Not once did I ever believe I would one day make a thread suggesting Limited Resources be unbanned. The card is an obvious blight on the Commander format. For a single mana, Limited Resources can strip away each player's ability to play the game (or worse — just some of them) by locking them out of the mana sources most crucial in Magic: lands. Its exclusion from the game undoubtedly improves the well being of Commander as a format. So, if that's true, what gives? Why am I making this thread in the first place? Do I honestly believe otherwise? That Commander would be better off if players could stick Limited Resources in their 99 and lock players out of the game? Well, not exactly. With this thread, I would mostly like to pose these questions:
What is the purpose of the banned list? Is it to protect players from the adverse effects of certain cards as I believe it to be? If so, is the banned list really protecting players from banned cards that they have no desire to play?
That last question is especially important, so I want to emphasize it again.
If players have no desire to play a banned card, is the banned list really protecting anyone from it?
I think that's a rather interesting question. My own answer is simply that I don't know. I don't know if banning a card like Limited Resources is actually doing any good. I mean, sure, if we don't want players to use Limited Resources because we think it's a poopy card, banning it seems like an obvious thing to do. If the Commander community has no interest in playing the card anymore though (which is something I'm assuming), could it be safely unbanned? If nobody wants to play with the card, who needs protection from it? In this sense, banning Limited Resources actually sort of reminds me of those old, arcane laws, the ones that prohibit people from putting donkeys in bathtubs and bizarre things like that. Sure, they're probably things you shouldn't be doing, but do you actually need someone to legislate that? Similarly, do you actually need someone to tell you not to play Limited Resources? The way it ruins games is pretty apparent, and even the most innocent of casual players probably won't want to play this. Yes, Limited Resources could stay on the banned list just to be safe, but don't you have to draw the line somewhere? I think most folks would agree that a small banned list is favorable to a large one, especially if the impact is the same.
Before opening the floodgates of discussion, I would like to first touch upon the seemingly unrelated Worldgorger Dragon. Back in the Coalition Victory thread, VashBismark brought the Dragon to my attention, a card the Rules Committee was willing to unban back in 2011 despite it having practically no fair application in the Commander format. I found this interesting. To me, this sends a clear signal: more cards exist in Magic that create poor games of Commander than the Rules Committee can possibly ban. As such, they have to trust that players won't use them for worse. Worldgorger Dragon was once a very popular Magic card, and back in the day, players needed protection from its ill effects. Today, it barely gets attention. The general public no longer cares about the card, and as such, it was safely removed from the banned list. Players are no longer at danger of Worldgorger Dragon ruining their games because nobody wants to play the card anymore, and the few that do aren't doing it by accident. In fact, I've never even seen a Worldgorger Dragon in anyone's deck for as long as I've played Commander.
I think the justification for unbanning Worldgorger Dragon may pave the way for unbanning Limited Resources as well. For players who wish to make miserable games, tools will always exist. Limited Resources just isn't the sort of card to accidentally wind up in unsuspecting decks though, and as such, I think it may be time to consider removing a card from the list that players aren't really interested in playing (or so I believe).
I think when they are looking at the banned list, they are looking for cards that are broken by themselves for the most part. Sure, Worldgorger Dragon is a crazy combo card that will almost always end the game immediately. But, people need to build a deck around it.
Limited Resources could be good in metas that are very competitive, because it is not more broken than other things people are doing. However, in the more casual setting, this card does too much for 1 mana.
Sylvan Primordial was banned - not because of blink and reanimator decks, which would not doubt abuse it - but because by itself it was too efficient.
Sylvan Primordial was too efficient by itself? Simply casting it mid game for 7 to take out some problem stuff and get a 6/8 reach was ok but on the weaker end with the white (swords to plowshares) one. Unless you cheat it in super fast or blink/clone it repeatedly it, isn't isn't a big deal. Just playing it as an answer, we felt it was actually a bit weak especially since it wasn't 6/9 both for jokes and to block Avacyn/Hellkite Overlord.
Now, as for Limited Resources, I doubt many people would want to play with it. I've only ever even seen a couple players even want to use anything similar and one of them was the often cited guy that the 100+ card banned list didn't stop from wrecking games. It's up there with the likes of Winter Orb in hated cards with pretty much everyone I've played with. The only time I've ever even seen that particular card was in a 2 headed giant legacy event though. The decks were all about getting it into play and destroying the other team's lands. I wouldn't really care if it is banned because the only people I've seen that might want to play it are going to attempt to wreck games no matter what. Sylvan and Prime Time, on the other hand, have the possibility to go nuts with what are considered acceptable cards and strategies.
LOL I thought the OP was vehemently against Coalition Victory in said thread. And now he's using the same reasons (others gave for unbanning CV) on Limited Resources?
You might wanna review your opinions in that thread, now that you see the light... I hope.
LOL I thought the OP was vehemently against Coalition Victory in said thread. And now he's using the same reasons (others gave for unbanning CV) on Limited Resources?
You might wanna review your opinions in that thread, now that you see the light... I hope.
Or this is satire on our argument there...
My view on this card is different than my opinion in the CV thread because this card inherently behaves poorly in multiplayer formats, not just specifically EDH. I think that alone keeps it on the banlist.
No, I am being sincere. My posts are always sincere.
I believe there may be merit in unbanning cards which the Commander community has no will to play, and I believe Limited Resources may be one such card. Limited Resources is undeniably problematic in Commander, but it isn't the only card. There are numerous cards, both banned and unbanned, that cause problems in Commander. I believe it is ultimately the community's will that keeps these problematic, unbanned cards legal. The Commander community (generally) does not wish to abuse these sorts of cards. As such, the Rules Committee doesn't need to step in. Only when the community no longer wishes to use these cards in such a way does action need to be taken.
To pose a hypothetical question, if Limited Resources were unbanned, what would happen? Initially, I think some players would react violently and fill all their white decks with the card out of spite for the decision, but after that initial phase I'm not sure anyone would play the card. I think it would remain legal where, like Silkenfist Order, it could be played, but won't be. It's a card not designed for multiplayer, and players won't play with it because they understand that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Your last paragraph can also apply to a lot of cards that are currently banned. If we've more people who actually think the bigger picture, things may start moving.
I firmly believe in better protection of casual players and good education of how social EDH should be played. The narrative by the RC is lacking in both departments. The execution is many times opposite what they state. I supposed this is what they called art - controversial.
But having said that, I would think more people are likely to give Coalition Victory a shot (at being unbanned) than Limited Resources.
I think that it would not be a good idea to unban limited resources. The argument seems to be that none would play the card because it is no fun. The problem is that some people do not care about other peoples fun and will run it. This is most important if you are not playing against the same small group (where such people would not fit in) and it is quite common online.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Hail to the speaker, hail to the knower; joy to he who has understood, delight to they who have listened." - Odin
Unless the game is rather large, limited resources isn't really the most awful thing you can do to wreck a game if you really want to. I don't see 10 lands being low enough for a super competitive lock, especially if the deck is going the stax route. Yeah, it's an obnoxious card for multiplayer or otherwise, but I'm not sure it's really going to be played much other than by people that just want to troll and there isn't really any reasonable way to stop that. You can wreck a game with 130 cards banned if you really want to. I've seen it done.
I think that it would not be a good idea to unban limited resources. The argument seems to be that none would play the card because it is no fun. The problem is that some people do not care about other peoples fun and will run it.
How about the fact that when cards get unbanned, there is a surge in their play?
Honestly I'm not sure if Limited Resources should be banned or not. I think the decision would be a no brainer if Sol Ring, Mana Vault and Mana Crypt were banned, but because those mana rocks (and others like them, Grim Monolith etc.) aren't banned, it's fairly easy for a deck to run entirely off of 2-3 lands the entire game, or until someone can destroy the Resources. Even the non-offensive rocks like Signets and Mind Stone let you build into the better rocks like Coalition Relic and Gilded Lotus. I'm actually kind of intrigued by building with and against Limited Resources now.
Your last paragraph can also apply to a lot of cards that are currently banned. If we've more people who actually think the bigger picture, things may start moving.
I'm not convinced there are actually that many cards on the banned list that players wouldn't play even if they were unbanned. That's why I chose to write about Limited Resources as opposed to something like Upheaval. I think Limited Resources may be one of the few cards where this is true; I think players may not actually want to play with the card even if it were legal.
Power like Black Lotus is an exception. I think Black Lotus and kin would not see that much play, but only because of card scarcity. Cards banned under the "perceived barrier of entry" line are a bit unique in that I believe they are possibly the only cards on the banned list that aren't actually banned due to having ill gameplay. As such, the questions I raise in my opening post don't really apply to them.
But having said that, I would think more people are likely to give Coalition Victory a shot (at being unbanned) than Limited Resources.
If by "give a shot" you mean "be more receptive to," then I agree. Limited Resources' toxicity is much more apparent than Coalition Victory's. That's sort of why I decided to make this thread in the first place. I wanted to ask the question: does a card's toxicity become irrelevant if nobody will play with it?
I think that it would not be a good idea to unban limited resources. The argument seems to be that none would play the card because it is no fun.
I'm not trying to pose any argument here. Sorry if I did a bad job communicating that. The only thing I'm trying to pose is the series of questions addressed in the opening post. Specifically, what is the purpose of the banned list? Is it to protect players from the ill effects of certain Magic cards as I believe it to be? If it is, does the banned list actually protect anyone from banned cards that wouldn't see play if they were unbanned anyway? Those are the questions I want to ask, and through those questions I suggest that it may be worthwhile considering whether something like Limited Resources needs to stay banned. I'm picking on Limited Resources here because I believe it is a perfect example of a toxic card that should absolutely stay out of players' hands. It just may not be necessary to put a lock on the cabinet anymore since players may not actually want to open it. It all hinges on whether or not you believe Limited Resources is even a card you think people want to use.
The problem is that some people do not care about other peoples fun and will run it. This is most important if you are not playing against the same small group (where such people would not fit in) and it is quite common online.
I completely agree. I believe there are some folks out there who don't give a lick about other peoples' experiences. Having said that, the banned list cannot take on a role of moderating these types of players. As flaming infinity already mentioned, there will always be ways for players to wreck games of Magic if they want to. It doesn't matter whether the banned list is 13 cards long or 130. Players will still find ways to ruin each others' games. The tools already exist for players to do this, and as such, unbanning Limited Resources shouldn't be a concern for that reason.
As far as online play is concerned, I'm not sure the Rules Committee actually cares about what happens online. Honestly, I hope they don't. When you can hide behind a wall of anonymity and not have to suffer any social repercussions for using inappropriate cards in Commander, it's no surprise that players will get away with all sorts of disgusting behavior. Social forces are really the glue that holds good games of Commander together, and that glue is basically absent in the online wild west.
The reason it is banned is because hyper competitive people like me will use it.
I would use all of the cards if I could make it happen with my wallet. However, when I am not playing for prizes or money, I wouldn't use it.
With all due respect, hyper competitive players that play Commander for prize and cash are of no concern to the Rules Committee. Their decisions are not influenced by these players.
Honestly I'm not sure if Limited Resources should be banned or not. I think the decision would be a no brainer if Sol Ring, Mana Vault and Mana Crypt were banned, but because those mana rocks (and others like them, Grim Monolith etc.) aren't banned, it's fairly easy for a deck to run entirely off of 2-3 lands the entire game, or until someone can destroy the Resources. Even the non-offensive rocks like Signets and Mind Stone let you build into the better rocks like Coalition Relic and Gilded Lotus. I'm actually kind of intrigued by building with and against Limited Resources now.
I don't really want to get into a discussion about whether or not Limited Resources is actually an appropriate card to play in Commander. My stance on it is the same as Coalition Victory: barring some really creative uses, I think they're incredibly toxic cards that shouldn't ever see play. Having said that, Wizards did print these cards, so the Rules Committee has to reconcile with that somehow. Currently, they're doing so by keeping the cards banned. I think that's a fine approach. The only thing I wish to accomplish through this thread is to discuss the questions addressed in the opening post. If you agree the purpose of the banned list is to protect players from the ill effects of certain cards (you may not agree with that statement), is keeping some cards like Limited Resources banned actually having any impact? If players do not wish to play with a given card anyway, is the banned list really protecting anyone from those cards? If it isn't, maybe it's time to let some things go. I think Limited Resources may be one such example. You may disagree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I see where you're going with this ArrogantAxolotl(I think), and I'm enjoying watching the interaction and discussion.
My personal feelings aside(toxic, don't ever unban this P**, lol), I feel that we, and the RC, have problems with 'the wall' of not having statistics to really determine how bad or how prevalently played these cards would be/are. By its very nature, Commander is an anonymous format that allows people to do as they wish. A lot of us have fun with that. A lot of us have fun at others' expense. A lot of us compete with that.
More than anything else, that's what keeps us from moving forward or convincing each other of 'our side' of arguments. We've all got stories of T&N/Worldgorger Dragon/Primeval Titan/Sylvan Primordial where they were used degenerately, and just as many stories of, "Oh, they were a thing?".
That being said, I can agree with your assessment that this card's toxicity should be readily apparent to anyone, and thus is a contender for an unban(I won't like, but I won't demand the RC's collective resignation, lol). Sure, hyper competitives like Umaro may use it, and that's their choice...but no one will look at it and immediately think, "I should make this for my weekly EDH group to moan about!". Unless the deck's built for it, the builder will suffer just as much.
Considering this format is designed for Mulitplayer, well, that's it. This card doesn't even fall into a gray-area of the ban list. "Interacts Poorly with the Format". In your average EDH game, this could stick 3-players on 2 lands. I hate stax, and MLD in EDH, but seriously, if I ever sat down at a game and this was played, I'd probably never come back. Right, beyond the above Interacts poorly with the Format, this would also be the epitome of "Creating Undesireable Gamestates".
This is just one of those cards that needs to be banned. Seriously, thinking otherwise would be irrational and overthinking.
There will always be someone that wants to win, even a casual multiplayer game, more than they want to make friends. Assuming no one would want to play it is just incorrect. No one would want to play AGAINST it but that is a very different thing. There is no hypothetical meta or power creep or amount of time that could pass that would ever make this an acceptable unban.
This is just one of those cards that needs to be banned. Seriously, thinking otherwise would be irrational and overthinking.
To the contrary, an unbanned Limited Resources could have a very positive place in a deck that doesn't have much place in the format at the moment: Small-Creature Aggro. There is a common reticence in this format to be the first to attack, or to have a deck based around attacking with small creatures. Decks like Airithne's Lovisa are viewed as strange outsiders. If I was running a similarly small-creature-based aggro deck with white in it, say any of these generals, or maybe this deck:
Like, not everyone has the same experience, and Limited Resources in that vein is no worse than Armageddon: If someone plays it in a bad manner, then the game will suck. But it's certainly possible to play Armageddon to set up a situation where it is easier for a player to win. In that vein, you can also play Limited Resources as a card to lean the gamestate towards your low-mana-cost deck and away from green ramp. And players who are going to play it badly or competitively are not the concern of the Rules Committee unless they become a prevalent problem, which, as mentioned by arrogantAxolotl and flaming infinity, isn't super likely.
This is just one of those cards that needs to be banned. Seriously, thinking otherwise would be irrational and overthinking.
To the contrary, an unbanned Limited Resources could have a very positive place in a deck that doesn't have much place in the format at the moment: Small-Creature Aggro. There is a common reticence in this format to be the first to attack, or to have a deck based around attacking with small creatures. Decks like Airithne's Lovisa are viewed as strange outsiders. If I was running a similarly small-creature-based aggro deck with white in it, say any of these generals, or maybe this deck:
Like, not everyone has the same experience, and Limited Resources in that vein is no worse than Armageddon: If someone plays it in a bad manner, then the game will suck. But it's certainly possible to play Armageddon to set up a situation where it is easier for a player to win. And players who are going to play it badly or competitively are not the concern of the Rules Committee unless they become a prevalent problem, which, as mentioned by arrogantAxolotl and flaming infinity, isn't super likely.
So, for an archetype to exist, the RC is to ignore one(or more) of its philosophical pillars?
Seriously, this has no traction. It'll be fun to bounce it around and have people give ridiculous cornercases like yours, but it will be an exercise in futility.
I see where you're going with this ArrogantAxolotl(I think), and I'm enjoying watching the interaction and discussion.
Well, I'm glad the discussion wasn't all for naught then. Personally, I feel like this thread has been very unsuccessful so far as we're 18 (EDIT: two more slipped in after I posted this) posts deep now and no one has actually addressed the core questions raised in my opening post yet.
My personal feelings aside(toxic, don't ever unban this P**, lol), I feel that we, and the RC, have problems with 'the wall' of not having statistics to really determine how bad or how prevalently played these cards would be/are. By its very nature, Commander is an anonymous format that allows people to do as they wish. A lot of us have fun with that. A lot of us have fun at others' expense. A lot of us compete with that.
While it's impossible to get precise statistics on things like the popularity of cards played in Commander, I think there are a lot of great resources out there that we can use to help gather accurate information. Databases like EDHREC or even those organized by scoeri here at MTGS are useful for organizing large quantities of information. Card prices, for those who understand how the card market works, can also provide meaningful information. Local metagames are a useful source of information as well. We just can't allow one source to be the only thing we perceive, and we can't disavow any one source for not having the complete picture since the complete picture isn't something we can realistically gather.
More than anything else, that's what keeps us from moving forward or convincing each other of 'our side' of arguments. We've all got stories of T&N/Worldgorger Dragon/Primeval Titan/Sylvan Primordial where they were used degenerately, and just as many stories of, "Oh, they were a thing?".
I think what's primarily preventing us forumites from breaking ground is that we're largely unwilling to distance ourselves from our beliefs. People are rightfully passionate for believing the things that they do, but if we want to have any sort of meaningful conversation, we have to separate our arguments from our emotions. Too often people talk past one another because they don't respect each other. They're not willing to open up and see the other's point of view. They'd rather play the right/wrong game where they believe that, since their logic is infallible, the other party is obviously stupid for believing something different than them. I used to play that game myself. I've since come to realize that it usually isn't peoples' logic that's at fault. We just tend to disagree on certain premises we use to build the arguments that hold up our beliefs. As such, it isn't worth blaming anyone for believing what they do. They're likely just operating under the knowledge they possess. It's like we all possess pieces to a giant puzzle, but none of us holds all the pieces. We all have different pieces (and some have more than others), and the reason we believe what we do is because we aren't holding the same pieces other people are.
To move forward, I believe we forumites need to be open and sincere. We need to be willing to understand why others believe what they do, and we need to avoid using rhetoric that demeans one another. I don't mean explicit flaming. That's obviously something we need to avoid too. I mean, we need to avoid using rhetoric that causes us to be dismissed by other parties. Everyone wants to be understood.
That being said, I can agree with your assessment that this card's toxicity should be readily apparent to anyone, and thus is a contender for an unban(I won't like, but I won't demand the RC's collective resignation, lol). Sure, hyper competitives like Umaro may use it, and that's their choice...but no one will look at it and immediately think, "I should make this for my weekly EDH group to moan about!". Unless the deck's built for it, the builder will suffer just as much.
Just to clarify — and you may already realize this — I'm not suggesting a card be unbanned simply because it is toxic and its toxicity is apparent to players. What I'm suggesting is that banning a card that is both toxic and whose toxicity is apparent to players may have little to no impact if players have no desire to play with the given card. Toxic cards that players have the will to use are definitely things the Rules Committee should keep a watchful eye over.
Considering this format is designed for Mulitplayer, well, that's it. This card doesn't even fall into a gray-area of the ban list. "Interacts Poorly with the Format". In your average EDH game, this could stick 3-players on 2 lands. I hate stax, and MLD in EDH, but seriously, if I ever sat down at a game and this was played, I'd probably never come back. Right, beyond the above Interacts poorly with the Format, this would also be the epitome of "Creating Undesireable Gamestates".
This is just one of those cards that needs to be banned. Seriously, thinking otherwise would be irrational and overthinking.
I'll admit my suggestions are unorthodox, but I believe that if you're willing to pontificate the questions I presented, you may see why I've reached the conclusion I have. To further elaborate on the situation, I'd like to present an analogy.
A player is in a giant room full of glass doors. They're looking for cards to put in their deck, and behind each door is a different Magic card. Since the doors are made of glass, players can see through these doors and know whether or not what they want lies behind the door before opening it.
Sometimes, players want to open doors leading to dangerous cards. To prevent players from doing so, the Rules Committee stepped in and put locks on some of those doors. We can see what's behind them, but the Rules Committee won't allow us to open these doors up because, even though we want to, it's best that players aren't allowed to do so. Fortunately, there are thousands of different doors for players to open, and the loss of any one given door shouldn't be mourned. Unfortunately, since there are thousands of different doors, it is impossible for the Rules Committee to put locks on each and every door housing cards with hazardous features. There are just too many doors and not enough locks. As such, the Rules Committee has to be very careful about which doors they put locks on. They only have so many locks, and they really only want to use as few as possible.
Limited Resources is currently behind a locked door. It is locked because the card is dangerous, and its danger is quite apparent. What I suggest in my opening post is that, if players don't wish to open a door regardless of its danger, it may be unnecessary to lock that door since the impact is the same: the door remains closed.
There will always be someone that wants to win, even a casual multiplayer game, more than they want to make friends. Assuming no one would want to play it is just incorrect. No one would want to play AGAINST it but that is a very different thing. There is no hypothetical meta or power creep or amount of time that could pass that would ever make this an acceptable unban.
I don't think it would be incorrect to believe that there are certain Magic cards the Commander community has no desire to play. Silkenfist Order is a card I mentioned earlier that I believe fulfills that criteria. Is Limited Resources also one such card? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it might be, but I'm not certain one way or the other. You seem to believe that because the card is oppressively powerful, its power will always be alluring for players, and it will always see play for that reason. I think that's a fair point, and if that's true, then I totally agree with you. If players want to play with Limited Resources, keep it out of their hands. If that isn't true though, if players wouldn't want to play with Limited Resources even if it were unbanned, I don't really see any harm in letting it go.
In the OP, you seem to make a pretty big assumption. Wanting to be protected from the harmful effects of a card does not imply that you don't want to use it. If I play a card that locks two opponents out of the game, I might be having the time of my life. If that card is banned, it's because a bunch of other players don't want me to use it and don't want to have their decks and playstyles painfully restricted by a cheapo card. Me "not wanting to use it" never really enters the equation there. I also enjoyed playing Prophet of Kruphix until people got tired of everyone killing-stealing-copying-reviving it. My joy for using and abusing that card never diminished, however.
I'm 'that guy' who loves cards like Serra Ascendant and Luminarch Ascension. I would abuse the ever-loving cardboard out of Limited Resources if it was ever unbanned. I am not alone among players who would use it, either. At least two other posters on this thread seem to support the idea that this would be a decent addition to Stax... which may suggest that people would want to use this card after all.
If you want to argue that this card isn't that powerful or that more painful cards are legal, that's an argument you can make. If you want to unban this card because "no one" would use it, however, that is simply inaccurate.
In the OP, you seem to make a pretty big assumption. Wanting to be protected from the harmful effects of a card does not imply that you don't want to use it. If I play a card that locks two opponents out of the game, I might be having the time of my life. If that card is banned, it's because a bunch of other players don't want me to use it and don't want to have their decks and playstyles painfully restricted by a cheapo card. Me "not wanting to use it" never really enters the equation there. I also enjoyed playing Prophet of Kruphix until people got tired of everyone killing-stealing-copying-reviving it. My joy for using and abusing that card never diminished, however.
I'm 'that guy' who loves cards like Serra Ascendant and Luminarch Ascension. I would abuse the ever-loving cardboard out of Limited Resources if it was ever unbanned. I am not alone among players who would use it, either. At least two other posters on this thread seem to support the idea that this would be a decent addition to Stax... which may suggest that people would want to use this card after all.
If you want to argue that this card isn't that powerful or that more painful cards are legal, that's an argument you can make. If you want to unban this card because "no one" would use it, however, that is simply inaccurate.
Sorry for not making things clear in my opening post. Hopefully I do a better job clarifying my ideas here.
What I am trying to suggest is that the impact of a banned card and the impact of a legal card that players have no will to use is the same: the card won't see play. As such, banning cards that the community has no will to use may be unnecessary. If such cards won't see play anyways, where's the harm in letting them go? Wouldn't it be best then to unban such cards? I think it might be. Worldgorger Dragon was able to come off of the banned list back in 2011 despite it having little fair application in Commander, and yet little harm was created as a result of that decision. I think that's largely because the Commander community has little will to play the card.
Limited Resources is an example of a card that I believe may fit that criteria, a card that is banned but the community may have little will to use. I'm not saying it is, just that I think it might be. You may disagree, and that's fine. My perception might be totally incorrect. Maybe Limited Resources is a card which the community actually has an intense desire to play, and I'm just not aware of it. In that case, yeah, please keep Limited Resources on the banned list. Commander games are almost certainly better off without it. I certainly don't want to run into it. All I'm trying to suggest is that this idea, the idea that a ban needs to remain impactful for it to have merit, may be worth considering regardless of what card we're talking about, be it Limited Resources or Coalition Victory or anything else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
So, for an archetype to exist, the RC is to ignore one(or more) of its philosophical pillars?
These philosophical pillars are not remotely consistent, as you very well know and have argued in the past.
Yeah, on cards that fall in the "grey-area". Limited resources is basically the definition of 2 them, as I already stated.
Doesn't that really depend on how the card is played? I mean:
Not so fair use:
Player A is running a low-curve control deck. They have out 5 lands and 3 manafacts.
Player B has out 2 lands.
Player C has out 2 lands and 1 manafact.
Player D has out 1 land and 1 manafact.
More of a fair use:
Player A is running a low-curve aggro deck. They have out 5 lands and 3 manafacts.
Players B and C are running high-curve ramp decks. Each has out 10 lands. One has 2 manafacts.
Player D is running a medium-low-curve goodstuff deck and has out 5 lands and 3 manafacts.
What is the purpose of the banned list? Is it to protect players from the adverse effects of certain cards as I believe it to be? If so, is the banned list really protecting players from banned cards that they have no desire to play?
That last question is especially important, so I want to emphasize it again.
If players have no desire to play a banned card, is the banned list really protecting anyone from it?
I think that's a rather interesting question. My own answer is simply that I don't know. I don't know if banning a card like Limited Resources is actually doing any good. I mean, sure, if we don't want players to use Limited Resources because we think it's a poopy card, banning it seems like an obvious thing to do. If the Commander community has no interest in playing the card anymore though (which is something I'm assuming), could it be safely unbanned? If nobody wants to play with the card, who needs protection from it? In this sense, banning Limited Resources actually sort of reminds me of those old, arcane laws, the ones that prohibit people from putting donkeys in bathtubs and bizarre things like that. Sure, they're probably things you shouldn't be doing, but do you actually need someone to legislate that? Similarly, do you actually need someone to tell you not to play Limited Resources? The way it ruins games is pretty apparent, and even the most innocent of casual players probably won't want to play this. Yes, Limited Resources could stay on the banned list just to be safe, but don't you have to draw the line somewhere? I think most folks would agree that a small banned list is favorable to a large one, especially if the impact is the same.
Before opening the floodgates of discussion, I would like to first touch upon the seemingly unrelated Worldgorger Dragon. Back in the Coalition Victory thread, VashBismark brought the Dragon to my attention, a card the Rules Committee was willing to unban back in 2011 despite it having practically no fair application in the Commander format. I found this interesting. To me, this sends a clear signal: more cards exist in Magic that create poor games of Commander than the Rules Committee can possibly ban. As such, they have to trust that players won't use them for worse. Worldgorger Dragon was once a very popular Magic card, and back in the day, players needed protection from its ill effects. Today, it barely gets attention. The general public no longer cares about the card, and as such, it was safely removed from the banned list. Players are no longer at danger of Worldgorger Dragon ruining their games because nobody wants to play the card anymore, and the few that do aren't doing it by accident. In fact, I've never even seen a Worldgorger Dragon in anyone's deck for as long as I've played Commander.
I think the justification for unbanning Worldgorger Dragon may pave the way for unbanning Limited Resources as well. For players who wish to make miserable games, tools will always exist. Limited Resources just isn't the sort of card to accidentally wind up in unsuspecting decks though, and as such, I think it may be time to consider removing a card from the list that players aren't really interested in playing (or so I believe).
EDIT: A few words.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Limited Resources could be good in metas that are very competitive, because it is not more broken than other things people are doing. However, in the more casual setting, this card does too much for 1 mana.
Sylvan Primordial was banned - not because of blink and reanimator decks, which would not doubt abuse it - but because by itself it was too efficient.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Now, as for Limited Resources, I doubt many people would want to play with it. I've only ever even seen a couple players even want to use anything similar and one of them was the often cited guy that the 100+ card banned list didn't stop from wrecking games. It's up there with the likes of Winter Orb in hated cards with pretty much everyone I've played with. The only time I've ever even seen that particular card was in a 2 headed giant legacy event though. The decks were all about getting it into play and destroying the other team's lands. I wouldn't really care if it is banned because the only people I've seen that might want to play it are going to attempt to wreck games no matter what. Sylvan and Prime Time, on the other hand, have the possibility to go nuts with what are considered acceptable cards and strategies.
You might wanna review your opinions in that thread, now that you see the light... I hope.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
My view on this card is different than my opinion in the CV thread because this card inherently behaves poorly in multiplayer formats, not just specifically EDH. I think that alone keeps it on the banlist.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
No, I am being sincere. My posts are always sincere.
I believe there may be merit in unbanning cards which the Commander community has no will to play, and I believe Limited Resources may be one such card. Limited Resources is undeniably problematic in Commander, but it isn't the only card. There are numerous cards, both banned and unbanned, that cause problems in Commander. I believe it is ultimately the community's will that keeps these problematic, unbanned cards legal. The Commander community (generally) does not wish to abuse these sorts of cards. As such, the Rules Committee doesn't need to step in. Only when the community no longer wishes to use these cards in such a way does action need to be taken.
To pose a hypothetical question, if Limited Resources were unbanned, what would happen? Initially, I think some players would react violently and fill all their white decks with the card out of spite for the decision, but after that initial phase I'm not sure anyone would play the card. I think it would remain legal where, like Silkenfist Order, it could be played, but won't be. It's a card not designed for multiplayer, and players won't play with it because they understand that.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I firmly believe in better protection of casual players and good education of how social EDH should be played. The narrative by the RC is lacking in both departments. The execution is many times opposite what they state. I supposed this is what they called art - controversial.
But having said that, I would think more people are likely to give Coalition Victory a shot (at being unbanned) than Limited Resources.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
How about the fact that when cards get unbanned, there is a surge in their play?
I would use all of the cards if I could make it happen with my wallet. However, when I am not playing for prizes or money, I wouldn't use it.
Power like Black Lotus is an exception. I think Black Lotus and kin would not see that much play, but only because of card scarcity. Cards banned under the "perceived barrier of entry" line are a bit unique in that I believe they are possibly the only cards on the banned list that aren't actually banned due to having ill gameplay. As such, the questions I raise in my opening post don't really apply to them.
If by "give a shot" you mean "be more receptive to," then I agree. Limited Resources' toxicity is much more apparent than Coalition Victory's. That's sort of why I decided to make this thread in the first place. I wanted to ask the question: does a card's toxicity become irrelevant if nobody will play with it?
I'm not trying to pose any argument here. Sorry if I did a bad job communicating that. The only thing I'm trying to pose is the series of questions addressed in the opening post. Specifically, what is the purpose of the banned list? Is it to protect players from the ill effects of certain Magic cards as I believe it to be? If it is, does the banned list actually protect anyone from banned cards that wouldn't see play if they were unbanned anyway? Those are the questions I want to ask, and through those questions I suggest that it may be worthwhile considering whether something like Limited Resources needs to stay banned. I'm picking on Limited Resources here because I believe it is a perfect example of a toxic card that should absolutely stay out of players' hands. It just may not be necessary to put a lock on the cabinet anymore since players may not actually want to open it. It all hinges on whether or not you believe Limited Resources is even a card you think people want to use.
I completely agree. I believe there are some folks out there who don't give a lick about other peoples' experiences. Having said that, the banned list cannot take on a role of moderating these types of players. As flaming infinity already mentioned, there will always be ways for players to wreck games of Magic if they want to. It doesn't matter whether the banned list is 13 cards long or 130. Players will still find ways to ruin each others' games. The tools already exist for players to do this, and as such, unbanning Limited Resources shouldn't be a concern for that reason.
As far as online play is concerned, I'm not sure the Rules Committee actually cares about what happens online. Honestly, I hope they don't. When you can hide behind a wall of anonymity and not have to suffer any social repercussions for using inappropriate cards in Commander, it's no surprise that players will get away with all sorts of disgusting behavior. Social forces are really the glue that holds good games of Commander together, and that glue is basically absent in the online wild west.
With all due respect, hyper competitive players that play Commander for prize and cash are of no concern to the Rules Committee. Their decisions are not influenced by these players.
I don't really want to get into a discussion about whether or not Limited Resources is actually an appropriate card to play in Commander. My stance on it is the same as Coalition Victory: barring some really creative uses, I think they're incredibly toxic cards that shouldn't ever see play. Having said that, Wizards did print these cards, so the Rules Committee has to reconcile with that somehow. Currently, they're doing so by keeping the cards banned. I think that's a fine approach. The only thing I wish to accomplish through this thread is to discuss the questions addressed in the opening post. If you agree the purpose of the banned list is to protect players from the ill effects of certain cards (you may not agree with that statement), is keeping some cards like Limited Resources banned actually having any impact? If players do not wish to play with a given card anyway, is the banned list really protecting anyone from those cards? If it isn't, maybe it's time to let some things go. I think Limited Resources may be one such example. You may disagree.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
My personal feelings aside(toxic, don't ever unban this P**, lol), I feel that we, and the RC, have problems with 'the wall' of not having statistics to really determine how bad or how prevalently played these cards would be/are. By its very nature, Commander is an anonymous format that allows people to do as they wish. A lot of us have fun with that. A lot of us have fun at others' expense. A lot of us compete with that.
More than anything else, that's what keeps us from moving forward or convincing each other of 'our side' of arguments. We've all got stories of T&N/Worldgorger Dragon/Primeval Titan/Sylvan Primordial where they were used degenerately, and just as many stories of, "Oh, they were a thing?".
That being said, I can agree with your assessment that this card's toxicity should be readily apparent to anyone, and thus is a contender for an unban(I won't like, but I won't demand the RC's collective resignation, lol). Sure, hyper competitives like Umaro may use it, and that's their choice...but no one will look at it and immediately think, "I should make this for my weekly EDH group to moan about!". Unless the deck's built for it, the builder will suffer just as much.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
This is just one of those cards that needs to be banned. Seriously, thinking otherwise would be irrational and overthinking.
To the contrary, an unbanned Limited Resources could have a very positive place in a deck that doesn't have much place in the format at the moment: Small-Creature Aggro. There is a common reticence in this format to be the first to attack, or to have a deck based around attacking with small creatures. Decks like Airithne's Lovisa are viewed as strange outsiders. If I was running a similarly small-creature-based aggro deck with white in it, say any of these generals, or maybe this deck:
Lands:
1 Blinkmoth Nexus
1 Cavern of Souls
1 Eiganjo Castle
1 Flagstones of Trokair
1 Ghost Quarter
1 Mishra's Factory
1 Mutavault
1 Scrying Sheets
24 Snow-Covered Plains
1 Strip Mine
1 Tectonic Edge
1 Wasteland
Creatures:
1 Angel of Jubilation
1 Aven Mindcensor
1 Azorius Arrester
1 Court Street Denizen
1 Emancipation Angel
1 Fiend Hunter
1 Flickerwisp
1 Grand Abolisher
1 Hero of Bladehold
1 Knight of Glory
1 Knight of the White Orchid
1 Kor Aeronaut
1 Kor Skyfisher
1 Leonin Arbiter
1 Leonin Relic-Warder
1 Leonin Skyhunter
1 Mirran Crusader
1 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Porcelain Legionnaire
1 Precinct Captain
1 Restoration Angel
1 Ronom Unicorn
1 Serra Avenger
1 Sigiled Paladin
1 Silver Knight
1 Silverblade Paladin
1 Soltari Champion
1 Soltari Monk
1 Soltari Priest
1 Soltari Trooper
1 Spectral Rider
1 Stonecloaker
1 Stoneforge Mystic
1 Stormfront Pegasus
1 Sublime Archangel
1 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Whitemane Lion
1 Ajani, Caller of the Pride
1 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Artifacts:
1 Aether Vial
1 Bonesplitter
1 Grafted Wargear
1 Pearl Medallion
1 Skullclamp
1 Sol Ring
1 Tangle Wire
1 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Winter Orb
Enchantments:
1 Blind Obedience
1 Crusade
1 Glorious Anthem
1 Honor of the Pure
1 Journey to Nowhere
1 Limited Resources
1 Oblivion Ring
1 Parallax Wave
Instants:
1 Brave the Elements
1 Disenchant
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Path to Exile
1 Swords to Plowshares
Sorceries:
1 Armageddon
1 Council's Judgment
Like, not everyone has the same experience, and Limited Resources in that vein is no worse than Armageddon: If someone plays it in a bad manner, then the game will suck. But it's certainly possible to play Armageddon to set up a situation where it is easier for a player to win. In that vein, you can also play Limited Resources as a card to lean the gamestate towards your low-mana-cost deck and away from green ramp. And players who are going to play it badly or competitively are not the concern of the Rules Committee unless they become a prevalent problem, which, as mentioned by arrogantAxolotl and flaming infinity, isn't super likely.
So, for an archetype to exist, the RC is to ignore one(or more) of its philosophical pillars?
Seriously, this has no traction. It'll be fun to bounce it around and have people give ridiculous cornercases like yours, but it will be an exercise in futility.
While it's impossible to get precise statistics on things like the popularity of cards played in Commander, I think there are a lot of great resources out there that we can use to help gather accurate information. Databases like EDHREC or even those organized by scoeri here at MTGS are useful for organizing large quantities of information. Card prices, for those who understand how the card market works, can also provide meaningful information. Local metagames are a useful source of information as well. We just can't allow one source to be the only thing we perceive, and we can't disavow any one source for not having the complete picture since the complete picture isn't something we can realistically gather.
I think what's primarily preventing us forumites from breaking ground is that we're largely unwilling to distance ourselves from our beliefs. People are rightfully passionate for believing the things that they do, but if we want to have any sort of meaningful conversation, we have to separate our arguments from our emotions. Too often people talk past one another because they don't respect each other. They're not willing to open up and see the other's point of view. They'd rather play the right/wrong game where they believe that, since their logic is infallible, the other party is obviously stupid for believing something different than them. I used to play that game myself. I've since come to realize that it usually isn't peoples' logic that's at fault. We just tend to disagree on certain premises we use to build the arguments that hold up our beliefs. As such, it isn't worth blaming anyone for believing what they do. They're likely just operating under the knowledge they possess. It's like we all possess pieces to a giant puzzle, but none of us holds all the pieces. We all have different pieces (and some have more than others), and the reason we believe what we do is because we aren't holding the same pieces other people are.
To move forward, I believe we forumites need to be open and sincere. We need to be willing to understand why others believe what they do, and we need to avoid using rhetoric that demeans one another. I don't mean explicit flaming. That's obviously something we need to avoid too. I mean, we need to avoid using rhetoric that causes us to be dismissed by other parties. Everyone wants to be understood.
Just to clarify — and you may already realize this — I'm not suggesting a card be unbanned simply because it is toxic and its toxicity is apparent to players. What I'm suggesting is that banning a card that is both toxic and whose toxicity is apparent to players may have little to no impact if players have no desire to play with the given card. Toxic cards that players have the will to use are definitely things the Rules Committee should keep a watchful eye over.
I'll admit my suggestions are unorthodox, but I believe that if you're willing to pontificate the questions I presented, you may see why I've reached the conclusion I have. To further elaborate on the situation, I'd like to present an analogy.
A player is in a giant room full of glass doors. They're looking for cards to put in their deck, and behind each door is a different Magic card. Since the doors are made of glass, players can see through these doors and know whether or not what they want lies behind the door before opening it.
Sometimes, players want to open doors leading to dangerous cards. To prevent players from doing so, the Rules Committee stepped in and put locks on some of those doors. We can see what's behind them, but the Rules Committee won't allow us to open these doors up because, even though we want to, it's best that players aren't allowed to do so. Fortunately, there are thousands of different doors for players to open, and the loss of any one given door shouldn't be mourned. Unfortunately, since there are thousands of different doors, it is impossible for the Rules Committee to put locks on each and every door housing cards with hazardous features. There are just too many doors and not enough locks. As such, the Rules Committee has to be very careful about which doors they put locks on. They only have so many locks, and they really only want to use as few as possible.
Limited Resources is currently behind a locked door. It is locked because the card is dangerous, and its danger is quite apparent. What I suggest in my opening post is that, if players don't wish to open a door regardless of its danger, it may be unnecessary to lock that door since the impact is the same: the door remains closed.
I don't think it would be incorrect to believe that there are certain Magic cards the Commander community has no desire to play. Silkenfist Order is a card I mentioned earlier that I believe fulfills that criteria. Is Limited Resources also one such card? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it might be, but I'm not certain one way or the other. You seem to believe that because the card is oppressively powerful, its power will always be alluring for players, and it will always see play for that reason. I think that's a fair point, and if that's true, then I totally agree with you. If players want to play with Limited Resources, keep it out of their hands. If that isn't true though, if players wouldn't want to play with Limited Resources even if it were unbanned, I don't really see any harm in letting it go.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
In the OP, you seem to make a pretty big assumption. Wanting to be protected from the harmful effects of a card does not imply that you don't want to use it. If I play a card that locks two opponents out of the game, I might be having the time of my life. If that card is banned, it's because a bunch of other players don't want me to use it and don't want to have their decks and playstyles painfully restricted by a cheapo card. Me "not wanting to use it" never really enters the equation there. I also enjoyed playing Prophet of Kruphix until people got tired of everyone killing-stealing-copying-reviving it. My joy for using and abusing that card never diminished, however.
I'm 'that guy' who loves cards like Serra Ascendant and Luminarch Ascension. I would abuse the ever-loving cardboard out of Limited Resources if it was ever unbanned. I am not alone among players who would use it, either. At least two other posters on this thread seem to support the idea that this would be a decent addition to Stax... which may suggest that people would want to use this card after all.
If you want to argue that this card isn't that powerful or that more painful cards are legal, that's an argument you can make. If you want to unban this card because "no one" would use it, however, that is simply inaccurate.
What I am trying to suggest is that the impact of a banned card and the impact of a legal card that players have no will to use is the same: the card won't see play. As such, banning cards that the community has no will to use may be unnecessary. If such cards won't see play anyways, where's the harm in letting them go? Wouldn't it be best then to unban such cards? I think it might be. Worldgorger Dragon was able to come off of the banned list back in 2011 despite it having little fair application in Commander, and yet little harm was created as a result of that decision. I think that's largely because the Commander community has little will to play the card.
Limited Resources is an example of a card that I believe may fit that criteria, a card that is banned but the community may have little will to use. I'm not saying it is, just that I think it might be. You may disagree, and that's fine. My perception might be totally incorrect. Maybe Limited Resources is a card which the community actually has an intense desire to play, and I'm just not aware of it. In that case, yeah, please keep Limited Resources on the banned list. Commander games are almost certainly better off without it. I certainly don't want to run into it. All I'm trying to suggest is that this idea, the idea that a ban needs to remain impactful for it to have merit, may be worth considering regardless of what card we're talking about, be it Limited Resources or Coalition Victory or anything else.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
These philosophical pillars are not remotely consistent, as you very well know and have argued in the past.
Yeah, on cards that fall in the "grey-area". Limited resources is basically the definition of 2 them, as I already stated.
Doesn't that really depend on how the card is played? I mean:
Not so fair use:
More of a fair use: