So, this is essentially a custom ban list for Commander? I don't see any major rules beyond that, though the list seems exceptionally long. (perhaps the anti-combo rule is somewhat major, actually) Just among the cards explicitly mentioned, there are 102 total, and that doesn't include most of the cards on the official ban list... are you just assuming that they're banned as well? There are 37 on that list, so this list would number at least 130 with them. I'm curious how you remember all of them and how you came up with the list, as many of the cards seem rather innocuous. How long have you been playing with these rules, if I may ask?
The Gulag is administered by the High Council of Elders, and changes are made only by a unanimous decision of the Council. Indeed, the list is an addendum to the existing EDH ban list. We felt that while these primary bans are good and indeed necessary, there are additional cards which either single-handedly win the game far too often and too easily (Consecrated Sphinx, Deadeye Navigator, Tooth and Nail, Gisella...) or are so good that they are automatic inclusions in decks which can run them(Serra's Ascendant, Vampiric Tutor, Terastodon...). This list will never be entirely comprehensive, but there are a lot of "distracting" cards in magic which limit deck originality. Powerful cards are limit the diversity of eternal formats: why play X or Y when Z is strictly better? The Council has chosen to value diversity and originality over power.
This is not a format for those new to the format, many of the cards and interactions wielded in the hands of the inexperienced do not pose a threat to the fun of the experienced players. The central conflict of a veteran EDH group is fun vs winning. The rules of the Gulag are there to remove this conflict by uniformly applying bans which allow players to try as hard as they can to win without making the game un-fun or non-interactive.
These rules have been around for just under a year now. In our playgroup, compliance is entirely voluntary and we will play with others with decks which are not in compliance with the above rules. We do request that players at least cycle Sol Ring, Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, and Grim Monolith as fast mana too easily allows for unskilled victory to be achieved. We maintain an online document (such as this) with the up to date list of bans and cards of concern.
I appreciate your interest and your feedback! Do you have any specific cards or principles you would like to discuss?
I can sympathize with the intent, but a lot of these choices make very little sense to me. I rarely see anyone use Praetor's Council or Tidespout Tyrant. And what's bad about reins of power? Or mind shatter? That card has never been good in any format afaik. And the watch list goes beyond even that - force of will? constant mists? I don't get it. These aren't dangerous cards.
That's actually a surprisingly mature stance; I would much rather try playing competitively in such a format than in normal Commander. The fact that everyone knows it's broken and nothing is done about it makes it rather unappealing for that kind of play. As for specific cards, I take back my statement about many cards being innocuous - most of them seem to fit in well. Ruination, however, stood out. Why include it but not Armageddon? Also, no Enter the Infinite?
2. Yes, the cards normaly banned are banned in this format as well.
3. I guess I have a good memory, because I can remember if a card is banned or not off the top of my head.
4. I came up with the list in collaboration with a couple buddies, we wanted a format that was less swingy and less combo oriented, and proceeded from there.
5. We've been playing with the list for 6-9 months, and it's worked out pretty satisfactoriy so far.
Your proposed banned list is confusing, I think, because it has so many "answers" on it. The loose rules on infinite combos, extra turns, and mass land destruction make it seem like you're trying to cut down on the nonsense in EDH. Meanwhile you ban things like Aura Shards, Humility, and Glen-Elendra Archmage and have Force of Will and Swords to Plowshares on a watchlist. It's like you're trying to put kiddy gloves on the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You would never guess, at the terrifying sight of the man, that Hunding was as charming a companion as one could wish for.
That's actually a surprisingly mature stance; I would much rather try playing competitively in such a format than in normal Commander. The fact that everyone knows it's broken and nothing is done about it makes it rather unappealing for that kind of play. As for specific cards, I take back my statement about many cards being innocuous - most of them seem to fit in well. Ruination, however, stood out. Why include it but not Armageddon? Also, no Enter the Infinite?
The optional rule number 3 of No mass LD without the tables consent is why Armageddon isn't on the list, it's implicitly banned except by explicit allowance. For ruination, it's on the list because it is very often much stronger than Armageddon, and non-basic punishment is not encouraged on the Gulag. And finally for Enter the Infinite, you're right it should be banned...and now it is.
Damn. Might as well make it vanilla-EDH.
...
The list makes no sense to me, so please elaborate because I want to understand your reasoning behind it.
About 110 cards are banned, that leaves about 14,000 unique cards unbanned, hardly vanilla EDH. And if none of the list makes sense to you this format is probably not for you so all I'll say on the reasoning behind these bans is they make games less swingy.
Your proposed banned list is confusing, I think, because it has so many "answers" on it.
There are 2 reasons there are a number of answers banned from the Gulag. The first is some answers are so strong they lead to a severe reduction in threat diversity, or just leave a foul taste in the mouth due to their "cheapness/O.P.ness". And this isn't just me and my buddies that think this look at Wizards Modern banlist, it has a decent number of answers on it like me Mental Mistep, Punishing Fire, and Umezawa's Jitte(which is also a threat to be fair, but if it didn't kill dudes too it might not be on the ban list). And if you look at the Legacy banlist even it has Mana Drain and again Mental Misstep banned. The second reason is that when you ban the obvious must includes like STP and Cyclonic Rift it forces people to be more creative in finding solutions to problems, because after Cyclonic Rift, what are the next few best blue answers to permanents? And after Swords and Path, what are the best white answers to creatures? White isn't supposed to have (nearly) unconditional creature removal, there are supposed to be tradeoffs, and Blue isn't supposed to be able to easily answer cards that made it past it's counters.
Some of the cards on the list are easily destroyed or otherwise taken care off (permanents that is).
Dealing with a dead-eye navigator on someone elses' turn is far from "easily destroyed or otherwise taken care of". In our regime, one way we evaluate how powerful a card is by how many other cards it needs to win the game with. In the example of dead-eye navigator, literally any other creature card makes him win games single handedly. On top of this, he protects himself! It becomes way too easy. It's relatively uninteresting to our playgroup. To us, dead-eye navigator is vanilla because he closes doors to other cards that have similar abilities, such as mistmeadow witch, only because dead-eye navigator is strictly better. Why would you run any other card other than dead-eye navigator...ever?
The reasoning for the STP ban, is that there is a power imbalance. Exiling creatures is very very relevant in the meta that has developed in this format. This format is a steady and evolutionary format that is shaped by all the members that take part in it. A card that exiles for one mana with no drawbacks (giving life to an enemy generally is not a drawback) is very powerful. We try not to ban with such rancor (hahaha pun intended) just because a card is powerful...we desire to have a more interactive environment using some of the other 14,000 some odd cards available is all. It doesn't even really slow the game down either. It just means you have to be more resourceful with your mana and creative with your strategy.
I hope this gives you the elaboration you seek. Like the other gulag members here have described: we are all happy to play EDH. It is for the love of the game that we created the gulag. However, we understand that not everyone is like us and we humbly accept a match of EDH against any other player. It's for the love of the game.
...look at Wizards Modern banlist, it has a decent number of answers on it like me Mental Mistep, Punishing Fire, and Umezawa's Jitte(which is also a threat to be fair, but if it didn't kill dudes too it might not be on the ban list).
Commander is not Modern. Punishing Fire got the axe in Modern because it single handedly invalidates every aggro deck that doesn't start "4xWild Nacatl, 4xTarmogoyf". Reduction of threat diversity is one of the reasons you list for banning answers, but it works differently in 100-card Highlander. For instance, the existence of Swords to Plowshares doesn't make playing creatures without Shroud/Hexproof/Protection a bad idea the way Punishing Fire made, say, Merfolk a bad idea for Modern. Mental Misstep may be a blue card in EDH but it's a colorless card in Modern and Legacy. Couple that with being free and countering a huge portion of spells played means that virtually every deck would play 3-4 of them (this is what happened for the brief time MM was Legacy legal). At the time the Modern banned list was first put together it was feared that Umezawa's Jitte would completely dominate the format the way it did during its time in Standard. These three examples sort of support your call for banning answers, but the crucial difference is that they hugely warped their respective metagames in ways that other cards, e.g.Vandalblast and Humility, just don't do.
And if you look at the Legacy banlist even it has Mana Drain and again Mental Misstep banned.
Commander is also not Legacy. As a former long-time Vintage player I can assure you that Mana Drain is not over-powered because it answers any spell for UU. See above for discussion of Mental Misstep.
...after Cyclonic Rift, what are the next few best blue answers to permanents? And after Swords and Path, what are the best white answers to creatures?
This argument suffers from regress. No matter how many cards you ban something is going to be the best. Do you just keep going down the ladder until Pacifism gets banned? As for Cyclonic Rift, that card is so good not because it has the pretty mediocre removal mode "1U: Boomerang" but because it also has "6U: You win the game."
White isn't supposed to have (nearly) unconditional creature removal, there are supposed to be tradeoffs, and Blue isn't supposed to be able to easily answer cards that made it past it's counters.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "supposed to" here. White has had Swords to Plowshares since 1993 and blue has had Nevinyrral's Disk just as long. Alpha may not be the most balanced set out there but it sure does define the color pie. Besides, these things aren't unconditional. Swords isn't going to stop Birthing Pod and Disk does nothing against Planeswalkers. If you think solid removal is bad for EDH then why allow Vindicate and Utter End to roam free?
I need to write a "Gulag Philosophy" section, because it would make the banlist make a lot more sense because one of the major considerations on whether something gets banned is simply "does it feel cheap?" which is of course subjective, but the list was never meant to be objective, which also ought to be mentioned in a "philosophy" section.
Alpha only partly defined the color pie, there are alot of cards in alpha that by modern standards(or even 1998 standards) are definitely off color.
I understand the philosophy - I certainly have a group of cards in the format that I roll my eyes at because they're everywhere, cheesy, or annoying. I've always found it interesting to look at the personality of playgroups - one group might have little to no issue with a certain card, while another hates it with a passion.
I do think you might benefit from changing the thread title - I came here to read about a new ruleset, which might explain the reactions of many in the thread. If you outline it's mostly an additional banlist alongside the philosophy, I think it'd garner more positive reception and fruitful discussion.
I changed the tile of the thread like you suggested, that was a good call. Just curious does your group share your feelings about those same cards or are you sort of the odd man out?
One is made of game devs, and they all pack high powered decks and cards. Its sort of assumed that diplomacy provides the checks needed. It helps that they tend to enjoy ridiculous plays and game states for their own sake, while some will also build really creative theme decks.
In the other group, mostly old college friends, there's players less invested in Magic. There, some cards will elicit groans when played by the "good" players. In that group, I tend to lean more toward the french banlist, and the players wi larger collections tend to self-censor a little bit more.
This is where Stalin and I disagree, I say the gulag isn't for everyone ;). So, two of the unwritten rules that will pretty soon be mentioned in a "Gulag Philosophy" section is that locking people out of the game by one means or another is highly "discouraged" the second rules is that if a new cards comes out that is extremeley similar to something already on the banlist or an old card is rediscovered that is very similar to something on the banlist, these cards are, again, officially highly "discouraged", so the lock out cards that you mentioned that aren't on the ban list are implicitly "banned" because it's pretty obvious that they don't do anything except lock people out of a game. Blood Moon and Back to Basics could arguably be considered "greed punishment", but my group has played with these cards and after testing we feel that the times that the two cards have just knocked player(s) out of the game on resolution outweigh the times that they act as legitimate non-basic hate. This decision was made democratically with near unanimity. Contamination was just the most visible iteration of the "all your mana is the wrong color" effect, and we wanted one version on the list. As for calming verse vs vandal blast, I feel artifacts are much more relevant, as they are the backbone to nearly all non-green ramp strategies, and as such vandal blast is sort of akin to one sided mass land destruction. And as far as constant mists vs sunstone and dawnstrider, mists is very dificult to deal with because outside black hand destruction or blue countermagic, they are very few ways of dealing with a buy back spell, whereas the stone and the strider are both permanents, which are orders of magnitudes more easily dealt with than a buyback instant spell.
The list made it even more swingy. As some of the answers to "swingy" cards are on your actual ban list.
So yes, in my opinion, dead eye navigator is easily dealt with.
I've played with the ban list in mind. And it just turned ugly for a bit.
It was a slugfest in which ramp/control was the most viable. And overextending was no problem, cause half of the solutions is on your list..
Especially with regards to balanced land-selections this was somewhat horrible as Blood Moon is so much more than a tool of punishment as it turned out.
We are currently happy with the level of swinginess in our games, banning of a handful of answers has not unleashed a furious wave of anticlimactic bs ending on our games. How easily a card is dealt with isn't the only criteria under which it may be banned, another is how it affects the game if it's not immediately dealt with with an explicit destroy or counterspell, can the card be beaten indirectly? What is the rhythm of the game like if this card sits on the table for a few turn cycles? Does the game start to revolve around control of that one card? On this basis DEN has been banned. For our position on bloodmoon, see my response to Hunding a little further up this post.
One is made of game devs, and they all pack high powered decks and cards. Its sort of assumed that diplomacy provides the checks needed. It helps that they tend to enjoy ridiculous plays and game states for their own sake, while some will also build really creative theme decks.
In the other group, mostly old college friends, there's players less invested in Magic. There, some cards will elicit groans when played by the "good" players. In that group, I tend to lean more toward the french banlist, and the players wi larger collections tend to self-censor a little bit more.
To each group/player their own, The Gulag has been good to me and my group, but we are vividly aware many people would have very little fun playing with us under these rules and we don't hold that against those people. And on that note good day comrades!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ic-JPHxgiiScDTt7tD3JT5TeDnxdtwH3LWnHIYXt098/edit
This is not a format for those new to the format, many of the cards and interactions wielded in the hands of the inexperienced do not pose a threat to the fun of the experienced players. The central conflict of a veteran EDH group is fun vs winning. The rules of the Gulag are there to remove this conflict by uniformly applying bans which allow players to try as hard as they can to win without making the game un-fun or non-interactive.
These rules have been around for just under a year now. In our playgroup, compliance is entirely voluntary and we will play with others with decks which are not in compliance with the above rules. We do request that players at least cycle Sol Ring, Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, and Grim Monolith as fast mana too easily allows for unskilled victory to be achieved. We maintain an online document (such as this) with the up to date list of bans and cards of concern.
I appreciate your interest and your feedback! Do you have any specific cards or principles you would like to discuss?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
2. Yes, the cards normaly banned are banned in this format as well.
3. I guess I have a good memory, because I can remember if a card is banned or not off the top of my head.
4. I came up with the list in collaboration with a couple buddies, we wanted a format that was less swingy and less combo oriented, and proceeded from there.
5. We've been playing with the list for 6-9 months, and it's worked out pretty satisfactoriy so far.
my question for you which cards seem innocuous?
The optional rule number 3 of No mass LD without the tables consent is why Armageddon isn't on the list, it's implicitly banned except by explicit allowance. For ruination, it's on the list because it is very often much stronger than Armageddon, and non-basic punishment is not encouraged on the Gulag. And finally for Enter the Infinite, you're right it should be banned...and now it is.
About 110 cards are banned, that leaves about 14,000 unique cards unbanned, hardly vanilla EDH. And if none of the list makes sense to you this format is probably not for you so all I'll say on the reasoning behind these bans is they make games less swingy.
There are 2 reasons there are a number of answers banned from the Gulag. The first is some answers are so strong they lead to a severe reduction in threat diversity, or just leave a foul taste in the mouth due to their "cheapness/O.P.ness". And this isn't just me and my buddies that think this look at Wizards Modern banlist, it has a decent number of answers on it like me Mental Mistep, Punishing Fire, and Umezawa's Jitte(which is also a threat to be fair, but if it didn't kill dudes too it might not be on the ban list). And if you look at the Legacy banlist even it has Mana Drain and again Mental Misstep banned. The second reason is that when you ban the obvious must includes like STP and Cyclonic Rift it forces people to be more creative in finding solutions to problems, because after Cyclonic Rift, what are the next few best blue answers to permanents? And after Swords and Path, what are the best white answers to creatures? White isn't supposed to have (nearly) unconditional creature removal, there are supposed to be tradeoffs, and Blue isn't supposed to be able to easily answer cards that made it past it's counters.
Dealing with a dead-eye navigator on someone elses' turn is far from "easily destroyed or otherwise taken care of". In our regime, one way we evaluate how powerful a card is by how many other cards it needs to win the game with. In the example of dead-eye navigator, literally any other creature card makes him win games single handedly. On top of this, he protects himself! It becomes way too easy. It's relatively uninteresting to our playgroup. To us, dead-eye navigator is vanilla because he closes doors to other cards that have similar abilities, such as mistmeadow witch, only because dead-eye navigator is strictly better. Why would you run any other card other than dead-eye navigator...ever?
The reasoning for the STP ban, is that there is a power imbalance. Exiling creatures is very very relevant in the meta that has developed in this format. This format is a steady and evolutionary format that is shaped by all the members that take part in it. A card that exiles for one mana with no drawbacks (giving life to an enemy generally is not a drawback) is very powerful. We try not to ban with such rancor (hahaha pun intended) just because a card is powerful...we desire to have a more interactive environment using some of the other 14,000 some odd cards available is all. It doesn't even really slow the game down either. It just means you have to be more resourceful with your mana and creative with your strategy.
I hope this gives you the elaboration you seek. Like the other gulag members here have described: we are all happy to play EDH. It is for the love of the game that we created the gulag. However, we understand that not everyone is like us and we humbly accept a match of EDH against any other player. It's for the love of the game.
Commander is not Modern. Punishing Fire got the axe in Modern because it single handedly invalidates every aggro deck that doesn't start "4xWild Nacatl, 4xTarmogoyf". Reduction of threat diversity is one of the reasons you list for banning answers, but it works differently in 100-card Highlander. For instance, the existence of Swords to Plowshares doesn't make playing creatures without Shroud/Hexproof/Protection a bad idea the way Punishing Fire made, say, Merfolk a bad idea for Modern. Mental Misstep may be a blue card in EDH but it's a colorless card in Modern and Legacy. Couple that with being free and countering a huge portion of spells played means that virtually every deck would play 3-4 of them (this is what happened for the brief time MM was Legacy legal). At the time the Modern banned list was first put together it was feared that Umezawa's Jitte would completely dominate the format the way it did during its time in Standard. These three examples sort of support your call for banning answers, but the crucial difference is that they hugely warped their respective metagames in ways that other cards, e.g. Vandalblast and Humility, just don't do.
Commander is also not Legacy. As a former long-time Vintage player I can assure you that Mana Drain is not over-powered because it answers any spell for UU. See above for discussion of Mental Misstep.
This argument suffers from regress. No matter how many cards you ban something is going to be the best. Do you just keep going down the ladder until Pacifism gets banned? As for Cyclonic Rift, that card is so good not because it has the pretty mediocre removal mode "1U: Boomerang" but because it also has "6U: You win the game."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "supposed to" here. White has had Swords to Plowshares since 1993 and blue has had Nevinyrral's Disk just as long. Alpha may not be the most balanced set out there but it sure does define the color pie. Besides, these things aren't unconditional. Swords isn't going to stop Birthing Pod and Disk does nothing against Planeswalkers. If you think solid removal is bad for EDH then why allow Vindicate and Utter End to roam free?
Alpha only partly defined the color pie, there are alot of cards in alpha that by modern standards(or even 1998 standards) are definitely off color.
I do think you might benefit from changing the thread title - I came here to read about a new ruleset, which might explain the reactions of many in the thread. If you outline it's mostly an additional banlist alongside the philosophy, I think it'd garner more positive reception and fruitful discussion.
I changed the tile of the thread like you suggested, that was a good call. Just curious does your group share your feelings about those same cards or are you sort of the odd man out?
On a more constructive note: If Contamination, Blood Moon, and Back to Basics are banned then why aren't Infernal Darkness, Naked Singularity, Reality Twist, and Ritual of Subdual also banned? Similar for Vandalblast and Calming Verse; Constant Mists and Dawnstrider/Sunstone.
One is made of game devs, and they all pack high powered decks and cards. Its sort of assumed that diplomacy provides the checks needed. It helps that they tend to enjoy ridiculous plays and game states for their own sake, while some will also build really creative theme decks.
In the other group, mostly old college friends, there's players less invested in Magic. There, some cards will elicit groans when played by the "good" players. In that group, I tend to lean more toward the french banlist, and the players wi larger collections tend to self-censor a little bit more.
This is where Stalin and I disagree, I say the gulag isn't for everyone ;). So, two of the unwritten rules that will pretty soon be mentioned in a "Gulag Philosophy" section is that locking people out of the game by one means or another is highly "discouraged" the second rules is that if a new cards comes out that is extremeley similar to something already on the banlist or an old card is rediscovered that is very similar to something on the banlist, these cards are, again, officially highly "discouraged", so the lock out cards that you mentioned that aren't on the ban list are implicitly "banned" because it's pretty obvious that they don't do anything except lock people out of a game. Blood Moon and Back to Basics could arguably be considered "greed punishment", but my group has played with these cards and after testing we feel that the times that the two cards have just knocked player(s) out of the game on resolution outweigh the times that they act as legitimate non-basic hate. This decision was made democratically with near unanimity. Contamination was just the most visible iteration of the "all your mana is the wrong color" effect, and we wanted one version on the list. As for calming verse vs vandal blast, I feel artifacts are much more relevant, as they are the backbone to nearly all non-green ramp strategies, and as such vandal blast is sort of akin to one sided mass land destruction. And as far as constant mists vs sunstone and dawnstrider, mists is very dificult to deal with because outside black hand destruction or blue countermagic, they are very few ways of dealing with a buy back spell, whereas the stone and the strider are both permanents, which are orders of magnitudes more easily dealt with than a buyback instant spell.
We are currently happy with the level of swinginess in our games, banning of a handful of answers has not unleashed a furious wave of anticlimactic bs ending on our games. How easily a card is dealt with isn't the only criteria under which it may be banned, another is how it affects the game if it's not immediately dealt with with an explicit destroy or counterspell, can the card be beaten indirectly? What is the rhythm of the game like if this card sits on the table for a few turn cycles? Does the game start to revolve around control of that one card? On this basis DEN has been banned. For our position on bloodmoon, see my response to Hunding a little further up this post.
To each group/player their own, The Gulag has been good to me and my group, but we are vividly aware many people would have very little fun playing with us under these rules and we don't hold that against those people. And on that note good day comrades!