Zurgo IMO is only issue for unprepared players. It is cheap deck so there are many players. I think at DTC it was about 15% of the meta but none got into top8. I agree that we cant have double standart (ban one commander that has high% and not the other one) but DC is realy known for slow adaptation.
if you have a griselbrand in game agaisnt you lost since it's banned...
Griselbrand is banned as commander, it isn't being able to be played on mtgo probably because they haven't programmed yet this division, so its not separated.. But in the article its very clear its supposed to be banned as a commander and not because they are oppressive by their own.
Each of these commanders is essentially a story in its own right, but the common thread is that they are nearly impossible to beat once they resolve. There's a great deal of consistency in being able to play your commander every game and being able to cast them again should they die. In some cases, this means the deck itself becomes too consistent and too powerful, and these are commanders that have shown that to be the case.
Actually my out vs oloro is a one punch-man via master of cruelties. So I can beat him, but the matchup is still like 20-80 in favor of oloro. Way better than 0-100 with tasigur tho. lol.
Either way, the blue/green heavy meta is really not my cup of tea. It's playable without oloro and tasigur for sure, but right now I just prefer 20 life DC.
I don't agree about 20-80, I think it is unfavored, but much much more like 40-60 at minimum. You have an extra card that can become 2 or 3, if the deck doesn't depend solely on Kaalia you will probably break the hard control because they can't tap out so Oloro will not come down, and you will be casting and recasting kaalia multiple times. Oloro beats HARD decks that depends on 30 damage to win, Kaalia only needs a biggie on the field that does something the moment it is on the BF, I don't think the matchup is that bad. Try it out against one xD.
Have you actually piloted Kaalia vs oloro? What you're saying sounds like theory-crafting, and it's very far from what actually happens in the matchup. I've played the matchup non-stop from the day oloro was printed till the day he was banned. It's how I got the 20-80 statistic, I didn't pull that number out of my butthole. What happens is, I don't lose to oloro per se, I lose to the colors. Esper has counters to ensure kaalia doesn't resolve, which on its own is a big problem for me already.. but then there's also hand disrupt to remove threats from my hand, and then removal to kill creatures that come into play. Color-wise and ignoring commanders, esper control is the worst possible matchup for Kaalia. I'd be happy to get a 40-60 tbh but it is not possible unless I compromise other matchups.
I think DC20 is pretty much a blue/red meta, so whatever.
I don't see any reason for why you would think that. It's too early to really say what 20 life is. So far with the tiny Sample Size we have on top 8 since the most recent ban I've seen plenty of non blue or red deck. More then I remember seeing @30 life anyway
He has a beef with Zurgo.
Right now DC's upper echeleon is being disputed by Geist, Bruse-Reyhan, Bruse-Kraum, Karlov, and Baral.
I wouldn't say the meta is anything or bust. Not in the same way that 30 life is blue, green or bust. At least not with the small sample size we have anyway
Hehehe people keep bringing up this Iname finish like it's an statement of the health of the meta. It is, don't get me wrong, but it's funny. I bet DC20 after Vial is pretty balanced, I was just provoking because some people just come here to fight and say hyperbolic stuff without much thought. It was funny because all decks Cainsson quoted had blue or white in them, so I couldn't miss the joke. What can I do?
DC was a blue/red format in the beginning and while Vial and Breya were legal. But you never saw me or anyone else talk ***** about the format because of that. It has been almost an year but I still don't get this "blue/green format crying" people still throw around these days. Ah, whatever. I for one am getting tired again. I never said DC20 isn't balanced; but still hold my ground that DC30 also was. And I firmly believe Wizards format will be one day. That's it. They're different formats, with different playstyles. But to keep arguing who's more balanced is just jamming our heads against a 0/8 wall.
So back to the wizard thing, since it's up today.
The first league is called "Friendly 1v1 Commander League"... So I just beat a Leovold with Sidisi Ooze-combo... yeah, I think WotC are gonna have to look up the definition of friendly again..
I don't think they anticipated how the format's long time spikes would actually play it. I believe in July they'll change their list with that in mind. Seems like the announcement made the format more competitive all of a sudden and they didn't predict that (how they missed that is beyond me).
Put a tournament of 39 Iname's and a single tier 1 deck form DC and see who is the winner xD, not saying the player was bad, he actually was very very good to make results with... Iname sorry, Iname on DC is worst and slower than Sidisi with Ooze surely, but also than Braids and Griselbrand on 30HP
That was the most balanced top8 in like A LONG TIME
I can get a bunch of major tournaments from 2015-2016 and say its perfect because I can choose whichever tourney with 70+ players to justify, but I'll get just the last ones.
72 Players :
Geist of Saint Traft
Prime Speaker Zegana
Animar, Soul of Elements
Animar, Soul of Elements
Anafenza, the Foremost
Jenara, Asura of War
Kytheon, Hero of Akros
Titania, Protector of Argoth
Demonic Tournament: 118
Nin, the Pain Artist
Marchesa - Twin Exarch
Marath, Will of the Wild
The Gitrog Monster
Anafenza, the Foremost
Animar, Soul of Elements
Jenara, Asura of War
Jenara, Asura of War
Got the 2 last big tournaments before the switch to 20HP, not the 2 I wanted, but just the 2 most recent ones so its not me manipulating the top8, I see non-blue non-green in the same ratio I see non-blue non-red in DC today, and a much more diverse meta... If you want to see more just search and take your own opinion.
Now I want people to throw data on my face saying it was unbalanced, data is there, internet is right there to search for how it was.
@Fsecco. The goal for a balanced format should be one where all colours and archetypes have a real genuine shot to be #1 at a big tournament like the DTC. Of course it's a pipe dream to achieve a perfect balance but it should be the goal to strive towards. When I played 30 life it felt like the complete opposite. It felt like you eithor played blue control or green tempo. Those were the only really options if you wanted to win. It should be obvious why people don't like that and why we keep bringing it up.
@Raizen. I wouldn't say Iname is worse than Gbrand or Sidisi. The only black deck to ever win a decent sized tourny (50+ players) in DC history is Iname. Twice. Gbrand simply see's more play, not many people pilot Iname these days
I used to think that way about Iname too but recently I've been looking into it and I think it looks pretty good.
So back to the wizard thing, since it's up today.
The first league is called "Friendly 1v1 Commander League"... So I just beat a Leovold with Sidisi Ooze-combo... yeah, I think WotC are gonna have to look up the definition of friendly again..
Friendly is just about prize distribution, where not only the top wins something, it has nothing to do with how people play on it or how competitive it is.
Edit: I wonder when/if we'll start seeing decklists at mtggoldfish since they keep very good track of leagues for other formats.
It takes a couple of days for them to publish the data. People have to play the leagues and then they have to gather the data. I expect something friday or monday the latest.
Short-hand explaining "Banding basically lets me blatantly cheat @ combat maths." was enough for most people to get it (especially when used defensively), but when I introduced all my white legends getting to "band with other legends" that's where I threw people for a loop, since "banding" and "bands with others" are two decisively different mechanics. But, I am now far beyond "that guy" that people know isn't just some random player, lol. Respected as the guy with all the old school tech.
I still don't get why banding is good except for assigning blocking damage. There are marginal things like attacking with Benalish Hero + Savannah Lions and being able to trade with Mishra's Factory but it still feels so suboptimal...
Put a tournament of 39 Iname's and a single tier 1 deck form DC and see who is the winner xD, not saying the player was bad, he actually was very very good to make results with... Iname sorry, Iname on DC is worst and slower than Sidisi with Ooze surely, but also than Braids and Griselbrand on 30HP
That was the most balanced top8 in like A LONG TIME
I can get a bunch of major tournaments from 2015-2016 and say its perfect because I can choose whichever tourney with 70+ players to justify, but I'll get just the last ones.
72 Players :
Geist of Saint Traft
Prime Speaker Zegana
Animar, Soul of Elements
Animar, Soul of Elements
Anafenza, the Foremost
Jenara, Asura of War
Kytheon, Hero of Akros
Titania, Protector of Argoth
Demonic Tournament: 118
Nin, the Pain Artist
Marchesa - Twin Exarch
Marath, Will of the Wild
The Gitrog Monster
Anafenza, the Foremost
Animar, Soul of Elements
Jenara, Asura of War
Jenara, Asura of War
Got the 2 last big tournaments before the switch to 20HP, not the 2 I wanted, but just the 2 most recent ones so its not me manipulating the top8, I see non-blue non-green in the same ratio I see non-blue non-red in DC today, and a much more diverse meta... If you want to see more just search and take your own opinion.
Now I want people to throw data on my face saying it was unbalanced, data is there, internet is right there to search for how it was.
uh i only see kytheon as the non-blue,non-green deck. what you posted just reinforces the blue-green meta that some people don't mind, and others dislike. This was also post oloro/tasi ban, which at the moment is still legal in the MTGO banlist.
Also, posting the last 2 tournaments from 30 life and putting it side-by-side with the last major tournament for 20 life if both results are balanced accomplishes very little. Why? Because that 30 life data you posted used a banlist made by the exact same committee that switched to 20 life, because they wanted a less blue/green dominated meta. What it does accomplish is show that the committee managed to bring about change without compromising balance, even if vial initially messed it up. Another thing of note is that as it stands now, from a TO's point of view on which format to choose, it's not a choice between that old 30 life banlist and the 20 life banlist. It's the MTGO banlist vs the 20 life banlist. So posting that data which you claim to be balanced does not solve that dilemma, until such time that the MTGO banlist models itself after the old 30 life DC.. and we don't even know for sure if it will happen or not.
I wouldn't even consider the results from the first few tournies. Players in this new format have no idea how to brew for it yet. Give it time, and it'll end up right where we predict it will.
I still don't get why banding is good except for assigning blocking damage. There are marginal things like attacking with Benalish Hero + Savannah Lions and being able to trade with Mishra's Factory but it still feels so suboptimal...
The mechanic as a whole, is broken. Just the cards that offer it, are A) weak, B) over costed (Urza's Avenger is the "beefiest" with it and is 6), or C) are obscure. Except Helm of Chatzuk. As to why it's good? Because you can either force your opponent to make very unfavourable blocks, or a ton of damage to the face, with little-to-no risk to your own board state in combat. And on defense, yeah, that's the real bread-and-butter for sure.
But as you're not a combat person, it's reasonable you wouldn't completely see the appeal in banding. I'm the opposite of you, I love to combat.
I will break my silence on magic as a whole to speak my mind about what has happened to the format.
I stopped playing magic right when conspiracy 2 hit. I've followed from afar the changes in the format. Recently, I picked my old daretti list, modified to 20 lp and played some games with it on Cockatrice. Despite knowing Cocka's metagame usually is far from being reliable, it was an instructive experience.
Two things quickly became clear to me: 1) the 20 life format is probably the best commmander format we had so far. 2) Commmander will not thrive while it stays split into 4 different 1v1 formats (DC 20lp, Leviathan, MTGO, and 1v1 old wizards banlist). Before the changes commander 1v1 was split in two, and that was not great, but it was sustainable. A 4-way split is just unthinkable.
I think the format became much healthier with 20 lp. My opinion is coming strictly from someone that never played in a vial metagame. I think vial simply tainted the impression people could have about the 20 lp change, but to say that the format is not diverse to me is a little disingenuous. I've seen lots of builds, lots of partner combinations, all while people did make concessions to face aggro decks, that didn't ruin their decks (and this is what is suppose to happen in a healthy format in my opinion - aggro decks should be respected). I said that before and I will say it again: magic cards were designed to be played in a 20 lp environment, and that is a very important rule to keep, because it balances the effects of many cards (from fetch lands to damage spells to creature stats). The number of games I played was very limited, but Daretti fared pretty well in the 20 lp change, so I don't know what is this talk of 'tier 2 decks are dead' (I've seen other tier 2 like Gitrog and Nissa, they didn't seem to be struggling to survive). The metagame data tainted by vial is not a reliable indicative, and the numbers of zurgo decks that show up should be seen in the light of two things: how cheap the deck is to build and what is its conversion rate (how many zurgos make to top 8 considering the amount that showed up in a tournament).
I've just seen all of this very recently, but I truly think it is a shame to abandon the current DC format.
Regarding Wizards and MTGO: their list is terrible. I don't need to repeat myself on this point, but I'm surprised that people just adopted it as something worth of playing. So many broken cards are allowed, and the fact that the list was first tailored to fit both Multiplayer AND 1v1 should be a sign that it is not worth of being adopted (they have arcum dagsson banned and ancient tomb as legal... tsctsc). That said, I do believe that Wizard's MTGO list will win in the long run. The promise they made to finally separate the formats upon the release of Hour of Devastation is a welcoming one, and I do hope their list changes fast. As far as I'm concerned, they should just take the DC banlist and call it a day, adopting the life point change as well. I know they won't do that, because it took years for DC to FINALLY make the move on the life point change, and I expect Wizards to be at least half as slow. Regardless, I'm a bit disappointed on the community for trading the well-balanced DC banlist for what it seems a poorly-conceived idea of a banlist by Wizards' part. Also, the fact that they can't have a separate banlist for commanders and cards in the deck annoys me greatly.
Overall, I think the change to the Wizards banlist is inevitable at some point, especially if they separate between 1v1 commander and multiplayer. I also think Wizards is kidding itself by saying they won't interfere in paper commander. Eventually they have to step up and control the banlist. Knowing Wizards and their criteria for making bans, no one that is playing their current format as a means to escape DC should be happy. Wizards is much more draconian on bans than the committe, and I certainly expect that, soon, the format will head towards what DC is RIGHT NOW (life points included). I just think it is unfortunate we have to go 'back to the past' just to reach the point where we currently are.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
Tiers are generally based on representation not power level. As such i don't see how you can describe Iname as Tier 2, 2 being the total number of persons playing that deck
Saying its tier 2 in power level as you seem to imply can be relevant, but a highly subjective read on the metagame (probably a good one btw), and not in any way objective fact drawn from tournament representation (so far it only made top 16 at the dtc to my knowing)
I disagree that Wizards ban policy is draconian. It's been doing pretty well in every format imo. The DC made a lot of dumb mistakes last year, which is what got us here in the first place, and I think they only turned that around this year with their 2 announcements that I believe were correct and, mind you not, replicated Wizards' ban logic.
I still think people adopting the new list has something to do with format preference in a sense. Someone pointed this out here (yujipooji?) but I guess players that prefer Modern (usually younger players) will prefer DC20 playstyle. Older players or Vintage/Legacy adapts usually prefer DC30. It's not a rule at all, but it feels that way in a lot of cases.
I kinda want to make an Iname deck now lol. Thats awesome
I actually prefer the 20 life format. It actually brought people to play in my LGS sicne you could make a cheap aggro deck to compete with the more expensive deck. So far we had no dominant deck deck. Titania, Zurgo, Alesha, Thalia, Saskia, vendilion, Baral. All of these managed to win at some point.
I guess players that prefer Modern (usually younger players) will prefer DC20 playstyle. Older players or Vintage/Legacy adapts usually prefer DC30. It's not a rule at all, but it feels that way in a lot of cases.
I'm 34, and enjoy watching Vintage and playing Legacy, and I still prefer the Modern format/DC20, design philosophies, and banning principles for an overall cleaner format.
I don't think age is one of the factors of preferring 20 or 30 lp. The more frequent complain about 20 is that players have to use cards that interact with the board early or they die to aggro, dumb zurgo is dumb. The main factor IMO is how much you prefer to play with yourself instead of interacting with the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Have you actually piloted Kaalia vs oloro? What you're saying sounds like theory-crafting, and it's very far from what actually happens in the matchup. I've played the matchup non-stop from the day oloro was printed till the day he was banned. It's how I got the 20-80 statistic, I didn't pull that number out of my butthole. What happens is, I don't lose to oloro per se, I lose to the colors. Esper has counters to ensure kaalia doesn't resolve, which on its own is a big problem for me already.. but then there's also hand disrupt to remove threats from my hand, and then removal to kill creatures that come into play. Color-wise and ignoring commanders, esper control is the worst possible matchup for Kaalia. I'd be happy to get a 40-60 tbh but it is not possible unless I compromise other matchups.
Right now DC's upper echeleon is being disputed by Geist, Bruse-Reyhan, Bruse-Kraum, Karlov, and Baral.
All I can give you is a pity laugh.
Would you call this a blue/white meta then?
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
DC was a blue/red format in the beginning and while Vial and Breya were legal. But you never saw me or anyone else talk ***** about the format because of that. It has been almost an year but I still don't get this "blue/green format crying" people still throw around these days. Ah, whatever. I for one am getting tired again. I never said DC20 isn't balanced; but still hold my ground that DC30 also was. And I firmly believe Wizards format will be one day. That's it. They're different formats, with different playstyles. But to keep arguing who's more balanced is just jamming our heads against a 0/8 wall.
I don't think they anticipated how the format's long time spikes would actually play it. I believe in July they'll change their list with that in mind. Seems like the announcement made the format more competitive all of a sudden and they didn't predict that (how they missed that is beyond me).
Put a tournament of 39 Iname's and a single tier 1 deck form DC and see who is the winner xD, not saying the player was bad, he actually was very very good to make results with... Iname sorry, Iname on DC is worst and slower than Sidisi with Ooze surely, but also than Braids and Griselbrand on 30HP
That was the most balanced top8 in like A LONG TIME
I can get a bunch of major tournaments from 2015-2016 and say its perfect because I can choose whichever tourney with 70+ players to justify, but I'll get just the last ones.
72 Players :
Geist of Saint Traft
Prime Speaker Zegana
Animar, Soul of Elements
Animar, Soul of Elements
Anafenza, the Foremost
Jenara, Asura of War
Kytheon, Hero of Akros
Titania, Protector of Argoth
Demonic Tournament: 118
Nin, the Pain Artist
Marchesa - Twin Exarch
Marath, Will of the Wild
The Gitrog Monster
Anafenza, the Foremost
Animar, Soul of Elements
Jenara, Asura of War
Jenara, Asura of War
Got the 2 last big tournaments before the switch to 20HP, not the 2 I wanted, but just the 2 most recent ones so its not me manipulating the top8, I see non-blue non-green in the same ratio I see non-blue non-red in DC today, and a much more diverse meta... If you want to see more just search and take your own opinion.
Now I want people to throw data on my face saying it was unbalanced, data is there, internet is right there to search for how it was.
@Raizen. I wouldn't say Iname is worse than Gbrand or Sidisi. The only black deck to ever win a decent sized tourny (50+ players) in DC history is Iname. Twice. Gbrand simply see's more play, not many people pilot Iname these days
I used to think that way about Iname too but recently I've been looking into it and I think it looks pretty good.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
It's a WUBrg meta, and it's the best color and archetype balance we've ever had.
Edit: I wonder when/if we'll start seeing decklists at mtggoldfish since they keep very good track of leagues for other formats.
Friendly is just about prize distribution, where not only the top wins something, it has nothing to do with how people play on it or how competitive it is.
It takes a couple of days for them to publish the data. People have to play the leagues and then they have to gather the data. I expect something friday or monday the latest.
One of my best experiences (in 1v1 no less), and I posted this to my official 3drinksTM Facebook page, literally involved the phrase
""...and then I resolved a Helm of Chatzuk."
Short-hand explaining "Banding basically lets me blatantly cheat @ combat maths." was enough for most people to get it (especially when used defensively), but when I introduced all my white legends getting to "band with other legends" that's where I threw people for a loop, since "banding" and "bands with others" are two decisively different mechanics. But, I am now far beyond "that guy" that people know isn't just some random player, lol. Respected as the guy with all the old school tech.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
uh i only see kytheon as the non-blue,non-green deck. what you posted just reinforces the blue-green meta that some people don't mind, and others dislike. This was also post oloro/tasi ban, which at the moment is still legal in the MTGO banlist.
Also, posting the last 2 tournaments from 30 life and putting it side-by-side with the last major tournament for 20 life if both results are balanced accomplishes very little. Why? Because that 30 life data you posted used a banlist made by the exact same committee that switched to 20 life, because they wanted a less blue/green dominated meta. What it does accomplish is show that the committee managed to bring about change without compromising balance, even if vial initially messed it up. Another thing of note is that as it stands now, from a TO's point of view on which format to choose, it's not a choice between that old 30 life banlist and the 20 life banlist. It's the MTGO banlist vs the 20 life banlist. So posting that data which you claim to be balanced does not solve that dilemma, until such time that the MTGO banlist models itself after the old 30 life DC.. and we don't even know for sure if it will happen or not.
D'awwww. At least it's not my forays into Zedruu? >_____>
The mechanic as a whole, is broken. Just the cards that offer it, are A) weak, B) over costed (Urza's Avenger is the "beefiest" with it and is 6), or C) are obscure. Except Helm of Chatzuk. As to why it's good? Because you can either force your opponent to make very unfavourable blocks, or a ton of damage to the face, with little-to-no risk to your own board state in combat. And on defense, yeah, that's the real bread-and-butter for sure.
But as you're not a combat person, it's reasonable you wouldn't completely see the appeal in banding. I'm the opposite of you, I love to combat.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
I stopped playing magic right when conspiracy 2 hit. I've followed from afar the changes in the format. Recently, I picked my old daretti list, modified to 20 lp and played some games with it on Cockatrice. Despite knowing Cocka's metagame usually is far from being reliable, it was an instructive experience.
Two things quickly became clear to me: 1) the 20 life format is probably the best commmander format we had so far. 2) Commmander will not thrive while it stays split into 4 different 1v1 formats (DC 20lp, Leviathan, MTGO, and 1v1 old wizards banlist). Before the changes commander 1v1 was split in two, and that was not great, but it was sustainable. A 4-way split is just unthinkable.
I think the format became much healthier with 20 lp. My opinion is coming strictly from someone that never played in a vial metagame. I think vial simply tainted the impression people could have about the 20 lp change, but to say that the format is not diverse to me is a little disingenuous. I've seen lots of builds, lots of partner combinations, all while people did make concessions to face aggro decks, that didn't ruin their decks (and this is what is suppose to happen in a healthy format in my opinion - aggro decks should be respected). I said that before and I will say it again: magic cards were designed to be played in a 20 lp environment, and that is a very important rule to keep, because it balances the effects of many cards (from fetch lands to damage spells to creature stats). The number of games I played was very limited, but Daretti fared pretty well in the 20 lp change, so I don't know what is this talk of 'tier 2 decks are dead' (I've seen other tier 2 like Gitrog and Nissa, they didn't seem to be struggling to survive). The metagame data tainted by vial is not a reliable indicative, and the numbers of zurgo decks that show up should be seen in the light of two things: how cheap the deck is to build and what is its conversion rate (how many zurgos make to top 8 considering the amount that showed up in a tournament).
I've just seen all of this very recently, but I truly think it is a shame to abandon the current DC format.
Regarding Wizards and MTGO: their list is terrible. I don't need to repeat myself on this point, but I'm surprised that people just adopted it as something worth of playing. So many broken cards are allowed, and the fact that the list was first tailored to fit both Multiplayer AND 1v1 should be a sign that it is not worth of being adopted (they have arcum dagsson banned and ancient tomb as legal... tsctsc). That said, I do believe that Wizard's MTGO list will win in the long run. The promise they made to finally separate the formats upon the release of Hour of Devastation is a welcoming one, and I do hope their list changes fast. As far as I'm concerned, they should just take the DC banlist and call it a day, adopting the life point change as well. I know they won't do that, because it took years for DC to FINALLY make the move on the life point change, and I expect Wizards to be at least half as slow. Regardless, I'm a bit disappointed on the community for trading the well-balanced DC banlist for what it seems a poorly-conceived idea of a banlist by Wizards' part. Also, the fact that they can't have a separate banlist for commanders and cards in the deck annoys me greatly.
Overall, I think the change to the Wizards banlist is inevitable at some point, especially if they separate between 1v1 commander and multiplayer. I also think Wizards is kidding itself by saying they won't interfere in paper commander. Eventually they have to step up and control the banlist. Knowing Wizards and their criteria for making bans, no one that is playing their current format as a means to escape DC should be happy. Wizards is much more draconian on bans than the committe, and I certainly expect that, soon, the format will head towards what DC is RIGHT NOW (life points included). I just think it is unfortunate we have to go 'back to the past' just to reach the point where we currently are.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
I guess I can, but I'll just sac all my creatures every combat and assume they died lol
Saying its tier 2 in power level as you seem to imply can be relevant, but a highly subjective read on the metagame (probably a good one btw), and not in any way objective fact drawn from tournament representation (so far it only made top 16 at the dtc to my knowing)
Currently Playing:
Modern Grixis Shadow, Storm
Legacy: Grixis Delver, Sneak and Show
Duel Commander: Kess High Tide
Vintage Big blue(MTGO)
I still think people adopting the new list has something to do with format preference in a sense. Someone pointed this out here (yujipooji?) but I guess players that prefer Modern (usually younger players) will prefer DC20 playstyle. Older players or Vintage/Legacy adapts usually prefer DC30. It's not a rule at all, but it feels that way in a lot of cases.
I actually prefer the 20 life format. It actually brought people to play in my LGS sicne you could make a cheap aggro deck to compete with the more expensive deck. So far we had no dominant deck deck. Titania, Zurgo, Alesha, Thalia, Saskia, vendilion, Baral. All of these managed to win at some point.
I'm 34, and enjoy watching Vintage and playing Legacy, and I still prefer the Modern format/DC20, design philosophies, and banning principles for an overall cleaner format.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.