Quote from cryogen »Then please enlighten me.
Quote from toctheyounger77 »Stasis is plenty interactive.
Quote from Onering »I've seen some terrible comparisons, but bringing stasis into this and claiming its a non interactive auto win is just wow.
Quote from cryogen »Make a thread and state your case for why Stasis should be banned.
Quote from toctheyounger77 »The eyerolling associated with 'all it does is win the game' doesn't change the fact that all it does is win the game. It's not interactive, and it's a feelsbad card. I'm not overly worried about it in terms of power level and being successful. Counterspells exist, so there's that. It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available? At very most, a non-interactive, now-obsolete win the game card that has a smidgen of lore associated (barely).
Quote from toctheyounger77 »Where did Stasis even come from?
Quote from toctheyounger77 »It's just.....what does the format gain by having this card available?
Quote from DirkGently »My bad about the other thread, I forgot to search for it and didn't notice it until I'd already posted. That said, I was kind of hoping it wouldn't get merged, because now people are way more likely to respond to the (imo badly argued) OP rather than my post, which is pretty quickly going to get buried. Perils of a forum structure, I guess.
It interacts poorly with the format!
All it does is win the game!
Quote from Buffsam89 »Ahahaha, sorry, this so not true. If that was even the slightest bit true, why did they go out of there way to create multiple threads across multiple forums for questions to be asked of them, and then take time to publish an article answering the “peasants” questions? My god, this is asinine.
Quote from SCG ArticleNobody arguing repeatedly on a forum has caused us to change our minds, but sometimes someone will come up with a nugget we haven't considered that'll germinate an idea.
Quote from ChazA4 »It's not a 'boogeyman argument'...it is the very nature of people to utilize the big plays they can use.
Quote from LouCypher »You, on the other hand, never managed to counter this.
Quote from LouCypher »But then, as it's the same answer as you've already been told about 50 times...I'm not surprised you'd think different.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Above all else, the format is a social one. Having a discussion with those you intend to play with is just as much part of the game as choosing a Commander.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Why should I trust what anybody has to say, ever?
Quote from Buffsam89 »Because I would never tell somebody the contents of my deck?? That’s kind of the status quo for random games.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Ugh, this actually bothers me. Really? How often do you sit down at a table and discuss the contents of your deck with your opponents? Hell, I don’t even do that when I’m playing 60-card Casual. It was just a really, really stupid comment, and yeah, I trolled her[Impossible](and you[arrogantAxolotl]). It is a game, after all. When you’re playing backyard football, do you tell your friends who you’re going to throw the ball too? Pretty sure it’s called “gamesmanship”.
Quote from Buffsam89 »Pay attention, this is important. WHERE ON TOOTH AND NAIL DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO GRAB A GAME-ENDING, INFINITE COMBO? Nowhere.
Quote from toctheyounger77 »That being said, your comments about social interaction in the game are accurate. Every player has the right to object to unsavoury games or metas. To my mind, the RC is all in favour of this happening. I think keeping CV on the list is an effort to make sure that it doesn't become a staple in the decks that CAN play it, as it's particularly non-interactive, and an effort to guide the game into a more interactive, social play style. That is what EDH is designed for.
Tell you what, though; the next time Sheldon does a Q&A, I will personally submit a question about Coalition Victorys state of legality in present day Magic, and make sure the answer gets back to this thread. That'll solve any confusion as to where the RC stands on the issue.
Quote from toctheyounger77 »So far, you've provided no such argument. This is why LouCypher is knocking the DTDB argument as irrelevant here - it might be relevant to other discussions, but DTDB plays no part in this discussion.
Banning of a card continues to be based on one of three principles...
When a card's power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly in excess of both it's mana cost AND power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]A card's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8]A card or class of cards can not be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards]
Coalition Victory is a strong candidate for the first principle.. it is a single card which can suddenly end interesting games with little difficulty, due to the presence of 5 colour generals which the player is guarenteed to have access to. As such, opinion was unanimously in favour of banning it.
Quote from toctheyounger77 »Yeah, I don't think it was ever really accepted that these two cannot be compared. That's probably part of why this discussion has become quite circular.
Their general: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
T6>Land + Prossh
T7>Land + Protean Hulk, sacrificed to Prossh getting Melira&Redcap. Table scoops.
Their general: Cromat
T5>Land + Cromat
T8>Land + Coalition Victory. Table scoops.
Their general: Radha, Heir to Keld
T2>Land + Radha
T8>Land + Tooth and Nail entwined getting Kiki&Conscripts. Table scoops.
Quote from LouCypher »So according to this, we should just unban Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Braids, Cabal Minion, Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary and Sylvan Primordial because they're all "suspectible to removal", right?
The argument "Dies to removal" holds no ground in any discussion. Being harder to remove/interact with is a strike against a card, for sure, but being easy to remove does not neccesarily make a card fair to play.
Quote from Mercury01 »Those who do not learn from the debates of the past are doomed to repeat them.