and lands.
Why does the length of a game determine its quality?
You having the ability to stop one thing (the Sun Titan probably wasn't that big of a threat the instant it hit the board) only to lose to the other player who decided to wait until they saw you stop everyone else is just how the game goes.
You and I play in the exact same area. I see 50% of players as Hyper-Spikes. You don't. One of us is either blind or lying.
Tough to disagree there.
But finding a game without at least one of these players is nearly impossible. If I dodged every game that had one of them, the only person who wouldn't get to play Magic is ME. For the other players, they hate it but its the only way they're going to get to play the damn game, even if it means they will likely spend more time shuffling than actually playing cards.
I play multiple a week, and don't have to deal with 'git gud', like I said its about finding people who fit the bill. I rarely if ever have to even avoid anyone. Are you actually looking for people who are not "hyper-spikes"? It sounds like you gave up.
I play at CCGHouse and Mythic Realms in Vancouver, and Ancient Wonders and Guardian Games in Portland/Tualatin. Curious to hear where you play.
I play at CCG (though not recently), Guardian more recently, and RedCastle quite a bit. Lots of good games to be had, but 'the suffering silent majority' seems like quite the stretch.
You played at CCGHouse. You know the people. Max, Wesley, Chris, Lily, Bill, the one dude with the glasses who celebrated getting his fourth foil Goyf so he could have his Jund deck foiled out, etc etc etc. All of them hyper spikes. (You want angry? Lily needed to leave so she comboed out, but I had three counters in hand to stop her. She had Force and Pact, but that's it. She was irritated as hell that she wasn't going to win. I swear she was going to punch me).
There are a lot of players at CCG and Mythic that just have to deal with it and don't want to complain. That's what I mean by a silent majority.
I may come across as bland, but if you think that any kind of ban list can regulate behaviour like that you are delusional. The only way the RC can regulate this is if they place Sheldon over your table, slapping them in the face every time they act like jerks. You have a players problem, not a card one.
I don't disagree that this runs deeper than any particular card, but this is my stance on many cards that are not banned, but should be. If somebody is a raging alcoholic, no amount of talking to them is going to stop them from drinking, instead, just remove the temptation. If T&N can be used unfairly, and a valid argument for playing that way is because it's legal, why not just remove it?
I don't disagree that this runs deeper than any particular card, but this is my stance on many cards that are not banned, but should be. If somebody is a raging alcoholic, no amount of talking to them is going to stop them from drinking, instead, just remove the temptation. If T&N can be used unfairly, and a valid argument for playing that way is because it's legal, why not just remove it?
Because it's a pretty fun card perhaps? For every Mike + Trike/Kiki + Zealous out there someone grabs Utvara Hellkite + Scourge of Valkas or Avenger of Zendikar + Regal Force etc.
To turn it back on your RL example, while there are many people suffering from alcohol abuse, quite a few more can have a casual drink. We don't outlaw bars (at least not anymore).
Why is it so hard to ask if you can run a card, instead of being told you can't after the Mike/trike debacle on turn 5? This is a social game, no? You avoid the "it's legal, so I can play it" mentality, and if your dead set on running it, it requires play group approval, and at that point, you know it won't ruin games.
Why is it so hard to ask if you can run a card, instead of being told you can't after the Mike/trike debacle on turn 5? This is a social game, no? You avoid the "it's legal, so I can play it" mentality, and if your dead set on running it, it requires play group approval, and at that point, you know it won't ruin games.
I think that I would have a much harder time convincing someone to let me play a banned card than convincing him that a certain card he runs is unfun to me and I would like him to stop playing it. Just an opinion here, if someone says we don't like MLD I can understand it, if they say we run x and y banned cards I would be hesitant to join the table.
Tooth and Nail IS a game-ender.
You'd rather they not ask permission to play a powerful card, with full disclosure, and instead just be blindsided by the combo element it provides? Got it. That makes total sense.
(I agree about the other cards you list but I also think atax made very sensible points once things are banned it is much harder to make it move in reverse than the other way)
Tooth and Nail is like Insurrection, in that it's a spell that creates enough value to get you into a position to win games, but doesn't technically win games on its own.
(I agree about the other cards you list but I also think atax made very sensible points once things are banned it is much harder to make it move in reverse than the other way)
How is that an exaggeration? Tooth and Nail wins games.
That is how it works in "The Real World", so how can it not apply to this game? Ecspecially when it is continually touted as a social format.
It's like Solicitation. Solicitation is Illegal, unless you speak to the governing body and acquire a permit. How is that any different than banning a card, and leaving it up to the governing body (Your play group) to give you permission to run it? It stops the worst case scenarios, and invalidates the "it's legal, so too bad" excuse, and allows the groups freedom to determine if their group is "casual" enough to not bust the card.
Do you lock your car doors when you leave the windows open? Pretty much the same exact thing.
Tooth and Nail is like Insurrection, in that it's a spell that creates enough value to get you into a position to win games, but doesn't technically win games on its own.
Uhm, no, they are not even in the same ball park. Insurrection requires a board state, of creatures. To equal the value of insurrection, you would need creatures whose total cost exceeds insurrection's. T&N will always be able to generate more value than its casting cost, at any point in the game.
Insurrection is a card that lets you win games based on your opponents plays. T&N doesn't have that draw back at all.
Someone in the main thread asked why we haven't made an argument for why we haven't banned T&N. There are two answers. First, making arguments for every card that we don't ban is the path to madness. The second, more direct, answer is "We don't think that it fits the banned list criteria."
Someone in the main thread asked why we haven't made an argument for why we haven't banned T&N. There are two answers. First, making arguments for every card that we don't ban is the path to madness. The second, more direct, answer is "We don't think that it fits the banned list criteria."
As you'll see in the P.Hulk thread, I asked how this is any different than Hulk, because it's really not.
Second, I'd argue as the rules committee, it is your job to provide these answers, regardless of how maddening it may sound. You are supposed to be the voice of the commander format. If you aren't up to the task, pass the torch.
As you'll see in the P.Hulk thread, I asked how this is any different than Hulk, because it's really not.
Second, I'd argue as the rules committee, it is your job to provide these answers, regardless of how maddening it may sound. You are supposed to be the voice of the commander format. If you aren't up to the task, pass the torch.
Do you argue that Wizards has a duty to answer to the masses why a card isn't banned in their formats when players feel otherwise? Does Wizards repeat an answer after their initial ban announcement when a player demands that they don't agree with the decision or want to know why the decision was made?
Like, seriously. It is maddening to expect that every time someone on the internet questions them the RC has to be there with an answer. An answer, which will most likely be spun in an argument of another card, grossly misinterpreted, or just flung back in their faces for being "wrong" or "stupid".
As you'll see in the P.Hulk thread, I asked how this is any different than Hulk, because it's really not.
Second, I'd argue as the rules committee, it is your job to provide these answers, regardless of how maddening it may sound. You are supposed to be the voice of the commander format. If you aren't up to the task, pass the torch.
Do you argue that Wizards has a duty to answer to the masses why a card isn't banned in their formats when players feel otherwise? Does Wizards repeat an answer after their initial ban announcement when a player demands that they don't agree with the decision or want to know why the decision was made?
Like, seriously. It is maddening to expect that every time someone on the internet questions them the RC has to be there with an answer. An answer, which will most likely be spun in an argument of another card, grossly misinterpreted, or just flung back in their faces for being "wrong" or "stupid".
Uh, not the same thing. Not even close, to be honest.
Wizards does research, that isn't confined to a closed group, to back up their decisions, and they have tangible information to back it up. Definetly not the case here.
They may be in the right on every decision they make, but when it boils down to "because it's like this in our group", it's really hard to agree that they are, in fact, right.
Link above to the most recent ban announcement for Modern.
They have tangible data to back up their decision. You don't have to like it, and personally I don't agree with Twin, but there is an incredible amount of info that is provided to the reader on why those cards were ultimately banned, and none of it revolves around a closed group.
(I agree about the other cards you list but I also think atax made very sensible points once things are banned it is much harder to make it move in reverse than the other way)
How is that an exaggeration? Tooth and Nail wins games.
That is how it works in "The Real World", so how can it not apply to this game? Ecspecially when it is continually touted as a social format.
It's like Solicitation. Solicitation is Illegal, unless you speak to the governing body and acquire a permit. How is that any different than banning a card, and leaving it up to the governing body (Your play group) to give you permission to run it? It stops the worst case scenarios, and invalidates the "it's legal, so too bad" excuse, and allows the groups freedom to determine if their group is "casual" enough to not bust the card.
Do you lock your car doors when you leave the windows open? Pretty much the same exact thing.
I don't disagree that it wins games but I also don't have a problem with some of the time something that costs that much mana winning the game. It doesn't win anywhere near to all the games it gets cast in when I see it (including when I cast it) so I don't really see a problem with it.
Uh, not the same thing. Not even close, to be honest.
Wizards does research, that isn't confined to a closed group, to back up their decisions, and they have tangible information to back it up. Definetly not the case here.
They may be in the right on every decision they make, but when it boils down to "because it's like this in our group", it's really hard to agree that they are, in fact, right.
Link above to the most recent ban announcement for Modern.
They have tangible data to back up their decision. You don't have to like it, and personally I don't agree with Twin, but there is an incredible amount of info that is provided to the reader on why those cards were ultimately banned, and none of it revolves around a closed group.
You're right, they aren't the same thing. However, EDH is as much about the feel of the game and the banlist decisions are always going to be subjective even if supported by factual, if anecdotal, experiences. You can't argue that their method isn't acceptable, though, compared to the alternatives.
How else do you make bans? Give control to WotC? Good luck with that. They're guaranteed to be more "out of touch" with the format than the RC could ever be. Sure, that may benefit competitive players more, as they are more likely to ban things because of power as that is what they are familiar with. But it's also certainly guaranteed to come at the expense of fun for the "target audience" of EDH. I fall out of that audience sometimes with things like BaaC or PoK, but I realize that, accept it, and deal with it by respectfully disagreeing and providing my reasoning why it should be changed, etc.
There is no data for EDH because EDH is not meant to be played in tournaments where winning is literally the only objective (I stress only because obviously you're trying to win, but it is joined with other objectives as well). If tournaments where EDH is played could provide data, it still wouldn't matter because that is a mutation of the format in a way it just isn't designed/intended to be played. Sure, people can take their own "vision" of the format and run with it; that's how EDH even came to be. However, demanding that data that does not serve the intent of the format be consulted is a fool's errand.
Which brings us to T&N, I'm fine with it and have been fine with it. They feel it is not as abusable from a pure "value engine" perspective compared to Protean Hulk and falls outside the centralizing/takes over game/etc. criteria that Hulk falls into, in their judgment. Them saying, "doesn't fit the banlist criteria" is a better response for something not banned than Wizards not saying ***** about whatever unbanned card staying legal, leaving you helplessly guessing whether it is close to banning or not prior to spending a grand on the deck. I think the RC does an exceptional job at explaining why things are banned and it is a path to madness asking that they explain every powerful card that isn't banned even though they often address things that are "fine" or don't conflict with the format's vision.
The bottom line is you want data where none exists because data only counts wins and losses. Fun is intangible and cannot be measured. The banlist is made for fun and ideal games, which means the entire premise is subjective. You can disagree with the subjective reasoning, but debating that it isn't objective enough because of a lack of data misses the point.
-Hulk is no different than T&N. The RC's decision to ban Hulk was based on the "gut feelings" of ~24 players in a closed group, and more often than not, the head of the committee wasn't present. It was tested for a span of 2 months, and it was concluded that hulk is broken "in every deck it can slot into". I'm glad you're ok with that type of reasoning, but I'm not.
-Second, you don't need tournaments to collect data. Not sure which thread I said it in, but it's a pretty simple process, and I'm sure there are many willing to participate. But the RC's excuse is that this is there hobby,and that they don't get compensated for the time they put into it. Because, you know, this game isn't our hobby or anything, and I sure as heck don't get paid, but I continue sinking money into it.
-Finally, if you can't measure "fun", how do come up with a banned list in the first place? I can, and so can many other, have fun with more cards on the list than the ones I wouldn't. So, you can't measure it, but they obviously are, since the banned list is a thing.
Why is it whenever somebody questions a card being banned/unbanned, the response almost always jumps to competetive/tournament play? Yawgmoths Bargain is banned in both Legacy and EDH, explain that one to me, without using the word fun.
-Hulk is no different than T&N. The RC's decision to ban Hulk was based on the "gut feelings" of ~24 players in a closed group, and more often than not, the head of the committee wasn't present. It was tested for a span of 2 months, and it was concluded that hulk is broken "in every deck it can slot into". I'm glad you're ok with that type of reasoning, but I'm not.
-Second, you don't need tournaments to collect data. Not sure which thread I said it in, but it's a pretty simple process, and I'm sure there are many willing to participate. But the RC's excuse is that this is there hobby,and that they don't get compensated for the time they put into it. Because, you know, this game isn't our hobby or anything, and I sure as heck don't get paid, but I continue sinking money into it.
-Finally, if you can't measure "fun", how do come up with a banned list in the first place? I can, and so can many other, have fun with more cards on the list than the ones I wouldn't. So, you can't measure it, but they obviously are, since the banned list is a thing.
Why is it whenever somebody questions a card being banned/unbanned, the response almost always jumps to competetive/tournament play? Yawgmoths Bargain is banned in both Legacy and EDH, explain that one to me, without using the word fun.
Your first statement is wildly incorrect (if I could be so bold as to offer some advice, a little research might have helped). PH was banned on the assessment of a group of seven EDH experts which included some of Magic's most experienced high-level tournament officials. The "test," which happened in my LGS, came years later as an experiment. It had nothing to do with the banning of PH. Like the Kokusho test, it was intended to get a feel for how the card operated in the current environment.
A card that says Pay 1 Life: Draw a Card is banned in a format in which the life total begins at 40 for that exact reason.
It wasn't on the original list, which had a life total of 200/# of players. That's also speculation, I have found no evidence to back that up. You find it, then feel free to prove me wrong.
-Hulk is no different than T&N. The RC's decision to ban Hulk was based on the "gut feelings" of ~24 players in a closed group, and more often than not, the head of the committee wasn't present. It was tested for a span of 2 months, and it was concluded that hulk is broken "in every deck it can slot into". I'm glad you're ok with that type of reasoning, but I'm not.
-Second, you don't need tournaments to collect data. Not sure which thread I said it in, but it's a pretty simple process, and I'm sure there are many willing to participate. But the RC's excuse is that this is there hobby,and that they don't get compensated for the time they put into it. Because, you know, this game isn't our hobby or anything, and I sure as heck don't get paid, but I continue sinking money into it.
-Finally, if you can't measure "fun", how do come up with a banned list in the first place? I can, and so can many other, have fun with more cards on the list than the ones I wouldn't. So, you can't measure it, but they obviously are, since the banned list is a thing.
Why is it whenever somebody questions a card being banned/unbanned, the response almost always jumps to competetive/tournament play? Yawgmoths Bargain is banned in both Legacy and EDH, explain that one to me, without using the word fun.
Your first statement is wildly incorrect (if I could be so bold as to offer some advice, a little research might have helped). PH was banned on the assessment of a group of seven EDH experts which included some of Magic's most experienced high-level tournament officials. The "test," which happened in my LGS, came years later as an experiment. It had nothing to do with the banning of PH. Like the Kokusho test, it was intended to get a feel for how the card operated in the current environment.
Well, I researched and found nothing, not here, not on the official page, nothing even referencing the original group who instituted the ban. It only refers to the RC's (your) decision in 2008.
I'll admit I was off base by tying your test to the actual ban, but it still has no data to back it up other than "it warps the games we've played". I still stand by my argument that ~24 people is not adequate for determining the legitimacy of a ban/unban. Scientific or not.
The differences between Necropotence and Bargain are written directly into the cards and I honestly believe people who bring them up in the same breath are trying to get a rise out of people by trolling or legitimately don't understand how one or both of them work.
The differences between Necropotence and Bargain are written directly into the cards and I honestly believe people who bring them up in the same breath are trying to get a rise out of people by trolling or legitimately don't understand how one or both of them work.
Ok, then don't use "because 40 life" as the excuse, because it's false. You'll argue that Necro has drawbacks that Bargain doesn't, and I'll argue it costs half that of bargain.
Edit- This is off topic, I'll be more than happy to continue in the appropriate thread.
Someone in the main thread asked why we haven't made an argument for why we haven't banned T&N. There are two answers. First, making arguments for every card that we don't ban is the path to madness. The second, more direct, answer is "We don't think that it fits the banned list criteria."
What? How?
It wins out of no where even when it isn't used just for combos and it interacts poorly with edh by being a double tutor in a singleton format.
The card is terrible to play with and against. It's a zero variance performer, it always does the same thing every game.
It would seem to me that the ones who want it banned are the same people who have lost to this card... anyway being a player who has used and played against this card many times I personally don't see a problem with it. It is doing what Green does Ramp into mana and drop fat creatures quickly. yes it is used for insane combos and yes it can end a game out of nowhere however the same could be said of many cards. For instance Defense of the Heart is a 4 drop enchantment that brings out two creatures. yet nobody complains. yes it is a situational enchantment vs playable sorcery however the same result ensues. ever play Defense of the Heart turn 3 against a Goblin deck... anyway before I get off topic I do not believe it belongs on the banned list and I happen to agree with Sir Sheldon that it doesn't seem to fit the criteria for banning.
Somewhat of a necro, but I didn't see someone discuss the over-utilization of the card as a potential issue. Given that reason was utilized for Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix, can this methodology not apply to T&N as well?
Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix are banned because how busted they become in a multiplayer format while TaN doesn't. Yes, depending of the deck it can end the game but can also be disrupted and dealt with. Also i rather have it end the game then making the game longer and more painfull comapred to other cards
Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix are banned because how busted they become in a multiplayer format while TaN doesn't. Yes, depending of the deck it can end the game but can also be disrupted and dealt with. Also i rather have it end the game then making the game longer and more painfull comapred to other cards
I see how that applies to Prophet, but how does Primeval scale more in multiplayer than 1v1? From reading the original ban posts, both cards were characterized as 'over-utilized/format warping'. I don't think T&N warps the format, but I could buy the over-utilized argument being applied here. This doesn't take into consideration that adding it to a list requires no major changes to a deck to get the immense value the card provides.
T&N removes randomness, as does every tutor. The format was built, and sustained it's success, based solely on randomness.
One-liners like this is the exact reason discussions in these threads always derail.
Why does the length of a game determine its quality?
You having the ability to stop one thing (the Sun Titan probably wasn't that big of a threat the instant it hit the board) only to lose to the other player who decided to wait until they saw you stop everyone else is just how the game goes.
I don't disagree that this runs deeper than any particular card, but this is my stance on many cards that are not banned, but should be. If somebody is a raging alcoholic, no amount of talking to them is going to stop them from drinking, instead, just remove the temptation. If T&N can be used unfairly, and a valid argument for playing that way is because it's legal, why not just remove it?
Not my point, but I'll bite.
Worldfire is a fun card. So is Primeval Titan. Biorythme and Sway of the Stars? Pretty fun for me.
Why is it so hard to ask if you can run a card, instead of being told you can't after the Mike/trike debacle on turn 5? This is a social game, no? You avoid the "it's legal, so I can play it" mentality, and if your dead set on running it, it requires play group approval, and at that point, you know it won't ruin games.
Tooth and Nail IS a game-ender.
You'd rather they not ask permission to play a powerful card, with full disclosure, and instead just be blindsided by the combo element it provides? Got it. That makes total sense.
(I agree about the other cards you list but I also think atax made very sensible points once things are banned it is much harder to make it move in reverse than the other way)
How is that an exaggeration? Tooth and Nail wins games.
That is how it works in "The Real World", so how can it not apply to this game? Ecspecially when it is continually touted as a social format.
It's like Solicitation. Solicitation is Illegal, unless you speak to the governing body and acquire a permit. How is that any different than banning a card, and leaving it up to the governing body (Your play group) to give you permission to run it? It stops the worst case scenarios, and invalidates the "it's legal, so too bad" excuse, and allows the groups freedom to determine if their group is "casual" enough to not bust the card.
Do you lock your car doors when you leave the windows open? Pretty much the same exact thing.
Uhm, no, they are not even in the same ball park. Insurrection requires a board state, of creatures. To equal the value of insurrection, you would need creatures whose total cost exceeds insurrection's. T&N will always be able to generate more value than its casting cost, at any point in the game.
Insurrection is a card that lets you win games based on your opponents plays. T&N doesn't have that draw back at all.
As you'll see in the P.Hulk thread, I asked how this is any different than Hulk, because it's really not.
Second, I'd argue as the rules committee, it is your job to provide these answers, regardless of how maddening it may sound. You are supposed to be the voice of the commander format. If you aren't up to the task, pass the torch.
Do you argue that Wizards has a duty to answer to the masses why a card isn't banned in their formats when players feel otherwise? Does Wizards repeat an answer after their initial ban announcement when a player demands that they don't agree with the decision or want to know why the decision was made?
Like, seriously. It is maddening to expect that every time someone on the internet questions them the RC has to be there with an answer. An answer, which will most likely be spun in an argument of another card, grossly misinterpreted, or just flung back in their faces for being "wrong" or "stupid".
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Uh, not the same thing. Not even close, to be honest.
Wizards does research, that isn't confined to a closed group, to back up their decisions, and they have tangible information to back it up. Definetly not the case here.
They may be in the right on every decision they make, but when it boils down to "because it's like this in our group", it's really hard to agree that they are, in fact, right.
Edit:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/banned-and-restricted-announcement-2016-04-04
Link above to the most recent ban announcement for Modern.
They have tangible data to back up their decision. You don't have to like it, and personally I don't agree with Twin, but there is an incredible amount of info that is provided to the reader on why those cards were ultimately banned, and none of it revolves around a closed group.
I don't disagree that it wins games but I also don't have a problem with some of the time something that costs that much mana winning the game. It doesn't win anywhere near to all the games it gets cast in when I see it (including when I cast it) so I don't really see a problem with it.
You're right, they aren't the same thing. However, EDH is as much about the feel of the game and the banlist decisions are always going to be subjective even if supported by factual, if anecdotal, experiences. You can't argue that their method isn't acceptable, though, compared to the alternatives.
How else do you make bans? Give control to WotC? Good luck with that. They're guaranteed to be more "out of touch" with the format than the RC could ever be. Sure, that may benefit competitive players more, as they are more likely to ban things because of power as that is what they are familiar with. But it's also certainly guaranteed to come at the expense of fun for the "target audience" of EDH. I fall out of that audience sometimes with things like BaaC or PoK, but I realize that, accept it, and deal with it by respectfully disagreeing and providing my reasoning why it should be changed, etc.
There is no data for EDH because EDH is not meant to be played in tournaments where winning is literally the only objective (I stress only because obviously you're trying to win, but it is joined with other objectives as well). If tournaments where EDH is played could provide data, it still wouldn't matter because that is a mutation of the format in a way it just isn't designed/intended to be played. Sure, people can take their own "vision" of the format and run with it; that's how EDH even came to be. However, demanding that data that does not serve the intent of the format be consulted is a fool's errand.
Which brings us to T&N, I'm fine with it and have been fine with it. They feel it is not as abusable from a pure "value engine" perspective compared to Protean Hulk and falls outside the centralizing/takes over game/etc. criteria that Hulk falls into, in their judgment. Them saying, "doesn't fit the banlist criteria" is a better response for something not banned than Wizards not saying ***** about whatever unbanned card staying legal, leaving you helplessly guessing whether it is close to banning or not prior to spending a grand on the deck. I think the RC does an exceptional job at explaining why things are banned and it is a path to madness asking that they explain every powerful card that isn't banned even though they often address things that are "fine" or don't conflict with the format's vision.
The bottom line is you want data where none exists because data only counts wins and losses. Fun is intangible and cannot be measured. The banlist is made for fun and ideal games, which means the entire premise is subjective. You can disagree with the subjective reasoning, but debating that it isn't objective enough because of a lack of data misses the point.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
Few points-
-Hulk is no different than T&N. The RC's decision to ban Hulk was based on the "gut feelings" of ~24 players in a closed group, and more often than not, the head of the committee wasn't present. It was tested for a span of 2 months, and it was concluded that hulk is broken "in every deck it can slot into". I'm glad you're ok with that type of reasoning, but I'm not.
-Second, you don't need tournaments to collect data. Not sure which thread I said it in, but it's a pretty simple process, and I'm sure there are many willing to participate. But the RC's excuse is that this is there hobby,and that they don't get compensated for the time they put into it. Because, you know, this game isn't our hobby or anything, and I sure as heck don't get paid, but I continue sinking money into it.
-Finally, if you can't measure "fun", how do come up with a banned list in the first place? I can, and so can many other, have fun with more cards on the list than the ones I wouldn't. So, you can't measure it, but they obviously are, since the banned list is a thing.
Why is it whenever somebody questions a card being banned/unbanned, the response almost always jumps to competetive/tournament play? Yawgmoths Bargain is banned in both Legacy and EDH, explain that one to me, without using the word fun.
Your first statement is wildly incorrect (if I could be so bold as to offer some advice, a little research might have helped). PH was banned on the assessment of a group of seven EDH experts which included some of Magic's most experienced high-level tournament officials. The "test," which happened in my LGS, came years later as an experiment. It had nothing to do with the banning of PH. Like the Kokusho test, it was intended to get a feel for how the card operated in the current environment.
It wasn't on the original list, which had a life total of 200/# of players. That's also speculation, I have found no evidence to back that up. You find it, then feel free to prove me wrong.
Same can be applied to Necropotence then, no?
Well, I researched and found nothing, not here, not on the official page, nothing even referencing the original group who instituted the ban. It only refers to the RC's (your) decision in 2008.
I'll admit I was off base by tying your test to the actual ban, but it still has no data to back it up other than "it warps the games we've played". I still stand by my argument that ~24 people is not adequate for determining the legitimacy of a ban/unban. Scientific or not.
Ok, then don't use "because 40 life" as the excuse, because it's false. You'll argue that Necro has drawbacks that Bargain doesn't, and I'll argue it costs half that of bargain.
Edit- This is off topic, I'll be more than happy to continue in the appropriate thread.
What? How?
It wins out of no where even when it isn't used just for combos and it interacts poorly with edh by being a double tutor in a singleton format.
The card is terrible to play with and against. It's a zero variance performer, it always does the same thing every game.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar