I realize I'm late to the game in discussing this article, but I think that the most important part of his article is when Sheldon admitted that what qualifies as a "fun" Commander game is subjective. He played against Stax and fast Combo during his time at SCG Con and I think that these games were important experiences in helping him (and others of the RC) realize the wonderful diversity of the Commander format.
This seems to posit that was not his thinking prior to those games, which is 100% inaccurate. He has always said exactly that: People can have fun in a multitude of ways, to try and make EDH fit them all is a fools errand. This was not some Eureka moment where he now 'gets it'.
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 effectively "get good", but that's not a bad thing. While Commander isn't 100 card Vintage, and players shouldn't be expected to prepare for that as anything resembling a par for the Course commander match, the opposite is also true, and players needn't be expected to have options for the players who resist at all costs any efforts to build functional decks. I have a friend who comes at me with 100 card draft pool leftovers, and it's only right that our match results reflect that.
But one can build competent decks without necessitating the need to deal with broken things, as the poster I was responding too seemed to indicate. Of course you should win 99% of matches like that, but if everyone made decks like his once in a while and smashed them it could be interesting. To clarify I agree with your ideas here, just don't think it actually related to the position I was trying to take.
I appreciate a tuned experience, but disagree with the notion one must be able to deal with broken items or they need to 'get good'.
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 think the format needs its share of near-broken and 'unfun' (though I wouldn't call them such) cards. Why? Because they, like everything else, incentivize building decks that are prepared to deal with them. Those cards of the format, in my view, overall promote deeper thought in deck construction and strategy, which results in those decks being more prepared for other similar game states that those power cards might not necessarily produce, but may be reached by other means.
How is this not just 'get good' as opposed to actually discussing and considering the type of play experience a group would like?
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 am actually glad p9 are banned as he had copies (plural) of each.
I think we all are. Could you could go back and answer my question about the 'P9 plus balance ban list' question? I know it got a little run over, just looking for a follow up.
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.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
Could you expand on why you think the 'P9 plus Balance' ban list would shift the tactics of the community if the current one does not? I don't seem to see the logical connection.
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 think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
In a social setting it actually IS more important that more people have a good time, that's the point of going to something social. That in no way actually stops you from playing those decks, it stops you from playing them against people who don't want to do so. Of course that leads to a conversation that ...
I don't want to have a conversation about what is or isn't acceptable in a given group of veritable strangers. I want to play Magic. I want a banlist that promotes balanced play so that gaps in power level aren't as large so that enjoyment is more homogeneous.
I think thats a noble goal, but I don't actually see anyone working towards it. Make one, use it, show people how great it is, get people to adopt it. But to take all the hard work of the RC, who specifically says 'talk first', and then just say 'make it better for me' seems really off-putting when you have no interest in a primary calibration.
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.
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?
What a lovely straw-man. No one is saying answers should not be played, or are frowned upon even. Allowing people to play, while not doing "whatever they want" is exactly the types of games I like. Answering threats and getting around other people's answers is all fine. Having to grind out minuscule advantage under the thumb of Smokestack and Winter Orb really isnt my cup of tea. I have no issue with people playing like that in a like-minded group, lots of people can find it interesting and fun, but its not the sort of thing that should be out in 'the wild' IMO.
What nature is that? Why should it be that way? Aren't you attempting to force your viewpoint on others with such an attitude?
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
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.
Except that the "hardcore" players don't see an under powered commander and think the person playing it is a bad person. Look at the paragraph that was highlighted earlier in the thread, his assumption is that "Bad" People play Stax or MLD.
No, they just call them bad a magic, tell them how to 'get good', and laugh if the person wants a slower game.
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.
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.
I appreciate a tuned experience, but disagree with the notion one must be able to deal with broken items or they need to 'get good'.
I think thats a noble goal, but I don't actually see anyone working towards it. Make one, use it, show people how great it is, get people to adopt it. But to take all the hard work of the RC, who specifically says 'talk first', and then just say 'make it better for me' seems really off-putting when you have no interest in a primary calibration.
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.