Proof of concept for why all-in combo decks, where it's 100% combo pieces and tutors, doesn't work. As the story began, I was telling why I decided against doing this.
I never suggested that running 100% combo pieces and tutors was the best way to create a degenerate combo deck. Resiliency and speed are two of the most major factors of a correctly built combo deck. (Decks built with many cheap, interchangeable pieces to do the same thing and then many other cards to help find those pieces easily (tutors and the like) and the rest can easily be filled with counters spells and other cheap protective cards.)
Also, if you are not being interested with for 6 consecutive turns and still takes you until turn six to "go off" then this deck you've built would be on the slowest end of degenerate combo decks. (Though it may be resilient, I'm not sure.)
Well, of the two, I would rather have Deserted Temple because i would rather make infinite black than infinite colorless, but the problem still remains. Deserted Temple is just a fun way to get more power out of a Maze of Ith, or more mana out of Cabal Coffers type cards. I think that raises another related topic: Are your infinite combo cards useful outside of the infinite combo?
Leyline of the Void and Rest in Peace are both quality cards. Helm of Obedience is wonky at best on it's own, but will infinitely mill a player when combined with one of the aforementioned cards. That is why I choose not to run that combo very often.
It is hard to enforce a rule that requires the combo card to be useful outside of the combo, and the justifications can be pretty far fetched... but I think it works well on the honor system in trusted play groups.
How do you feel about infinite, or near infinite turns as a "combo?" For example, you can play time magic, and then Archaeomancer or Mnemonic Wall to return the time magic to your hand, then any kind of recurring bounce or flicker effect on the creature. It is indirectly an infinite combo. You don't directly take infinite turns, but that is what effectively happens. What is the limitation on that? one time magic spell? one flicekr effect? Only Mnemonic Wall or Archaeomancer? Only one of each of those cards? The line gets a bit blurry there.
I agree wholeheartedly that chosen combo pieces should also be relevant cards outside of the combo, and I think that two things help this happen: 1. The trusting honor system helps this to a point. 2. When your deck is built with only one combo, and not designed around that combo (per the 3 proposed rules), people are much less likely to insert any useless cards just to combo with another card. (And even if they did decide to, it may hinder their deck more than help it due to the restrictions.)
On your point about extra turns, I must admit that my playgroup has two decks in it that take advantage of this "loophole" in nearly this exact manner. One person has a Melek deck designed to take multiple extra turns, and I built a similar Narset deck. Because these decks don't see regular play, people don't seem to mind them too much, especially since they know what they do, and they don't technically break the rules. Granted neither of those decks play to infinite combo, they just do their best to get "enough" of those effects. Melek plays zero flicker/bounce and Narset is semi-easily disrupted if you know what to expect and relies on deck percentages of effects and luck. All in all, this type of deck has only not ruined our playgroups games because of kind players. Though, if they ever did become an issue, we would add a fourth rule, perhaps, targeted at this type of game style.
Here, you seem to imply that just have one infinite combo in your deck increases consistency too much, but I would like to argue that. Just by having one infinite combo in your deck, won't increase your chances of winning very much. As I have said above, I believe that the problem is in deckbuilding, when someone creates a deck specifically designed to assemble an infinite combo. The rules I listed, I believe, help give people guidelines to easily avoid that type of deckbuilding, while still allowing people to play those combos in their decks.
You are correct, though, there probably is not truly "right" answer, and it does depend on your playgroup. I just think that by adding these rues to some casual playgroups, they may see that infinite combos aren't so bad when the decks that include them aren't focused around them.
I am not arguing about consistency at all. The very existence of an infinite combo possibility in the deck can be a total buzz kill to the game. I know that first hand.
I have Rings of Brighthearth in my Ghoulcaller Gisa Mono black Good Stuff deck. Rings is a fun card which interacts with about one third of my deck. Planeswalker activations, some non-basic land abilities, various artifacts and creatures - including my commander. It is a lot of fun to pay 2B to get double the zombies. That being said, as soon as I use Basalt Monolith, I can make infinite colorless mana and pretty much end the game. I could also use Deserted Temple + non-basic lands that make lots of mana such as Cabal Coffers, Crypt of Agadeem, or Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx. in those cases, so long as they produce 6 or more black mana, you can go infinite black mana. Deserted Temple also allows me to filter the infinite colorless mana from the Basalt Monolith combo into black mana. As a result, Rings goes from being a fun card... to something the play group and table fears can just combo out on site.
It has nothing to do with consistency so much as people's perception of the deck holistically. Our games are better off without Basalt Monolith or Deserted Temple in my deck.
In this scenario, you are breaking rule number one. More than one infinite combo in a deck is another problem, which you have just given a great example for. I agree wholly that those card don't belong in a deck with those cards in it if Rings of Brighthearth is, also.
Since I started reading these forums, even before I created an account here which still isn't that long ago, I've seen a lot of hate for infinite combos and tutors on these forums. That said, I have seen a lot more hate for infinite combos, and that surprises me for some reason. I think that infinite combos are one of the things that makes this format so much fun because many of them would be impossible to set up in any other format. That said, I believe that tutors are the main reason that these infinite combos get such a bad rep. Tutors create a a consistent way for people to grab and set-up their combos, but they also allow decks to be more consistent with their game plan, which is something that all players enjoy. (Being able to do what they want to do at least semi-consistently.) The problem arises when players insert as many combos pieces and tutors to search for those pieces into their decks, so when more casual players see another player doing the same combos over and over they automatically assume that the issue is the combos in general. But in my experience, infinite combos can be incredibly fun to pull off, especially if on accident. It allows for some amazing plays, which is another thing that EDH is all about. My playgroup plays with a few extra rules for combos and tutors to keep these things in check, though.
1. Don't insert more than one infinite combo in a deck.
2. Don't insert cards that combo (by themselves) with your commander. (e.g. Food Chain in Prossh)
3. Don't insert tutors for into a deck for the purpose of finding combo pieces. (This last one can be hard to monitor, so we are more lenient about it.)
These rules have become a large part of what has made our playgroup so fun and successful, though they probably look very boring to competitive players. I, myself, also choose not to play any tutors in any deck that I have a combo in, and I have other decks that play a good amount tutors in them without any combos. It just keeps e from accidentally being degenerate. My hope with this thread is to get some feedback about why many of you are so much against either infinite combos and/or tutoring, and to also hopefully shed some light on how to do these things responsibly and in a fun way.
I'll keep it short. Combos do get old after a while. That's why some (or majority) might have a harsher stance.
What one should be looking for when it comes to EDH is longevity (playability over and over again).
I respect this stance, and this is a good answer to my post because it gives a reason for why people may not like including infinite combos into decks, at all. All playgroups are different, but I still believe that many playgroups who have taken this stance for this reason could apply these three rules, and see no shortage of longevity in their games. I could be wrong, though, of course.
I always find myself replying to these threads when they pop up. Infinite combos are such a polarizing topic. Someone people want to play in the most cut throat environment, and I can understand and appreciate that. However, the very nature of EDH and its roots are in casual play. Few things are as much of a buzz kill as an interesting game just suddenly ending because "lol combo." There are some fun Commander game play videos and channels on Youtube, and I agree that watching a fun interactive game come to a sudden stop because someone hit critical mass is disappointing. On the other hand, as others have said, eventually games need to come to an end. I think that is the crux of the argument. I think people are happy to see a game that has gone on far too long finally end... but are disappointed when an interesting game is suddenly cut short.
At the LGS (local Gaming Store) that I play in, people tend to shy away from infinite combos because of how repetitive and boring they can be. We are playing 100 card singleton for variety. If we wanted cutthroat consistency, we would play legacy or modern. Instead, we tend to favor resource wars and wars of attrition. It keeps games from becoming stale races to who can get their combo first.
There is no right answer. It all depends on who you play with and what your group wants out of their game play experience.
Here, you seem to imply that just have one infinite combo in your deck increases consistency too much, but I would like to argue that. Just by having one infinite combo in your deck, won't increase your chances of winning very much. As I have said above, I believe that the problem is in deckbuilding, when someone creates a deck specifically designed to assemble an infinite combo. The rules I listed, I believe, help give people guidelines to easily avoid that type of deckbuilding, while still allowing people to play those combos in their decks.
You are correct, though, there probably is not truly "right" answer, and it does depend on your playgroup. I just think that by adding these rues to some casual playgroups, they may see that infinite combos aren't so bad when the decks that include them aren't focused around them.
Games gotta end somehow. Here are my version of your rules:
1) Build your deck's power to your play groups power
2) Dont be a prick to your friends
These rules are great, and are perfect in a dream scenario where people understand what this means and everyone agrees on every aspect of the same game. Because that doesn't happen, the rules I listed have helped people in my group understand how to do those two things by giving them visible deckbuilding limits. (At least when it comes to the interactions between tutors and infinite combos in this eternal, singleton format.)
I can agree with the first two, but like you said the 3rd one is really hard to monitor and if I can search out a win, why shouldn't I? Especially when the game has been going on for longer than an hour. Why is this even a rule?
All three of these rules are deckbuilding rules, so there is nothing stopping you from doing that. Infinite combos end long games, and that is one reason that my playgroup enjoys having them around; the problem with infinite combos only arise if you don't follow these rules. (To a point, anyway.) The only way to truly exploit a combo is to design and build a deck completely focusing on doing that combo. Otherwise, it can be a random, chance win out of nowhere. (Much more fun.)
Since I started reading these forums, even before I created an account here which still isn't that long ago, I've seen a lot of hate for infinite combos and tutors on these forums. That said, I have seen a lot more hate for infinite combos, and that surprises me for some reason. I think that infinite combos are one of the things that makes this format so much fun because many of them would be impossible to set up in any other format. That said, I believe that tutors are the main reason that these infinite combos get such a bad rep. Tutors create a a consistent way for people to grab and set-up their combos, but they also allow decks to be more consistent with their game plan, which is something that all players enjoy. (Being able to do what they want to do at least semi-consistently.) The problem arises when players insert as many combos pieces and tutors to search for those pieces into their decks, so when more casual players see another player doing the same combos over and over they automatically assume that the issue is the combos in general. But in my experience, infinite combos can be incredibly fun to pull off, especially if on accident. It allows for some amazing plays, which is another thing that EDH is all about. My playgroup plays with a few extra rules for combos and tutors to keep these things in check, though.
1. Don't insert more than one infinite combo in a deck.
2. Don't insert cards that combo (by themselves) with your commander. (e.g. Food Chain in Prossh)
3. Don't insert tutors for into a deck for the purpose of finding combo pieces. (This last one can be hard to monitor, so we are more lenient about it.)
These rules have become a large part of what has made our playgroup so fun and successful, though they probably look very boring to competitive players. I, myself, also choose not to play any tutors in any deck that I have a combo in, and I have other decks that play a good amount tutors in them without any combos. It just keeps e from accidentally being degenerate. My hope with this thread is to get some feedback about why many of you are so much against either infinite combos and/or tutoring, and to also hopefully shed some light on how to do these things responsibly and in a fun way.
@Swift2210: I believe that your definition of casual and competitive are incorrect, or at least you are massively outnumbered in your belief of those things. Just because you enjoy playing casually, does not make you not competitive. Competitive and casual are not simply black and white, though there are examples of the blackest black (5C Hermit Druid) and the whitest white (99 randoms and a legend), there are many, many variations of deck strength in between here. That is why a deck cannot be judged by its contents alone; the pilot of that deck is probably just as important, if not more important than the deck itself. Just because a deck has hermit druid in it, does jot mean that it is a competitive deck, and the same is true for many cards that people deem "good" or "broken". Casual just means that when you are playing whatever deck you're playing, your first and foremost concern is to make sure you are having fun with it. Winning is fun, so many people will glide toward making better deck building choices, but it is not the only concern, either. For if in a group of 6, your deck becomes too "good" and no one else has fun, most people will start to think that that same deck isn't as fun anymore (despite winning). This is the concept that the RC has. It's been said before, but "Build competitively, play casually" is really the definition of the format, here. That doesn't cover all of the bases, though, as you've pointed out, if you are building competitively, then it can be harder and harder to play casually. But this is exactly why groups will deem some cards/interactions/etc. "unfun" and they will hopefully move on. It is not a perfect system, and I would also like to see the RC (or another group, perhaps WotC) attempt to balance both with a separate list or something because from where I am currently sitting, the ban list doesn't seem to match the current RC's goals for the format i.e. I am seeing cards on and off the ban lost that don't fit and fit (respectively) the criteria, but aren't going anywhere. Perhaps a reiteration of a lot of questionable cards from the RC could "clear the air" on this, but who knows.
The reason that this reason doesn't make sense, completely, is because of some cards that are currently on the banned list that fit this same description. (Albeit possibly to a lesser extent: Gifts Ungiven, Painter's Servant, Protean Hulk, and Recurring Nightmare are some cards I think may fall into this category)
The context in which gris, bargain, HD were compared: "they can open up a ridiculous resource advantage for a single player"
Those cards you listed do not fit that at all.
that is exactly my point, actually. (I apologize if it was unclear.) Your original given reason for why hermit druid isn't banned while griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain are was because they don't require you to build around them to become broken. In the middle of the game, even in a non-optimized list, those cards can lop side the game toward them too much out of sheer card immediate advantage. (We all know this, and this is why I agree.) But the other cards that I listed, I believe, also require some build around (maybe less than hermit druid, I'll admit). But they can indeed be used in a fun, fair way as long as the player doesn't attempt to build their deck around that certain card. (I believe.) And I also believe that none of the cards I listed truly create unstoppable, unquestionable, immediate, lopsided card advantage as griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain do. I hope that I made myself clearer here and that I didn't accidentally misunderstand anything you've said, either.
You may argue there are fair uses for Hermit Druid. And I'd retort many casual players would also, only use Griselbrand and Yawgmoth's Bargain in fair ways. Just the competitive players would break them. So why should they be banned? Tell us. And why wouldn't the same argument apply to Hermit Druid?
You don't have to build around bargain or gris at all, whereas HD requires build around. This horse has been beaten to death.
The reason that this reason doesn't make sense, completely, is because of some cards that are currently on the banned list that fit this same description. (Albeit possibly to a lesser extent: Gifts Ungiven, Painter's Servant, Protean Hulk, and Recurring Nightmare are some cards I think may fall into this category)
So, the problem that I am noticing here, now, is that both sides have the same argument over the same issue. The problem here being that the RC is fully on the casual's side, and not the competitive's. If a card is only ever a problem in competitive decks, then the RC turns a blind eye to it, and it seems competitive's will just have to get used to that. (And hopefully be able to somehow get a house ban on mainly problematic cards, for now.) It's a sad truth for them, but the truth it is. Which is another reason, IMO, that a separate competitive list be made, somehow. I can see this route having benefits for the competitive side, at least.
Keller2432: If you want to play competitive EDH there is a format for that. If you want to play competitive multiplayer FFA games then you're free to throw the player's names in a hat and pull the winner out at random.
I idea of competitive multiplayer EDH is inherently dishonest. Unless you (incorrectly) think Collusion: The Gathering is competition.
Saying that competitive edh is equal to pulling a name from a hat is hyperbole. There are many people who have created lists that they deem "competitive", and I believe that it is mainly this group of people that might have a problem with the statement given by Sheldon on the last page. I feel that Sheldon (and maybe the RC in general, and probably you), feel as though "competitive edh" is the "wrong way to play". Many people, however, enjoy the idea of this type of formatted edh, instead, and probably disagree, more than most, about the ban list and the RC's decisions on that matter.
All I am saying is that, in order to better tend to that genre of player (which is an increasing population), perhaps a "competitive edh ban list" should be forged. It could alleviate the differences in the 2 groups and perhaps even keep the format in general (edh) healthier for it by separating the 2 groups that seem to "not play well together"
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
To me, this post makes me see a split in EDH players. Competitive and Casual. Me all know of these 2 halves, but we share a ban list. This is where it becomes an issue, mainly. Perhaps another group needs to step up to create a na list for the competitive players. The only issue I see here would be "which ban list do you use?" type scenarios popping up, but I also see this sort of thing being ok because most competitive players have non-competitive deck lists. (The opposite of that will be much less true, though.) Another possible issue may pop up in groups like mine (and many other similar groups) where we sort of teeter on the line between competitive and casual. Which side should we gravitate toward? How do we come to an agreement? Etc. This may be a necessary evil, though, in order to better "appease the majority" as some have put it.
Just to clarify my views, I am on board with the vision the RC has for the format, and my playgroup generally feels the same way. This does not, however, mean that we agree 100% with every decision that they make (or have made) and a lot of points that I have seen on here about the current ban list cause me to question their decisions, sometimes. They have a criteria for banning, but it seems very loose when you look at the cards that are (and are not) on the list. I'd at least like to see a reiteration (and a strong re-looking-at) of the cards that are currently on the list and apply the newer-formed card-banning criteria to those cards; even of for no other reason than to "clear the air" about why those cards remain on the list and should.
This is AWESOME! I know it says that suggestions should be made later, but I would like to advise taking notes from this site as far as general functions/filters etc. As far as deckbuilding sites go, I think it is the most functional as a card search engine and deckbuilder together (the way it should and needs to be, instead of having them seperate)... Please check it out! - https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/cards
First off, congratulations on the new site! It looks great. I am new to MTG and this site has been great for giving me tips, so thank you. And, even though I'm new, I do have a favorite card and I unfortunately have yet to put it into a deck. Enter the Infinite is my favorite card; who doesn't dream of having their library as their hand? So unique and brilliant.
I never suggested that running 100% combo pieces and tutors was the best way to create a degenerate combo deck. Resiliency and speed are two of the most major factors of a correctly built combo deck. (Decks built with many cheap, interchangeable pieces to do the same thing and then many other cards to help find those pieces easily (tutors and the like) and the rest can easily be filled with counters spells and other cheap protective cards.)
Also, if you are not being interested with for 6 consecutive turns and still takes you until turn six to "go off" then this deck you've built would be on the slowest end of degenerate combo decks. (Though it may be resilient, I'm not sure.)
I agree wholeheartedly that chosen combo pieces should also be relevant cards outside of the combo, and I think that two things help this happen: 1. The trusting honor system helps this to a point. 2. When your deck is built with only one combo, and not designed around that combo (per the 3 proposed rules), people are much less likely to insert any useless cards just to combo with another card. (And even if they did decide to, it may hinder their deck more than help it due to the restrictions.)
On your point about extra turns, I must admit that my playgroup has two decks in it that take advantage of this "loophole" in nearly this exact manner. One person has a Melek deck designed to take multiple extra turns, and I built a similar Narset deck. Because these decks don't see regular play, people don't seem to mind them too much, especially since they know what they do, and they don't technically break the rules. Granted neither of those decks play to infinite combo, they just do their best to get "enough" of those effects. Melek plays zero flicker/bounce and Narset is semi-easily disrupted if you know what to expect and relies on deck percentages of effects and luck. All in all, this type of deck has only not ruined our playgroups games because of kind players. Though, if they ever did become an issue, we would add a fourth rule, perhaps, targeted at this type of game style.
In this scenario, you are breaking rule number one. More than one infinite combo in a deck is another problem, which you have just given a great example for. I agree wholly that those card don't belong in a deck with those cards in it if Rings of Brighthearth is, also.
I respect this stance, and this is a good answer to my post because it gives a reason for why people may not like including infinite combos into decks, at all. All playgroups are different, but I still believe that many playgroups who have taken this stance for this reason could apply these three rules, and see no shortage of longevity in their games. I could be wrong, though, of course.
Here, you seem to imply that just have one infinite combo in your deck increases consistency too much, but I would like to argue that. Just by having one infinite combo in your deck, won't increase your chances of winning very much. As I have said above, I believe that the problem is in deckbuilding, when someone creates a deck specifically designed to assemble an infinite combo. The rules I listed, I believe, help give people guidelines to easily avoid that type of deckbuilding, while still allowing people to play those combos in their decks.
You are correct, though, there probably is not truly "right" answer, and it does depend on your playgroup. I just think that by adding these rues to some casual playgroups, they may see that infinite combos aren't so bad when the decks that include them aren't focused around them.
These rules are great, and are perfect in a dream scenario where people understand what this means and everyone agrees on every aspect of the same game. Because that doesn't happen, the rules I listed have helped people in my group understand how to do those two things by giving them visible deckbuilding limits. (At least when it comes to the interactions between tutors and infinite combos in this eternal, singleton format.)
All three of these rules are deckbuilding rules, so there is nothing stopping you from doing that. Infinite combos end long games, and that is one reason that my playgroup enjoys having them around; the problem with infinite combos only arise if you don't follow these rules. (To a point, anyway.) The only way to truly exploit a combo is to design and build a deck completely focusing on doing that combo. Otherwise, it can be a random, chance win out of nowhere. (Much more fun.)
1. Don't insert more than one infinite combo in a deck.
2. Don't insert cards that combo (by themselves) with your commander. (e.g. Food Chain in Prossh)
3. Don't insert tutors for into a deck for the purpose of finding combo pieces. (This last one can be hard to monitor, so we are more lenient about it.)
These rules have become a large part of what has made our playgroup so fun and successful, though they probably look very boring to competitive players. I, myself, also choose not to play any tutors in any deck that I have a combo in, and I have other decks that play a good amount tutors in them without any combos. It just keeps e from accidentally being degenerate. My hope with this thread is to get some feedback about why many of you are so much against either infinite combos and/or tutoring, and to also hopefully shed some light on how to do these things responsibly and in a fun way.
that is exactly my point, actually. (I apologize if it was unclear.) Your original given reason for why hermit druid isn't banned while griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain are was because they don't require you to build around them to become broken. In the middle of the game, even in a non-optimized list, those cards can lop side the game toward them too much out of sheer card immediate advantage. (We all know this, and this is why I agree.) But the other cards that I listed, I believe, also require some build around (maybe less than hermit druid, I'll admit). But they can indeed be used in a fun, fair way as long as the player doesn't attempt to build their deck around that certain card. (I believe.) And I also believe that none of the cards I listed truly create unstoppable, unquestionable, immediate, lopsided card advantage as griselbrand/yawgmoth's bargain do. I hope that I made myself clearer here and that I didn't accidentally misunderstand anything you've said, either.
The reason that this reason doesn't make sense, completely, is because of some cards that are currently on the banned list that fit this same description. (Albeit possibly to a lesser extent: Gifts Ungiven, Painter's Servant, Protean Hulk, and Recurring Nightmare are some cards I think may fall into this category)
Saying that competitive edh is equal to pulling a name from a hat is hyperbole. There are many people who have created lists that they deem "competitive", and I believe that it is mainly this group of people that might have a problem with the statement given by Sheldon on the last page. I feel that Sheldon (and maybe the RC in general, and probably you), feel as though "competitive edh" is the "wrong way to play". Many people, however, enjoy the idea of this type of formatted edh, instead, and probably disagree, more than most, about the ban list and the RC's decisions on that matter.
All I am saying is that, in order to better tend to that genre of player (which is an increasing population), perhaps a "competitive edh ban list" should be forged. It could alleviate the differences in the 2 groups and perhaps even keep the format in general (edh) healthier for it by separating the 2 groups that seem to "not play well together"
To me, this post makes me see a split in EDH players. Competitive and Casual. Me all know of these 2 halves, but we share a ban list. This is where it becomes an issue, mainly. Perhaps another group needs to step up to create a na list for the competitive players. The only issue I see here would be "which ban list do you use?" type scenarios popping up, but I also see this sort of thing being ok because most competitive players have non-competitive deck lists. (The opposite of that will be much less true, though.) Another possible issue may pop up in groups like mine (and many other similar groups) where we sort of teeter on the line between competitive and casual. Which side should we gravitate toward? How do we come to an agreement? Etc. This may be a necessary evil, though, in order to better "appease the majority" as some have put it.
Just to clarify my views, I am on board with the vision the RC has for the format, and my playgroup generally feels the same way. This does not, however, mean that we agree 100% with every decision that they make (or have made) and a lot of points that I have seen on here about the current ban list cause me to question their decisions, sometimes. They have a criteria for banning, but it seems very loose when you look at the cards that are (and are not) on the list. I'd at least like to see a reiteration (and a strong re-looking-at) of the cards that are currently on the list and apply the newer-formed card-banning criteria to those cards; even of for no other reason than to "clear the air" about why those cards remain on the list and should.