As I believe the content of the first post here to be relevant to many EDH players, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism from the community regarding it. Any input would be helpful, be it your first impression, grammar/spelling corrections, ideas about the organization, or discussion of lists/rules/ideas.
I've attempted to communicate the main ideas here quickly, so readers can more quickly judge their interest and peruse the lists & explanations for anything they may want to incorporate into their play.
As I believe the content of the first post here to be relevant to many EDH players, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism from the community regarding it. Any input would be helpful, be it your first impression, grammar/spelling corrections, ideas about the organization, or discussion of lists/rules/ideas.
I've attempted to communicate the main ideas here quickly, so readers can more quickly judge their interest and peruse the lists & explanations for anything they may want to incorporate into their play.
You have eight pages of criticism. If you haven't gotten whatever you're looking for by now, I don't know what to tell you.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
You have eight pages of criticism. If you haven't gotten whatever you're looking for by now, I don't know what to tell you.
*shrug* It's gone through quite a few revisions since most of the responses were made. To me, this is a social method of communicating likes/dislikes and options about the format. I'm sure others enjoy discussing this stuff in a group larger than their playgroup or LGS, but perhaps the demographic of players who post online simply doesn't intersect much with those I'm trying to reach.
Do you agree with the idea of strata, using power/degeneracy levels to differentiate groups of cards? Does it make sense that larger ban lists are better for more competitive play? Are there specific cards that seem out of place? I'm looking for any kind of discussion; I want to know precisely what others think about these things. If there's no more of that to be had, I suppose that'll be the end of it.
Current ban list is fine, only thing that really bothers me are sol ring and mana vault since they are what enables very fast starts which you usually cannot beat with aggro bad decks.
FTFY.
In all seriousness, the deck that took down the whole thing at Gen Con's big EDH tournament (where all the nastiest things come out to play) was 1-drop Edric. An aggro deck. Incidentally, that deck doesn't have much use for colorless mana, so neither of those cards are very good in it. I've seen some lists play Mana Crypt, just because it's a 0-drop for Erayo, but I'm not even sure that's correct.
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
It's an old casual format that required 250 card decks using all 5 colors. I don't think it was ever a viable format for anyone without a vast card collection, with plenty of (expensive) lands. It was notable for allowing ante cards, with only a 47 card ban list. Here's a more complete guide for it. I remember trying to play it back when I started playing Magic; I used nearly all the cards I owned and games were incredibly inconsistent and unsatisfying. I doubt that would change even with my current collection.
As I believe the content of the first post here to be relevant to many EDH players, I'd appreciate some constructive criticism from the community regarding it. Any input would be helpful, be it your first impression, grammar/spelling corrections, ideas about the organization, or discussion of lists/rules/ideas.
I've attempted to communicate the main ideas here quickly, so readers can more quickly judge their interest and peruse the lists & explanations for anything they may want to incorporate into their play.
Here's some criticism for you, then.
The current ban list, while problematic and flawed, does not need to be fixed by adding several more cards. It needs to have several taken off, and one or two others put on, but that's about the extent of it. That the RC refuse to change their minds on certain things because they're stubborn as hell is another issue entirely, but will hopefully be worked out in time.
Your "Austere" list is anything but. It completely alters the scope of what Commander is supposed to be, and puts too many restrictions on both deck variety and creativity. The only goal it seems to be achieving is "Get rid of all two or three card combos that I don't like", which is foolish and ridiculous never mind done poorly. You include cards like Reveillark and Palinchron while completely neglecting Kiki-Jiki and a couple others that are just as powerful and widespread. In fact, I'd go as far as to say you don't even know what your criteria for actually banning a card is for said list.
Multiple ban lists also do nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is cause disagreements and divide the community. The ban list is the ban list, and while it can change it does not need to be separated apart from the 1v1 list.
Also, having a large, cumbersome banlist was only a tiny part of what caused Prismatic to fail. It was mostly the ante cards, and which specific direction the banlist went in dealing with threats.
The current ban list, while problematic and flawed, does not need to be fixed by adding several more cards. It needs to have several taken off, and one or two others put on, but that's about the extent of it. That the RC refuse to change their minds on certain things because they're stubborn as hell is another issue entirely, but will hopefully be worked out in time.
Your "Austere" list is anything but. It completely alters the scope of what Commander is supposed to be, and puts too many restrictions on both deck variety and creativity. The only goal it seems to be achieving is "Get rid of all two or three card combos that I don't like", which is foolish and ridiculous never mind done poorly. You include cards like Reveillark and Palinchron while completely neglecting Kiki-Jiki and a couple others that are just as powerful and widespread. In fact, I'd go as far as to say you don't even know what your criteria for actually banning a card is for said list.
Multiple ban lists also do nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is cause disagreements and divide the community. The ban list is the ban list, and while it can change it does not need to be separated apart from the 1v1 list.
Also, having a large, cumbersome banlist was only a tiny part of what caused Prismatic to fail. It was mostly the ante cards, and which specific direction the banlist went in dealing with threats.
Thanks - these lists aren't meant to be at all official, so I'll try changing the language to reflect that. As for what Commander is supposed to be, I think each player should be able to decide that for themselves. I know many people prefer having very few banned cards, while others like having many more, and others still are more concerned with the power & degeneracy levels of banned cards than their numbers. Kiki-Jiki is something I have been giving a great deal of thought, and I admit that I was hesitant to even consider it too much for the list because of its legendary supertype. I'm not sure that I could empirically explain all the criteria being used here yet, but it's something I think should be worked toward.
I think each player should be able to decide that for themselves
Exactly. That is the philosophy behind which I approach any evaluation of the ban list. Ban as few cards as is possible while keeping ridiculous things in line and not ruining the format, and leave everything else up to house rules or "social contracts". One player in someone's group starts playing absurd combo decks, everyone else hates it out until he stops or just asks him to bring a different deck. That is how social formats are supposed to work, and making a separate "competitive banned list" doesn't help it at all because of how interaction with people you've never played with would work.
You seem to be under the impression that these tiered ban lists are needed or even wanted. That isn't the case at all, and I can't understand how that hasn't been made clear to you after eight pages of this thread.
For one, you ban several mana rocks (Thran Dynamo? What?)
This raises the power level of green (which is already one of the best colors if not the best color) and weakens non green decks. Mana artifact like Thran Dynamo and Gilded Lotus let the mono blue deck keep up in mana.
You ban some 2 card combos but not others? I can't really see a reason for this unless it's personal bias? Perhaps you play kiki-jiki?
I think the limitations on things like LD, Infinite Combos and Time magic is ridiculous. I seriously hope this is never implemented into the actual banlist. These things will be taken care of on a group by group basis and not on an official level (obviously this is not official but at the same time I think you wish it were). Imposing restrictions like this makes no sense. Some groups enjoy these playstyles.
My feedback is that this thread is not needed. Groups that want more/less restrictive banlists handle it on their own and I feel like this achieves nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
I sympathize with your desires to improve this game, but it's unlikely to pan out.
EDH is the illegitimate child of MtG, it's a casual format that was made by slapping a couple of rules together, not designed to be the perfect multiplayer format. Now that it has taken off so strongly, people are going to be unfairly averse to changing the format at all.
The Rules Committee isn't about making the format balanced, I'd argue it's even lost sight of making the game fun. Without clear public statements of where the rules committee is taking this format, and without clear explanations of why individual cards are banned, the committee is hardly worth listening to. But they have the backing of Wizards and the general populace, so their word is god until they do something idiotic.
So my point here is that this format isn't worth putting too much effort into. I understand it's fun to brainstorm and balance and theorize, and it's good skills to practice. But I've learned, after failing to convince the populace to try something new in many areas, to put my energy somewhere more productive. Learn math, make a video game, make your own card game, learn a new hobby. These will give you much more in life than trying to revolutionize a janky format that people are inflexible about.
{Not saying I don't like EDH, it's all I play (until I can maybe one day afford the non-rotating formats), but there is no published explanation of why the format works as it does, so it's illegitimate in my eyes, as is a scientific claim without evidence}
I feel like a simpler solution is just to take the legacy banned list add the few cards that are absurd in EDH but not normal magic (for example erayo) and then go from there.
As much as I like this banned list it is VERY complicated due to the tiers of banned lists and the only solution you were able to come up with for some of the most problematic things (LD, Time walks) Was to say "Socially discourage it".
I like the concept but it is far too complicated/complex for most metas.
The problem with the Legacy ban list in regards to EDH is that there are a lot of cards too powerful in Legacy that aren't so in EDH due to the nature of it being a 99-card singleton format. That is, I believe, where the original ban list started from and cards were culled until it got to where it was a few years ago, then it started adapting to the growth of the format.
I think the limitations on things like LD, Infinite Combos and Time magic is ridiculous. I seriously hope this is never implemented into the actual banlist. These things will be taken care of on a group by group basis and not on an official level (obviously this is not official but at the same time I think you wish it were). Imposing restrictions like this makes no sense. Some groups enjoy these playstyles.
As much as I like this banned list it is VERY complicated due to the tiers of banned lists and the only solution you were able to come up with for some of the most problematic things (LD, Time walks) Was to say "Socially discourage it".
I like the concept but it is far too complicated/complex for most metas.
Whoa whoaWHOA. We need to stop here, because there seems to be a major miscommunication somewhere. These lists are not proposed as any official or even necessary replacement of the current official ban list. The bullets under Common House Rules are just that. They're not suggested as being the only solutions, a set of rules to be used together, or even necessarily being effective! They're simply what some playgroups do to combat unwelcome strategies for lack of a better system. If Time Stretch is ruining their games, banning it is quick and easy, even if it's a card that the group could adjust for in deck-building or game-play.
The strata (tier) of ban lists are meant to give players somewhere to start when creating their own list. There are a LOT of playgroups that don't know where to begin. Some don't know the psychology behind gaming, basic or advanced play-styles and archetypes, how to pace game-play, why some cards are much stronger than others, or even all the rules of the game. Not only that, they also don't know that they don't know these things. This isn't due to any inferiority on their part; they're simply inexperienced with them. I digress...
May I ask what could be changed to make this clearer?
The Rules Committee isn't about making the format balanced, I'd argue it's even lost sight of making the game fun. Without clear public statements of where the rules committee is taking this format, and without clear explanations of why individual cards are banned, the committee is hardly worth listening to. But they have the backing of Wizards and the general populace, so their word is god until they do something idiotic.
So my point here is that this format isn't worth putting too much effort into.
This online community is composed of members from around the planet that share a common interest in Magic. I don't pretend to be the most knowledgeable person about Magic or EDH, but I do know some things, and am consequently in a position to help others. There being no sound explanation for individual card bannings or certain rules for such a popular format disconcerts me. We are not confined by what the Rules Committee says, but many are, and they deserve to at least know they have options. If they quest for those options, I want them to find answers.
You remind me of myself. I appreciate your concern for my time, and you're right that I've been devoting too much of it to this, so thanks.
Whoa whoaWHOA. We need to stop here, because there seems to be a major miscommunication somewhere. These lists are not proposed as any official or even necessary replacement of the current official ban list.
I said in my post that I realize this list is not official.
If Time Stretch is ruining their games, banning it is quick and easy, even if it's a card that the group could adjust for in deck-building or game-play.
This is possibly the worst approach I have ever seen. If someone doesn't like a card we should ban it? (Also 'ruin' is subjective. Does someone winning the game 'ruin' it?) I have a friend who thinks that everything but tribal is unfair. Does that mean we ban anything that isn't tribal? More answers, less bans.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
The strata (tier) of ban lists are meant to give players somewhere to start when creating their own list. There are a LOT of playgroups that don't know where to begin. Some don't know the psychology behind gaming, basic or advanced play-styles and archetypes, how to pace game-play, why some cards are much stronger than others, or even all the rules of the game. Not only that, they also don't know that they don't know these things. This isn't due to any inferiority on their part; they're simply inexperienced with them. I digress...
This is the part I disagree with the most. Why do you have to know such things to make a banned list for you group? All you have to know as that a large enough portion of your group is not having fun with a card being allowed and ban it. Simple. If there are players in your group that like it, then they can still have their decks with it in them and play with each other when they want to use those types of cards.
Jace SHOULD be unbanned in modern. I hate all the people saying "JACE IS BROKEN OHMYGOD HE'LL TAKE OVER AND CAWBLADE WILL REIGN SUPREME AGAIN" when bloodbraid elf literally comes down after jace and kicks jace right in the crotch, takes jace's lunch money, and jace is left to bleed out on the sidewalk in agonizing pain.
Whoa whoaWHOA. We need to stop here, because there seems to be a major miscommunication somewhere. These lists are not proposed as any official or even necessary replacement of the current official ban list. The bullets under Common House Rules are just that. They're not suggested as being the only solutions, a set of rules to be used together, or even necessarily being effective! They're simply what some playgroups do to combat unwelcome strategies for lack of a better system. If Time Stretch is ruining their games, banning it is quick and easy, even if it's a card that the group could adjust for in deck-building or game-play.
The strata (tier) of ban lists are meant to give players somewhere to start when creating their own list. There are a LOT of playgroups that don't know where to begin. Some don't know the psychology behind gaming, basic or advanced play-styles and archetypes, how to pace game-play, why some cards are much stronger than others, or even all the rules of the game. Not only that, they also don't know that they don't know these things. This isn't due to any inferiority on their part; they're simply inexperienced with them. I digress...
May I ask what could be changed to make this clearer?
This online community is composed of members from around the planet that share a common interest in Magic. I don't pretend to be the most knowledgeable person about Magic or EDH, but I do know some things, and am consequently in a position to help others. There being no sound explanation for individual card bannings or certain rules for such a popular format disconcerts me. We are not confined by what the Rules Committee says, but many are, and they deserve to at least know they have options. If they quest for those options, I want them to find answers.
You remind me of myself. I appreciate your concern for my time, and you're right that I've been devoting too much of it to this, so thanks.
In my opinion you would be better served writing a guide on the best ways to deal with any "problem cards" and steering your players towards it as opposed to setting up a complicated multi-tiered ban list. Helping new players improve their game is far more constructive than banning cards.
I said in my post that I realize this list is not official.
If Time Stretch is ruining their games, banning it is quick and easy, even if it's a card that the group could adjust for in deck-building or game-play.
This is possibly the worst approach I have ever seen. If someone doesn't like a card we should ban it? (Also 'ruin' is subjective. Does someone winning the game 'ruin' it?) I have a friend who thinks that everything but tribal is unfair. Does that mean we ban anything that isn't tribal? More answers, less bans.
You also say
I think the limitations on things like LD, Infinite Combos and Time magic is ridiculous. I seriously hope this is never implemented into the actual banlist. These things will be taken care of on a group by group basis and not on an official level (obviously this is not official but at the same time I think you wish it were). Imposing restrictions like this makes no sense. Some groups enjoy these playstyles.
I completely agree with you. (except about my wish for this to be official) It's why I'm not imposing these restrictions; how would I do that anyway? These lists are "an attempt to categorize groupings of degenerate/powerful cards that differentiate competitive levels of play. These levels, or strata, are intended to help foster a more effective dialogue regarding these groupings as well as 'house-banning'." Compiling a list of common house rules doesn't mean I agree with all of them. No one can completely ignore personal bias, but I am trying to be impartial.
The thing about house-rules is that they're created by local players for their local games. If that approach works for them, letting them better enjoy the game, (and they all agree that the card was ruining their games) is that not better than nothing? Using such a method would be quick and easy, if nothing else.
The strata (tier) of ban lists are meant to give players somewhere to start when creating their own list. There are a LOT of playgroups that don't know where to begin. Some don't know the psychology behind gaming, basic or advanced play-styles and archetypes, how to pace game-play, why some cards are much stronger than others, or even all the rules of the game. Not only that, they also don't know that they don't know these things. This isn't due to any inferiority on their part; they're simply inexperienced with them. I digress...
This is the part I disagree with the most. Why do you have to know such things to make a banned list for you group? All you have to know as that a large enough portion of your group is not having fun with a card being allowed and ban it. Simple. If there are players in your group that like it, then they can still have their decks with it in them and play with each other when they want to use those types of cards.
You don't. The ideas and lists in this thread are only 1 of many approaches to fixing such problems. As with the example of Time Stretch I used above, that certainly is a another approach. You'll note that Dracilic very much disagrees with the effectiveness of this particular approach, and he's probably right, at least for the games he plays.
In my opinion you would be better served writing a guide on the best ways to deal with any "problem cards" and steering your players towards it as opposed to setting up a complicated multi-tiered ban list. Helping new players improve their game is far more constructive than banning cards.
That would be useful; I'll have to consider it. I agree with your last sentence here, but since I am not banning cards, it doesn't exactly apply to me as an individual. These lists are "an attempt to categorize groupings of degenerate/powerful cards that differentiate competitive levels of play. These levels, or strata, are intended to help foster a more effective dialogue regarding these groupings as well as 'house-banning'."
I'm not sure how to make this clearer, but let me know if you have any ideas.
Honestly im fine with any strategy if I loose ill live and learn form the experience. Sure their are some cards I find annoying but do I see a need for any of them to be banned? no.
If all of these rules were adopted the game would be convoluted and most players would find a new format. Edh is a place for vintage level power cards can be played right along side pet cards that are not very good but have a special place in the player heart.
On a side not something that I have observed is that overall most players find it more satisfying to be playing a deck that has answers to and plays stuff like Prime Time or Ten mana I win combos. Why because people like to play powerful cards and/or stoping powerful cards.
Im not against house bans do whatever the group thinks is fun, but if you go to a LSG expect them to be using the RC's ban list.
I agree with Weebo and Bob. This is far too much upkeep. Any time I went to a different play group, I'd have to go "what stratum are you using?" and for any answer above 0, I'd have to change my decks.
At 1, I'd have to take Sol Ring out of my Kaalia, and Sol Ring, Defense of the Heart and Tooth and Nail out of my Azusa.
At 2, I'd have to do all that, plus taking Crucible, Earthcraft, Cradle, Green Sun, Oracle of Mul Daya (Seriously?), Primeval Titan, and Sylvan Library, and that's just Azusa. Now, I know that some of those cards are powerful (but seriously Oracle is too powerful?), but the fact is that they way I play the deck has very minimal abuse. Sure, I can win games out of nowhere, but so can my mate's Olivia and Niv decks. I didn't see any mention of Niv being banned as a general to stop the ophidian eye thing, or sanguine bond/exquisite blood being banned. So I have to take 7 powerful, but very non-infinite cards out of my decks, but they get to keep a pseudo infinite and true infinite combo in theirs?
I hate to nitpick, but stratum 1 is the current ban list. Subsequent strata simply take that list further - they're not something that should be forced upon anyone, but are here to give playgroups who want such things a reference.
I actually agree with most of what you've said - I play by the official rules, don't use sideboarding, and don't house ban anything or change other rules. Indeed, I'd say your response was quite useful. I've made a number of changes to the language and organization and have a better idea what else needs attention. Your point about higher strata being more competitive was especially so. Thanks!
Im not against house bans; do whatever the group thinks is fun, but if you go to a LSG expect them to be using the RC's ban list.
Indeed. With the number of players who actually read things about Magic being so low and the general animosity this thread's received, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of playgroups modify their rules from this.
The vast majority of players are always going to be using either the RC list, or no list at all.
1. Don't take infinite turns
2. Any take extra turns spell is exiled upon casting
It's just too easy to make infinite turns combos these days. Most players already feel like they're cheesy enough that they don't wanna run them anyway.
And on a bad day:
Take out Primeval Titan / Consecrated sphinx from your deck and I'll take out the most broken thing from mine, because whoever draws there's first is probably going to ruin the game for everyone else.
I feel it would be better if cards of a certain power level for their purpose were put into their own tiers, so people can easily gauge what they want and don't want to ban.
One suggestion for the OP. Consider futher restricting the list of banned generals. For example, consider adding some of the more "deadly" generals to the banned list when used as a general, e.g, Sharuum the Hegemon.
While working on a condensed version of the official rules here, it seemed to me that a section under "optional rules" should be dedicated to banning methods and various ban lists & philosophies. As darkchair suggested some time ago, it may very well be more useful to list cards in stricter tiers, dependent on their effects. For example, one group of tiers might be 'resource acceleration', with cards such as Sol Ring, the recently banned Primeval Titan, and perhaps even Consecrated Sphinx listed in order of their strength. Which cards appear in each category would depend on how we label each of those categories, and it might be reasonable to allow the same card in multiple categories. A similar system could be used to classify commanders or cards that function only with specific commanders. I have started on this in this very thread, but think there may be a better method of conveying the information.
Here's how the RC said they evaluate cards - I'm thinking this could be a starting point for ranking cards individually:
Creates Undesirable Games/Game Situations. (anticlimactic wins or creating situations which completely take play of the game away from the other players)
Warps The Format Strategically. (sufficiently omnipresent strategy that creates similar games even across different playgroups)
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. (perhaps organized by how early they can enable degeneracy)
Interacts Badly With the Structure of Commander.
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. (perhaps organized by how expensive cards are, while also taking into account their power)
The categories that I've used for the strata here include the following. Points 2 and 5 from above haven't seemed as relevant to me in an objective sense, because they're dependent on less-than-objective factors. Prices fluctuate, proxies are used, playgroups are often extremely different, etc. However, they are categories that players may care to ban cards from, so we should consider them as well.
casting enablers (#3 above)
card advantage & selection
zone changers (tutoring, put into play effects)
immediate win / gamestate irrelevance (fits in #1 above)
resource denial (locks players out, fits in #1 above)
degenerate interaction as commander (#4 above)
I'm hesitant to ask, but would this be more useful than the strata here? Would it be nice to have a list of 'problem' cards for various effects or even various archetypes?
One problem I've got with the idea of house banning is that I play in several different "groups", and some of those groups are just "me and some friends at an LGS, plus whoever happens to be there and also has an EDH deck" so it's sort of impossible to say "hey, I know you've never played here before, but you aren't allowed to have sol ring because we house banned it". And similarly, I don't want to have to reconfigure my decks every time I play somewhere else.
The RC's insistence that house bannings can help create a balanced format is crap, imo, because they're presupposing that you have a single, consistent playgroup, or at least several playgroups who agree about the same things, which is insane (just look at the banlist thread...no one agrees on anything). The official list is the only one worth a damn for (from my perspective) most people, and it's really not ideal for a balanced format.
The problem with proposing to ban a general like Sharuum the Hegemon is that is hoses my poor sphinx tribal deck, that has no infinite combos in it Only sphinxes and clone effects.
I've attempted to communicate the main ideas here quickly, so readers can more quickly judge their interest and peruse the lists & explanations for anything they may want to incorporate into their play.
You have eight pages of criticism. If you haven't gotten whatever you're looking for by now, I don't know what to tell you.
*shrug* It's gone through quite a few revisions since most of the responses were made. To me, this is a social method of communicating likes/dislikes and options about the format. I'm sure others enjoy discussing this stuff in a group larger than their playgroup or LGS, but perhaps the demographic of players who post online simply doesn't intersect much with those I'm trying to reach.
Do you agree with the idea of strata, using power/degeneracy levels to differentiate groups of cards? Does it make sense that larger ban lists are better for more competitive play? Are there specific cards that seem out of place? I'm looking for any kind of discussion; I want to know precisely what others think about these things. If there's no more of that to be had, I suppose that'll be the end of it.
FTFY.
In all seriousness, the deck that took down the whole thing at Gen Con's big EDH tournament (where all the nastiest things come out to play) was 1-drop Edric. An aggro deck. Incidentally, that deck doesn't have much use for colorless mana, so neither of those cards are very good in it. I've seen some lists play Mana Crypt, just because it's a 0-drop for Erayo, but I'm not even sure that's correct.
What is prismatic?
It's an old casual format that required 250 card decks using all 5 colors. I don't think it was ever a viable format for anyone without a vast card collection, with plenty of (expensive) lands. It was notable for allowing ante cards, with only a 47 card ban list. Here's a more complete guide for it. I remember trying to play it back when I started playing Magic; I used nearly all the cards I owned and games were incredibly inconsistent and unsatisfying. I doubt that would change even with my current collection.
Here's some criticism for you, then.
The current ban list, while problematic and flawed, does not need to be fixed by adding several more cards. It needs to have several taken off, and one or two others put on, but that's about the extent of it. That the RC refuse to change their minds on certain things because they're stubborn as hell is another issue entirely, but will hopefully be worked out in time.
Your "Austere" list is anything but. It completely alters the scope of what Commander is supposed to be, and puts too many restrictions on both deck variety and creativity. The only goal it seems to be achieving is "Get rid of all two or three card combos that I don't like", which is foolish and ridiculous never mind done poorly. You include cards like Reveillark and Palinchron while completely neglecting Kiki-Jiki and a couple others that are just as powerful and widespread. In fact, I'd go as far as to say you don't even know what your criteria for actually banning a card is for said list.
Multiple ban lists also do nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is cause disagreements and divide the community. The ban list is the ban list, and while it can change it does not need to be separated apart from the 1v1 list.
Also, having a large, cumbersome banlist was only a tiny part of what caused Prismatic to fail. It was mostly the ante cards, and which specific direction the banlist went in dealing with threats.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
Thanks - these lists aren't meant to be at all official, so I'll try changing the language to reflect that. As for what Commander is supposed to be, I think each player should be able to decide that for themselves. I know many people prefer having very few banned cards, while others like having many more, and others still are more concerned with the power & degeneracy levels of banned cards than their numbers. Kiki-Jiki is something I have been giving a great deal of thought, and I admit that I was hesitant to even consider it too much for the list because of its legendary supertype. I'm not sure that I could empirically explain all the criteria being used here yet, but it's something I think should be worked toward.
Splinter Twin, Karmic Guide, and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed are cards that appear to be at similar enabling levels as Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker; Are any of these the cards you're referring to as powerful and widespread as Reveillark and Palinchron? Are there cards here that don't seem to be on the same power/degeneracy level as others listed together?
Exactly. That is the philosophy behind which I approach any evaluation of the ban list. Ban as few cards as is possible while keeping ridiculous things in line and not ruining the format, and leave everything else up to house rules or "social contracts". One player in someone's group starts playing absurd combo decks, everyone else hates it out until he stops or just asks him to bring a different deck. That is how social formats are supposed to work, and making a separate "competitive banned list" doesn't help it at all because of how interaction with people you've never played with would work.
You seem to be under the impression that these tiered ban lists are needed or even wanted. That isn't the case at all, and I can't understand how that hasn't been made clear to you after eight pages of this thread.
For one, you ban several mana rocks (Thran Dynamo? What?)
This raises the power level of green (which is already one of the best colors if not the best color) and weakens non green decks. Mana artifact like Thran Dynamo and Gilded Lotus let the mono blue deck keep up in mana.
You ban some 2 card combos but not others? I can't really see a reason for this unless it's personal bias? Perhaps you play kiki-jiki?
I think the limitations on things like LD, Infinite Combos and Time magic is ridiculous. I seriously hope this is never implemented into the actual banlist. These things will be taken care of on a group by group basis and not on an official level (obviously this is not official but at the same time I think you wish it were). Imposing restrictions like this makes no sense. Some groups enjoy these playstyles.
My feedback is that this thread is not needed. Groups that want more/less restrictive banlists handle it on their own and I feel like this achieves nothing.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
EDH is the illegitimate child of MtG, it's a casual format that was made by slapping a couple of rules together, not designed to be the perfect multiplayer format. Now that it has taken off so strongly, people are going to be unfairly averse to changing the format at all.
The Rules Committee isn't about making the format balanced, I'd argue it's even lost sight of making the game fun. Without clear public statements of where the rules committee is taking this format, and without clear explanations of why individual cards are banned, the committee is hardly worth listening to. But they have the backing of Wizards and the general populace, so their word is god until they do something idiotic.
So my point here is that this format isn't worth putting too much effort into. I understand it's fun to brainstorm and balance and theorize, and it's good skills to practice. But I've learned, after failing to convince the populace to try something new in many areas, to put my energy somewhere more productive. Learn math, make a video game, make your own card game, learn a new hobby. These will give you much more in life than trying to revolutionize a janky format that people are inflexible about.
{Not saying I don't like EDH, it's all I play (until I can maybe one day afford the non-rotating formats), but there is no published explanation of why the format works as it does, so it's illegitimate in my eyes, as is a scientific claim without evidence}
WUBRGReaper KingGRBUW 5c Blink [Less Competitive]
WBEvershrikeBW Orzhov Enchantments [Less Competitive]
GIwamori of the Open FistG Green Smash [Less Competitive]
RGWUInk-Treader NephilimUWGR Draw Too Many Cards [More Competitive]
URJhoira of the GhituRU Izzet Stax [More Competitive]
URGRiku of Two ReflectionsGRU Ceta Dredge [More Competitive]
Modern
RUGBNightshiftBGUR Like Scapeshift but bad
As much as I like this banned list it is VERY complicated due to the tiers of banned lists and the only solution you were able to come up with for some of the most problematic things (LD, Time walks) Was to say "Socially discourage it".
I like the concept but it is far too complicated/complex for most metas.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Whoa whoa WHOA. We need to stop here, because there seems to be a major miscommunication somewhere. These lists are not proposed as any official or even necessary replacement of the current official ban list. The bullets under Common House Rules are just that. They're not suggested as being the only solutions, a set of rules to be used together, or even necessarily being effective! They're simply what some playgroups do to combat unwelcome strategies for lack of a better system. If Time Stretch is ruining their games, banning it is quick and easy, even if it's a card that the group could adjust for in deck-building or game-play.
The strata (tier) of ban lists are meant to give players somewhere to start when creating their own list. There are a LOT of playgroups that don't know where to begin. Some don't know the psychology behind gaming, basic or advanced play-styles and archetypes, how to pace game-play, why some cards are much stronger than others, or even all the rules of the game. Not only that, they also don't know that they don't know these things. This isn't due to any inferiority on their part; they're simply inexperienced with them. I digress...
May I ask what could be changed to make this clearer?
This online community is composed of members from around the planet that share a common interest in Magic. I don't pretend to be the most knowledgeable person about Magic or EDH, but I do know some things, and am consequently in a position to help others. There being no sound explanation for individual card bannings or certain rules for such a popular format disconcerts me. We are not confined by what the Rules Committee says, but many are, and they deserve to at least know they have options. If they quest for those options, I want them to find answers.
You remind me of myself. I appreciate your concern for my time, and you're right that I've been devoting too much of it to this, so thanks.
I said in my post that I realize this list is not official.
This is possibly the worst approach I have ever seen. If someone doesn't like a card we should ban it? (Also 'ruin' is subjective. Does someone winning the game 'ruin' it?) I have a friend who thinks that everything but tribal is unfair. Does that mean we ban anything that isn't tribal? More answers, less bans.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
This is the part I disagree with the most. Why do you have to know such things to make a banned list for you group? All you have to know as that a large enough portion of your group is not having fun with a card being allowed and ban it. Simple. If there are players in your group that like it, then they can still have their decks with it in them and play with each other when they want to use those types of cards.
In my opinion you would be better served writing a guide on the best ways to deal with any "problem cards" and steering your players towards it as opposed to setting up a complicated multi-tiered ban list. Helping new players improve their game is far more constructive than banning cards.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
The thing about house-rules is that they're created by local players for their local games. If that approach works for them, letting them better enjoy the game, (and they all agree that the card was ruining their games) is that not better than nothing? Using such a method would be quick and easy, if nothing else.
You don't. The ideas and lists in this thread are only 1 of many approaches to fixing such problems. As with the example of Time Stretch I used above, that certainly is a another approach. You'll note that Dracilic very much disagrees with the effectiveness of this particular approach, and he's probably right, at least for the games he plays.
That would be useful; I'll have to consider it. I agree with your last sentence here, but since I am not banning cards, it doesn't exactly apply to me as an individual. These lists are "an attempt to categorize groupings of degenerate/powerful cards that differentiate competitive levels of play. These levels, or strata, are intended to help foster a more effective dialogue regarding these groupings as well as 'house-banning'."
I'm not sure how to make this clearer, but let me know if you have any ideas.
Thanks,
-BW
If all of these rules were adopted the game would be convoluted and most players would find a new format. Edh is a place for vintage level power cards can be played right along side pet cards that are not very good but have a special place in the player heart.
On a side not something that I have observed is that overall most players find it more satisfying to be playing a deck that has answers to and plays stuff like Prime Time or Ten mana I win combos. Why because people like to play powerful cards and/or stoping powerful cards.
Im not against house bans do whatever the group thinks is fun, but if you go to a LSG expect them to be using the RC's ban list.
I hate to nitpick, but stratum 1 is the current ban list. Subsequent strata simply take that list further - they're not something that should be forced upon anyone, but are here to give playgroups who want such things a reference.
I actually agree with most of what you've said - I play by the official rules, don't use sideboarding, and don't house ban anything or change other rules. Indeed, I'd say your response was quite useful. I've made a number of changes to the language and organization and have a better idea what else needs attention. Your point about higher strata being more competitive was especially so. Thanks!
Indeed. With the number of players who actually read things about Magic being so low and the general animosity this thread's received, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of playgroups modify their rules from this.
The vast majority of players are always going to be using either the RC list, or no list at all.
1. Don't take infinite turns
2. Any take extra turns spell is exiled upon casting
It's just too easy to make infinite turns combos these days. Most players already feel like they're cheesy enough that they don't wanna run them anyway.
And on a bad day:
Take out Primeval Titan / Consecrated sphinx from your deck and I'll take out the most broken thing from mine, because whoever draws there's first is probably going to ruin the game for everyone else.
While working on a condensed version of the official rules here, it seemed to me that a section under "optional rules" should be dedicated to banning methods and various ban lists & philosophies. As darkchair suggested some time ago, it may very well be more useful to list cards in stricter tiers, dependent on their effects. For example, one group of tiers might be 'resource acceleration', with cards such as Sol Ring, the recently banned Primeval Titan, and perhaps even Consecrated Sphinx listed in order of their strength. Which cards appear in each category would depend on how we label each of those categories, and it might be reasonable to allow the same card in multiple categories. A similar system could be used to classify commanders or cards that function only with specific commanders. I have started on this in this very thread, but think there may be a better method of conveying the information.
Here's how the RC said they evaluate cards - I'm thinking this could be a starting point for ranking cards individually:
The categories that I've used for the strata here include the following. Points 2 and 5 from above haven't seemed as relevant to me in an objective sense, because they're dependent on less-than-objective factors. Prices fluctuate, proxies are used, playgroups are often extremely different, etc. However, they are categories that players may care to ban cards from, so we should consider them as well.
I'm hesitant to ask, but would this be more useful than the strata here? Would it be nice to have a list of 'problem' cards for various effects or even various archetypes?
The RC's insistence that house bannings can help create a balanced format is crap, imo, because they're presupposing that you have a single, consistent playgroup, or at least several playgroups who agree about the same things, which is insane (just look at the banlist thread...no one agrees on anything). The official list is the only one worth a damn for (from my perspective) most people, and it's really not ideal for a balanced format.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...BAN SOL RING.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6