As someone who believes Green to be the strongest color when playing fair EDH I don't think removing non-Green colors ability to color fix (even in small amounts) is a healthy idea.
So those who are saying that competitiveness is about building decks that work as well as possible and getting the most out of cards; how exactly is removing a few "staples" detrimental to that? I'd say it's a new challenge to those folks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
People talking about flavor issues should have much bigger issues with mono-red being unable to run Quenchable Fire. There are bigger and more important fights to be had about EDH "flavor".
Let's talk about flavor then. Obviously it is very subjective, is there any objective flavor? Is flavor tied to your personal tastes, in game lore, or something else entirely? What is the RC's view of flavor? Specifically related to off color fetches, why are they a flavor fail?
There are people who are way better at math than I am so maybe they can speak to the specifics, but I'm reasonably sure the numbers work out that removing off-color fetches would not have a significant impact on how efficiently a deck works or how many turns it will take you to get all your colors or however one might measure such things. Anyone claiming that removing off-color fetches will cripple their deck is being hyperbolic at best, disingenuous, or simply blatantly lying because they don't like the idea. Which, I might point out, is an idea and one that we've had for a long, long time and not a 'proposed change.'
Well, you're not just removing off color fetches. For consistency sake, a lot of other fetch lands (panorama) and cards that mention other basic land types become locked out. It would basically gut Titania. By gut, I mean it will no longer work and needlessly force other options. Her land base would essentially be replaced by less optimal lands and she would be forced to cut non-land cards to make room for more sac effects to off set this. The new Omnath would also take a beating in options. The real damage would be in the 2-3 color deck range as the early color fixing and thinning really make the game more enjoyable. That's the key, theme is great, but if i'm sitting there not being able to cast my commander hoping to top deck into the right land... only to get a CIT dual land.... That's just burning through turns. Not even comparing this to competitive play groups, just normal play. When players are casting stuff and i'm sitting there struggling to get a plains... it's not fun. If we had infinite mulligans, maybe, but we don't.
On another tangent, I have a buddy that has an izzet deck, but runs sliver queen as the commander... he runs that as the commander for... and I quote "I wanted to run soulfire grand master and riku of two reflections. I bring this up because removing off color fetches would make 5 color commanders more desirable just for mana fixing three color decks. Why stop there? Just transform karador into sliver queen and add time stretch. That's the kind of deck building I don't want to see promoted, especially for the sake of flavor.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
This "junk power level" is the case why Magic is more complicated than both chess and poker. And you want to turn EDH into no-brainer format for players who don't want to think, fase challenges and make complicated descisions in playing and deck-building. For me multi-EDH is ideal format coz it offers the widest cardpool (without being 1-turn 1-billion-$ format like vintage), widest deck variety (in contrast with legacy/modern where 3-4 decks are ruling the format) and social elements, that make the game even more intellectual (and fun) and allow to play with all people you want to play in 1 game rather than in 1 day tournament.
And about this with/against:
There is always balance between playing with and against people coz there is ounly 1 possible winner in that game. And being competitive dont stops you from playing social game. Being competitive just leads to more intense thinking during deckbuilding and playing.
a) You're contradicting yourself. You applauding a casual format for being more intellectual than literally competitive formats, and then declare that "competitive" is just thinking more.
b) None of that's actually right. I'm possibly the least competitive player here, and I promise it's not a lack of intellectualism in my deckbuilding or playing. I just use all the thinking that I do to maximize my fun instead of my winning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
It would basically gut Titania. By gut, I mean it will no longer work and needlessly force other options. Her land base would essentially be replaced by less optimal lands and she would be forced to cut non-land cards to make room for more sac effects to off set this.
People SHOULD be playing other options in Titania. The deck she came in even included some of those options (Harrow, Wave of Vitriol, Havenwood Battleground, Sylvan Safekeeper, to name a few)! Dumping in 10+ fetchlands and Crucible of Worlds is the epitome of lazy deckbuilding. It isn't "needlessly" forcing other options so much as making you think carefully about card choices. Restriction breeds creativity.
EDH is casual format ounly if you playing it casual. U can play a pile of crap in legacy and have fun too, as long as you saying winning mean nothing for you.
And "maximizing fun" is very good words coz in fact they say nothing. Everyone has its own definition of "fun". And saying that winning is always unfun is quiet silly. If u instead provide an example of your "fun" deck tech it would be great.
It would basically gut Titania. By gut, I mean it will no longer work and needlessly force other options. Her land base would essentially be replaced by less optimal lands and she would be forced to cut non-land cards to make room for more sac effects to off set this.
People SHOULD be playing other options in Titania. The deck she came in even included some of those options (Harrow, Wave of Vitriol, Havenwood Battleground, Sylvan Safekeeper, to name a few)! Dumping in 10+ fetchlands and Crucible of Worlds is the epitome of lazy deckbuilding. It isn't "needlessly" forcing other options so much as making you think carefully about card choices. Restriction breeds creativity.
Who says they aren't already playing other options?? The point with Titania was that fetches arguably achieve the desired effect with the least amount of hassle and cutting them from the deck (as well as other lands of that nature) would severely hinder the deck, to the point that it probably could not properly compete against decks that it currently can (thereby destroying the current state of the deck). No need to go on a tirade against solid deck-building while comparing it to rather underwhelming choices like Havenwood Battleground.
And "maximizing fun" is very good words coz in fact they say nothing. Everyone has its own definition of "fun". And saying that winning is always unfun is quiet silly. If u instead provide an example of your "fun" deck tech it would be great.
I never even implied that winning is always unfun. Winning is usually fun. But winning isn't always fun, and winning can be made more fun depending on how you do it. Sure, you can play a crap deck in legacy and still be playing legacy, but what you don't do is go to a legacy tournament and worry that Sneak Attacking Emrakul is getting kind so boring you don't even care that you won. Winning in edh is the goal each game, but it's not the entire purpose of playing. You can lose a game and have a better experience than a win. That is casual in a nut shell. It's not an issue of power, it's an issue of motivation.
And you're perfectly welcome to click the link in my signature. There's plenty of fun there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Guys... EDH isn't a casual format. It's a social format.
It's listed in the rules of magic as a casual variant. It's described on the wiki here as a casual format. It's designed for fun. Casual...
Casual in the context of EDH generally means "non-tournament". It is defined by the RC as a social format. EDH can be played through the lens of a casual or competitive mindset but it is always first and foremost about playing to individual group social dynamics.
Casual in the context of EDH generally means "non-tournament". It is defined by the RC as a social format. EDH can be played through the lens of a casual or competitive mindset but it is always first and foremost about playing to individual group social dynamics.
I'm going to be perfectly, brutally honest here. The rules committee defining it that way is pretty much meaningless. If recent controversies are any indication, that line is coming from a group of people that not only play the format casually by every definition of the word, but also want everyone else to play more like them. You can get really into a game of Uno, but that's not going to change what the game was made for. Saying it isn't casual is just vapid lip-service to the subset of people who, for whatever reason, don't want to be defined as casual.
You can play as tuned and powerful a deck as you want, it's not going to change the fact that everyone in this format is here because it seemed like fun. There's no sense pretending otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Labels like casual and competitive are pretty much always useless in this debate. I'd wager many people here would be quick to label me a competitive player, even though my number one priority is having an enjoyable game, regardless if I win or lose. If I could choose playing one of the two games: one where I manage to score a quick win because my opponents made a blunder and one where we play a back and forth nail-biter and in the end someone else is able to come through and win it, you can be damn sure I'll pick the second one every time. However, people have begun to equate tight deckbuilding, optimizing and even aggressive in-game decisions as non-casual (thereby labeling them competitive) even though the environment in which this occurs is casual by the definitions put forth by the RC: there is no prize on the line and everyone involved consents to such a type of game being played.
Until there are prizes on the line or people start doing things that are diametrically opposed to the rest of the participating group, we are all casual. So arguments like "this doesn't concern you, because you are competitive, while we are casual" or "the banlist is for casual groups, competitive groups can police themselves" are total bull*****.
I think it is somewhat misleading to limit competitive to strictly tournament play, as it's somewhat of an outlook and play-style, too. Someone piloting five-color Hermit Druid is wanting a fundamentally different experience than someone bringing hippo tribal to the table. My LGS has plenty of competitive decks in all formats (Standard, Modern, Legacy, and EDH, mostly), but 90% or more of the players there are not people wanting to take part in the Pro Tour, none the less, their meta would be a lot less fun if the banlist for each of those formats was thrown out under the guise of self-policing being healthier. (The prospect of Skullclamp Affinity Modern: nightmares.)
To give an example, prior to its banning in Modern, Treasure Cruise was seriously warping the format around it. Entirely separate from the competitive tournament scene, the card was having a huge impact on (by this thread's definition) "casual" players, people whose experience of Magic largely did not extend beyond FNM's, and was negatively effecting deck diversity in that pool of players. If the format relied on self-policing, you might end up with one shop being full of Treasure Cruse Delvers that couldn't be played in a shop just down the road, etc. Approve or disapprove of the ban, the official ban effected everyone's deck building equally, not on a store-by-store basis.
If competitive decks in EDH = still casual, then I can say that there may be a need for a separate banlist for this different sort of casual. I would love it if something like the duel commander banlist emerged for competitive play in multiplayer. Just adopting the French banlist isn't enough as the balance in multiplayer is quite different from the balance in 1-vs-1, with different "problem" cards and different strengths and weaknesses.
Yes, I play for fun, but for me, tuned lists and fast games equals fun, however with the downside that you start to notice that certain cards - *cough* including but not limited to certain fast mana jewelry *cough* - have an undue prominence in a large number of decks.
I understand the point of view of people who enjoy EDH because it can be played casually in a low-powered environment, and I respect that. However, there are many reasons to love EDH apart from its casual origins: deck diversity, the higher variance of a singleton format, and the very different strategies required for winning multiplayer games. Creating a healthy meta for players who like those things, but also like building optimized decks, seems like a worthy endeavor, whether it's something the rules committee handles or is something established independently.
I do appreciate that the rules committee works hard for commander to be fair and fun for everyone, I just feel with the massive growth of the format, different play styles and metas may have to be taken into consideration by them - or if they aren't interested, someone else.
I'm going to be perfectly, brutally honest here. The rules committee defining it that way is pretty much meaningless. If recent controversies are any indication, that line is coming from a group of people that not only play the format casually by every definition of the word, but also want everyone else to play more like them. You can get really into a game of Uno, but that's not going to change what the game was made for. Saying it isn't casual is just vapid lip-service to the subset of people who, for whatever reason, don't want to be defined as casual.
You can play as tuned and powerful a deck as you want, it's not going to change the fact that everyone in this format is here because it seemed like fun. There's no sense pretending otherwise.
While it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the decisions of the rules committee, trying to take some strange high-ground on a false premise while making inflammatory comments is not really appropriate in the context of this discussion.
Without flaming, fetches play a great role in deckbuilding and play consistency, so removing them just for flavor (which is very subjective thing) isn't a good way to evolve the format.
No matter, call it "casual" or "competitive", but shuffling and mana-fixing is important for comfortable playing in 100 singleton format and 3+ color manabases. Moreover fetches offer some interesting interactions and strong synergies, and make the whole landfall mechanic viable.
I suggest RC to think alot before performing such changes and take into account different opinions both offline and online and mathematics of the game. Sence of flavor is strongly individual and IMO shouldn't be the only reason for bunning something, especially if it hurts gameplay.
P.S. Sorry if some of my posts seemed to be offensive, I haven't minded to be offensive.
While it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the decisions of the rules committee, trying to take some strange high-ground on a false premise while making inflammatory comments is not really appropriate in the context of this discussion.
I don't see the problem here. Those do seem like casual decks. Expensive casual decks, but when talking about people who've dedicated a lot more of their life to magic than I have, I certainly can't blame them for owning and using some pricey tools. Dual lands don't turn a deck into competitive magic. Like eating fine cuisine doesn't make you a food snob if you're still willing to grab some McDonald's, dual lands don't make you non-casual if you're still using them to cast Rubblehulk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Without flaming, fetches play a great role in deckbuilding and play consistency, so removing them just for flavor (which is very subjective thing) isn't a good way to evolve the format.
But that's an opinion, you can't know whats better for the format. So why would your opinion here be worth more than the people who actually made the format what it is? They have made controversial changes before, and look at the explosion of the format.
Again, nothing has changed, none of this is new information. Fetches have always been ugly to the RC and others, I doubt they go anywhere in 2016
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'm going to be perfectly, brutally honest here. The rules committee defining it that way is pretty much meaningless. If recent controversies are any indication, that line is coming from a group of people that not only play the format casually by every definition of the word, but also want everyone else to play more like them.
Not exactly. You were doing great up until the last bit.
The point of the "social" label (which I think has failed to a certain extent) was encapsulating the idea that we were building a format in a specific way, but if other people wanted to make it work their own way, who were we to tell them that they couldn't?
Why should people play more like me if that's not what's fun for them? That would be terrible.
Where the failure comes in is that people then assume Commander must be defined to appeal to everyone and must strive to be as big as possible, so they interpret the "sure, do what you want" attitude as an implicit endorsement that their way of playing must be supported in the rules. That is not true, nor is it something either Wizards or the RC seek. It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
I'm going to be perfectly, brutally honest here. The rules committee defining it that way is pretty much meaningless. If recent controversies are any indication, that line is coming from a group of people that not only play the format casually by every definition of the word, but also want everyone else to play more like them.
Not exactly. You were doing great up until the last bit.
The point of the "social" label (which I think has failed to a certain extent) was encapsulating the idea that we were building a format in a specific way, but if other people wanted to make it work their own way, who were we to tell them that they couldn't?
Why should people play more like me if that's not what's fun for them? That would be terrible.
Where the failure comes in is that people then assume Commander must be defined to appeal to everyone and must strive to be as big as possible, so they interpret the "sure, do what you want" attitude as an implicit endorsement that their way of playing must be supported in the rules. That is not true, nor is it something either Wizards or the RC seek. It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
Thank you for saying this. I have never seen it explicitly stated by anyone on the RC before.
EDH has a goal, that goal isn't going to change because a bunch of people on a small corner of the internet want it to.
[EDH] It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
Kudos to papa and Sheldon for continuing to discuss this non-change, no proposal, in a constructive and helpful way. They have the patience of Saints despite the vitriol regularly thrown at them.
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.
Interesting read, but it makes me curious: wouldn't banning cards that can typically only be abused in hyper-competitive decks make sense as a way to keep the format more casual, if casual is the end goal? No casual deck is going to lose much for not having an Imperial Seal, for example.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staff-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffWell, you're not just removing off color fetches. For consistency sake, a lot of other fetch lands (panorama) and cards that mention other basic land types become locked out. It would basically gut Titania. By gut, I mean it will no longer work and needlessly force other options. Her land base would essentially be replaced by less optimal lands and she would be forced to cut non-land cards to make room for more sac effects to off set this. The new Omnath would also take a beating in options. The real damage would be in the 2-3 color deck range as the early color fixing and thinning really make the game more enjoyable. That's the key, theme is great, but if i'm sitting there not being able to cast my commander hoping to top deck into the right land... only to get a CIT dual land.... That's just burning through turns. Not even comparing this to competitive play groups, just normal play. When players are casting stuff and i'm sitting there struggling to get a plains... it's not fun. If we had infinite mulligans, maybe, but we don't.
On another tangent, I have a buddy that has an izzet deck, but runs sliver queen as the commander... he runs that as the commander for... and I quote "I wanted to run soulfire grand master and riku of two reflections. I bring this up because removing off color fetches would make 5 color commanders more desirable just for mana fixing three color decks. Why stop there? Just transform karador into sliver queen and add time stretch. That's the kind of deck building I don't want to see promoted, especially for the sake of flavor.
a) You're contradicting yourself. You applauding a casual format for being more intellectual than literally competitive formats, and then declare that "competitive" is just thinking more.
b) None of that's actually right. I'm possibly the least competitive player here, and I promise it's not a lack of intellectualism in my deckbuilding or playing. I just use all the thinking that I do to maximize my fun instead of my winning.
People SHOULD be playing other options in Titania. The deck she came in even included some of those options (Harrow, Wave of Vitriol, Havenwood Battleground, Sylvan Safekeeper, to name a few)! Dumping in 10+ fetchlands and Crucible of Worlds is the epitome of lazy deckbuilding. It isn't "needlessly" forcing other options so much as making you think carefully about card choices. Restriction breeds creativity.
And "maximizing fun" is very good words coz in fact they say nothing. Everyone has its own definition of "fun". And saying that winning is always unfun is quiet silly. If u instead provide an example of your "fun" deck tech it would be great.
Who says they aren't already playing other options?? The point with Titania was that fetches arguably achieve the desired effect with the least amount of hassle and cutting them from the deck (as well as other lands of that nature) would severely hinder the deck, to the point that it probably could not properly compete against decks that it currently can (thereby destroying the current state of the deck). No need to go on a tirade against solid deck-building while comparing it to rather underwhelming choices like Havenwood Battleground.
Now calm down, please.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffBeen a while since someone has had to say this. Should probably get repeated more often.
It's listed in the rules of magic as a casual variant. It's described on the wiki here as a casual format. It's designed for fun. Casual...
I never even implied that winning is always unfun. Winning is usually fun. But winning isn't always fun, and winning can be made more fun depending on how you do it. Sure, you can play a crap deck in legacy and still be playing legacy, but what you don't do is go to a legacy tournament and worry that Sneak Attacking Emrakul is getting kind so boring you don't even care that you won. Winning in edh is the goal each game, but it's not the entire purpose of playing. You can lose a game and have a better experience than a win. That is casual in a nut shell. It's not an issue of power, it's an issue of motivation.
And you're perfectly welcome to click the link in my signature. There's plenty of fun there.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffCasual in the context of EDH generally means "non-tournament". It is defined by the RC as a social format. EDH can be played through the lens of a casual or competitive mindset but it is always first and foremost about playing to individual group social dynamics.
I'm going to be perfectly, brutally honest here. The rules committee defining it that way is pretty much meaningless. If recent controversies are any indication, that line is coming from a group of people that not only play the format casually by every definition of the word, but also want everyone else to play more like them. You can get really into a game of Uno, but that's not going to change what the game was made for. Saying it isn't casual is just vapid lip-service to the subset of people who, for whatever reason, don't want to be defined as casual.
You can play as tuned and powerful a deck as you want, it's not going to change the fact that everyone in this format is here because it seemed like fun. There's no sense pretending otherwise.
Until there are prizes on the line or people start doing things that are diametrically opposed to the rest of the participating group, we are all casual. So arguments like "this doesn't concern you, because you are competitive, while we are casual" or "the banlist is for casual groups, competitive groups can police themselves" are total bull*****.
I think it is somewhat misleading to limit competitive to strictly tournament play, as it's somewhat of an outlook and play-style, too. Someone piloting five-color Hermit Druid is wanting a fundamentally different experience than someone bringing hippo tribal to the table. My LGS has plenty of competitive decks in all formats (Standard, Modern, Legacy, and EDH, mostly), but 90% or more of the players there are not people wanting to take part in the Pro Tour, none the less, their meta would be a lot less fun if the banlist for each of those formats was thrown out under the guise of self-policing being healthier. (The prospect of Skullclamp Affinity Modern: nightmares.)
To give an example, prior to its banning in Modern, Treasure Cruise was seriously warping the format around it. Entirely separate from the competitive tournament scene, the card was having a huge impact on (by this thread's definition) "casual" players, people whose experience of Magic largely did not extend beyond FNM's, and was negatively effecting deck diversity in that pool of players. If the format relied on self-policing, you might end up with one shop being full of Treasure Cruse Delvers that couldn't be played in a shop just down the road, etc. Approve or disapprove of the ban, the official ban effected everyone's deck building equally, not on a store-by-store basis.
If competitive decks in EDH = still casual, then I can say that there may be a need for a separate banlist for this different sort of casual. I would love it if something like the duel commander banlist emerged for competitive play in multiplayer. Just adopting the French banlist isn't enough as the balance in multiplayer is quite different from the balance in 1-vs-1, with different "problem" cards and different strengths and weaknesses.
Yes, I play for fun, but for me, tuned lists and fast games equals fun, however with the downside that you start to notice that certain cards - *cough* including but not limited to certain fast mana jewelry *cough* - have an undue prominence in a large number of decks.
I understand the point of view of people who enjoy EDH because it can be played casually in a low-powered environment, and I respect that. However, there are many reasons to love EDH apart from its casual origins: deck diversity, the higher variance of a singleton format, and the very different strategies required for winning multiplayer games. Creating a healthy meta for players who like those things, but also like building optimized decks, seems like a worthy endeavor, whether it's something the rules committee handles or is something established independently.
I do appreciate that the rules committee works hard for commander to be fair and fun for everyone, I just feel with the massive growth of the format, different play styles and metas may have to be taken into consideration by them - or if they aren't interested, someone else.
UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU's prison: blue is the new orange is the new black.
BSidisi, Undead VizierB: Bis zum Erbrechen
GTitiania, Protector Of ArgothG: Protecting Argoth, by blowing it up!
GYisan, The Wanderer BardG: Gradus Ad Elfball.
Duel EDH: Yisan & Titania.
In Progress: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV duel; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden Doomsday.
These certainly seem like incredibly casual decks...
While it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the decisions of the rules committee, trying to take some strange high-ground on a false premise while making inflammatory comments is not really appropriate in the context of this discussion.
No matter, call it "casual" or "competitive", but shuffling and mana-fixing is important for comfortable playing in 100 singleton format and 3+ color manabases. Moreover fetches offer some interesting interactions and strong synergies, and make the whole landfall mechanic viable.
I suggest RC to think alot before performing such changes and take into account different opinions both offline and online and mathematics of the game. Sence of flavor is strongly individual and IMO shouldn't be the only reason for bunning something, especially if it hurts gameplay.
P.S. Sorry if some of my posts seemed to be offensive, I haven't minded to be offensive.
I don't see the problem here. Those do seem like casual decks. Expensive casual decks, but when talking about people who've dedicated a lot more of their life to magic than I have, I certainly can't blame them for owning and using some pricey tools. Dual lands don't turn a deck into competitive magic. Like eating fine cuisine doesn't make you a food snob if you're still willing to grab some McDonald's, dual lands don't make you non-casual if you're still using them to cast Rubblehulk.
Again, nothing has changed, none of this is new information. Fetches have always been ugly to the RC and others, I doubt they go anywhere in 2016
Not exactly. You were doing great up until the last bit.
The point of the "social" label (which I think has failed to a certain extent) was encapsulating the idea that we were building a format in a specific way, but if other people wanted to make it work their own way, who were we to tell them that they couldn't?
Why should people play more like me if that's not what's fun for them? That would be terrible.
Where the failure comes in is that people then assume Commander must be defined to appeal to everyone and must strive to be as big as possible, so they interpret the "sure, do what you want" attitude as an implicit endorsement that their way of playing must be supported in the rules. That is not true, nor is it something either Wizards or the RC seek. It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
Thank you for saying this. I have never seen it explicitly stated by anyone on the RC before.
EDH has a goal, that goal isn't going to change because a bunch of people on a small corner of the internet want it to.
Thank you.
Interesting read, but it makes me curious: wouldn't banning cards that can typically only be abused in hyper-competitive decks make sense as a way to keep the format more casual, if casual is the end goal? No casual deck is going to lose much for not having an Imperial Seal, for example.
UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU's prison: blue is the new orange is the new black.
BSidisi, Undead VizierB: Bis zum Erbrechen
GTitiania, Protector Of ArgothG: Protecting Argoth, by blowing it up!
GYisan, The Wanderer BardG: Gradus Ad Elfball.
Duel EDH: Yisan & Titania.
In Progress: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV duel; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden Doomsday.