In our playgroup we ignored this ban. We also ignored the Prime Time ban. We have an agreement in the group though that we can only search basic lands with Primeval Titan. This prevents players from searching for Cabal + Tomb every time. Our group doesn't abuse cards like this too much. PT en SP are never played on turn 2-4. SP is never used to blow up other players' land in early game. If someone would do that, he would hear it from the whole table. These two cards don't get copied over and over. Players don't always auto-tutor for it. Etc.
Absolutely the best way to handle SP and PT and heck Balance if you like. Discuss it as a peer group and be open to other ideas besides the RC's list.
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 had more respect for the RC before I'd actually met one of its members and seen how he actively secludes himself from experiencing the 'meta'. Uninformed people, no matter how passionate or caring, make uninformed decisions.
I don't want to derail the thread, but a cheap shot is a cheap shot. Feel free to discuss this further with me via PM or email if you'd like. I'd be very interested in hearing more details about this.
I had more respect for the RC before I'd actually met one of its members and seen how he actively secludes himself from experiencing the 'meta'. Uninformed people, no matter how passionate or caring, make uninformed decisions.
I don't want to derail the thread, but a cheap shot is a cheap shot. Feel free to discuss this further with me via PM or email if you'd like. I'd be very interested in hearing more details about this.
I think you should start a thread about it so the conversation can be public.
I run the local EDH day every Sunday at my LGS, along with the Monday night Duel Commander tournie, so thankfully I'm in a position to let people know that if they run a banned card they simply aren't allowed to play until it gets replaced. If someone doesn't know about the ban yet and drops it mid game the general rule is they exile it, draw a card and untap their lands lol.
People that simply refuse to acknowledge the ban are just selfish imo. I generally don't play with people like that.
But, it looks like with the official wizards update it won't be a problem anymore. I gotta admit, I'd be looking forward to being able to wave that under their noses ^.^
I had more respect for the RC before I'd actually met one of its members and seen how he actively secludes himself from experiencing the 'meta'. Uninformed people, no matter how passionate or caring, make uninformed decisions.
Where do you base that on?
On topic:
In our playgroup we ignored this ban. We also ignored the Prime Time ban. We have an agreement in the group though that we can only search basic lands with Primeval Titan. This prevents players from searching for Cabal + Tomb every time. Our group doesn't abuse cards like this too much. PT en SP are never played on turn 2-4. SP is never used to blow up other players' land in early game. If someone would do that, he would hear it from the whole table.
That is "your" play group. Not everyone has the luxery to have a playgroup. Not everyone knows everyone else at the table on a semi-personal level. Letting people 'hear it' will only lead to further issues.
The games not ment for random play and there are a plethora of turn 3-5 kills decks legal. That being said if you want to play a banned card in a new pg just ask if it's ok. Same goes for proxies etc.
I love when people say Wizards has not banned it. Congrats, wizards doesn't ban cards. They just go with the rule committee for EDH. if you want to go by wizards official banning, then really there should be 0 banned cards, given that Wizards does not do the banning. They may have a ban list but it is just to let people know what the rules comitee has banned.
@Batdown: while I'm also curious about that discussion I also feel its not something that should be thrown onto a public forum, especially mtgs. It would be a complete disaster, and we're also not part of the conversation to begin with as that's between set and sheldon in regards to whichever RC member his comments were about.
I feel that the RC does an admirable job considering the magnitude of their decisions, no matter what they do or don't do some vocal minority will let everyone know just how upset they are. And to be honest, I much rather have a "uninformed but caring" RC in charge where they try to let playgroups work themselves out then Wotc with the way they handle modern... they're too informed with not enough care, they ban cards like they're target shooting with a blunderbust. If they took over edh (renaming it commander it almost too much as it is) the format would crash and burn, ending up completely unrecognizable. Edh is already mainstreaming, the fact that I've also ran into people refusing to accept sypri's ban because of wizard's lack of updating and refusing to accept anything else as the official banlist, and while there's more people to play against it also means there's less "my playgroup of edh buddies" so there's gonna be less group discussion and more "try-hard cutthroats" and people with conflicting play styles. Its like when your drafting and there's 5 guys there to have a good draft, 2 cutthroat spikey players, and 1 durdle there to raredraft. Things are gonna be a let down to everyone but it should only be a bad time if ***** really hits the fan, and that's when attitudes come into play. Be respectful and friendly, and at least consider other points of view if someone takes offense to a play or playstyle, that's all one can really do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I had a wordy signature here once.
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU Who needs permanents anyways? WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
@Batdown: while I'm also curious about that discussion I also feel its not something that should be thrown onto a public forum, especially mtgs. It would be a complete disaster, and we're also not part of the conversation to begin with as that's between set and sheldon in regards to whichever RC member his comments were about.
I feel that the RC does an admirable job considering the magnitude of their decisions, no matter what they do or don't do some vocal minority will let everyone know just how upset they are. And to be honest, I much rather have a "uninformed but caring" RC in charge where they try to let playgroups work themselves out then Wotc with the way they handle modern... they're too informed with not enough care, they ban cards like they're target shooting with a blunderbust. If they took over edh (renaming it commander it almost too much as it is) the format would crash and burn, ending up completely unrecognizable. Edh is already mainstreaming, the fact that I've also ran into people refusing to accept sypri's ban because of wizard's lack of updating and refusing to accept anything else as the official banlist, and while there's more people to play against it also means there's less "my playgroup of edh buddies" so there's gonna be less group discussion and more "try-hard cutthroats" and people with conflicting play styles. Its like when your drafting and there's 5 guys there to have a good draft, 2 cutthroat spikey players, and 1 durdle there to raredraft. Things are gonna be a let down to everyone but it should only be a bad time if ***** really hits the fan, and that's when attitudes come into play. Be respectful and friendly, and at least consider other points of view if someone takes offense to a play or playstyle, that's all one can really do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I had a wordy signature here once.
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU Who needs permanents anyways? WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
I do agree that Wizards should be up to date with the bannings on formats. If you make an announcement with regards to an effective ban, it has to be updated on the database. Provide clear reasons for Modern/Legacy/Standard bannings, but also provide reasons for formats you support. At least link it, c'mon!
The RC, on the other hand, should have provided a typed response and send it to the administrators at WotC. Letting a public committee decide means it has the responsibility to provide the same response on DailyMTG.com as well as mtgcommander.net.
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 really liked SP, I had him in every deck which contained G. Anyway, he is banned and I changed him for different cards.
Still, I don't feel hate or anything that they banned him.
And, I quite don't understand people who cry and ignore that they actually banned him. EDH IS casual format and should be about having fun.
You cry and complain because they took one option for you to ruin other people games? Wow, I wonder that somebody is still playing with you with such attitude...
And for me, they are doing good job banning unbalanced cards. They are not seers, they cannot see the future and balance every card they print in every possible non-abusing way. So I agree with them to ban some cards.
That is interesting, I always thought that page made it clear that it was talking about mtgo specifically, because it is sorted under the mtgo header of the banned/restricted page and mentions that the rules are for mtgo. The commander part of the wizards casual formats page does explicitly point to the rc page and distinguishes it from the mtgo format.
But if I weren't already aware of the rc, I would probably just google "commander ban list" and pick the wizards official link and look at the big list that I find.
People who don't follow the ban list don't play/like/appreciate the format.
qft. Selfish to want a card that others have banned. Even more useless to say that 'your playgroup doesn't play X card' due to whatever reason it may be.
I had more respect for the RC before I'd actually met one of its members and seen how he actively secludes himself from experiencing the 'meta'. Uninformed people, no matter how passionate or caring, make uninformed decisions.
I don't want to derail the thread, but a cheap shot is a cheap shot. Feel free to discuss this further with me via PM or email if you'd like. I'd be very interested in hearing more details about this.
I avoided any names to avoid a 'cheap shot'. I simply stated my opinion and how it had changed based on how Armada handled your 'special' table on EDH nights. This comes up on a thread which slightly derailed into a discussion that included people's opinions of the RC's decisions. Admittedly I've only met two members of the RC, yourself and the judge who oversaw my judge test (and introduced me to the format many years ago). I've no desire to create a public and notorious discussion on my limited personal experience with the RC. However, my point was that the decisions made by the RC at times seem to be disconnected from my own experiences playing EDH and that having met a RC member that isolated himself that I could understand why some of those disconnects could exist.
In fairness, the meta of Armada's EDH players is incredibly variable, skill levels and rules comprehension range from amazing to 'simply wrong', and a few players would benefit from simply paying more attention during games (not to mention a couple who I'd buy them the bar of soap if they'd go take a shower). All in all it's an atmosphere in which if I could pick and choose who I played with too, I probably would. However, I also use the experience strictly for fun and don't play any role in the RC, nor do I write articles for any site about the format.
My point, which seems to have been lost along the way due to this alternative focus, was simply two fold: first, the RC/Wizards establishes rules that players use as a blind set of constraints in which players who do not know each other can play a game without need to argue or agree on any tweaks; second, given my experience playing EDH and my knowledge of the RC it neither surprises me nor is a bad thing that players who disagree will establish 'house rules' when possible to adapt the format to meet their desires.
In closing, I will add that I am of a position of someone who prefers to avoid confrontation with others regarding rules. I like when rules are specific and clear in a way that allows players to follow the letter of them, rather than individual players needing to attempt to determine the 'spirit' of the rules or to concoct "gentleman's agreements" to further alter the format. I, personally, am of the attitude that if the playerbase as a whole condemns mass Land Destruction, then the solution is to ban those specific cards that need to be removed for the format to match the desired setting. Having a format where players are told "you can play with all these cards but you *shouldn't* play with this subset of those cards" is silly. I can understand that a 'perfect' format can't be created. Banning every 'cheap' combo component to eliminate easy combos may be unrealistic. There is nothing inherently wrong with Triskelion or Mikaeus, the Unhallowed. However, when there seems to be an overwhelming community agreement that cards like Obliterate never result in enjoyable board states but the card is still legal, I am left confused. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the RC has used the line 'we do not see X card as a problem' as reason for not banning it, simply because they haven't experienced it being a problem, despite the fact that basic logic would suggest that it is. Combine this with a personal experience of an RC member isolating himself and my opinion that EDH, while a brilliant idea, may well be better managed if it was done so by people who didn't assume a "gentleman's agreement" was a reasonable rule and instead added more specific structure to the format.
Every game with winners and losers has a set of rules in place, and these rules are expected to be followed for the sake of the game. While EDH is intended to be a casual format rather than Standard/Modern/etc, it is still a format with guidelines and a set of rules that the creators of the format established and still maintain for the sake of the format. To intentionally break these rules means you no longer want to play EDH and instead a different MTG format in my opinion. You might as well use Sylvan Primordial as a general in your command zone at that point, or whatever you want to call it. Just my 2 cents.
Every game with winners and losers has a set of rules in place, and these rules are expected to be followed for the sake of the game. While EDH is intended to be a casual format rather than Standard/Modern/etc, it is still a format with guidelines and a set of rules that the creators of the format established and still maintain for the sake of the format. To intentionally break these rules means you no longer want to play EDH and instead a different MTG format in my opinion. You might as well use Sylvan Primordial as a general in your command zone at that point, or whatever you want to call it. Just my 2 cents.
So your saying I should follow the creators banlist but I should not take their advise on changing the rules to meet my individual groups needs to increase our enjoyment or it's ok but it's not commander anymore ? I think this is a silly position to hold considering differnt play groups using "legal" decks can have metas varying from
Over by turn 4 to takes at least 4 hours. It doesn't make sense for my group to ban SP when the crap WE ALL enjoying doing is at least if not more degenerate than anything he can do. Also if I sat down at a casual table which do you think they would enjoy more my storm deck that hit between turn 4-6 about 85% of the time or some jank city mayeal deck with a underwhelming banned card? If I ask them before hand and they are cool with it dud I stop them from playing edh?? No the rc supports house rules because sometimes it would be silly not to use them. I would say customization is one of the reasons why this format is so fun for so many people.
In closing, I will add that I am of a position of someone who prefers to avoid confrontation with others regarding rules. I like when rules are specific and clear in a way that allows players to follow the letter of them, rather than individual players needing to attempt to determine the 'spirit' of the rules or to concoct "gentleman's agreements" to further alter the format.
You want to play competitive constructed. There is nothing wrong with that, but a lot of us do not. A groups doesn't play SP because it is banned, and has the ability to talk about unbanning it as a small group if they like.
my opinion that EDH, while a brilliant idea, may well be better managed if it was done so by people who didn't assume a "gentleman's agreement" was a reasonable rule and instead added more specific structure to the format.
I hope it does not turn into every other format specifically because it is expected that people are not in it only to win.
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.
Every game with winners and losers has a set of rules in place, and these rules are expected to be followed for the sake of the game. While EDH is intended to be a casual format rather than Standard/Modern/etc, it is still a format with guidelines and a set of rules that the creators of the format established and still maintain for the sake of the format. To intentionally break these rules means you no longer want to play EDH and instead a different MTG format in my opinion. You might as well use Sylvan Primordial as a general in your command zone at that point, or whatever you want to call it. Just my 2 cents.
So your saying I should follow the creators banlist but I should not take their advise on changing the rules to meet my individual groups needs to increase our enjoyment or it's ok but it's not commander anymore ? I think this is a silly position to hold considering differnt play groups using "legal" decks can have metas varying from
Over by turn 4 to takes at least 4 hours. It doesn't make sense for my group to ban SP when the crap WE ALL enjoying doing is at least if not more degenerate than anything he can do. Also if I sat down at a casual table which do you think they would enjoy more my storm deck that hit between turn 4-6 about 85% of the time or some jank city mayeal deck with a underwhelming banned card? If I ask them before hand and they are cool with it dud I stop them from playing edh?? No the rc supports house rules because sometimes it would be silly not to use them. I would say customization is one of the reasons why this format is so fun for so many people.
I was mostly responding to those refusing to adhere to the current rules in place for EDH by keeping SP in their decks. If your playgroup agrees to an alternate set of rules that is totally cool of course. It just isn't exactly EDH as everyone knows it anymore. That was my point.
I see Kinematik's point. I play in a group that has not modified the rules or banlist at all. It has kept everything easy for new players to build decks and play with us. Its not acceptable to us to deviate from the given rules because no one has talked about it or agreed to it. We have a facebook page. These things can be brought up. If one player decides on their own that the banlist is stupid and they won't be adhering to it then, as our group would see it, they're no longer playing the same format we are.
I see Kinematik's point. I play in a group that has not modified the rules or banlist at all. It has kept everything easy for new players to build decks and play with us. Its not acceptable to us to deviate from the given rules because no one has talked about it or agreed to it. We have a facebook page. These things can be brought up. If one player decides on their own that the banlist is stupid and they won't be adhering to it then, as our group would see it, they're no longer playing the same format we are.
Some places just don't have the luxury of being able to come up with a different banlist. As you said, it is easier for new people to join in games. I do not know anyone personally that I play EDH with --- only see them once a week for a few hours.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't want to derail the thread, but a cheap shot is a cheap shot. Feel free to discuss this further with me via PM or email if you'd like. I'd be very interested in hearing more details about this.
I think you should start a thread about it so the conversation can be public.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
People that simply refuse to acknowledge the ban are just selfish imo. I generally don't play with people like that.
But, it looks like with the official wizards update it won't be a problem anymore. I gotta admit, I'd be looking forward to being able to wave that under their noses ^.^
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics
[Primer]WIsamaru, the Howling BladeW[Primer]
[Primer]BGSkullbriar: From Life, Death Eternal (1v1)GB[Primer]
BGRbighaben and Feverous' Prossh, Skyraider of KherRGB
BGRProssh-Gro (1V1)RGB
That is "your" play group. Not everyone has the luxery to have a playgroup. Not everyone knows everyone else at the table on a semi-personal level. Letting people 'hear it' will only lead to further issues.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
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
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I feel that the RC does an admirable job considering the magnitude of their decisions, no matter what they do or don't do some vocal minority will let everyone know just how upset they are. And to be honest, I much rather have a "uninformed but caring" RC in charge where they try to let playgroups work themselves out then Wotc with the way they handle modern... they're too informed with not enough care, they ban cards like they're target shooting with a blunderbust. If they took over edh (renaming it commander it almost too much as it is) the format would crash and burn, ending up completely unrecognizable. Edh is already mainstreaming, the fact that I've also ran into people refusing to accept sypri's ban because of wizard's lack of updating and refusing to accept anything else as the official banlist, and while there's more people to play against it also means there's less "my playgroup of edh buddies" so there's gonna be less group discussion and more "try-hard cutthroats" and people with conflicting play styles. Its like when your drafting and there's 5 guys there to have a good draft, 2 cutthroat spikey players, and 1 durdle there to raredraft. Things are gonna be a let down to everyone but it should only be a bad time if ***** really hits the fan, and that's when attitudes come into play. Be respectful and friendly, and at least consider other points of view if someone takes offense to a play or playstyle, that's all one can really do.
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU
Who needs permanents anyways?
WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW
Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
I feel that the RC does an admirable job considering the magnitude of their decisions, no matter what they do or don't do some vocal minority will let everyone know just how upset they are. And to be honest, I much rather have a "uninformed but caring" RC in charge where they try to let playgroups work themselves out then Wotc with the way they handle modern... they're too informed with not enough care, they ban cards like they're target shooting with a blunderbust. If they took over edh (renaming it commander it almost too much as it is) the format would crash and burn, ending up completely unrecognizable. Edh is already mainstreaming, the fact that I've also ran into people refusing to accept sypri's ban because of wizard's lack of updating and refusing to accept anything else as the official banlist, and while there's more people to play against it also means there's less "my playgroup of edh buddies" so there's gonna be less group discussion and more "try-hard cutthroats" and people with conflicting play styles. Its like when your drafting and there's 5 guys there to have a good draft, 2 cutthroat spikey players, and 1 durdle there to raredraft. Things are gonna be a let down to everyone but it should only be a bad time if ***** really hits the fan, and that's when attitudes come into play. Be respectful and friendly, and at least consider other points of view if someone takes offense to a play or playstyle, that's all one can really do.
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU
Who needs permanents anyways?
WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW
Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
The RC, on the other hand, should have provided a typed response and send it to the administrators at WotC. Letting a public committee decide means it has the responsibility to provide the same response on DailyMTG.com as well as mtgcommander.net.
Synchronization people, synchronization.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
It clearly links to the main EDH site: https://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=magic/rules/100cardsingleton-commander
Still, I don't feel hate or anything that they banned him.
And, I quite don't understand people who cry and ignore that they actually banned him. EDH IS casual format and should be about having fun.
You cry and complain because they took one option for you to ruin other people games? Wow, I wonder that somebody is still playing with you with such attitude...
And for me, they are doing good job banning unbalanced cards. They are not seers, they cannot see the future and balance every card they print in every possible non-abusing way. So I agree with them to ban some cards.
But if I weren't already aware of the rc, I would probably just google "commander ban list" and pick the wizards official link and look at the big list that I find.
qft. Selfish to want a card that others have banned. Even more useless to say that 'your playgroup doesn't play X card' due to whatever reason it may be.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
I avoided any names to avoid a 'cheap shot'. I simply stated my opinion and how it had changed based on how Armada handled your 'special' table on EDH nights. This comes up on a thread which slightly derailed into a discussion that included people's opinions of the RC's decisions. Admittedly I've only met two members of the RC, yourself and the judge who oversaw my judge test (and introduced me to the format many years ago). I've no desire to create a public and notorious discussion on my limited personal experience with the RC. However, my point was that the decisions made by the RC at times seem to be disconnected from my own experiences playing EDH and that having met a RC member that isolated himself that I could understand why some of those disconnects could exist.
In fairness, the meta of Armada's EDH players is incredibly variable, skill levels and rules comprehension range from amazing to 'simply wrong', and a few players would benefit from simply paying more attention during games (not to mention a couple who I'd buy them the bar of soap if they'd go take a shower). All in all it's an atmosphere in which if I could pick and choose who I played with too, I probably would. However, I also use the experience strictly for fun and don't play any role in the RC, nor do I write articles for any site about the format.
My point, which seems to have been lost along the way due to this alternative focus, was simply two fold: first, the RC/Wizards establishes rules that players use as a blind set of constraints in which players who do not know each other can play a game without need to argue or agree on any tweaks; second, given my experience playing EDH and my knowledge of the RC it neither surprises me nor is a bad thing that players who disagree will establish 'house rules' when possible to adapt the format to meet their desires.
In closing, I will add that I am of a position of someone who prefers to avoid confrontation with others regarding rules. I like when rules are specific and clear in a way that allows players to follow the letter of them, rather than individual players needing to attempt to determine the 'spirit' of the rules or to concoct "gentleman's agreements" to further alter the format. I, personally, am of the attitude that if the playerbase as a whole condemns mass Land Destruction, then the solution is to ban those specific cards that need to be removed for the format to match the desired setting. Having a format where players are told "you can play with all these cards but you *shouldn't* play with this subset of those cards" is silly. I can understand that a 'perfect' format can't be created. Banning every 'cheap' combo component to eliminate easy combos may be unrealistic. There is nothing inherently wrong with Triskelion or Mikaeus, the Unhallowed. However, when there seems to be an overwhelming community agreement that cards like Obliterate never result in enjoyable board states but the card is still legal, I am left confused. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the RC has used the line 'we do not see X card as a problem' as reason for not banning it, simply because they haven't experienced it being a problem, despite the fact that basic logic would suggest that it is. Combine this with a personal experience of an RC member isolating himself and my opinion that EDH, while a brilliant idea, may well be better managed if it was done so by people who didn't assume a "gentleman's agreement" was a reasonable rule and instead added more specific structure to the format.
So your saying I should follow the creators banlist but I should not take their advise on changing the rules to meet my individual groups needs to increase our enjoyment or it's ok but it's not commander anymore ? I think this is a silly position to hold considering differnt play groups using "legal" decks can have metas varying from
Over by turn 4 to takes at least 4 hours. It doesn't make sense for my group to ban SP when the crap WE ALL enjoying doing is at least if not more degenerate than anything he can do. Also if I sat down at a casual table which do you think they would enjoy more my storm deck that hit between turn 4-6 about 85% of the time or some jank city mayeal deck with a underwhelming banned card? If I ask them before hand and they are cool with it dud I stop them from playing edh?? No the rc supports house rules because sometimes it would be silly not to use them. I would say customization is one of the reasons why this format is so fun for so many people.
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
I hope it does not turn into every other format specifically because it is expected that people are not in it only to win.
I was mostly responding to those refusing to adhere to the current rules in place for EDH by keeping SP in their decks. If your playgroup agrees to an alternate set of rules that is totally cool of course. It just isn't exactly EDH as everyone knows it anymore. That was my point.
Some places just don't have the luxury of being able to come up with a different banlist. As you said, it is easier for new people to join in games. I do not know anyone personally that I play EDH with --- only see them once a week for a few hours.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list