I really don't understand why shahrazad, you can just scoop the sub game, and lose life. If you do that, it's not even as brutal as a magister sphinx. Even if it's coppied a bajillion times.... nothing is stopping you from scooping in a casual format. People also tend to remember the times when shahrazad is the game changer. for everyone of these i could list 20 other times that it's just sitting there being a dead card because all the other cards needed to make it go crazy aren't in the player's hand. Timesifter is much worse because it does what Shahrazad, but 100000000 times more painfully. EDH is inherently busted and broken since it basically uses a vintage card pool, if you ban one card, it will be replaced, and wizards will keep increasing the power level of EDH cards. Players want bigger more interesting spells... wizards will print them. Magic is all about doing crazy stuff... copying shahrazad and playing each subgame...... is like inception and I think it actually provides a healthy unique magic experience that no other card does. It doesn't nuke your board, it doesn't win the game, in all seriousness it doesn't do anything other than provoke "trolololololol inception!!! did the top stop spinning?" from other players.
None of these are even remotely similar to Shahrazad. You can't make that kind of comparison. We're not talking exclusively about a power-level ban, but rather that the card was MADE for griefing, and the logistics of resolving it can sometimes become overwhelming. Don't get me wrong, the card is obscenely powerful, but that's not the only reason for banning it.
I really don't understand why shahrazad, you can just scoop the sub game, and lose life.
We've addressed this point. YOU can scoop the subgame, but if anyone else insists on playing it out, you're going to be waiting somewhere between 40 minutes to hours for the sub-game to play out. Unless the entire table agrees to scoop, everyone's going to be waiting around for another game to finish.
If you do that, it's not even as brutal as a magister sphinx.
This is actually completely false. Look at it from the Shahrazad players' perspective. Ideally, if they cast magister sphinx, they're dealing the equivalent of 30 damage to one player. Ideally, if they resolve Shahrazad and won the subgame, they're dealing 20 damage to THREE players. Instead of crippling one player, you're dealing with all of them at once.
Even if it's coppied a bajillion times.... nothing is stopping you from scooping in a casual format.
I'll be honest. I'm totally willing to scoop to hard locks, combos, overwhelming board positions and the like. I'm not sure I want to scoop because some guy thinks it's hilarious to bore everyone into submission. If they want to make a million subgames, I'm more than willing to make them play out all the subgames untill 4 AM.
People also tend to remember the times when shahrazad is the game changer. for everyone of these i could list 20 other times that it's just sitting there being a dead card because all the other cards needed to make it go crazy aren't in the player's hand.
Shahrazad IS a game changer 100% of the time. When every player but one loses half of their life total, that is a BIG deal, and can significantly change the game state. You don't HAVE to copy it multiple times to make it broken. I'm sure that most of us would read a card that said:
WW
Flip a coin. If you win the flip, each opponent loses half their life. If you lose, Every player except target opponent loses half their life.
Timesifter is much worse because it does what Shahrazad, but 100000000 times more painfully.
What? They do totally different things. Again, you can't make that kind of comparison directly. Time Sifter isn't even good, and you can't build a deck to make a game last infinitely long using Timesifter. You're still playing ONE game, which is going to progress at a reaonable, although confusing rate.
Each time a shahrazad resolves, the length of your game increases by at least an hour or so. You certainly can't say that for Timesifter.
EDH is inherently busted and broken since it basically uses a vintage card pool, if you ban one card, it will be replaced, and wizards will keep increasing the power level of EDH cards.
Correct on all points except one. Wizards is NEVER going to print another Shahrazad, so what's going to replace it? There are certainly other ways to grief, but if Shahrazad is banned, there will never be another Shahrazad deck.
Players want bigger more interesting spells... wizards will print them. Magic is all about doing crazy stuff... copying shahrazad and playing each subgame...... is like inception and I think it actually provides a healthy unique magic experience that no other card does. It doesn't nuke your board, it doesn't win the game, in all seriousness it doesn't do anything other than provoke "trolololololol inception!!! did the top stop spinning?" from other players.
This attitude is characteristic of someone who hasn't played against a Shahrazad deck. It's really, really funny until you realize just how long the game is going to last. The last time I made someone play out most of their games with Shahrazad, the game lasted 6 hours. And we didn't even make them play out the last 4 subgames, because we were going to kill them in the main game.
The experience is certainly unique, but nowhere near healthy. Should we really allow someone to play a card who's only purpose is trolling the table?
None of these are even remotely similar to Shahrazad. You can't make that kind of comparison. We're not talking exclusively about a power-level ban, but rather that the card was MADE for griefing, and the logistics of resolving it can sometimes become overwhelming. Don't get me wrong, the card is obscenely powerful, but that's not the only reason for banning it.
Not remotely similar? They all do the same stuff. They excel you into stupid bombs, cheat stupid bombs into play, blow up the board, or just make the game generally dumb (see knowledge pool and eye of the storm). If some one recurs time stretch a few times that's pretty much just as bad as starting a new game. Atleast with the new game you can do something other than watch the player think about how he's going to win. Teeg makes the game longer, hokori makes it slower, and lethal vapors stalls the game because no one wants to sac a turn. If you get obliterated you are basically starting a new game. I don't think shahrazad is insanely powerful, it does the same thing that a lot of cards already do in magic which is to make the game not fun.
We've addressed this point. YOU can scoop the subgame, but if anyone else insists on playing it out, you're going to be waiting somewhere between 40 minutes to hours for the sub-game to play out. Unless the entire table agrees to scoop, everyone's going to be waiting around for another game to finish.
have you seen timesifter wars? where no joke two players keep taking extra turns off each other while everyone gets to sit and watch and get blow out.
This is actually completely false. Look at it from the Shahrazad players' perspective. Ideally, if they cast magister sphinx, they're dealing the equivalent of 30 damage to one player. Ideally, if they resolve Shahrazad and won the subgame, they're dealing 20 damage to THREE players. Instead of crippling one player, you're dealing with all of them at once.
this is assuming you win the sub game and everyone loses, it could easily back fire on you.
I'll be honest. I'm totally willing to scoop to hard locks, combos, overwhelming board positions and the like. I'm not sure I want to scoop because some guy thinks it's hilarious to bore everyone into submission. If they want to make a million subgames, I'm more than willing to make them play out all the subgames untill 4 AM.
more like 6 AM... yes i have done it... it was the best game of my life and i was playing against it
Shahrazad IS a game changer 100% of the time. When every player but one loses half of their life total, that is a BIG deal, and can significantly change the game state. You don't HAVE to copy it multiple times to make it broken. I'm sure that most of us would read a card that said:
WW
Flip a coin. If you win the flip, each opponent loses half their life. If you lose, Every player except target opponent loses half their life.
once again, it can easily blow you out instead... it's not guaranteed.....
What? They do totally different things. Again, you can't make that kind of comparison directly. Time Sifter isn't even good, and you can't build a deck to make a game last infinitely long using Timesifter. You're still playing ONE game, which is going to progress at a reaonable, although confusing rate.
Each time a shahrazad resolves, the length of your game increases by at least an hour or so. You certainly can't say that for Timesifter.
yes I can, with shahrazad everyone gets a turn, with timesifter it usually boils down to the person with the highest curve taking turns over and over again..... that's worse because you're just sitting there.... watching someone trololololol ftw. Not to mention keeping track of the turn orders makes me scoop and hate the designer of that card. I would rather play through 10 subgames then deal with not having a turn for 15 min.
Correct on all points except one. Wizards is NEVER going to print another Shahrazad, so what's going to replace it? There are certainly other ways to grief, but if Shahrazad is banned, there will never be another Shahrazad deck.
While I agree with you... never say never who knows what will happen in these new commander sets.
This attitude is characteristic of someone who hasn't played against a Shahrazad deck. It's really, really funny until you realize just how long the game is going to last. The last time I made someone play out most of their games with Shahrazad, the game lasted 6 hours. And we didn't even make them play out the last 4 subgames, because we were going to kill them in the main game.
The experience is certainly unique, but nowhere near healthy. Should we really allow someone to play a card who's only purpose is trolling the table?
short answer yes. if it wasn't for decks that troll the table magic would be less unique and boring. I'm not sure about you but I never remember the "man he beat me down with 908982349790 tokens with beastmaster ascension active" games. I do however remember the "donate immortal coil then get tormod's crypted" games. It's all about the experience... and yes playing subgames until 6 AM is a fine experience. It's different isnt that what magic is about? different decks that do different things? Finally, it's always fun for one person at the table... this can be said for any card in magic minus basic lands.
If someone has a deck specifically designed to troll the board.... don't play with him./her.. no one is forcing you to play them, it's not a tournament, you lose nothing.
Not remotely similar? They all do the same stuff. They excel you into stupid bombs, cheat stupid bombs into play, blow up the board, or just make the game generally dumb (see knowledge pool and eye of the storm).
I don't want to sound insulting but have you actually read Shahrazad? Last I checked, Shahrazad does not "accelerate you into stupid bombs, cheat stupid bombs into play, blow up the board". It does make the game "generally dumb" though I'd argue that it makes the game "exceptionally dumb"....
have you seen timesifter wars? where no joke two players keep taking extra turns off each other while everyone gets to sit and watch and get blow out.
I may be exceptionally slow here -- I just came back from refereeing a prerelease -- but if I read Timesifter correctly, EVERYBODY has a nonzero chance of taking an extra turn -- unless you are playing 99mountainAshling.dec, in which case you're probably screwed
more like 6 AM... yes i have done it... it was the best game of my life and i was playing against it
I am glad that you liked it. I think it is fine if you run them in your localised playgroup where everybody is fine with that spell. However, as far as the Official Format goes, I feel that Shahrazad should not be legal.
yes I can, with shahrazad everyone gets a turn, with timesifter it usually boils down to the person with the highest curve taking turns over and over again..... that's worse because you're just sitting there.... watching someone trololololol ftw. Not to mention keeping track of the turn orders makes me scoop and hate the designer of that card. I would rather play through 10 subgames then deal with not having a turn for 15 min.
this is assuming you win the sub game and everyone loses, it could easily back fire on you.
...
once again, it can easily blow you out instead... it's not guaranteed.....
Yes, Timesifter could likewise backfire... in a very bad way
I don't want to sound insulting but have you actually read Shahrazad? Last I checked, Shahrazad does not "accelerate you into stupid bombs, cheat stupid bombs into play, blow up the board". It does make the game "generally dumb" though I'd argue that it makes the game "exceptionally dumb"....
The end result is generally the same you can accelerate into bombs and win, blow up the board and win, OR make the game dumb. I never said Shahrazad did all those things together ;).
It seems like the general consensus is not banning it for power, but because it's not fun or healthy for EDH. I see no evidence that it warped the format like emrakul did (debatable), so we can't ban it on those merits. It's not like sway of the stars or upheaval, which should stay banned. The life loss isn't even guaranteed, so I don't see a power argument. I would put that card in the knowledge pool, eye of the storm, and timesifter boat. Yeah it costs WW but you're not gonna play it on turn 2 anyway.
There are plenty of spells that prolong the game whether through board whip or taking extra turns.
there are plenty of cards that create unnecessary confusion
I agree that the only people who tend to use it are people who want to abuse it... no disagreements. That can be said for any card and that is perfectly fine and what this game is about... abusing cards.
As far as power level for cost... I am going to disagree. The card doesn't guarantee the life loss so it can easily back fire. Even if you do win the subgame..... the table will probably just kill you in the main game on principle XD. It doesn't scream I win the game people are over valuing its power level. The card basically reads WW start a subgame, you are against 3 opponents, you will lose half your life first.
If you want to make an argument to ban a card that rarely sees play (unlike emrakul back in the day) you can justify it simply through the fact that it is so expensive and rare and therefore not accessible to a large segment of the EDH playerbase. however, that creates a slippery slope issue should jace 2.0 be banned? What about mana drain, or the original duels?
timesifter>shahrazad
shahrazad can make the game unfun for some people, but I have never had a fun game with eye of the storm, timesifter, warp world, or proxied knowledge pools........ Those cards..... they make me want to punch a puppy after playing with them.......
I mean I'm already waiting for the ban calls for blightsteel colossus, or errataing infect to 20.
Part of the reason there is so much disagreement is that there is no consensus on why a card should be banned..... hmmm I will start a thread about it.
Shahrazad interacts poorly with any variant utilizing range of influence. Just sayin', some peeps might want to keep that in mind depending on what their groups like to organize.
I still dont get what the sub game is...? (explain?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Given up magic because a)its a waste of money b)it sucks the joy out of life c)im doing more interesting things than tapping pieces of plastic that have no intrinsic value.
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
If someone in my playgroup actually spent upwards $50 for it, yeah, I'd be okay with them playing it. Though I can't speak for everyone in my playgroup, I think we'd all get annoyed when someone copies it multiple times. Sure it would sound like a funny idea, but jeez... that would get old fast.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WU Near-Death Experience (Casual multiplayer) B Vintage Illegal Discard (When I want to be a jerk) GW Allies (Casual) URG Defenders (Crappy Standard) RWU Affinity (Modern)
I still dont get what the sub game is...? (explain?)
You just take your library from the game you are in, and start a brand new game with that as your library- i'm guessing it works best at a new table. Then after that game, you shuffle up, and bring that library back to the first game, and pick up where you left off - only the people who didn't win lost 1/2 their life.
The end result is generally the same you can accelerate into bombs and win, blow up the board and win, OR make the game dumb. I never said Shahrazad did all those things together ;).
It seems like the general consensus is not banning it for power, but because it's not fun or healthy for EDH. I see no evidence that it warped the format like emrakul did (debatable), so we can't ban it on those merits. It's not like sway of the stars or upheaval, which should stay banned. The life loss isn't even guaranteed, so I don't see a power argument. I would put that card in the knowledge pool, eye of the storm, and timesifter boat. Yeah it costs WW but you're not gonna play it on turn 2 anyway.
You are underestimating the WW casting cost. The low casting cost may not mean that you're going to cast it on Turn 2 but it does mean that you're going to have more than enough available mana to copy it repeatedly.
There are plenty of spells that prolong the game whether through board whip or taking extra turns.
there are plenty of cards that create unnecessary confusion
I agree that the only people who tend to use it are people who want to abuse it... no disagreements. That can be said for any card and that is perfectly fine and what this game is about... abusing cards.
While it is true that a player will abuse Wall of Wood if able, some cards are just inherently easier to abuse than others and Shahrazad sits in this category.[/QUOTE]
shahrazad can make the game unfun for some people, but I have never had a fun game with eye of the storm, timesifter, warp world, or proxied knowledge pools........ Those cards..... they make me want to punch a puppy after playing with them.......
After reading the above, you're not getting anywhere near my puppy.
I still dont get what the sub game is...? (explain?)
Shahrazad has a section in the Comprehensive Rules dedicated to it: -
Quote from Comprehensive Rules »
713. Subgames
713.1. One card (Shahrazad) allows players to play a _Magic_ subgame.
713.1a A "subgame" is a completely separate _Magic_ game created by an effect. Essentially, it's a game within a game. The "main game" is the game in which the spell or ability that created the subgame was cast or activated. The main game is temporarily discontinued while the subgame is in progress. It resumes when the subgame ends.
713.1b No effects or definitions created in either the main game or the subgame have any meaning in the other, except as defined by the effect that created the subgame. For example, the effect may say that something happens in the main game to the winner or loser of the subgame.
713.2. As the subgame starts, an entirely new set of game zones is created. Each player takes all the cards in his or her main-game library, moves them to his or her subgame library, and shuffles them. No other cards in a main-game zone are moved to their corresponding subgame zone, except as specified in rules 713.2a-c. Randomly determine which player goes first. The subgame proceeds like a normal game, following all other rules in rule 103, "Starting the Game."
713.2a As a subgame of a Planar Magic game starts, each player moves his or her planar deck from the main-game command zone to the subgame command zone and shuffles it. (Face-up plane cards remain in the main-game command zone.)
713.2b As a subgame of a Vanguard game starts, each player moves his or her vanguard card from the main-game command zone to the subgame command zone.
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.
713.2d As a subgame of an Archenemy game starts, the archenemy moves his or her scheme deck from the main-game command zone to the subgame command zone and shuffles it. (Face-up scheme cards remain in the main-game command zone.)
713.3. Any rules regarding the size of a player's deck are ignored for the subgame. However, because each player draws seven cards when a game begins, any player with fewer than seven cards in his or her deck will lose the subgame when state-based actions are checked during the upkeep step of the first turn, regardless of any mulligans that player takes. (See rule 704, "State-Based Actions.")
713.4. All objects in the main game and all cards outside the main game are considered outside the subgame (except those specifically brought into the subgame). All players not currently in the subgame are considered outside the subgame.
713.4a Some effects can bring cards into a game from outside of it. If a card is brought into a subgame from a main game, abilities in the main game that trigger on objects leaving a main-game zone will trigger, but they won't be put onto the stack until the main game resumes.
713.5. At the end of a subgame, each player takes all cards he or she owns that are in the subgame other than those in the subgame command zone, puts them into his or her main-game library, then shuffles them. This includes cards in the subgame's exile zone. Except as specified in rules 713.5a-c, all other objects in the subgame cease to exist, as do the zones created for the subgame. The main game continues from the point at which it was discontinued: First, the spell or ability that created the subgame finishes resolving, even if it was created by a spell card that's no longer on the stack. Then, if any main-game abilities triggered while the subgame was in progress due to cards being removed from the main game, those abilities are put onto the stack.
Example: If a card was brought into the subgame either from the main game or from outside the main game, that card will be put into its owner's main-game library when the subgame ends.
713.5a At the end of a subgame of a Planar Magic game, the face-up plane card is turned face down and put on the bottom of its owner's planar deck. Then each player moves his or her planar deck from the subgame command zone to the main-game command zone and shuffles it.
713.5b At the end of a subgame of a Vanguard game, each player moves his or her vanguard card from the subgame command zone to the main-game 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.
713.6. A subgame can be created within a subgame. The existing subgame becomes the main game in relation to the new subgame.
I don't see how Shahrazad remotely accelerates or even blows up the board.
I never said Shahrazad did any of those things. The end result is a player or players not having fun.
You are underestimating the ww casting cost. The low casting cost may not mean that you're going to cast it on Turn 2 but it does mean that you're going to have more than enough available mana to copy it repeatedly.
What methods of copying are you suggesting? Because the only one off the top of my head is Djinn Illuminatus..... and that's a heavey mana investment giving the board time to stop you.
While it is true that a player will abuse Wall of Wood if able, some cards are just inherently easier to abuse than others and Shahrazad sits in this category.
Then we should ban all the cards I listed since they are just as easy to abuse. Heck time stretch abuses it self.
Here are some important guidelines to ban a card.
1) It warps the format. Nope.
2) It provides too much of an acceleration advantage for it's cost which gives other players an unfair advantage. Nope.
3) It's not fun:
it consistently and effectively prevents players from interacting with the game. Nope unless you count scooping, because i have seen people scoop in response to getting mind slavered or getting attacked by skittles for 4 poison. Everyone still interacts when shahrazad resolves. I don't see a good case for banning. As mentioned before the only reason i see that's reasonable is the price tag.
3) It's not fun:
it consistently and effectively prevents players from interacting with the game. Nope unless you count scooping, because i have seen people scoop in response to getting mind slavered or getting attacked by skittles for 4 poison. Everyone still interacts when shahrazad resolves. I don't see a good case for banning. As mentioned before the only reason i see that's reasonable is the price tag.
They scoop against Mindslaver or being hit by Skit because they see there is no way they're going to win the game and there's no point in dragging it out. they scoop against Shaharazad because they don't want the game to last another hour or more. Big difference.
How about...
4) Time constraints - EDH tourneys must have a time limit and Shaharazad makes it virtually impossible to finish the games within any reasonable limit, and that also makes it the perfect tool for someone to stall with.
I never said Shahrazad did any of those things. The end result is a player or players not having fun.
Your argument is flawed in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. In fact, after reading your responses, I had to check if I actually slipped into a bizzare subgame.
First of all, you bring up a list of cards and argue that they should be banned before Shahrazad should be banned. After that, you mention that those cards does not exactly do the same thing that any of those cards you mentioned do -- but for some reason, you decided to mention them anyway. Later, you argue that while they don't do the same thing that Shahrazad achieves, they have the same "end results" and therefore they are now magically similar. Seriously?
By your insane troll logic, Black Lotus should be unbanned unless Lotus Bloom, Lotus Vale, Lotus Blossom, Gilded Lotus , etc. are similarly banned. Remember, I never said that they do the same thing as Black Lotus. The end result is, mana is being added into the mana pool.
What methods of copying are you suggesting? Because the only one off the top of my head is Djinn Illuminatus..... and that's a heavey mana investment giving the board time to stop you.
Reiterate would be one as would Hive Mind, Mirror Sheen, etc. Besides the conventional mode of simply copying the spell, graveyard recursion works too with Mnemonic Wall being one of them. Note that copying it once is usually sufficient to prolong the game significantly. My point here is straightforward. You are more likely able to play multiple copy effects on a spell that costs 2 mana than a spell that costs, say, 5 mana.
Then we should ban all the cards I listed since they are just as easy to abuse. Heck time stretch abuses it self.
I actually took a second look at your list and again, did you even read what you're typing? Lets look at some of the cards you compared to Shahrazad and some of the cards that you said were "just as easy to abuse": -
2) It provides too much of an acceleration advantage for it's cost which gives other players an unfair advantage. Nope.
3) It's not fun:
it consistently and effectively prevents players from interacting with the game. Nope unless you count scooping, because i have seen people scoop in response to getting mind slavered or getting attacked by skittles for 4 poison. Everyone still interacts when shahrazad resolves. I don't see a good case for banning.
I am assuming that you came up with the comprehensive and exhaustive list of card banning criteria after extensive research on why cards get banned. I mean, you didn't spontaneously come up with this list, right? If so, would you be so kind as to provide me with the source?
As mentioned before the only reason i see that's reasonable is the price tag.
I don't understand why are you bringing up the "price tag" issue Nobody actually said that Shahrazad should be banned because it costs about USD35. I can name way more expensive cards that are way more common intheformat.
By your insane troll logic, Black Lotus should be unbanned unless Lotus Bloom, Lotus Vale, Lotus Blossom, Gilded Lotus , etc. are similarly banned. Remember, I never said that they do the same thing as Black Lotus. The end result is, mana is being added into the mana pool.
except lotus fails criteria #2 for providing unfair acceleration where as the other examples have a cost associated with that acceleration.
I actually took a second look at your list and again, did you even read what you're typing? Lets look at some of the cards you compared to Shahrazad and some of the cards that you said were "just as easy to abuse": -
1. Knowledge Pool
2. Thawing Glaciers
3. Lethal Vapors
4. Counterspells in general
I got a few of those cards from Sheldon's top 25 cards he hates or something like that I just googled it. The rest are cards I have seen cause others to invoke the wahahahambulance
1) Knowledge pool is not fun and makes the game confusing with multiple spells on the stack. That's not fun.
2) Thawing glaciers becomes time consuming end of turn. drags the game out.
3) Lethal vapors turns games into just play lands and non creatures spells. It drags the game out because no one wants to sac a turn. There is also no motivation to use removal on it unless you are going to win because there are better targets XD.
4) If i was given a penny every time I heard a magic player get butt hurt over tapping out and getting countered and then yelling at me for playing blue, I would be a very wealth individual.
you say shahrazad isn't fun, it drags the game out, and is confusing. Well so are the cards listed above. In fact every card I listed covers one of those criteria. Every board wipe spell prolongs the game. Obliterate is basically a 10 mana reset the game spell that can't be stopped.
I don't understand why are you bringing up the "price tag" issue Nobody actually said that Shahrazad should be banned because it costs about USD35. I can name way more expensive cards that are way more common in the format.
Except I actually believe that mana crypt and the classic duel lands should be banned from EDH. However price isn't the only reason for that ban.
I took a look at the EDH banlist and picked a few:
1) emrakul (which i don't agree with but who cares) "warped the format and wasn't fun"
that hits criteria #1 and #3
2) Metal worker, see criteria #2
3) Coalition victory, criteria #3 unless someone has a counter
4) Limited resources, Criteria #3
5) channel, Criteria #2
6) Tolarian Academy, Criteria #2, #3, and maybe #1 depending on how it's used
I am assuming that you came up with the comprehensive and exhaustive list of card banning criteria after extensive research on why cards get banned. I mean, you didn't spontaneously come up with this list, right? If so, would you be so kind as to provide me with the source?
almost everyone of the banned cards follow one or all of those criteria. The only ones that do not however are cards that enable degenerate combos (why is mind over matter or palinchron not there? idk) or price (see power 9). Also during banlist discussions, the three criteria are the most common arguments used.
If you can prove to me that shahrazad violates anyone of those criteria, I will agree with you. I may be wrong or have missed something.
Otherwise it sounds like you (along with a few others) had a bad experience with the card and are butt hurt about it. (that was not meant to be insulting). You need to understand where the opposing party is coming from, we get tired of hearing "omg you played time stretch!!! that should be banned," "mindslaver? I scoop," "Wow.... way to ruin the game and play sundering titan... that should be banned," and finally my personal favorite "only a (insert mean word here) would play counterspells in EDH." The shahrazad argument sounds pretty much the same
On a side note: holy batman hive mind is stupid! Although one can argue that hive mind itself is only used for degenerate combos and deserves a ban.
" and finally my personal favorite "only a (insert mean word here) would play counterspells in EDH." The shahrazad argument sounds pretty much the same
No... look, you've got to quit comparing 'zad to things like counterspells. The complaints about the two are nowhere near the same. There is a HUGE difference between a counterspell or a mindslaver lock to win the game and dragging the game out for an extra hour with 'zad. Surely you can see the difference, right?
This was a difficult one for me to really decide on. So... here are my thoughts.
#1. "Shahrazad basically says, 'WW: Each other player loses half his or her life.*' Overpowered? Yes. Ban it."
#2. "Shahrazad basically says, 'WW: Each other player loses half his or her life.*' Overpowered? Yes. BUT. Some other cards do basically say, 'Pay cost: You win' if you're playing the right deck. Keep it in."
There's also the matter of fun factor. This is a matter of personal taste. What you find fun, I may not. I think that this card should not be on the actual banned list of the format simply for this. It doesn't warp the format, it's not seriously unfair, and fun factor will vary. I think this should be left up to the play group, but that it should typically be the first rule to look at. Maybe it should also have a special rules adjustment attached to it like "Shahrazad can't be copied" or something to that effect. Maybe also have players who have it in their deck announce so before the game begins so we know who the biggest asshat in the group is.
Yeah, this is really, really hard to come up with anything conclusive for it, but I probably wouldn't play it, so as to avoid getting FALCON PAUNCH'd by an entire playgroup.
*Note: This statement is made under the assumption that, nine times out of ten, everyone will mini-scoop from the subgame.
Overbeing.. you haven't played a shahrazad deck have you?
I mean i haven't, but i thank the lord of magic every day i have yet to run into a deck like that. Nothing remotely annoying can touch shahrazad.
Yes I have and he lost 2 of of the 3 sub games because the table just killed him. 1st game lasted 20 min, second game lasted 15 min, and the last game everyone just scooped and gave him the win and proceeded to kill him in the main game.
There is a HUGE difference between a counterspell or a mindslaver lock to win the game and dragging the game out for an extra hour with 'zad. Surely you can see the difference, right?
I really don't. At least with zad I can actually play spells and do stuff, I can't do that in a mindslaver lock. It's not fun watching the turn order go out of wack and trying to keep track of that with time sifter, and it really isn't fun having a genesis wave for 45 getting forced. At the end of the day it's all about having fun and I don't see how you can consider banning zad when there are other cards that are bigger interactivity killers.
Except I actually believe that mana crypt and the classic duel lands should be banned from EDH. However price isn't the only reason for that ban.
I took a look at the EDH banlist and picked a few:
1) emrakul (which i don't agree with but who cares) "warped the format and wasn't fun"
that hits criteria #1 and #3
2) Metal worker, see criteria #2
3) Coalition victory, criteria #3 unless someone has a counter
4) Limited resources, Criteria #3
5) channel, Criteria #2
6) Tolarian Academy, Criteria #2, #3, and maybe #1 depending on how it's used
almost everyone of the banned cards follow one or all of those criteria. The only ones that do not however are cards that enable degenerate combos (why is mind over matter or palinchron not there? idk) or price (see power 9). Also during banlist discussions, the three criteria are the most common arguments used.
This entire criteria thing along with your fervent belief that the dual lands should be banned convinces me that you have little -- if any idea -- on how the ban list is constructed.
First of all, proving that your criterias are valid just because every card on the ban list fits one of the criteria does not prove anything. Lets try convincing you with a simple example. Lets say, I come up with my own set of criteria.
Quote from Hypothetical Criteria for banning a card »
Criteria for banning a card
1. The card has a mana symbol in it.
2. The card is not a Magic card.
Now, lets test my theory.
....
Turns out that all cards that are banned have mana symbols in it! Huh? I guess my criteria is valid
Secondly, if it interests you, there are a set of criterias which the RC use but no, the RC makes no claim that the criterias are exhaustive and without caveats.
Quote from Genomancer »
For a card to be considered for banning (or kept banned), it should be causing problems in EDH games due to one of three things:
1. 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). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]
2. it's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8].
3. it belongs to a class of cards which can't be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards, dexterity cards]
Before you start leaping up and pointing towards criteria 2, let me bring you towards Sheldon Menery's article: -
Quote from Sheldon Menery »
There has been a fair amount of discussion about unbanning Library of Alexandria, and I can tell you that it's one that we only had the briefest discussions about. We really want the format to both be accessible and feel accessible, and LoA is a poster child for what we don't want. Imperial Seal isn't banned because there are a bunch of other cards that do almost exactly what it does, and they don't cost $300. That's not true for Library of Alexandria.
No... look, you've got to quit comparing 'zad to things like counterspells. The complaints about the two are nowhere near the same. There is a HUGE difference between a counterspell or a mindslaver lock to win the game and dragging the game out for an extra hour with 'zad. Surely you can see the difference, right?
I really don't. At least with zad I can actually play spells and do stuff, I can't do that in a mindslaver lock. It's not fun watching the turn order go out of wack and trying to keep track of that with time sifter, and it really isn't fun having a genesis wave for 45 getting forced. At the end of the day it's all about having fun and I don't see how you can consider banning zad when there are other cards that are bigger interactivity killers.
Okay, this entire thing is starting to look like trolling. Arguing with that kind of logic is like going against Thrun -- except that your argument regenerates to logic. Your failure to see the differences between a card that says "Counter target spell" and "Start a new subgame" is really beyond me. Calling Force of Will an "interactivity killer" is just bizzare. I am sure that even the posters who believed that Shahrazad shouldn't be banned would squirm uncomfortably at your logic.
I'm enacting the "hitler rule" here. If you ever mention hitler in trying to explain a point, you automatically lose the fight, even if you have it linking to Godwin's Law.
Shahrazad Stays Legal. Its official. End of Argument.
1. 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). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]
2. it's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8].
3. it belongs to a class of cards which can't be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards, dexterity cards]
....So zad not only fails my criteria it fails the RC criteria. It fails #1, #2, and #3.... hence it should not be banned. Regarding #1 I don't believe it really has a higher power lever. The card does not read "opponents lose half their life"
it reads "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."
That means the player who just casted zad has to win a game vs three other players who will probably focus and kill the original caster during every subgame. If the caster can't do that it basically reads "WW pay half your life, pick an opponent at random, each other opponent loses half their life."
I really don't understand why shahrazad, you can just scoop the sub game, and lose life. If you do that, it's not even as brutal as a magister sphinx. Even if it's coppied a bajillion times.... nothing is stopping you from scooping in a casual format. People also tend to remember the times when shahrazad is the game changer. for everyone of these i could list 20 other times that it's just sitting there being a dead card because all the other cards needed to make it go crazy aren't in the player's hand. Timesifter is much worse because it does what Shahrazad, but 100000000 times more painfully. EDH is inherently busted and broken since it basically uses a vintage card pool, if you ban one card, it will be replaced, and wizards will keep increasing the power level of EDH cards. Players want bigger more interesting spells... wizards will print them. Magic is all about doing crazy stuff... copying shahrazad and playing each subgame...... is like inception and I think it actually provides a healthy unique magic experience that no other card does. It doesn't nuke your board, it doesn't win the game, in all seriousness it doesn't do anything other than provoke "trolololololol inception!!! did the top stop spinning?" from other players.
None of these are even remotely similar to Shahrazad. You can't make that kind of comparison. We're not talking exclusively about a power-level ban, but rather that the card was MADE for griefing, and the logistics of resolving it can sometimes become overwhelming. Don't get me wrong, the card is obscenely powerful, but that's not the only reason for banning it.
We've addressed this point. YOU can scoop the subgame, but if anyone else insists on playing it out, you're going to be waiting somewhere between 40 minutes to hours for the sub-game to play out. Unless the entire table agrees to scoop, everyone's going to be waiting around for another game to finish.
This is actually completely false. Look at it from the Shahrazad players' perspective. Ideally, if they cast magister sphinx, they're dealing the equivalent of 30 damage to one player. Ideally, if they resolve Shahrazad and won the subgame, they're dealing 20 damage to THREE players. Instead of crippling one player, you're dealing with all of them at once.
I'll be honest. I'm totally willing to scoop to hard locks, combos, overwhelming board positions and the like. I'm not sure I want to scoop because some guy thinks it's hilarious to bore everyone into submission. If they want to make a million subgames, I'm more than willing to make them play out all the subgames untill 4 AM.
Shahrazad IS a game changer 100% of the time. When every player but one loses half of their life total, that is a BIG deal, and can significantly change the game state. You don't HAVE to copy it multiple times to make it broken. I'm sure that most of us would read a card that said:
WW
Flip a coin. If you win the flip, each opponent loses half their life. If you lose, Every player except target opponent loses half their life.
What? They do totally different things. Again, you can't make that kind of comparison directly. Time Sifter isn't even good, and you can't build a deck to make a game last infinitely long using Timesifter. You're still playing ONE game, which is going to progress at a reaonable, although confusing rate.
Each time a shahrazad resolves, the length of your game increases by at least an hour or so. You certainly can't say that for Timesifter.
Correct on all points except one. Wizards is NEVER going to print another Shahrazad, so what's going to replace it? There are certainly other ways to grief, but if Shahrazad is banned, there will never be another Shahrazad deck.
This attitude is characteristic of someone who hasn't played against a Shahrazad deck. It's really, really funny until you realize just how long the game is going to last. The last time I made someone play out most of their games with Shahrazad, the game lasted 6 hours. And we didn't even make them play out the last 4 subgames, because we were going to kill them in the main game.
The experience is certainly unique, but nowhere near healthy. Should we really allow someone to play a card who's only purpose is trolling the table?
have you seen timesifter wars? where no joke two players keep taking extra turns off each other while everyone gets to sit and watch and get blow out.
this is assuming you win the sub game and everyone loses, it could easily back fire on you.
more like 6 AM... yes i have done it... it was the best game of my life and i was playing against it
once again, it can easily blow you out instead... it's not guaranteed.....
yes I can, with shahrazad everyone gets a turn, with timesifter it usually boils down to the person with the highest curve taking turns over and over again..... that's worse because you're just sitting there.... watching someone trololololol ftw. Not to mention keeping track of the turn orders makes me scoop and hate the designer of that card. I would rather play through 10 subgames then deal with not having a turn for 15 min.
While I agree with you... never say never who knows what will happen in these new commander sets.
short answer yes. if it wasn't for decks that troll the table magic would be less unique and boring. I'm not sure about you but I never remember the "man he beat me down with 908982349790 tokens with beastmaster ascension active" games. I do however remember the "donate immortal coil then get tormod's crypted" games. It's all about the experience... and yes playing subgames until 6 AM is a fine experience. It's different isnt that what magic is about? different decks that do different things? Finally, it's always fun for one person at the table... this can be said for any card in magic minus basic lands.
If someone has a deck specifically designed to troll the board.... don't play with him./her.. no one is forcing you to play them, it's not a tournament, you lose nothing.
I don't want to sound insulting but have you actually read Shahrazad? Last I checked, Shahrazad does not "accelerate you into stupid bombs, cheat stupid bombs into play, blow up the board". It does make the game "generally dumb" though I'd argue that it makes the game "exceptionally dumb"....
I may be exceptionally slow here -- I just came back from refereeing a prerelease -- but if I read Timesifter correctly, EVERYBODY has a nonzero chance of taking an extra turn -- unless you are playing 99mountainAshling.dec, in which case you're probably screwed
I am glad that you liked it. I think it is fine if you run them in your localised playgroup where everybody is fine with that spell. However, as far as the Official Format goes, I feel that Shahrazad should not be legal.
I am going to borrow and edit your quote here.
Yes, Timesifter could likewise backfire... in a very bad way
We'll worry about that later
The end result is generally the same you can accelerate into bombs and win, blow up the board and win, OR make the game dumb. I never said Shahrazad did all those things together ;).
It seems like the general consensus is not banning it for power, but because it's not fun or healthy for EDH. I see no evidence that it warped the format like emrakul did (debatable), so we can't ban it on those merits. It's not like sway of the stars or upheaval, which should stay banned. The life loss isn't even guaranteed, so I don't see a power argument. I would put that card in the knowledge pool, eye of the storm, and timesifter boat. Yeah it costs WW but you're not gonna play it on turn 2 anyway.
There are plenty of spells that prolong the game whether through board whip or taking extra turns.
there are plenty of cards that create unnecessary confusion
I agree that the only people who tend to use it are people who want to abuse it... no disagreements. That can be said for any card and that is perfectly fine and what this game is about... abusing cards.
As far as power level for cost... I am going to disagree. The card doesn't guarantee the life loss so it can easily back fire. Even if you do win the subgame..... the table will probably just kill you in the main game on principle XD. It doesn't scream I win the game people are over valuing its power level. The card basically reads WW start a subgame, you are against 3 opponents, you will lose half your life first.
If you want to make an argument to ban a card that rarely sees play (unlike emrakul back in the day) you can justify it simply through the fact that it is so expensive and rare and therefore not accessible to a large segment of the EDH playerbase. however, that creates a slippery slope issue should jace 2.0 be banned? What about mana drain, or the original duels?
timesifter>shahrazad
shahrazad can make the game unfun for some people, but I have never had a fun game with eye of the storm, timesifter, warp world, or proxied knowledge pools........ Those cards..... they make me want to punch a puppy after playing with them.......
I mean I'm already waiting for the ban calls for blightsteel colossus, or errataing infect to 20.
Part of the reason there is so much disagreement is that there is no consensus on why a card should be banned..... hmmm I will start a thread about it.
Glissa, the Traitor, Ulasht, the Hate Seed, The Mimeoplasm
I encourage you to do the same. Instead of FNM try Friday Night Something Spontaneous. Instead of thousands of hours and dollars on plastic imagine it with a significant other or friends sharing something meaningful. I randomly typed a new password, so bon voyage itches i encourage you to follow suit! Cheers
WU Near-Death Experience (Casual multiplayer)
B Vintage Illegal Discard (When I want to be a jerk)
GW Allies (Casual)
URG Defenders (Crappy Standard)
RWU Affinity (Modern)
RGW Mayael the Anima
B Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief
BG Vhati il-Dal
BR Bladewing the Risen
GU Edric, Spymaster of Trest
WU Bruna, Light of Alabaster
RWU Zedruu the Greathearted
You just take your library from the game you are in, and start a brand new game with that as your library- i'm guessing it works best at a new table. Then after that game, you shuffle up, and bring that library back to the first game, and pick up where you left off - only the people who didn't win lost 1/2 their life.
I am going to quote this: -
I don't see how Shahrazad remotely accelerates or even blows up the board.
You are underestimating the WW casting cost. The low casting cost may not mean that you're going to cast it on Turn 2 but it does mean that you're going to have more than enough available mana to copy it repeatedly.
While it is true that a player will abuse Wall of Wood if able, some cards are just inherently easier to abuse than others and Shahrazad sits in this category.[/QUOTE]
After reading the above, you're not getting anywhere near my puppy.
Shahrazad has a section in the Comprehensive Rules dedicated to it: -
I never said Shahrazad did any of those things. The end result is a player or players not having fun.
What methods of copying are you suggesting? Because the only one off the top of my head is Djinn Illuminatus..... and that's a heavey mana investment giving the board time to stop you.
Then we should ban all the cards I listed since they are just as easy to abuse. Heck time stretch abuses it self.
Here are some important guidelines to ban a card.
1) It warps the format. Nope.
2) It provides too much of an acceleration advantage for it's cost which gives other players an unfair advantage. Nope.
3) It's not fun:
it consistently and effectively prevents players from interacting with the game. Nope unless you count scooping, because i have seen people scoop in response to getting mind slavered or getting attacked by skittles for 4 poison. Everyone still interacts when shahrazad resolves. I don't see a good case for banning. As mentioned before the only reason i see that's reasonable is the price tag.
They scoop against Mindslaver or being hit by Skit because they see there is no way they're going to win the game and there's no point in dragging it out. they scoop against Shaharazad because they don't want the game to last another hour or more. Big difference.
How about...
4) Time constraints - EDH tourneys must have a time limit and Shaharazad makes it virtually impossible to finish the games within any reasonable limit, and that also makes it the perfect tool for someone to stall with.
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
From the mind of Raymond Swanland: Valla, a plane made entirely out of brownish spikes.
Your argument is flawed in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. In fact, after reading your responses, I had to check if I actually slipped into a bizzare subgame.
First of all, you bring up a list of cards and argue that they should be banned before Shahrazad should be banned. After that, you mention that those cards does not exactly do the same thing that any of those cards you mentioned do -- but for some reason, you decided to mention them anyway. Later, you argue that while they don't do the same thing that Shahrazad achieves, they have the same "end results" and therefore they are now magically similar. Seriously?
By your insane troll logic, Black Lotus should be unbanned unless Lotus Bloom, Lotus Vale, Lotus Blossom, Gilded Lotus , etc. are similarly banned. Remember, I never said that they do the same thing as Black Lotus. The end result is, mana is being added into the mana pool.
Reiterate would be one as would Hive Mind, Mirror Sheen, etc. Besides the conventional mode of simply copying the spell, graveyard recursion works too with Mnemonic Wall being one of them. Note that copying it once is usually sufficient to prolong the game significantly. My point here is straightforward. You are more likely able to play multiple copy effects on a spell that costs 2 mana than a spell that costs, say, 5 mana.
I actually took a second look at your list and again, did you even read what you're typing? Lets look at some of the cards you compared to Shahrazad and some of the cards that you said were "just as easy to abuse": -
Yes, I know you listed a lot more but these stood out like a sore thumb. Seriously, comparing Lethal Vapors with Shahrazad in a format where players start with FORTY LIFE is like comparing a pickpocket with Hitler.
I am assuming that you came up with the comprehensive and exhaustive list of card banning criteria after extensive research on why cards get banned. I mean, you didn't spontaneously come up with this list, right? If so, would you be so kind as to provide me with the source?
I don't understand why are you bringing up the "price tag" issue Nobody actually said that Shahrazad should be banned because it costs about USD35. I can name way more expensive cards that are way more common in the format.
except lotus fails criteria #2 for providing unfair acceleration where as the other examples have a cost associated with that acceleration.
I got a few of those cards from Sheldon's top 25 cards he hates or something like that I just googled it. The rest are cards I have seen cause others to invoke the wahahahambulance
1) Knowledge pool is not fun and makes the game confusing with multiple spells on the stack. That's not fun.
2) Thawing glaciers becomes time consuming end of turn. drags the game out.
3) Lethal vapors turns games into just play lands and non creatures spells. It drags the game out because no one wants to sac a turn. There is also no motivation to use removal on it unless you are going to win because there are better targets XD.
4) If i was given a penny every time I heard a magic player get butt hurt over tapping out and getting countered and then yelling at me for playing blue, I would be a very wealth individual.
you say shahrazad isn't fun, it drags the game out, and is confusing. Well so are the cards listed above. In fact every card I listed covers one of those criteria. Every board wipe spell prolongs the game. Obliterate is basically a 10 mana reset the game spell that can't be stopped.
Except I actually believe that mana crypt and the classic duel lands should be banned from EDH. However price isn't the only reason for that ban.
I took a look at the EDH banlist and picked a few:
1) emrakul (which i don't agree with but who cares) "warped the format and wasn't fun"
that hits criteria #1 and #3
2) Metal worker, see criteria #2
3) Coalition victory, criteria #3 unless someone has a counter
4) Limited resources, Criteria #3
5) channel, Criteria #2
6) Tolarian Academy, Criteria #2, #3, and maybe #1 depending on how it's used
almost everyone of the banned cards follow one or all of those criteria. The only ones that do not however are cards that enable degenerate combos (why is mind over matter or palinchron not there? idk) or price (see power 9). Also during banlist discussions, the three criteria are the most common arguments used.
If you can prove to me that shahrazad violates anyone of those criteria, I will agree with you. I may be wrong or have missed something.
Otherwise it sounds like you (along with a few others) had a bad experience with the card and are butt hurt about it. (that was not meant to be insulting). You need to understand where the opposing party is coming from, we get tired of hearing "omg you played time stretch!!! that should be banned," "mindslaver? I scoop," "Wow.... way to ruin the game and play sundering titan... that should be banned," and finally my personal favorite "only a (insert mean word here) would play counterspells in EDH." The shahrazad argument sounds pretty much the same
On a side note: holy batman hive mind is stupid! Although one can argue that hive mind itself is only used for degenerate combos and deserves a ban.
No... look, you've got to quit comparing 'zad to things like counterspells. The complaints about the two are nowhere near the same. There is a HUGE difference between a counterspell or a mindslaver lock to win the game and dragging the game out for an extra hour with 'zad. Surely you can see the difference, right?
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
I mean i haven't, but i thank the lord of magic every day i have yet to run into a deck like that. Nothing remotely annoying can touch shahrazad.
#1. "Shahrazad basically says, 'WW: Each other player loses half his or her life.*' Overpowered? Yes. Ban it."
#2. "Shahrazad basically says, 'WW: Each other player loses half his or her life.*' Overpowered? Yes. BUT. Some other cards do basically say, 'Pay cost: You win' if you're playing the right deck. Keep it in."
There's also the matter of fun factor. This is a matter of personal taste. What you find fun, I may not. I think that this card should not be on the actual banned list of the format simply for this. It doesn't warp the format, it's not seriously unfair, and fun factor will vary. I think this should be left up to the play group, but that it should typically be the first rule to look at. Maybe it should also have a special rules adjustment attached to it like "Shahrazad can't be copied" or something to that effect. Maybe also have players who have it in their deck announce so before the game begins
so we know who the biggest asshat in the group is.Yeah, this is really, really hard to come up with anything conclusive for it, but I probably wouldn't play it, so as to avoid getting FALCON PAUNCH'd by an entire playgroup.
*Note: This statement is made under the assumption that, nine times out of ten, everyone will mini-scoop from the subgame.
Yes I have and he lost 2 of of the 3 sub games because the table just killed him. 1st game lasted 20 min, second game lasted 15 min, and the last game everyone just scooped and gave him the win and proceeded to kill him in the main game.
I really don't. At least with zad I can actually play spells and do stuff, I can't do that in a mindslaver lock. It's not fun watching the turn order go out of wack and trying to keep track of that with time sifter, and it really isn't fun having a genesis wave for 45 getting forced. At the end of the day it's all about having fun and I don't see how you can consider banning zad when there are other cards that are bigger interactivity killers.
This entire criteria thing along with your fervent belief that the dual lands should be banned convinces me that you have little -- if any idea -- on how the ban list is constructed.
First of all, proving that your criterias are valid just because every card on the ban list fits one of the criteria does not prove anything. Lets try convincing you with a simple example. Lets say, I come up with my own set of criteria.
Now, lets test my theory.
....
Turns out that all cards that are banned have mana symbols in it! Huh? I guess my criteria is valid
Secondly, if it interests you, there are a set of criterias which the RC use but no, the RC makes no claim that the criterias are exhaustive and without caveats.
Before you start leaping up and pointing towards criteria 2, let me bring you towards Sheldon Menery's article: -
Okay, this entire thing is starting to look like trolling. Arguing with that kind of logic is like going against Thrun -- except that your argument regenerates to logic. Your failure to see the differences between a card that says "Counter target spell" and "Start a new subgame" is really beyond me. Calling Force of Will an "interactivity killer" is just bizzare. I am sure that even the posters who believed that Shahrazad shouldn't be banned would squirm uncomfortably at your logic.
I'm enacting the "hitler rule" here. If you ever mention hitler in trying to explain a point, you automatically lose the fight, even if you have it linking to Godwin's Law.
Shahrazad Stays Legal. Its official. End of Argument.
10.) No taxing cards.
If i wanted to pay 1 more on my Fresh Volunteers, then id just have played Pearled Unicorn.
....So zad not only fails my criteria it fails the RC criteria. It fails #1, #2, and #3.... hence it should not be banned. Regarding #1 I don't believe it really has a higher power lever. The card does not read "opponents lose half their life"
it reads "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."
That means the player who just casted zad has to win a game vs three other players who will probably focus and kill the original caster during every subgame. If the caster can't do that it basically reads "WW pay half your life, pick an opponent at random, each other opponent loses half their life."
So in reality zad reads "pay WW and 20 life"
Signature courtesy of Rivenor and Miraculous Recovery
EDH Altered Cards by Galspanic (Seriously, this guy's awesome.)
My Pauper Cube
Tapped-Out Simulator
My Trade Thread
-Decks-
Commander:
GWR Rith, the Awakener RWG
U Kami of the Crescent Moon U (Flagship Deck)
BW Teysa, Orzhov Scion WB
Under Construction:
UBR Crosis, the Purger RBU
Cube:
WUBRGX Pauper XGRBUW
So you admit there's no legitimate reason to play it other than to grief the table or stall?
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