For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
I think people see a lack of consistency = a lack of creditability. And when people don't find something creditable they are more likely to dismiss or ignore it.
]It just doesn't look good, and it makes people raise questions about how you guys do your analysis of the ban list. And when people begin to doubt, the fearmongers can take hold and spread hysteria.
With consistancy, people can expect "well since.... is banned, then most likely..... will be banned as well". While this may not be optimal, it does give people a sense of how you think.
So with consistancy, people know what to expect
without it, people will think you choose your cards like this
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
Honestly Sheldon?
There is no worst-case-scenario since it is not a "sanctioned" format.
The "worst" thing I can think of is basically what happens rights now:
You (The RC) have our thanks for the format...just not our respect.
This is, assuming, that things simply stay as they are...start adding ridiculous, irrelevant cards or start banning every 2/3 card combo and no one will bother even checking Commander.net. So I guess that's the worst case scenario? Not having any say beyond The RC?
I think inconsistent/consistent is the wrong word. Everybody is going to have disagreements about the banned list.
But when a new-ish player approaches the format and they look at a banned list without a clear criteria on what is banned or not banned, it raises some questions. If that's the WORST case scenario, you're right. It's not too big of a deal.
If you've read the list then it should have been made perfectly clear that people aren't insisting that their own ideals are what should direct the banned list. Instead, they are arguing that the current banned list is completely inconsistent, and is more a random list of arbitrarily chosen cards than anything else.
Based on the reasons for individual bannings, we can construct classes of cards that meet all of the given criteria, and thus should be banned by the same logic, but are not. That is the problem. Some examples:
Creatures that "overcentralize" the game:
Kokusho, Emrakul, Primeval Titan, Consecrated Sphinx, Blightsteel Colossus, the other Eldrazi, Sundering Titan, Arguments can be made for other cards
Degenerate Reset Buttons:
Sway the Stars, Upheaval, Obliterate, Decree of Annihilation, Jokulhaups
Degenerate Mana Acceleration:
Metalworker, The Moxen, Tolarian Academy, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault
Life Setting Effects (based on the alternate argument for the banning of Sway the Stars):
Sway the Stars, Sorin Markov, Magister Sphinx
One Card Combos:
Protean Hulk, Tooth and Nail, Hermit Druid, Survival of the Fittest
Two Card Combos:
Fastbond, Panoptic Mirror, Staff of Domination, Lion's Eye Diamond, Painter's Servant, Wolrdgorger Dragon, a million billion things that aren't banned.
Cards that are clearly far too powerful for their cost:
Ancestral Recall, Balance, Black Lotus, Balance, Channel, Recurring Nightmare, Time Walk, Time Vault, Tinker, Yawgmoth's Bargain, Demonic Tutor, Sol Ring, Skullclamp, Bribery, Earthcraft, Mana Drain, Timetwister, Arguments can be made for a lot of other cards
Cards that just plain end games:
Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, Tooth and Nail, Time Stretch, plenty of other cards
Cards that eliminate mana bases:
Limited Resources, Armageddon, Ravages of War, many other cards
Honestly, I'm not sure why Karakas is even banned. Because it is a repeatable answer to generals? Is that really sufficient?
Some of these cases are stronger than others, but many of these are very clearly legitimate (such as Sol Ring being more powerful than any individual moxen in EDH). There are two solutions to this inconsistency. Eliminate the banned list (because EDH is not a competative format, and the banned list in inherently unnecessary), or for each class ban the rest of the cards meeting the critera or eliminate that class (in order to make the banned list consistent). The RC can also just go "Neener-neener! It's our banned list and there ain't nothing you can do about it! We have our logical inconsistencies and you'll just have to deal with it as you inevitably play in untrusted environments!", which is what they have been doing.
Now drawing the line as to what exactly is too powerful will necessarily look to competative EDH play. There is no other way to determine card power in an unbiased way. So if you want the EDH banned list to be consistent and completely disjoint from competative EDH, the only option is to eliminate the banned list.
From this post, some have generated the "Tip of the Iceburg Theory." If you ban the most degenerate card/combo of each scenario, I see some kind of consistency there. If you look at it without considering this "Tip of the Iceburg Theory" there is absolutely no consistency what so ever, since all these cards are not banned. If this "Tip of the Iceburg Theory" is true I believe with each new set of power creep there needs to be a "reevaluation" of what's at the top of each scenario.
1. We make EDH competitive and make the banlist consistant
2. we keep it casual and have inconsistancies, which leads to more debate and less play
3. This is for a third option that i might of not thought of.
option 3 is probably where edh will go, we just need people to come up with genuine ideas that please as many people as possible without angering a lot of people......which while it may be possible, a lot of people wont like.
Then again, even though a lot of us strive to be right, we all must compromise.
I want Kokusho unbannned..........A LOT........but, if they tested it and it still was a nuisance, i will compromise with them (RC), to at least try it again after 4-6 months.
It's just really frustrating when certain cards that are degenerate as HECK (hermit druid) aren't banned, yet a silly card is. It's disappointing. Giving us an infinite combo with WGD yet leaving kukosho is a slap in the face. That dragon is certainly the lesser of 60 evils.
I think it's insulting to the community, and makes people lose respect for the RC. With that comes a divide in the community.
Again as other people have stated - if the aim for the banlist is to protect casual play, yet casual play can make their own rules.. what's the list for? For random encounters at LGS? I don't understand how he could be more problematic than say.. Magister Sphinx. I personally don't have a problem with that card, but i've seen so many arguments and discussions about him and sorin that i can't even remember. I doubt i would say the same for koko.
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
I think people see a lack of consistency = a lack of creditability. And when people don't find something creditable they are more likely to dismiss or ignore it.
This is exactly the point. EDH is popular enough that players need a central, official list so that people from different groups can play under the same rules. This is the reason the original Magic: The Gathering set implemented the oracle text, the rules manager and by extension the DCI. Garfield's original vision was that people would handle Magic ruling questions the same way they handled other board game rulings-- house rules would decide. Except Magic was way more portable, and people needed a common standard when they met together at conventions, tournaments, and shops. So they went with a single standard.
That's exactly what EDH has become. It's gone from being the game judges play with each other after hours at a grand prix to the single most popular casual format, with tens of thousands of players.
More than anything, the commander precon decks show that EDH is hugely popular! That's great! But "ban it in your play group" is no longer an acceptable answer for such a popular format. We need a single, consistent ban list.
I've been thinking about the purpose of the ban list, and while I feel like the format would be better from a game balance perspective if overpowered cards like Sol Ring were banned, I understand they make the format better by increasing popularity. The real question of whether a card should be banned is whether banning it will increase the total number of players. People would quit if Sol Ring were banned. People would quit if moxes were unbanned. That's why Sol Ring is legal and moxes aren't, despite Sol Ring being a significantly stronger card.
From that perspective, the consistency people are looking for is one that maximizes the chance they'll have people to play with. No one would quit the game if Kokusho were legal, but his presence on the ban list (despite not actually being a very good card anymore) makes people lose faith in the RC, which in turn encourages them to invest time in other formats and even games. I'd rather that not happen.
Contrast this with the question of whether Hermit Druid should be banned. The Hermit Druid deck is unquestionably stupid, broken, and overpowered. But I haven't built it because I wouldn't have any fun playing it, and I know anyone else my circle of 20+ EDH players that wants to play it. But there are lots of casual decks that aren't abusing the druid, and their owners might get really unhappy if they can no longer use the Druid. Banning Hermit Druid would result in a net loss in players, so it remains unrestricted. If lots of people start abusing Hermit Druid (and causing others to quit), the decision can be revisited.
That's fundamentally what it means for the format to be "casual". It means "tournament viability doesn't impact our ban decisions". But you have to have some other metric, and that metric is whether banning or unbanning a card causes more people to play than before. From this perspective, it makes total sense to look at the percentage of play groups that would use a card but not abuse it versus those that abuse it.
At least, that's the ideal. People lose faith when they see bans that clearly conflict with this ideal.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
It's just really frustrating when certain cards that are degenerate as HECK (hermit druid) aren't banned, yet a silly card is. It's disappointing. Giving us an infinite combo with WGD yet leaving kukosho is a slap in the face. That dragon is certainly the lesser of 60 evils.
I agree strongly with this. At this point there are so many other creatures that people would rather steal/reanimate then Kukosho. Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan and Consecrated Sphinx being the number 1 and 2. Both of these offer far more advantage and likely game endingly so then a few cycles of Kukosho which does not even affect the game/board state. Hell give him the Roff treatment and make him banned as a general. People play with exile and GY hate effects more then enough to make it a non issue.
This is exactly the point. EDH is popular enough that players need a central, official list so that people from different groups can play under the same rules. This is the reason the original Magic: The Gathering set implemented the oracle text, the rules manager and by extension the DCI. Garfield's original vision was that people would handle Magic ruling questions the same way they handled other board game rulings-- house rules would decide. Except Magic was way more portable, and people needed a common standard when they met together at conventions, tournaments, and shops. So they went with a single standard.
That's exactly what EDH has become. It's gone from being the game judges play with each other after hours at a grand prix to the single most popular casual format, with tens of thousands of players.
More than anything, the commander precon decks show that EDH is hugely popular! That's great! But "ban it in your play group" is no longer an acceptable answer for such a popular format. We need a single, consistent ban list.
I've been thinking about the purpose of the ban list, and while I feel like the format would be better from a game balance perspective if overpowered cards like Sol Ring were banned, I understand they make the format better by increasing popularity. The real question of whether a card should be banned is whether banning it will increase the total number of players. People would quit if Sol Ring were banned. People would quit if moxes were unbanned. That's why Sol Ring is legal and moxes aren't, despite Sol Ring being a significantly stronger card.
From that perspective, the consistency people are looking for is one that maximizes the chance they'll have people to play with. No one would quit the game if Kokusho were legal, but his presence on the ban list (despite not actually being a very good card anymore) makes people lose faith in the RC, which in turn encourages them to invest time in other formats and even games. I'd rather that not happen.
Contrast this with the question of whether Hermit Druid should be banned. The Hermit Druid deck is unquestionably stupid, broken, and overpowered. But I haven't built it because I wouldn't have any fun playing it, and I know anyone else my circle of 20+ EDH players that wants to play it. But there are lots of casual decks that aren't abusing the druid, and their owners might get really unhappy if they can no longer use the Druid. Banning Hermit Druid would result in a net loss in players, so it remains unrestricted. If lots of people start abusing Hermit Druid (and causing others to quit), the decision can be revisited.
That's fundamentally what it means for the format to be "casual". It means "tournament viability doesn't impact our ban decisions". But you have to have some other metric, and that metric is whether banning or unbanning a card causes more people to play than before. From this perspective, it makes total sense to look at the percentage of play groups that would use a card but not abuse it versus those that abuse it.
At least, that's the ideal. People lose faith when they see bans that clearly conflict with this ideal.
^Agreed
Tedv, you always write very very decent posts, but this is perfect.
although, the bolded part would be hard to do. There are 1000's of playgroups out there
^Agreed
Tedv, you always write very very decent posts, but this is perfect.
although, the bolded part would be hard to do. There are 1000's of playgroups out there
I hear WotC runs focus groups! They might have an idea what your kitchen table EDH group likes and doesn't. And one member of the RC works at EDH. The RC has access to a bit more player base information than you'd think.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I thought that some of the more intelligent discussion might prompt something like this. Honestly, Sheldon, I'm glad you weren't dissuaded from posting by the onslaught on posters here that contributed nothing but over-emotional insults. I appreciate that.
There isn't a worst-case scenario that can develop here; it's not about that. It is about which cards we can play, and which cards we can't play. From reading your articles, I know you have a firm grasp on different kinds of players that play EDH. Some people like certain kinds of decks, and other people like others. The same can be said of cards.
By banning one card for a certain reason, but not a similar card for the same reason, you create inconsistency. Take the Kokusho vs. Primeval Titan example. If you're the player who likes Primeval Titan, you get to play it, because it's not on the list. Titan comes into play, grabs (Gaea's Cradle+Deserted Temple/Urborg+Coffers), and ramps you up to a ton of mana. You win the game in short order due to overwhelming card advantage.
Now the player who likes Kokusho can't play it, because it's on the list. Even if they had the same intention (get Kokusho out, recur Kokusho) to win the game via overwhelming life advantage, they can't. The cards both are over-centralizing creatures, they both have equal abilities (arguably P.Titan is stronger), but one is on the banned list, and the other isn't. The player who likes Kokusho sees someone play a card like the Titan, and wonders why they can't play the strategy they want to play with, while the other player can.
You might counterpoint this by saying "but the banned list is only suggestive, play what you want if your group is okay with it". That's great for me, because I have a group, and it's great for you, because you have one too. It's not great for the player who really wants to play a card they like, but can't, because he or she only plays at a local shop with randoms every week. Randoms adhere to the banlist, and it's a lot of trouble to convince everyone you play with to let you skirt around the rules because you happen to like a card like Kokusho, but not Primeval Titan.
To sum up my reasoning here, it's about having a banlist that is clearly defined. If a card is on a banned list because it's creates a combo that wins the game on the spot, then any similar card that would win on the spot in a similar manner should also be banned, or unbanned. The same can be said of creatures of similar power levels. Most people would suggest that cards be unbanned instead of banned (hence the outcries for Kokusho), but ultimately, the decision rests with you and the other members of the RC. Create consistency, and you get more players and evolve the format. Retain inconsistency, and you risk losing them, and stagnating it.
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario?
I feel like answering this question since it hasn't been answered yet.
The worst-cast scenario that I see of keeping a "consistent ban list" is that the ban list would likely be very, very long. There are a huge number of degenerate cards and interactions available right now in the format that aren't banned. i.e., it is extremely easy to win off of one card combos like Hermit Druid and Survival of the Fittest. It's not just Protean Hulk that's solely to blame. On a different tangent, it is much easier to abuse creatures like Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx for much greater gains than Kokusho.
Large ban lists can kill a format. That's exactly what happened with 5 color. The ban list insured that anything even remotely degenerate or broken was banned, but the ban list was the size of Texas, and that was a big reason why that format tanked and died. That's part of the reason why I think you guys are going in the right direction by shrinking the ban list instead of expanding it. I just think stuff like Kokusho can safely come off while further shrinking the ban list at the same time
As far as I am concerned any ban list is going to end up having some sort of inconsistency. Magic is not a game of even power levels and banning (or unbanning) certain cards has an effect on the power level of other cards. If you ban Emrakul, the Aeons Torn then Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre becomes more powerful in comparison, and figuring out what cards really make a game degenerate and annoying is entirely a subjective quality. Do you go by what turn the deck usually wins on? What about multiplayer vs. one-on-one? How about how "interactive" the deck is (or not)?
This is a casual format, and inevitably there will be people who aim to build highly competitive or downright annoying decks. It makes sense to ban cards selectively, but as far as I am concerned, it's a casual format, with an optional ban list that just is built to make the game more fun. As long as you're not playing to abuse that system it's not a big deal. But recommending certain cards for banning makes sense. It smooths the game, and makes the format healthier in the long run.
There's always going to be arguments from both sides, but ultimately banning is a subjective and sometimes flawed method that does its best to keep things fun and fair.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that cards of similar power-levels need to be either banned or unbanned collectively. It is in the interest of shortening the banned list, because we all know a shorter banned list makes for a better format. So we ban the worst offenders (the one-cards, like Hulk), and regulate the rest.
Take Painter's Servant, for example. The logic behind banning Servant was because there might be a card printed down the road (or many) that would be abusable by the Servant, so it was banned instead of Iona or Grindstone. However, everyone knows that Painter's Servant also had many good interactions as well. How is having that particular two card combo in the format (Painter+Iona, or +Grindstone) any different than Kiki-Jiki+Pestermite, Niv-Mizzet+Curiosity, or Azami+Mind Over Matter? All these are examples of two-card combos that win the game outright, but are equally (and rather easily) disrupted, like Painter's Servant. What makes Painter's Servant any different, or any worse? If any of those cards are assembled, the game is over, but unlike Hulk, Painter can't win the game on its own. It doesn't matter how many cards are printed in the future that could be abused by Servant, it will still need a two-card combo to win the game, like the others above, and many other cards.
This is inconsistency, and I guarantee there are plenty of players who are wondering why everyone else gets to have some game-ending fun with their favorite two-card combo, but they don't get to. This only hurts the format. Keep the worst offenders off, but keep the rest of the list consistent.
I find the ban list inconsistency in that it focuses strictly on a "social contract" when the format it self is creeping toward "official format", thus it can't have the cake and eat it too.
My assumption is that the cards considered for banning/unbanning are based on its degeneracy and/or combo potential. In these cases, I believe bannings should be based on context, such as where the cards are used and how easily it is to assemble.
Example:Painter's Servant, while capable of being fun, is mainly used for grindstone or Iona lockdowns. It's accessible to any color; in addition, blue, black and white can easily tutor up artifacts.
Worldgorger Dragon was mainly used for infinite mana, but the combo existed only alongside black for Animate Dead type effects. However, the deck not only needs to somehow put the Dragon in the graveyard and have Animate dead, but it also needs a large mana sink. IMO this takes a while to assemble and protect, as instant speed removal means gg for the combo-er.
Now let's look at Kokusho: it is a 6 mana exsanguinate for 5 when it hits the graveyard. So someone, probably you, has to kill it, but to really abuse it, you need a sac outlet. Then, you need a way to recur it: Sheoldred, Gleancrawler, Phyrexian Reclamation, Eternal Witness, etc. It's not too difficult to recur, but the mana investment involved is 8+ at least and to do it multiple times in a single turn requires a massive amount of mana. Also, since the main offender, Recurring Nightmare where the cost is CMC 3 and a creature, is banned, Kokusho's power drops tremendously.
On the other hand, Primeval Titan is basically a 1 card combo, fetching the best lands for whatever degenerate mana production. It is also in green, the best color for creature tutors. However, I find any Prime Time action acceptable in EDH, as well as TnN.
In terms of combo, I find Hermit Druid problematic. Only played in 5 CC, it is extremely easy to tutor for and win by turn 2-3. When Hermit Druid becomes the general of a deck, there is a problem with that. Even for Palinchron/Future Sight combos, the deck almost requires you to be mono-blue. Additionally, creatures and enchantments are difficult to tutor in blue. HermitDruid.dec gives you black and greens tutors and easy instawins.
I understand the RC tests many of these cards extensively, but it is still mostly within your guys' environment/playgroups (I assume). In the MTGS community, there is a large sample to take data from. I feel that people, me included, would accept and welcome these ban lists if there was more input from the community. To that end, I feel that a proactive ban/unban testings would be very healthy for the list, such as Rofellos's treatment for certain cards. If that card clearly become too powerful or degenerate, the community would immediately clamor for its rebanning. I don't know how much work that would be on the RC's end, but on MTGS, we can simply put a sticky for certain cards that are up for banning/unbanning and post results there. It might seem to take a bit away from EDH being "casual" but I think that overall, it would make the format that much healthier.
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
I think the better question is, why is the Rules Committee not worried about its credibility amongst the player base? Do you truly not care what a large portion of us think? I'm not trying to attack you Sheldon, but I will be honest with you: Sometimes you do come across as though you (1) don't care what we think or (2) think we don't know what we're talking about. I don't believe you mean to, but that is how your tone is interpreted at times (at least by me).
The "danger" comes when the Rules Committee no longer has the respect of the player base and therefore becomes illegitimate. EDH thrives because it's fun, but you cannot discount the importance of the central direction the Rules Committee provides. Being able to walk into any store, any GP, PTQ, whatever and being able to sit down and play EDH cannot happen without central direction from the Rules Committee. When people become unhappy with an entity they regard as illegitimate they either ignore it or overthrow it. The Rules Committee may very well know what is best for the game, but in the long run if too many people deem it illegitimate it may simply be replaced by another governing body that may or may not know what is best. The existence of the French and MTGS 1v1 banned list should be all the evidence you need that when the people see a void that the rules committee can't or won't fix, they will fix it themselves.
That is the danger.
I think tedv has the right idea for a banlist philosophy. If the Rules Committee isn't going to deviate from its current metric, I think the Rules Committee could solve this entire issue by explaining in clear terms why Kokusho is still banned, or why is Sway of the Stars is banned but Obliterate isn't? And I don't mean a few sentences either. These explanations should be essay length. I personally want to see a side by side comparison of Kokusho and Worldgorger Dragon, Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx and why each of these cards is less dangerous than Kokusho. Give us specific examples. Ditto for Sway of the Stars and Obliterate. What Makes Sway of the Stars so much more offensive than Obliterate? Give us detailed examples and sound logic.
Biomechanika raises another solid example of the inconsistency under the current metric. And frankly, if Painter's Servant is the bigger offender here, that's fine. Tell us why, in detail. Juxtapose it against Kiki-Jiki and Pestermite or Azami and Mind over Matter. Tell us exactly why these are okay and Painter's Servant isn't okay. We don't have to agree with your logic, we only have to understand it. Right now, a lot of people don't agree nor understand -- and that's the killer.
FWIW, I do greatly appreciate the efforts of the RC. I don't think anyone here would disagree that we greatly appreciate what you do for this beloved format. We get so frustrated and outspoken because we care so much for this format and don't want to see anything "bad" happen to it.
That's my 2¢; thanks for listening.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
I think that trying to aim for consistency will result in a loss of interest in the majority of casual players. I know that if I found out that there were 150 cards I wasn't allowed to build with I would've just skipped the format and kept playing standard. The short banlist makes things easy to keep track of and lets "competitive" casual (players like me) build decks secure in the knowledge that I won't be horribly trampled in a game with friends.
If it is inconsistent, then it's for the best. An inconsistent banlist is better than a horribly restrictive banlist which cuts down on every single degenerate combo. Small means more accessible and there are still plenty of spike-esque plays available for the much more competitive minded.
I think tedv has the right idea for a banlist philosophy. If the Rules Committee isn't going to deviate from its current metric, I think the Rules Committee could solve this entire issue by explaining in clear terms why Kokusho is still banned, or why is Sway of the Stars is banned but Obliterate isn't? And I don't mean a few sentences either. These explanations should be essay length. I personally want to see a side by side comparison of Kokusho and Worldgorger Dragon, Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx and why each of these cards is less dangerous than Kokusho. Give us specific examples. Ditto for Sway of the Stars and Obliterate. What Makes Sway of the Stars so much more offensive than Obliterate? Give us detailed examples and sound logic.
Biomechanika raises another solid example of the inconsistency under the current metric. And frankly, if Painter's Servant is the bigger offender here, that's fine. Tell us why, in detail. Juxtapose it against Kiki-Jiki and Pestermite or Azami and Mind over Matter. Tell us exactly why these are okay and Painter's Servant isn't okay. We don't have to agree with your logic, we only have to understand it. Right now, a lot of people don't agree nor understand -- and that's the killer.
I would enjoy seeing something like this, even though it requires a lot of time and effort by the RC, and will still attract people complaining about it. I would also like to suggest that once a card is explained/reviewed, the issue is closed for a set period of time (six months? A year?) before players can ask for a review.
Inconsistencies in the banlist are evidence of mistakes. Recognizing these leads to easy improvements.
You have a vision for the format that guides your decisions on what ought to be banned. If you express this vision clearly, you should be able to state a few simple rules that lead to the banning of a card, such as "Fast mana", "Auto-includes that are out of price-range", "Automatic game-enders / game-resets / locks". If you can't enumerate these kinds of rules, then you have not defined your vision clearly.
If two cards both qualify for a category of banning, and only the tamer one is banned, then you have provably made the worse decision for implementing your vision. It is low-hanging fruit for improving the banlist.
Here's an example: Panoptic Mirror is banned, but Mind Over Matter is not. This is inconsistent, because Mind Over Matter is a much, much stronger combo piece. Panoptic Mirror combos with Time Warp or Savor the Moment to win after a turn cycle, while Mind Over Matter combos with Azami or Niv or Temple Bell to win on the spot.
I don't care how many games you played that were ruined by Panoptic Mirror, I guarantee you that Mind Over Matter ruins more. This is an easy fix: ban Mind Over Matter and unban Panoptic Mirror. Afterward, you can ban both or unban both, but that is a harder decision. This one is an easy improvement, and we know this because of the inconsistency in the banlist.
This is a great discussion, but I have something to add. If you take away cards like Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx, I think it will be the more casual players that suffer, because despite the power level of those cards, most players run them for their great utility, not their game-ending potential. This is simply because most players, such as myself, don't have the card base to do all the broken shenanigans they enable. Banning those two in particular I believe would hurt the format, because for the average player like me, doing so would make it less fun. If you're going to look at cards make the format less fun, I think you should be looking at the prison combo type cards such as Arcum Dagsson and Zur, cards that do things that just slow the game down to a crawl and make it so other players can't do anything. It's Commander ffs, you're supposed to feel powerful, but I don't think the format should encourage decks that make others feel helpless.
Maybe that's my inner Timmy speaking, but that's how I feel, anyway.
For argument's sake, let's assume that I agree with some peoples' arguments about the Banned List's "inconsistency."
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
In my opinion, the inconsistencies with the ban list are not the biggest issue. The issue is how the format is being promoted. It doesn't matter how consistent your list is, if nobody follows it. Arbitrary rules (read: random rules from playgroup to playgroup) don't help the health of the format. It only divides the player base. You need to take a look at the foundation of the format and work your way up.
If it is inconsistent, then it's for the best. An inconsistent banlist is better than a horribly restrictive banlist which cuts down on every single degenerate combo. Small means more accessible and there are still plenty of spike-esque plays available for the much more competitive minded.
Having a consistent list doesn't mean the list has to be larger.
I think people see a lack of consistency = a lack of creditability. And when people don't find something creditable they are more likely to dismiss or ignore it.
An excellent first response. Nice.
Once you have people questioning the legitimacy of your results and the logic behind them, you accept the serious risk that they will abandon your guidance not unlike a rebellious teenager abandons their parents for the same reason. Hence, the French and MTGS 1v1 lists.
I don't think an essay-length item-by-item explanation of each banning is necessary though. Just keep doing your guys' job as you have been so far. Re-evaulate the offenders (Hermit Druid is getting a little ridiculous, don't you guys think?), put some guys out on parole for your image's sake (WGD, perhaps Kokusho get out on good behavior), and just be alive and active in the community so as many of us as possible continue to take you seriously. And honestly, what's wrong with a little ebb and flow? We went through periods with Rofellos and survived, right?
The worst case scenario isn't what you guys ban, but how much people care about what you ban.
I'd also like to add that this particular discussion has started off about a thousand times better than the last one we just had. I hope we can continue to have this important discussion with the civility and class I have seen so far.
I really appreciate you starting this thread; it's great to see you taking these concerns seriously. I've tried to think carefully about your post, and here's my take on it. I am going to use a somewhat extreme example, but it illustrates where my concerns are coming from.
Imagine a scenario in which the legacy banlist is expanded tomorrow to include just one more card: Gray Ogre. What's the problem with this? The immediate impact on the format would be absolutely zero. No legacy deck plays Gray Ogre, and no legacy deck ever will. This is just a "harmless" inconsistency. However, you'd see a lot of subsidiary problems:
1. Players' confidence in the DCI would deteriorate because there is no rationale behind this choice that is consistent with the rest of the banlist.
2. Players' confidence in the health of the format deteriorates. The meta in which this card should be banned doesn't reflect the meta as it currently exists, and it shows that real world testing and play statistics weren't considered.
3. Players ask themselves "what's next?" and are more reluctant to commit money and time to this format in case another unpredictable banning occurs.
4. In eternal formats especially, players like longer-term consistency and a small banlist because it's fun to be able to play with more cards. Why foreclose a choice that doesn't really need to be foreclosed?
Frankly, I don't really care about consistency. Keeping a short banlist means either we have inconsistency or we have nothing banned.
I strongly disagree. Consistency simply means having a predictable and rational philosophy for the banlist. That can be accomplished by shrinking the list as well. The big problem right now is that a few cards on the list are widely considered to be objectively weaker than certain cards not on the list. I think the answer is to not ban the weak cards (like koko), as opposed to banning the better ones that aren't broken (like Primeval Titan or Consecrated Sphinx or Exsanguinate).
Without trying to be glib--I'm seriously not trying to feed the trolls here--what's the worst case scenario? What's the upshot (or downside, I guess) of things being "inconsistent?" What's the danger point for the format?
I think people see a lack of consistency = a lack of creditability. And when people don't find something creditable they are more likely to dismiss or ignore it.
With consistancy, people can expect "well since.... is banned, then most likely..... will be banned as well". While this may not be optimal, it does give people a sense of how you think.
So with consistancy, people know what to expect
without it, people will think you choose your cards like this
Image leeching warning issued, image replaced. -viper
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyHonestly Sheldon?
There is no worst-case-scenario since it is not a "sanctioned" format.
The "worst" thing I can think of is basically what happens rights now:
You (The RC) have our thanks for the format...just not our respect.
This is, assuming, that things simply stay as they are...start adding ridiculous, irrelevant cards or start banning every 2/3 card combo and no one will bother even checking Commander.net. So I guess that's the worst case scenario? Not having any say beyond The RC?
It isn't actually that big a deal.
But when a new-ish player approaches the format and they look at a banned list without a clear criteria on what is banned or not banned, it raises some questions. If that's the WORST case scenario, you're right. It's not too big of a deal.
From this post, some have generated the "Tip of the Iceburg Theory." If you ban the most degenerate card/combo of each scenario, I see some kind of consistency there. If you look at it without considering this "Tip of the Iceburg Theory" there is absolutely no consistency what so ever, since all these cards are not banned. If this "Tip of the Iceburg Theory" is true I believe with each new set of power creep there needs to be a "reevaluation" of what's at the top of each scenario.
1. We make EDH competitive and make the banlist consistant
2. we keep it casual and have inconsistancies, which leads to more debate and less play
3. This is for a third option that i might of not thought of.
option 3 is probably where edh will go, we just need people to come up with genuine ideas that please as many people as possible without angering a lot of people......which while it may be possible, a lot of people wont like.
Then again, even though a lot of us strive to be right, we all must compromise.
I want Kokusho unbannned..........A LOT........but, if they tested it and it still was a nuisance, i will compromise with them (RC), to at least try it again after 4-6 months.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyI think it's insulting to the community, and makes people lose respect for the RC. With that comes a divide in the community.
Again as other people have stated - if the aim for the banlist is to protect casual play, yet casual play can make their own rules.. what's the list for? For random encounters at LGS? I don't understand how he could be more problematic than say.. Magister Sphinx. I personally don't have a problem with that card, but i've seen so many arguments and discussions about him and sorin that i can't even remember. I doubt i would say the same for koko.
This is exactly the point. EDH is popular enough that players need a central, official list so that people from different groups can play under the same rules. This is the reason the original Magic: The Gathering set implemented the oracle text, the rules manager and by extension the DCI. Garfield's original vision was that people would handle Magic ruling questions the same way they handled other board game rulings-- house rules would decide. Except Magic was way more portable, and people needed a common standard when they met together at conventions, tournaments, and shops. So they went with a single standard.
That's exactly what EDH has become. It's gone from being the game judges play with each other after hours at a grand prix to the single most popular casual format, with tens of thousands of players.
More than anything, the commander precon decks show that EDH is hugely popular! That's great! But "ban it in your play group" is no longer an acceptable answer for such a popular format. We need a single, consistent ban list.
I've been thinking about the purpose of the ban list, and while I feel like the format would be better from a game balance perspective if overpowered cards like Sol Ring were banned, I understand they make the format better by increasing popularity. The real question of whether a card should be banned is whether banning it will increase the total number of players. People would quit if Sol Ring were banned. People would quit if moxes were unbanned. That's why Sol Ring is legal and moxes aren't, despite Sol Ring being a significantly stronger card.
From that perspective, the consistency people are looking for is one that maximizes the chance they'll have people to play with. No one would quit the game if Kokusho were legal, but his presence on the ban list (despite not actually being a very good card anymore) makes people lose faith in the RC, which in turn encourages them to invest time in other formats and even games. I'd rather that not happen.
Contrast this with the question of whether Hermit Druid should be banned. The Hermit Druid deck is unquestionably stupid, broken, and overpowered. But I haven't built it because I wouldn't have any fun playing it, and I know anyone else my circle of 20+ EDH players that wants to play it. But there are lots of casual decks that aren't abusing the druid, and their owners might get really unhappy if they can no longer use the Druid. Banning Hermit Druid would result in a net loss in players, so it remains unrestricted. If lots of people start abusing Hermit Druid (and causing others to quit), the decision can be revisited.
That's fundamentally what it means for the format to be "casual". It means "tournament viability doesn't impact our ban decisions". But you have to have some other metric, and that metric is whether banning or unbanning a card causes more people to play than before. From this perspective, it makes total sense to look at the percentage of play groups that would use a card but not abuse it versus those that abuse it.
At least, that's the ideal. People lose faith when they see bans that clearly conflict with this ideal.
I agree strongly with this. At this point there are so many other creatures that people would rather steal/reanimate then Kukosho. Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan and Consecrated Sphinx being the number 1 and 2. Both of these offer far more advantage and likely game endingly so then a few cycles of Kukosho which does not even affect the game/board state. Hell give him the Roff treatment and make him banned as a general. People play with exile and GY hate effects more then enough to make it a non issue.
^Agreed
Tedv, you always write very very decent posts, but this is perfect.
although, the bolded part would be hard to do. There are 1000's of playgroups out there
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyI hear WotC runs focus groups! They might have an idea what your kitchen table EDH group likes and doesn't. And one member of the RC works at EDH. The RC has access to a bit more player base information than you'd think.
There isn't a worst-case scenario that can develop here; it's not about that. It is about which cards we can play, and which cards we can't play. From reading your articles, I know you have a firm grasp on different kinds of players that play EDH. Some people like certain kinds of decks, and other people like others. The same can be said of cards.
By banning one card for a certain reason, but not a similar card for the same reason, you create inconsistency. Take the Kokusho vs. Primeval Titan example. If you're the player who likes Primeval Titan, you get to play it, because it's not on the list. Titan comes into play, grabs (Gaea's Cradle+Deserted Temple/Urborg+Coffers), and ramps you up to a ton of mana. You win the game in short order due to overwhelming card advantage.
Now the player who likes Kokusho can't play it, because it's on the list. Even if they had the same intention (get Kokusho out, recur Kokusho) to win the game via overwhelming life advantage, they can't. The cards both are over-centralizing creatures, they both have equal abilities (arguably P.Titan is stronger), but one is on the banned list, and the other isn't. The player who likes Kokusho sees someone play a card like the Titan, and wonders why they can't play the strategy they want to play with, while the other player can.
You might counterpoint this by saying "but the banned list is only suggestive, play what you want if your group is okay with it". That's great for me, because I have a group, and it's great for you, because you have one too. It's not great for the player who really wants to play a card they like, but can't, because he or she only plays at a local shop with randoms every week. Randoms adhere to the banlist, and it's a lot of trouble to convince everyone you play with to let you skirt around the rules because you happen to like a card like Kokusho, but not Primeval Titan.
To sum up my reasoning here, it's about having a banlist that is clearly defined. If a card is on a banned list because it's creates a combo that wins the game on the spot, then any similar card that would win on the spot in a similar manner should also be banned, or unbanned. The same can be said of creatures of similar power levels. Most people would suggest that cards be unbanned instead of banned (hence the outcries for Kokusho), but ultimately, the decision rests with you and the other members of the RC. Create consistency, and you get more players and evolve the format. Retain inconsistency, and you risk losing them, and stagnating it.
I feel like answering this question since it hasn't been answered yet.
The worst-cast scenario that I see of keeping a "consistent ban list" is that the ban list would likely be very, very long. There are a huge number of degenerate cards and interactions available right now in the format that aren't banned. i.e., it is extremely easy to win off of one card combos like Hermit Druid and Survival of the Fittest. It's not just Protean Hulk that's solely to blame. On a different tangent, it is much easier to abuse creatures like Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx for much greater gains than Kokusho.
Large ban lists can kill a format. That's exactly what happened with 5 color. The ban list insured that anything even remotely degenerate or broken was banned, but the ban list was the size of Texas, and that was a big reason why that format tanked and died. That's part of the reason why I think you guys are going in the right direction by shrinking the ban list instead of expanding it. I just think stuff like Kokusho can safely come off while further shrinking the ban list at the same time
This is a casual format, and inevitably there will be people who aim to build highly competitive or downright annoying decks. It makes sense to ban cards selectively, but as far as I am concerned, it's a casual format, with an optional ban list that just is built to make the game more fun. As long as you're not playing to abuse that system it's not a big deal. But recommending certain cards for banning makes sense. It smooths the game, and makes the format healthier in the long run.
There's always going to be arguments from both sides, but ultimately banning is a subjective and sometimes flawed method that does its best to keep things fun and fair.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that cards of similar power-levels need to be either banned or unbanned collectively. It is in the interest of shortening the banned list, because we all know a shorter banned list makes for a better format. So we ban the worst offenders (the one-cards, like Hulk), and regulate the rest.
Take Painter's Servant, for example. The logic behind banning Servant was because there might be a card printed down the road (or many) that would be abusable by the Servant, so it was banned instead of Iona or Grindstone. However, everyone knows that Painter's Servant also had many good interactions as well. How is having that particular two card combo in the format (Painter+Iona, or +Grindstone) any different than Kiki-Jiki+Pestermite, Niv-Mizzet+Curiosity, or Azami+Mind Over Matter? All these are examples of two-card combos that win the game outright, but are equally (and rather easily) disrupted, like Painter's Servant. What makes Painter's Servant any different, or any worse? If any of those cards are assembled, the game is over, but unlike Hulk, Painter can't win the game on its own. It doesn't matter how many cards are printed in the future that could be abused by Servant, it will still need a two-card combo to win the game, like the others above, and many other cards.
This is inconsistency, and I guarantee there are plenty of players who are wondering why everyone else gets to have some game-ending fun with their favorite two-card combo, but they don't get to. This only hurts the format. Keep the worst offenders off, but keep the rest of the list consistent.
Example:Painter's Servant, while capable of being fun, is mainly used for grindstone or Iona lockdowns. It's accessible to any color; in addition, blue, black and white can easily tutor up artifacts.
Worldgorger Dragon was mainly used for infinite mana, but the combo existed only alongside black for Animate Dead type effects. However, the deck not only needs to somehow put the Dragon in the graveyard and have Animate dead, but it also needs a large mana sink. IMO this takes a while to assemble and protect, as instant speed removal means gg for the combo-er.
Now let's look at Kokusho: it is a 6 mana exsanguinate for 5 when it hits the graveyard. So someone, probably you, has to kill it, but to really abuse it, you need a sac outlet. Then, you need a way to recur it: Sheoldred, Gleancrawler, Phyrexian Reclamation, Eternal Witness, etc. It's not too difficult to recur, but the mana investment involved is 8+ at least and to do it multiple times in a single turn requires a massive amount of mana. Also, since the main offender, Recurring Nightmare where the cost is CMC 3 and a creature, is banned, Kokusho's power drops tremendously.
On the other hand, Primeval Titan is basically a 1 card combo, fetching the best lands for whatever degenerate mana production. It is also in green, the best color for creature tutors. However, I find any Prime Time action acceptable in EDH, as well as TnN.
In terms of combo, I find Hermit Druid problematic. Only played in 5 CC, it is extremely easy to tutor for and win by turn 2-3. When Hermit Druid becomes the general of a deck, there is a problem with that. Even for Palinchron/Future Sight combos, the deck almost requires you to be mono-blue. Additionally, creatures and enchantments are difficult to tutor in blue. HermitDruid.dec gives you black and greens tutors and easy instawins.
I understand the RC tests many of these cards extensively, but it is still mostly within your guys' environment/playgroups (I assume). In the MTGS community, there is a large sample to take data from. I feel that people, me included, would accept and welcome these ban lists if there was more input from the community. To that end, I feel that a proactive ban/unban testings would be very healthy for the list, such as Rofellos's treatment for certain cards. If that card clearly become too powerful or degenerate, the community would immediately clamor for its rebanning. I don't know how much work that would be on the RC's end, but on MTGS, we can simply put a sticky for certain cards that are up for banning/unbanning and post results there. It might seem to take a bit away from EDH being "casual" but I think that overall, it would make the format that much healthier.
RGodo, Bandit WarlordR
GSeton, Krosan ProtectorG
BGJarad, Golgari Lich LordGB
I think the better question is, why is the Rules Committee not worried about its credibility amongst the player base? Do you truly not care what a large portion of us think? I'm not trying to attack you Sheldon, but I will be honest with you: Sometimes you do come across as though you (1) don't care what we think or (2) think we don't know what we're talking about. I don't believe you mean to, but that is how your tone is interpreted at times (at least by me).
The "danger" comes when the Rules Committee no longer has the respect of the player base and therefore becomes illegitimate. EDH thrives because it's fun, but you cannot discount the importance of the central direction the Rules Committee provides. Being able to walk into any store, any GP, PTQ, whatever and being able to sit down and play EDH cannot happen without central direction from the Rules Committee. When people become unhappy with an entity they regard as illegitimate they either ignore it or overthrow it. The Rules Committee may very well know what is best for the game, but in the long run if too many people deem it illegitimate it may simply be replaced by another governing body that may or may not know what is best. The existence of the French and MTGS 1v1 banned list should be all the evidence you need that when the people see a void that the rules committee can't or won't fix, they will fix it themselves.
That is the danger.
I think tedv has the right idea for a banlist philosophy. If the Rules Committee isn't going to deviate from its current metric, I think the Rules Committee could solve this entire issue by explaining in clear terms why Kokusho is still banned, or why is Sway of the Stars is banned but Obliterate isn't? And I don't mean a few sentences either. These explanations should be essay length. I personally want to see a side by side comparison of Kokusho and Worldgorger Dragon, Primeval Titan and Consecrated Sphinx and why each of these cards is less dangerous than Kokusho. Give us specific examples. Ditto for Sway of the Stars and Obliterate. What Makes Sway of the Stars so much more offensive than Obliterate? Give us detailed examples and sound logic.
Biomechanika raises another solid example of the inconsistency under the current metric. And frankly, if Painter's Servant is the bigger offender here, that's fine. Tell us why, in detail. Juxtapose it against Kiki-Jiki and Pestermite or Azami and Mind over Matter. Tell us exactly why these are okay and Painter's Servant isn't okay. We don't have to agree with your logic, we only have to understand it. Right now, a lot of people don't agree nor understand -- and that's the killer.
FWIW, I do greatly appreciate the efforts of the RC. I don't think anyone here would disagree that we greatly appreciate what you do for this beloved format. We get so frustrated and outspoken because we care so much for this format and don't want to see anything "bad" happen to it.
That's my 2¢; thanks for listening.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
If it is inconsistent, then it's for the best. An inconsistent banlist is better than a horribly restrictive banlist which cuts down on every single degenerate combo. Small means more accessible and there are still plenty of spike-esque plays available for the much more competitive minded.
I would enjoy seeing something like this, even though it requires a lot of time and effort by the RC, and will still attract people complaining about it. I would also like to suggest that once a card is explained/reviewed, the issue is closed for a set period of time (six months? A year?) before players can ask for a review.
Building silly decks for silly games.
You have a vision for the format that guides your decisions on what ought to be banned. If you express this vision clearly, you should be able to state a few simple rules that lead to the banning of a card, such as "Fast mana", "Auto-includes that are out of price-range", "Automatic game-enders / game-resets / locks". If you can't enumerate these kinds of rules, then you have not defined your vision clearly.
If two cards both qualify for a category of banning, and only the tamer one is banned, then you have provably made the worse decision for implementing your vision. It is low-hanging fruit for improving the banlist.
Here's an example: Panoptic Mirror is banned, but Mind Over Matter is not. This is inconsistent, because Mind Over Matter is a much, much stronger combo piece. Panoptic Mirror combos with Time Warp or Savor the Moment to win after a turn cycle, while Mind Over Matter combos with Azami or Niv or Temple Bell to win on the spot.
I don't care how many games you played that were ruined by Panoptic Mirror, I guarantee you that Mind Over Matter ruins more. This is an easy fix: ban Mind Over Matter and unban Panoptic Mirror. Afterward, you can ban both or unban both, but that is a harder decision. This one is an easy improvement, and we know this because of the inconsistency in the banlist.
Maybe that's my inner Timmy speaking, but that's how I feel, anyway.
GGG [Primer] Omnath, Big Green Beatstick Machine GGG
In my opinion, the inconsistencies with the ban list are not the biggest issue. The issue is how the format is being promoted. It doesn't matter how consistent your list is, if nobody follows it. Arbitrary rules (read: random rules from playgroup to playgroup) don't help the health of the format. It only divides the player base. You need to take a look at the foundation of the format and work your way up.
Having a consistent list doesn't mean the list has to be larger.
An excellent first response. Nice.
Once you have people questioning the legitimacy of your results and the logic behind them, you accept the serious risk that they will abandon your guidance not unlike a rebellious teenager abandons their parents for the same reason. Hence, the French and MTGS 1v1 lists.
I don't think an essay-length item-by-item explanation of each banning is necessary though. Just keep doing your guys' job as you have been so far. Re-evaulate the offenders (Hermit Druid is getting a little ridiculous, don't you guys think?), put some guys out on parole for your image's sake (WGD, perhaps Kokusho get out on good behavior), and just be alive and active in the community so as many of us as possible continue to take you seriously. And honestly, what's wrong with a little ebb and flow? We went through periods with Rofellos and survived, right?
The worst case scenario isn't what you guys ban, but how much people care about what you ban.
I'd also like to add that this particular discussion has started off about a thousand times better than the last one we just had. I hope we can continue to have this important discussion with the civility and class I have seen so far.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
I really appreciate you starting this thread; it's great to see you taking these concerns seriously. I've tried to think carefully about your post, and here's my take on it. I am going to use a somewhat extreme example, but it illustrates where my concerns are coming from.
Imagine a scenario in which the legacy banlist is expanded tomorrow to include just one more card: Gray Ogre. What's the problem with this? The immediate impact on the format would be absolutely zero. No legacy deck plays Gray Ogre, and no legacy deck ever will. This is just a "harmless" inconsistency. However, you'd see a lot of subsidiary problems:
1. Players' confidence in the DCI would deteriorate because there is no rationale behind this choice that is consistent with the rest of the banlist.
2. Players' confidence in the health of the format deteriorates. The meta in which this card should be banned doesn't reflect the meta as it currently exists, and it shows that real world testing and play statistics weren't considered.
3. Players ask themselves "what's next?" and are more reluctant to commit money and time to this format in case another unpredictable banning occurs.
4. In eternal formats especially, players like longer-term consistency and a small banlist because it's fun to be able to play with more cards. Why foreclose a choice that doesn't really need to be foreclosed?
I strongly disagree. Consistency simply means having a predictable and rational philosophy for the banlist. That can be accomplished by shrinking the list as well. The big problem right now is that a few cards on the list are widely considered to be objectively weaker than certain cards not on the list. I think the answer is to not ban the weak cards (like koko), as opposed to banning the better ones that aren't broken (like Primeval Titan or Consecrated Sphinx or Exsanguinate).