Panoptic Mirror's ban is explained: During Atlanta playtesting, Sheldon and Gis played 1-vs.-1 EDH with 100 life totals. After these games, they decided the card ought to go.
Panoptic Mirror was banned under perhaps the most irresponsible, ridiculous conditions considered acceptable by any committee ever.
1) 1v1 EDH is vastly different than normal, multiplayer EDH. Yet the ban was pertinent to multiplayer EDH.
2) They played with modified life pools, altering the testing conditions even further away from the norm.
3) It was a one-time test. This wasn't the conclusion of weeks of testing, rather the results of a few hours -- if that.
Lets look at the card through the filter of the commander banlist expectations.
Question: Does it accidentally break the game?
Answer: No. You must consciously build your deck with both extra turn spells and Panoptic Mirror in them to cause a potential infinite combo. You must intentionally choose to imprint the time magic onto the card.
Question: Is Panoptic Mirror too strong on its own?
Answer: No. It is restricted to casting during the upkeep of a turn. It requires the down payment of two cards before any effect happens. Imprinting a card onto it requires the artifact to be tapped.
Question: Does the card create a perceived barrier of entry to the format?
Answer: No. At an average of 4 dollars, the cost is relatively low. It is fully counterable and doesn't end a game without giving everyone multiple chances and methods of response.
I realize there's potential for a very rare unintentional "oops, I win," but it's about as much as a problem as eternal witness + (mimic vat/crystal shard/capsize/deadeye navigator/equilibrium/erratic portal/sunken hope/vedalken mastermind/) and time magic.
the thing is that any strong spell on it will create unfun game states (inf turns, nonstop mld, no creatures on board and a whole slew of other abilities). in a tournament you can bet that if panoptic isnt banned, that every player and his grandmother will be running it even if its just to imprint a mana ramp card(barring specific deck builds). this card pays for itself after 2 turn cycles, and if you imprinted a mld card then you can almost guarantee that noone will be able to recover from it
the thing is that any strong spell on it will create unfun game states (inf turns, nonstop mld, no creatures on board and a whole slew of other abilities). in a tournament you can bet that if panoptic isnt banned, that every player and his grandmother will be running it even if its just to imprint a mana ramp card(barring specific deck builds). this card pays for itself after 2 turn cycles, and if you imprinted a mld card then you can almost guarantee that noone will be able to recover from it
The thing is, there's plenty of other cards which can potentially create "unfun" game states when abused --
Deadeye Navigator
Mimic Vat
Academy Rector + Omniscience
Omniscience + Decree of Annihilation
Rite of Replication + Sylvan Primordial
Isocron Scepter + Mana Drain (+ Voltaic Key/Unwinding Clock)
The potential for abuse is relatively low in comparison to stronger cards and combos.
this card pays for itself after 2 turn cycles, and if you imprinted a mld card then you can almost guarantee that noone will be able to recover from it
If you imprinted a MLD card
1) You're already running MLD, so your group is okay with you running it.
2) You're already winning, and this is sealing the deal.
Second, if you take a moment to consider the context of the ban, it made perfect sense at the time; they a) followed the rule for life totals at the time; and b) the format was basically what these people in a very small community decided. That doesn't mean that the arguments stand for Mirror being banned today – times have changed and all – but it also doesn't mean the original ban was bad.
You're also assuming it was a one-time test; there's no information to support that. Most of the early days of EDH were decided in person and in online groups that I couldn't access in my limited research. All we know is that the ban was decided after a series of games (no idea how many). We don't even know the context those games took place in – were they explicitly testing Mirror? Was the card on their watchlist? We just don't know.
As for your analysis: It's shallow, but the first and third questions you pose are probably more-or-less correct. I think you're oversimplifying its strength and the impact it has on the board in question number 2, and you're completely avoiding the fact that it often leads to highly undesirable board states: There are very, very few ways to easily Armageddon every turn, and this card not only does that, it does it at with a fairly easy-to-meet cost.
Yes, you did come off sounding like a jackass. But that's not what this thread is about.
The conditions under which Panoptic Mirror was banned are woefully out-of-date and honestly, quite awful to begin with. EDH has evolved into something much better than it once was. Whether or not it "made sense" for the time hardly makes those conditions better compared to today's standards. Also, you conveniently ignored the fact that it was still 1v1 EDH - something which should never be used to test cards for multiplayer. Period.
I'm assuming it was a one-time event because I'm assuming the RC would have elaborated further if it wasn't. Why would I do that? Because I want to assume they are intelligent. They are writing about the processes of banning cards - there's a good reason for them to say they tested it multiple times, and very little reason to stay silent of the matter if they did test it multiple times. I'm assuming the best about their lack of details and their intellect, not the worst.
Secondly, I do not believe my analysis was shallow, but that's your opinion. You basically gave nothing to support your statement, though, so I have little trouble disregarding it.
As for highly undesirable board states, that depends on who you're playing with. It could just as easily be argued that Deadeye Navigator, Hermit Druid, and Omniscience can lead to undesirable board states quickly, yet they are all unbanned and used occasionally.
The banlist is not consistent. It does not attempt to ban every potential problem card. It did, however, get this one. I am glad it is not around to set up infinite turns for my opponents, though if it was I'm sure I'd find some fun ways to use it.
The banlist is not consistent. It does not attempt to ban every potential problem card. It did, however, get this one. I am glad it is not around to set up infinite turns for my opponents, though if it was I'm sure I'd find some fun ways to use it.
I honestly don't understand how this is a problem card. Consider an opponent is trying to setup an infinite turn combo. Chances are they are using Time Warp. So in essence they are dropping a Panoptic Mirror followed by imprinting it. They are thus dropping 10 freaking mana! 10! I though the argument everyone makes for cards like Tooth and Nail is "well if you drop 9 mana on a spell and no one responds, you deserve to win!". Mirror doesn't even kick in until your next upkeep. Your opponents have 1 whole round to answer it, and in a worse case scenario can just counter the copy to buy themselves another round.
I thought the argument everyone uses against Consecrated Sphinx, Dragonmaster Outcast, and other cards like them is "no etb, no beuno". If a card costs you ten mana and doesn't actually do anything that turn, other than exiling one of your own spells, then I don't see it as a problem. It's not even particularly difficult to get rid of.
I considered leaving this open, but I wouldn't want people to confuse the issue and answer points from seven years ago - the game has changed a lot since then. I think it would be best to open a new thread to discuss this unbanning, and quote the relevant parts you wish to discuss.
Panoptic Mirror was banned under perhaps the most irresponsible, ridiculous conditions considered acceptable by any committee ever.
1) 1v1 EDH is vastly different than normal, multiplayer EDH. Yet the ban was pertinent to multiplayer EDH.
2) They played with modified life pools, altering the testing conditions even further away from the norm.
3) It was a one-time test. This wasn't the conclusion of weeks of testing, rather the results of a few hours -- if that.
Lets look at the card through the filter of the commander banlist expectations.
Question: Does it accidentally break the game?
Answer: No. You must consciously build your deck with both extra turn spells and Panoptic Mirror in them to cause a potential infinite combo. You must intentionally choose to imprint the time magic onto the card.
Question: Is Panoptic Mirror too strong on its own?
Answer: No. It is restricted to casting during the upkeep of a turn. It requires the down payment of two cards before any effect happens. Imprinting a card onto it requires the artifact to be tapped.
Question: Does the card create a perceived barrier of entry to the format?
Answer: No. At an average of 4 dollars, the cost is relatively low. It is fully counterable and doesn't end a game without giving everyone multiple chances and methods of response.
I realize there's potential for a very rare unintentional "oops, I win," but it's about as much as a problem as eternal witness + (mimic vat/crystal shard/capsize/deadeye navigator/equilibrium/erratic portal/sunken hope/vedalken mastermind/) and time magic.
That is to say, no problem at all.
EDH
GWSigarda, Host of EnchantressGW[Primer]
The thing is, there's plenty of other cards which can potentially create "unfun" game states when abused --
Deadeye Navigator
Mimic Vat
Academy Rector + Omniscience
Omniscience + Decree of Annihilation
Rite of Replication + Sylvan Primordial
Isocron Scepter + Mana Drain (+ Voltaic Key/Unwinding Clock)
The potential for abuse is relatively low in comparison to stronger cards and combos.
If you imprinted a MLD card
1) You're already running MLD, so your group is okay with you running it.
2) You're already winning, and this is sealing the deal.
Second, if you take a moment to consider the context of the ban, it made perfect sense at the time; they a) followed the rule for life totals at the time; and b) the format was basically what these people in a very small community decided. That doesn't mean that the arguments stand for Mirror being banned today – times have changed and all – but it also doesn't mean the original ban was bad.
You're also assuming it was a one-time test; there's no information to support that. Most of the early days of EDH were decided in person and in online groups that I couldn't access in my limited research. All we know is that the ban was decided after a series of games (no idea how many). We don't even know the context those games took place in – were they explicitly testing Mirror? Was the card on their watchlist? We just don't know.
As for your analysis: It's shallow, but the first and third questions you pose are probably more-or-less correct. I think you're oversimplifying its strength and the impact it has on the board in question number 2, and you're completely avoiding the fact that it often leads to highly undesirable board states: There are very, very few ways to easily Armageddon every turn, and this card not only does that, it does it at with a fairly easy-to-meet cost.
The conditions under which Panoptic Mirror was banned are woefully out-of-date and honestly, quite awful to begin with. EDH has evolved into something much better than it once was. Whether or not it "made sense" for the time hardly makes those conditions better compared to today's standards. Also, you conveniently ignored the fact that it was still 1v1 EDH - something which should never be used to test cards for multiplayer. Period.
I'm assuming it was a one-time event because I'm assuming the RC would have elaborated further if it wasn't. Why would I do that? Because I want to assume they are intelligent. They are writing about the processes of banning cards - there's a good reason for them to say they tested it multiple times, and very little reason to stay silent of the matter if they did test it multiple times. I'm assuming the best about their lack of details and their intellect, not the worst.
Secondly, I do not believe my analysis was shallow, but that's your opinion. You basically gave nothing to support your statement, though, so I have little trouble disregarding it.
As for highly undesirable board states, that depends on who you're playing with. It could just as easily be argued that Deadeye Navigator, Hermit Druid, and Omniscience can lead to undesirable board states quickly, yet they are all unbanned and used occasionally.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
I honestly don't understand how this is a problem card. Consider an opponent is trying to setup an infinite turn combo. Chances are they are using Time Warp. So in essence they are dropping a Panoptic Mirror followed by imprinting it. They are thus dropping 10 freaking mana! 10! I though the argument everyone makes for cards like Tooth and Nail is "well if you drop 9 mana on a spell and no one responds, you deserve to win!". Mirror doesn't even kick in until your next upkeep. Your opponents have 1 whole round to answer it, and in a worse case scenario can just counter the copy to buy themselves another round.
I thought the argument everyone uses against Consecrated Sphinx, Dragonmaster Outcast, and other cards like them is "no etb, no beuno". If a card costs you ten mana and doesn't actually do anything that turn, other than exiling one of your own spells, then I don't see it as a problem. It's not even particularly difficult to get rid of.
thanks,
-bob
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek