Another bit of nonsense from Sheldon's latest article:
"It's clear that this version of Teysa is meant for the Vampire decks led by Edgar Markov and the like"
Who even would? 4 mana in Edgar for tokens to get Vigilance and Lifelink, am I missing some serious death trigger synergy these decks pack or something?
This seems fairly unrelated, and at least slightly ad hominem. There are plenty of vampire decks that would make good use of this. Without even scratching the surface Falkenrath Noble and Blood Artist like her, as well as Elenda, the Dusk Rose.
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 really does need to be the only major takeaway from the article. That and the importance of communication pre, mid and post game.
Agreed. There's a minimum level of effort that needs to go into deck building, just as there's a ceiling. Generally it's only the ceiling that gets discussed, simply because the floor is usually self-regulating in that there's not many people out there who like taking a beating. But it is interesting to consider that a high ceiling does generally mean a higher level for the floor, too. And that can get frustrating for someone without an infinite budget, or with a theme to convey.
It's nice to hear this reiterated, Sheldon. This discussion got stupendously derailed by banlist discussion and the role of the RC, when that really had nothing to do with the original premises of the article. It appears that for some it was lost in translation, but the central tenet for me was reiterating that open, constructive communication is crucial to this format being satisfactory for its participants.
But as I said, we need control as a viable strategy. It's literally the only thing keeping a lot of other busted decks from dominating the meta. It's this weird tension in formatcraft. Control doesn't have to be the top strategy, but it does have to be a viable strategy. But casual players hate control, and, as we've seen in this same thread, counterspells are bad, but removing the creature the minute it hits the table is kosher.
Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves, really. For myself, control is my preferential style of play. It doesn't mean denying the game to the rest of the table, it just means subtly manipulating the game to suit your plans moreso than anyone else's. That being said, control strategies do sometimes draw on stax and land destruction - stax is control's older meaner brother to me. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with incorporating some of those elements should your meta, or the game you're joining, suit that vibe either. End of the day, every player has bugbears and play styles that irk them, and no one view is wrong or right. The key is talking these preferences over so that irritation is minimised and everyone's happy enough.
Sounds like the sort of guy I just wouldn't play against, to be honest. If he's going to be an ********, boycott him. Sounds like the situation sorted itself, but I'd definitely have told him where to stick his bird wizard if it didn't.
If thats enemy #1, why is it still allowed in the store? Seems like a pretty tight group with known people.
Yeah, this does seem to me a perfect example of where meta communication comes in. If it's that oppressive, y'all are well within your rights to ask your friend to give it a rest with Derevi, even if it's just once in a while.
9 mana red sorcery
-Rc: "This is sick filth needs to stay banned!"
I'd have no problem with both being banned, personally. I'm not here to justify what is and isn't on the banlist, although I am happy enough with how it looks at present.
I had to read back and find this comment of mine in context.
In my opinion the answer is that there are cards that you can't play without people getting a bad vibe from them, or they're just too easy to break. It really is all that the RC have to be able to sculpt the format into what they want it to be, so without the banlist you're just playing 100 card singleton vintage or legacy. If you want to do that, go right ahead. I'm never going to be happy sitting across from someone playing the power 9 though, because that's not a level playing field - I'll never afford them. I'll never be happy playing against Sundering Titan, because the only feelings it knows are bad ones. Likewise with Worldfire; I get you can counter it, but I can't think of a less satisfying way to end the game. If you want to play against Erayo, go right ahead. I don't want to though.
I guess maybe the logic was flawed, but my stance is that of supporting a minimal banlist that covers the worst offenders and not much more. Nonetheless, working on the premise that what is good about this format is that it encourages a social, inclusive environment, there's no reason to eradicate the banlist entirely.
I wouldn't expect it to change, either; the heart wants what the heart wants. He seems to be reasonably aware of the fact that his gaming preferences don't match everyone's, and that's sort of reflected in the minimalist approach to banlists and overarching rules.
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
The only card even remotely stax worthy on the ban list is Braids, Cabal Minion, and it should be there. Likewise with combo, and MLD - there really are minimal pieces on the banlist in both categories. Besides, I actually think these experiences probably do teach him a little about what the community he serves wants. Clearly he doesn't see MLD too much in his games, but I also imagine most of his games are with a fixed meta, not randos.
Also, as far as possible, the RC does try to make their banlist decisions fairly transparent; they obviously get a lot of feedback about what people want to play, what they don't want to face down and so forth - so I'd say this article is purely from a gamer's point of view and doesn't at all conflict with his duties as a member of the RC. If cards are under consideration, any regular reader of his articles would likely know about it.
Once again, he's not stopping anyone else playing these cards, it's just clear he doesn't want to. I can't blame the guy, personally.
Total agreeance with the last few posts. It's clear Sheldon has some biases, which he admits in the article itself - hell, we all do to some degree. For myself, I'm not immediately a big fan of full stax, although using some elements in a deck doesn't faze me, likewise with dedicated combo and MLD. I can dig it sometimes, but I've had to really work on accepting this and having options to prepare for it. However, its pretty clear that this hasn't impacted on how the RC works. They've generally always used a light touch, and I for one think that's the perfect approach.
I think what we're seeing in this article is Sheldon starting to address some of his biases and assess whether they're an accurate representation of reality. Given that there's a very good chance he's held these opinions for the vast amount of time he's been involved with the RC, I think it's commendable that these views have not impacted on the ban list. He hasn't tried to impose these views on anyone by banning the use of said cards, it's just that he prefers not to play them. I get that, and it's the prerogative of anyone sitting down to a game to have their preferences acknowledged at the very least.
I think in terms of these articles, the reader needs to keep in mind that Sheldon (and the other members of the RC) play magic as individuals. When they game, they don't necessarily represent the RC - they all have their preferences, and they're entitled to them as are we all. Maybe putting these thoughts out into the general community Sheldon could've been a little more careful with wording - I'm sure his intent was not to alienate anyone. I think it probably cuts both ways - readers should keep perspective that these are gamers with preferences just like all of us, and Sheldon et al probably need to be aware that when they speak publicly, what they say will have an impact on the larger community given their status as RC members. For myself, I've always thought of his articles as implicitly separate from his actions within the RC, but maybe it isn't all that clear.
I mean....it's a really, really slippery slope. If you ban letters A-C, you're opening a case for banning D-Z. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want an endless list. Besides, I have no essential problem with people playing the strongest cards ever printed, that's part of why this format exists. Using them responsibly, well that's on the individual - a card is only as broken as the deck builder allows it to be, and I think a lot of people excuse themselves and blame the cards they use, when it's 100% clear that the intention was to break the card in question.
Ultimately, my thoughts are that it's not worth going down that route. It's an incredibly murky route to navigate, and it won't ever be without controversy, complaints and criticism. Besides which, it's an arbitrary line in the sand - what works for the RC doesn't need to be gospel, and they've always said this; doing a turnabout would be a drastic change of position. I honestly think the best way to move forward with navigating satisfactory gaming is to communicate your wishes prior to starting the game, during the game, and following up afterwards. It's already necessary in order to make it clear what you're trying to achieve anyway - any stack discussions, rulings queries or decisions need to be made verbally, so why do we not start with this and save everyone a ton of grief? I get that people are shy or introverted, not every group is welcoming, and people online can be absolute douches, but communication is not something we should be looking to divert a course around, it's something we should be improving on.
This is completely impossible to do for a player without a set playgroup, though. It's the ideal solution, of course, but for pick up games at the local shop it just ain't happening. It's my opinion that the banlist should be used to police those games so that there is no need for communicating that you might be playing an anti-social deck. The situations that many people complain about, like the guy who Armageddons then scoops, the stax guy, the t3 combo guy, are all symptoms of a permissive banlist. If those strategies are the exception rather than the rule, then banning the cards that enable those strategies so that individual playgroups can green light them is a more effective course of action than passive-aggressively judging the player and discouraging those strategies via social pressure.
Pick up games need to be more regulated than private games because the expectations are more open-ended in pick up games. If you have a set group that meets every week, then great, make your own banlist. But for a significant percentage of the EDH playing population that's not an option and creating an environment in which those players have a more homogeneous experience from shop to shop is more important than some cold, dead philosophy.
Believe me, I'm in a similar boat. I visit my LGS once a month at present, and I won't get a game in every time. Most of my gaming at the moment is online, and it's an entirely different beast. Rife with trolls who will ignore the sort of game you want, won't communicate, or just straight up leave the game at the drop of a hat. It's a truly frustrating experience. And if anything it's taught me that communicating precisely what you want prior to the games weeds out most of the jerks. And believe me, there's no way I'd ever condone passive-agressive judgement of a player after the fact, or based on the type of deck they want to play - everyone loses their temper once in a while but that doesn't make it ok.
I still think for a pick up game, saying 'hey, was thinking about playing my derevi stax, are you guys down with that?' goes a lot further than 'cast Winter Orb, cast Derevi, tap down your land - oh didn't I mention this was stax?' {I should also clarify, I despair of people who cast Armageddon because they have nothing else to do - it's just nonsensical and frustrating). Knowing what you're getting into goes a long way to making the experience better. I won't say no outright to a competitive combo build or a stax build - you never know, I might manage it - but I definitely won't unless I know what to expect prior, and I'll be a lot happier about it.
Did not care for the tone of the article in general. Felt a little cork sniffy if that makes sense.
It does concern me a little bit the way it comes across. Assumes a little much about the journeys playgroups go through I think.
My old playgroup had a lot of discussions about how Ramp becomes the default winner if no resource denial is allowed for example, and we went through many iterations over the years of what was acceptable.
The biggest thing that concerns me is that the RC group's tastes in general seem to explain why they took so long to ban stuff like Leovold and Prophet of Kruphix (and Paradox engine which kinda sits in the same space as Prophet for me). Like they've got some real blinders on.
Generally I can agree with most of this - the article did come off a little pretentious, whether intentional or not. That being said I recognise that as a single person I would struggle to come up with a reasonable banlist myself, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being rude to people over the table before - I think it's happened once or twice where undisclosed MLD has come out, or someone comboed out when we stipulated prior to starting that wasn't wanted. Generally I think this format is designed so that you can make it the game you want to play, though. The only hard and fast rules are the actual game mechanics. Everything else is up for discussion, so long as that discussion is amenable.
EDIT - fwiw, I run Paradox Engine in Dralnu, and it's disgusting. I'll play it until it hits the ban list, but I recognise how gross it can be. It doesn't go infinite, but it damn well seems that way.
This seems fairly unrelated, and at least slightly ad hominem. There are plenty of vampire decks that would make good use of this. Without even scratching the surface Falkenrath Noble and Blood Artist like her, as well as Elenda, the Dusk Rose.
This really does need to be the only major takeaway from the article. That and the importance of communication pre, mid and post game.
Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves, really. For myself, control is my preferential style of play. It doesn't mean denying the game to the rest of the table, it just means subtly manipulating the game to suit your plans moreso than anyone else's. That being said, control strategies do sometimes draw on stax and land destruction - stax is control's older meaner brother to me. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with incorporating some of those elements should your meta, or the game you're joining, suit that vibe either. End of the day, every player has bugbears and play styles that irk them, and no one view is wrong or right. The key is talking these preferences over so that irritation is minimised and everyone's happy enough.
Yeah, this does seem to me a perfect example of where meta communication comes in. If it's that oppressive, y'all are well within your rights to ask your friend to give it a rest with Derevi, even if it's just once in a while.
I'd have no problem with both being banned, personally. I'm not here to justify what is and isn't on the banlist, although I am happy enough with how it looks at present.
I had to read back and find this comment of mine in context.
In my opinion the answer is that there are cards that you can't play without people getting a bad vibe from them, or they're just too easy to break. It really is all that the RC have to be able to sculpt the format into what they want it to be, so without the banlist you're just playing 100 card singleton vintage or legacy. If you want to do that, go right ahead. I'm never going to be happy sitting across from someone playing the power 9 though, because that's not a level playing field - I'll never afford them. I'll never be happy playing against Sundering Titan, because the only feelings it knows are bad ones. Likewise with Worldfire; I get you can counter it, but I can't think of a less satisfying way to end the game. If you want to play against Erayo, go right ahead. I don't want to though.
I guess maybe the logic was flawed, but my stance is that of supporting a minimal banlist that covers the worst offenders and not much more. Nonetheless, working on the premise that what is good about this format is that it encourages a social, inclusive environment, there's no reason to eradicate the banlist entirely.
The only card even remotely stax worthy on the ban list is Braids, Cabal Minion, and it should be there. Likewise with combo, and MLD - there really are minimal pieces on the banlist in both categories. Besides, I actually think these experiences probably do teach him a little about what the community he serves wants. Clearly he doesn't see MLD too much in his games, but I also imagine most of his games are with a fixed meta, not randos.
Also, as far as possible, the RC does try to make their banlist decisions fairly transparent; they obviously get a lot of feedback about what people want to play, what they don't want to face down and so forth - so I'd say this article is purely from a gamer's point of view and doesn't at all conflict with his duties as a member of the RC. If cards are under consideration, any regular reader of his articles would likely know about it.
Once again, he's not stopping anyone else playing these cards, it's just clear he doesn't want to. I can't blame the guy, personally.
I think what we're seeing in this article is Sheldon starting to address some of his biases and assess whether they're an accurate representation of reality. Given that there's a very good chance he's held these opinions for the vast amount of time he's been involved with the RC, I think it's commendable that these views have not impacted on the ban list. He hasn't tried to impose these views on anyone by banning the use of said cards, it's just that he prefers not to play them. I get that, and it's the prerogative of anyone sitting down to a game to have their preferences acknowledged at the very least.
I think in terms of these articles, the reader needs to keep in mind that Sheldon (and the other members of the RC) play magic as individuals. When they game, they don't necessarily represent the RC - they all have their preferences, and they're entitled to them as are we all. Maybe putting these thoughts out into the general community Sheldon could've been a little more careful with wording - I'm sure his intent was not to alienate anyone. I think it probably cuts both ways - readers should keep perspective that these are gamers with preferences just like all of us, and Sheldon et al probably need to be aware that when they speak publicly, what they say will have an impact on the larger community given their status as RC members. For myself, I've always thought of his articles as implicitly separate from his actions within the RC, but maybe it isn't all that clear.
Ultimately, my thoughts are that it's not worth going down that route. It's an incredibly murky route to navigate, and it won't ever be without controversy, complaints and criticism. Besides which, it's an arbitrary line in the sand - what works for the RC doesn't need to be gospel, and they've always said this; doing a turnabout would be a drastic change of position. I honestly think the best way to move forward with navigating satisfactory gaming is to communicate your wishes prior to starting the game, during the game, and following up afterwards. It's already necessary in order to make it clear what you're trying to achieve anyway - any stack discussions, rulings queries or decisions need to be made verbally, so why do we not start with this and save everyone a ton of grief? I get that people are shy or introverted, not every group is welcoming, and people online can be absolute douches, but communication is not something we should be looking to divert a course around, it's something we should be improving on.
Believe me, I'm in a similar boat. I visit my LGS once a month at present, and I won't get a game in every time. Most of my gaming at the moment is online, and it's an entirely different beast. Rife with trolls who will ignore the sort of game you want, won't communicate, or just straight up leave the game at the drop of a hat. It's a truly frustrating experience. And if anything it's taught me that communicating precisely what you want prior to the games weeds out most of the jerks. And believe me, there's no way I'd ever condone passive-agressive judgement of a player after the fact, or based on the type of deck they want to play - everyone loses their temper once in a while but that doesn't make it ok.
I still think for a pick up game, saying 'hey, was thinking about playing my derevi stax, are you guys down with that?' goes a lot further than 'cast Winter Orb, cast Derevi, tap down your land - oh didn't I mention this was stax?' {I should also clarify, I despair of people who cast Armageddon because they have nothing else to do - it's just nonsensical and frustrating). Knowing what you're getting into goes a long way to making the experience better. I won't say no outright to a competitive combo build or a stax build - you never know, I might manage it - but I definitely won't unless I know what to expect prior, and I'll be a lot happier about it.
Generally I can agree with most of this - the article did come off a little pretentious, whether intentional or not. That being said I recognise that as a single person I would struggle to come up with a reasonable banlist myself, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being rude to people over the table before - I think it's happened once or twice where undisclosed MLD has come out, or someone comboed out when we stipulated prior to starting that wasn't wanted. Generally I think this format is designed so that you can make it the game you want to play, though. The only hard and fast rules are the actual game mechanics. Everything else is up for discussion, so long as that discussion is amenable.
EDIT - fwiw, I run Paradox Engine in Dralnu, and it's disgusting. I'll play it until it hits the ban list, but I recognise how gross it can be. It doesn't go infinite, but it damn well seems that way.