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.
I guess what I'm trying to say is...BAN SOL RING.
That's an interesting point you bring up about house bans being unable to create a balanced format - it seems strange that such a thing would be impossible, (this thread has much to do about creating balance) but the very nature of house banning means that it has to be done on a per-playgroup basis.
Is it inconceivable that you could talk with those who you do play with consistently and adjust your decks when you play against them? There shouldn't be too many additional cards that you'd want to ban, right? If you're already talking before each game, you may be able to switch the cards out while doing so. If anyone new shows up, just let them know what the group's doing and talk it out. Of course, you're right that the official list doesn't create the most balanced format outside of dedicated playgroups... but it's not meant for that.
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.
Good news then! Particular house rules don't have to affect you at all if your playgroup doesn't use them!
I'd guess that many players might be in a similar situation; they want to play with some very powerful cards, but they don't want to break them. Fair play and all that. However, they may not be able to do this because there's such a stigma against those cards. I'm thinking that if we can gather a list of these powerful cards and provide ways to accommodate them better, that stigma may not matter so much. It may even reduce the stigma itself!
For example, with a section devoted to commanders, Sharum the Hegemon might have Sculpting Steel and Phyrexian Metamorph listed as problem cards. Playgroups could then have a reference for these things and restrict individual cards for specific generals instead of outright banning them.
So far, I have this:
Due to the extreme synergy between specific generals and other single cards, some groups decide to ban selected cards from being used with those generals instead of outright banning either for all players. While many of the 2 card combinations here (general + 1 other card) create infinite combos/loops, other outcomes are either powerful enough to end the game or ensure a victory.
That's an interesting point you bring up about house bans being unable to create a balanced format - it seems strange that such a thing would be impossible, (this thread has much to do about creating balance) but the very nature of house banning means that it has to be done on a per-playgroup basis.
Is it inconceivable that you could talk with those who you do play with consistently and adjust your decks when you play against them? There shouldn't be too many additional cards that you'd want to ban, right? If you're already talking before each game, you may be able to switch the cards out while doing so. If anyone new shows up, just let them know what the group's doing and talk it out. Of course, you're right that the official list doesn't create the most balanced format outside of dedicated playgroups... but it's not meant for that.
I've previously had decks that required switching out cards, and it's a PitA to keep them separated correctly and always have a 100 card deck at the end of the day, in my experience.
But the bigger problem is this "talk it out" thing with other people, because usually when I'm playing EDH it's about 50% regulars and 50% random strangers. Cards like sol ring that obviously warrant a ban are played in EVERY deck (or very nearly), and people don't exactly bring around their 101st - 105th choices for their deck. Even if they've got a suitable replacement they've probably got to root around in trade binders first, they'd have to re-replace them afterwards, and their deck still won't be tuned as well as if they'd come in knowing the rules.
Know what I'd say if I went into a gaming store, found some guys who wanted to play EDH, and they told me to take out part of my deck and replace it if I wanted to play? I'd say "forget it" and leave.
My other group is somewhat more stable, percentage-wise, but there's around 20 people who come on different weeks, and there's no way in hell we'd all agree on a stable list.
House banning is a cute idea in an ideal world, but in the real world it's a giant pain outside of idyllic stable playgroups where everyone agrees and doesn't play anywhere else. I think Sheldon puts way too much importance on house rules for balancing the format, when it's not possible or efficient for most people. In all honesty I think we could create a reasonably balanced format by growing the banlist by a reasonable, imo, 1.5x or so.
The bigger problem is this "talk it out" thing with other people, because usually when I'm playing EDH it's about 50% regulars and 50% random strangers. Cards like sol ring that obviously warrant a ban are played in EVERY deck (or very nearly), and people don't exactly bring around their 101st - 105th choices for their deck. Even if they've got a suitable replacement they've probably got to root around in trade binders first, they'd have to re-replace them afterwards, and their deck still won't be tuned as well as if they'd come in knowing the rules.
Know what I'd say if I went into a gaming store, found some guys who wanted to play EDH, and they told me to take out part of my deck and replace it if I wanted to play? I'd say "forget it" and leave.
My other group is somewhat more stable, percentage-wise, but there's around 20 people who come on different weeks, and there's no way in hell we'd all agree on a stable list.
House banning is a cute idea in an ideal world, but in the real world it's a giant pain outside of idyllic stable playgroups where everyone agrees and doesn't play anywhere else. I think Sheldon puts way too much importance on house rules for balancing the format, when it's not possible or efficient for most people. In all honesty I think we could create a reasonably balanced format by growing the banlist by a reasonable, imo, 1.5x or so.
It certainly does seem like a hassle, but perhaps if it became a more frequent occurrence for some people, those people might find (and have on-hand) some replacements for the more powerful cards - worn powerstone for sol ring, or Defense of the Heart for Survival of the Fittest, for example.
I've seen many players who use optimal, powerful cards like these, but only really because they own them. Some might not mind much if they were requested to use other cards. That's what 'talking it out' is all about; for players who haven't played together before, compromising can be vital for both sides. (or each player, if there are 3+ 'sides') If a group told you to modify your deck without talking to you about their reasoning, and even then just telling you instead of asking, they clearly don't want to compromise and thus are eliminating a lot of potential for meeting new players. Not much you can do about that.
However, if that same group were to tell you that they enjoy slower games, or that they don't like infinite combos, if you don't have a deck that's remotely close to being able to follow suit, you may have to compromise in gameplay and make suboptimal decisions to avoid fast games, or going infinite. In that same situation, they could compromise by playing with you and your deck as best they could, while trying to focus on the core of EDH, the social aspect, even if they happen to lose.
I guess what I'm not understanding is the notion that 'decks using different banlists can't be played together'. The house rules that are created before any game along with the friendliness that should accompany their discussion seem to make it quite possible.
House Ruling just seems like a mistake to me in general.
We don't talk about House Ruling Standard, or Legacy, or Modern, or Sealed, or Draft, or etc... because those formats are "official" anything that pushes Commander farther from being recognized and playable anywhere at any time with anyone seems like a mistake to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Heterological" is heterological if and only if "heterological" is autological
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
Why not just make a house rule within your playgroup that games should focus on promoting an atmosphere of enjoyment rather than the edginess of competition?
In my area we have a group of players that would rather play for fun. And yes, we'll play some great combos and generally wreck havoc from time to time and quite a few of us have a way to deal with jerks who played cards like the sundering titan: We'd gang up on them and we'd attack them early and often to beat him before he could do anything and eventually he got the idea.
House Ruling just seems like a mistake to me in general.
We don't talk about House Ruling Standard, or Legacy, or Modern, or Sealed, or Draft, or etc... because those formats are "official" anything that pushes Commander farther from being recognized and playable anywhere at any time with anyone seems like a mistake to me.
For the other formats you are REQUIRED to follow the rules or the competition is not sanctioned.
House rules are a fine idea if you have a good group that knows what it wants.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
For the other formats you are REQUIRED to follow the rules or the competition is not sanctioned.
House rules are a fine idea if you have a good group that knows what it wants.
Yeah which is my point. Commander should be like all the other formats ever... there has to be rules and you should be REQUIRED to follow them.
All this BS about having a causal format is with house bans and ignoring some rules is silly, the point of a format is having a common set of rules that define what the format is.
Stop calling it a format if you don't want to have rules that set a common standard.
Because if you don't have a common standard then we are all just playing different incomparable variations of the same idea, instead of a format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Heterological" is heterological if and only if "heterological" is autological
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
House Ruling just seems like a mistake to me in general.
We don't talk about House Ruling Standard, or Legacy, or Modern, or Sealed, or Draft, or etc... because those formats are "official" anything that pushes Commander farther from being recognized and playable anywhere at any time with anyone seems like a mistake to me.
For the other formats you are REQUIRED to follow the rules or the competition is not sanctioned.
House rules are a fine idea if you have a good group that knows what it wants.
Yeah which is my point. Commander should be like all the other formats ever... there has to be rules and you should be REQUIRED to follow them.
All this BS about having a causal format is with house bans and ignoring some rules is silly, the point of a format is having a common set of rules that define what the format is.
Stop calling it a format if you don't want to have rules that set a common standard.
Because if you don't have a common standard then we are all just playing different incomparable variations of the same idea, instead of a format.
There is a common standard - see the official rules. House rules, by their definition, don't change that. If you look back at those official rules, you'll notice that the very first rule describes a vision for the format; it's meant to promote social games of magic, as opposed to "all the other formats ever". The point of 'house rules' varies from playgroup to playgroup, but none undermine the format as a whole. May I ask how you propose to enforce the idea that I "should be REQUIRED to follow" the official rules?
There is a common standard - see the official rules. House rules, by their definition, don't change that. If you look back at those official rules, you'll notice that the very first rule describes a vision for the format; it's meant to promote social games of magic, as opposed to "all the other formats ever". The point of 'house rules' varies from playgroup to playgroup, but none undermine the format as a whole. May I ask how you propose to enforce the idea that I "should be REQUIRED to follow" the official rules?
I know what the rules say. This is but one area where I disagree with the RC. They want to be all passive and say, hey guys here are the rules, but if you don't like them don't follow them!
This is a mistake, for more then one reason, but the least of which it removes all authority from the RC.
How do you enforce the idea that you should be required to follow the official rules. Easy, I won't play you, and I highly suggest that other people who love commander as a format and want to see it grow refuse to play people who don't follow official rules either.
Hint: At one point in NFL sports history there was there were tons of leagues (play groups with different rules) and it was extremely disorganized. Then someone had the brilliant idea of consolidating all the leagues into fewer and fewer branches and having a common set of rules so that teams (players) could travel and know what to expect and know that they would face challenges that were driven by play skill not rules differences.
When I sit down to play someone in commander that I've met in my travels I want to test my play skill not my rule set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Heterological" is heterological if and only if "heterological" is autological
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
When I sit down to play someone in commander that I've met in my travels I want to test my play skill not my rule set.
Sure, that seems a perfectly legitimate desire. I meant to express above the idea that house rules are specific to the house (or whatever local environment) they're used in. They aren't necessarily used outside of that environment, partly due to the involved players understanding that other players don't know about and don't play with their rules. Everywhere I've played, we've always begun with the official rules and only deviated from them if all the players involved are interested in such deviation.
Getting back to the strata here, I was looking at the Duel Commander ban list and have been thinking about breaking the strata up into more distinct groups. Even adding a single stratum between the current #2 & #3 strata may drastically improve the effectiveness of the group as a whole:
In addition to making each stratum more easily identifiable, reducing the number of additional cards per stratum (by increasing the number of strata) should help to clarify card choices and reveal cards that don't belong.
Most of them were already within the strata, but a few I had missed. Many of them seem to be combo pieces. I'll take a closer look at them further, but I feel like strata 0 - 3 are pretty well defined now. Strata 4 & 5 are hilariously outdated, but I'm not sure which route I should take with them. Many of the cards I originally included in them were there for price/unfamiliarity reasons. In any case, I'm not as concerned about them. As for the rest of the OP, I'd love some fresh insight. I know it's a lot to read, so just pick small part and comment on that if you like.
The only house rules that should exist are where and how beer should be properly placed, who does the next beer run, and what form of dice rolling is performed to see who goes first.
Making new ban lists, restrictions, life totals, poison rules, and any other thing that isn't in the official rules turns people into spirit of edh cult thrulls. You warp the game to your standards, then try and force them on anyone with an edh deck just wanting to play a game with you. It makes the game unattractive to someone who was just looking to get a game in, but can't because of all the "house/group" rules they decided to have for no other reason besides selfish personal ones.
Here's a scenario:
You meet someone who over hears you talking about tapping mana. That person plays edh and, after chatting a bit, one of two things happen:
1-you tell he/she about your play group that has a 70 card ban list, with no combo, land hate, counters, or lock down.
2-you tell he/she we just play whatever.
Regardless of what their decks are or how they play, the second option is more inviting to the majority.
And this is based off fact, as the group of people I play with grows and the people who refuse to play against combo, stax, control, land destruction, chaos, etc have all been dwindled down to one table, if that.
I mostly agree. Many of the house rules in the OP deal with things arbitrarily, through banning or restriction. I don't think they're particularly healthy for any group, even though they may temporarily solve an issue. Having something short-term like them as an option, however, can't be awful... but I'm concerned that their consequences aren't portrayed well.
I mostly agree. Many of the house rules in the OP deal with things arbitrarily, through banning or restriction. I don't think they're particularly healthy for any group, even though they may temporarily solve an issue. Having something short-term like them as an option, however, can't be awful... but I'm concerned that their consequences aren't portrayed well.
See, I would fine it fine to have a few restrictions if a few buddies of mine wanting to get into magic and wanting my usual group to play more toned down decks so they could get comfy with the format. Nobody wants to spend time and money trying a new thing just to get rolled over by combo Von Counterstud the 3rd, every game. I mean, that's where the social aspect comes in.
I just find it destructive to the game to tack on more rules just because some Guy and his 2 friends find strip mine annoying and think everyone who wants to shuffle up with them should follow their lead.
Edh should have a friendly learning curve to it. If I'm playing a new person, his deck is in penny sleeves, and he's asking questions, no way I'm playing Armageddon, smoke stack, or a board wipe that game. Dudes new. He's dipping his big toe into the water. No reason to bite it off. But the longer he plays, the better he gets, and while getting a better understanding of the game.
I think there's a very big misconception that people play "restrictive and competitive" strategies to crush noobs. No, we play them to crush out friends who are playing equally brutal hi end decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's an interesting point you bring up about house bans being unable to create a balanced format - it seems strange that such a thing would be impossible, (this thread has much to do about creating balance) but the very nature of house banning means that it has to be done on a per-playgroup basis.
Is it inconceivable that you could talk with those who you do play with consistently and adjust your decks when you play against them? There shouldn't be too many additional cards that you'd want to ban, right? If you're already talking before each game, you may be able to switch the cards out while doing so. If anyone new shows up, just let them know what the group's doing and talk it out. Of course, you're right that the official list doesn't create the most balanced format outside of dedicated playgroups... but it's not meant for that.
Good news then! Particular house rules don't have to affect you at all if your playgroup doesn't use them!
I'd guess that many players might be in a similar situation; they want to play with some very powerful cards, but they don't want to break them. Fair play and all that. However, they may not be able to do this because there's such a stigma against those cards. I'm thinking that if we can gather a list of these powerful cards and provide ways to accommodate them better, that stigma may not matter so much. It may even reduce the stigma itself!
For example, with a section devoted to commanders, Sharum the Hegemon might have Sculpting Steel and Phyrexian Metamorph listed as problem cards. Playgroups could then have a reference for these things and restrict individual cards for specific generals instead of outright banning them.
So far, I have this:
Arcum Dagsson: ?
Animar, Soul of Elements: ?
Avacyn, Angel of Hope: Worldslayer
Azami, Lady of Scrolls: Mind Over Matter
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight: Heartless Hidetsugu
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV: ?
Hanna, Ship's Navigator: Second Chance
Iona, Shield of Emeria: Painter's Servant
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker: Breath of Fury, Zealous Conscripts, Lightning Crafter
Konda, Lord of Eiganjo: Worldslayer
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed: Triskelion, Puppeteer Clique
Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind: Curiosity, Ophidan Eye, Mind Over Matter
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir: Knowledge Pool
Rafiq of the Many: Distortion Strike
Riku of Two Reflections: Palinchron
Sapling of Colfenor: Worldslayer
Scion of the Ur-Dragon: Hermit Druid
Sharuum the Hegemon: Sculpting Steel, Phyrexian Metamorph
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Darksteel Plate
Sliver Queen: Mana Echoes, Basal Sliver
Teysa, Orzhov Scion: Painter's Servant
Uril, the Miststalker: ?
Vela, the Night Clad: Rite of Replication
Vendilion Clique: Tunnel Vision
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre: Worldslayer
Zedruu, the Greathearted: Celestial Dawn
Zur the Enchanter: Necropotence
I've previously had decks that required switching out cards, and it's a PitA to keep them separated correctly and always have a 100 card deck at the end of the day, in my experience.
But the bigger problem is this "talk it out" thing with other people, because usually when I'm playing EDH it's about 50% regulars and 50% random strangers. Cards like sol ring that obviously warrant a ban are played in EVERY deck (or very nearly), and people don't exactly bring around their 101st - 105th choices for their deck. Even if they've got a suitable replacement they've probably got to root around in trade binders first, they'd have to re-replace them afterwards, and their deck still won't be tuned as well as if they'd come in knowing the rules.
Know what I'd say if I went into a gaming store, found some guys who wanted to play EDH, and they told me to take out part of my deck and replace it if I wanted to play? I'd say "forget it" and leave.
My other group is somewhat more stable, percentage-wise, but there's around 20 people who come on different weeks, and there's no way in hell we'd all agree on a stable list.
House banning is a cute idea in an ideal world, but in the real world it's a giant pain outside of idyllic stable playgroups where everyone agrees and doesn't play anywhere else. I think Sheldon puts way too much importance on house rules for balancing the format, when it's not possible or efficient for most people. In all honesty I think we could create a reasonably balanced format by growing the banlist by a reasonable, imo, 1.5x or so.
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
It certainly does seem like a hassle, but perhaps if it became a more frequent occurrence for some people, those people might find (and have on-hand) some replacements for the more powerful cards - worn powerstone for sol ring, or Defense of the Heart for Survival of the Fittest, for example.
I've seen many players who use optimal, powerful cards like these, but only really because they own them. Some might not mind much if they were requested to use other cards. That's what 'talking it out' is all about; for players who haven't played together before, compromising can be vital for both sides. (or each player, if there are 3+ 'sides') If a group told you to modify your deck without talking to you about their reasoning, and even then just telling you instead of asking, they clearly don't want to compromise and thus are eliminating a lot of potential for meeting new players. Not much you can do about that.
However, if that same group were to tell you that they enjoy slower games, or that they don't like infinite combos, if you don't have a deck that's remotely close to being able to follow suit, you may have to compromise in gameplay and make suboptimal decisions to avoid fast games, or going infinite. In that same situation, they could compromise by playing with you and your deck as best they could, while trying to focus on the core of EDH, the social aspect, even if they happen to lose.
I guess what I'm not understanding is the notion that 'decks using different banlists can't be played together'. The house rules that are created before any game along with the friendliness that should accompany their discussion seem to make it quite possible.
We don't talk about House Ruling Standard, or Legacy, or Modern, or Sealed, or Draft, or etc... because those formats are "official" anything that pushes Commander farther from being recognized and playable anywhere at any time with anyone seems like a mistake to me.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
In my area we have a group of players that would rather play for fun. And yes, we'll play some great combos and generally wreck havoc from time to time and quite a few of us have a way to deal with jerks who played cards like the sundering titan: We'd gang up on them and we'd attack them early and often to beat him before he could do anything and eventually he got the idea.
For the other formats you are REQUIRED to follow the rules or the competition is not sanctioned.
House rules are a fine idea if you have a good group that knows what it wants.
Yeah which is my point. Commander should be like all the other formats ever... there has to be rules and you should be REQUIRED to follow them.
All this BS about having a causal format is with house bans and ignoring some rules is silly, the point of a format is having a common set of rules that define what the format is.
Stop calling it a format if you don't want to have rules that set a common standard.
Because if you don't have a common standard then we are all just playing different incomparable variations of the same idea, instead of a format.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
There is a common standard - see the official rules. House rules, by their definition, don't change that. If you look back at those official rules, you'll notice that the very first rule describes a vision for the format; it's meant to promote social games of magic, as opposed to "all the other formats ever". The point of 'house rules' varies from playgroup to playgroup, but none undermine the format as a whole. May I ask how you propose to enforce the idea that I "should be REQUIRED to follow" the official rules?
I know what the rules say. This is but one area where I disagree with the RC. They want to be all passive and say, hey guys here are the rules, but if you don't like them don't follow them!
This is a mistake, for more then one reason, but the least of which it removes all authority from the RC.
How do you enforce the idea that you should be required to follow the official rules. Easy, I won't play you, and I highly suggest that other people who love commander as a format and want to see it grow refuse to play people who don't follow official rules either.
Hint: At one point in NFL sports history there was there were tons of leagues (play groups with different rules) and it was extremely disorganized. Then someone had the brilliant idea of consolidating all the leagues into fewer and fewer branches and having a common set of rules so that teams (players) could travel and know what to expect and know that they would face challenges that were driven by play skill not rules differences.
When I sit down to play someone in commander that I've met in my travels I want to test my play skill not my rule set.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
Sure, that seems a perfectly legitimate desire. I meant to express above the idea that house rules are specific to the house (or whatever local environment) they're used in. They aren't necessarily used outside of that environment, partly due to the involved players understanding that other players don't know about and don't play with their rules. Everywhere I've played, we've always begun with the official rules and only deviated from them if all the players involved are interested in such deviation.
Getting back to the strata here, I was looking at the Duel Commander ban list and have been thinking about breaking the strata up into more distinct groups. Even adding a single stratum between the current #2 & #3 strata may drastically improve the effectiveness of the group as a whole:
Banned in multi, but not 1v1:
In addition to making each stratum more easily identifiable, reducing the number of additional cards per stratum (by increasing the number of strata) should help to clarify card choices and reveal cards that don't belong.
ONWARD!
I've taken some inspiration from BKM's response to Kevin Nath's thread here, comparing his updated list below to the strata 2 & 3.
Making new ban lists, restrictions, life totals, poison rules, and any other thing that isn't in the official rules turns people into spirit of edh cult thrulls. You warp the game to your standards, then try and force them on anyone with an edh deck just wanting to play a game with you. It makes the game unattractive to someone who was just looking to get a game in, but can't because of all the "house/group" rules they decided to have for no other reason besides selfish personal ones.
Here's a scenario:
You meet someone who over hears you talking about tapping mana. That person plays edh and, after chatting a bit, one of two things happen:
1-you tell he/she about your play group that has a 70 card ban list, with no combo, land hate, counters, or lock down.
2-you tell he/she we just play whatever.
Regardless of what their decks are or how they play, the second option is more inviting to the majority.
And this is based off fact, as the group of people I play with grows and the people who refuse to play against combo, stax, control, land destruction, chaos, etc have all been dwindled down to one table, if that.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
See, I would fine it fine to have a few restrictions if a few buddies of mine wanting to get into magic and wanting my usual group to play more toned down decks so they could get comfy with the format. Nobody wants to spend time and money trying a new thing just to get rolled over by combo Von Counterstud the 3rd, every game. I mean, that's where the social aspect comes in.
I just find it destructive to the game to tack on more rules just because some Guy and his 2 friends find strip mine annoying and think everyone who wants to shuffle up with them should follow their lead.
Edh should have a friendly learning curve to it. If I'm playing a new person, his deck is in penny sleeves, and he's asking questions, no way I'm playing Armageddon, smoke stack, or a board wipe that game. Dudes new. He's dipping his big toe into the water. No reason to bite it off. But the longer he plays, the better he gets, and while getting a better understanding of the game.
I think there's a very big misconception that people play "restrictive and competitive" strategies to crush noobs. No, we play them to crush out friends who are playing equally brutal hi end decks.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.