Given the presence of (arguably?) more broken cards like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, how problematic really are the moxen in EDH? The obvious argument of PBTE comes up, and that is a concern, but keep in mind as well that the cards are significantly harder to find than Mana Crypt has been in the past, and therefore ubiquity would not be remotely as much of an issue; the moxen would be so few and far between that an unbanning might not have any significant impact on 99% of games, and even in those games that they did have impact, significantly less impact than putting oneself 2 turns ahead of the game with Sol Ring.
My issue with the Moxen is that they greatly reward running additional colors with additional mostly-Sol Rings.
If you're running a mono-colored deck, you can only run Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and the Mox of your color.
If you're running a four-colored deck, you can run Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and four different Moxes. You've effectively doubled the number of opportunities to run into a nut draw where early artifact mana gives you the opportunity to jet ahead of the table.
Additionally, every extra mox you get to run increases the chances of drawing a hand with two or more pieces of free artifact acceleration, which amplifies the ruanway leader effect.
Given that 5-color and 4-color decks have an inherent advantage already by having access to additional colors worth of broken effects, I don't really want to introduce any rules the format further towards these decks.
And yeah, the actual supply of these is low, but when does that ever change anything? How many people do you know who run proxies of the dual lands even though they don't own any? And the vast majority of people I've ever played with are okay with it (myself included), because not having access to multiple-hundred-dollar cards shouldn't price you out of the game, and I'd rather you have the mana you need than have to play a turn behind or color screwed all game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
No, followed by hell no. They fail under PBtE and when you get outside a vacuum of looking at them individually and look at the idea of having 3-5 of them in your deck, there is no reason to include them. They add nothing unique to the format besides a broken mana rock.
No, followed by hell no. They fail under PBtE and when you get outside a vacuum of looking at them individually and look at the idea of having 3-5 of them in your deck, there is no reason to include them. They add nothing unique to the format besides a broken mana rock.
Agreed. Beyond everything said already(this kind of echoes the proxy argument, somewhat)these cards all exist under $50 on MtGO. I will never advocate a ban based on availability/unavailability on MtGO, but this cannot be ignored in this instance. I mean, you're talking of possible turn-1 draws that can power out Narset, enlightened master turn 1 with cards to spare. While it won't happen often in paper due to their scarcity, it's still something that can, and will happen, but 100% should not... ever.
And yeah, the actual supply of these is low, but when does that ever change anything? How many people do you know who run proxies of the dual lands even though they don't own any? And the vast majority of people I've ever played with are okay with it (myself included), because not having access to multiple-hundred-dollar cards shouldn't price you out of the game, and I'd rather you have the mana you need than have to play a turn behind or color screwed all game.
But is this really an argument that we can use for banning? I mean, you can basically throw ubiquity out of the window at that point as a consideration. At which point format-warping isn't even really a thing. I understand that isn't the point of your argument, but is it not a ready concern?
(this kind of echoes the proxy argument, somewhat) these cards all exist under $50 on MtGO. I will never advocate a ban based on availability/unavailability on MtGO, but this cannot be ignored in this instance.
I pose the same point to you as to Wildfire, with the added question:
How significantly different is a turn 1 Mox to a turn 1 Sol Ring or Mana Crypt in this format, in terms of turn 1?
I believe the only reason the moxen should stay banned is due to perceived barrier to entry. If people feel priced out of the format because they can't afford moxen and absolutely feel as though they need the cards in order to play the format, that's a problem. Now, I think it's debatable as to whether or not the moxen would actually have this effect if they were legal. Provided they did though, I think it would be wise to keep them banned.
On the other hand, if the moxen don't actually create a perceived barrier to entry, I would like to see them legal. I think there's a double standard between cards like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt and cards like the Moxen. If Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are acceptable in Commander because they don't cause significant harm, the Moxen shouldn't cause significant harm either. I don't buy into the argument that fast mana cards like Ring and Crypt are acceptable only so long as such effects aren't prevalent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I think the Moxen are a bridge too far in terms of fast mana. They have no drawbacks whatsoever, are free, they fix color, and there are 5 of them.
I look at the comparison this way:
Sol Ring: It costs mana and makes colorless, but its 2 mana so it replaces the mana investment and then puts you further ahead later. Late game mana production has never been a reason for banning, but too much to fast is. Sol Ring is near the line on this already, but is less explosive than the Moxen because it only puts you up by the same amount of mana the turn it comes into play, that mana is colorless, and, often overlooked, it often makes your land for the turn essentially tap for colorless (assuming it didn't already). Basically, turn 1 Tundra into Sol Ring produces 2 colorless mana. Turn 1 Tundra into Mox Sapphire produces UU. That's a big difference, and its a difference that comes when it is most important, the early game. Late game, Sol Ring's ability to put you up an extra mana is still comparable in power to the Moxen giving you colored mana, and in multicolored decks the latter can often be more important than the former. Sol Ring is near the line of being bannable, but doesn't quite cross it in my opinion (and some would argue that it does cross it).
Mana Crypt: Free like the Moxen, makes 2 colorless like Ring. The obvious disadvantage is that it doesn't produce colored mana, but giving you a bonus 2 rather than a bonus 1 is more explosive, so I'd say its better at that then the Moxen. Unlike the Moxen, Mana Crypt has a drawback, a 50/50 chance of it doming you for 3 every turn (or basically it averages 1.5 life per turn). In cEDH, this isn't a drawback at all as the game will likely end before it does enough damage to make a difference, but at more casual tables the card actually gets much worse, first because the benefit of fast mana is harder to take advantage of when you aren't running tuned decks that reliably combo off or lock out the game, so its easier for opponents to team up and put you in your place, but also because games last long enough that its drawback becomes a real drawback. If you cast it turn 1 and the game lasts 10 turns, you are on average going to take 15 damage from it. I have been able to win casual games because of my opponent's Crypt having put them in range. Now, obviously it isn't consistent in the damage, so sometimes its drawback might only hit you for damage you can shrug off, but sometimes you'll lose the flips 6 turns in a row and it'll knock out half your life total. Still, Crypt is closer to the line of bannability that Sol Ring.
Mana Vault: Lets talk about Vault while we're at it. Costs 1, taps for 3, so it gets you the same jump as crypt, again colorless, but it sets you back mana in the long run as it costs 4 to untap (without ways to cheat it), and hits you for a nominal amount of life if you leave it tapped. I don't think this is all that close to being bannable, tbh, since it basically acts like a colorless Dark Rit that you can buyback for 4 mana. Moxen are clearly better.
Honestly, if we're going to make a banlist change around this, the only argument I could agree with is banning Crypt. It makes more mana the turn it comes down than the Moxen, and is as problematic in cEDH. However, I still don't advocate doing so, while I still advocate keeping the Moxen banned. The reason is simple: There is only 1 Crypt, but 5 Moxen. I don't think that Crypt, on its own, or even in conjunction with Sol Ring and Vault, is enough to be a problem for the format, but I think that adding 5 Moxen to the mix would be. Having the three pillars of fast mana available to every deck is fine, but being able to toss 3 Moxen on top of that in 3 color (or even just 2 in 2 color decks) would be a huge boost in consistency as well as a huge increase in the ceiling for nut draws.
Basically, there is only room for so many busted mana rocks in the format, and Wizards isn't printing any more of them, so it comes down to deciding what stays in and what stays out. Keeping all 8 makes the fast mana to reliable for many decks, and increases the ceiling for what a nuts draw can look like (turn 1 land, moxen, moxen, crypt, ring, Narset, or combo out, or some other insanity). It makes more sense to keep the three that can go in any deck and which have some form of draw back (and which can be banned individually if need be) than the five that are color restricted and come and go as a set, let alone that getting a set of Moxen is like $5000. Personally, the best (house ruled) solution is to make it so that you can only run 2 cards out of Ring, Crypt, and the 5 Moxen per deck. This would keep the too much mana too fast problem at bay by ensuring that you cannot run more fast mana than you can under the current list. It would also ensure parity in fast mana between mono colored, 2 color, 3, 4, 5 color, and mono brown. Additionally, it could make for an interesting deckbuilding choice, basically do you need the colored mana of the Moxen more, or do you need the greater amount of mana provided by Ring and Crypt? (Vault is always allowed here because its the weakest of the 8 outside of dedicated untap abuse, and keeping the weakest as the third pillar of mana acceleration in the deck helps keep it from getting to busted).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
"Getting a set of Moxen is like $5000"
Yeah, not when they get unbanned. You might probably need to add a 0 behind that figure once that happens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Sarcasm is a great substitute for having an argument isn't it?
Your opinion is fine, you want to argue that crypt and sol ring should be banned along with the Moxen, I disagree and have explained why but its a popular complaint. Pretending that adding 5 arguably more powerful cards to that mana suite wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the format compared to what it is now while simultaneously arguing that crypt and sol ring should be banned is willfully obtuse, a weak attempt at dismissing an argument (arguing that it wouldn't hurt because fast mana is fine, while wrong headed, at least is a consistent argument).
The ease and consistency of drawing into fast mana, especially fast colored mana, is important. Getting a Ring and Vault at the same time is bonkers, but its rare enough to be acceptable in my opinion, because this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen. Having it happen with consistency would verge into unhealthy territory, and adding the Moxen to the mix would up the odds of getting an equivalent draw (instead of just crypt and ring, you would have a combination of any two of crypt, ring, and the moxen, and the possibility to go even higher). Just crypt or ring, on their own, are fine to see with some regularity, and any single moxen would be fine as well, but that's not what we would get with legalizing all the moxen.
Yes, the availability of the effect matters, because this is a singleton format, and cards can be held partially in check by how consistently you are able to get them online. The more available an effect is, the more consistently you have access to it, and the more problematic it can become. Clearly you, and others, think the power level of Sol Ring and Crypt is too high even now, which is fine even though I disagree. Its insipid, however, to argue that doubling the access to cards of that power for the average decks (since the moxen have color identity, some decks can run more than others, so I'm assuming the average would be 2 based on most decks being mono, bi, or tri colored) would not greatly increase the frequency of fast mana draws and raise the ceiling for just how fast that can go. This holds true for other effects. Demonic Tutor is fine alongside Vampiric and Seal, but what if there were 5 more Demonic Tutors you could run? That would be too much of the effect, and essentially make getting a cheap universal tutor in your opening hand too easy and thus decks too consistent. Cyclonic Rift is fine, but what if you could run 7 of them? That would be tedious and oppressive. What if we could run 7 different equally strong versions of Natural Order or Ad Nauseam? Yes, there are many people who are fine with the current state of fast mana, but do not want to see further proliferation or greater frequency of it in games. Instead of dismissing that view out of hand as unworthy of your consideration, maybe acknowledge that its a mere differing of preference, you know, like I did. I know I'm not going to convince you that crypt and ring are fine if you don't like them, but maybe I can convince you to be less flippant.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Longer Answer: Its extremely unwise to unban the moxen. Increased mana production in the early turns of the game does not exactly lead to fun games as it becomes more of a race to who can be the first to get their super weapon online.
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Sarcasm is a great substitute for having an argument isn't it?
Your opinion is fine, you want to argue that crypt and sol ring should be banned along with the Moxen, I disagree and have explained why but its a popular complaint. Pretending that adding 5 arguably more powerful cards to that mana suite wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the format compared to what it is now while simultaneously arguing that crypt and sol ring should be banned is willfully obtuse, a weak attempt at dismissing an argument (arguing that it wouldn't hurt because fast mana is fine, while wrong headed, at least is a consistent argument).
The ease and consistency of drawing into fast mana, especially fast colored mana, is important. Getting a Ring and Vault at the same time is bonkers, but its rare enough to be acceptable in my opinion, because this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen. Having it happen with consistency would verge into unhealthy territory, and adding the Moxen to the mix would up the odds of getting an equivalent draw (instead of just crypt and ring, you would have a combination of any two of crypt, ring, and the moxen, and the possibility to go even higher). Just crypt or ring, on their own, are fine to see with some regularity, and any single moxen would be fine as well, but that's not what we would get with legalizing all the moxen.
Yes, the availability of the effect matters, because this is a singleton format, and cards can be held partially in check by how consistently you are able to get them online. The more available an effect is, the more consistently you have access to it, and the more problematic it can become. Clearly you, and others, think the power level of Sol Ring and Crypt is too high even now, which is fine even though I disagree. Its insipid, however, to argue that doubling the access to cards of that power for the average decks (since the moxen have color identity, some decks can run more than others, so I'm assuming the average would be 2 based on most decks being mono, bi, or tri colored) would not greatly increase the frequency of fast mana draws and raise the ceiling for just how fast that can go. This holds true for other effects. Demonic Tutor is fine alongside Vampiric and Seal, but what if there were 5 more Demonic Tutors you could run? That would be too much of the effect, and essentially make getting a cheap universal tutor in your opening hand too easy and thus decks too consistent. Cyclonic Rift is fine, but what if you could run 7 of them? That would be tedious and oppressive. What if we could run 7 different equally strong versions of Natural Order or Ad Nauseam? Yes, there are many people who are fine with the current state of fast mana, but do not want to see further proliferation or greater frequency of it in games. Instead of dismissing that view out of hand as unworthy of your consideration, maybe acknowledge that its a mere differing of preference, you know, like I did. I know I'm not going to convince you that crypt and ring are fine if you don't like them, but maybe I can convince you to be less flippant.
Sarcasm and an argument are not mutually exclusive. In fact, showing just how absurd the logic is by using the tool of satire is a well proven method of bringing to light problems. Remember that George Orwell guy with Animal Farm? Or political cartoons?
But, if you insist on disposing with wit, I will restate my view on ring and crypt with regards to moxen: Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
Allow me to posit a hypothetical question for you, if instead of 5 moxen there was only 1 mox that had the restriction of "when ~ ETB choose a color," would that be an okay card?
How many fast mana are acceptable? Would it be okay if we banned crypt and ring and unbanned a random 2 of the moxen? That would have no effect on the availability of the effect.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as "this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen," in defense of lopsided non-games cause by drawing into that fast mana. Are you seriously saying that you think a format where that crappy game happens maybe 1 out of 10 is better than one where it doesn't happen?
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Sarcasm is a great substitute for having an argument isn't it?
Your opinion is fine, you want to argue that crypt and sol ring should be banned along with the Moxen, I disagree and have explained why but its a popular complaint. Pretending that adding 5 arguably more powerful cards to that mana suite wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the format compared to what it is now while simultaneously arguing that crypt and sol ring should be banned is willfully obtuse, a weak attempt at dismissing an argument (arguing that it wouldn't hurt because fast mana is fine, while wrong headed, at least is a consistent argument).
The ease and consistency of drawing into fast mana, especially fast colored mana, is important. Getting a Ring and Vault at the same time is bonkers, but its rare enough to be acceptable in my opinion, because this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen. Having it happen with consistency would verge into unhealthy territory, and adding the Moxen to the mix would up the odds of getting an equivalent draw (instead of just crypt and ring, you would have a combination of any two of crypt, ring, and the moxen, and the possibility to go even higher). Just crypt or ring, on their own, are fine to see with some regularity, and any single moxen would be fine as well, but that's not what we would get with legalizing all the moxen.
Yes, the availability of the effect matters, because this is a singleton format, and cards can be held partially in check by how consistently you are able to get them online. The more available an effect is, the more consistently you have access to it, and the more problematic it can become. Clearly you, and others, think the power level of Sol Ring and Crypt is too high even now, which is fine even though I disagree. Its insipid, however, to argue that doubling the access to cards of that power for the average decks (since the moxen have color identity, some decks can run more than others, so I'm assuming the average would be 2 based on most decks being mono, bi, or tri colored) would not greatly increase the frequency of fast mana draws and raise the ceiling for just how fast that can go. This holds true for other effects. Demonic Tutor is fine alongside Vampiric and Seal, but what if there were 5 more Demonic Tutors you could run? That would be too much of the effect, and essentially make getting a cheap universal tutor in your opening hand too easy and thus decks too consistent. Cyclonic Rift is fine, but what if you could run 7 of them? That would be tedious and oppressive. What if we could run 7 different equally strong versions of Natural Order or Ad Nauseam? Yes, there are many people who are fine with the current state of fast mana, but do not want to see further proliferation or greater frequency of it in games. Instead of dismissing that view out of hand as unworthy of your consideration, maybe acknowledge that its a mere differing of preference, you know, like I did. I know I'm not going to convince you that crypt and ring are fine if you don't like them, but maybe I can convince you to be less flippant.
Sarcasm and an argument are not mutually exclusive. In fact, showing just how absurd the logic is by using the tool of satire is a well proven method of bringing to light problems. Remember that George Orwell guy with Animal Farm? Or political cartoons?
But, if you insist on disposing with wit, I will restate my view on ring and crypt with regards to moxen: Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
Allow me to posit a hypothetical question for you, if instead of 5 moxen there was only 1 mox that had the restriction of "when ~ ETB choose a color," would that be an okay card?
How many fast mana are acceptable? Would it be okay if we banned crypt and ring and unbanned a random 2 of the moxen? That would have no effect on the availability of the effect.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as "this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen," in defense of lopsided non-games cause by drawing into that fast mana. Are you seriously saying that you think a format where that crappy game happens maybe 1 out of 10 is better than one where it doesn't happen?
First, good job confusing sarcasm and satire. There wasn't much wit to dispose of in your asinine attempt at argument, as usual with you, merely a puerile attempt to dismiss out of hand others opinions, again as per usual for you.
Now, on to the actual topic at hand. I do not believe that fast mana is in and of itself a problem, but that it only becomes a problem if it is too easily available and thus too consistent. Perhaps if you read my post you wouldn't have had to ask questions that I already answered in them. Your proposed "unban a single moxen, choose a color" solution, I already sort of suggested that as acceptable with my idea of grouping the moxen in with Crypt and Sol Ring and sayin "choose 2". The mox you propose woould be stronger than any of the real moxen, so that's right out (you don't need universal color fixing on top as fast mana) but allowing a single mox per deck into the current environment might be fine, but pushing it. It would likely cross a line for many people who believe that the current state of fast mana is borderline between broken and fine. I believe that the current state of fast mana is fine, and I understand that you and many others disagree (while many others agree with me I should point out, and some in this thread are even OK with the moxen being unbanned).
I think your main issue here is that you see any game where fast mana plays a part as crappy or ruined, and I, and many others, don't. You assert your preferences as fact, and take the must asinine tact you can when doing so. Your lame attempt at sarcasm didn't do a damn thing to illustrate "absurd" logic, as it assumes that any game in which fast mana shows up is automatically ruined, or even usually ruined. I, and many others, happen to like playing with fast mana, but don't want it to be so widespread that its something that every player is hitting with regularity nor so powerful as it would be with the addition of the moxen to the mix. Yes, bonkers things happen in this game, and many players, myself included, find that fun, so long as it isn't the same bonkers things happening every game. Bonkers, or epic, or whatever you want to call it, things happening are the defining aspect of the format. Sometimes, the draws line up to give players the ability to just crush the whole table, and that is a healthy part of the format so long as its only happening once in awhile, its only when it starts happening constantly that its a problem. Drawing your entire deck is fun, but not when multiple players are doing it and it happens every game. Knowing that there's always a chance that someone at the table is going to go two turns ahead on mana off of rocks can, and in my experience often does, lead to exciting games. Sometimes you get the rocks and they help you steamroll, sometimes an opponent does and the table bands together to keep them in check, sometimes a player keeps shaky mana because they have a ring or a crypt and you hit their rock with a vandalblast turn 1 and flip their game plan on it head.
You may not like those things. They ruin games for you. Guess what though chief, that doesn't mean that your preference is the only right one. Your argument boils down to "STOP LIKING THINGS I DON"T LIKE", and then you dress it up in condescending drivel.
And finally, you suck at probability. going from 2/99 to 4/99 is a major leap. That's going from a 1/50 chance of drawing a card to a 1/25 chance. But wait, you aren't just drawing one card for your opening hand, your drawing 7 cards. This means that any individual player will go from having a 14% chance of getting one piece of fast mana currently with just ring and crypt, to a 26% chance with a 2 color deck running moxen, and that's just opening hand. that's going from having that draw once every 6 games to once every 4. And that's only the probabilities for getting one piece, which is the least problematic. The differences in probability are more stark for getting two pieces because you NEED to draw both crypt and ring currently, while after adding moxen you can draw a combination of 2 of the 4 options. And, again, this is before we get into the now possible chance of drawing 3 of the 4 or even all 4 (or 5, or 6 depending on how many colors you run) of the pieces.
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Infraction for trolling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Sarcasm is a great substitute for having an argument isn't it?
Your opinion is fine, you want to argue that crypt and sol ring should be banned along with the Moxen, I disagree and have explained why but its a popular complaint. Pretending that adding 5 arguably more powerful cards to that mana suite wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the format compared to what it is now while simultaneously arguing that crypt and sol ring should be banned is willfully obtuse, a weak attempt at dismissing an argument (arguing that it wouldn't hurt because fast mana is fine, while wrong headed, at least is a consistent argument).
The ease and consistency of drawing into fast mana, especially fast colored mana, is important. Getting a Ring and Vault at the same time is bonkers, but its rare enough to be acceptable in my opinion, because this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen. Having it happen with consistency would verge into unhealthy territory, and adding the Moxen to the mix would up the odds of getting an equivalent draw (instead of just crypt and ring, you would have a combination of any two of crypt, ring, and the moxen, and the possibility to go even higher). Just crypt or ring, on their own, are fine to see with some regularity, and any single moxen would be fine as well, but that's not what we would get with legalizing all the moxen.
Yes, the availability of the effect matters, because this is a singleton format, and cards can be held partially in check by how consistently you are able to get them online. The more available an effect is, the more consistently you have access to it, and the more problematic it can become. Clearly you, and others, think the power level of Sol Ring and Crypt is too high even now, which is fine even though I disagree. Its insipid, however, to argue that doubling the access to cards of that power for the average decks (since the moxen have color identity, some decks can run more than others, so I'm assuming the average would be 2 based on most decks being mono, bi, or tri colored) would not greatly increase the frequency of fast mana draws and raise the ceiling for just how fast that can go. This holds true for other effects. Demonic Tutor is fine alongside Vampiric and Seal, but what if there were 5 more Demonic Tutors you could run? That would be too much of the effect, and essentially make getting a cheap universal tutor in your opening hand too easy and thus decks too consistent. Cyclonic Rift is fine, but what if you could run 7 of them? That would be tedious and oppressive. What if we could run 7 different equally strong versions of Natural Order or Ad Nauseam? Yes, there are many people who are fine with the current state of fast mana, but do not want to see further proliferation or greater frequency of it in games. Instead of dismissing that view out of hand as unworthy of your consideration, maybe acknowledge that its a mere differing of preference, you know, like I did. I know I'm not going to convince you that crypt and ring are fine if you don't like them, but maybe I can convince you to be less flippant.
Sarcasm and an argument are not mutually exclusive. In fact, showing just how absurd the logic is by using the tool of satire is a well proven method of bringing to light problems. Remember that George Orwell guy with Animal Farm? Or political cartoons?
But, if you insist on disposing with wit, I will restate my view on ring and crypt with regards to moxen: Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
Allow me to posit a hypothetical question for you, if instead of 5 moxen there was only 1 mox that had the restriction of "when ~ ETB choose a color," would that be an okay card?
How many fast mana are acceptable? Would it be okay if we banned crypt and ring and unbanned a random 2 of the moxen? That would have no effect on the availability of the effect.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as "this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen," in defense of lopsided non-games cause by drawing into that fast mana. Are you seriously saying that you think a format where that crappy game happens maybe 1 out of 10 is better than one where it doesn't happen?
First, good job confusing sarcasm and satire. There wasn't much wit to dispose of in your asinine attempt at argument, as usual with you, merely a puerile attempt to dismiss out of hand others opinions, again as per usual for you.
Now, on to the actual topic at hand. I do not believe that fast mana is in and of itself a problem, but that it only becomes a problem if it is too easily available and thus too consistent. Perhaps if you read my post you wouldn't have had to ask questions that I already answered in them. Your proposed "unban a single moxen, choose a color" solution, I already sort of suggested that as acceptable with my idea of grouping the moxen in with Crypt and Sol Ring and sayin "choose 2". The mox you propose woould be stronger than any of the real moxen, so that's right out (you don't need universal color fixing on top as fast mana) but allowing a single mox per deck into the current environment might be fine, but pushing it. It would likely cross a line for many people who believe that the current state of fast mana is borderline between broken and fine. I believe that the current state of fast mana is fine, and I understand that you and many others disagree (while many others agree with me I should point out, and some in this thread are even OK with the moxen being unbanned).
I think your main issue here is that you see any game where fast mana plays a part as crappy or ruined, and I, and many others, don't. You assert your preferences as fact, and take the must asinine tact you can when doing so. Your lame attempt at sarcasm didn't do a damn thing to illustrate "absurd" logic, as it assumes that any game in which fast mana shows up is automatically ruined, or even usually ruined. I, and many others, happen to like playing with fast mana, but don't want it to be so widespread that its something that every player is hitting with regularity nor so powerful as it would be with the addition of the moxen to the mix. Yes, bonkers things happen in this game, and many players, myself included, find that fun, so long as it isn't the same bonkers things happening every game. Bonkers, or epic, or whatever you want to call it, things happening are the defining aspect of the format. Sometimes, the draws line up to give players the ability to just crush the whole table, and that is a healthy part of the format so long as its only happening once in awhile, its only when it starts happening constantly that its a problem. Drawing your entire deck is fun, but not when multiple players are doing it and it happens every game. Knowing that there's always a chance that someone at the table is going to go two turns ahead on mana off of rocks can, and in my experience often does, lead to exciting games. Sometimes you get the rocks and they help you steamroll, sometimes an opponent does and the table bands together to keep them in check, sometimes a player keeps shaky mana because they have a ring or a crypt and you hit their rock with a vandalblast turn 1 and flip their game plan on it head.
You may not like those things. They ruin games for you. Guess what though chief, that doesn't mean that your preference is the only right one. Your argument boils down to "STOP LIKING THINGS I DON"T LIKE", and then you dress it up in condescending drivel.
And finally, you suck at probability. going from 2/99 to 4/99 is a major leap. That's going from a 1/50 chance of drawing a card to a 1/25 chance. But wait, you aren't just drawing one card for your opening hand, your drawing 7 cards. This means that any individual player will go from having a 14% chance of getting one piece of fast mana currently with just ring and crypt, to a 26% chance with a 2 color deck running moxen, and that's just opening hand. that's going from having that draw once every 6 games to once every 4. And that's only the probabilities for getting one piece, which is the least problematic. The differences in probability are more stark for getting two pieces because you NEED to draw both crypt and ring currently, while after adding moxen you can draw a combination of 2 of the 4 options. And, again, this is before we get into the now possible chance of drawing 3 of the 4 or even all 4 (or 5, or 6 depending on how many colors you run) of the pieces.
Did you just learn a new word from me? You're using "asinine" a lot. I feel proud that I've educated you in at least 1 area, although I think I am going to block you now as your arguments are not very substantive, more akin to rants.
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Infraction for trolling.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as...
If both of you keep talking to each other this way, chances are that neither one of you will be understood by the other. That's what everyone wants here, right? To be understood? Nobody wants to be dismissed. Let's be careful with our tone so that everyone can be understood by one another, especially since this topic is controversial.
EDIT: I wasn't able to publish this post before either of the above users responded. For everyone else going forward, can we keep this civil? I'm interested in reaching truth, not bickering with one another.
Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
I wanted to slice this bit out of your last response to explain why I disagree with you here. I understand where you're coming from; I used to personally agree with everything you're saying here, that it was unimportant how often a harmful event occurred, only whether or not it was actually possible in the first place. That line of reasoning eventually led me to the conclusion that too many cards were capable of causing harmful events to be banned though. Most Magic cards are flexible and can be used in ways that create positive gameplay experiences or negative ones. As such, the banned list can't possibly accommodate every card with the potential to create harmful events. That would make the banned list unfathomably long.
The only justifiable way to shape the ban list is to only choose to ban cards that are actually causing significant volumes of harm in Commander. Some cards, like Sol Ring, undeniably cause harm. Tooth and Nail is probably an even better example. It's very easy to distinguish when players use Tooth and Nail to create harmful events. The fact that players can use cards like Tooth and Nail to create harmful events though doesn't matter; what matters is whether or not cards like Tooth and Nail are actually causing harmful events (and if so, how often and how hazardous). The Rules Committee can't realistically ban every card capable of causing harmful events. They can, however, observe how often a card which creates harmful events creates them. If a card is capable of causing harmful events, how often it does so matters. If said card doesn't create harmful events frequently enough, then it shouldn't be banned.
We may disagree where to draw the line in the sand (and I'd be very happy to disagree about that), but surely we both agree that there is a line to be drawn, right? Not every card with the potential to create a harmful event can be ban-worthy. The probability of the event does matter.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as...
If both of you keep talking to each other this way, chances are that neither one of you will be understood by the other. That's what everyone wants here, right? To be understood? Nobody wants to be dismissed. Let's be careful with our tone so that everyone can be understood by one another, especially since this topic is controversial.
EDIT: I wasn't able to publish this post before either of the above users responded. For everyone else going forward, can we keep this civil? I'm interested in reaching truth, not bickering with one another.
Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
I wanted to slice this bit out of your last response to explain why I disagree with you here. I understand where you're coming from; I used to personally agree with everything you're saying here, that it was unimportant how often a harmful event occurred, only whether or not it was actually possible in the first place. That line of reasoning eventually led me to the conclusion that too many cards were capable of causing harmful events to be banned though. Most Magic cards are flexible and can be used in ways that create positive gameplay experiences or negative ones. As such, the banned list can't possibly accommodate every card with the potential to create harmful events. That would make the banned list unfathomably long.
The only justifiable way to shape the ban list is to only choose to ban cards that are actually causing significant volumes of harm in Commander. Some cards, like Sol Ring, undeniably cause harm. Tooth and Nail is probably an even better example. It's very easy to distinguish when players use Tooth and Nail to create harmful events. The fact that players can use cards like Tooth and Nail to create harmful events though doesn't matter; what matters is whether or not cards like Tooth and Nail are actually causing harmful events (and if so, how often and how hazardous). The Rules Committee can't realistically ban every card capable of causing harmful events. They can, however, observe how often a card which creates harmful events creates them. If a card is capable of causing harmful events, how often it does so matters. If said card doesn't create harmful events frequently enough, then it shouldn't be banned.
We may disagree where to draw the line in the sand (and I'd be very happy to disagree about that), but surely we both agree that there is a line to be drawn, right? Not every card with the potential to create a harmful event can be ban-worthy. The probability of the event does matter.
I'll agree to step back from it. I responded twice and said my piece, and there's nothing further to add on that, especially since its now descended into pure flaming.
You make a great point re: Tooth and Nail, a card I personally loathe but don't think should be banned, for the reasons you stated. T&N can often "ruin" games by winning out of nowhere (although in a combo heavy meta, its just a more expensive way to do so). If every other game, or one in 10 games is ending in T&N ftw out of nowhere, it starts to piss me off. Lately, I haven't been seeing it as much, as my local playgroup has switched their decks up and I guess I've been getting lucky to avoid it online. The past couple of times T&N has ended the game abruptly (I've always been fine with it closing a game that's dragging on, because games have to end eventually), it hasn't really bothered me, and I attribute that solely to the fact that I haven't had to deal with it that often. Another example, when BFZ released online, Omnath 2.0 started showing up constantly. Almost every multiplayer game I played had Omnath, and its a deck that tends to win the same way every time, ramp into Omnath then ramp some more to make a crapload of elementals. It was strong enough to take games regularly (not cEDH strong though), very consistent at what it did, and pretty much a solitaire deck. It was kind of cool at first, but quickly got old because it was overplayed, to the point where I started to outright hate the deck. Then Gitrog Monster was release and that became the flavor of the month, and Omnath numbers dropped off drastically. I no longer find it annoying, because its no longer causing half the games I join to play out the same way. Its by no means broken, but its an example of how a card or effect that's not even broken can become a problem if encountered with too much regularity (which is also why legendary creatures have a lower threshold to cross before getting banned, as they are ALWAYS available when the are your commander. I doubt that Rofellos, Braids, or even Leovold would be banned if not for the fact that they are always effectively in your opening hand and always retrievable if they are your commander).
Fast mana is especially reliant on being in your opening hand to possibly cause a problem, so it is especially sensitive to the probability of drawing it very early. I personally don't find getting one piece of fast mana turn one to ruin games except in rare occasions, and I only think it starts becoming a potential problem when you get two or more pieces, especially both ring and crypt together. Some would disagree, so I say this just to give some context as to where I'm coming from. Mid game and late game, ring and crypt are more valuable when they are helping you catch up on mana from a bad draw then they are when they are just ramping you from a normal or fast start. They actually serve a positive purpose that I feel adds to the format in any stage but the opening turns, and even then I think its a matter of preference as to whether they are always harmful early ( and as I've said, I think they are often neutral early in terms being harmful or positive, and sometimes fun as well).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as...
If both of you keep talking to each other this way, chances are that neither one of you will be understood by the other. That's what everyone wants here, right? To be understood? Nobody wants to be dismissed. Let's be careful with our tone so that everyone can be understood by one another, especially since this topic is controversial.
EDIT: I wasn't able to publish this post before either of the above users responded. For everyone else going forward, can we keep this civil? I'm interested in reaching truth, not bickering with one another.
Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
I wanted to slice this bit out of your last response to explain why I disagree with you here. I understand where you're coming from; I used to personally agree with everything you're saying here, that it was unimportant how often a harmful event occurred, only whether or not it was actually possible in the first place. That line of reasoning eventually led me to the conclusion that too many cards were capable of causing harmful events to be banned though. Most Magic cards are flexible and can be used in ways that create positive gameplay experiences or negative ones. As such, the banned list can't possibly accommodate every card with the potential to create harmful events. That would make the banned list unfathomably long.
The only justifiable way to shape the ban list is to only choose to ban cards that are actually causing significant volumes of harm in Commander. Some cards, like Sol Ring, undeniably cause harm. Tooth and Nail is probably an even better example. It's very easy to distinguish when players use Tooth and Nail to create harmful events. The fact that players can use cards like Tooth and Nail to create harmful events though doesn't matter; what matters is whether or not cards like Tooth and Nail are actually causing harmful events (and if so, how often and how hazardous). The Rules Committee can't realistically ban every card capable of causing harmful events. They can, however, observe how often a card which creates harmful events creates them. If a card is capable of causing harmful events, how often it does so matters. If said card doesn't create harmful events frequently enough, then it shouldn't be banned.
We may disagree where to draw the line in the sand (and I'd be very happy to disagree about that), but surely we both agree that there is a line to be drawn, right? Not every card with the potential to create a harmful event can be ban-worthy. The probability of the event does matter.
Well, my argument for ring/crypt is that there is precedent for their specific banning with Tolarian Academy. That's why I think they are where the line should exist. I always see Mana Vault and Grim Monolith lumped in with them, but I think those are alright since they are hardly better than rituals if you're not using untap/artifact synergy.
No thank you. Perceived Barrier is real, I lived it. My first group had all the cool toys, but I asked 'Can you play power' and the answer was 'nope, its banned' I knew I was in for a long haul. Had the same conversation multiple times from the other side. 'I am not buying power to play casual' is a real thing I hear. No you don't need it but you would want it.
If you are on the 'Sol Ring should be banned' train, adding 5 new ZERO cost mana rocks that are color producing, cmon now. And if Mox and SR come down T1/T2....
And even if you think SR is OK, you would have to admit more fuel on that fire isn't a good thing. Sure you can argue more broken mana is reducndant, but 5 more with zero cost? Thats a poor argument at that point.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
No thank you. Perceived Barrier is real, I lived it. My first group had all the cool toys, but I asked 'Can you play power' and the answer was 'nope, its banned' I knew I was in for a long haul. Had the same conversation multiple times from the other side. 'I am not buying power to play casual' is a real thing I hear. No you don't need it but you would want it.
Most groups I've seen said "if you own a physical copy of it."
If you are on the 'Sol Ring should be banned' train, adding 5 new ZERO cost mana rocks that are color producing, cmon now. And if Mox and SR come down T1/T2....
And even if you think SR is OK, you would have to admit more fuel on that fire isn't a good thing. Sure you can argue more broken mana is reducndant, but 5 more with zero cost? Thats a poor argument at that point.
I think that between a desire for consistency and a low likelihood for a mox to ruin a game any more than Sol Ring in a normal playgroup, it's not unreasonable to consider unbanning the moxen as long as the ring is legal. Heck the difference in social games like those idealized in the vision for the format is of note; Sol Ring will normally range from equivalent to more significant just as Ancient Tomb or Eldrazi Temple is generally more significant than a single basic land. And if you disagree with that idea, consider this experiment:
Basic Wastes now tap for CC. What do landbases look like now?
No thank you. Perceived Barrier is real, I lived it. My first group had all the cool toys, but I asked 'Can you play power' and the answer was 'nope, its banned' I knew I was in for a long haul. Had the same conversation multiple times from the other side. 'I am not buying power to play casual' is a real thing I hear. No you don't need it but you would want it.
Most groups I've seen said "if you own a physical copy of it."
If you are on the 'Sol Ring should be banned' train, adding 5 new ZERO cost mana rocks that are color producing, cmon now. And if Mox and SR come down T1/T2....
And even if you think SR is OK, you would have to admit more fuel on that fire isn't a good thing. Sure you can argue more broken mana is reducndant, but 5 more with zero cost? Thats a poor argument at that point.
I think that between a desire for consistency and a low likelihood for a mox to ruin a game any more than Sol Ring in a normal playgroup, it's not unreasonable to consider unbanning the moxen as long as the ring is legal. Heck the difference in social games like those idealized in the vision for the format is of note; Sol Ring will normally range from equivalent to more significant just as Ancient Tomb or Eldrazi Temple is generally more significant than a single basic land. And if you disagree with that idea, consider this experiment:
Basic Wastes now tap for CC. What do landbases look like now?
The difference there is that you can run as many wastes as you want. The real comparison is Ring to Ancient Tomb, which you already made. Keep in mind that one major strength of artifact mana vs lands is that you only get 1 land drop per turn. Since Sol Ring costs 1 to cast, it's less explosive than Tomb the turn it hits. Crypt is arguably as strong as the moxen, but ring is a step below.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The difference there is that you can run as many wastes as you want.
I was comparing Sol Ring to Moxen via a metaphor to something and Basic Lands. The comparison between a doubled Wastes and a basic land is more similar to the comparison between Sol Ring and a Mox than the comparison between Ancient Tomb and a basic land. (To extend the metaphor, a basic Ancient Tomb would be like Mana Crypt.)
If we do not focus on turn 1 play (which is reasonable; the format is not a turn 1 format - even Vintage is not a turn 1 format and EDH is significantly less consistent), playing Sol Ring or Mana Crypt turn 1 is relatively identical, with Mana Crypt being the lesser card due to the life loss over time. And while Wizards of the Coast will do what they can to never print a land that is STRICTLY better than a basic land on all counts (amusingly, another rationale behind not reprinting OG duals), the comparison is still apt. Heck, we could even go one further and conceptualize these lands:
Ring
Basic Land - Sol (T: Add CC to your mana pool.)
If Ring would enter the battlefield, pay 1 instead. If you do, put Ring onto the battlefield. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
Crypt
Basic Land - Sol (T: Add CC to your mana pool.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, Crypt deals 3 damage to you.
And then the comparison is fully apt. But rather than being that specific, I just suggested, within reason as a negligible difference in the context of this discussion, a doubled Wastes.
In that vein, while I think I may have explained this well enough above:
Crypt is arguably as strong as the moxen, but ring is a step below.
If we exclusively look at turn 1 in a format for which it is not realistic to revolve around turn 1 wins (a format less consistent than Vintage, which already isn't a turn 1 format), then we get:
And sure, in that case, which is at times useful to look at, I agree with you that Sol Ring is a step below the moxen. However, let's look at the more realistic case of the format as a whole. Let's call EDH a turn 3 format. That's likely a bit generous in terms of speed and consistency, but we can go with it, as any later turns only serve to prove the point and push it more in the favor of Sol Ring.
Sol Ring: 1 -> CC + CC + CC Mana Crypt: 0 -> CC + 50% 3 dmg + CC + 50% 3 dmg + CC Moxen: 0 -> + +
Say what you will about colored mana vs colorless mana, and the value of the 50% 3 dmg, but by turn 2, either of Sol Ring or Mana Crypt is arguably better than a Mox.
If we consider the 50% 3 dmg to be, say, a negative utility of -, then we're looking at comparable amounts of mana from Sol Ring and Mana Crypt on turn 3, and Sol Ring as the best of the three cards as of turn 4.
No matter what, Moxen come out the worst in this discussion.
But wait, you might say, what about the price?
The lowest and market prices of Unlimited Moxen rounded to the nearest $25:
To be fair, there are fewer Legends and Antiquities cards in existence, but the point of inconsistency still applies. And follow-up arguments about turn 1-3 games distinguishing the Moxen from these other cards either:
A) Has already been addressed in the earlier part of my post.
B) Is invalidated by the presence of Mishra's Workshop on that list, which also raises some questions with the issue of "but Moxen are more powerful"
C) Is invalidated by the nature of the format, either in vision/spirit, or in practice.
To support point C, here's a quote from Toby Elliott:
I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about Batman.
Not the dark and gritty Christopher Nolan version or even the dark and twisted Tim Burton version. I want to talk about the 1960s version starring an oh-so-earnest Adam West. Those episodes classic TV that they are were almost always broken into two parts. At the conclusion of the first part Batman would inevitably have been trapped by the villain and placed in some inescapable deathtrap.
These fiendish killing machines were masterpieces of Rube-Goldberg-ian baroqueness themed around whichever particular villain had triumphed over Batman that day. But they all had one thing in common - at the start of the second part once the villain had left the room Batman would find an equally baroque way of escaping these traps. And by the end of the episode the villain would be carted away to what appears to be the lowest security prison of all time since they seemed to have no problem popping up again at will in later episodes.
Some of you out there think this seems pretty silly. Once you have your arch-nemesis incapacitated you kill them and you'll be able to run rampant through Gotham City for the rest of your career. Scott Evil in the original Austin Powers movie summed this up: "I have a gun in my room you give me five seconds I'll get it I'll come back down here BOOM I'll blow their brains out!" To which his father replies "Scott you just don't get it do ya?"
Scott Evil doesn't understand Commander. He sees a format he can break easily and a ban list that doesn't make any sense. The Joker? To the Joker the journey is more important than the final result and if Batman gets away there'll be another chance to break out of Arkham and concoct a new fiendish deathtrap. The Joker loves Commander.
Commander is a Vintage format in which you're guaranteed to have a pretty strong card - your general - available to you all the time. You have lots of extra life and it's multiplayer so people's attentions are spread around. There are too many guns. If your goal is simply to win you're likely to be frustrated at how easy it is. The good news is that there are lots of formats - Standard Legacy etc. - that are all carefully managed to cater to you. Commander wasn't designed that way. It was built as a social format a way to hang out with your friends play some Magic and see what kind of craziness develops. If a game goes well, everyone gets a few moments to cackle like a supervillain.
What we can do as the Rules Committee is try to steer people away from cards that we have found accidentally make the game uninteresting. We want to make sure that the shark-infested custard you plan to dangle your enemies over isn't emitting toxic fumes because that would be awkward. If you are using Erayo or Armageddon or putting Curiosity into your Niv-Mizzet deck you aren't thinking about defeating your opponents with a laser mounted on the moon and there's no ban list long enough to stop you finding guns too powerful for the format. But if you heard the phrase 'shark-infested custard' and that gave you warm fuzzies I think we have a format for you.
Now, in the interest of maintaining fair and reasoned discussion and to cite my sources, the article that Sheldon wrote including that quote can be found here.
Part of the message of that quote is to excuse inconsistency in general in banning. Over the course of the past year, Sheldon has started to express something further, at least on our forums, that I respect quite a bit:
Quote from Sheldon »
4. We have a vision. We're not insulting anyone, giving them the finger, or telling them to GTFO by being unapologetic about maintaining that vision or being clear that we aren't going to cater to those whose vision is different or deviate from what we've set down. Other ways of seeing things are perfectly valid and we have no desire to try to stamp them out. Trying to make the format all things to everyone is a path to madness, and a rabbit hole we're not going down. Our message has repeatedly been "this is what we're doing, hope you like it and follow along." The most important takeaway for this particular discussion is that tournament Commander is not part of that vision. We have a target audience, and those are the folks we're going to focus on. It's unfortunate if that alienates anyone, but as I said before, that alienation is collateral, not intentional. And once more, that's not a critical commentary on anything which lies outside the vision or the people whose opinions differ.
Quote from Sheldon »
We don't need anyone to agree with us, but we're happy that lots of folks do. If you disagree with how we're implementing what we've said we're trying to do, we're all ears. Sure, we're not going to engage in discussion on something that's outside what we're doing. You might have the best argument ever on how to make Commander a great tournament format, but that's outside our scope. It's in no way reflective of you or the quality of your argument, it's simply not what we're focusing on. Feel free to help us better implement our vision, but please don't get upset if we say no thank you if you're trying to change the fundamental nature of the format.
Thusly, while I don't expect that the seeming inconsistency of banning the Moxen but not banning Sol Ring or Mana Crypt will change any time soon, maintaining and expanding the discussion and hearing from more people will increase the likelihood that the format will go one way or the other. I enjoy the format as is. I also enjoy Vintage, so a banlist that does not include cards restricted in Vintage would be fine with me as well. I also have enjoyed playing in formats such as Legacy and Duel Commander in which the cards are all banned, and I personally feel that may be the best solution in the long term for the EDH banlist, while removing some number of cards, and ending up with a similar number of banned cards. But in the meantime, discussion of the banning and unbanning of any Power 20 cards (Power 9 + Library of Alexandria, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Time Vault, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Necropotence, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal) also seems reasonable. (Maybe not Time Vault; that card is dumb even in Vintage.)
Thusly, while I don't expect that the seeming inconsistency of banning the Moxen but not banning Sol Ring or Mana Crypt will change any time soon, maintaining and expanding the discussion and hearing from more people will increase the likelihood that the format will go one way or the other. I enjoy the format as is. I also enjoy Vintage, so a banlist that does not include cards restricted in Vintage would be fine with me as well. I also have enjoyed playing in formats such as Legacy and Duel Commander in which the cards are all banned, and I personally feel that may be the best solution in the long term for the EDH banlist, while removing some number of cards, and ending up with a similar number of banned cards. But in the meantime, discussion of the banning and unbanning of any Power 20 cards (Power 9 + Library of Alexandria, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Time Vault, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Necropotence, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal) also seems reasonable. (Maybe not Time Vault; that card is dumb even in Vintage.)
I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing thing. Just because you lump all 20 cards into a 'Power 20' doesn't mean that they are all on the same power level and that the banning/unbanning of one should mean the banning/unbanning of all of them. Sometimes, just limiting the number of available cards that produce the same kind of effect can be enough to make an issue into a non-issue. From this persepctive, banning Moxen and Black Lotus limits the number of fast mana rocks to just Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Mox Diamond, Chrome Mox, and maybe Mox Opal and/or Grim Monolith. Having 5-7 options is probably fine where having 11-13 options most definitely would not. Along these lines, I actually think it would be fine to ban Mana Crypt and leave Sol Ring alone; some people will scream about consistency, but it should just be about that. It is better to keep context in mind when banning cards rather than just take each card in a vacuum.
Let me put this another way. WotC keeps standard away from having too many counterspells or too many good land destruction spells for a reason; once you hit a critical mass of counters, decks like Draw-Go end up dominating, and once you have a critical mass of LD spells/disruption, LD decks like Ponza will arise. Having a critical mass of the particular kind of spell will lead players to want to put them all in a deck and ride their inherent synergy to victory. We can treat fast mana in EDH the same way; some is okay, but too much is probably not.
Just because you lump all 20 cards into a 'Power 20' doesn't mean that they are all on the same power level and that the banning/unbanning of one should mean the banning/unbanning of all of them.
That was not my point... It's more that thinking in the context of the format, if we look at Vintage legal mana rocks, at the moment we're banning some mana rocks based primarily on power level, but we're not banning a notably stronger mana rock, which doesn't make sense.
Most groups I've seen said "if you own a physical copy of it."
I think house rules are cool, but am very glad I didnt see this one early. Just out of curiosity, majority is 'X out of Y' what are X and Y?
Basic Wastes now tap for CC. What do landbases look like now?
I think thats a poor discussion point in a Moxen discussion. We are discussing items that may be more broken, partly because they are NOT colorless. But without the damage tacked on, people will start playing a lot more wastes. Temple of the False God gets played.
But smoothing out to outright breaking 3+ color decks early game isnt a area that should be broached for a super subjective idea like consistency.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any thoughts on the moxen in EDH?
If you're running a mono-colored deck, you can only run Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and the Mox of your color.
If you're running a four-colored deck, you can run Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and four different Moxes. You've effectively doubled the number of opportunities to run into a nut draw where early artifact mana gives you the opportunity to jet ahead of the table.
Additionally, every extra mox you get to run increases the chances of drawing a hand with two or more pieces of free artifact acceleration, which amplifies the ruanway leader effect.
Given that 5-color and 4-color decks have an inherent advantage already by having access to additional colors worth of broken effects, I don't really want to introduce any rules the format further towards these decks.
And yeah, the actual supply of these is low, but when does that ever change anything? How many people do you know who run proxies of the dual lands even though they don't own any? And the vast majority of people I've ever played with are okay with it (myself included), because not having access to multiple-hundred-dollar cards shouldn't price you out of the game, and I'd rather you have the mana you need than have to play a turn behind or color screwed all game.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Agreed. Beyond everything said already(this kind of echoes the proxy argument, somewhat)these cards all exist under $50 on MtGO. I will never advocate a ban based on availability/unavailability on MtGO, but this cannot be ignored in this instance. I mean, you're talking of possible turn-1 draws that can power out Narset, enlightened master turn 1 with cards to spare. While it won't happen often in paper due to their scarcity, it's still something that can, and will happen, but 100% should not... ever.
But is this really an argument that we can use for banning? I mean, you can basically throw ubiquity out of the window at that point as a consideration. At which point format-warping isn't even really a thing. I understand that isn't the point of your argument, but is it not a ready concern?
Which we have a bunch of already, so more of them wouldn't exactly make a big difference, no?
I pose the same point to you as to Wildfire, with the added question:
How significantly different is a turn 1 Mox to a turn 1 Sol Ring or Mana Crypt in this format, in terms of turn 1?
In terms of later turns, they are less strong.
On the other hand, if the moxen don't actually create a perceived barrier to entry, I would like to see them legal. I think there's a double standard between cards like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt and cards like the Moxen. If Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are acceptable in Commander because they don't cause significant harm, the Moxen shouldn't cause significant harm either. I don't buy into the argument that fast mana cards like Ring and Crypt are acceptable only so long as such effects aren't prevalent.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I look at the comparison this way:
Sol Ring: It costs mana and makes colorless, but its 2 mana so it replaces the mana investment and then puts you further ahead later. Late game mana production has never been a reason for banning, but too much to fast is. Sol Ring is near the line on this already, but is less explosive than the Moxen because it only puts you up by the same amount of mana the turn it comes into play, that mana is colorless, and, often overlooked, it often makes your land for the turn essentially tap for colorless (assuming it didn't already). Basically, turn 1 Tundra into Sol Ring produces 2 colorless mana. Turn 1 Tundra into Mox Sapphire produces UU. That's a big difference, and its a difference that comes when it is most important, the early game. Late game, Sol Ring's ability to put you up an extra mana is still comparable in power to the Moxen giving you colored mana, and in multicolored decks the latter can often be more important than the former. Sol Ring is near the line of being bannable, but doesn't quite cross it in my opinion (and some would argue that it does cross it).
Mana Crypt: Free like the Moxen, makes 2 colorless like Ring. The obvious disadvantage is that it doesn't produce colored mana, but giving you a bonus 2 rather than a bonus 1 is more explosive, so I'd say its better at that then the Moxen. Unlike the Moxen, Mana Crypt has a drawback, a 50/50 chance of it doming you for 3 every turn (or basically it averages 1.5 life per turn). In cEDH, this isn't a drawback at all as the game will likely end before it does enough damage to make a difference, but at more casual tables the card actually gets much worse, first because the benefit of fast mana is harder to take advantage of when you aren't running tuned decks that reliably combo off or lock out the game, so its easier for opponents to team up and put you in your place, but also because games last long enough that its drawback becomes a real drawback. If you cast it turn 1 and the game lasts 10 turns, you are on average going to take 15 damage from it. I have been able to win casual games because of my opponent's Crypt having put them in range. Now, obviously it isn't consistent in the damage, so sometimes its drawback might only hit you for damage you can shrug off, but sometimes you'll lose the flips 6 turns in a row and it'll knock out half your life total. Still, Crypt is closer to the line of bannability that Sol Ring.
Mana Vault: Lets talk about Vault while we're at it. Costs 1, taps for 3, so it gets you the same jump as crypt, again colorless, but it sets you back mana in the long run as it costs 4 to untap (without ways to cheat it), and hits you for a nominal amount of life if you leave it tapped. I don't think this is all that close to being bannable, tbh, since it basically acts like a colorless Dark Rit that you can buyback for 4 mana. Moxen are clearly better.
Honestly, if we're going to make a banlist change around this, the only argument I could agree with is banning Crypt. It makes more mana the turn it comes down than the Moxen, and is as problematic in cEDH. However, I still don't advocate doing so, while I still advocate keeping the Moxen banned. The reason is simple: There is only 1 Crypt, but 5 Moxen. I don't think that Crypt, on its own, or even in conjunction with Sol Ring and Vault, is enough to be a problem for the format, but I think that adding 5 Moxen to the mix would be. Having the three pillars of fast mana available to every deck is fine, but being able to toss 3 Moxen on top of that in 3 color (or even just 2 in 2 color decks) would be a huge boost in consistency as well as a huge increase in the ceiling for nut draws.
Basically, there is only room for so many busted mana rocks in the format, and Wizards isn't printing any more of them, so it comes down to deciding what stays in and what stays out. Keeping all 8 makes the fast mana to reliable for many decks, and increases the ceiling for what a nuts draw can look like (turn 1 land, moxen, moxen, crypt, ring, Narset, or combo out, or some other insanity). It makes more sense to keep the three that can go in any deck and which have some form of draw back (and which can be banned individually if need be) than the five that are color restricted and come and go as a set, let alone that getting a set of Moxen is like $5000. Personally, the best (house ruled) solution is to make it so that you can only run 2 cards out of Ring, Crypt, and the 5 Moxen per deck. This would keep the too much mana too fast problem at bay by ensuring that you cannot run more fast mana than you can under the current list. It would also ensure parity in fast mana between mono colored, 2 color, 3, 4, 5 color, and mono brown. Additionally, it could make for an interesting deckbuilding choice, basically do you need the colored mana of the Moxen more, or do you need the greater amount of mana provided by Ring and Crypt? (Vault is always allowed here because its the weakest of the 8 outside of dedicated untap abuse, and keeping the weakest as the third pillar of mana acceleration in the deck helps keep it from getting to busted).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Yeah, not when they get unbanned. You might probably need to add a 0 behind that figure once that happens.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Because we have exactly the right percent of games ruined by fast mana to be acceptible. Adding more fast mana would disturb that balance and banning the current fast mana would make less games crappy, so I guess that's bad?
Either all the broken mana is okay or none of it is okay. Basically, I don't think anything more powerful than Mana Vault and Grim Monolith should not be in the format (because they are just rituals with possible synergy options).
However I do agree that the moxen should realistically be in the same place as ring/crypt.
Sarcasm is a great substitute for having an argument isn't it?
Your opinion is fine, you want to argue that crypt and sol ring should be banned along with the Moxen, I disagree and have explained why but its a popular complaint. Pretending that adding 5 arguably more powerful cards to that mana suite wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the format compared to what it is now while simultaneously arguing that crypt and sol ring should be banned is willfully obtuse, a weak attempt at dismissing an argument (arguing that it wouldn't hurt because fast mana is fine, while wrong headed, at least is a consistent argument).
The ease and consistency of drawing into fast mana, especially fast colored mana, is important. Getting a Ring and Vault at the same time is bonkers, but its rare enough to be acceptable in my opinion, because this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen. Having it happen with consistency would verge into unhealthy territory, and adding the Moxen to the mix would up the odds of getting an equivalent draw (instead of just crypt and ring, you would have a combination of any two of crypt, ring, and the moxen, and the possibility to go even higher). Just crypt or ring, on their own, are fine to see with some regularity, and any single moxen would be fine as well, but that's not what we would get with legalizing all the moxen.
Yes, the availability of the effect matters, because this is a singleton format, and cards can be held partially in check by how consistently you are able to get them online. The more available an effect is, the more consistently you have access to it, and the more problematic it can become. Clearly you, and others, think the power level of Sol Ring and Crypt is too high even now, which is fine even though I disagree. Its insipid, however, to argue that doubling the access to cards of that power for the average decks (since the moxen have color identity, some decks can run more than others, so I'm assuming the average would be 2 based on most decks being mono, bi, or tri colored) would not greatly increase the frequency of fast mana draws and raise the ceiling for just how fast that can go. This holds true for other effects. Demonic Tutor is fine alongside Vampiric and Seal, but what if there were 5 more Demonic Tutors you could run? That would be too much of the effect, and essentially make getting a cheap universal tutor in your opening hand too easy and thus decks too consistent. Cyclonic Rift is fine, but what if you could run 7 of them? That would be tedious and oppressive. What if we could run 7 different equally strong versions of Natural Order or Ad Nauseam? Yes, there are many people who are fine with the current state of fast mana, but do not want to see further proliferation or greater frequency of it in games. Instead of dismissing that view out of hand as unworthy of your consideration, maybe acknowledge that its a mere differing of preference, you know, like I did. I know I'm not going to convince you that crypt and ring are fine if you don't like them, but maybe I can convince you to be less flippant.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Longer Answer: Its extremely unwise to unban the moxen. Increased mana production in the early turns of the game does not exactly lead to fun games as it becomes more of a race to who can be the first to get their super weapon online.
Over the Top Answer
Sarcasm and an argument are not mutually exclusive. In fact, showing just how absurd the logic is by using the tool of satire is a well proven method of bringing to light problems. Remember that George Orwell guy with Animal Farm? Or political cartoons?
But, if you insist on disposing with wit, I will restate my view on ring and crypt with regards to moxen: Availability of an effect is a secondary concern. If you accept that fast mana can have a negative impact on the game, you cannot say that it is alright is 2/100 cards have this effect, but once we get to 4-5/100 it's too much. Within the context of a game of magic, you need to look at the effect of the event (having fast mana) independent of the probability that it occurs.
Allow me to posit a hypothetical question for you, if instead of 5 moxen there was only 1 mox that had the restriction of "when ~ ETB choose a color," would that be an okay card?
How many fast mana are acceptable? Would it be okay if we banned crypt and ring and unbanned a random 2 of the moxen? That would have no effect on the availability of the effect.
You dismiss my sarcasm completely, but then you say something as asinine as "this is a format where bonkers things are supposed to occasionally happen," in defense of lopsided non-games cause by drawing into that fast mana. Are you seriously saying that you think a format where that crappy game happens maybe 1 out of 10 is better than one where it doesn't happen?
First, good job confusing sarcasm and satire. There wasn't much wit to dispose of in your asinine attempt at argument, as usual with you, merely a puerile attempt to dismiss out of hand others opinions, again as per usual for you.
Now, on to the actual topic at hand. I do not believe that fast mana is in and of itself a problem, but that it only becomes a problem if it is too easily available and thus too consistent. Perhaps if you read my post you wouldn't have had to ask questions that I already answered in them. Your proposed "unban a single moxen, choose a color" solution, I already sort of suggested that as acceptable with my idea of grouping the moxen in with Crypt and Sol Ring and sayin "choose 2". The mox you propose woould be stronger than any of the real moxen, so that's right out (you don't need universal color fixing on top as fast mana) but allowing a single mox per deck into the current environment might be fine, but pushing it. It would likely cross a line for many people who believe that the current state of fast mana is borderline between broken and fine. I believe that the current state of fast mana is fine, and I understand that you and many others disagree (while many others agree with me I should point out, and some in this thread are even OK with the moxen being unbanned).
I think your main issue here is that you see any game where fast mana plays a part as crappy or ruined, and I, and many others, don't. You assert your preferences as fact, and take the must asinine tact you can when doing so. Your lame attempt at sarcasm didn't do a damn thing to illustrate "absurd" logic, as it assumes that any game in which fast mana shows up is automatically ruined, or even usually ruined. I, and many others, happen to like playing with fast mana, but don't want it to be so widespread that its something that every player is hitting with regularity nor so powerful as it would be with the addition of the moxen to the mix. Yes, bonkers things happen in this game, and many players, myself included, find that fun, so long as it isn't the same bonkers things happening every game. Bonkers, or epic, or whatever you want to call it, things happening are the defining aspect of the format. Sometimes, the draws line up to give players the ability to just crush the whole table, and that is a healthy part of the format so long as its only happening once in awhile, its only when it starts happening constantly that its a problem. Drawing your entire deck is fun, but not when multiple players are doing it and it happens every game. Knowing that there's always a chance that someone at the table is going to go two turns ahead on mana off of rocks can, and in my experience often does, lead to exciting games. Sometimes you get the rocks and they help you steamroll, sometimes an opponent does and the table bands together to keep them in check, sometimes a player keeps shaky mana because they have a ring or a crypt and you hit their rock with a vandalblast turn 1 and flip their game plan on it head.
You may not like those things. They ruin games for you. Guess what though chief, that doesn't mean that your preference is the only right one. Your argument boils down to "STOP LIKING THINGS I DON"T LIKE", and then you dress it up in condescending drivel.
And finally, you suck at probability. going from 2/99 to 4/99 is a major leap. That's going from a 1/50 chance of drawing a card to a 1/25 chance. But wait, you aren't just drawing one card for your opening hand, your drawing 7 cards. This means that any individual player will go from having a 14% chance of getting one piece of fast mana currently with just ring and crypt, to a 26% chance with a 2 color deck running moxen, and that's just opening hand. that's going from having that draw once every 6 games to once every 4. And that's only the probabilities for getting one piece, which is the least problematic. The differences in probability are more stark for getting two pieces because you NEED to draw both crypt and ring currently, while after adding moxen you can draw a combination of 2 of the 4 options. And, again, this is before we get into the now possible chance of drawing 3 of the 4 or even all 4 (or 5, or 6 depending on how many colors you run) of the pieces.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Did you just learn a new word from me? You're using "asinine" a lot. I feel proud that I've educated you in at least 1 area, although I think I am going to block you now as your arguments are not very substantive, more akin to rants.
EDIT: I wasn't able to publish this post before either of the above users responded. For everyone else going forward, can we keep this civil? I'm interested in reaching truth, not bickering with one another.
I wanted to slice this bit out of your last response to explain why I disagree with you here. I understand where you're coming from; I used to personally agree with everything you're saying here, that it was unimportant how often a harmful event occurred, only whether or not it was actually possible in the first place. That line of reasoning eventually led me to the conclusion that too many cards were capable of causing harmful events to be banned though. Most Magic cards are flexible and can be used in ways that create positive gameplay experiences or negative ones. As such, the banned list can't possibly accommodate every card with the potential to create harmful events. That would make the banned list unfathomably long.
The only justifiable way to shape the ban list is to only choose to ban cards that are actually causing significant volumes of harm in Commander. Some cards, like Sol Ring, undeniably cause harm. Tooth and Nail is probably an even better example. It's very easy to distinguish when players use Tooth and Nail to create harmful events. The fact that players can use cards like Tooth and Nail to create harmful events though doesn't matter; what matters is whether or not cards like Tooth and Nail are actually causing harmful events (and if so, how often and how hazardous). The Rules Committee can't realistically ban every card capable of causing harmful events. They can, however, observe how often a card which creates harmful events creates them. If a card is capable of causing harmful events, how often it does so matters. If said card doesn't create harmful events frequently enough, then it shouldn't be banned.
We may disagree where to draw the line in the sand (and I'd be very happy to disagree about that), but surely we both agree that there is a line to be drawn, right? Not every card with the potential to create a harmful event can be ban-worthy. The probability of the event does matter.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'll agree to step back from it. I responded twice and said my piece, and there's nothing further to add on that, especially since its now descended into pure flaming.
You make a great point re: Tooth and Nail, a card I personally loathe but don't think should be banned, for the reasons you stated. T&N can often "ruin" games by winning out of nowhere (although in a combo heavy meta, its just a more expensive way to do so). If every other game, or one in 10 games is ending in T&N ftw out of nowhere, it starts to piss me off. Lately, I haven't been seeing it as much, as my local playgroup has switched their decks up and I guess I've been getting lucky to avoid it online. The past couple of times T&N has ended the game abruptly (I've always been fine with it closing a game that's dragging on, because games have to end eventually), it hasn't really bothered me, and I attribute that solely to the fact that I haven't had to deal with it that often. Another example, when BFZ released online, Omnath 2.0 started showing up constantly. Almost every multiplayer game I played had Omnath, and its a deck that tends to win the same way every time, ramp into Omnath then ramp some more to make a crapload of elementals. It was strong enough to take games regularly (not cEDH strong though), very consistent at what it did, and pretty much a solitaire deck. It was kind of cool at first, but quickly got old because it was overplayed, to the point where I started to outright hate the deck. Then Gitrog Monster was release and that became the flavor of the month, and Omnath numbers dropped off drastically. I no longer find it annoying, because its no longer causing half the games I join to play out the same way. Its by no means broken, but its an example of how a card or effect that's not even broken can become a problem if encountered with too much regularity (which is also why legendary creatures have a lower threshold to cross before getting banned, as they are ALWAYS available when the are your commander. I doubt that Rofellos, Braids, or even Leovold would be banned if not for the fact that they are always effectively in your opening hand and always retrievable if they are your commander).
Fast mana is especially reliant on being in your opening hand to possibly cause a problem, so it is especially sensitive to the probability of drawing it very early. I personally don't find getting one piece of fast mana turn one to ruin games except in rare occasions, and I only think it starts becoming a potential problem when you get two or more pieces, especially both ring and crypt together. Some would disagree, so I say this just to give some context as to where I'm coming from. Mid game and late game, ring and crypt are more valuable when they are helping you catch up on mana from a bad draw then they are when they are just ramping you from a normal or fast start. They actually serve a positive purpose that I feel adds to the format in any stage but the opening turns, and even then I think its a matter of preference as to whether they are always harmful early ( and as I've said, I think they are often neutral early in terms being harmful or positive, and sometimes fun as well).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Well, my argument for ring/crypt is that there is precedent for their specific banning with Tolarian Academy. That's why I think they are where the line should exist. I always see Mana Vault and Grim Monolith lumped in with them, but I think those are alright since they are hardly better than rituals if you're not using untap/artifact synergy.
If you are on the 'Sol Ring should be banned' train, adding 5 new ZERO cost mana rocks that are color producing, cmon now. And if Mox and SR come down T1/T2....
And even if you think SR is OK, you would have to admit more fuel on that fire isn't a good thing. Sure you can argue more broken mana is reducndant, but 5 more with zero cost? Thats a poor argument at that point.
Most groups I've seen said "if you own a physical copy of it."
I think that between a desire for consistency and a low likelihood for a mox to ruin a game any more than Sol Ring in a normal playgroup, it's not unreasonable to consider unbanning the moxen as long as the ring is legal. Heck the difference in social games like those idealized in the vision for the format is of note; Sol Ring will normally range from equivalent to more significant just as Ancient Tomb or Eldrazi Temple is generally more significant than a single basic land. And if you disagree with that idea, consider this experiment:
Basic Wastes now tap for CC. What do landbases look like now?
The difference there is that you can run as many wastes as you want. The real comparison is Ring to Ancient Tomb, which you already made. Keep in mind that one major strength of artifact mana vs lands is that you only get 1 land drop per turn. Since Sol Ring costs 1 to cast, it's less explosive than Tomb the turn it hits. Crypt is arguably as strong as the moxen, but ring is a step below.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I was comparing Sol Ring to Moxen via a metaphor to something and Basic Lands. The comparison between a doubled Wastes and a basic land is more similar to the comparison between Sol Ring and a Mox than the comparison between Ancient Tomb and a basic land. (To extend the metaphor, a basic Ancient Tomb would be like Mana Crypt.)
If we do not focus on turn 1 play (which is reasonable; the format is not a turn 1 format - even Vintage is not a turn 1 format and EDH is significantly less consistent), playing Sol Ring or Mana Crypt turn 1 is relatively identical, with Mana Crypt being the lesser card due to the life loss over time. And while Wizards of the Coast will do what they can to never print a land that is STRICTLY better than a basic land on all counts (amusingly, another rationale behind not reprinting OG duals), the comparison is still apt. Heck, we could even go one further and conceptualize these lands:
Ring
Basic Land - Sol
(T: Add CC to your mana pool.)
If Ring would enter the battlefield, pay 1 instead. If you do, put Ring onto the battlefield. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
Crypt
Basic Land - Sol
(T: Add CC to your mana pool.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, Crypt deals 3 damage to you.
And then the comparison is fully apt. But rather than being that specific, I just suggested, within reason as a negligible difference in the context of this discussion, a doubled Wastes.
In that vein, while I think I may have explained this well enough above:
If we exclusively look at turn 1 in a format for which it is not realistic to revolve around turn 1 wins (a format less consistent than Vintage, which already isn't a turn 1 format), then we get:
Sol Ring: 1 -> CC
Mana Crypt: 0 -> CC
Moxen: 0 ->
And sure, in that case, which is at times useful to look at, I agree with you that Sol Ring is a step below the moxen. However, let's look at the more realistic case of the format as a whole. Let's call EDH a turn 3 format. That's likely a bit generous in terms of speed and consistency, but we can go with it, as any later turns only serve to prove the point and push it more in the favor of Sol Ring.
Sol Ring: 1 -> CC + CC + CC
Mana Crypt: 0 -> CC + 50% 3 dmg + CC + 50% 3 dmg + CC
Moxen: 0 -> + +
Say what you will about colored mana vs colorless mana, and the value of the 50% 3 dmg, but by turn 2, either of Sol Ring or Mana Crypt is arguably better than a Mox.
If we consider the 50% 3 dmg to be, say, a negative utility of -, then we're looking at comparable amounts of mana from Sol Ring and Mana Crypt on turn 3, and Sol Ring as the best of the three cards as of turn 4.
No matter what, Moxen come out the worst in this discussion.
The lowest and market prices of Unlimited Moxen rounded to the nearest $25:
Mox Pearl: $700 Low, $950 Market
Mox Sapphire: $1200 Low, $1700 Market
Mox Jet: $850 Low, $1500 Market
Mox Ruby: $700 Low, $1100 Market
Mox Emerald: $800 Low, $900 Market
The lowest and market prices of other, legal, similarly priced cards of similar market presence:
Tabernacle: $1000 Low, $1175 Market
Mishra's Workshop: $800 Low, $875 Market
Unlimited Timetwister: $750 Low, $900 Market
To be fair, there are fewer Legends and Antiquities cards in existence, but the point of inconsistency still applies. And follow-up arguments about turn 1-3 games distinguishing the Moxen from these other cards either:
A) Has already been addressed in the earlier part of my post.
B) Is invalidated by the presence of Mishra's Workshop on that list, which also raises some questions with the issue of "but Moxen are more powerful"
C) Is invalidated by the nature of the format, either in vision/spirit, or in practice.
To support point C, here's a quote from Toby Elliott:
Not the dark and gritty Christopher Nolan version or even the dark and twisted Tim Burton version. I want to talk about the 1960s version starring an oh-so-earnest Adam West. Those episodes classic TV that they are were almost always broken into two parts. At the conclusion of the first part Batman would inevitably have been trapped by the villain and placed in some inescapable deathtrap.
These fiendish killing machines were masterpieces of Rube-Goldberg-ian baroqueness themed around whichever particular villain had triumphed over Batman that day. But they all had one thing in common - at the start of the second part once the villain had left the room Batman would find an equally baroque way of escaping these traps. And by the end of the episode the villain would be carted away to what appears to be the lowest security prison of all time since they seemed to have no problem popping up again at will in later episodes.
Some of you out there think this seems pretty silly. Once you have your arch-nemesis incapacitated you kill them and you'll be able to run rampant through Gotham City for the rest of your career. Scott Evil in the original Austin Powers movie summed this up: "I have a gun in my room you give me five seconds I'll get it I'll come back down here BOOM I'll blow their brains out!" To which his father replies "Scott you just don't get it do ya?"
Scott Evil doesn't understand Commander. He sees a format he can break easily and a ban list that doesn't make any sense. The Joker? To the Joker the journey is more important than the final result and if Batman gets away there'll be another chance to break out of Arkham and concoct a new fiendish deathtrap. The Joker loves Commander.
Commander is a Vintage format in which you're guaranteed to have a pretty strong card - your general - available to you all the time. You have lots of extra life and it's multiplayer so people's attentions are spread around. There are too many guns. If your goal is simply to win you're likely to be frustrated at how easy it is. The good news is that there are lots of formats - Standard Legacy etc. - that are all carefully managed to cater to you. Commander wasn't designed that way. It was built as a social format a way to hang out with your friends play some Magic and see what kind of craziness develops. If a game goes well, everyone gets a few moments to cackle like a supervillain.
What we can do as the Rules Committee is try to steer people away from cards that we have found accidentally make the game uninteresting. We want to make sure that the shark-infested custard you plan to dangle your enemies over isn't emitting toxic fumes because that would be awkward. If you are using Erayo or Armageddon or putting Curiosity into your Niv-Mizzet deck you aren't thinking about defeating your opponents with a laser mounted on the moon and there's no ban list long enough to stop you finding guns too powerful for the format. But if you heard the phrase 'shark-infested custard' and that gave you warm fuzzies I think we have a format for you.
Now, in the interest of maintaining fair and reasoned discussion and to cite my sources, the article that Sheldon wrote including that quote can be found here.
Part of the message of that quote is to excuse inconsistency in general in banning. Over the course of the past year, Sheldon has started to express something further, at least on our forums, that I respect quite a bit:
Thusly, while I don't expect that the seeming inconsistency of banning the Moxen but not banning Sol Ring or Mana Crypt will change any time soon, maintaining and expanding the discussion and hearing from more people will increase the likelihood that the format will go one way or the other. I enjoy the format as is. I also enjoy Vintage, so a banlist that does not include cards restricted in Vintage would be fine with me as well. I also have enjoyed playing in formats such as Legacy and Duel Commander in which the cards are all banned, and I personally feel that may be the best solution in the long term for the EDH banlist, while removing some number of cards, and ending up with a similar number of banned cards. But in the meantime, discussion of the banning and unbanning of any Power 20 cards (Power 9 + Library of Alexandria, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Time Vault, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Necropotence, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, Demonic Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal) also seems reasonable. (Maybe not Time Vault; that card is dumb even in Vintage.)
I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing thing. Just because you lump all 20 cards into a 'Power 20' doesn't mean that they are all on the same power level and that the banning/unbanning of one should mean the banning/unbanning of all of them. Sometimes, just limiting the number of available cards that produce the same kind of effect can be enough to make an issue into a non-issue. From this persepctive, banning Moxen and Black Lotus limits the number of fast mana rocks to just Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Mox Diamond, Chrome Mox, and maybe Mox Opal and/or Grim Monolith. Having 5-7 options is probably fine where having 11-13 options most definitely would not. Along these lines, I actually think it would be fine to ban Mana Crypt and leave Sol Ring alone; some people will scream about consistency, but it should just be about that. It is better to keep context in mind when banning cards rather than just take each card in a vacuum.
Let me put this another way. WotC keeps standard away from having too many counterspells or too many good land destruction spells for a reason; once you hit a critical mass of counters, decks like Draw-Go end up dominating, and once you have a critical mass of LD spells/disruption, LD decks like Ponza will arise. Having a critical mass of the particular kind of spell will lead players to want to put them all in a deck and ride their inherent synergy to victory. We can treat fast mana in EDH the same way; some is okay, but too much is probably not.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
That was not my point... It's more that thinking in the context of the format, if we look at Vintage legal mana rocks, at the moment we're banning some mana rocks based primarily on power level, but we're not banning a notably stronger mana rock, which doesn't make sense.
I think thats a poor discussion point in a Moxen discussion. We are discussing items that may be more broken, partly because they are NOT colorless. But without the damage tacked on, people will start playing a lot more wastes. Temple of the False God gets played.
But smoothing out to outright breaking 3+ color decks early game isnt a area that should be broached for a super subjective idea like consistency.