Power level is less important for an EDH banlist than it is in other formats because EDH is going to be broken no matter what you do, unless you make the banlist huge or simply disinclude pre-Modern sets, both of which are contrary to the basic EDH concept. This is where the social aspect, or what the RC calls the "gentleman's agreement," comes into play. If a given group is okay with the sort of decks you and your group play, then that's cool. If a given group decides turn 2 combo wins aren't what they want to encourage, they can decide that, too, and revise the banlists accordingly. In EDH, the banlist is a baseline, but not an absolute. That's one of the things that differentiates a sanctioned tournament from a non-sanctioned one. A PTQ or any other format that impacts a player's ranking has to have an absolute set of rules. A bunch of people sitting around a table having fun don't need to be so worried about that.
The claim that EDH is going to be broken no matter what is an essential premise to the argument that the "gentleman's agreement" is the ONLY workable solution, and I don't think that premise has been sufficiently supported.
There are ways to disrupt super-passive strategies like combo, and a lot of those tools that are not quite effective enough now become very good if only those decks are slowed down a few turns. For example, Aven Mindcensor is a card that's been pretty good for me historically, but certain decks just laugh it down. The tutoring happens on Turn 1-2, some irresistible draw/mill engine is fetched, and then a bunch of cheap/free removal and counters come out. Every single game. Likewise with a 6-mana Jester's Cap not being able to stop a combo that takes 5 mana to get off. The countermeasures available are just so much slower, even if you decide to play combo toe-to-toe in the deck-access game. Accordingly, I see that as a problem precisely because there's no in-game way of adapting to deal with it.
It's an entirely different class of player that's fueling the idea that the format's not fixable. This side might argue that as long as combo in any form is playable, then there will be a problem. They see a 9-mana Tooth and Nail to be just as big of a problem as Vamp Tutor, Necropotence, Hermit Druid and Ad Nauseum. They're certainly able within the confines of the banlist to beat the slow-acting combos they see, they're just unwilling to do so.
One example of this is Sheldon's SCG article on going tutorless. He says that expanding the banlist is unworkable because it would need to include too many cards. He illustrates his point by asking the rhetorical question of whether Diabolic Tutor would get banned along with Demonic. It suggests that there's no practical difference between a 4 mana and 2 mana tutor, when I think anyone in this spot of trying to play against combo would agree that there definitely is. On turn 1-2, anything that happens is more or less reliable. One and two cmc counters that happened to be in the control player's opener are the only thing you have to worry about. But on Turn 3 or 4 out of position, you really have to start worrying about whether what you tutor for is going to resolve against equal-level strategies. Control is most certainly going to access a counter by then, and even Stax and Aggro are going to be able to lock you out or wipe your lands. Get rid of Vault/Crypt/Sol Ring as well, and 90% of the stuff that would be used to get Diabolic off before Turn 3 is now gone as well. It would be a drastically different format.
Between the people who can't stop protesting against Tooth and Nail and the people who see combo territory as an unexplorable no-mans-land full of innumerable villains, the voice of those who are actually experimenting with optimization in this format is almost inaudible. And as I keep saying, people who opine on the banlist should definitely have at least some experience with optimization in the format. Anyone in that spot would definitely argue that the format's fixable.
What I do care about is a homogenized format. The banlist is not what stops EDH from being homogenized, whether it's the current list or a revised list or a "power level" list. What keeps the format from being homogenized is the attitude of the people playing the format.
In a format like Legacy, this is the default expectation:
1) players are trying to win at every cost
2) the banlist is the sole tool keeping players in check.
This mindset is both expected and encouraged.
I disagree.
I can think of only a few shops I've ever been on the West Coast where you can show up on a weekend to play a Legacy pick-up game, but out of those, not a single one of them is so elite that players are annoyed when you don't have a Tier-1 deck. In fact, not even the MTGO client is so saturated with card quality that you routinely see the tournament winning decks. You see them once in a while, but 90% of the Legacy/Classic games you'll join will be some sort of semi-casual, semi-competitive Elves, Reanimator, Goblins, Jund, Storm or other such Tier 2 deck, at best. People play these decks because they like to play Magic.
And besides, the existence of an other-than-cutthroat scene isn't support for either side of the ban list argument because ban lists are the only methods of control only if you're in a cutthroat scene where card availability is not an issue. If you're not in that scene, there's still a lot keeping your format healthy, such as ability to adapt. If you are in that scene, that's when you need a ban list to keep competition healthy.
The problem is with people who have no experience playing in the older formats, and most of their constructed experience is from Modern and Standard. This is probably 95% of the player base. What they seem to be doing is attributing the toxic environments of these formats onto every other constructed format. But they seem to pay no mind to the fact that EDH is the first heritage format they've played.
So making the comparison to constructed, the only fair comparison you could make is to the unsanctioned Legacy/Vintage environment. Comparison to the T1/T1.5 tournament environment isn't warranted because EDH is played as a pick-up game. Comparison to Standard and Modern isn't warranted either because those aren't heritage formats and the player base also forces the idea that card availability is not an issue. The formerly unknown, kitchen-table Vintage/Legacy crowd is the only real comparison, and people from that demographic may just tell you that everything is fine. I can speak for my experiences with that crowd, and I certainly appreciate Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor, two cards that most everyone has, not being allowed in casual Legacy.
The claim that EDH is going to be broken no matter what is an essential premise to the argument that the "gentleman's agreement" is the ONLY workable solution, and I don't think that premise has been sufficiently supported.
If:
1) People are expected to try to win at all costs
2) the ban list is supposed to be what enforces "fairness"
There is no workable banlist that doesn't just end up looking like Vintage and Legacy. Or worse. How completely tedious. Oh joy, another format where I jam a slew of blue and artifact cards together, sprinkle some other stuff on top, and call it a deck. I can barely contain the excitement.
So making the comparison to constructed, the only fair comparison you could make is to the unsanctioned Legacy/Vintage environment.
You haven't shown that this environment exists beyond a fringe, or that it is even significantly different from a sanctioned environment, beyond having more pet decks that get crushed because their opponents have no reason not to always crush as much as possible.
If I bring a gun and you bring a knife, then it's a gun fight, not a knife fight, whether you like it or not. In a format like EDH, the entire point of the "gentleman's agreement" you find so contemptuous is to allow for the existence of knife fights and for people to play with their collections of knives in addition to their other weaponry. I find this a lot more fun and interesting as a deck-builder. I do not find it interesting in the least to show up with bad pet decks to a legacy playgroup and get crushed repeatedly by people who are just playing the format in the regular way. Keep in mind I have built multiple top tier Legacy decks over the past several years, including Miracles, Zoo, Maverick, Dredge, and Stoneblade. I also built more secondary decks like Enchantress, Geddon Stax, Aggro Loam and The Gate. Ultimately I fell out of love with Legacy precisely because I liked playing a very wide variety of decks and that became increasingly impossible as the format became very standardized. That's inevitable with a competitive format in Magic- the game is simply not balanced enough to allow for that many different combinations of decks.
I don't care about a "homogenized banlist" (that phrase doesn't actually mean anything - a banlist can't be "homogenous"- though I figure you're just saying the banlist is a single clearly defined list.). In fact it's good this way, because it makes things easier, instead of having extensive debates over every card in every playgroup.
What I do care about is a homogenized format. The banlist is not what stops EDH from being homogenized, whether it's the current list or a revised list or a "power level" list. What keeps the format from being homogenized is the attitude of the people playing the format.
In a format like Legacy, this is the default expectation:
1) players are trying to win at every cost
2) the banlist is the sole tool keeping players in check.
This mindset is both expected and encouraged. This is not the same in EDH. One could make an EDH-like format but change the mindset to the above. That would be... Duel Commander. It already exists. (Needless to say, this mindset doesn't work all that well in a multiplayer format, since the format tends to get bogged down in tedious king-making, or people game the system with blatant pre-game alliances).
The way EDH works is as follows: there are things which are more powerful than others. There are things which are WAY more powerful than others. There are color identities which are blatantly and ridiculously superior to others, ditto generals. The banlist is not designed to prevent this. In reality, it can't. It's a singleton Eternal format and the basic imbalances which define something like Vintage are always going to pre-dominate. Even if you banned 100 cards, from a power-level perspective the format would not even be close to balanced.
But, you don't have to play the most powerful things all the time. Not every deck you make is aiming to be the most powerful deck it can be. Not every general you pick... etc. Sometimes you will pick a color identity to try something new. Sometimes you will use a fun general. Sometimes you will make a deck based on aesthetics. This is what keeps the format so open-ended, not any banlist.
No one really plays "casual Legacy". Outside of a few corner cases, it's not a thing. You don't go into Legacy expecting to make a deck based on Kamahl and Jeska and not get crushed by a dozen Delver decks.
But that's not what you said. You said "homogenization is sort of what makes a format a format", and that isn't correct. A banlist and homogenization are not the same thing, see above.
What are you smoking?
1 No statistical information nothing to back your claims on majority other than personal experience which has no where near a relevant sample size
2 I don't know where you live but i find it hard to believe you have played legacy if you think people don't play budget ..... I have went to legacy nights where half the decks are standard or modern legal ..... your experience is not mine.
3 What is with this conformist you must play the way sheldon says, or you must always do what you assume the majority perceives as "fun". How about this i like mutiplayer i hate 1v1 i like competitive political strategy games but your saying what " im the majority go play a different format this ones mine" . Well good sir sorry i like this format im here to stay and ill play it however i like your "default expectations" are crap.... total bs a Dual commander is for 1v1 i hope that was a joke what don't you get?
"Even if you banned 100 cards, from a power-level perspective the format would not even be close to balanced. "
Please do elaborate O king of baseless claims.
Same worthless "my way is better than yours" crap I am used to seeing
you see buddy when someone like JMK makes a statement from the other side of the fence makes a comment i listen it makes sense i see where hes coming from you just come off to me as a self entitled "insert profanity here"
I don't care about a "homogenized banlist" (that phrase doesn't actually mean anything - a banlist can't be "homogenous"- though I figure you're just saying the banlist is a single clearly defined list.). In fact it's good this way, because it makes things easier, instead of having extensive debates over every card in every playgroup.
What I do care about is a homogenized format. The banlist is not what stops EDH from being homogenized, whether it's the current list or a revised list or a "power level" list. What keeps the format from being homogenized is the attitude of the people playing the format.
In a format like Legacy, this is the default expectation:
1) players are trying to win at every cost
2) the banlist is the sole tool keeping players in check.
This mindset is both expected and encouraged. This is not the same in EDH. One could make an EDH-like format but change the mindset to the above. That would be... Duel Commander. It already exists. (Needless to say, this mindset doesn't work all that well in a multiplayer format, since the format tends to get bogged down in tedious king-making, or people game the system with blatant pre-game alliances).
The way EDH works is as follows: there are things which are more powerful than others. There are things which are WAY more powerful than others. There are color identities which are blatantly and ridiculously superior to others, ditto generals. The banlist is not designed to prevent this. In reality, it can't. It's a singleton Eternal format and the basic imbalances which define something like Vintage are always going to pre-dominate. Even if you banned 100 cards, from a power-level perspective the format would not even be close to balanced.
But, you don't have to play the most powerful things all the time. Not every deck you make is aiming to be the most powerful deck it can be. Not every general you pick... etc. Sometimes you will pick a color identity to try something new. Sometimes you will use a fun general. Sometimes you will make a deck based on aesthetics. This is what keeps the format so open-ended, not any banlist.
No one really plays "casual Legacy". Outside of a few corner cases, it's not a thing. You don't go into Legacy expecting to make a deck based on Kamahl and Jeska and not get crushed by a dozen Delver decks.
But that's not what you said. You said "homogenization is sort of what makes a format a format", and that isn't correct. A banlist and homogenization are not the same thing, see above.
I think I've been misunderstanding you. I thought you were advocating for the decentralization of the banlist. OK, fair enough, so I think we agree on most points.
As far as the main point, I agree that the format would be very hard to balance, color-wise and archetype-wise. That said, I think for casual EDH (meaning: no preformed alliances, prizes, etc, but still with powerful decks), the multiplayer nature balances out a lot of stuff pretty well - I've played plenty of games where the weakest deck won because of the politics involved in the game. There are, imo, a few decks that are just a little too overpowered to be balanced by multiplayer - hermit druid and adnaus being the 2 primary offenders. I think that, while the format can't ever really be balanced perfectly, a relatively small number of bans would bring it close enough that multiplayer politics can get it the rest of the way.
I think I've been misunderstanding you. I thought you were advocating for the decentralization of the banlist. OK, fair enough, so I think we agree on most points.
As far as the main point, I agree that the format would be very hard to balance, color-wise and archetype-wise. That said, I think for casual EDH (meaning: no preformed alliances, prizes, etc, but still with powerful decks), the multiplayer nature balances out a lot of stuff pretty well - I've played plenty of games where the weakest deck won because of the politics involved in the game. There are, imo, a few decks that are just a little too overpowered to be balanced by multiplayer - hermit druid and adnaus being the 2 primary offenders. I think that, while the format can't ever really be balanced perfectly, a relatively small number of bans would bring it close enough that multiplayer politics can get it the rest of the way.
I am perfectly OK with that kind of banning. I have no burning love for Ad Nauseam decks. Though, I rather think the better target for the banlist is stuff that tends to ruin the more casual games out of nowhere. That is, cards that are obnoxious even if the person who put the card in their deck is just playing casually. That would be stuff like DEN or Cyclonic Rift as examples.
In order for Ad Nauseam to be broken you have to kind of go out of your way to spikify your deck, in which case OK, if you play that deck I will play my own of that type.
But yes, I mostly agree. My main point is that the banlist is not a tool to regulate the format. EDH cannot remain the format it is now unless it also remains largely self-regulating. If you remove this centrifugal force, it is just another tournament format where the possibility space shrinks and collapses over time.
I am perfectly OK with that kind of banning. I have no burning love for Ad Nauseam decks. Though, I rather think the better target for the banlist is stuff that tends to ruin the more casual games out of nowhere. That is, cards that are obnoxious even if the person who put the card in their deck is just playing casually. That would be stuff like DEN or Cyclonic Rift as examples.
In order for Ad Nauseam to be broken you have to kind of go out of your way to spikify your deck, in which case OK, if you play that deck I will play my own of that type.
But yes, I mostly agree. My main point is that the banlist is not a tool to regulate the format. EDH cannot remain the format it is now unless it also remains largely self-regulating. If you remove this centrifugal force, it is just another tournament format where the possibility space shrinks and collapses over time.
I'm not sure, but whatever I'm smoking, it's not helping me understand your illegible scrawl of a post, as it bears only a passing resemblance to English as I know it.
Because of the multiplayer nature, I don't see it going that way. People want to win, that's just the nature of people, but as long as it's multiplayer, there's a significant disjoint between raw power level and win %. Also, being multiplayer means a lot more annoyance aimed at you if you're playing a degenerate deck. I think that merely being multiplayer is at least as responsible for the way EDH is played than the attitude towards it. I think duel commander is competitive because it's a duel, not because of the banlist.
Most spikey people I know either don't like EDH or are much less competitive about it than other formats, and I believe it's because it's multiplayer. I really think it goes a long way. There's a reason that few FFA multiplayer games are competitively played.
Because of the multiplayer nature, I don't see it going that way. People want to win, that's just the nature of people, but as long as it's multiplayer, there's a significant disjoint between raw power level and win %. Also, being multiplayer means a lot more annoyance aimed at you if you're playing a degenerate deck. I think that merely being multiplayer is at least as responsible for the way EDH is played than the attitude towards it. I think duel commander is competitive because it's a duel, not because of the banlist.
Most spikey people I know either don't like EDH or are much less competitive about it than other formats, and I believe it's because it's multiplayer. I really think it goes a long way. There's a reason that few FFA multiplayer games are competitively played.
Most spikes I know who want to win in EDH realize the best way to do it is to not give the table a reason to kill you.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
Most spikes I know who want to win in EDH realize the best way to do it is to not give the table a reason to kill you.
Or you don't give them a chance if your decks averaging protects kills turn 3-4. Speed is power whether it's a T2-3 doomsday hermit Druid tooth and nail ad nauseam w/e it all does the same thing abuse cards that make more maba than they cost abuse free cards abuse cards that chest mana cost. No way would they ban every dark ritual that walks along but cards like mana crypt make every deck faster its broken
Yeh, I kinda agree with moxnix. Combo is nasty but slower combo can be dealt with. One of my best games recently involved my goblins deck and a stoneblade deck racing against a Sharuum deck trying to get off thoptersword. Two aggro decks on one combo deck takes life down fast. But T3 combo kills is just too fast to deal with in a 40 life format, even for two players.
That said, slowing down fast combo without totally eliminating it would be harsh for decks in non-combo metas, because that means cracking down on tutors and mana rocks, which is important to give nongreen/nonblue decks a fighting chance.
Free Tolarian Academy. With the amount of ramp in the format now, with Cradle, Coffers, and the soon to be Coffers 2.0 in Theros coming out, now is the time to set the Academy free. Who's with me? Who's bloody with me?
The so-called Coffers 2.0 takes the worst part of Cradle (needing to commit to the board) without the benefit (works with tokens). Coffers isn't even the same kind of card as Cradle is, sure they're both lands, but Coffers is a doubler that doesn't really start getting effective until you have 6 swamps in play. 4 swamps is a deserted temple, 5 swamps enables T6 8 mana. Don't get me wrong, Coffers is definitely a powerful card, but its strength is in late game power, not early game acceleration. "Coffers 2.0" is slow like Coffers, but does not provide as much mana as quickly as Cradle, and is less consistent than Cabal Coffers is.
So:
Cradle–Vulnerable to mass creature removal
Coffers–Slow
Coffers 2–Not even that good.
Academy still overshadows its competition don't you think?
The so-called Coffers 2.0 takes the worst part of Cradle (needing to commit to the board) without the benefit (works with tokens). Coffers isn't even the same kind of card as Cradle is, sure they're both lands, but Coffers is a doubler that doesn't really start getting effective until you have 6 swamps in play. 4 swamps is a deserted temple, 5 swamps enables T6 8 mana. Don't get me wrong, Coffers is definitely a powerful card, but its strength is in late game power, not early game acceleration. "Coffers 2.0" is slow like Coffers, but does not provide as much mana as quickly as Cradle, and is less consistent than Cabal Coffers is.
So:
Cradle–Vulnerable to mass creature removal
Coffers–Slow
Coffers 2–Not even that good.
Academy still overshadows its competition don't you think?
Coffers is not as slow as you think, and has many ways to go infinite. Coffers 2.0 will do the same in Black, Green, and Blue decks. Cradle is just as effective when built around, just like Academy has to built around. Sure, Cradle is vulnerable to mass creature removal, just like Academy is vulnerable to mass artifact removal. With as many rocks as everyone is playing, don't tell me mass artifact removal isn't a thing in EDH. Academy is only good if you get early rocks, late game it really does nothing. Those early rocks paint an enormous target on you, so you'd better be able to win when you play them. Cradle on the other hand grows off of creatures that can be used to attack and block, thus avoiding the target other players paint on you. I honestly see no reason for Academy to be banned at this point in EDH.
Or you don't give them a chance if your decks averaging protects kills turn 3-4. Speed is power whether it's a T2-3 doomsday hermit Druid tooth and nail ad nauseam w/e it all does the same thing abuse cards that make more maba than they cost abuse free cards abuse cards that chest mana cost. No way would they ban every dark ritual that walks along but cards like mana crypt make every deck faster its broken
I ...want.. Tolarian Academy unbanned but I don't believe it's a right decision to make nor that coffers is as good as it. Tolarian Academy can seriously make mincemeat of people before coffers can tap for more than one.
If there should be unbannings, Metalworker should come off first, considering he's been on there for far too long already.
I ...want.. Tolarian Academy unbanned but I don't believe it's a right decision to make nor that coffers is as good as it. Tolarian Academy can seriously make mincemeat of people before coffers can tap for more than one.
If there should be unbannings, Metalworker should come off first, considering he's been on there for far too long already.
i can agree with that. metalworker just doesnt seem that scary in EDH.
I played a lot of EDH this weekend. I think we need balance unbanned as a way to combat "derp-ramp" without resorting to combo.
Combo is frowned upon, MLD is frowned upon, chaining extra turns together is frowned upon, but derp-ramp is kosher. Derp-ramp needs more predators that do not "ruin" the game for non-rampers. Balance punishes greedy ramping without hurting people who are playing fairly. AFAIK balance is the only card that does this. restore balance and balancing act are close but are harder to control.
Just some thoughts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think EDH would be more fun for the majority of participants if players just showed eachother their decks rather than actually playing games out."
The main issue with Balance is that it does not touch artifacts or enchantments, making it a bit too easy to run heavy artifact ramp into Armageddon + Mindtwist for 1W.
Yeah, they really need to print a fixed Balance that hits every card type, so only something like Faith's Reward can unbalance it.
The main issue with Balance is that it does not touch artifacts or enchantments, making it a bit too easy to run heavy artifact ramp into Armageddon + Mindtwist for 1W.
Which is what Kaalia decks are doing anyway? I still do not understand the holy EDH mantra of "do not touch lands." It's border line stupid that people complain about ramp, but hate the answer to ramp. That being said, unban balance.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
Which is what Kaalia decks are doing anyway? I still do not understand the holy EDH mantra of "do not touch lands." It's border line stupid that people complain about ramp, but hate the answer to ramp. That being said, unban balance.
You can't justify unbanning one card based on how one very specific deck plays. You're also missing the point he was making. It's not that Balance is bad because it hits lands, it's that it's NOT balanced and symmetrical, plus has a CMC that is horribly low.
You can't justify unbanning one card based on how one very specific deck plays. You're also missing the point he was making. It's not that Balance is bad because it hits lands, it's that it's NOT balanced and symmetrical, plus has a CMC that is horribly low.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
The main issue with Balance is that it does not touch artifacts or enchantments, making it a bit too easy to run heavy artifact ramp into Armageddon + Mindtwist for 1W.
I agree it is not a perfect solution and can be min-maxed by more insidous players but I have been trying to solve "derp-ramp" without:
1.) Derp-ramping myself
2.) Excessive collateral damage - MLD
3.) Killing them fast - combo
I wish wizards would print more spells that equalize multi-player tables.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think EDH would be more fun for the majority of participants if players just showed eachother their decks rather than actually playing games out."
It denies players agency in the game in a way that MLD doesn't. Look at what the individual effects cost: Wrath of God is 4, Armageddon is 4 mana, and Wit's End is 7. Balance is close to being all three for 2, even if it isn't a carbon copy of those cards it's still too cheap for it's effect. Balancing Act and Restore Balance are actually fair, at least somewhat.
As-is, it's just too trivial to build around (plenty of mana rocks, some enchantments for power, and a cheap but efficient General). With Theros right around the corner (bringing even more enchantments and ways to bypass Balance), the card is just too efficient at what it does.
Granted getting it to act like Armageddon involves extensive build tweaking, but even a Wit's End+Wrath of God for 2 is too much.
I agree it is not a perfect solution and can be min-maxed by more insidous players but I have been trying to solve "derp-ramp" without:
1.) Derp-ramping myself
2.) Excessive collateral damage - MLD
3.) Killing them fast - combo
I wish wizards would print more spells that equalize multi-player tables.
Kinda agree with this a little. Ramping to large amounts of mana is really hard to beat without attacking their resources.
Random anecdote–played a Ramp-heavy Riku deck with my Sen Triplets control and my mono-black Chainer deck. Sen Triplets eventually got overwhelmed by Riku's mana advantage, a Blue Sun's Zenith for Sen netted ~5 cards, Riku's netted ~12, and Sen lost shortly afterward.
Chainer set up with Braids, Cabal Minion, Smokestack, token producers to feed them, prevented Riku from getting to a critical mass of mana, and by the time Riku was able to remove all of the stax pieces, Chainer had enough resources to easily win the game.
So clearly resource denial is effective at combating ramp decks, problem is that even with those stax elements in play, Riku was at about where one would expect a non-heavy ramp deck to be in terms of mana, while a deck without lots of mana ramping would have been ground down to 0 permanents. Balance is definitely a dangerous card that can easily be abused, but it is more effective than a lot of cards at combatting heavy ramp without harming non-heavy ramp decks too much.
EDIT: Ramp heavy decks would definitely start accelerating again after a balance is cast, but the idea is at least that they will lose a lot, while other decks will lose little to nothing. But I am much more in favour of something like Oath of Lieges as a Ramp counter, or Balancing act because they're less dangerous.
Has anyone tried balancing act instead of balance? It is a lot more fair and if cast in the mid game after the ramp player has ramped a lot, you will crush their board with it. It's fair because they will most likely have less cards and will lose less cards from hand. Just a thought. I think balance is too strong and too many people will hate it.
The claim that EDH is going to be broken no matter what is an essential premise to the argument that the "gentleman's agreement" is the ONLY workable solution, and I don't think that premise has been sufficiently supported.
There are ways to disrupt super-passive strategies like combo, and a lot of those tools that are not quite effective enough now become very good if only those decks are slowed down a few turns. For example, Aven Mindcensor is a card that's been pretty good for me historically, but certain decks just laugh it down. The tutoring happens on Turn 1-2, some irresistible draw/mill engine is fetched, and then a bunch of cheap/free removal and counters come out. Every single game. Likewise with a 6-mana Jester's Cap not being able to stop a combo that takes 5 mana to get off. The countermeasures available are just so much slower, even if you decide to play combo toe-to-toe in the deck-access game. Accordingly, I see that as a problem precisely because there's no in-game way of adapting to deal with it.
It's an entirely different class of player that's fueling the idea that the format's not fixable. This side might argue that as long as combo in any form is playable, then there will be a problem. They see a 9-mana Tooth and Nail to be just as big of a problem as Vamp Tutor, Necropotence, Hermit Druid and Ad Nauseum. They're certainly able within the confines of the banlist to beat the slow-acting combos they see, they're just unwilling to do so.
One example of this is Sheldon's SCG article on going tutorless. He says that expanding the banlist is unworkable because it would need to include too many cards. He illustrates his point by asking the rhetorical question of whether Diabolic Tutor would get banned along with Demonic. It suggests that there's no practical difference between a 4 mana and 2 mana tutor, when I think anyone in this spot of trying to play against combo would agree that there definitely is. On turn 1-2, anything that happens is more or less reliable. One and two cmc counters that happened to be in the control player's opener are the only thing you have to worry about. But on Turn 3 or 4 out of position, you really have to start worrying about whether what you tutor for is going to resolve against equal-level strategies. Control is most certainly going to access a counter by then, and even Stax and Aggro are going to be able to lock you out or wipe your lands. Get rid of Vault/Crypt/Sol Ring as well, and 90% of the stuff that would be used to get Diabolic off before Turn 3 is now gone as well. It would be a drastically different format.
Between the people who can't stop protesting against Tooth and Nail and the people who see combo territory as an unexplorable no-mans-land full of innumerable villains, the voice of those who are actually experimenting with optimization in this format is almost inaudible. And as I keep saying, people who opine on the banlist should definitely have at least some experience with optimization in the format. Anyone in that spot would definitely argue that the format's fixable.
I disagree.
I can think of only a few shops I've ever been on the West Coast where you can show up on a weekend to play a Legacy pick-up game, but out of those, not a single one of them is so elite that players are annoyed when you don't have a Tier-1 deck. In fact, not even the MTGO client is so saturated with card quality that you routinely see the tournament winning decks. You see them once in a while, but 90% of the Legacy/Classic games you'll join will be some sort of semi-casual, semi-competitive Elves, Reanimator, Goblins, Jund, Storm or other such Tier 2 deck, at best. People play these decks because they like to play Magic.
And besides, the existence of an other-than-cutthroat scene isn't support for either side of the ban list argument because ban lists are the only methods of control only if you're in a cutthroat scene where card availability is not an issue. If you're not in that scene, there's still a lot keeping your format healthy, such as ability to adapt. If you are in that scene, that's when you need a ban list to keep competition healthy.
The problem is with people who have no experience playing in the older formats, and most of their constructed experience is from Modern and Standard. This is probably 95% of the player base. What they seem to be doing is attributing the toxic environments of these formats onto every other constructed format. But they seem to pay no mind to the fact that EDH is the first heritage format they've played.
So making the comparison to constructed, the only fair comparison you could make is to the unsanctioned Legacy/Vintage environment. Comparison to the T1/T1.5 tournament environment isn't warranted because EDH is played as a pick-up game. Comparison to Standard and Modern isn't warranted either because those aren't heritage formats and the player base also forces the idea that card availability is not an issue. The formerly unknown, kitchen-table Vintage/Legacy crowd is the only real comparison, and people from that demographic may just tell you that everything is fine. I can speak for my experiences with that crowd, and I certainly appreciate Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor, two cards that most everyone has, not being allowed in casual Legacy.
If:
1) People are expected to try to win at all costs
2) the ban list is supposed to be what enforces "fairness"
There is no workable banlist that doesn't just end up looking like Vintage and Legacy. Or worse. How completely tedious. Oh joy, another format where I jam a slew of blue and artifact cards together, sprinkle some other stuff on top, and call it a deck. I can barely contain the excitement.
You haven't shown that this environment exists beyond a fringe, or that it is even significantly different from a sanctioned environment, beyond having more pet decks that get crushed because their opponents have no reason not to always crush as much as possible.
If I bring a gun and you bring a knife, then it's a gun fight, not a knife fight, whether you like it or not. In a format like EDH, the entire point of the "gentleman's agreement" you find so contemptuous is to allow for the existence of knife fights and for people to play with their collections of knives in addition to their other weaponry. I find this a lot more fun and interesting as a deck-builder. I do not find it interesting in the least to show up with bad pet decks to a legacy playgroup and get crushed repeatedly by people who are just playing the format in the regular way. Keep in mind I have built multiple top tier Legacy decks over the past several years, including Miracles, Zoo, Maverick, Dredge, and Stoneblade. I also built more secondary decks like Enchantress, Geddon Stax, Aggro Loam and The Gate. Ultimately I fell out of love with Legacy precisely because I liked playing a very wide variety of decks and that became increasingly impossible as the format became very standardized. That's inevitable with a competitive format in Magic- the game is simply not balanced enough to allow for that many different combinations of decks.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
What are you smoking?
1 No statistical information nothing to back your claims on majority other than personal experience which has no where near a relevant sample size
2 I don't know where you live but i find it hard to believe you have played legacy if you think people don't play budget ..... I have went to legacy nights where half the decks are standard or modern legal ..... your experience is not mine.
3 What is with this conformist you must play the way sheldon says, or you must always do what you assume the majority perceives as "fun". How about this i like mutiplayer i hate 1v1 i like competitive political strategy games but your saying what " im the majority go play a different format this ones mine" . Well good sir sorry i like this format im here to stay and ill play it however i like your "default expectations" are crap.... total bs a Dual commander is for 1v1 i hope that was a joke what don't you get?
"Even if you banned 100 cards, from a power-level perspective the format would not even be close to balanced. "
Please do elaborate O king of baseless claims.
Same worthless "my way is better than yours" crap I am used to seeing
you see buddy when someone like JMK makes a statement from the other side of the fence makes a comment i listen it makes sense i see where hes coming from you just come off to me as a self entitled "insert profanity here"
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
I think I've been misunderstanding you. I thought you were advocating for the decentralization of the banlist. OK, fair enough, so I think we agree on most points.
As far as the main point, I agree that the format would be very hard to balance, color-wise and archetype-wise. That said, I think for casual EDH (meaning: no preformed alliances, prizes, etc, but still with powerful decks), the multiplayer nature balances out a lot of stuff pretty well - I've played plenty of games where the weakest deck won because of the politics involved in the game. There are, imo, a few decks that are just a little too overpowered to be balanced by multiplayer - hermit druid and adnaus being the 2 primary offenders. I think that, while the format can't ever really be balanced perfectly, a relatively small number of bans would bring it close enough that multiplayer politics can get it the rest of the way.
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
I am perfectly OK with that kind of banning. I have no burning love for Ad Nauseam decks. Though, I rather think the better target for the banlist is stuff that tends to ruin the more casual games out of nowhere. That is, cards that are obnoxious even if the person who put the card in their deck is just playing casually. That would be stuff like DEN or Cyclonic Rift as examples.
In order for Ad Nauseam to be broken you have to kind of go out of your way to spikify your deck, in which case OK, if you play that deck I will play my own of that type.
But yes, I mostly agree. My main point is that the banlist is not a tool to regulate the format. EDH cannot remain the format it is now unless it also remains largely self-regulating. If you remove this centrifugal force, it is just another tournament format where the possibility space shrinks and collapses over time.
I'm not sure, but whatever I'm smoking, it's not helping me understand your illegible scrawl of a post.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
Because of the multiplayer nature, I don't see it going that way. People want to win, that's just the nature of people, but as long as it's multiplayer, there's a significant disjoint between raw power level and win %. Also, being multiplayer means a lot more annoyance aimed at you if you're playing a degenerate deck. I think that merely being multiplayer is at least as responsible for the way EDH is played than the attitude towards it. I think duel commander is competitive because it's a duel, not because of the banlist.
Most spikey people I know either don't like EDH or are much less competitive about it than other formats, and I believe it's because it's multiplayer. I really think it goes a long way. There's a reason that few FFA multiplayer games are competitively played.
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
Most spikes I know who want to win in EDH realize the best way to do it is to not give the table a reason to kill you.
Or you don't give them a chance if your decks averaging protects kills turn 3-4. Speed is power whether it's a T2-3 doomsday hermit Druid tooth and nail ad nauseam w/e it all does the same thing abuse cards that make more maba than they cost abuse free cards abuse cards that chest mana cost. No way would they ban every dark ritual that walks along but cards like mana crypt make every deck faster its broken
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
That said, slowing down fast combo without totally eliminating it would be harsh for decks in non-combo metas, because that means cracking down on tutors and mana rocks, which is important to give nongreen/nonblue decks a fighting chance.
The so-called Coffers 2.0 takes the worst part of Cradle (needing to commit to the board) without the benefit (works with tokens). Coffers isn't even the same kind of card as Cradle is, sure they're both lands, but Coffers is a doubler that doesn't really start getting effective until you have 6 swamps in play. 4 swamps is a deserted temple, 5 swamps enables T6 8 mana. Don't get me wrong, Coffers is definitely a powerful card, but its strength is in late game power, not early game acceleration. "Coffers 2.0" is slow like Coffers, but does not provide as much mana as quickly as Cradle, and is less consistent than Cabal Coffers is.
So:
Cradle–Vulnerable to mass creature removal
Coffers–Slow
Coffers 2–Not even that good.
Academy still overshadows its competition don't you think?
Coffers is not as slow as you think, and has many ways to go infinite. Coffers 2.0 will do the same in Black, Green, and Blue decks. Cradle is just as effective when built around, just like Academy has to built around. Sure, Cradle is vulnerable to mass creature removal, just like Academy is vulnerable to mass artifact removal. With as many rocks as everyone is playing, don't tell me mass artifact removal isn't a thing in EDH. Academy is only good if you get early rocks, late game it really does nothing. Those early rocks paint an enormous target on you, so you'd better be able to win when you play them. Cradle on the other hand grows off of creatures that can be used to attack and block, thus avoiding the target other players paint on you. I honestly see no reason for Academy to be banned at this point in EDH.
I think you misspelled mama.
Infraction for spam. - cryogen
If there should be unbannings, Metalworker should come off first, considering he's been on there for far too long already.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
i can agree with that. metalworker just doesnt seem that scary in EDH.
Combo is frowned upon, MLD is frowned upon, chaining extra turns together is frowned upon, but derp-ramp is kosher. Derp-ramp needs more predators that do not "ruin" the game for non-rampers. Balance punishes greedy ramping without hurting people who are playing fairly. AFAIK balance is the only card that does this. restore balance and balancing act are close but are harder to control.
Just some thoughts.
Yeah, they really need to print a fixed Balance that hits every card type, so only something like Faith's Reward can unbalance it.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Which is what Kaalia decks are doing anyway? I still do not understand the holy EDH mantra of "do not touch lands." It's border line stupid that people complain about ramp, but hate the answer to ramp. That being said, unban balance.
You can't justify unbanning one card based on how one very specific deck plays. You're also missing the point he was making. It's not that Balance is bad because it hits lands, it's that it's NOT balanced and symmetrical, plus has a CMC that is horribly low.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
How is any of that a bad thing?
I agree it is not a perfect solution and can be min-maxed by more insidous players but I have been trying to solve "derp-ramp" without:
1.) Derp-ramping myself
2.) Excessive collateral damage - MLD
3.) Killing them fast - combo
I wish wizards would print more spells that equalize multi-player tables.
It denies players agency in the game in a way that MLD doesn't. Look at what the individual effects cost: Wrath of God is 4, Armageddon is 4 mana, and Wit's End is 7. Balance is close to being all three for 2, even if it isn't a carbon copy of those cards it's still too cheap for it's effect. Balancing Act and Restore Balance are actually fair, at least somewhat.
As-is, it's just too trivial to build around (plenty of mana rocks, some enchantments for power, and a cheap but efficient General). With Theros right around the corner (bringing even more enchantments and ways to bypass Balance), the card is just too efficient at what it does.
Granted getting it to act like Armageddon involves extensive build tweaking, but even a Wit's End+Wrath of God for 2 is too much.
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
Kinda agree with this a little. Ramping to large amounts of mana is really hard to beat without attacking their resources.
Random anecdote–played a Ramp-heavy Riku deck with my Sen Triplets control and my mono-black Chainer deck. Sen Triplets eventually got overwhelmed by Riku's mana advantage, a Blue Sun's Zenith for Sen netted ~5 cards, Riku's netted ~12, and Sen lost shortly afterward.
Chainer set up with Braids, Cabal Minion, Smokestack, token producers to feed them, prevented Riku from getting to a critical mass of mana, and by the time Riku was able to remove all of the stax pieces, Chainer had enough resources to easily win the game.
So clearly resource denial is effective at combating ramp decks, problem is that even with those stax elements in play, Riku was at about where one would expect a non-heavy ramp deck to be in terms of mana, while a deck without lots of mana ramping would have been ground down to 0 permanents. Balance is definitely a dangerous card that can easily be abused, but it is more effective than a lot of cards at combatting heavy ramp without harming non-heavy ramp decks too much.
EDIT: Ramp heavy decks would definitely start accelerating again after a balance is cast, but the idea is at least that they will lose a lot, while other decks will lose little to nothing. But I am much more in favour of something like Oath of Lieges as a Ramp counter, or Balancing act because they're less dangerous.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW