Is there a way to errata the card to be "Legendary" ? Meaning that only one may be cast per game and copies of the card will not resolve in a game if one has already resolved in it or a subgame/supergame of it ?
I'd be ok with it if it were unable to be copied and played as (I hope) it was originally intended.
Is there a way to errata the card to be "Legendary" ? Meaning that only one may be cast per game and copies of the card will not resolve in a game if one has already resolved in it or a subgame/supergame of it ?
I'd be ok with it if it were unable to be copied and played as (I hope) it was originally intended.
House rules? Yes of course. "Official" Commander rules? They'd just ban it instead of opening up that particular rules nightmare.
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.
Ehem. Anyone who objects can simply vote for the first option. Your argument would be valid if votes were chosen randomly, but they aren't.
I've never even played against Shahrazad. If someone cast that against me(there's only one person at my LGS who would be a **** enough to do it, and he's a horrible person to play against, anyway), I'm not playing with them until they take Shahrazad out of their deck.
Is there a way to errata the card to be "Legendary" ? Meaning that only one may be cast per game and copies of the card will not resolve in a game if one has already resolved in it or a subgame/supergame of it ?
I'd be ok with it if it were unable to be copied and played as (I hope) it was originally intended.
Id argue that copying it was always a factor to consider with it. Fork was printed before it and had to have been on the radar when the card was green lighted.
Ive never seen a single copy of the card anywhere so I can't say from experience what it is like but I can say that I would not want to be a part of this type of thing. It seems like a huge hassle to have to play out a whole new magic game and to me falls into a similar category as upheaval but worse because copying the spell does something more disruptive to the game.
Im all for a casual group allowing the card if they like it but should be on the suggested ban list
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
From MaRo
Every rarity gets good cards. That means that some mythic rares will be tournament quality as will some commons, some uncommons and some rares. My promise wasn't that mythic rares wouldn't get good cards but that we wouldn't limit the good cards to only being mythic rare.
Bear this in mind the next time a powerful mythic rare is spoiled
Thanks to chaostheory90 for finding this quiz for me
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.
I will subgame all night.
Ol' Ambassador Laquatus is becoming my favourite Mod.
Just because it annoys you doesnt mean it annoys everyone. EDH has a lot of annoying cards, and if you start banning one because its annoying, where does the line get drawn? I can make a case for Mindslaver being banned, but i wont, because its just a card that can be dealt with just like all other cards. Sure, there are crazy ways to do shenanigans with it, but its just a card.
If you dont like it, ban it from your table. Honestly, how often do you see it in play? Does your play group have a ton of them lying around? I doubt. Maybe one person, or two on a rare rare occasion will have them and actually use them, but its a rare, old, expensive card. If its such a huge issue where you are, ban it from your table, dont ban it from MY table, because honestly, ive seen it played a total of once, and it was a fun diversion.
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.
Do I think that Thieves' Auction and Eye of the Storm prolong the game? Yes, I do. Do I think that they "unnecessarily prolong" the game? No, I don't. As I pointed out earlier, Shahrazad stagnates the game, not just by its failure to advance the game state but by creating another tedious subgame (or a set of tedious subgames) of which when you complete, you will have to rejoin your main game. At least with thieves' auction, you are achieving something very real -- be it a means of gaining your opponent's enchantment in monored to at the very least, changing the board position. With Eye of the Storm, I'd argue that you're adding more to the game by adding additional interactions rather than stagnating it. Arguably, you can even use Eye of the Storm to advance the game state by pulling some insane combo like oh-I-don't-know....
Bottom line is, I'd argue that few -- if any -- legal cards in EDH stagnates the game the same way as Shahrazad does. You may argue that the end result of a Shahrazad game makes for a faster game given that the players that do not win lose half of their life accordingly. On the other hand, for them to lose half of their life, they had to either have lost all their life in the subgame, conceded in the subgame or lost in some other unique and delightful games in their subgames. Surely there is a less tedious way of getting most players to lose half of their life.
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.
Interesting.... How do you break Magic?
No matter how clogged a game state gets, I don't think it compares to the intricacies of having a game within a game (or heaven forbids, a game within a game within a game within a game,....). Heaven forbid should Shahrazad be caught in the Eye of the... oh, that's how you break Magic
Also note that Eye of the Storm happens to be a delightful piece of enchantment in which all but the two Rakdosian colours has a potential of dealing with (in multiplayer, the probability of not having a U, W, G with an answer is relatively small.
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.
Again, I believe that none of your long lists of cards prolongs the game to the same "unnecessary" extent of Shahrazad, is abusable to a sociopathic extent as Shahrazad is and whose power level is a lot higher than is expected in a multiplayer EDH game.
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?
Your mileage may certainly vary here. I think that there is a world of power level differences between Shahrazad and Decree of Annihilation and indeed, probably comparable to Time Walk vs. Time Warp. True, I may be using the word "power level" very loosely here as a proxy for a card's net effect on a particular game but given that Shahrazad has an indeterminate power level (due to its effect), I think that this is a fair proxy.
Don't get me started on the flavour of it. I really don't think that a planeswalker should be able to replicate the nature of Rabiah the Infinite, at least not for WW
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?"
Fair enough though being the dinosaur I am, I probably didn't get any of your game references
The point is, I don't think that Shahrazad should be disallowed from all possible worlds. Localised playgroups should be encouraged to use Shahrazad if they feel up to it. I don't think it is right to deprive them from the liberty of exploring into Un-cards; I believe that if you want to play Gleemax in your local playgroup, you probably should. On the other hand, as far as the word "official" goes, I don't thiink it has a place here.
I'd liken Shahrazad closer to a player who wants to use Nezumi Shortfang as a general. Officially, it shouldn't be allowed but unofficially? Go wild
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.
Lets be honest here.... Do you really think that putting Shahrazad on the ban list would really stop players who already use Shahrazad in their accepting playgroup? Lets not be deluded to the fact that kitchen table players have stopped using the tentacled one, the time-sundered school, etc. just because the rules announcement said so.
I concede that there are fewer organised EDH events than kitchen table EDH going on but I maintain that "organised EDH events" definitely feels more "official" than kitchen table EDH (again, no, the fact that kitchen table EDH is "unofficial" doesn't make it less valid than "official games"). Also, I fervently believe that even at the kitchen table, Shahrazad is something you'll want to introduce after asking your playgroup very nicely (just like using Nezumi Shortfang as a general) rather than just surprising your opponent in it, just because it isn't in the ban list.
Is there a way to errata the card to be "Legendary" ? Meaning that only one may be cast per game and copies of the card will not resolve in a game if one has already resolved in it or a subgame/supergame of it ?
I'd be ok with it if it were unable to be copied and played as (I hope) it was originally intended.
I think the Rules Committee are very unwilling to make specific card erratas for the format.
As an off-topic asides, why do they even design an option for "undecided"? "Undecided" is probably one of the more statistically meaningless option ever but never mind that.
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.
Wacky cool effect is fine. Shahrazad is probably one of those cards that you'll be alright playing with once or twice but -- dare I say -- for most people, the next few time is going to be plain annoying.
You also give way too much credit to politics. By that logic, there shouldn't be a ban list given that players will go "okay time to kill you" whenever somebody plays a card that is not approved by the playgroup.
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?
Again, by that logic, there should be no banned cards because you can't blame Black Lotus for being abused, can you? Fact of the matter is, some cards are easier to abuse than others and I'd claim that Shahrazad is a lot easier to abuse than Grizzly Bear.
Also, yes, I would vote for tighter gun control laws a million times but that's a different issue altogether.
I think it should be. Is it funny to use? Yes. Is it fun to be used against? No. Especially when many non-spike related games can last 30 minutes to 3 hours.
The only redeemable thing it can do is put you in a slightly more favourable gamestate than you were, and if they dont counter the spell, there are a plethora of other cards to do it better.
IMO, for this, and personally, it should be banned. I don't like the idea of having a huge banlist, and no one really will have this or use it, and there are formats like LEGACY with an ample banlist that are thriving. And since it will affect 0% of casual gamers, what does banning it do?
Note: i provided arguments both for and against, as i feel on the fence, but yet i dont like it. really. at all.
Cards aren't the problem, players are. It's hard to complain about a card that nobody uses.
If one card is ruining your day, you can always ask the player to take it out of their deck. This is the easiest solution, though many people seem to think that crying "BAN BAN BAN" on the internet in the hopes that the card may be banned in future months is the quickest route. Note: It's not.
This is the easiest solution, though many people seem to think that crying "BAN BAN BAN" on the internet in the hopes that the card may be banned in future months is the quickest route. Note: It's not.
If Sheldon was really sincere on his comment that: -
Quote from Sheldon Menery »
The bottom line is that the RC listens. We listen to individuals, we listen to local groups, we listen to the broader community. We don't play the format in a vacuum, and we certainly don't make decisions in a vacuum. Quite often, your (well-expressed) opinion matters. Obviously, that opinion has to take the form of a quality argument, not just protectionism of favorite cards. “I like playing with Tolarian Academy” isn't actually an argument.
..., then I believe that my opinion (and that of the other posters here) should matter. Would everybody agree with my opinions? Of course not. Yet, I'd like to think that regardless of your persuasions in this issue, I hope that you could agree that my arguments (thus far, except for the borderline-flammy one against you which I apologise) are "well-expressed", relative to most other threads of this nature.
Pieces don't get split between game; at least not in the main game.
I mean in the sub game you may not have all your deck ala all your combo pieces.
Also, many Spike decks can probably win the subgames while they are at it. If (according to your logic) "playing is playing", "winning is winning".
I personally would be just as happy winning a sub game as any random game. But i know others that don't feel that way.
Again, by that logic, there should be no banned cards because you can't blame Black Lotus for being abused, can you? Fact of the matter is, some cards are easier to abuse than others and I'd claim that Shahrazad is a lot easier to abuse than Grizzly Bear.
I agree with you that some cards are inherently broken. For me I guess Black Lotus does not seem that big a deal. But then again I just started playing 3 months ago after not playing post 4th ed. Hell I have a lotus that I play without sleeves still. *Puts on old man glasses* Back in my day everyone had a lotus and if a spiritlinked White Knight came out turn one you manned up and handled it(I realize that obv having access to a lotus turn one is a worlds different now then it was back then). That said Shaharazd is not broken when it comes to winning. Just greifing. And honestly I think rather then ban cards like it and Eye of the storm you are better off asking that person to knock it off or not come back.
Also, yes, I would vote for tighter gun control laws a million times but that's a different issue altogether.
I have added another argument to the OP along with d0su's (opposing) opinion on the matter in the OP. This will do nothing to solve the bias in favour of the proposition but I'd argue that this is the unfortunate impossibility for me to be unbiased, given my persuasions.
I have added another argument to the OP, of which I missed from my notes earlier. Consider the follwing to be the next point in favour of the proposition: -
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?
In my group we have one player who will secretly bust out his deck with Shahrazad in it every once in a while. He'll try to play it and copy it as much as possible. Even when it's not copied, absolutely NO ONE at the table has any fun when it resolves. The first time made us giggle, every subsequent time makes us all groan. He always says we can just scoop and he'll win the subgames, but there is always one of us too stubborn to let that happen, so it just goes until we all get bored and the entire game, subgames and normal game just end. So in the sense that the card, whenever it resolves, just makes the game degrade and become unplayable, I'm very much against the card.
On another note, the rules of the card always confused us. What would everyone else do with their general in the subgames? If your general is in the main game, can you cast him in the subgame? If you do cast him in the subgame, do the amount of times you cast him carry over into the main game? General interactions confuse us the most.
On another note, the rules of the card always confused us. What would everyone else do with their general in the subgames? If your general is in the main game, can you cast him in the subgame? If you do cast him in the subgame, do the amount of times you cast him carry over into the main game? General interactions confuse us the most.
While I'd like to use this as an example why Shahrazad is confusing rules-wise, unfortunately, rule 713.2c and 713.5c of the CR is rather clear on this issue :-
Quote from Comprehensive Rules »
713.2c As a subgame of an EDH game starts, each player moves his or her general from the main-game command zone (if it's there) to the subgame command zone.
713.5c At the end of a subgame of an EDH game, each player moves his or her general from the subgame command zone (if it's there) to the main-game command zone.
Basically, you can only cast your general in the subgame if it is in the command zone of your main game when Shahrazad resolves. Since a subgame is a completely separate Magic game, I'd say that the General Tax should carry over.
In my group we have one player who will secretly bust out his deck with Shahrazad in it every once in a while. He'll try to play it and copy it as much as possible. Even when it's not copied, absolutely NO ONE at the table has any fun when it resolves. The first time made us giggle, every subsequent time makes us all groan. He always says we can just scoop and he'll win the subgames, but there is always one of us too stubborn to let that happen, so it just goes until we all get bored and the entire game, subgames and normal game just end. So in the sense that the card, whenever it resolves, just makes the game degrade and become unplayable, I'm very much against the card.
So why not ask him not to play it? Then tell him not to play it if that does not work. Basically if everyone hates it you need to get together and tell him enough is enough. What is he going to do? Not play?
While I'd like to use this as an example why Shahrazad is confusing rules-wise, unfortunately, rule 713.2c and 713.5c of the CR is rather clear on this issue :-
Basically, you can only cast your general in the subgame if it is in the command zone of your main game when Shahrazad resolves. Since a subgame is a completely separate Magic game, I'd say that the General Tax should carry over.
Ah, ok, I must not have seen that. But wouldn't it be more intuitive that if it's a completely separate Magic game the general tax shouldn't carry over?
So why not ask him not to play it? Then tell him not to play it if that does not work. Basically if everyone hates it you need to get together and tell him enough is enough. What is he going to do? Not play?
I've actually tried this. My playgroup is strange in the fact that they hate it so much but don't want to outright ban it from the table. I've asked him to stop playing it, but they I guess don't want to let Shahrazad "beat" them and admit defeat. So it just ends up bringing the game to a grinding halt when it resolves. We've honestly not had a fun game if it ever hits the table.
Ah, ok, I must not have seen that. But wouldn't it be more intuitive that if it's a completely separate Magic game the general tax shouldn't carry over?
Whoops.... Sorry.... I meant "shouldn't carry over". My bad totally.
I've actually tried this. My playgroup is strange in the fact that they hate it so much but don't want to outright ban it from the table. I've asked him to stop playing it, but they I guess don't want to let Shahrazad "beat" them and admit defeat. So it just ends up bringing the game to a grinding halt when it resolves. We've honestly not had a fun game if it ever hits the table.
Sounds like more then enough reason to ban it from your play group. Perhaps hate him off the table when he plays a deck with white in it. I am sure he will get the message sooner or later if everyone kills him off right away every game.
Sounds like more then enough reason to ban it from your play group. Perhaps hate him off the table when he plays a deck with white in it. I am sure he will get the message sooner or later if everyone kills him off right away every game.
Oh, completely agreed. He's my main target whenever I suspect that is going to happen. I just wanted to share my experiences on the fact that it is a card that whenever it hits the table, the entire group just stops having fun.
it is a card that whenever it hits the table, the entire group just stops having fun.
And that little line is my main argument against the card.
I understand the reasons people don't want it banned, I really do, but I disagree. I think wotc should take steps to stop griefing, and lets be honest, that's the only reason anyone other than a child plays the thing. Not to make the game more fun, not to make their deck better, but to grief the table because they get a kick out of it.
I've never seen a single deck run it because it was good or it fit with their strategy.... only to grief.
Maybe it's because I'm from a different generation? When I was a kid we didn't have online videogames or ccg's. We played sports. The only equivalency I can think of would be a kid that joined a pickup game of basketball and then every time he got the ball he just threw it out of bounds or tried scoring for the other team (speaking of griefing in general, not just Shaharazad). He would have gotten away with it only once, twice at most before receiving multiple contusions.
We all know that the RC banning Emrakul proves that they will always give in to popular opinion. Great sample size!
This past week alone there have been threads about Sundering Titan, Shahrazad, and land destruction cards. I highly doubt the RC will ban all of these, or any of them, in their next update. The RC is not a parent that childish players need to come crying to whenever they lose to a certain card. If the RC caves to every thread started on a card, it would set up a dangerous precedent.
This past week alone there have been threads about Sundering Titan, Shahrazad, and land destruction cards. I highly doubt the RC will ban all of these, or any of them, in their next update. The RC is not a parent that childish players need to come crying to whenever they lose to a certain card. If the RC caves to every thread started on a card, it would set up a dangerous precedent.
Nobody expects the RC to ban a card just because some player goes "I hate this card". On the other hand, if well-reasoned arguments are made, I am sure this is something worth looking at.
Nobody expects the RC to ban a card just because some player goes "I hate this card". On the other hand, if well-reasoned arguments are made, I am sure this is something worth looking at.
Obviously. Neither of us is arguing against well-reasoned arguments. However many of the posts complaining about certain cards have a fair amount of butthurt attached to them.
Even arguments like "this card stalls out games" are moot, considering unlike sanctioned matches, casual EDH has no time limit on games. So if you and your buddies are hypothetically stuck playing a subgame for an additional 45 minutes, that's not really a big deal. You still get to play EDH, and it still should be fun.
Frankly I love how EDH has a huge cardpool, and with each banned card ounces of deck building opportunities are taken away imo.
While I grant that it can unnecessarily prolong the game, that's nowhere near reason to ban it. Imagine a player who plays blow-up-everything.dec, just tossing in Apocalypse and Decree of Annihilation and every card that wastes boards that there is. He's going to prolong the game much more than Shahrazad will, but that's not a reason to ban global reset buttons. Dimensional Breach, Nether Void, Arcane Laboratory, even generals, like Grand Arbiter Augustin IV can be used to do nothing more than slow down games, and I've seen most of them used that way before (I haven't had the experience of playing against Nether Void, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where games under it take exponentially longer). To my knowledge, none of them have ever been considered for the chopping block before. I could probably list dozens more cards that do little more than slow down the game, especially if that's the intention of the player using them.
And Shahrazad definitely has the potential to be used to speed up games. Imagine a Heartless Hidetsugu-style Teysa deck that uses Shahrazad + Wound Reflection as a win condition, or an aggro deck that uses Shahrazad to cut life totals for the fast kill. These are perfectly legitimate places to use Shahrazad. So yes, Shahrazad has the potential to slow games down, but only when you have a player who just wants to screw with other players, the same kind of mind that would get kicked out of a playgroup for blasting the board with unnecessary Armageddons.
2. It creates unnecessary confusion (be it in restoring the game state, space restrictions, etc.)
I don't really see a problem with restoring the game state or space restrictions. The game state is restored to exactly the same state it was left in, with the exception that Shahrazad is no longer on the stack and your library is shuffled. And if you're playing an EDH game, you're probably gonna need quite a bit of space already, so unless you're already running into space issues without Shahrazad, that shouldn't be much of a problem.
I could, however, imagine general rules confusion with this card. But it isn't anything that a clear explanation and a little experience with the card can't solve. It seems nothing more than the confusion a player would feel after seeing Illusionary Mask or Mindslaver for the first time, or playing against a card with Phasing for the first time. I mean, it's not THAT confusing. Everything that's currently in your library becomes your new deck, and everything else gets set aside. Play a new game with your new deck.
3. Players who play with Shahrazad tend to be those who want to abuse it
But that's more because of the novelty of the idea. If people get pissed off by this and start scooping whenever such a player Forks Shahrazad, it'll quickly stop being fun for anyone, including the abuser. Why try to abuse a card you'll never actually play, that'll make all the good players of the table gang up on your (possibly not that good) deck? I can't see this even being an issue in any but the most casual environments, and there the problem will simply work itself out. Talking about a player trying to copy Shahrazad in a more strict setting is no different than talking about a player blasting the board into oblivion without a follow-up win in the same setting, only no one's calling for the banning of Obliterate, and frankly, it's much easier to stop someone abusing Shahrazad than someone abusing Obliterate.
And if your problem is just that people who play it try to abuse it, just look at Sundering Titan. Everyone but the caster groans when it hits the board or leaves it, and the Titan player inevitably will try to Reanimate it or pull some Master Transmuter shenanigans with it. There are maybe 10-15 cards in Magic that will let you abuse Shahrazad, while there are hundreds that will let you get extra abuse out of Sundering Titan.
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).
If you're legitimately worried about the power of Shahrazad in EDH, I think you need to play more EDH. There are dozens of cards that are more influential, more consistent, and more powerful than Shahrazad. If you want a list, I'll come up with one, but I'd hope you don't need me to actually prove to you that there are much stronger plays than Shahrazad under almost any circumstances.
5. Shahrazad allows a filibuster by the way-too-much-time-at-hand.
Again, this is more of a reflection on the people you're playing with than the card itself. If someone wants to screw with the game, they'll find a way to do it, no matter how many silly cards get banned. Personally, if I had a problem with people playing Shahrazad, I'd find a new playgroup or band together with the rest of the players in the group to get that one guy to stop playing Shahrazad. Or better yet, play another EDH game with the remaining players while you're waiting for the subgame to end, and if the subgame ends before yours does, well then it just sucks to be them, doesn't it?
Now, you know something I really like about Shahrazad? It hurts combo. Yep, it turns from a game of Russian roulette into a 15- to 20-life bullet aimed straight at any combo player's head. You can't win the subgame if you've spent the past couple turns in the real game tutoring up your combo pieces; you're running out of tutors and you can't rely on your now-incomplete combo to win! Besides, I'd rather play a subgame than wait 15 minutes for the combo player to finish his next turn any day.
BRG Xira Arien BRG UR Melek, Izzet Paragon UR WUG Jenara, Asura of War WUG WRG Mayael the Anima WRG WB Triad of Fates WB BG Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots BR WR Aurelia the Warleader WR WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores WBG WUBRG Horde of Notions WUBRG
My view on it is that while some people are OK with it, some people find it incredibly unfun. Unless your playgroup specifically decides that its OK, it should be on the ban list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd be ok with it if it were unable to be copied and played as (I hope) it was originally intended.
House rules? Yes of course. "Official" Commander rules? They'd just ban it instead of opening up that particular rules nightmare.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
Ehem. Anyone who objects can simply vote for the first option. Your argument would be valid if votes were chosen randomly, but they aren't.
I've never even played against Shahrazad. If someone cast that against me(there's only one person at my LGS who would be a **** enough to do it, and he's a horrible person to play against, anyway), I'm not playing with them until they take Shahrazad out of their deck.
Id argue that copying it was always a factor to consider with it. Fork was printed before it and had to have been on the radar when the card was green lighted.
Ive never seen a single copy of the card anywhere so I can't say from experience what it is like but I can say that I would not want to be a part of this type of thing. It seems like a huge hassle to have to play out a whole new magic game and to me falls into a similar category as upheaval but worse because copying the spell does something more disruptive to the game.
Im all for a casual group allowing the card if they like it but should be on the suggested ban list
Bear this in mind the next time a powerful mythic rare is spoiled
Thanks to chaostheory90 for finding this quiz for me
Ol' Ambassador Laquatus is becoming my favourite Mod.
Just because it annoys you doesnt mean it annoys everyone. EDH has a lot of annoying cards, and if you start banning one because its annoying, where does the line get drawn? I can make a case for Mindslaver being banned, but i wont, because its just a card that can be dealt with just like all other cards. Sure, there are crazy ways to do shenanigans with it, but its just a card.
If you dont like it, ban it from your table. Honestly, how often do you see it in play? Does your play group have a ton of them lying around? I doubt. Maybe one person, or two on a rare rare occasion will have them and actually use them, but its a rare, old, expensive card. If its such a huge issue where you are, ban it from your table, dont ban it from MY table, because honestly, ive seen it played a total of once, and it was a fun diversion.
10.) No taxing cards.
If i wanted to pay 1 more on my Fresh Volunteers, then id just have played Pearled Unicorn.
Do I think that Thieves' Auction and Eye of the Storm prolong the game? Yes, I do. Do I think that they "unnecessarily prolong" the game? No, I don't. As I pointed out earlier, Shahrazad stagnates the game, not just by its failure to advance the game state but by creating another tedious subgame (or a set of tedious subgames) of which when you complete, you will have to rejoin your main game. At least with thieves' auction, you are achieving something very real -- be it a means of gaining your opponent's enchantment in monored to at the very least, changing the board position. With Eye of the Storm, I'd argue that you're adding more to the game by adding additional interactions rather than stagnating it. Arguably, you can even use Eye of the Storm to advance the game state by pulling some insane combo like oh-I-don't-know....
Bottom line is, I'd argue that few -- if any -- legal cards in EDH stagnates the game the same way as Shahrazad does. You may argue that the end result of a Shahrazad game makes for a faster game given that the players that do not win lose half of their life accordingly. On the other hand, for them to lose half of their life, they had to either have lost all their life in the subgame, conceded in the subgame or lost in some other unique and delightful games in their subgames. Surely there is a less tedious way of getting most players to lose half of their life.
Interesting.... How do you break Magic?
No matter how clogged a game state gets, I don't think it compares to the intricacies of having a game within a game (or heaven forbids, a game within a game within a game within a game,....). Heaven forbid should Shahrazad be caught in the Eye of the... oh, that's how you break Magic
Also note that Eye of the Storm happens to be a delightful piece of enchantment in which all but the two Rakdosian colours has a potential of dealing with (in multiplayer, the probability of not having a U, W, G with an answer is relatively small.
Again, I believe that none of your long lists of cards prolongs the game to the same "unnecessary" extent of Shahrazad, is abusable to a sociopathic extent as Shahrazad is and whose power level is a lot higher than is expected in a multiplayer EDH game.
Your mileage may certainly vary here. I think that there is a world of power level differences between Shahrazad and Decree of Annihilation and indeed, probably comparable to Time Walk vs. Time Warp. True, I may be using the word "power level" very loosely here as a proxy for a card's net effect on a particular game but given that Shahrazad has an indeterminate power level (due to its effect), I think that this is a fair proxy.
Don't get me started on the flavour of it. I really don't think that a planeswalker should be able to replicate the nature of Rabiah the Infinite, at least not for WW
Fair enough though being the dinosaur I am, I probably didn't get any of your game references
The point is, I don't think that Shahrazad should be disallowed from all possible worlds. Localised playgroups should be encouraged to use Shahrazad if they feel up to it. I don't think it is right to deprive them from the liberty of exploring into Un-cards; I believe that if you want to play Gleemax in your local playgroup, you probably should. On the other hand, as far as the word "official" goes, I don't thiink it has a place here.
I'd liken Shahrazad closer to a player who wants to use Nezumi Shortfang as a general. Officially, it shouldn't be allowed but unofficially? Go wild
Amen.
Lets be honest here.... Do you really think that putting Shahrazad on the ban list would really stop players who already use Shahrazad in their accepting playgroup? Lets not be deluded to the fact that kitchen table players have stopped using the tentacled one, the time-sundered school, etc. just because the rules announcement said so.
I concede that there are fewer organised EDH events than kitchen table EDH going on but I maintain that "organised EDH events" definitely feels more "official" than kitchen table EDH (again, no, the fact that kitchen table EDH is "unofficial" doesn't make it less valid than "official games"). Also, I fervently believe that even at the kitchen table, Shahrazad is something you'll want to introduce after asking your playgroup very nicely (just like using Nezumi Shortfang as a general) rather than just surprising your opponent in it, just because it isn't in the ban list.
Pleasure's mine
I think the Rules Committee are very unwilling to make specific card erratas for the format.
EDIT: More replies I missed: -
As an off-topic asides, why do they even design an option for "undecided"? "Undecided" is probably one of the more statistically meaningless option ever but never mind that.
Wacky cool effect is fine. Shahrazad is probably one of those cards that you'll be alright playing with once or twice but -- dare I say -- for most people, the next few time is going to be plain annoying.
You also give way too much credit to politics. By that logic, there shouldn't be a ban list given that players will go "okay time to kill you" whenever somebody plays a card that is not approved by the playgroup.
Pieces don't get split between game; at least not in the main game.
Also, many Spike decks can probably win the subgames while they are at it. If (according to your logic) "playing is playing", "winning is winning".
Again, by that logic, there should be no banned cards because you can't blame Black Lotus for being abused, can you? Fact of the matter is, some cards are easier to abuse than others and I'd claim that Shahrazad is a lot easier to abuse than Grizzly Bear.
Also, yes, I would vote for tighter gun control laws a million times but that's a different issue altogether.
The only redeemable thing it can do is put you in a slightly more favourable gamestate than you were, and if they dont counter the spell, there are a plethora of other cards to do it better.
IMO, for this, and personally, it should be banned. I don't like the idea of having a huge banlist, and no one really will have this or use it, and there are formats like LEGACY with an ample banlist that are thriving. And since it will affect 0% of casual gamers, what does banning it do?
Note: i provided arguments both for and against, as i feel on the fence, but yet i dont like it. really. at all.
GB [Primer][Competitive][Stax][Combo] Meren of Clan Nel Toth 95% RETIRED
UW [Primer][Competitive][Combo][Stax] Brago, King Eternal RETIRED
BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots (75%)
G Titania - 75%
W SRAM - Welcome to the cheeri0s jam 95%
U Teferi - stax 100%
R Neheb - janky mono red eggs combo 90%
B Gonti - 50% valuetown
If one card is ruining your day, you can always ask the player to take it out of their deck. This is the easiest solution, though many people seem to think that crying "BAN BAN BAN" on the internet in the hopes that the card may be banned in future months is the quickest route. Note: It's not.
If Sheldon was really sincere on his comment that: -
..., then I believe that my opinion (and that of the other posters here) should matter. Would everybody agree with my opinions? Of course not. Yet, I'd like to think that regardless of your persuasions in this issue, I hope that you could agree that my arguments (thus far, except for the borderline-flammy one against you which I apologise) are "well-expressed", relative to most other threads of this nature.
That said, of course you're right. The RC will never, never, never, EVER ban any cards just because a subset of players are crying "BAN BAN BAN" on the internet
I mean in the sub game you may not have all your deck ala all your combo pieces.
I personally would be just as happy winning a sub game as any random game. But i know others that don't feel that way.
I agree with you that some cards are inherently broken. For me I guess Black Lotus does not seem that big a deal. But then again I just started playing 3 months ago after not playing post 4th ed. Hell I have a lotus that I play without sleeves still. *Puts on old man glasses* Back in my day everyone had a lotus and if a spiritlinked White Knight came out turn one you manned up and handled it(I realize that obv having access to a lotus turn one is a worlds different now then it was back then). That said Shaharazd is not broken when it comes to winning. Just greifing. And honestly I think rather then ban cards like it and Eye of the storm you are better off asking that person to knock it off or not come back.
That it is, Comrad.
I have added another argument to the OP, of which I missed from my notes earlier. Consider the follwing to be the next point in favour of the proposition: -
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?
On another note, the rules of the card always confused us. What would everyone else do with their general in the subgames? If your general is in the main game, can you cast him in the subgame? If you do cast him in the subgame, do the amount of times you cast him carry over into the main game? General interactions confuse us the most.
While I'd like to use this as an example why Shahrazad is confusing rules-wise, unfortunately, rule 713.2c and 713.5c of the CR is rather clear on this issue :-
Basically, you can only cast your general in the subgame if it is in the command zone of your main game when Shahrazad resolves. Since a subgame is a completely separate Magic game, I'd say that the General Tax should carry over.
So why not ask him not to play it? Then tell him not to play it if that does not work. Basically if everyone hates it you need to get together and tell him enough is enough. What is he going to do? Not play?
Ah, ok, I must not have seen that. But wouldn't it be more intuitive that if it's a completely separate Magic game the general tax shouldn't carry over?
I've actually tried this. My playgroup is strange in the fact that they hate it so much but don't want to outright ban it from the table. I've asked him to stop playing it, but they I guess don't want to let Shahrazad "beat" them and admit defeat. So it just ends up bringing the game to a grinding halt when it resolves. We've honestly not had a fun game if it ever hits the table.
Whoops.... Sorry.... I meant "shouldn't carry over". My bad totally.
Sounds like more then enough reason to ban it from your play group. Perhaps hate him off the table when he plays a deck with white in it. I am sure he will get the message sooner or later if everyone kills him off right away every game.
Oh, completely agreed. He's my main target whenever I suspect that is going to happen. I just wanted to share my experiences on the fact that it is a card that whenever it hits the table, the entire group just stops having fun.
And that little line is my main argument against the card.
I understand the reasons people don't want it banned, I really do, but I disagree. I think wotc should take steps to stop griefing, and lets be honest, that's the only reason anyone other than a child plays the thing. Not to make the game more fun, not to make their deck better, but to grief the table because they get a kick out of it.
I've never seen a single deck run it because it was good or it fit with their strategy.... only to grief.
Maybe it's because I'm from a different generation? When I was a kid we didn't have online videogames or ccg's. We played sports. The only equivalency I can think of would be a kid that joined a pickup game of basketball and then every time he got the ball he just threw it out of bounds or tried scoring for the other team (speaking of griefing in general, not just Shaharazad). He would have gotten away with it only once, twice at most before receiving multiple contusions.
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
We all know that the RC banning Emrakul proves that they will always give in to popular opinion. Great sample size!
This past week alone there have been threads about Sundering Titan, Shahrazad, and land destruction cards. I highly doubt the RC will ban all of these, or any of them, in their next update. The RC is not a parent that childish players need to come crying to whenever they lose to a certain card. If the RC caves to every thread started on a card, it would set up a dangerous precedent.
Nobody expects the RC to ban a card just because some player goes "I hate this card". On the other hand, if well-reasoned arguments are made, I am sure this is something worth looking at.
Obviously. Neither of us is arguing against well-reasoned arguments. However many of the posts complaining about certain cards have a fair amount of butthurt attached to them.
Even arguments like "this card stalls out games" are moot, considering unlike sanctioned matches, casual EDH has no time limit on games. So if you and your buddies are hypothetically stuck playing a subgame for an additional 45 minutes, that's not really a big deal. You still get to play EDH, and it still should be fun.
Frankly I love how EDH has a huge cardpool, and with each banned card ounces of deck building opportunities are taken away imo.
While I grant that it can unnecessarily prolong the game, that's nowhere near reason to ban it. Imagine a player who plays blow-up-everything.dec, just tossing in Apocalypse and Decree of Annihilation and every card that wastes boards that there is. He's going to prolong the game much more than Shahrazad will, but that's not a reason to ban global reset buttons. Dimensional Breach, Nether Void, Arcane Laboratory, even generals, like Grand Arbiter Augustin IV can be used to do nothing more than slow down games, and I've seen most of them used that way before (I haven't had the experience of playing against Nether Void, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where games under it take exponentially longer). To my knowledge, none of them have ever been considered for the chopping block before. I could probably list dozens more cards that do little more than slow down the game, especially if that's the intention of the player using them.
And Shahrazad definitely has the potential to be used to speed up games. Imagine a Heartless Hidetsugu-style Teysa deck that uses Shahrazad + Wound Reflection as a win condition, or an aggro deck that uses Shahrazad to cut life totals for the fast kill. These are perfectly legitimate places to use Shahrazad. So yes, Shahrazad has the potential to slow games down, but only when you have a player who just wants to screw with other players, the same kind of mind that would get kicked out of a playgroup for blasting the board with unnecessary Armageddons.
I don't really see a problem with restoring the game state or space restrictions. The game state is restored to exactly the same state it was left in, with the exception that Shahrazad is no longer on the stack and your library is shuffled. And if you're playing an EDH game, you're probably gonna need quite a bit of space already, so unless you're already running into space issues without Shahrazad, that shouldn't be much of a problem.
I could, however, imagine general rules confusion with this card. But it isn't anything that a clear explanation and a little experience with the card can't solve. It seems nothing more than the confusion a player would feel after seeing Illusionary Mask or Mindslaver for the first time, or playing against a card with Phasing for the first time. I mean, it's not THAT confusing. Everything that's currently in your library becomes your new deck, and everything else gets set aside. Play a new game with your new deck.
But that's more because of the novelty of the idea. If people get pissed off by this and start scooping whenever such a player Forks Shahrazad, it'll quickly stop being fun for anyone, including the abuser. Why try to abuse a card you'll never actually play, that'll make all the good players of the table gang up on your (possibly not that good) deck? I can't see this even being an issue in any but the most casual environments, and there the problem will simply work itself out. Talking about a player trying to copy Shahrazad in a more strict setting is no different than talking about a player blasting the board into oblivion without a follow-up win in the same setting, only no one's calling for the banning of Obliterate, and frankly, it's much easier to stop someone abusing Shahrazad than someone abusing Obliterate.
And if your problem is just that people who play it try to abuse it, just look at Sundering Titan. Everyone but the caster groans when it hits the board or leaves it, and the Titan player inevitably will try to Reanimate it or pull some Master Transmuter shenanigans with it. There are maybe 10-15 cards in Magic that will let you abuse Shahrazad, while there are hundreds that will let you get extra abuse out of Sundering Titan.
If you're legitimately worried about the power of Shahrazad in EDH, I think you need to play more EDH. There are dozens of cards that are more influential, more consistent, and more powerful than Shahrazad. If you want a list, I'll come up with one, but I'd hope you don't need me to actually prove to you that there are much stronger plays than Shahrazad under almost any circumstances.
Again, this is more of a reflection on the people you're playing with than the card itself. If someone wants to screw with the game, they'll find a way to do it, no matter how many silly cards get banned. Personally, if I had a problem with people playing Shahrazad, I'd find a new playgroup or band together with the rest of the players in the group to get that one guy to stop playing Shahrazad. Or better yet, play another EDH game with the remaining players while you're waiting for the subgame to end, and if the subgame ends before yours does, well then it just sucks to be them, doesn't it?
Now, you know something I really like about Shahrazad? It hurts combo. Yep, it turns from a game of Russian roulette into a 15- to 20-life bullet aimed straight at any combo player's head. You can't win the subgame if you've spent the past couple turns in the real game tutoring up your combo pieces; you're running out of tutors and you can't rely on your now-incomplete combo to win! Besides, I'd rather play a subgame than wait 15 minutes for the combo player to finish his next turn any day.
Currently running:
BRG Xira Arien BRG
UR Melek, Izzet Paragon UR
WUG Jenara, Asura of War WUG
WRG Mayael the Anima WRG
WB Triad of Fates WB
BG Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG
BR Rakdos, Lord of Riots BR
WR Aurelia the Warleader WR
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores WBG
WUBRG Horde of Notions WUBRG