I agree. If I'm being uncivil, feel free to call me out. I don't think I am. I am saying some things that are unpopular, and yes, you can take a quote out of context (as MRHblue just did, not sure why) to make it look antagonistic, but I'm trying to explain the underlying reasons.
Ultimately, I'm happy for anyone to play Commander, but people who want to play it off-label assume the risks of doing so, and need to understand that the format isn't going to abandon core philosophies to make it work for them. It either does or it doesn't.
I was referring to the same quote that MRHblue was referring to. I read it as you shutting down someones opinion just because it didn't mesh with yours, and that they aren't playing EDH somehow.
I apologize if it came across that way. bobthefunny explains it well - it's not about "my way is better" or "I love it more, nyah". It's about the fact that Commander is more than just a structure and as part of buying into Commander we ask that players buy into a philosophy.
It's a bit like saying "I love Standard, but it should involve the last 10 years of cards". That format may be awesome, but, ultimately, you're looking for something other than what's on offer. And if it is awesome, you should go play it with your friends.
I think it is fairly reasonable for one to say that another doesn't actually love EDH if the basis for that statement is they love a format with the general ruleset of EDH with none of the fostering group fun with a social contract philosophy. If there is want for a competitive banlist and letting people play what they think is fun while using the banlist as a way to -try- and make sure that the individual's fun is also fun for others, that is fine, but it isn't EDH.
As Jivan would attest, the "Spirit of EDH" is just as much an irreplaceable and core part of the format as the 99 card singleton with a legendary commander and physical rules. Wanting a complete divorce from that spirit/philosophy in favor of competitive balance/bans is okay, and you are encouraged to make your own format to design that accordingly, but that is no longer EDH.
With regard to Stax, if it is fun for your group is the only thing that matters. If it is not, then you need to re-examine the social contract. Most casual stax builds are not nearly as un-fun because they are more attrition based rather than fast/hard-lock stax, which does connotate a fair amount of un-fun-ness. So, in essence, attrition != stax, although they are related. And, if you are playing hardcore stax, as long as your group is having fun, you are doing nothing wrong. As papa_funk said, though, be mindful when you play with others outside your group, because it will draw the ire of many if you play it with those who haven't agreed to it prior.
Lastly, you can play competitive/cutthroat EDH and as long as you and your group are having fun, you're not doing it wrong. The banlist and the format's ultimate philosophy that doesn't account for those types of games/groups won't change, however, so you need to be responsible for maintaining your own balance/fun/social contract. I know it is probably agonizing to be told that you need to make your own banlist amendments if the RC's isn't doing it for you, but that is the real truth if you fall into one of those more competitive groups. At the same time, more casual groups have problems with different cards as well for whatever reason that may be; they are also encouraged to make those decisions. While it may be hard to grasp for some who are tournament players, the banlist here isn't designed for the same kind of thing that a constructed, sanctioned format is. Using constructed format reasonings to ban a card is not productive because that isn't the standard that is used. If you want a card banned, try presenting the argument for it within the confines of the stated ban criteria rather than why such and such card is too powerful, which is fine in Modern, but not in EDH.
Finally, let's drop the Sol Ring debate since they have said it isn't getting banned making almost any argument A. Something they've already heard and B. Something that clearly hasn't convinced them already, so it probably won't start now. If you want it banned, again, do it in your own group, or found your own competitive EDH multiplayer format, although I strongly do not believe it would catch on, meaning you'd likely be wasting your time. House bans are the only way to get what you want here. Maybe after establishing house bans that work for your competitive or pseudo-competitive metas, you will be able to get more traction on a broader scale with the community towards competitive multiplayer rules/bans.
I apologize if it came across that way. bobthefunny explains it well - it's not about "my way is better" or "I love it more, nyah". It's about the fact that Commander is more than just a structure and as part of buying into Commander we ask that players buy into a philosophy.
I appreciate the clarification, and apologize if you felt I took it out of context.
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.
No offense meant by this in any way, but does battlecruiser magic meta for EDH exist? All of the play groups I've seen around home and around my college are very tuned, with plenty of pure control and pure aggro decks. I've never really seen a deck I would call "battlecruiser"...
I could second this notion. I've never seen the vision of the Rules Committee in action. I like to think I started Commander "the right way", so to speak, and I think almost everybody does, but then you lose. Then you adapt, evolve, and then you're not playing Commander anymore, because you're winning. I truly would be interested in looking in on a meta that operates like Commander's philosophy intends. I don't want to retain my notions of ultra-casuals house-banning cards that demand removal so that their fatties can turn sideways unopposed. I've never seen real commander. I've only seen commander-legal decks trying to win within the constraints of the rules.
EDIT: I suppose what separates a commander meta is the reaction to losing. Does the loser adapt and evolve, or does the winner? If the loser adapts and evolves, you have the same arms race that takes every format to the same ends. If the winner adapts and evolves, you have??? I wouldn't even know how to make this happen. "Your deck is too good, make another?" is something I just couldn't ask of someone.
Anyway, even in my casual group, my friends have been ok with me playing Stax and attrition based builds. They may not be as "lock oriented" as some competitive lists, but Stax is still the best way to describe it, and it seems strange to me to hear that even though a meta like mine can have fun playing with and against this type of strategy that is somehow not adhering to the spirit of EDH or something.
The core tenets of commander are, basically, "have epic games" and "maximize everyone's fun, not just yours". So it sounds like you're doing it right within your playgroup if everyone is having fun with it. However, continue to be mindful of that when you play with others, as stax has not, historically, been great at leading to epic games and maximizing everyone's fun.
Let me know when you make even one change that supports this view.
It sure was fun having to take rofellos out of the 99 because of non-power related reasons. Really increased my enjoyment of the game.
It is great fun having to police everyone's decklist because the banlist does nothing to prevent stupid decks from existing( not even a little )
It's awesome knowing I can't play certain cards because of, what, power? reasons, only to have my opponent skip ahead 3 mana off a sol ring signet opener and kill me before I get my third land drop, using nothing but fair equipment and their general.
It's great knowing I can house rule this stuff away...unless I ever want to play against someone outside of these houserules, in which case I have to return to the cancer banned list.
I support the complete removal of the banlist and the governing body, it's not making the format better.
Public Mod Note
(bobthefunny):
Infraction for Trolling
No offense meant by this in any way, but does battlecruiser magic meta for EDH exist? All of the play groups I've seen around home and around my college are very tuned, with plenty of pure control and pure aggro decks. I've never really seen a deck I would call "battlecruiser"...
I could second this notion. I've never seen the vision of the Rules Committee in action. I like to think I started Commander "the right way", so to speak, and I think almost everybody does, but then you lose. Then you adapt, evolve, and then you're not playing Commander anymore, because you're winning. I truly would be interested in looking in on a meta that operates like Commander's philosophy intends. I don't want to retain my notions of ultra-casuals house-banning cards that demand removal so that their fatties can turn sideways unopposed. I've never seen real commander. I've only seen commander-legal decks trying to win within the constraints of the rules.
I have similar experiences. My group switched to Commander exclusively b/c we always played multiplayer and the idea of utilizing more cards was so appealing and the commander aspect was unique. Our early games were awful, lasting 5+ hours at times. Now the decks are more finely tuned, so they WIN faster. Games are still epic, fun, and memorable, but I always thought it was because we were all playing together, just like a game of spades can be epic, fun, and memorable.
No offense meant by this in any way, but does battlecruiser magic meta for EDH exist? All of the play groups I've seen around home and around my college are very tuned, with plenty of pure control and pure aggro decks. I've never really seen a deck I would call "battlecruiser"...
I could second this notion. I've never seen the vision of the Rules Committee in action. I like to think I started Commander "the right way", so to speak, and I think almost everybody does, but then you lose. Then you adapt, evolve, and then you're not playing Commander anymore, because you're winning. I truly would be interested in looking in on a meta that operates like Commander's philosophy intends. I don't want to retain my notions of ultra-casuals house-banning cards that demand removal so that their fatties can turn sideways unopposed. I've never seen real commander. I've only seen commander-legal decks trying to win within the constraints of the rules.
Hi there, I'd like to think that my meta is what the RC has in mind. We have a number of highly tuned decks and they don't always win. I've only seen a T1 sol-ring happen like three different times in the last 6 months,so I don't think we have hand sculpting from PP as an issue either. The biggest happenstance recently was an Iona hitting the boarding naming green i think,followed by a dack's duplicate naming white (which shut down half of my deck due to running UW ) but I was still able to play around it,and so was another player who was hit by the first iona. Before that the last time Iona appeared in our group was a number of years ago when I ran it in a RW deck, but I removed it along with taking part the deck cuz the other players weren't having fun. My current plan to put together an Orolo solider token deck, instead of the standard control deck that's normally associated with it.
I also used to run Omen Machine, which after a few games, I was asked to remove it since it take some of the fun away, so I did so.
I support the complete removal of the banlist and the governing body, it's not making the format better.
Well now that you're spouting some very heavy claims let me ask something.
Who are you and why does anything you say matter on the subject? Are you a lost RC member who was banished to the internet because of your radical beliefs? Perhaps Papa_Funk and Sheldon decided they could not have you mucking around with their devious mustache twirling schemes. Please let me know why I should mindlessly accept that the RC is causing nothing but strife for the format that they have fostered.
Or maybe are you just talking out of a less acceptable hole than your mouth.
Edit: To be less rude about it. What reason do people have to think your opinion (or anyone elses for that matter) are better on the subject of the philosophy of the ban list?
Maybe there's a cultural divide between the west coast and east in terms of Magic style? Mister Funk is out of California, and you're (Hermes) living at ground zero of a likely ongoing extraterrestrial invasion. Maybe things are just more laid back out west? New Englanders have a reputation for being a little more uptight, supposedly, and my real location is Danielson, CT.
I suppose what separates a commander meta is the reaction to losing. Does the loser adapt and evolve, or does the winner? If the loser adapts and evolves, you have the same arms race that takes every format to the same ends. If the winner adapts and evolves, you have??? I wouldn't even know how to make this happen. "Your deck is too good, make another?" is something I just couldn't ask of someone.
You don't think this is a biased representation of EDH "evolving"? If a deck does something so consistently people have to 'arms race' to combat it, how is that fun for people with smaller card pools or lower budgets? People who want to have a good game would want to make a deck that is the same power level as everyone else. I'm not saying one power level is better than the other, but unbalanced decks tend to create bad games. Why is it a negative for people to find a power level everyone is comfortable at and do that?
]I have similar experiences. My group switched to Commander exclusively b/c we always played multiplayer and the idea of utilizing more cards was so appealing and the commander aspect was unique. Our early games were awful, lasting 5+ hours at times. Now the decks are more finely tuned, so they WIN faster. Games are still epic, fun, and memorable, but I always thought it was because we were all playing together, just like a game of spades can be epic, fun, and memorable.
Sure, because everyone is doing it. Now suppose for a second there was one guy who couldn't get a deck at that level for whatever reason. Does he just get cut out?
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.
I support the complete removal of the banlist and the governing body, it's not making the format better.
Well now that you're spouting some very heavy claims let me ask something.
Who are you and why does anything you say matter on the subject? Are you a lost RC member who was banished to the internet because of your radical beliefs? Perhaps Papa_Funk and Sheldon decided they could not have you mucking around with their devious mustache twirling schemes. Please let me know why I should mindlessly accept that the RC is causing nothing but strife for the format that they have fostered.
Or maybe are you just talking out of a less acceptable hole than your mouth.
I'm just a guy who plays magic sometimes.
You should actually look at what's being said, rather than who's saying it. If you don't, you might as well stop posting yourself, as you are a similarly unimportant person that shouldn't be listened to.
I suppose what separates a commander meta is the reaction to losing. Does the loser adapt and evolve, or does the winner? If the loser adapts and evolves, you have the same arms race that takes every format to the same ends. If the winner adapts and evolves, you have??? I wouldn't even know how to make this happen. "Your deck is too good, make another?" is something I just couldn't ask of someone.
You don't think this is a biased representation of EDH "evolving"? If a deck does something so consistently people have to 'arms race' to combat it, how is that fun for people with smaller card pools or lower budgets? People who want to have a good game would want to make a deck that is the same power level as everyone else. I'm not saying one power level is better than the other, but unbalanced decks tend to create bad games. Why is it a negative for people to find a power level everyone is comfortable at and do that?
Is it biased? The typical reaction to not winning is to try and get better. There's some skill growth involved in this, but most of the time, the faster approach is to get better cards for your deck. It just seems to happen that way. To be like Commander is to be like Meatloaf, and be willing to do anything (for love) but to determine that you won't do (that).
Well now that you're spouting some very heavy claims let me ask something.
Who are you and why does anything you say matter on the subject? Are you a lost RC member who was banished to the internet because of your radical beliefs? Perhaps Papa_Funk and Sheldon decided they could not have you mucking around with their devious mustache twirling schemes. Please let me know why I should mindlessly accept that the RC is causing nothing but strife for the format that they have fostered.
Or maybe are you just talking out of a less acceptable hole than your mouth.
Sheldon is East Coast (Florida). I'm DC Area and until recently my meta was very much the posterchild meta as well, with Wort Token swarms, and Horde tribal bad-elementals. Some players are more competitive than others. Frowned upon (but allowable) combo and land D.
We've recently had a few more combo players join though, and that's upped the arms-race a bit (To my shame, I participated).
I have a spike-y mentality myself, so it's always a challenge building decks for EDH - I start with a cool idea, but then tune it considerably.
My last Trostani game though involved me attacking with 11 8/8 tokens at a Kaalia player, but failing to kill him due to his Gisela out (and liffelink angels), while he was attacking me for increasing amounts in the air (over 100 damage in 3 turns), but I was staying alive due to populating 8/8's with Trostani.
I'm in Baltimore and I'd consider the average league game we have to fall within the philosophy of the RC. Of course, part of that is probably due to our point system, but if that's the case I'd hardly call that a failing.
I'm in Baltimore and I'd consider the average league game we have to fall within the philosophy of the RC. Of course, part of that is probably due to our point system, but if that's the case I'd hardly call that a failing.
Maybe a RC endorsed, official point system is the solution to the format's woes? Everything wrong with the banned list stems from wanting to effectively ban so many things, but not really wanting to have to. If the win condition is winning, then you have to expect what you see here. If the win condition is playing in a way most in tune with a vision, where winning only yields points towards a score that encompasses more than just winning, then to be a Spike, one would have to be the most Timmy at the table. That seems to be the goal.
I think it is fairly reasonable for one to say that another doesn't actually love EDH if the basis for that statement is they love a format with the general ruleset of EDH with none of the fostering group fun with a social contract philosophy. If there is want for a competitive banlist and letting people play what they think is fun while using the banlist as a way to -try- and make sure that the individual's fun is also fun for others, that is fine, but it isn't EDH.
As Jivan would attest, the "Spirit of EDH" is just as much an irreplaceable and core part of the format as the 99 card singleton with a legendary commander and physical rules. Wanting a complete divorce from that spirit/philosophy in favor of competitive balance/bans is okay, and you are encouraged to make your own format to design that accordingly, but that is no longer EDH.
With regard to Stax, if it is fun for your group is the only thing that matters. If it is not, then you need to re-examine the social contract. Most casual stax builds are not nearly as un-fun because they are more attrition based rather than fast/hard-lock stax, which does connotate a fair amount of un-fun-ness. So, in essence, attrition != stax, although they are related. And, if you are playing hardcore stax, as long as your group is having fun, you are doing nothing wrong. As papa_funk said, though, be mindful when you play with others outside your group, because it will draw the ire of many if you play it with those who haven't agreed to it prior.
Lastly, you can play competitive/cutthroat EDH and as long as you and your group are having fun, you're not doing it wrong. The banlist and the format's ultimate philosophy that doesn't account for those types of games/groups won't change, however, so you need to be responsible for maintaining your own balance/fun/social contract. I know it is probably agonizing to be told that you need to make your own banlist amendments if the RC's isn't doing it for you, but that is the real truth if you fall into one of those more competitive groups. At the same time, more casual groups have problems with different cards as well for whatever reason that may be; they are also encouraged to make those decisions. While it may be hard to grasp for some who are tournament players, the banlist here isn't designed for the same kind of thing that a constructed, sanctioned format is. Using constructed format reasonings to ban a card is not productive because that isn't the standard that is used. If you want a card banned, try presenting the argument for it within the confines of the stated ban criteria rather than why such and such card is too powerful, which is fine in Modern, but not in EDH.
Finally, let's drop the Sol Ring debate since they have said it isn't getting banned making almost any argument A. Something they've already heard and B. Something that clearly hasn't convinced them already, so it probably won't start now. If you want it banned, again, do it in your own group, or found your own competitive EDH multiplayer format, although I strongly do not believe it would catch on, meaning you'd likely be wasting your time. House bans are the only way to get what you want here. Maybe after establishing house bans that work for your competitive or pseudo-competitive metas, you will be able to get more traction on a broader scale with the community towards competitive multiplayer rules/bans.
I'm just going to bold the part I'm going to address. Sorry if that bothers you, but I'm on mobile and your post is to large to address point by point on my phone.
It's been brought up here several times that house rules are not really a solution. Some groups do get them to work, but it is increadibly difficult to get everyone to actually agree on anything, and that arguement doesn't work when you're constantly playing with different people, like myself (not that I'm a competitive player, but my point stands).
It's nice in theory, but only works if you have a set group who have very similar ideas of what's fun. Just because you can get a group together who have similar power levels in their decks doesn't mean any of them even begin to agree on what should or shouldn't be allowed.
It's one of my biggest problems with the RC's philosopher, because it only works in specific situations.
Maybe there's a cultural divide between the west coast and east in terms of Magic style? Mister Funk is out of California, and you're (Hermes) living at ground zero of a likely ongoing extraterrestrial invasion. Maybe things are just more laid back out west? New Englanders have a reputation for being a little more uptight, supposedly, and my real location is Danielson, CT.
Hmm, I know a pretty good group in Springfield (noted Commander writer Eric Levine used to live there), but nothing further south than that.
One non-bulletproof possibility: find where your local judges are and see if they play. Judges on the whole tend to do pretty well by the format.
I agree. If I'm being uncivil, feel free to call me out. I don't think I am. I am saying some things that are unpopular, and yes, you can take a quote out of context (as MRHblue just did, not sure why) to make it look antagonistic, but I'm trying to explain the underlying reasons.
Ultimately, I'm happy for anyone to play Commander, but people who want to play it off-label assume the risks of doing so, and need to understand that the format isn't going to abandon core philosophies to make it work for them. It either does or it doesn't.
You weren't being uncivil and I didn't take anything personally. I did, however, find your posts somewhat close-minded. I'll explain, going back to you telling me I don't like EDH. I guess at this point it would be best to explain what I like about EDH.
I like playing with a commander. I like the high variance caused by the singleton nature of the format. I like multiplayer games, and I like politics. I like that this format lets you play cards you wouldn't otherwise get to use in other formats. But here's where our points of view differ. I like playing casual games, I also like competitive ones. I like playing to win. I like it when people at my table use their card to their best capacity. I like interactive games, which tuck promoted by letting you interact beneficially with an enemy commander. I like seeing a wide variety of strategies at a table every week, and I like it when most archetypes have a fair shot at victory. And though I really enjoy epic plays, I do not like that the format's philosophy (and guidelines behind the banned list) is to encourage constant epic plays, it kind of creates epic play fatigue and the payoff stops being exciting, like explosions in a Michael Bay movie. So I like it when mana denial, stax or hyper-aggressive strategies break up the routine.
So I basically like most of the defining characteristics of Commander, and this is the format in Magic that gives me the most of what I'm after, which in turn leads to the most enjoyable experience. But because some of the things I like about EDH are different from the things you like, you tell me that I don't really love this format, and should be playing something else or creating an entirely new format. Though I perfectly understand that you're not going to tailor the format around my own personal preferences, I find the attitude you display very dismissive. You might start to understand from this thread that a wide variety of players are now playing EDH, in very different ways, and for different reasons (though the main reason will always be that they enjoy it). But you come across as being predisposed to only listen to feedback that conforms to your own preferences, while telling people who hold a dissenting opinion they don't matter because they're playing it wrong. This is what's provoking all those reactions.
I think the main disconnect here is that a large portion of the playerbase is playing EDH because of the format's structure rather than because of the format's philosophy. It offers something very unique in Magic, it's like an entirely new way to play. Regardless of what drew them in however, most groups will be bound by the official rules, and those are tied to a very subjective idea of what's "fun" and what's the right and proper way to play this format. This leads to a lot of discontent, as you can see.
The banlist and the format's ultimate philosophy that doesn't account for those types of games/groups won't change, however, so you need to be responsible for maintaining your own balance/fun/social contract. I know it is probably agonizing to be told that you need to make your own banlist amendments if the RC's isn't doing it for you, but that is the real truth if you fall into one of those more competitive groups.
I'm just going to bold the part I'm going to address. Sorry if that bothers you, but I'm on mobile and your post is to large to address point by point on my phone.
It's been brought up here several times that house rules are not really a solution. Some groups do get them to work, but it is increadibly difficult to get everyone to actually agree on anything, and that arguement doesn't work when you're constantly playing with different people, like myself (not that I'm a competitive player, but my point stands).
It's nice in theory, but only works if you have a set group who have very similar ideas of what's fun. Just because you can get a group together who have similar power levels in their decks doesn't mean any of them even begin to agree on what should or shouldn't be allowed.
It's one of my biggest problems with the RC's philosopher, because it only works in specific situations.
I'd like to add to that a bit. It's very contradictory to say players are responsible for maintaining their own fun/balance/social contract on one hand, then on the other hand to, say, ban a stax card because you think people shouldn't be playing stax. Isn't that the exact type of issue the social contract is designed to handle? If you don't want stax in your meta, you say so? That seems a lot more efficient than banning one single non-key card for the archetype. Yes, I know, Braids was a legendary creature, we've discussed this, but I'm going back to the earlier idea that removing the BaaC list wasn't much of a loss because no one should be playing Braids in their 99 anyway. It gives the impression that when we dislike something, we're told to social contract it away, whereas if the rules committee dislikes something, they official banlist it away. It feels a bit like the rules committee is just making houserules for their meta, except those rules have the "official" word tacked on and we're bound by them.
I don't want to downplay the amount of work they put into this format, they spend a lot more time researching and discussing those rules than any given playgroup would be expected to, I just feel that their motivations are at times inconsistent with their position.
This thread left the productive station hours ago.
Or is thinly veiled insulting of the RC now productive?
My edit is the point. I'm seeing a lot of people calling the RC out and very little reasonable discussion.
Your edit was a much better way to phrase it. We see the same cycle every three months. The announcement comes out, a group of players are upset and take to the forums, and eventually it quiets back down and we can get back to lambasting the evils of Sol Ring. So I expect that there will be some hostility directed towards the RC, some less productive than others, but responding in kind does not help matters.
You weren't being uncivil and I didn't take anything personally. I did, however, find your posts somewhat close-minded. I'll explain, going back to you telling me I don't like EDH. I guess at this point it would be best to explain what I like about EDH.
I like playing with a commander. I like the high variance caused by the singleton nature of the format. I like multiplayer games, and I like politics. I like that this format lets you play cards you wouldn't otherwise get to use in other formats. But here's where our points of view differ. I like playing casual games, I also like competitive ones. I like playing to win. I like it when people at my table use their card to their best capacity. I like interactive games, which tuck promoted by letting you interact beneficially with an enemy commander. I like seeing a wide variety of strategies at a table every week, and I like it when most archetypes have a fair shot at victory. And though I really enjoy epic plays, I do not like that the format's philosophy (and guidelines behind the banned list) is to encourage constant epic plays, it kind of creates epic play fatigue and the payoff stops being exciting, like explosions in a Michael Bay movie. So I like it when mana denial, stax or hyper-aggressive strategies break up the routine.
So I basically like most of the defining characteristics of Commander, and this is the format in Magic that gives me the most of what I'm after, which in turn leads to the most enjoyable experience. But because some of the things I like about EDH are different from the things you like, you tell me that I don't really love this format, and should be playing something else or creating an entirely new format. Though I perfectly understand that you're not going to tailor the format around my own personal preferences, I find the attitude you display very dismissive. You might start to understand from this thread that a wide variety of players are now playing EDH, in very different ways, and for different reasons (though the main reason will always be that they enjoy it). But you come across as being predisposed to only listen to feedback that conforms to your own preferences, while telling people who hold a dissenting opinion they don't matter because they're playing it wrong. This is what's provoking all those reactions.
I think the main disconnect here is that a large portion of the playerbase is playing EDH because of the format's structure rather than because of the format's philosophy. It offers something very unique in Magic, it's like an entirely new way to play. Regardless of what drew them in however, most groups will be bound by the official rules, and those are tied to a very subjective idea of what's "fun" and what's the right and proper way to play this format. This leads to a lot of discontent, as you can see.
I have a different ideology on what makes for 'epic plays'. To me an epic game wasn't made when you high five a guy for playing Primal Surge, or casting Prossh when his casting cost was in the 30's. To me it was simply one where everyone enjoyed it and you have something to talk about afterwards. That could be about how one person got the board locked down early on and the rest of you fought like hell to dig out of it. Or it could be how you were able to G-Wave your entire deck without going infinite. Whatever your group likes to do, THAT'S what defines epic games.
Even if they wanted to, the RC can't make an all-inclusive ban list, so they chose to make one for what they want out of the format.
I agree. If I'm being uncivil, feel free to call me out. I don't think I am. I am saying some things that are unpopular, and yes, you can take a quote out of context (as MRHblue just did, not sure why) to make it look antagonistic, but I'm trying to explain the underlying reasons.
Ultimately, I'm happy for anyone to play Commander, but people who want to play it off-label assume the risks of doing so, and need to understand that the format isn't going to abandon core philosophies to make it work for them. It either does or it doesn't.
You weren't being uncivil and I didn't take anything personally. I did, however, find your posts somewhat close-minded. I'll explain, going back to you telling me I don't like EDH. I guess at this point it would be best to explain what I like about EDH.
I like playing with a commander. I like the high variance caused by the singleton nature of the format. I like multiplayer games, and I like politics. I like that this format lets you play cards you wouldn't otherwise get to use in other formats. But here's where our points of view differ. I like playing casual games, I also like competitive ones. I like playing to win. I like it when people at my table use their card to their best capacity. I like interactive games, which tuck promoted by letting you interact beneficially with an enemy commander. I like seeing a wide variety of strategies at a table every week, and I like it when most archetypes have a fair shot at victory. And though I really enjoy epic plays, I do not like that the format's philosophy (and guidelines behind the banned list) is to encourage constant epic plays, it kind of creates epic play fatigue and the payoff stops being exciting, like explosions in a Michael Bay movie. So I like it when mana denial, stax or hyper-aggressive strategies break up the routine.
So I basically like most of the defining characteristics of Commander, and this is the format in Magic that gives me the most of what I'm after, which in turn leads to the most enjoyable experience. But because some of the things I like about EDH are different from the things you like, you tell me that I don't really love this format, and should be playing something else or creating an entirely new format. Though I perfectly understand that you're not going to tailor the format around my own personal preferences, I find the attitude you display very dismissive. You might start to understand from this thread that a wide variety of players are now playing EDH, in very different ways, and for different reasons (though the main reason will always be that they enjoy it). But you come across as being predisposed to only listen to feedback that conforms to your own preferences, while telling people who hold a dissenting opinion they don't matter because they're playing it wrong. This is what's provoking all those reactions.
I think the main disconnect here is that a large portion of the playerbase is playing EDH because of the format's structure rather than because of the format's philosophy. It offers something very unique in Magic, it's like an entirely new way to play. Regardless of what drew them in however, most groups will be bound by the official rules, and those are tied to a very subjective idea of what's "fun" and what's the right and proper way to play this format. This leads to a lot of discontent, as you can see.
Thats all well and good my fine friend but tell me why again the rc needs to change THEIR vision and THEIR format to cater to YOUR needs. Do you think you see an unfilled niche that edh doesn't fill but like the structure? Do you think there is a large player base now that wants a "comptitive banlist" ? Do you think house rules are impossible? Then take the mans advise and create your own format based off commander. I fail to see why THEY need to bend a knee to your whims i personally love house rules they work great for me and honestly i could care less if people consider the games i play with house rules to not be "commander" or "edh" i have a ***** ton of fun with them. know what else ? i can play with their rules on mtgo all day and despite some cards being OP it's still fun to play competitively... is it balanced? Hell no but who cares the formats broken by design having a commander is the most broken rule i can think of and its multiplayer with a life total twice as high as printed cards were intended for and aimed at 1:1 . games with no banlist are fun. games are fun with a very restrictive banlist. games using the base banlist are fun. they are fun playing bad tribal decks with friends who suck at magic. they are fun playing turn 4 combo decks against friends who love vintage. They are fun at 1000 places in between. if you really love the structure of the format is the fact that the base banlist doesn't cater to exactly what you want really the end of the world? im like you i love all the same things you do in fact i have even thought like you in the past go ahead go back hundreds of pages and look. why are you discontent? use house rules or don't. make your own banlist or don't. Here is what you dont need to do tell the people who made a grew this format they need to change the format dramatically to meet your needs.
I apologize if it came across that way. bobthefunny explains it well - it's not about "my way is better" or "I love it more, nyah". It's about the fact that Commander is more than just a structure and as part of buying into Commander we ask that players buy into a philosophy.
It's a bit like saying "I love Standard, but it should involve the last 10 years of cards". That format may be awesome, but, ultimately, you're looking for something other than what's on offer. And if it is awesome, you should go play it with your friends.
As Jivan would attest, the "Spirit of EDH" is just as much an irreplaceable and core part of the format as the 99 card singleton with a legendary commander and physical rules. Wanting a complete divorce from that spirit/philosophy in favor of competitive balance/bans is okay, and you are encouraged to make your own format to design that accordingly, but that is no longer EDH.
With regard to Stax, if it is fun for your group is the only thing that matters. If it is not, then you need to re-examine the social contract. Most casual stax builds are not nearly as un-fun because they are more attrition based rather than fast/hard-lock stax, which does connotate a fair amount of un-fun-ness. So, in essence, attrition != stax, although they are related. And, if you are playing hardcore stax, as long as your group is having fun, you are doing nothing wrong. As papa_funk said, though, be mindful when you play with others outside your group, because it will draw the ire of many if you play it with those who haven't agreed to it prior.
Lastly, you can play competitive/cutthroat EDH and as long as you and your group are having fun, you're not doing it wrong. The banlist and the format's ultimate philosophy that doesn't account for those types of games/groups won't change, however, so you need to be responsible for maintaining your own balance/fun/social contract. I know it is probably agonizing to be told that you need to make your own banlist amendments if the RC's isn't doing it for you, but that is the real truth if you fall into one of those more competitive groups. At the same time, more casual groups have problems with different cards as well for whatever reason that may be; they are also encouraged to make those decisions. While it may be hard to grasp for some who are tournament players, the banlist here isn't designed for the same kind of thing that a constructed, sanctioned format is. Using constructed format reasonings to ban a card is not productive because that isn't the standard that is used. If you want a card banned, try presenting the argument for it within the confines of the stated ban criteria rather than why such and such card is too powerful, which is fine in Modern, but not in EDH.
Finally, let's drop the Sol Ring debate since they have said it isn't getting banned making almost any argument A. Something they've already heard and B. Something that clearly hasn't convinced them already, so it probably won't start now. If you want it banned, again, do it in your own group, or found your own competitive EDH multiplayer format, although I strongly do not believe it would catch on, meaning you'd likely be wasting your time. House bans are the only way to get what you want here. Maybe after establishing house bans that work for your competitive or pseudo-competitive metas, you will be able to get more traction on a broader scale with the community towards competitive multiplayer rules/bans.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
I could second this notion. I've never seen the vision of the Rules Committee in action. I like to think I started Commander "the right way", so to speak, and I think almost everybody does, but then you lose. Then you adapt, evolve, and then you're not playing Commander anymore, because you're winning. I truly would be interested in looking in on a meta that operates like Commander's philosophy intends. I don't want to retain my notions of ultra-casuals house-banning cards that demand removal so that their fatties can turn sideways unopposed. I've never seen real commander. I've only seen commander-legal decks trying to win within the constraints of the rules.
EDIT: I suppose what separates a commander meta is the reaction to losing. Does the loser adapt and evolve, or does the winner? If the loser adapts and evolves, you have the same arms race that takes every format to the same ends. If the winner adapts and evolves, you have??? I wouldn't even know how to make this happen. "Your deck is too good, make another?" is something I just couldn't ask of someone.
Let me know when you make even one change that supports this view.
It sure was fun having to take rofellos out of the 99 because of non-power related reasons. Really increased my enjoyment of the game.
It is great fun having to police everyone's decklist because the banlist does nothing to prevent stupid decks from existing( not even a little )
It's awesome knowing I can't play certain cards because of, what, power? reasons, only to have my opponent skip ahead 3 mana off a sol ring signet opener and kill me before I get my third land drop, using nothing but fair equipment and their general.
It's great knowing I can house rule this stuff away...unless I ever want to play against someone outside of these houserules, in which case I have to return to the cancer banned list.
I support the complete removal of the banlist and the governing body, it's not making the format better.
Well, you list your location as Hell. If you were in Northern California, I could point you at some playgroups
Hi there, I'd like to think that my meta is what the RC has in mind. We have a number of highly tuned decks and they don't always win. I've only seen a T1 sol-ring happen like three different times in the last 6 months,so I don't think we have hand sculpting from PP as an issue either. The biggest happenstance recently was an Iona hitting the boarding naming green i think,followed by a dack's duplicate naming white (which shut down half of my deck due to running UW ) but I was still able to play around it,and so was another player who was hit by the first iona. Before that the last time Iona appeared in our group was a number of years ago when I ran it in a RW deck, but I removed it along with taking part the deck cuz the other players weren't having fun. My current plan to put together an Orolo solider token deck, instead of the standard control deck that's normally associated with it.
I also used to run Omen Machine, which after a few games, I was asked to remove it since it take some of the fun away, so I did so.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffWell now that you're spouting some very heavy claims let me ask something.
Who are you and why does anything you say matter on the subject? Are you a lost RC member who was banished to the internet because of your radical beliefs? Perhaps Papa_Funk and Sheldon decided they could not have you mucking around with their devious mustache twirling schemes. Please let me know why I should mindlessly accept that the RC is causing nothing but strife for the format that they have fostered.
Or maybe are you just talking out of a less acceptable hole than your mouth.
Edit: To be less rude about it. What reason do people have to think your opinion (or anyone elses for that matter) are better on the subject of the philosophy of the ban list?
Sure, because everyone is doing it. Now suppose for a second there was one guy who couldn't get a deck at that level for whatever reason. Does he just get cut out?
I'm just a guy who plays magic sometimes.
You should actually look at what's being said, rather than who's saying it. If you don't, you might as well stop posting yourself, as you are a similarly unimportant person that shouldn't be listened to.
Is it biased? The typical reaction to not winning is to try and get better. There's some skill growth involved in this, but most of the time, the faster approach is to get better cards for your deck. It just seems to happen that way. To be like Commander is to be like Meatloaf, and be willing to do anything (for love) but to determine that you won't do (that).
This doesn't seem like a very productive post.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffWe've recently had a few more combo players join though, and that's upped the arms-race a bit (To my shame, I participated).
I have a spike-y mentality myself, so it's always a challenge building decks for EDH - I start with a cool idea, but then tune it considerably.
My last Trostani game though involved me attacking with 11 8/8 tokens at a Kaalia player, but failing to kill him due to his Gisela out (and liffelink angels), while he was attacking me for increasing amounts in the air (over 100 damage in 3 turns), but I was staying alive due to populating 8/8's with Trostani.
So... that was rather epic-ish. I guess.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThis thread left the productive station hours ago.
Or is thinly veiled insulting of the RC now productive?
My edit is the point. I'm seeing a lot of people calling the RC out and very little reasonable discussion.
Maybe a RC endorsed, official point system is the solution to the format's woes? Everything wrong with the banned list stems from wanting to effectively ban so many things, but not really wanting to have to. If the win condition is winning, then you have to expect what you see here. If the win condition is playing in a way most in tune with a vision, where winning only yields points towards a score that encompasses more than just winning, then to be a Spike, one would have to be the most Timmy at the table. That seems to be the goal.
It's been brought up here several times that house rules are not really a solution. Some groups do get them to work, but it is increadibly difficult to get everyone to actually agree on anything, and that arguement doesn't work when you're constantly playing with different people, like myself (not that I'm a competitive player, but my point stands).
It's nice in theory, but only works if you have a set group who have very similar ideas of what's fun. Just because you can get a group together who have similar power levels in their decks doesn't mean any of them even begin to agree on what should or shouldn't be allowed.
It's one of my biggest problems with the RC's philosopher, because it only works in specific situations.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Hmm, I know a pretty good group in Springfield (noted Commander writer Eric Levine used to live there), but nothing further south than that.
One non-bulletproof possibility: find where your local judges are and see if they play. Judges on the whole tend to do pretty well by the format.
I like playing with a commander. I like the high variance caused by the singleton nature of the format. I like multiplayer games, and I like politics. I like that this format lets you play cards you wouldn't otherwise get to use in other formats. But here's where our points of view differ. I like playing casual games, I also like competitive ones. I like playing to win. I like it when people at my table use their card to their best capacity. I like interactive games, which tuck promoted by letting you interact beneficially with an enemy commander. I like seeing a wide variety of strategies at a table every week, and I like it when most archetypes have a fair shot at victory. And though I really enjoy epic plays, I do not like that the format's philosophy (and guidelines behind the banned list) is to encourage constant epic plays, it kind of creates epic play fatigue and the payoff stops being exciting, like explosions in a Michael Bay movie. So I like it when mana denial, stax or hyper-aggressive strategies break up the routine.
So I basically like most of the defining characteristics of Commander, and this is the format in Magic that gives me the most of what I'm after, which in turn leads to the most enjoyable experience. But because some of the things I like about EDH are different from the things you like, you tell me that I don't really love this format, and should be playing something else or creating an entirely new format. Though I perfectly understand that you're not going to tailor the format around my own personal preferences, I find the attitude you display very dismissive. You might start to understand from this thread that a wide variety of players are now playing EDH, in very different ways, and for different reasons (though the main reason will always be that they enjoy it). But you come across as being predisposed to only listen to feedback that conforms to your own preferences, while telling people who hold a dissenting opinion they don't matter because they're playing it wrong. This is what's provoking all those reactions.
I think the main disconnect here is that a large portion of the playerbase is playing EDH because of the format's structure rather than because of the format's philosophy. It offers something very unique in Magic, it's like an entirely new way to play. Regardless of what drew them in however, most groups will be bound by the official rules, and those are tied to a very subjective idea of what's "fun" and what's the right and proper way to play this format. This leads to a lot of discontent, as you can see.
I don't want to downplay the amount of work they put into this format, they spend a lot more time researching and discussing those rules than any given playgroup would be expected to, I just feel that their motivations are at times inconsistent with their position.
Your edit was a much better way to phrase it. We see the same cycle every three months. The announcement comes out, a group of players are upset and take to the forums, and eventually it quiets back down and we can get back to lambasting the evils of Sol Ring. So I expect that there will be some hostility directed towards the RC, some less productive than others, but responding in kind does not help matters.
I have a different ideology on what makes for 'epic plays'. To me an epic game wasn't made when you high five a guy for playing Primal Surge, or casting Prossh when his casting cost was in the 30's. To me it was simply one where everyone enjoyed it and you have something to talk about afterwards. That could be about how one person got the board locked down early on and the rest of you fought like hell to dig out of it. Or it could be how you were able to G-Wave your entire deck without going infinite. Whatever your group likes to do, THAT'S what defines epic games.
Even if they wanted to, the RC can't make an all-inclusive ban list, so they chose to make one for what they want out of the format.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Thats all well and good my fine friend but tell me why again the rc needs to change THEIR vision and THEIR format to cater to YOUR needs. Do you think you see an unfilled niche that edh doesn't fill but like the structure? Do you think there is a large player base now that wants a "comptitive banlist" ? Do you think house rules are impossible? Then take the mans advise and create your own format based off commander. I fail to see why THEY need to bend a knee to your whims i personally love house rules they work great for me and honestly i could care less if people consider the games i play with house rules to not be "commander" or "edh" i have a ***** ton of fun with them. know what else ? i can play with their rules on mtgo all day and despite some cards being OP it's still fun to play competitively... is it balanced? Hell no but who cares the formats broken by design having a commander is the most broken rule i can think of and its multiplayer with a life total twice as high as printed cards were intended for and aimed at 1:1 . games with no banlist are fun. games are fun with a very restrictive banlist. games using the base banlist are fun. they are fun playing bad tribal decks with friends who suck at magic. they are fun playing turn 4 combo decks against friends who love vintage. They are fun at 1000 places in between. if you really love the structure of the format is the fact that the base banlist doesn't cater to exactly what you want really the end of the world? im like you i love all the same things you do in fact i have even thought like you in the past go ahead go back hundreds of pages and look. why are you discontent? use house rules or don't. make your own banlist or don't. Here is what you dont need to do tell the people who made a grew this format they need to change the format dramatically to meet your needs.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429