I'm always terrified starting threads because I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place or if i'm even allowed to start such discussions lol
Title is self explanatory, and I guess I'll start.
My perspective is from someone who does not use any iteration of vial smasher in any way. I don't use any partner commanders or any of the new 4 color ones either. In addition, both my decks have a slightly positive matchup with arguably the strongest partner combo vial/kraum. So given all that from a personal standpoint I'm kind of ambivalent about the whole thing.
But here's my problem with the announcement.. I'm sure they're aware that a lot of players are complaining about vial smasher's power level in a 20 life format and to a lesser extent, complaints regarding the assymetry brought about by having 2 commanders. This is also backed by tournament results showing a lot of grixis/vial decks with 1st/2nd place finishes. A lot could smell an impending ban, and they all had specific reasons for it, reasons that were extrapolated based on the committee's previous decisions no less. But then all we got was a blanket statement that pretty much said "yup, we're aware that these C16 cards and the partner mechanic shortly after we lowered life totals have drastically changed the landscape of this format but nope, we're not going to do anything for now." Which is all well and good, i would like to stress that I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THIS CALL.
BUT.. I was really hoping to hear the committee's opinion on vial smasher specifically, because a good chunk of the community are not happy about his rapid surge into top tier territory. I mean throw us a bone here and tell us what you think, since we've been doing the same. I mean what does "keeping an eye on tournament results" accomplish for the committee? I don't mind the strategy, but let us know what for. Will you ban vial when he reaches 20% of the meta? Or 15%? Or maybe 30%? I mean i don't mind giving a little time and all, but I'd at least like to know what exactly you're waiting for. When is exactly the right time? And what of the partner mechanic and the complaints about vial's nasty clock? The rest of the community has formed their opinions regarding its impact on the meta, I'm sure the committee has too. It's not too soon to at least have an initial impression on vial smasher and even the partner mechanic as a whole. And given the context of a lower life total and a 1v1 setting, the committee's voice regarding its stand on the matter is more important than ever.
The announcement clearly left a lot of players wanting because they are already coming to their own conclusions. The committee is lazy, one of its members is a vial player, or they just don't care about the format anymore. I do not agree with any of those conclusions.. But unless the committee comes up with a detailed explanation regarding their stand on these new cards that are clearly warping the format, people will continue to form their own conclusions on the matter, and it's not healthy for the format. Based on the announcement the committee seems to disagree with many of the complains and that vial doesn't need to be banned. I don't think so either, and my reason is simple. I have 2 decks that play very differently and neither are having problems with vial partner. But that's the thing, my reason means nothing to anyone!! What matters is the reasoning and explanation that the committee gives. But i didn't see it in the last announcement. And for better or for worse, vial will continue to be a beast in this meta for the next 3 months, and I personally don't feel like players got the explanation for it that they deserve. The scary part is that if in 3 months they decide to ban vial and again don't explain the decision thoroughly enough, the backlash will be just as bad as this one, if not worse.
Again, this is just my humble opinion as a loyal duel commander player, and I would like to read other people's opinions to help give me some perspective.
I figured I'd chime in on this since I'm the most active RC member on this particular forum. I'll give you my personal opinion, which in no way should be taken as the view of the RC, the Regional Coordinators or the rest of the DC team as well - this is just my take on it. Consider this my take as a player instead of a voting member. I'd like to think that I have a decent ability to separate these thought processes as it is important to not give in to emotion or poor logic while making important decisions like this.
I do not think that Vial Smasher should be legal.
However, Vial Smasher was not banned in the most recent update because there was not a majority by all members of the RC. Nor should anyone who voted this way be faulted for it. It's important to be able to consider the opposition's side of any given debate so that you fully understand what you are arguing against. While I think that Vial Smasher should be banned, the arguments on the other side have weight as well. Not only has it only been 3 months since the release of the new Commanders - it's only been 3 months since the format officially had a major rules change. With both of these factors combined making a decision in haste might not be the most clear minded idea.
The intent behind the 20HP change outlined in the previous banlist update was to enable card unbans and to prevent further banning of cards/Commanders that could be avoided. However, as always, we are at the mercy of the Wizards design team when it comes to yearly Commander releases. With this new release, several brand new Commanders came out of nowhere to compete for top spots in the format. And with the new Partner mechanic in the mix there was a lot of variants of decks that could exist. It's difficult to police what's acceptable and what isn't when the entire paradigm shifts and the new variables (Commanders) are added without warning.
It's a choice to keep observing instead of acting rashly especially after a major rules change. I think it's a better decision (as a player) than making moves that have negative consequences for the format by continuing to dogpile the 'banned as Commander' list or have to be reversed later. While changing an unban or ban (Top/Protean Hulk, or the Bitterblossom BAN that was in early 2011 for example) CAN happen, the idea is avoid shifting cards around as much as possible. Rather, this is my thought process on it. If any of the other team members here want to comment I'm sure they'll be happy to give their opinion.
Ultimately, yes, the RC does care about the format but we cannot afford to have a knee jerk reaction every time Wizards prints new Commanders. Only when they're obviously breaking the rules of the format by default (Looking at you, Derevi, disclaimer I was not an RC member at that time, only recently in 2016). And since we changed the rules on the format at the same time as new questionable Commanders got printed, there isn't really clarity to make that kind of decision just yet.
I'm happy to reply here more but know that I of course have to be guarded with some answers because internal secrets, discussions, world domination plans etc etc
I was seriously hoping to hear from you in particular lol!!! Thanks so much for the input, and i really think the RC should communicate with its players in a similar fashion. I mean at least even if not everyone agrees with all the "executive decisions", people would feel like they're in the loop about the decision making process. I appreciate that you responded in spite of the restrictions and confidentiality issues, and hopefully moving forward to the next announcement the RC would have a better idea of how the format has shaped and where to go from there. =)
and hopefully moving forward to the next announcement the RC would have a better idea of how the format has shaped and where to go from there. =)
We're all hoping for such a thing, yuji.
lol!! i guess it's a matter of perspective but on my end i see 20 life duel commander as a completely new format that's still in its infancy stage and the RC has its work cut out for them raising it right =p
What we'll have to take into consideration is that we play a format that's inherently broken. The same arguments we had about cards not being designed based on having an extra 10 points of life apply to the topic of always having access to a creature. The problems that come with this are that we always have them when we need it and sometimes we end up having more than 4 copies of that creature in a game.
With WoTC releasing more product we'll have more cards - and commanders - to play with. Some are bound to be broken since they are not designed to be played with the way we do, so "dogpiling the 'banned as Commander' list" is something that we'll have to accept as our future.
What we'll have to take into consideration is that we play a format that's inherently broken. The same arguments we had about cards not being designed based on having an extra 10 points of life apply to the topic of always having access to a creature. The problems that come with this are that we always have them when we need it and sometimes we end up having more than 4 copies of that creature in a game.
With WoTC releasing more product we'll have more cards - and commanders - to play with. Some are bound to be broken since they are not designed to be played with the way we do, so "dogpiling the 'banned as Commander' list" is something that we'll have to accept as our future.
I'm honestly cool with this, as long as we get enough transparency from the RC about where they want the format to go. 100 card legacy singleton with a guaranteed creature is by design bound to make some cards broken, and as long as the governing body addresses all concerns and explains the rationale behind banning/unbanning/not changing anything in detail then there should be significantly less angry players leaving the format and discouraging others to try it out. I do feel it will take a bunch of cycles to iron things out.
Breya is a ban that would be very weird and uncalled for, just like Marath and Ooze. 4% of the meta? Why ban Breya? I simply don't get it. I'm glad the DC move away from this kind of thinking.
jalu99 I think your comment is a little contradictory. You ask for changes only each 6 months, but you're also complaining that they're not changing everything after 2 months and decided to wait the 5-6 months you're asking for. I really don't get that part of your post.
The great thing about this announcement is that it shows the DC has matured. They're not willing to ban stuff with a blink of an eye, because they finally got that banning stuff is bad as a metagame shifting measure. Bans are last resort measures. If they ban every deck that gets popular for any reason, then we'll have bans every 3 months (like 2016 was). There will ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS be a Tier 1 deck (or two, or a few). A-L-W-A-Y-S. If your ban that deck every 3 months, then we're bound to be on a format that rotates more than Standard. Vial's rise is pretty clear, undeniable. But that rise can also have happened because the format's new, because people love playing new commanders (specially partner because it's a great mechanic), because people don't know how the format works yet, etc. Remember how we speculated stuff like Wall of Omens would be a white staple in the format after the change, or things like Pulse of Murasa would start seeing play? That barely happened. People focused on killing faster, not on surviving. I'm not saying that's wrong, or that those cards should be staples (maybe they're just bad), but we've been playing Duel Commander for years now, and there are a lot of conceptions we knew about the format that aren't true anymore. Do you really believe in 2 months we understood all of those nuances? Do you believe that our 20-life decks are, today, optimally built just like our 30-life decks were? Not a chance. So I love that they're giving time for the meta, and the format itself, to understand how it works. I love that we broke the trend of a quarterly ban.
Also, it hurts me when people say I'm against Vial's ban because I have the deck. First because it's a fallacy. You should focus on answering the arguments, not the interlocutor. Second because having Vial/Kraum banned is irrelevant to me, since I can literally snap-change to any blue deck in the format. If Vial was banned I could sleeve Geist, Keranos, Jace, Breya, Narset, Augustin, Nin, Clique, Teferi, Wydwen, Leovold or whatever for my next FNM. It really doesn't matter, so I hope people drop that.
3 month ban cycle is how the game has been working for ages. You don't NEED to ban stuff every three months. But having the possibility to do so is good, because it gives more flexibility. If the ban cycle was only 6 months apart, there could be a lot of wrong stuff happening that couldn't be corrected if not by emergencial bans, which are WAY worse.
This trend of banning stuff every 3 months is something I've only seen happening in Duel Commander. I can't remember any format in any year where this happened (maybe only Combo Winter in Urza's block, but that was a point completely out of the curve). So if the DC manages the list correctly, it should be pretty obvious when something is about to get banned. If in 3 months Vial has 20% of the meta, you should know it will be facing a ban. The bad thing is that, in 2016, stuff with 4% of the meta was banned, so THAT gave players the kind of thinking you're having now. Anything can get banned anytime. I hope this "No changes" we had means this has changed. Rebuilding is always a problem, so that's why I say bannings should be last resort, panic button measures.
That doesn't mean we should have a 6 month-ban calendar only. That could lead to a lot of time of an unbalanced format. For example, suppose Vial does keep it's dominating trend for the nexts months. Do you really want to wait until July to correct that?
Yeah, about Breya, I dont realy watch mtgtop8 but I heard it somewhere. I looked on mtgtop8 last week and saw that she placed 3 in top8 at ZAP Palaiseau but I didnt look closely. And on closer look she looks nowhere near as played as smasher
Nowhere nearly as played as Vial, but looks to possibly be nearly as strong. Very good results in that tournament you mention (identical lists make T8 and a quite different list also making T8), and similar winning percentage to Vial in the Cockatrice tournament here. With the smaller usership of Breya though, it is also possible that some of this is due to player skill and some of the better players having chosen Breya.
jalu99 I believe decks should only be banned if they're dominant. And that's performance based. Who cares if Breya is broken, if it doesn't show in enough number, nor makes enough Top 8s? If it's broken, how come it doesn't win a lot? Jace, Vryn's Prodigy was deemed broken for the format, and now is appearing in very healthy numbers. Do you think it should be banned just because?
You're using the wrong word: it's not a matter of popularity, but of performance. It doesn't matter how many people play a deck, but how many times that deck wins or makes good results. Sometimes both numbers walk right next to each other, sometimes they don't. So popularity is not a metric, at all.
And yes, I believe a commander should only be banned if it's too strong and dominant. For example: I think Maelstrom Wanderer cheats deckbuilding and mulligan. You can keep a hand that has no business, only land and ramp, and that's a great Maelstrom hand. I believe that has nothing to do with the format. It's also VERY popular. Everywhere I go there are AT LEAST 3 people playing Maelstrom. Should we then ban a popular commander, that breaks the formats rules but has 2% of Top8s? If we do that, then we're bound to decide this stuff by personal taste, not format health.
Isn't "Tier 1" dictated by popularity and performance, though? Although there are cases of decks that have fewer overall popularity but always make great results. That's why convertion rate is so important (and hard) to calculate. I don't know what you're standing for though. If the deck gets a lot of great results, dominating the meta, it should be banned. What I'm against is banning because you dislike playing against it or because you think it doesn't belong. I don't think Maelstrom should be banned at all, although I think it escapes a few format rules. And even considering banning Jace now seems way, way off for me.
Isn't "Tier 1" dictated by popularity and performance, though? Although there are cases of decks that have fewer overall popularity but always make great results. That's why convertion rate is so important (and hard) to calculate. I don't know what you're standing for though. If the deck gets a lot of great results, dominating the meta, it should be banned. What I'm against is banning because you dislike playing against it or because you think it doesn't belong. I don't think Maelstrom should be banned at all, although I think it escapes a few format rules. And even considering banning Jace now seems way, way off for me.
Grixis vial gets a lot of great results and is dominating the top spots of tournaments as of late.. So wouldn't you agree that combination should not be legal if the trend continues for the next 3 months? Not a rhetorical question btw just wanted your opinion of this based on what you just argued.
Of course! If Vial keeps this momentum it has right now, it's bound to be 20% or more of the meta by the next announcement. If that happens it's an easy ban. But if it keeps exactly as he is right now (9-11%, great results, but allowing other decks to exist in the same 9-11% range) then I think we're fine.
I don't understand your Pepsi analogy, but you do realize people loving a deck doesn't make it have great results, right? If everyone starts playing Borborygmos I'm pretty sure we'll never have a ban discussion because the results won't be that great. So I don't think you're approaching this from the right angle.
How is the format doing since the switch to 20 life? Attendance and enthusiasm wise? I was a part of a small community in my area but the switch killed it, but it could just be my area.
My area died too, Godec. We were on a pretty good FNM streak, tournaments were getting bigger and it was just a matter of time before we could make it past 20 people (which would be huge here). Now we just play for fun occasionaly, but rarely get 8 players to actually fire a tournament.
Honestly I don't even know why I care about the format anymore and post stuff here, since it's clearly on the verge of disappearing where I live.
How is the format doing since the switch to 20 life? Attendance and enthusiasm wise? I was a part of a small community in my area but the switch killed it, but it could just be my area.
Duel commander is very much alive in my setting, albeit a little crowded with vials lol
I have no idea what you're talking about with the Pepsi stuff. You mean the soda? It's not even a bit popular where I live, so you lost me there and I don't really get what you mean.
Anyway, this is the last time I'll try to actually explain the difference between popularity and dominance to you. If you don't get it now, I give up. Breya wouldn't get 20% of the meta just because people love playing her. People play a LOT of Maelstrom where I live, but they don't get good results. I probably have more wins and second places with my Daretti deck than all the Maelstroms in my area put together. So it really doesn't matter if a lot of people pick up a deck if it doesn't get results. So popularity not always turns a deck into a dominant one. Now, if everyone picks Breya and she still stays on her 4% Top8 appearance range, I don't really care. Why should I? it's not because more people are playing the deck that it's bound to win more. That's not a rule. But if everyone picks her up and she actually makes 20%, it means she's dominating results, people aren't able to combat her and are either forced to play Breya or lose. Then, well, that's a classic and easy ban.
TL;DR No I wouldn't ban Breya if she became popular. I'd ban her if she became dominant.
^pretty much. but i was able to take something away from jalu99. Popularity may not equate to dominance, but it can actually lead to it. If dominance is defined by the percentage of decks that win top8's, i might actually go as far as say that popularity is a prerequisite. No matter how powerful a commander is, if not enough people sleeve up enough of those decks to actually compete, there won't be any representation, and by extension no opportinity to dominate. It's a matter of sample size, exposure and outcome. So popularity does factor in. But that's all it should be, a factor, and by no means should it be a parameter.
And for some reason i feel like i have to address it coz it keeps getting brought up.. i like pepsi. I'm more of a mountain dew guy though. I'm almost tempted to start a thread about everyone's favorite soda, seems fun.
Popularity may not equate to dominance, but it can actually lead to it. If dominance is defined by the percentage of decks that win top8's, i might actually go as far as say that popularity is a prerequisite. No matter how powerful a commander is, if not enough people sleeve up enough of those decks to actually compete, there won't be any representation, and by extension no opportinity to dominate.
Thank you. Your English is better than mine. That's exactly what I wanted to say.
no probs man. 2 posts in I started to understand. =)
It doesn't matter how many people play a deck, but how many times that deck wins or makes good results. Sometimes both numbers walk right next to each other, sometimes they don't. So popularity is not a metric, at all.
Hum... I feel I addressed this before, right? Jalu99 even quoted it, so I know he read it. It's not that I didn't understand his point, but I disagree with it and with the importance of pure popularity. I'm saying the same thing you are, yujipooji. For a deck to dominate it has to be very popular. But the contrary isn't true. A popular deck isn't always a dominant deck. So banning anything just for its popularity is not at all the right approach. That's why I'm saying popularity isn't a factor. A popular deck may or may not be dominant.
When I was gathering data of every single match played on tournaments, there was this kind of in data approach that could show the deck's conversion rate (meaning the % of decks on Top 8 vs the total % of that deck that was played). So if 30% of the field played Vial, but only 10% get Top 8s, while 10% of the field plays Titania and all of them top 8, it seems to me Titania would be way more a powerful deck (The data is fictional and just illustrative).
We don't have that kind of data right now, so we must use what we have, which is Top 8 dominance (or higher finishes dominance, like was calculated in one of these topics).
French EDH BRGW Saskia the Unyielding BRGW GUWB Thrasios, Triton Hero // Tymna the Weaver GUWB B Braids, Cabal Minion B G Titania, Protector of Argoth G R Zurgo Bellstriker R
Founding Father of [Team Stepfathers]: We beat you and you hate us My Street Art
It doesn't matter how many people play a deck, but how many times that deck wins or makes good results. Sometimes both numbers walk right next to each other, sometimes they don't. So popularity is not a metric, at all.
Hum... I feel I addressed this before, right? Jalu99 even quoted it, so I know he read it. It's not that I didn't understand his point, but I disagree with it and with the importance of pure popularity. I'm saying the same thing you are, yujipooji. For a deck to dominate it has to be very popular. But the contrary isn't true. A popular deck isn't always a dominant deck. So banning anything just for its popularity is not at all the right approach. That's why I'm saying popularity isn't a factor. A popular deck may or may not be dominant.
When I was gathering data of every single match played on tournaments, there was this kind of in data approach that could show the deck's conversion rate (meaning the % of decks on Top 8 vs the total % of that deck that was played). So if 30% of the field played Vial, but only 10% get Top 8s, while 10% of the field plays Titania and all of them top 8, it seems to me Titania would be way more a powerful deck (The data is fictional and just illustrative).
We don't have that kind of data right now, so we must use what we have, which is Top 8 dominance (or higher finishes dominance, like was calculated in one of these topics).
Well if you agree with me and jalu says that what I said was exactly what he was trying to say, then all 3 of us are on the same page yay haha! It was just a slight confusion in terminologies and operational definitions brought about by a small language barrier. =)
Moving on, there's not much breya over here. Think anyone can give me some kind of overview on how she operates? I'm shocked she got brought up in ban discussions in many forums, and even breya players are relieved she dint get the hammer (there's even this hilarious photo in the DC facebook comment section of breya beside a virgin mary statue) and I don't get the hype. Mostly out of ignorance than anything else lol
Title is self explanatory, and I guess I'll start.
My perspective is from someone who does not use any iteration of vial smasher in any way. I don't use any partner commanders or any of the new 4 color ones either. In addition, both my decks have a slightly positive matchup with arguably the strongest partner combo vial/kraum. So given all that from a personal standpoint I'm kind of ambivalent about the whole thing.
But here's my problem with the announcement.. I'm sure they're aware that a lot of players are complaining about vial smasher's power level in a 20 life format and to a lesser extent, complaints regarding the assymetry brought about by having 2 commanders. This is also backed by tournament results showing a lot of grixis/vial decks with 1st/2nd place finishes. A lot could smell an impending ban, and they all had specific reasons for it, reasons that were extrapolated based on the committee's previous decisions no less. But then all we got was a blanket statement that pretty much said "yup, we're aware that these C16 cards and the partner mechanic shortly after we lowered life totals have drastically changed the landscape of this format but nope, we're not going to do anything for now." Which is all well and good, i would like to stress that I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THIS CALL.
BUT.. I was really hoping to hear the committee's opinion on vial smasher specifically, because a good chunk of the community are not happy about his rapid surge into top tier territory. I mean throw us a bone here and tell us what you think, since we've been doing the same. I mean what does "keeping an eye on tournament results" accomplish for the committee? I don't mind the strategy, but let us know what for. Will you ban vial when he reaches 20% of the meta? Or 15%? Or maybe 30%? I mean i don't mind giving a little time and all, but I'd at least like to know what exactly you're waiting for. When is exactly the right time? And what of the partner mechanic and the complaints about vial's nasty clock? The rest of the community has formed their opinions regarding its impact on the meta, I'm sure the committee has too. It's not too soon to at least have an initial impression on vial smasher and even the partner mechanic as a whole. And given the context of a lower life total and a 1v1 setting, the committee's voice regarding its stand on the matter is more important than ever.
The announcement clearly left a lot of players wanting because they are already coming to their own conclusions. The committee is lazy, one of its members is a vial player, or they just don't care about the format anymore. I do not agree with any of those conclusions.. But unless the committee comes up with a detailed explanation regarding their stand on these new cards that are clearly warping the format, people will continue to form their own conclusions on the matter, and it's not healthy for the format. Based on the announcement the committee seems to disagree with many of the complains and that vial doesn't need to be banned. I don't think so either, and my reason is simple. I have 2 decks that play very differently and neither are having problems with vial partner. But that's the thing, my reason means nothing to anyone!! What matters is the reasoning and explanation that the committee gives. But i didn't see it in the last announcement. And for better or for worse, vial will continue to be a beast in this meta for the next 3 months, and I personally don't feel like players got the explanation for it that they deserve. The scary part is that if in 3 months they decide to ban vial and again don't explain the decision thoroughly enough, the backlash will be just as bad as this one, if not worse.
Again, this is just my humble opinion as a loyal duel commander player, and I would like to read other people's opinions to help give me some perspective.
I do not think that Vial Smasher should be legal.
However, Vial Smasher was not banned in the most recent update because there was not a majority by all members of the RC. Nor should anyone who voted this way be faulted for it. It's important to be able to consider the opposition's side of any given debate so that you fully understand what you are arguing against. While I think that Vial Smasher should be banned, the arguments on the other side have weight as well. Not only has it only been 3 months since the release of the new Commanders - it's only been 3 months since the format officially had a major rules change. With both of these factors combined making a decision in haste might not be the most clear minded idea.
The intent behind the 20HP change outlined in the previous banlist update was to enable card unbans and to prevent further banning of cards/Commanders that could be avoided. However, as always, we are at the mercy of the Wizards design team when it comes to yearly Commander releases. With this new release, several brand new Commanders came out of nowhere to compete for top spots in the format. And with the new Partner mechanic in the mix there was a lot of variants of decks that could exist. It's difficult to police what's acceptable and what isn't when the entire paradigm shifts and the new variables (Commanders) are added without warning.
It's a choice to keep observing instead of acting rashly especially after a major rules change. I think it's a better decision (as a player) than making moves that have negative consequences for the format by continuing to dogpile the 'banned as Commander' list or have to be reversed later. While changing an unban or ban (Top/Protean Hulk, or the Bitterblossom BAN that was in early 2011 for example) CAN happen, the idea is avoid shifting cards around as much as possible. Rather, this is my thought process on it. If any of the other team members here want to comment I'm sure they'll be happy to give their opinion.
Ultimately, yes, the RC does care about the format but we cannot afford to have a knee jerk reaction every time Wizards prints new Commanders. Only when they're obviously breaking the rules of the format by default (Looking at you, Derevi, disclaimer I was not an RC member at that time, only recently in 2016). And since we changed the rules on the format at the same time as new questionable Commanders got printed, there isn't really clarity to make that kind of decision just yet.
I'm happy to reply here more but know that I of course have to be guarded with some answers because internal secrets, discussions, world domination plans etc etc
lol!! i guess it's a matter of perspective but on my end i see 20 life duel commander as a completely new format that's still in its infancy stage and the RC has its work cut out for them raising it right =p
With WoTC releasing more product we'll have more cards - and commanders - to play with. Some are bound to be broken since they are not designed to be played with the way we do, so "dogpiling the 'banned as Commander' list" is something that we'll have to accept as our future.
I'm honestly cool with this, as long as we get enough transparency from the RC about where they want the format to go. 100 card legacy singleton with a guaranteed creature is by design bound to make some cards broken, and as long as the governing body addresses all concerns and explains the rationale behind banning/unbanning/not changing anything in detail then there should be significantly less angry players leaving the format and discouraging others to try it out. I do feel it will take a bunch of cycles to iron things out.
Just wanted to correct 1 thing on your post: the format is 2 months old, not 3. Two months and 6 days to be precise.
jalu99 I think your comment is a little contradictory. You ask for changes only each 6 months, but you're also complaining that they're not changing everything after 2 months and decided to wait the 5-6 months you're asking for. I really don't get that part of your post.
The great thing about this announcement is that it shows the DC has matured. They're not willing to ban stuff with a blink of an eye, because they finally got that banning stuff is bad as a metagame shifting measure. Bans are last resort measures. If they ban every deck that gets popular for any reason, then we'll have bans every 3 months (like 2016 was). There will ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS be a Tier 1 deck (or two, or a few). A-L-W-A-Y-S. If your ban that deck every 3 months, then we're bound to be on a format that rotates more than Standard. Vial's rise is pretty clear, undeniable. But that rise can also have happened because the format's new, because people love playing new commanders (specially partner because it's a great mechanic), because people don't know how the format works yet, etc. Remember how we speculated stuff like Wall of Omens would be a white staple in the format after the change, or things like Pulse of Murasa would start seeing play? That barely happened. People focused on killing faster, not on surviving. I'm not saying that's wrong, or that those cards should be staples (maybe they're just bad), but we've been playing Duel Commander for years now, and there are a lot of conceptions we knew about the format that aren't true anymore. Do you really believe in 2 months we understood all of those nuances? Do you believe that our 20-life decks are, today, optimally built just like our 30-life decks were? Not a chance. So I love that they're giving time for the meta, and the format itself, to understand how it works. I love that we broke the trend of a quarterly ban.
Also, it hurts me when people say I'm against Vial's ban because I have the deck. First because it's a fallacy. You should focus on answering the arguments, not the interlocutor. Second because having Vial/Kraum banned is irrelevant to me, since I can literally snap-change to any blue deck in the format. If Vial was banned I could sleeve Geist, Keranos, Jace, Breya, Narset, Augustin, Nin, Clique, Teferi, Wydwen, Leovold or whatever for my next FNM. It really doesn't matter, so I hope people drop that.
This trend of banning stuff every 3 months is something I've only seen happening in Duel Commander. I can't remember any format in any year where this happened (maybe only Combo Winter in Urza's block, but that was a point completely out of the curve). So if the DC manages the list correctly, it should be pretty obvious when something is about to get banned. If in 3 months Vial has 20% of the meta, you should know it will be facing a ban. The bad thing is that, in 2016, stuff with 4% of the meta was banned, so THAT gave players the kind of thinking you're having now. Anything can get banned anytime. I hope this "No changes" we had means this has changed. Rebuilding is always a problem, so that's why I say bannings should be last resort, panic button measures.
That doesn't mean we should have a 6 month-ban calendar only. That could lead to a lot of time of an unbalanced format. For example, suppose Vial does keep it's dominating trend for the nexts months. Do you really want to wait until July to correct that?
Nowhere nearly as played as Vial, but looks to possibly be nearly as strong. Very good results in that tournament you mention (identical lists make T8 and a quite different list also making T8), and similar winning percentage to Vial in the Cockatrice tournament here. With the smaller usership of Breya though, it is also possible that some of this is due to player skill and some of the better players having chosen Breya.
You're using the wrong word: it's not a matter of popularity, but of performance. It doesn't matter how many people play a deck, but how many times that deck wins or makes good results. Sometimes both numbers walk right next to each other, sometimes they don't. So popularity is not a metric, at all.
And yes, I believe a commander should only be banned if it's too strong and dominant. For example: I think Maelstrom Wanderer cheats deckbuilding and mulligan. You can keep a hand that has no business, only land and ramp, and that's a great Maelstrom hand. I believe that has nothing to do with the format. It's also VERY popular. Everywhere I go there are AT LEAST 3 people playing Maelstrom. Should we then ban a popular commander, that breaks the formats rules but has 2% of Top8s? If we do that, then we're bound to decide this stuff by personal taste, not format health.
Grixis vial gets a lot of great results and is dominating the top spots of tournaments as of late.. So wouldn't you agree that combination should not be legal if the trend continues for the next 3 months? Not a rhetorical question btw just wanted your opinion of this based on what you just argued.
Honestly I don't even know why I care about the format anymore and post stuff here, since it's clearly on the verge of disappearing where I live.
Duel commander is very much alive in my setting, albeit a little crowded with vials lol
Anyway, this is the last time I'll try to actually explain the difference between popularity and dominance to you. If you don't get it now, I give up. Breya wouldn't get 20% of the meta just because people love playing her. People play a LOT of Maelstrom where I live, but they don't get good results. I probably have more wins and second places with my Daretti deck than all the Maelstroms in my area put together. So it really doesn't matter if a lot of people pick up a deck if it doesn't get results. So popularity not always turns a deck into a dominant one. Now, if everyone picks Breya and she still stays on her 4% Top8 appearance range, I don't really care. Why should I? it's not because more people are playing the deck that it's bound to win more. That's not a rule. But if everyone picks her up and she actually makes 20%, it means she's dominating results, people aren't able to combat her and are either forced to play Breya or lose. Then, well, that's a classic and easy ban.
TL;DR No I wouldn't ban Breya if she became popular. I'd ban her if she became dominant.
And for some reason i feel like i have to address it coz it keeps getting brought up.. i like pepsi. I'm more of a mountain dew guy though. I'm almost tempted to start a thread about everyone's favorite soda, seems fun.
no probs man. 2 posts in I started to understand. =)
Hum... I feel I addressed this before, right? Jalu99 even quoted it, so I know he read it. It's not that I didn't understand his point, but I disagree with it and with the importance of pure popularity. I'm saying the same thing you are, yujipooji. For a deck to dominate it has to be very popular. But the contrary isn't true. A popular deck isn't always a dominant deck. So banning anything just for its popularity is not at all the right approach. That's why I'm saying popularity isn't a factor. A popular deck may or may not be dominant.
When I was gathering data of every single match played on tournaments, there was this kind of in data approach that could show the deck's conversion rate (meaning the % of decks on Top 8 vs the total % of that deck that was played). So if 30% of the field played Vial, but only 10% get Top 8s, while 10% of the field plays Titania and all of them top 8, it seems to me Titania would be way more a powerful deck (The data is fictional and just illustrative).
We don't have that kind of data right now, so we must use what we have, which is Top 8 dominance (or higher finishes dominance, like was calculated in one of these topics).
BRGW Saskia the Unyielding BRGW
GUWB Thrasios, Triton Hero // Tymna the Weaver GUWB
B Braids, Cabal Minion B
G Titania, Protector of Argoth G
R Zurgo Bellstriker R
Founding Father of [Team Stepfathers]: We beat you and you hate us
My Street Art
I'm having so much fun with it in queen marchesa though =( and almost 100% of the time i use it as a comeback tool. is breya abusing it?
Well if you agree with me and jalu says that what I said was exactly what he was trying to say, then all 3 of us are on the same page yay haha! It was just a slight confusion in terminologies and operational definitions brought about by a small language barrier. =)
Moving on, there's not much breya over here. Think anyone can give me some kind of overview on how she operates? I'm shocked she got brought up in ban discussions in many forums, and even breya players are relieved she dint get the hammer (there's even this hilarious photo in the DC facebook comment section of breya beside a virgin mary statue) and I don't get the hype. Mostly out of ignorance than anything else lol