Yea, that's the thing, right? I get that there's no cost to start the game with an 8-card hand, but it just seems a bit too knee-jerky to not at least debate/consider reintroducing 'banned as general'/'banned as companion'.
We cannot know if they did or did not debate it. Their strong stance on the BaaC list, and its removal, seems to show they want streamlined over complicated. But I think being slightly more complex would be of benifit.
By the way, as the rules of EDH stands, since the companion isn't technically in the deck, does colour identity count? I get that it probably should, but not sure if the rules technically say that too.
The comp rules do actually say it has to match color identity.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I just think the 'no downside' was too much for even people who push Sol Ring. No way to interact outside counter-magic (not even discard or exile interaction) on a fairly powerful spell just seems dumb. I would have preferred it banned as companion (or just not allow companion to work), but it makes sense.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
What JqlGirl said. Card has always been borderline and the CAG convinced us that the Johnny opportunities outweighed the potential downsides.
I'd say that of the three, this is the one we're most nervous about, but I'm excited to see where it goes.
'Ugin is the nail in the coffin of Painter's Servant' sure does not sound borderline. I am all for 'hey we were wrong', but revisionist history seems uncool.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
What a ridiculous reduction of the conversation being had. There are at least 2 or 3 other cards that easily sub into those scenarios with the same outcome.
I was being mildly facetious, but the fact remains if the problem is "Sol Ring is ruining our games" banning Sol Ring is an easy and efficient solution. Will other cards step in to fill the void? Probably. But they won't be Sol Ring. Ergo, Sol Ring won't be ruining any more games. If the other cards are also ruining games, ban them too. Problem solved.
The conversation was never"Sol Ring is ruining our games", thats my point. Secondly the determination of IF those cards are ruining a significant number of games is the difficult part. Of course adding 3 cards to the ban list is simple. Your argument was without nuance.
But of course that would require actually doing something. Instead we'll continue talking in circles while nothing changes.
Are you on the RC or CAG? As I assume not, what exactly is your idea about 'doing something'?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
This line of reasoning makes no sense. First, it implies the ban list changed is easy and alleviates this scenario, neither of which is true.
I mean... banning Sol Ring is a pretty good way to stop Sol Ring from ruining games. Sounds like it solves the scenario pretty efficiently.
What a ridiculous reduction of the conversation being had. There are at least 2 or 3 other cards that easily sub into those scenarios with the same outcome.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
It is completely absurd that I need to have a five minute conversation with a group of strangers setting up a social contract that could easily be solved by a more comprehensive and logically consistent banlist. I'm not upset that I lost those two games, I'm mildly irritated that none of the three games were particularly fun.
This line of reasoning makes no sense. First, it implies the ban list changed is easy and alleviates this scenario, neither of which is true. Second it implies someone else should make people play cards some people don't care for so they can have a better game instead of taking any personal responsibility.
I think some fast mana should be banned as well, but that's not some magic bullet that makes games like this not happen.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
You don't really need a rating system.
Axe the fast mana rocks and enablers, the top of library tutors and lower the life total to 30 and you're already in a better place.
That is a totally different format, and people have made it.
I mean, the discussion is nice and Sheldon's article is appreciated, but I haven't seen any change or anything, so I'm just going to keep playing with degenerate stuff until I'm told otherwise.
You can play powerful cards in a non-degenerate way.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I have seen some decks recently described as 'casual 75%' that would absolutely have the game locked up by 7 or 8 unless people had multiple cheap disruptions. Now I could be way off, but that certainly does not describe 75% to me.
Outside some convoluted point system for well know cards, the best we can do is evaluate game by game I think.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
In the 99 in its optimal state, Rofellos is surely not any worse than Metalworker in terms of mana production; MW is an order of magnitude stronger in well tuned decks meant to take advantage of it.
I don't think this is accurate at all. The artifacts have to be in your hand, so rocks can't be played to generate more mana. If we are just compaing tuned to tuned, Forests are going to dump on the battlefield, and be worth at least 2 mana. What artifacts are tuned decks getting value in the hand?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The comp rules do actually say it has to match color identity.
Coffers is OK, but has no real protection, kill it. Every Commander deck should be able to deal with 1-3 problem lands.
'Ugin is the nail in the coffin of Painter's Servant' sure does not sound borderline. I am all for 'hey we were wrong', but revisionist history seems uncool.
Are you on the RC or CAG? As I assume not, what exactly is your idea about 'doing something'?
I think some fast mana should be banned as well, but that's not some magic bullet that makes games like this not happen.
That is a totally different format, and people have made it.
You can play powerful cards in a non-degenerate way.
Outside some convoluted point system for well know cards, the best we can do is evaluate game by game I think.