Players play a MAGIC subgame, using their libraries as their decks. Each player who doesn't win the subgame loses half his or her life, rounded up.
* 10/4/2004: At the start of the sub-game both players draw their initial hand (usually 7 cards). If one player has fewer cards than required, that player loses. If both have fewer than required, both players lose.
* 10/4/2004: Events in a Shahrazad sub-game do not normally trigger abilities in the main game. And continuous effects in the main game do not carry over into the sub-game.
* 10/4/2004: You randomly chose which player chooses to go first or draw first.
* 7/15/2007: At the end of a subgame, each player puts all cards he or she owns that are in the subgame into his or her library in the main game, then shuffles them. This includes cards in the subgame's Exile zone (this is a change from previous rulings).
Introduction
My first brush with Shahrazad came a long, long time ago when a friend of mine decided to try out Shahrazad. It resolved in exactly one game, of which the user was subsequently met with the coldest of carebear stares. The card was subsequently condemned to his trade / collection binder.
Fortunately for me, since then, I was fortunate enough to either meet EDH players who fell in some of the following categories: -
Players who had no intention of playing subgames
Players who knew not the existence of Shahrazad
Players who could not afford Shahrazad
Players who were socially intimidated into not playing Shahrazad
Players who did not play and/or purchase Shahrazad for a combination of the above reasons
Changelog: -
EDIT: Since I first posted this, I have received some feedback, especially with regards to why it SHOULDN'T be banned. As the OP, I admit that I am inherently biased towards the proposition (i.e. Ban Shahrazad!). I have since decided to include some of the arguments of the opposition (courtesy of d0su) though I'll have to say that there is no way that I could make the OP any less biased due to my human nature to support my side of the story I'd argue that any threads of this nature will naturally have a biased OP. I have also included added an arguments for the proposition (and this will again, probably be influenced by my bias).
The Case for Banning Shahrazad
1. It unnecessarily prolongs the game
This was probably one of the main reason why it was banned in Vintage (i.e. one of the only non-manual dexterity, non-ante card banned in Vintage). Note that this is especially relevant at a time where EDH (or what the boorish barbarians would term as "Commander" ;)) is becoming a more recognised format for organised EDH play.
Never mind the fact that a multiplayer EDH game of 3-4 players would (on its own) take about an hour or so (mind you, the RC have been emphasising that the EDH ban list is geared towards multiplayer). Forcing players to play another game with only half life at stake is definitely going to prolong the game unnecessarily, even without player's mischief of copying the said Shahrazad. Mind you, rejoining the main game after a subgame can take some time, especially with regards to setting back the board position, remembering the current board state, etc. To a certain extent, this can be as disorienting as playing a game of Chess after playing a game of Russian Chess (or suicide chess).
This brings me to the next point that players who abuse Shahrazad often (though not always) tend to be those who intends to abuse Shahrazad by creating multiple copies of Shahrazad.
Mind you, the Dragonhighlander.net rules even goes to note that: -
Quote from Dragonhighlander.net »
Locally players often play with house rules (check the forum for inspiration), but this consensus version exists so that players know what to expect if they join a game outside their local play area. In particular, after-hours games at Pro Tours and Grand Prix use these rules.
Bolded for emphasis. While the issue of time may not be existent in certain casual settings (it is existent in many casual settings but lets leave that argument behind for a while), the issue of time is certainly a factor in sanctioned play in this respect and/or in organised play LGS.
True, Sensei's Divining Top has be subject to similar criticism but lets be honest with ourselves here. Sensei's Divining Top does not, on its own, prolong or delay the game. It is oftentimes a player's indecisiveness and slow play that prolongs the game, a fact that would remain unchanged regardless of the Top. Mind you, should the Top be an issue in organised play, it is a very infarctable offence under the Infarction Procedure Guidelines.
2. It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.)
Never mind the fact that Shahrazad can be a rules nightmare.
Some time ago, the Rules Committee ("RC") decided that the logistical problems inherent in Shahrazad were not applicable for EDH, hence unbanning it from the Vintage list. The RC went on to suggest that play space would scarcely be an issue as games can neatly be "zipped" and "unzipped" (by stacking cards from the main game on top of each other in a consistent order for the different zones and setting them aside).
While this is probably a neat way of solving this problem, sometimes (indeed, oftentimes), "unzipping" this game state can be problematic (due to the sheer information inherent in the board position, especially with regards to the status of the cards).
This does not even account for the fact that sometimes, even with the best of "zipping and unzipping", play spaces can be too limited even for the most careful of zipping and unzipping, never mind the fact that multiplayer games are especially packed for more space.
At the same time, there are very real risks that the storage of main game cards during subgames can often result in the misplacement (and ultimately the loss) of pricey EDH cards. At the very least, this may even translate into confusion when cards from the main game enters the subgames. This is admittedly a more far-fetched concern but to be fair, it is certainly not unthinkable given the limited space.
3. Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it
This has been hinted in my earlier point. A simple look in the multiplayer forum will reveal a whole bunch of decks who play Shahrazad with the full intent of copying it, be it by Fork, Twincast, Reverberate or even Eye of the Storm. One deck even notes that it is "for sociopaths only". In fact, I'd argue that there really is no "fair" usage for Shahrazad to begin with; a single resolution is enough to bring a table of groans.
If Painter's Servant was banned a while ago for its unfairness with Grindstone, among others, I think it is justified that Shahrazad should likewise be banned. Mind you, Painter's Servant on its own is really quite harmless while the same cannot be said of Shahrazad.
4. Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes).
Lets face it, in multiplayer, games are correspondingly larger (than say, a 1v1 game). In fact, I would argue that Shahrazad might actually be more acceptable in 1v1 casual EDH games. However, in multiplayer games, games are longer, board sizes are larger and interactions become more complicating. The worst part is, the power level of the card is significantly higher but achieves nothing "real" besides arguably "griefing" purposes.
5. Shahrazad allows a filibuster by the way-too-much-time-at-hand.
I confess that this may be a difficult argument to follow but bear with me. Assume a multiplayer game with at least two players interested in playing subgames. In a three player game, even if the remaining player concedes in the subgame and the other two player doesn't, the odd player will have to sit out for the entire duration of the subgame.
Now, add the number of players in the multiplayer games. If there are 4 players in the multiplayer game, even if the other two players concedes to the subgame, they will be obliged to sit out on the subgame, just because the other two players insist on playing out the subgame. With more players, it theoretically doesn't matter if the "scoopers" are in the majority; all it takes are two players insisting on subgames, hence a democratic problem. Note that if the "scoopers" have only one EDH deck, they can't even play a duel while waiting for the subgame to end because their deck is "stuck" in the main game. Short of rage-quitting, nothing can be done in this situation and to be honest, I know of many players who are simply too nice to rage-quit. Yet, if they rage quit, can we really blame them?
The Case Against Banning Shahrazad
This is where I build various straw men (or strawperson) and subsequently demolish them without prejudice
1. Some playgroups enjoy playing with it
To be fair, some players are happy to play multiple subgames. To those players though, I'd encourage them to play with Shahrazad, Twincast, Eye of the Storm, etc. In fact, feel free to unban Panoptic Mirror while you are at it.
On the other hand, again, we are speaking of a ban list that is going to be used in organised play and "after-hours games at Pro Tours and Grand Prix", of which we can probably agree that the logistical issue may not accomodate Shahrazad easily. There is nothing wrong about playing Shahrazad in a casual playgroup where your opponents are cool with it but when you're talking about a list that will be used as a guide in organised play, there should be a Great War of China built between what a subset of players believe is "fun" and what is decidedly annoying in terms of logistics.
2. Shahrazad speeds up the game
This was ostensibly one of the reasons why Shahrazad was unbanned. To elaborate on the argument, I can probably do no better than to quote Genomancer of the EDH rules committee: -
Quote from Genomancer »
Time: Turns out that Shaharazad speeds up the parent game in a big way... much moreso than in a normal game of magic. There's usually betweeen 50-80 life lost when the subgame finishes, which puts everyone but the winner into endgame state. Both times it was used by (separate) "aggro" decks who basically said "My early game is better than your early games"... in one instance they were right. The additional time used for the subgame more or less came off the parent game... it was just a neat strategic ploy.
Lets call a spade a "spade" here. Players do not play Shahrazad to speed up the game -- they play it to slow down the game. Aggro decks do not run Shahrazad and even if they did, by the nature of the format, it probably wouldn't make a material difference on their ability to aggro their way in a format of 40 life; more often than not, they will probably be on the losing end (with players being pissed at them for playing Shahrazad). Even if that player wins the subgame, that player would only be able to take down half of his/her opponent's life and will have to spend some time in a protracted war to get rid of the other half (again, most players would just gang up against him/her).
Lets be honest with ourselves. Players do not play Shahrazad to speed up game. If anything, they play Shahrazad to stall the game to mythic proportions.
3. Shahrazad opens new deck design space
...so does Pokemon and WoW cards.
In drawing the line between practicality (e.g. accepting Un-cards) and design space (e.g. unbanning Grindstone), there should be a careful balance between its impact towards the game before looking up at the supposed design space it opens up. Remember, even with Shahrazad banned, it is not unthinkable for Shahrazad decks to exist inside casual playgroups.
1. Shahrazad should be banned if we're going for consistency, but the banlist is anything but consistent. I would be sad to see it go, but it would ultimately be more understandable than some of the things that got banned.
2. Shahrazad should not be banned for power reasons or logistical concerns. Some personal opinion here, but even Chaos Orb isn't really that confusing/difficult to use, is it? Yes, the card sleeves count. Just fling the stupid card.
3. Griefers will grief you with whatever they have available, and most griefers don't even own a Shahrazad. If your playgroup gets on your every nerve, are these really the people you want to play Magic with? And if it's not your playgroup and instead some random guy trolling the local 5k, then is adding a card to a worldwide banlist really the best way to approach the issue?
Poll?
I'd like to end this long, long tirade with a poll (technically, the poll is at the beginning of the post but never mind that), which is why I didn't post this in the General Ban List discussion.
Shahrazad takes far too much time to accomplish far too little an effect. If the penalty for losing the subgame was something more awesome than losing half your life, then maybe it would be bearable, but to play an entire extra game (or twelve) just to equal Flickering a Magister Sphinx... it deserves to go on the chopping block.
Well, what are you going to do with your time anyway? Play more edh?
The subgame isnt that bad. If you have to leave you could've just scooped from the 2nd game of edh anyway.
The games only become stale when you have that guy that guys 'eot mystical tutor' and cant decide what to find or the guy you takes 10+ minutes to figure out the interraction between Niv-Mizzet and Curiosity.
Though, Timesifter elicits more groans than Shahrazad and the suite of Unglued cards I play.
I'll sign any petition to rid the world of that stupid card. In fact, I hereby pledge that if I ever see it played at my table again, I'll instantly resign from said game and refuse to play with the offender again until he removes it from his deck.
I disagree. I think it's fun, but I wouldn't play it in anything but the most casual games, and I would probably never use it with twincast or it's ilk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you having burn problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a bolt ain't one.
I disagree. I think it's fun, but I wouldn't play it in anything but the most casual games, and I would probably never use it with twincast or it's ilk.
True but look at it this way. Somewhere, someone in the world is probably arguing that Black Lotus should be unbanned since they will never use it with Crucible of Worlds and its ilk but simply to play a Scathe Zombie.
What I'm trying to say is simply this: There will be -- what I consider to be a small minority -- of players who will claim to have the noblest intent when it comes to the most broken of cards (e.g.: "I only want to play Tinker to get myself a Gilded Lotus"). Without getting too much into the fact if these claims are blatant lies, self-delusion or even the truth, what matters more is that Shahrazad can be copied multiple times to near-annoying consequences and this, I feel, is a basis for banning it.
Don't get me started on the fact that quite a significant proportion of players would find Shahrazad to be annoying even without any copying.
Again, I am arguing that it is fine if you allow it to be played in localised playgroup but it should never see the light of day in anything "official", be it in organised play or even in random encounters at LGS.
Well, what are you going to do with your time anyway? Play more edh?
I would choose to play more EDH. I already highlighted the possible space and time constraints brought by Shahrazad earlier.
However, even if we ignore those arguments, when we are playing a typical EDH games, at the very least, we would be somewhat aware of the general lengths of the EDH games we are playing. Playing EDH with Shahrazad meant that we will be playing a game with an indeterminate time length, especially if Shahrazad is going to be recurred or otherwise copied to annoying proportions.
More often than not, even if players are willing to play on, there are no guarantees that you will be able to finish the game and this may be just me but nothing is more unsatisfying than an unfinished game of EDH.
The games only become stale when you have that guy that guys 'eot mystical tutor' and cant decide what to find or the guy you takes 10+ minutes to figure out the interraction between Niv-Mizzet and Curiosity.
Though, Timesifter elicits more groans than Shahrazad and the suite of Unglued cards I play.
Those may be annoying but that's another story altogether. Arguing that Shahrazad shouldn't be banned because of more annoying things is similar to arguing that we should not eat seaweed because we can also eat chicken.
This poll is inherently biased. Because there is three answers, two of which are "ban me" answers, this means the sample data you would find from this will be un-neededly skewed towards the "ban me" option.
On topic: I think there is nothing wrong with the card TBH, and this is the work of a few whiners who only want to play Commander on their own terms. Some people spent their own hard earned money on the cards, who are you to say "sorry you can't play that here". Do I complain because people play Moat, Mana Drain, or The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale against me? No, and nobody else should either.
Cards are powerful. Some moreso than others. Deal with it, and learn to adapt your decks. Be better players and instead of *****ing at people for playing Card X, deal with Card X. Mindbreak Trap can exile it from the stack, as can Time Stop. Both of these are very powerful counterspells, and what I consider to be staple counterspells of Commander.
I don't have any issue with it, but I could totally understand it being on the official list. I view the official ban list as a list of cards you probably wouldn't want to use going into a playgroup blind. Shahrazad is definitely one of those cards.
Cards are powerful. Some moreso than others. Deal with it, and learn to adapt your decks. Be better players and instead of *****ing at people for playing Card X, deal with Card X. Mindbreak Trap can exile it from the stack, as can Time Stop. Both of these are very powerful counterspells, and what I consider to be staple counterspells of Commander.
That's a terrible argument. Especially in a singleton format like EDH. If that were the case then there'd be no need to ban anything, and only things with split second would be banned.
Makes the game take too long and I'm biased towards 3-4 players max for an EDH match. Running this card just puts one game on hold without resolution until a second match is played out. However, this is cheapened by the fact that the second match isn't genuine as its merely a sub-game, an extension of gameplay from the first. Furthermore, 1/2 the life for loosing the sub-game is not a steep enough penalty. Something like 1/2 the permanents / hands / library gets exiled would be more interesting.
CARDS SHOULD NOT BE BANNED JUST BECAUSE THEY ANNOY SOME PEOPLE.
Ahem.
With that said, people play EDH to have fun (or should). Shaharazad just prolongs the EDH experiences, which is fine by me. Is too much EDH ever a bad thing? Not in my experience.
Let me just say that while the poll is biased, your arguments are well structured and level-headed. I'm happy to see you didn't result to "omg, I HATE Shahrazad and the people who use it" like so many people do.
I know you know I'm fairly tolerant of these type of effects, but I just have to chime in and say it would make me sad to see Shahrazad go. I've never even got to cast the darn card, and if it isn't suited for a crazy and casual format like EDH, what format is it suited for? (I know some would probably argue it isn't suited for Magic in general, but the legitimacy of card design is another issue entirely, no?)
Point:It unnecessarily prolongs the game Counterpoint: You could argue the same of Worldpurge, Eye of the Storm, Decree of Annihilation, Theives' Auction, or a plethora of other cards that are legal in EDH. These cost more than Shahrazad, but that isn't exactly an issue in EDH, as evidenced by cards like Sway of the Stars on the banlist.
Point:It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.) Counterpoint: Granted, it is relatively confusing compared to the average Magic card. Does this make it banworthy, though? There are lots of confusing cards that remain unbanned. Your point about misplacing/losing expensive EDH cards in the confusion isn't exactly convincing, either; this could happen after a Thieves' Auction, for example, or maybe it has more to do with the organizational skills of the players involved. Either way, I've never even heard of Shahrazad causing this to happen.
Point: Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it Counterpoint: Well of course! I could say the same of Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc. Why else would you spend $40+ dollars on a rare piece of cardboard if you didn't plan on getting your money's worth out of it? If someone sets up a situation where they can copy Shahrazad 7 times with Djinn of Illuminatus, why not just say they won the game and move on? Would you rather they copy Pox instead? It shouldn't really make a difference, IMO.
Also, nothing is preventing you from scooping the subgame. I feel certain that people using Shahrazad aren't running it for its Magister Sphinx potential, and if everyone mini-scoops because no one wants to play the subgame, I feel pretty confident that the Shahrazad caster would soon remove it from his/her deck.
Point: Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). Counterpoint: Yup, it's woefully undercosted I think (I have no basis for comparison), but this brings me to a big point: I would argue that no one is calling for Shahrazad to be banned for power reasons. I would go so far as to say it only comes up when people who already don't like Shahrazad are searching for other reasons to legitimize their complaints. I apologize if I've overgeneralized here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that especially the vast majority of those who vote for something like "Shahrazad should be banned in all possible banlists" are not really concerned with the card's power level, but are instead asserting their personal likes, dislikes, and visions of what Magic should be. Is that a fair conclusion?
Quote from fzian »
This is probably one of the argument against Shahrazad. Shahrazad shouldn't be able to be a de facto filibuster-to-Coalition Victory card.
It's not a Coalition Victory. The RC didn't think life-setting effects like Magister Sphinx and Sorin Markov were game-winning enough to be banworthy, so why is this one? Sure it effects all opponents, but maybe not, because who knows who will win the subgame?
Those may be annoying but that's another story altogether. Arguing that Shahrazad shouldn't be banned because of more annoying things is similar to arguing that we should not eat seaweed because we can also eat chicken.
Banning Shahrazad without taking into account other griefer cards is like making a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the related precedents. See? I can do it too.
My Assertions:
1. Shahrazad should be banned if we're going for consistency, but the banlist is anything but consistent. I would be sad to see it go, but it would ultimately be more understandable than some of the things that got banned.
2. Shahrazad should not be banned for power reasons or logistical concerns. Some personal opinion here, but even Chaos Orb isn't really that confusing/difficult to use, is it? Yes, the card sleeves count. Just fling the stupid card.
3. Griefers will grief you with whatever they have available, and most griefers don't even own a Shahrazad. If your playgroup gets on your every nerve, are these really the people you want to play Magic with? And if it's not your playgroup and instead some random guy trolling the local 5k, then is adding a card to a worldwide banlist really the best way to approach the issue?
You're welcome to disagree. You probably will! And that's okay, because really all we're doing is playing a card game here.
I don't have any issue with it, but I could totally understand it being on the official list. I view the official ban list as a list of cards you probably wouldn't want to use going into a playgroup blind. Shahrazad is definitely one of those cards.
The ban list is not for cards that you wouldn't want to go into a playgroup blind with, it's a set list of cards that while some playgroups may allow, they are deemed too degenerate to allow outside any house rules.
Shahrazad is simply annoying to most and fun for a few and they don't ban cards for just being annoying. Seems like the system worked. There will be griefers, but the social contract polices this kind of thing. The ban list is only for when something is out of hand.
Different people have different perspectives, so hypothetical/theoretical evaluation of a card's potential can only go so far. A card isn't banned until it's been debated (usually by both the player community and rules folks) and it's been demonstrated in real games and real metagames that it's causing real problems. By extentsion, some cards are banned even though similar cards aren't simply because they have cause problems where the others didn't.
So, as the OP stated, if someone plays a card once and puts it back in the binder, is it a problem in "real games and real metagames?" The big reason the card is banned in Vintage is because of timed rounds, no? It's not an auto-win card, nor does it warp or break the format.
Let me just say that while the poll is biased, your arguments are well structured and level-headed. I'm happy to see you didn't result to "omg, I HATE Shahrazad and the people who use it" like so many people do.
I thought I'd address the "poll is biased" comment first (a point also raised by 3drinks). True, this poll has two "ban me" options to one "don't ban me" option. On the other hand, this is only a material issue if the voters vote without reading the poll.
Say, if I create a poll which asks "Do you think that we should actively hunt and consume other humans?" and subsequently list the options as: -
No
Yes, but only with bow and arrows
Yes, even with ROCKET LAUNCHERS!!11!1!!
...would you say that the poll is materially biased towards getting voters to choose "yes"? (Of course, if I were to create the above poll in this forum, I will 1) be infarcted for trolling and 2) probably get a lot of "yes" answers due to the unserious nature of the poll but I hope you get my point here).
Point:It unnecessarily prolongs the game Counterpoint: You could argue the same of Worldpurge, Eye of the Storm, Decree of Annihilation, Theives' Auction, or a plethora of other cards that are legal in EDH. These cost more than Shahrazad, but that isn't exactly an issue in EDH, as evidenced by cards like Sway of the Stars on the banlist.
I think comparing the game prolonging effect of Shahrazad with your aforementioned cards is a little unfair. True, all the cards you mention do prolong the game by quite a fair bit by resetting the board. However, Shahrazad does not just reset the board but it resets the entire game into a new game and after that is done, you have to replay that game which you just left. More importantly, many of those spells you mention do little when they are copied by effects such as Twincast.
I think the fact that the spells cost more than Shahrazad is probably more relevant than you give credit for. True, EDH decks tend to curve out at higher casting cost. Yet, saying that this "isn't exactly an issue" is like saying that the difference between Time Walk and Time Warp "isn't exactly an issue".
Point:It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.) Counterpoint: Granted, it is relatively confusing compared to the average Magic card. Does this make it banworthy, though? There are lots of confusing cards that remain unbanned. Your point about misplacing/losing expensive EDH cards in the confusion isn't exactly convincing, either; this could happen after a Thieves' Auction, for example, or maybe it has more to do with the organizational skills of the players involved. Either way, I've never even heard of Shahrazad causing this to happen.
Personally, I believe that ceteris paribus, keeping track of your game states and managing the game space is much easier when you are playing a single game of Magic rather than a game of Magic along with its associated subgames... but that's probably just me
Point: Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it Counterpoint: Well of course! I could say the same of Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc. Why else would you spend $40+ dollars on a rare piece of cardboard if you didn't plan on getting your money's worth out of it? If someone sets up a situation where they can copy Shahrazad 7 times with Djinn of Illuminatus, why not just say they won the game and move on? Would you rather they copy Pox instead? It shouldn't really make a difference, IMO.
Actually, I agree with the fact that players (or at least a significant subset of them) will try to abuse a card if able. I have always said that players will abuse Squire if able.
However, when a player Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc., in most cases, they are doing that with the full intent to move the game state "somewhere" (usually towards winning the game in question). However, when you abuse Shahrazad, you are neither planning to win the game (besides by getting your opponents to scoop in disgust) nor advancing the game position (in fact, I'd argue that you're stagnating it). This, I believe, sets apart Shahrazad from the rest of the cards you mentioned.
Also, nothing is preventing you from scooping the subgame. I feel certain that people using Shahrazad aren't running it for its Magister Sphinx potential, and if everyone mini-scoops because no one wants to play the subgame, I feel pretty confident that the Shahrazad caster would soon remove it from his/her deck.
I was aware of this point but I am convinced that sociopaths do exist In any case, if the official ban list is sincere in its intent that: -
Quote from Dragonhighlander.net »
If you want to enjoy the type of games you've heard associated with EDH, avoid cards like these:
~insert ban list~
...then, I feel that it is justified to at least include Shahrazad in the ban list if "everyone mini-scoops because no one wants to play the subgame".
In any case, by your line of logic, no cards should be banned in EDH because "if everyone scoops because they refuse to play with ~degenerate card~, the ~degenerate card~ caster would soon remove it from his/her deck.
Point: Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). Counterpoint: Yup, it's woefully undercosted I think (I have no basis for comparison), but this brings me to a big point: I would argue that no one is calling for Shahrazad to be banned for power reasons. I would go so far as to say it only comes up when people who already don't like Shahrazad are searching for other reasons to legitimize their complaints. I apologize if I've overgeneralized here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that especially the vast majority of those who vote for something like "Shahrazad should be banned in all possible banlists" are not really concerned with the card's power level, but are instead asserting their personal likes, dislikes, and visions of what Magic should be. Is that a fair conclusion?
Fair enough. I was admittedly using the phrase "power level" very loosely as a proxy for the card's particular effect on the game state.
It's not a Coalition Victory. The RC didn't think life-setting effects like Magister Sphinx and Sorin Markov were game-winning enough to be banworthy, so why is this one? Sure it effects all opponents, but maybe not, because who knows who will win the subgame?
It isn't a Coalition Victory. However, I think when a significant proportion of players are prepared to scoop in disgust because of the stagnating effects of Shahrazad, I think it is a de facto you-win-the-game card (whether winning by having your table scoop counts as a victory is another story altogether).
Banning Shahrazad without taking into account other griefer cards is like making a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the related precedents. See? I can do it too.
Given the dissimilarity of "griefer cards", even if we were to take into account of other griefer cards, the fact that they are banned or otherwise is at best a "persuasive precedent" rather than an "authoritative precedent". Since the effect of Shahrazad is so unique (the CR has a section just for it in Section 713), I don't think that you can even draw a persuasive precedent from it.
1. Shahrazad should be banned if we're going for consistency, but the banlist is anything but consistent. I would be sad to see it go, but it would ultimately be more understandable than some of the things that got banned.
Again, as we mentioned, no card creates a similar effect to Shahrazad. As such, I don't think consistency is an issue. If there is another REAL card that creates subgames, then we can start talking about consistency.
As of now, I think the decision whether or not to ban Shahrazad would arise from the arguments of its demerits rather than trying to compare it with a similar card (there isn't).
2. Shahrazad should not be banned for power reasons or logistical concerns. Some personal opinion here, but even Chaos Orb isn't really that confusing/difficult to use, is it? Yes, the card sleeves count. Just fling the stupid card.
I think logistics is more of a concern as you give credit for. Time and space are real life considerations that matters especially in a casual format where players often play in random locations, including fast food joints. Without restating my entire argument, I think that time and space may often not permit the subgame madness.
P.S.: About Chaos Orb, I believe some players will start disputing on what is one foot (as a student who has never been educated on the length of "one foot", I personally have no idea how long that is; I know that it is longer than my foot though :)), the fact that it must flip a full 360 degrees (some players WILL dispute this), etc. I think that is what they meant by "can't be interpreted consistently" though correct me if I am wrong.
Also, imagine tossing your Falling Star in a fast food joint and have the card ending up in some pudding
3. Griefers will grief you with whatever they have available, and most griefers don't even own a Shahrazad. If your playgroup gets on your every nerve, are these really the people you want to play Magic with? And if it's not your playgroup and instead some random guy trolling the local 5k, then is adding a card to a worldwide banlist really the best way to approach the issue?
Agreed. There are a few ways I view the Official Rules.
I view it, first, as the ban list you want to adhere, going into a playgroup blind (as mentioned by tfc333). In this case, I think Shahrazad is more likely to raise more eyebrows than other griefer cards could ever achieve.
I also view the ban list as something which you would want to use going into organised play. In this sense, can we agree that games with an abused Shahrazad will cause high incidences of draws in plays where time limit exists or give an unfair advantage to the user of Shahrazad as players keep mini-scooping in disgust to the Shahrazad?
You're welcome to disagree. You probably will! And that's okay, because really all we're doing is playing a card game here.
Agreed. It is my intent to have a discussion on the card rather than just having everybody saying that "yes, it should be banned". That would be as fun as preaching to the choir.
I dont think it should be banned at all. Its a fun card for me and yes it takes some time, so really its up to the player who plays it. He needs to think about what hes doing. If the EDH game is TOTALLY casual and time isnt a big deal, then sure play it, if time is a deal then he shouldnt play it.
The way I look at it is like this: a player plays Shahrazad, one of a few things happen. If there is all the time in the world, the players play the sub game and wow cool what a nice wacky effect from an older card. Or, Shahrazad gets copied/there isn't much time in the night, everyone concedes the subgames and goes 'okay time to kill you' or is fine with half their life, which is more than a blinking Magister Sphinx would leave the table with. Unless everyone in your playgroup absolutely has to play the subgames and insists they will need that fifteen-twenty life, this card shouldn't be too bad. Politics should even it out.
The ban list is not for cards that you wouldn't want to go into a playgroup blind with, it's a set list of cards that while some playgroups may allow, they are deemed too degenerate to allow outside any house rules.
Except EDH is an unsanctioned, casual format, and the banlist is just suggested.
However, because players have varied opinions of what constitutes fair and/or fun play, a recommended banned list is maintained to help guide players towards a good social experience. House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you having burn problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a bolt ain't one.
I can't help but feel like the people that hate this card are just the Spikes. They want to roll win after win. But honestly with or with out it you are playing a game to have fun. I don't see how playing a sub game is any less fun then a normal game. Perhaps it is because you maybe missing pieces to your uber instant win combo? If playing that game is not fun because you are not winning fast enough perhaps a different game is in order.
I can't help but feel like the people that hate this card are just the Spikes. They want to roll win after win. But honestly with or with out it you are playing a game to have fun. I don't see how playing a sub game is any less fun then a normal game. Perhaps it is because you maybe missing pieces to your uber instant win combo? If playing that game is not fun because you are not winning fast enough perhaps a different game is in order.
I don't see why players who hate the card should necessarily be Spikes; in fact, I resent how "Spike" is being used with a pejorative connotation here but that's another story altogether. More importantly, you're assuming that there's one standard definition of fun -- i.e. your definition of fun -- while ignoring the fact that to a fair number of player, Shahrazad is simply just "not fun". In any case, if you MUST play a subgame, why not just play another game of EDH without the unnecessary logistical baggages?
Even if we were to accept that Shahrazad-haters are Spikes, I don't see how subgames are going to stop Spikes from winning. Note that a quick search on the EDH forums will reveal almost no aggro decks running Shahrazad (there goes Genomancer's theory that Shahrazad is a tool for aggro decks :rolleyes:) and that almost all the decks running Shahrazad comes with a sly admission of the inherent sociopathic / trolling / etc. nature of the deck.
If a card was banned every time someone on this board started a thread complaining about it, everything would be banned.
Umm.... Impressive debating skills. Ignore the arguments presented, make a sweeping overgeneralisation and win the debate? Let me guess: Harvard Law School?
In any case, if you MUST play a subgame, why not just play another game of EDH without the unnecessary logistical baggages?
Playing is playing, I don't really see the difference. Either way you get interesting back and forths(I would hope) and to draw and cast cards.
Even if we were to accept that Shahrazad-haters are Spikes, I don't see how subgames are going to stop Spikes from winning.
It slows down there winning, lowers there total number of wins for the night. It can hose there combos if pieces get split between games.
Note that a quick search on the EDH forums will reveal almost no aggro decks running Shahrazad (there goes Genomancer's theory that Shahrazad is a tool for aggro decks :rolleyes:) and that almost all the decks running Shahrazad comes with a sly admission of the inherent sociopathic / trolling / etc. nature of the deck.
I would make the case the issue is the player not the card. It is just the tool used but the person is the one that chooses to abuse it. Do you blame the gun for the murder or the person holding it?
Personally I would not mind a Shahrazad from time to time, 15 years ago I had a deck that used it in a white weenie. However I would probably not really care to see it forked 5 times. Though I would rather have Sharazad played on me then Sorin or his Sphinx clone. At least I would have a chance not to get my life cut by 75%.
I voted against the banning of Shahrazad. Briefly put: I disagree with most points made in the original post, siding consistently in favor with the counterpoints made by d0su. Were it not for logistical constraints I'd go further into this, but I'm sure there's enough debate out there on the subject that my arguments won't be missed.
To the players whom argue in-game politics will balance the card, however, I have to disagree. Most players in my region will still choose proper threat assessment over knee-jerk retaliation, and I'd say they're often wise to do so. Refusing to play someone with Shahrazad in their deck, especially in a setting with given logistical constraints, is a perfectly reasonable political solution.
I've got to actually get off my butt and get stuff done today, so I apologize beforehand if I don't address something in as much detail as it deserves. If I don't, you can just assume I agree or forgot to talk about it.
Quote from fzian »
I thought I'd address the "poll is biased" comment first (a point also raised by 3drinks). True, this poll has two "ban me" options to one "don't ban me" option. On the other hand, this is only a material issue if the voters vote without reading the poll.
Fair enough. You got it.
Quote from fzian »
I think comparing the game prolonging effect of Shahrazad with your aforementioned cards is a little unfair. True, all the cards you mention do prolong the game by quite a fair bit by resetting the board. However, Shahrazad does not just reset the board but it resets the entire game into a new game and after that is done, you have to replay that game which you just left. More importantly, many of those spells you mention do little when they are copied by effects such as Twincast.
I think the fact that the spells cost more than Shahrazad is probably more relevant than you give credit for. True, EDH decks tend to curve out at higher casting cost. Yet, saying that this "isn't exactly an issue" is like saying that the difference between Time Walk and Time Warp "isn't exactly an issue".
Only two of the cards I mentioned reset the board, though. In fact, Thieves' Auction and in particular Eye of the Storm cause the game to "degenerate" into a completely different, new type of game. Also, while players have the option to pay half their life total to prevent a bigger disaster (similar to the mechanics of Temporal Extortion), Eye of the Storm gives you no such option, typically clogging up the stack until something breaks. The comparisons are more than fair in that:
1. These cards unnecessarily prolong the game
2. Most of these cards creature unnecessary confusion
3. Players who play these cards typically want to abuse them (either winning off of them or just griefing, same as Shahrazad)
4. The power levels of these cards are much higher than expected in EDH compared to other formats.
These are your criterion for banning Shahrazad. Mana cost might be an issue, but I think we can agree that the power difference between Shahrazad and Decree of Annihilation is certainly not as great as that between Time Walk and Time Warp, right?
Quote from fzian »
However, when a player Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc., in most cases, they are doing that with the full intent to move the game state "somewhere" (usually towards winning the game in question). However, when you abuse Shahrazad, you are neither planning to win the game (besides by getting your opponents to scoop in disgust) nor advancing the game position (in fact, I'd argue that you're stagnating it). This, I believe, sets apart Shahrazad from the rest of the cards you mentioned.
Okay, that is a key difference. Necro and pals are typically used to win the game in a traditional manner, Shahrazad is only rarely used to win the game in a traditional manner. This isn't necessarily evidence for the banning of Shahrazad, though. Is there even really a problem playing a game to do something other than advance it towards its conclusion?
In The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, players typically spend most of their time exploring, collecting, reading, leveling up, and creating otherwise enjoyable game states, but not necessarily progressing the storyline. In Just Cause 2, it's often more enjoyable to grapple random objects together and drive them off a cliff than to actually meet the objectives of the mission. In Halo, lots of people online cooperate to just drive around and perform stunts with vehicles, which goes against the "point" of shooting the other team dead.
None of these options are "less correct" than playing the game as the game designers originally intended, and all are at least as much fun. Should the people in charge of these games ban this sort of play? Similarly, should the people in charge of Magic/EDH ban a card because it encourages play that doesn't boil down to "cause your opponents to lose the game?"
Quote from fzian »
Also, imagine tossing your Falling Star in a fast food joint and have the card ending up in some pudding
Sucks for that guy. I say we ban the pudding.
Quote from fzian »
I also view the ban list as something which you would want to use going into organised play. In this sense, can we agree that games with an abused Shahrazad will cause high incidences of draws in plays where time limit exists or give an unfair advantage to the user of Shahrazad as players keep mini-scooping in disgust to the Shahrazad?
Shahrazad is a nightmare in organized play and should be addressed accordingly. However, the majority of most casual playgroups use the same banlist as tournament organizers. Would you say there are more organized EDH events, or more "kitchen table" EDH games? I just think putting something on the end-all-be-all official banlist causes more collateral damage than people let on.
So yeah, I have band practice now. It's been a pleasure; I'll be back on tonight maybe.
I have a feeling the RC has "seeded" a few cards for us (the community) to help promote the social aspect of EDH. It's like they're parenting us, in a good way.
Sure, they could ban all griefer cards like Eye of the Storm and Shahrazad and it would clean up the game a bit. But it doesn't solve the unsolvable problem: There will always be griefing. Period. If not this, it'll be obnoxious combo decks and all other manner of board-locking shenanigans.
So what they've done (the RC) is allowed these cards to stay in the EDH environment as a sort of "test" for players to see whether or not they have the ability to just say "NO" to a particular griefer. If they do, then great! They've learned something and are regulating their local game exactly as the RC intended. If not, then it's for one of two reasons- they enjoy it (more power to them! As some have said, if you wanna subgame all night, then knock yourself out) or they're too obedient to the banlist and the subgame is a minor form of punishment for a failure to regulate the local playgroup.
Obviously, there are some cards that are just out of control balance-wise. I think we can all agree that Shahrazad isn't one of those cards. The incremental advantage gained by aggro decks is nothing like blinking Magister Sphinx or Planar Portaling Beacon of Immortality. But if they go ahead and regulate every single griefer card, then what do we have left to regulate for ourselves? How do we grow as a community and keep this game fun if we simply follow the suggested banlist with no regards for the consequences?
Well, there is a guy in my group who used to play it, and played it in a green-white deck against my Sakashima deck. I made about 80-ish copies, and forced him to play each one out. While I had nothing to do the next day, he had his job and sleep and other things to worry about. I think it took until about game 61 or 62 where I had enough to take it out of his deck and create another 30 copies ("being nice"). Mind you, this was about 1 a.m. when I did this, and he was definitely a bit more tired than I was.
Took it out of his deck immediately afterwards, and never played it again.
The two Elspeths are a great thesis on women in general. When you first meet one, she costs a decent amount to attract, makes you stronger and gives you the feeling that you're flying. She also goes to great lengths to protect her loved ones from harm. After a while, she gets more expensive to maintain, gives birth like a sow, becomes less loyal after doing so, and tops it all off by wrecking crap around the house. Except hers, of course.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
* 10/4/2004: Events in a Shahrazad sub-game do not normally trigger abilities in the main game. And continuous effects in the main game do not carry over into the sub-game.
* 10/4/2004: You randomly chose which player chooses to go first or draw first.
* 7/15/2007: At the end of a subgame, each player puts all cards he or she owns that are in the subgame into his or her library in the main game, then shuffles them. This includes cards in the subgame's Exile zone (this is a change from previous rulings).
Introduction
My first brush with Shahrazad came a long, long time ago when a friend of mine decided to try out Shahrazad. It resolved in exactly one game, of which the user was subsequently met with the coldest of carebear stares. The card was subsequently condemned to his trade / collection binder.
Fortunately for me, since then, I was fortunate enough to either meet EDH players who fell in some of the following categories: -
Changelog: -
The Case for Banning Shahrazad
1. It unnecessarily prolongs the game
Never mind the fact that a multiplayer EDH game of 3-4 players would (on its own) take about an hour or so (mind you, the RC have been emphasising that the EDH ban list is geared towards multiplayer). Forcing players to play another game with only half life at stake is definitely going to prolong the game unnecessarily, even without player's mischief of copying the said Shahrazad. Mind you, rejoining the main game after a subgame can take some time, especially with regards to setting back the board position, remembering the current board state, etc. To a certain extent, this can be as disorienting as playing a game of Chess after playing a game of Russian Chess (or suicide chess).
This brings me to the next point that players who abuse Shahrazad often (though not always) tend to be those who intends to abuse Shahrazad by creating multiple copies of Shahrazad.
Mind you, the Dragonhighlander.net rules even goes to note that: -
Bolded for emphasis. While the issue of time may not be existent in certain casual settings (it is existent in many casual settings but lets leave that argument behind for a while), the issue of time is certainly a factor in sanctioned play in this respect and/or in organised play LGS.
True, Sensei's Divining Top has be subject to similar criticism but lets be honest with ourselves here. Sensei's Divining Top does not, on its own, prolong or delay the game. It is oftentimes a player's indecisiveness and slow play that prolongs the game, a fact that would remain unchanged regardless of the Top. Mind you, should the Top be an issue in organised play, it is a very infarctable offence under the Infarction Procedure Guidelines.
2. It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.)
Some time ago, the Rules Committee ("RC") decided that the logistical problems inherent in Shahrazad were not applicable for EDH, hence unbanning it from the Vintage list. The RC went on to suggest that play space would scarcely be an issue as games can neatly be "zipped" and "unzipped" (by stacking cards from the main game on top of each other in a consistent order for the different zones and setting them aside).
While this is probably a neat way of solving this problem, sometimes (indeed, oftentimes), "unzipping" this game state can be problematic (due to the sheer information inherent in the board position, especially with regards to the status of the cards).
This does not even account for the fact that sometimes, even with the best of "zipping and unzipping", play spaces can be too limited even for the most careful of zipping and unzipping, never mind the fact that multiplayer games are especially packed for more space.
At the same time, there are very real risks that the storage of main game cards during subgames can often result in the misplacement (and ultimately the loss) of pricey EDH cards. At the very least, this may even translate into confusion when cards from the main game enters the subgames. This is admittedly a more far-fetched concern but to be fair, it is certainly not unthinkable given the limited space.
3. Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it
If Painter's Servant was banned a while ago for its unfairness with Grindstone, among others, I think it is justified that Shahrazad should likewise be banned. Mind you, Painter's Servant on its own is really quite harmless while the same cannot be said of Shahrazad.
4. Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes).
5. Shahrazad allows a filibuster by the way-too-much-time-at-hand.
Now, add the number of players in the multiplayer games. If there are 4 players in the multiplayer game, even if the other two players concedes to the subgame, they will be obliged to sit out on the subgame, just because the other two players insist on playing out the subgame. With more players, it theoretically doesn't matter if the "scoopers" are in the majority; all it takes are two players insisting on subgames, hence a democratic problem. Note that if the "scoopers" have only one EDH deck, they can't even play a duel while waiting for the subgame to end because their deck is "stuck" in the main game. Short of rage-quitting, nothing can be done in this situation and to be honest, I know of many players who are simply too nice to rage-quit. Yet, if they rage quit, can we really blame them?
The Case Against Banning Shahrazad
This is where I build various straw men (or strawperson) and subsequently demolish them without prejudice
1. Some playgroups enjoy playing with it
On the other hand, again, we are speaking of a ban list that is going to be used in organised play and "after-hours games at Pro Tours and Grand Prix", of which we can probably agree that the logistical issue may not accomodate Shahrazad easily. There is nothing wrong about playing Shahrazad in a casual playgroup where your opponents are cool with it but when you're talking about a list that will be used as a guide in organised play, there should be a Great War of China built between what a subset of players believe is "fun" and what is decidedly annoying in terms of logistics.
2. Shahrazad speeds up the game
Lets call a spade a "spade" here. Players do not play Shahrazad to speed up the game -- they play it to slow down the game. Aggro decks do not run Shahrazad and even if they did, by the nature of the format, it probably wouldn't make a material difference on their ability to aggro their way in a format of 40 life; more often than not, they will probably be on the losing end (with players being pissed at them for playing Shahrazad). Even if that player wins the subgame, that player would only be able to take down half of his/her opponent's life and will have to spend some time in a protracted war to get rid of the other half (again, most players would just gang up against him/her).
Lets be honest with ourselves. Players do not play Shahrazad to speed up game. If anything, they play Shahrazad to stall the game to mythic proportions.
3. Shahrazad opens new deck design space
In drawing the line between practicality (e.g. accepting Un-cards) and design space (e.g. unbanning Grindstone), there should be a careful balance between its impact towards the game before looking up at the supposed design space it opens up. Remember, even with Shahrazad banned, it is not unthinkable for Shahrazad decks to exist inside casual playgroups.
Fair assertions by d0su: -
Poll?
I'd like to end this long, long tirade with a poll (technically, the poll is at the beginning of the post but never mind that), which is why I didn't post this in the General Ban List discussion.
Feel free to post your arguments on this matter
Erebos B | Ghost Council WB | Grimgrin UB | Jhoira UR
Jor Kadeen RW | Melek UR | Mimeoplasm GUB | Rasputin WU
Savra BG | Sisay GW | Teneb BGW | Thada Adel U | Wort BR
I draft and play EDH. If a Standard player can't understand who a card is for, it's probably for me.
I also write things about good films.
The subgame isnt that bad. If you have to leave you could've just scooped from the 2nd game of edh anyway.
The games only become stale when you have that guy that guys 'eot mystical tutor' and cant decide what to find or the guy you takes 10+ minutes to figure out the interraction between Niv-Mizzet and Curiosity.
Though, Timesifter elicits more groans than Shahrazad and the suite of Unglued cards I play.
Yes it is.
I'll sign any petition to rid the world of that stupid card. In fact, I hereby pledge that if I ever see it played at my table again, I'll instantly resign from said game and refuse to play with the offender again until he removes it from his deck.
Banner by Nakamura, Thanks!
EDH Math
EDH Decks:
Ghost Council: The Magic Mafia of Orzhova
BB Drana: Down with the Sickness
Rasputin: Reality is Broken
Vish Kal Bleeder: Bloody Kisses
Teysa, Orzhov Dominatrix
Stonebrow: Breaking Things
BWR Kaalia Punisher: Heaven's on Fire
Grimgrin: Dead Reckoning
mxmlmn on cockatrice
True but look at it this way. Somewhere, someone in the world is probably arguing that Black Lotus should be unbanned since they will never use it with Crucible of Worlds and its ilk but simply to play a Scathe Zombie.
What I'm trying to say is simply this: There will be -- what I consider to be a small minority -- of players who will claim to have the noblest intent when it comes to the most broken of cards (e.g.: "I only want to play Tinker to get myself a Gilded Lotus"). Without getting too much into the fact if these claims are blatant lies, self-delusion or even the truth, what matters more is that Shahrazad can be copied multiple times to near-annoying consequences and this, I feel, is a basis for banning it.
Don't get me started on the fact that quite a significant proportion of players would find Shahrazad to be annoying even without any copying.
Again, I am arguing that it is fine if you allow it to be played in localised playgroup but it should never see the light of day in anything "official", be it in organised play or even in random encounters at LGS.
I would choose to play more EDH. I already highlighted the possible space and time constraints brought by Shahrazad earlier.
However, even if we ignore those arguments, when we are playing a typical EDH games, at the very least, we would be somewhat aware of the general lengths of the EDH games we are playing. Playing EDH with Shahrazad meant that we will be playing a game with an indeterminate time length, especially if Shahrazad is going to be recurred or otherwise copied to annoying proportions.
More often than not, even if players are willing to play on, there are no guarantees that you will be able to finish the game and this may be just me but nothing is more unsatisfying than an unfinished game of EDH.
This is probably one of the argument against Shahrazad. Shahrazad shouldn't be able to be a de facto filibuster-to-Coalition Victory card.
Those may be annoying but that's another story altogether. Arguing that Shahrazad shouldn't be banned because of more annoying things is similar to arguing that we should not eat seaweed because we can also eat chicken.
On topic: I think there is nothing wrong with the card TBH, and this is the work of a few whiners who only want to play Commander on their own terms. Some people spent their own hard earned money on the cards, who are you to say "sorry you can't play that here". Do I complain because people play Moat, Mana Drain, or The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale against me? No, and nobody else should either.
Cards are powerful. Some moreso than others. Deal with it, and learn to adapt your decks. Be better players and instead of *****ing at people for playing Card X, deal with Card X. Mindbreak Trap can exile it from the stack, as can Time Stop. Both of these are very powerful counterspells, and what I consider to be staple counterspells of Commander.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
That's a terrible argument. Especially in a singleton format like EDH. If that were the case then there'd be no need to ban anything, and only things with split second would be banned.
mxmlmn on cockatrice
Ahem.
With that said, people play EDH to have fun (or should). Shaharazad just prolongs the EDH experiences, which is fine by me. Is too much EDH ever a bad thing? Not in my experience.
I will subgame all night.
I know you know I'm fairly tolerant of these type of effects, but I just have to chime in and say it would make me sad to see Shahrazad go. I've never even got to cast the darn card, and if it isn't suited for a crazy and casual format like EDH, what format is it suited for? (I know some would probably argue it isn't suited for Magic in general, but the legitimacy of card design is another issue entirely, no?)
Point: It unnecessarily prolongs the game
Counterpoint: You could argue the same of Worldpurge, Eye of the Storm, Decree of Annihilation, Theives' Auction, or a plethora of other cards that are legal in EDH. These cost more than Shahrazad, but that isn't exactly an issue in EDH, as evidenced by cards like Sway of the Stars on the banlist.
Point: It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.)
Counterpoint: Granted, it is relatively confusing compared to the average Magic card. Does this make it banworthy, though? There are lots of confusing cards that remain unbanned. Your point about misplacing/losing expensive EDH cards in the confusion isn't exactly convincing, either; this could happen after a Thieves' Auction, for example, or maybe it has more to do with the organizational skills of the players involved. Either way, I've never even heard of Shahrazad causing this to happen.
Point: Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it
Counterpoint: Well of course! I could say the same of Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc. Why else would you spend $40+ dollars on a rare piece of cardboard if you didn't plan on getting your money's worth out of it? If someone sets up a situation where they can copy Shahrazad 7 times with Djinn of Illuminatus, why not just say they won the game and move on? Would you rather they copy Pox instead? It shouldn't really make a difference, IMO.
Also, nothing is preventing you from scooping the subgame. I feel certain that people using Shahrazad aren't running it for its Magister Sphinx potential, and if everyone mini-scoops because no one wants to play the subgame, I feel pretty confident that the Shahrazad caster would soon remove it from his/her deck.
Point: Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes).
Counterpoint: Yup, it's woefully undercosted I think (I have no basis for comparison), but this brings me to a big point: I would argue that no one is calling for Shahrazad to be banned for power reasons. I would go so far as to say it only comes up when people who already don't like Shahrazad are searching for other reasons to legitimize their complaints. I apologize if I've overgeneralized here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that especially the vast majority of those who vote for something like "Shahrazad should be banned in all possible banlists" are not really concerned with the card's power level, but are instead asserting their personal likes, dislikes, and visions of what Magic should be. Is that a fair conclusion?
It's not a Coalition Victory. The RC didn't think life-setting effects like Magister Sphinx and Sorin Markov were game-winning enough to be banworthy, so why is this one? Sure it effects all opponents, but maybe not, because who knows who will win the subgame?
Banning Shahrazad without taking into account other griefer cards is like making a Supreme Court ruling while ignoring the related precedents. See? I can do it too.
My Assertions:
1. Shahrazad should be banned if we're going for consistency, but the banlist is anything but consistent. I would be sad to see it go, but it would ultimately be more understandable than some of the things that got banned.
2. Shahrazad should not be banned for power reasons or logistical concerns. Some personal opinion here, but even Chaos Orb isn't really that confusing/difficult to use, is it? Yes, the card sleeves count. Just fling the stupid card.
3. Griefers will grief you with whatever they have available, and most griefers don't even own a Shahrazad. If your playgroup gets on your every nerve, are these really the people you want to play Magic with? And if it's not your playgroup and instead some random guy trolling the local 5k, then is adding a card to a worldwide banlist really the best way to approach the issue?
You're welcome to disagree. You probably will! And that's okay, because really all we're doing is playing a card game here.
EDIT: Still a lot of people to weigh in here, but here's a link to a year-old poll from the official forums on the same issue. It'll be interesting to compare the opinions of each sample.
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2113&sid=54b14db51ec1520afc910e6292d92026
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
The ban list is not for cards that you wouldn't want to go into a playgroup blind with, it's a set list of cards that while some playgroups may allow, they are deemed too degenerate to allow outside any house rules.
Shahrazad is simply annoying to most and fun for a few and they don't ban cards for just being annoying. Seems like the system worked. There will be griefers, but the social contract polices this kind of thing. The ban list is only for when something is out of hand.
From Misinterpretation of the three EDH banning principles on the official site: So, as the OP stated, if someone plays a card once and puts it back in the binder, is it a problem in "real games and real metagames?" The big reason the card is banned in Vintage is because of timed rounds, no? It's not an auto-win card, nor does it warp or break the format.
I thought I'd address the "poll is biased" comment first (a point also raised by 3drinks). True, this poll has two "ban me" options to one "don't ban me" option. On the other hand, this is only a material issue if the voters vote without reading the poll.
Say, if I create a poll which asks "Do you think that we should actively hunt and consume other humans?" and subsequently list the options as: -
I think comparing the game prolonging effect of Shahrazad with your aforementioned cards is a little unfair. True, all the cards you mention do prolong the game by quite a fair bit by resetting the board. However, Shahrazad does not just reset the board but it resets the entire game into a new game and after that is done, you have to replay that game which you just left. More importantly, many of those spells you mention do little when they are copied by effects such as Twincast.
I think the fact that the spells cost more than Shahrazad is probably more relevant than you give credit for. True, EDH decks tend to curve out at higher casting cost. Yet, saying that this "isn't exactly an issue" is like saying that the difference between Time Walk and Time Warp "isn't exactly an issue".
Personally, I believe that ceteris paribus, keeping track of your game states and managing the game space is much easier when you are playing a single game of Magic rather than a game of Magic along with its associated subgames... but that's probably just me
Actually, I agree with the fact that players (or at least a significant subset of them) will try to abuse a card if able. I have always said that players will abuse Squire if able.
However, when a player Necropotence, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death, etc., in most cases, they are doing that with the full intent to move the game state "somewhere" (usually towards winning the game in question). However, when you abuse Shahrazad, you are neither planning to win the game (besides by getting your opponents to scoop in disgust) nor advancing the game position (in fact, I'd argue that you're stagnating it). This, I believe, sets apart Shahrazad from the rest of the cards you mentioned.
I was aware of this point but I am convinced that sociopaths do exist In any case, if the official ban list is sincere in its intent that: -
...then, I feel that it is justified to at least include Shahrazad in the ban list if "everyone mini-scoops because no one wants to play the subgame".
In any case, by your line of logic, no cards should be banned in EDH because "if everyone scoops because they refuse to play with ~degenerate card~, the ~degenerate card~ caster would soon remove it from his/her deck.
Fair enough. I was admittedly using the phrase "power level" very loosely as a proxy for the card's particular effect on the game state.
It isn't a Coalition Victory. However, I think when a significant proportion of players are prepared to scoop in disgust because of the stagnating effects of Shahrazad, I think it is a de facto you-win-the-game card (whether winning by having your table scoop counts as a victory is another story altogether).
Given the dissimilarity of "griefer cards", even if we were to take into account of other griefer cards, the fact that they are banned or otherwise is at best a "persuasive precedent" rather than an "authoritative precedent". Since the effect of Shahrazad is so unique (the CR has a section just for it in Section 713), I don't think that you can even draw a persuasive precedent from it.
See, I studied Law too
Again, as we mentioned, no card creates a similar effect to Shahrazad. As such, I don't think consistency is an issue. If there is another REAL card that creates subgames, then we can start talking about consistency.
As of now, I think the decision whether or not to ban Shahrazad would arise from the arguments of its demerits rather than trying to compare it with a similar card (there isn't).
I think logistics is more of a concern as you give credit for. Time and space are real life considerations that matters especially in a casual format where players often play in random locations, including fast food joints. Without restating my entire argument, I think that time and space may often not permit the subgame madness.
P.S.: About Chaos Orb, I believe some players will start disputing on what is one foot (as a student who has never been educated on the length of "one foot", I personally have no idea how long that is; I know that it is longer than my foot though :)), the fact that it must flip a full 360 degrees (some players WILL dispute this), etc. I think that is what they meant by "can't be interpreted consistently" though correct me if I am wrong.
Also, imagine tossing your Falling Star in a fast food joint and have the card ending up in some pudding
Agreed. There are a few ways I view the Official Rules.
I view it, first, as the ban list you want to adhere, going into a playgroup blind (as mentioned by tfc333). In this case, I think Shahrazad is more likely to raise more eyebrows than other griefer cards could ever achieve.
I also view the ban list as something which you would want to use going into organised play. In this sense, can we agree that games with an abused Shahrazad will cause high incidences of draws in plays where time limit exists or give an unfair advantage to the user of Shahrazad as players keep mini-scooping in disgust to the Shahrazad?
Agreed. It is my intent to have a discussion on the card rather than just having everybody saying that "yes, it should be banned". That would be as fun as preaching to the choir.
Wanted Card List: (PM me)
1 Avacyn, Angel of Hope
1 Ravages of War
1 Swords to Plowshares (Judge)
1 Land Tax (Judge)
U
1 Mana Vortex
B
1 Desolation Angel (Foil)
1 Guardian Beast
1 Contamination
R
1 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
G
1 Food Chain
WUBRG
1 Rohgahh of Kher Keep
X
1 Charcoal Diamond (Foil)
1 Fellwar Stone (Foil)
T
1 Temple Garden (Foil)
3 Mutavault
1 Kor Haven
Except EDH is an unsanctioned, casual format, and the banlist is just suggested.
mxmlmn on cockatrice
I don't see why players who hate the card should necessarily be Spikes; in fact, I resent how "Spike" is being used with a pejorative connotation here but that's another story altogether. More importantly, you're assuming that there's one standard definition of fun -- i.e. your definition of fun -- while ignoring the fact that to a fair number of player, Shahrazad is simply just "not fun". In any case, if you MUST play a subgame, why not just play another game of EDH without the unnecessary logistical baggages?
Even if we were to accept that Shahrazad-haters are Spikes, I don't see how subgames are going to stop Spikes from winning. Note that a quick search on the EDH forums will reveal almost no aggro decks running Shahrazad (there goes Genomancer's theory that Shahrazad is a tool for aggro decks :rolleyes:) and that almost all the decks running Shahrazad comes with a sly admission of the inherent sociopathic / trolling / etc. nature of the deck.
Umm.... Impressive debating skills. Ignore the arguments presented, make a sweeping overgeneralisation and win the debate? Let me guess: Harvard Law School?
Playing is playing, I don't really see the difference. Either way you get interesting back and forths(I would hope) and to draw and cast cards.
It slows down there winning, lowers there total number of wins for the night. It can hose there combos if pieces get split between games.
I would make the case the issue is the player not the card. It is just the tool used but the person is the one that chooses to abuse it. Do you blame the gun for the murder or the person holding it?
Personally I would not mind a Shahrazad from time to time, 15 years ago I had a deck that used it in a white weenie. However I would probably not really care to see it forked 5 times. Though I would rather have Sharazad played on me then Sorin or his Sphinx clone. At least I would have a chance not to get my life cut by 75%.
Misanthropy in Blue and White
I voted against the banning of Shahrazad. Briefly put: I disagree with most points made in the original post, siding consistently in favor with the counterpoints made by d0su. Were it not for logistical constraints I'd go further into this, but I'm sure there's enough debate out there on the subject that my arguments won't be missed.
To the players whom argue in-game politics will balance the card, however, I have to disagree. Most players in my region will still choose proper threat assessment over knee-jerk retaliation, and I'd say they're often wise to do so. Refusing to play someone with Shahrazad in their deck, especially in a setting with given logistical constraints, is a perfectly reasonable political solution.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
Fair enough. You got it.
Only two of the cards I mentioned reset the board, though. In fact, Thieves' Auction and in particular Eye of the Storm cause the game to "degenerate" into a completely different, new type of game. Also, while players have the option to pay half their life total to prevent a bigger disaster (similar to the mechanics of Temporal Extortion), Eye of the Storm gives you no such option, typically clogging up the stack until something breaks. The comparisons are more than fair in that:
1. These cards unnecessarily prolong the game
2. Most of these cards creature unnecessary confusion
3. Players who play these cards typically want to abuse them (either winning off of them or just griefing, same as Shahrazad)
4. The power levels of these cards are much higher than expected in EDH compared to other formats.
These are your criterion for banning Shahrazad. Mana cost might be an issue, but I think we can agree that the power difference between Shahrazad and Decree of Annihilation is certainly not as great as that between Time Walk and Time Warp, right?
Okay, that is a key difference. Necro and pals are typically used to win the game in a traditional manner, Shahrazad is only rarely used to win the game in a traditional manner. This isn't necessarily evidence for the banning of Shahrazad, though. Is there even really a problem playing a game to do something other than advance it towards its conclusion?
In The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, players typically spend most of their time exploring, collecting, reading, leveling up, and creating otherwise enjoyable game states, but not necessarily progressing the storyline. In Just Cause 2, it's often more enjoyable to grapple random objects together and drive them off a cliff than to actually meet the objectives of the mission. In Halo, lots of people online cooperate to just drive around and perform stunts with vehicles, which goes against the "point" of shooting the other team dead.
None of these options are "less correct" than playing the game as the game designers originally intended, and all are at least as much fun. Should the people in charge of these games ban this sort of play? Similarly, should the people in charge of Magic/EDH ban a card because it encourages play that doesn't boil down to "cause your opponents to lose the game?"
Sucks for that guy. I say we ban the pudding.
Shahrazad is a nightmare in organized play and should be addressed accordingly. However, the majority of most casual playgroups use the same banlist as tournament organizers. Would you say there are more organized EDH events, or more "kitchen table" EDH games? I just think putting something on the end-all-be-all official banlist causes more collateral damage than people let on.
So yeah, I have band practice now. It's been a pleasure; I'll be back on tonight maybe.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
What's your point? The nature of the ban list invalidates the actual reasoning on why cards are banned?
Sure, they could ban all griefer cards like Eye of the Storm and Shahrazad and it would clean up the game a bit. But it doesn't solve the unsolvable problem: There will always be griefing. Period. If not this, it'll be obnoxious combo decks and all other manner of board-locking shenanigans.
So what they've done (the RC) is allowed these cards to stay in the EDH environment as a sort of "test" for players to see whether or not they have the ability to just say "NO" to a particular griefer. If they do, then great! They've learned something and are regulating their local game exactly as the RC intended. If not, then it's for one of two reasons- they enjoy it (more power to them! As some have said, if you wanna subgame all night, then knock yourself out) or they're too obedient to the banlist and the subgame is a minor form of punishment for a failure to regulate the local playgroup.
Obviously, there are some cards that are just out of control balance-wise. I think we can all agree that Shahrazad isn't one of those cards. The incremental advantage gained by aggro decks is nothing like blinking Magister Sphinx or Planar Portaling Beacon of Immortality. But if they go ahead and regulate every single griefer card, then what do we have left to regulate for ourselves? How do we grow as a community and keep this game fun if we simply follow the suggested banlist with no regards for the consequences?
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
Took it out of his deck immediately afterwards, and never played it again.