[Official]
The Dream Multiplayer Ban List and the State of the Format (2015 ed)
Poll: Infect should be...
Log in with your Curse username to vote in this poll.
Infect should be... - Single Choice
- 10 points 54.9%
- 15 points 22.8%
- 20 points 20.3%
- banned 2%
Ended Dec 31, 2015
Poll: Should the Banned as a Commander list be reinstated?
Log in with your Curse username to vote in this poll.
Should the Banned as a Commander list be reinstated? - Single Choice
- Yes 69%
- No 31%
Ended Dec 31, 2015
Poll: What do you think about the tuck rule change?
Log in with your Curse username to vote in this poll.
What do you think about the tuck rule change? - Single Choice
- I like it, keep the rule. 42.1%
- I dislike it, bring back tuck. 34.6%
- I don't care one way or the other. 23.3%
Ended Dec 31, 2015
Poll: Do you think the "wish board" (sideboard) should be reinstated?
Log in with your Curse username to vote in this poll.
Do you think the "wish board" (sideboard) should be reinstated? - Single Choice
- Yes 23.3%
- No 45.6%
- Yes, but as an optional rule only 31.1%
Ended Dec 31, 2015
Poll: What cards should be on the multiplayer ban list?
Log in with your Curse username to vote in this poll.
What cards should be on the multiplayer ban list? - Multiple Choice
- == BANNED IN VINTAGE == (Don't vote for this) 2% of Users - 6 votes
- Chaos Orb 70.1% of Users - 211 votes
- Falling Star 68.1% of Users - 205 votes
- Shahrazad 74.1% of Users - 223 votes
- == OTHERWISE BANNED IN COMMANDER == (Don't vote for this) 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Ancestral Recall 77.4% of Users - 233 votes
- Balance 67.4% of Users - 203 votes
- Biorhythm 73.4% of Users - 221 votes
- Black Lotus 81.4% of Users - 245 votes
- Braids, Cabal Minion 27.6% of Users - 83 votes
- Coalition Victory 60.5% of Users - 182 votes
- Emrakul, the Aeons Torn 62.5% of Users - 188 votes
- Erayo, Soratami Ascendant 56.5% of Users - 170 votes
- Fastbond 71.4% of Users - 215 votes
- Gifts Ungiven 41.9% of Users - 126 votes
- Griselbrand 62.5% of Users - 188 votes
- Karakas 74.1% of Users - 223 votes
- Library of Alexandria 55.8% of Users - 168 votes
- Limited Resources 72.4% of Users - 218 votes
- Mox Pearl, Sapphire, Jet, Ruby, and Emerald 80.4% of Users - 242 votes
- Painter's Servant 32.9% of Users - 99 votes
- Panoptic Mirror 56.5% of Users - 170 votes
- Primeval Titan 53.5% of Users - 161 votes
- Protean Hulk 57.5% of Users - 173 votes
- Recurring Nightmare 46.2% of Users - 139 votes
- Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary 44.2% of Users - 133 votes
- Sundering Titan 55.5% of Users - 167 votes
- Sway of the Stars 66.4% of Users - 200 votes
- Sylvan Primodial 53.8% of Users - 162 votes
- Time Vault 82.1% of Users - 247 votes
- Time Walk 81.4% of Users - 245 votes
- Tinker 69.4% of Users - 209 votes
- Tolarian Academy 64.8% of Users - 195 votes
- Trade Secrets 62.5% of Users - 188 votes
- Upheaval 62.5% of Users - 188 votes
- Worldfire 62.5% of Users - 188 votes
- Yawgmoth's Bargain 67.1% of Users - 202 votes
- == CARDS NOT CURRENTLY ON THE BAN LIST == (Don't vote for this) 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Ad Nauseam 18.6% of Users - 56 votes
- Bazaar of Baghdad 14.6% of Users - 44 votes
- Blightsteel Colossus 6.6% of Users - 20 votes
- Bribery 6.3% of Users - 19 votes
- Buried Alive 2% of Users - 6 votes
- Consecrated Sphinx 18.6% of Users - 56 votes
- Contamination 9.6% of Users - 29 votes
- Corpse Dance 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Craterhoof Behemoth 5.6% of Users - 17 votes
- Cyclonic Rift 9.6% of Users - 29 votes
- Deadeye Navigator 23.3% of Users - 70 votes
- Demonic Tutor 13.3% of Users - 40 votes
- Derevi, Empyrial Tactician 18.9% of Users - 57 votes
- Doomsday 10.6% of Users - 32 votes
- Doubling Season 1.7% of Users - 5 votes
- Enlightened Tutor 6% of Users - 18 votes
- Enter the Infinite 9% of Users - 27 votes
- Food Chain 11% of Users - 33 votes
- Force of Will 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Gaea's Cradle 14.3% of Users - 43 votes
- Gray Merchant of Asphodel 1.7% of Users - 5 votes
- Grim Monolith 10.6% of Users - 32 votes
- Grim Tutor 9% of Users - 27 votes
- Grindstone 6% of Users - 18 votes
- Hermit Druid 29.2% of Users - 88 votes
- Hokori, Dust Drinker 2.3% of Users - 7 votes
- Humility 8% of Users - 24 votes
- Imperial Seal 18.3% of Users - 55 votes
- Insurrection 2% of Users - 6 votes
- Intuition 4% of Users - 12 votes
- Invoke Prejudice 3.7% of Users - 11 votes
- Iona, Shield of Emeria 38.2% of Users - 115 votes
- Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur 6.6% of Users - 20 votes
- Kokusho, the Evening Star 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Maelstrom Wanderer 4% of Users - 12 votes
- Magister Sphinx 6.3% of Users - 19 votes
- Mana Crypt 39.9% of Users - 120 votes
- Mana Drain 15% of Users - 45 votes
- Mana Vault 22.6% of Users - 68 votes
- Mind Over Matter 6.6% of Users - 20 votes
- Mindslaver 7.3% of Users - 22 votes
- Mishra's Workshop 15.9% of Users - 48 votes
- Mystical Tutor 7.3% of Users - 22 votes
- Narset, Enlightened Master 12% of Users - 36 votes
- Necropotence 14.6% of Users - 44 votes
- Nether Void 5% of Users - 15 votes
- Oath of Druids 8% of Users - 24 votes
- Oloro, Ageless Ascetic 6.3% of Users - 19 votes
- Omniscience 12.6% of Users - 38 votes
- Palinchron 14.6% of Users - 44 votes
- Prophet of Kruphix 22.9% of Users - 69 votes
- Purphoros, God of the Forge 3.7% of Users - 11 votes
- Serra Ascendant 13.3% of Users - 40 votes
- Sol Ring 28.2% of Users - 85 votes
- Sorin Markov 7.6% of Users - 23 votes
- Survival of the Fittest 13% of Users - 39 votes
- Sylvan Library 2.7% of Users - 8 votes
- The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale 18.3% of Users - 55 votes
- Tendrils of Agony 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Time Stretch 8% of Users - 24 votes
- Tooth and Nail 18.3% of Users - 55 votes
- Triumph of the Hordes 1.3% of Users - 4 votes
- Vampiric Tutor 12.6% of Users - 38 votes
- Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger 5.3% of Users - 16 votes
- Winter Orb 7.3% of Users - 22 votes
- Yawgmoth's Will 7.6% of Users - 23 votes
- Zur the Enchanter 7.6% of Users - 23 votes
- == CATEGORIES OF CARDS == (Don't vote for this) 1% of Users - 3 votes
- Annihilator cards (i.e. the Eldrazi) 4.3% of Users - 13 votes
- Extra turns (e.g. Time Warp) 10% of Users - 30 votes
- Mass Land Destruction cards (e.g. Armageddon, Sunder) 10.3% of Users - 31 votes
- Planeswalker Commanders (e.g. Nahiri, the Lithomancer) 3.3% of Users - 10 votes
- "You win the game" effects (e.g. Test of Endurance) 9.3% of Users - 28 votes
Ended Dec 31, 2015
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes
This could also just be because it's what people are used to, and because they assume that the RC know what they're doing. It's the old "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. That doesn't mean the format couldn't be better though.
GUB [Retired Primer] The Mimeoplasm BUG
Modern: UR Storm RU
Cube: WUBRG Pauper Cube GRBUW
Credit for the banner goes to DarkNightCavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios
Well, I criticize that line of thinking because it's more than one person saying it. "If we started banning tutors, where would be stop?" - that's a line that's gotten repeated by the RC, quoted, and used by apologists. I'm sure this isn't the first place where Rampant Growth gets mentioned. I quoted Sheldon a couple pages back on the idea of Worldly v Vampiric. My point's the same, that if any reasonable line were actually drawn, the majority would probably understand it and fully accept it. The poll here reflects that. To say that you won't ban Demonic because someone, somewhere might gripe that Eladamri's Call isn't banned also is just an excuse at this point.
I doubt that cognitive dissonance on the issue of what constitutes a tutor is anyone's sincere position for why Vintage-restricted cards can't ever get banned.
If your point is that people disagree on what tutors would get banned, then I agree that point's pretty well proven. Likewise, if your point is that we are considering individual cards rather than the class of cards known at "tutors", then I agree also. Whether people continue to gripe about some tutors being legal others not, I don't mind. Becaues the purpose of a ban isn't to get me or anyone else to shut up, it's to make the format more healthy. What we can agree on is that if any two tutor cards did get banned for being tutors, it would be Vampi and Demonic. And if Vampi and Demonic get the axe, then everyone starts griping about a price hike on Grim Tutor, I think it's hard to consider that a failure. Much less to take the possibility of such a failure as an excuse to do nothing. Basically, I don't care whether my list specifically gets the axe. I'm sure that any group of Magic players with the experience of the RC would be able to improve the state of the format, if they ever did decide that the potential in this card pool to consistently end games before Turn 5 were actually a problem. Not everyone will agree on it. I doubt there's ever been any change that absolutely everyone agreed with. But they don't need to, that's my point.
If the RC wants to ban Enlightened, Worldly, NO and Intuition, then I wouldn't be among those complaining that I absolutely need these cards to enjoy this format. If the intent is to show that those players advocating for the ban of tutors don't have a cohesive position, because "why this and not that", then see above. If the intent is to mull over how the RC could ever ban a Tutor and hold to its authority unless it had a fully developed, cohesive position as to "why this and not that", then I refer you to the long history of actions, both popular and unpopular, that the RC has undertaken without posing such risks.
My point is that you definitely can rank tutors from most powerful to least powerful, at least as far as the top 5 or so is concerned, and that any bans of any of the top cards would do the format a service.
Well, I've always said that 5-color never took off because 5-color sucks.
If that's not good enough, I keep going back to the same metric - the average goldfish turn of a deck. I conducted a poll here once to get an idea of what turn people thought it was acceptable to end the game. IIRC, it was between Turn 6-8. Now, I'm sure you can't police a 99-singleton format to prevent a deck from EVER winning before Turn 6, but the average turn a deck goes off is a different thing. And on that, I am pretty sure based on what I know of the game that we can do better than to allow decks whose average goldfish turn is Turn 4. Whether ranking the tutors by strength and banning the top 5 would get the fastest deck's average goldfish above Turn 6, I don't know, but I do know that the average win turn would be higher than it is now. Because of how the principle of redundancy tends to work in Magic, it could be a lot higher than it is now. But the only premise of what I'm saying is that 1) the average goldfish turn possible in this card pool is too low for the type of games people want to have, and that 2) banning tutors will improve that figure.
The issue with those tutors named in 5-color, and a continuing issue with EDH as well, is that there are those people who believe that there is no acceptable turn time, ever, where an abrupt, combo-style win should be acceptable. Someone like that might try to ban Bringer of the Black Dawn. They still won't be happy. I just disagree with the idea that simply because you can't please that crowd, you shouldn't do anything at all. Bans are not the way to ever please that crowd.
And I guess based on the above, we agree on that point. There's no imaginable set of rules that would prevent a deck from being built whose sole function is to tutor for a combo as fast as possible and execute it. A ban list is not a solution to that. But what may or may not be a solution, depending on how the card pool is built, is a player's ability to build a Control deck that neutralizes all such Combo decks at the table.
Now, my position has been that currently no Control deck is possible that is up to the task of doing that, for the reason that the average cost of a playable counterspell in this format is approaching 3. That's already after combo decks are done tutoring, and with fast mana, might even be ready to go off. If we followed the above principle of ranking the tutors by strength and banning the top 3-5, we'd incidentally be banning cards that are all 3 or less mana. But I believe there is enough opinion out there that varies from me on that also, that you shouldn't have to build your deck to answer an opponent's deck, and that you have an inalienable social right not to have to play against Combo. It's from that place that the "if you can't do a perfect job, why bother?" rationale comes from. I just don't believe that reflects the community anymore, if it ever did.
Buried Alive, Corpse Dance, Force of Will, Kokusho, the Evening Star, Hokori, Dust Drinker, and 'You win the game' cards.
It also doesn't mean that all change is good. You have to liken the RC to MaRo. Sure, they both say/do some head-scratchers every once in a while, but in their perspective fields there is no one that is more knowledgeable and experienced than them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Slippery slope fallacy is one that we are all guilty of. Why is Tooth and Nail legal when Protean Hulk and Gifts Ungiven are banned? I think that if we can look at each card fairly and without the context of "well that card got banned so this one should too", then we could safely start somewhere.
I agree with all of this (not necessarily that those tutors should be banned, though). My only concern with the T~ metric is that I question just how necessary it is. After all, I doubt the average Commander player is trying to end games before turn 5. So how do we objectively measure this? Who's deck lists do we goldfish? Do we look for any card which can win before then? Only the enablers? What about the ones which aren't problematic when not used in this fashion (like Hermit Druid)?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Current Ban List Plus:
Hermit Druid/Ad Nauseum. Yes they have a couple non combo uses. But in the majority of cases, they exist solely to end the game before Turn 4. Games turn into 3v1 against the HD/AN player, and that's not a healthy environment.
Con Sphinx/Prophet of Kruphix/Necropotence
Absurd card advantage engines are a problem.
Sol Ring/Mana Crypt/Mana Vault
The advantage gained, even in multiplayer, can be insurmountable.
Omniscience/Mind Over Matter/Tooth and Nail
One card "I win" buttons bug me.
Iona/Contamination/Serra Ascendant
Really play badly with the format. Serra less so, but essentially demands someone have Turn 1 or 2 non toughness based removal or problem ensue.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I did vote to ban Iona, and unban Servant, but those decisions were independent of each other as I didnt know people played the two cards together like that. I simply want Iona gone, and want Servant to help out in an Eight-and-a-Half-Tails deck.
The Mimeoplasm || Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher || Vial Smasher/Tymna Group Slug
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief || Talrand, Sky Summoner
Yidris - Unblockable Saboteurs || Kiki-Jiki, ETB breaker
Kess, Dissident Mage
-Commander-
UBGMill, Sidisi, and Other ShenanigansGBU
WUBRGShingeki no TazriGRBUW
Voted to ban it because I think it's borderline bannable and I'm tired of people constantly talking about how bad it is.
You're correct. We can't just establish a blanket requirement and set a baseline based on it. But scrutinizing every card will take forever (even if MTGS is the one doing it) and it has already been proven we will disagree on many individual cards already. Even for cards a lot of us would probably ban (like Iona, Shield of Emeria for one), someone would think it shouldn't be.
Both Hermit Druid and Tooth and Nail can instantly end the game in the correct deck and situation. Both also can be played fairly. So does that mean if one of them is banned, the other one should also be banned by the same criteria? In this case, the details of how they can be played fairly doesn't matter - even if the Druid is more "fair" than T&N when both are played "fairly", what degree of the "fairness" of a card that can be "broken" do we set it at to consider it for banning? I doubt we can ever establish that.
Magic has too many variable factors on its own and we haven't accounted for the variable opinions of the community. I don't actually think it's possible to even establish a "proper" banlist for the format - a ban list that manages to shut down every single possible "Fast combo" out there would probably annihilate thousands more of "fair plays" as well. Leave the cards around for the sake "fair plays" and someone will be building the fastest combo enabled out there.
Personally I think its in part because there really isnt much of a counter argument to why not to ban her. She is one of those cards who is either a huge problem in a game or does little to nothing. Prophet has a counter argument that it needs followup. Iona is potentially a one card lock where prophet requires further support to break the game and does not itself protect itself.
Iona doesn't get a lot of attention because when people say perhaps we should ban her it usually does not start a long debate. Either people don't really care or they mostly just nod. It is rare I guess to see someone who is adamantly opposed to the idea of banning her.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Current Decks
GTitania midrange
RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal
GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron
U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher
RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
I think you pretty much nailed it. It's just that the "noise" surrounding other cards is significantly higher than the noise surrounding Iona. I think there is some merit to the previous comments about the desire to unban Painter's Servant, although I would have guessed that there would have been a similar uptick in the % for banning Grindstone to match. Grindstone is currently sitting at 7.8% (9/115 votes) which makes me reconsider whether there is actually a connection.
There are 25,000+ posts of rehashing tired points in the Banned List Thread and a seemingly endless number of players who are willing to argue those points Ad Nauseam... Iona gets no more discussion than something like Sorin Markov/Magister Sphinx except when its thrown into the Painter's Servant discussion. Everyone knows in the back of their mind that those kinds of cards can be really lame, but since they rarely end up ending the game on the spot most people just don't care enough about seeing them banned. I know in my meta, colorless removal is bountiful so Iona has less of a 'game over' feel than it does in other metas. But just because we've just evolved past cards like Iona (and Gaddock Teeg, Blood Moon, etc.) doesn't make it any less annoying in principal. I'm just surprised that half the people polled at that time (currently at 47% 54/115 votes) also felt that way.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
I think PainterStone is as fair as 2 card combos come. It does exactly the same thing as Leyline of the Void+Helm of Obedience. Killing one player at a time is slow. Stone is honestly a terrible card on its own right, so the only reason to include it is with the intent to combo.
The combos that worry me are the ones that are made up of just 2 good cards. Each is good on it's own, but together they can turn things sour. I've seen players literally accidentally assemble them without knowing it was a combo and be like "Why did all of you pick up your cards?". Examples would be DEN+Mystic Snake or Kiki+Scripts/Resto Angel.
On how to measure it and what decks to use, well, the measurement of games ending on Turn X average would be objective, but it would be up to the RC's subjective taking of that measurement. From my seat, I have seen enough games end on Turn 4 that I know the warning signs, what the possible responses are, and what cards enable it. I would suspect that most EDH players up to now have seen it, but it's possible that I'm incorrect in that suspicion. So in my mind, most people by now can eyball this, but if the RC were to do a more objective inquiry into it they're of course free to draw their own conclusions. My suggestion has been that they look at the cards banned in Legacy to begin with, but we both know how that took. My main point though is simply that the idea you can't possibly measure the power of these cards to know whether you should ban them is not correct. You can, and it's left up to the powers that be how empirical they want to be in measuring that power. So far, they say they've just eyeballed things and put it up to a vote.
On looking at any possible sequence that can win before Turn 5, I think that's the difference between the earliest possible win turn and average win turn. In Legacy, Storm can win on Turn 1. But, that doesn't happen often, thank goodness. Most of the time it will goldfish either on Turn 2 or 3. Some fraction of hands goldfish way too late, and a small amount of the time the deck might even fail. So, the average is probably around Turn 3, and against disruption there's a back and forth for maybe 5-6 turns. Point is, constructing scenarios where an EDH deck wins, by any means, before Turn 5 isn't the way to go, because the turn where that happens on average is much later. I'd imagine it's highly possible even to combo off without any tutors or any non-mana cards costing less than 3, if you're just building the theoretical hand. But with multiple unconditional tutors at 2 cmc or less, turn 1 mana rocks, and multiple one-card combo enablers present in this card pool, a deck that has a Turn 4-5 average kill turn is quite possible in EDH. Now I know most EDH players aren't trying to do that, so I'm not saying that avoiding that is the goal. In fact, a game like that or two will happen no matter what you do to the card pool. What I'm saying is that the ability to do that is evidence that these enablers are too strong for this format. Those who aren't abusing them like this have a ton of other options that still meet the level of efficiency they've built into their deck. And them being available, they are too strong whenever they do show up, even if they don't ruin games, evidence being that you've measured how powerful they are by taking their best-use case.
I guess that touches on the last question, whether these extremely powerful enablers become "ok" when not used to end the game. I'd argue no, for two reasons. That's the first, there's a certain aspect of a card's strength that's totally independent of its context. Take Demonic Tutor. And suppose I want to make a Garza Zol Vampire deck with the timmy-safe strategy of ramping into beatsticks. Demonic Tutor is still the best card in that deck, far and away. It can fetch ramp, or threat, or answer, at no cost. That's what it does. When discussing barrier to entry, too much too fast, or any criteria other than unfun game states, which we've specifically avoided by the construction of our deck, Demonic Tutor pushes all the boundaries. Second reason, a card making it or not making it onto the ban list is never determined by its weaker uses. You can always get 2 basics with PrimeTime, and you don't have to spam Clones on him when he hits the floor, but the ability to just forget that you can do that doesn't make the card safe. It still gets banned. For some reason, we've created this exception in our minds where we don't look at the efficency of a card unless it's a 6cmc beatstick, we just ask ourselves whether the beatstick the enabler enables is too strong.
I guess that point applies too when discussing why there is or isn't a volume of talk on Deadeye, Prophet, Iona, etc. I think there would be a whole lot more talk about these cards, it's just that players themselves are divided into two groups - one that assesses what's staring them in the face and another that assesses what happened to get it there. Take the same game witnessed by both types of players. In that game, Player A with a Karador deck Vampi tutors into Survival of the Fittest, fetching Iona and then Loyal Retainers. Player B with a mono-color deck puts down his/her phone, goes to take his turn, and is told he can't play his deck. He looks across the table and sees Iona, grumbling that Iona is still legal, considering no change to his approach or his deck. Player C happens to be playing a mono-color deck of the same color as Player B. They both have an issue with Iona, since both are now out of the game. But Player C shuffles up for the next game, first asking themselves what the odds are of that scenario happening before going over in their head what can or should be done about it. That player reviews the possibility that Enlightened, Vampiric, Demonic are all possibly in Karador's deck, and capable of fetching Survival and putting Iona on the field Turn 4. There is also Idyllic, Sterling Grove, Academy Rector, etc, which may put Survival out after that point, and Entomb/Reanimate and other things to accomplish the same goal. So, he knows that he has to hit graveyard hate or some other answer card <3 cmc very early in a large percent of games. That player may also realize that Survival could also potentially fetch a number of other combos, more appropriate against a different deck that he's thinking about picking up. So what this player points the finger at is going to be cheap tutors and Survival.
Now take another game with the same players and same decks, this time Iona getting played on unaccelerated mana Turn 9. Player B forgets what turn it is, gets told he can't play his deck, and resumes grumbling about Iona. Player C might go over his odds for hitting All Is Dust or Oblivion Stone before he dies, and if they're grim, then he's probably going to think to himself that just about anything could have ended the game at that point anyway, so good times. Or if that player's about to play another mono-color deck against this one, he might ask to see his opponent's deck, in which he sees Survival, the Vintage Tutors, Enlightened, other cards enabling Survival, along with multiple possibilities for Survival based combos. Either way, he realizes that if something is going to kill him before his deck has had a good shot at drawing an answer, it's much more likely to be becuase of these enablers than it's because Iona was drawn and hardcast.
So, when that player takes to the forums and the polls on what to do with this format, he might realize that there are bigger fish to fry. And some percentage of them might think Iona is ok if changes were made such that she generally doesn't get reanimated until a turn where a good section of cards have been drawn and there's mana to spare for Stonecloaker or Containment Priest.
I think Sundering Titan was also, which is why if felt out of left field when it was finally banned.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The other VERY encouraging thing that I see is that almost 70%, a super majority, favor the return of Banned as a Commander, which I have advocated since the ill-conceived rules change was made.
I have no real issue with wishboards. I think that they should be optional and not compulsory. The community seems to be all over the place with those.
I'm also happy to see a small percentage of people wanting to see Narset banned. I feel if she was really that "unebelievably broken" that there would be more public outcry. She's a new-ish commander and there are no doubt a lot of lists with her at the helm floating around out there so I have no doubt that the 16% isn't from a lack of exposure either. I still think that banning generals is a pretty contentious item because building around a unique, powerful legendary means that the entire list, often between 300-600 dollars is completely invalidated if the card is banned, which is not the sort of "feels" that the RC wants to be dishing out. It's also why the BaaC rule should be overturned because a card as a commander and 1 of 99 are clearly very different qualities, one that means a commander is inherently advantaged and should be seen through 2 lenses.
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
The issue with comparing EDH to Legacy is that it isn't a direct port. You mentioned how in Legacy a deck can goldfish a consistent win by turn 3, but in reality your opponent has disruption so the win can often take a few more turns. Apply that to EDH. We both know that 1 for 1 spot removal is "bad" because of the card disadvantage, but that is especially true in Legacy EDH. Player 1 casts something, Player 2 stops it, and now Player 3 and 4 are in an advantageous position by not doing anything. It is that multiplayer aspect which changes the dynamics and makes it harder to get a true average win rate. Beyond that though, do we assume that each opponent is at the same skill level and can optimize their decks? Another issue with the comparison is that Legacy has a very finite metagame and when you go to a tournament you should have a decent idea about what decks you'll likely face and your favorable/unfavorable matchups. To to combat this you get to use a sideboard. EDH not only has a much larger metagame of decks, but no sideboard. If you want answers, you have to pack them in your deck, leaving less room for the actual theme of your deck.
And I think this is what the RC is trying to avoid. For one, they actively don't want the comparison to Legacy because there are very few similarities beyond the card pool, but more importantly they don't want the stigma which Legacy has of Spikes running expensive decks trying to T1 win games (which in a way is ironic since we have players run decks which would make Vintage players drool).
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Is there any reason EDH doesn't/shouldn't use sideboards? I get that some people may dislike the wishes, but even if we still kept those illegal; a sideboard does help decks get rid of bad cards and bring in good cards.
Thinking about my own deck, even just a 3 card sideboard would be a big help. I can bring in Grafdigger's Cage to give me another GY hate card besides just my maindeck Tormod's Crypt. I'd also like to be able to side out some of my more powerful creatures, especially ones with colorless activated abilities, for stuff that is only good in my color to protect against Bribery. In matches where TCrypt is mostly dead, I can side in one the creatures in it's spot. If somebody is playing a general that needs to be killed on sight, like Arcum or Kaalia, then I can pack some cheap point removal.
I agree. While I'm here I'd also just like to reiterate what I said on page 2, which is that that this sort of conflict is why I find the whole banlist development process of EDH to be fundamentally sort of backward, this kind of sentiment regarding how certain cards "can" be used fairly and so they shouldn't be banned so that some people can use them for their fun, non-degenerate value. Every other format has a banlist designed to one goal: to prevent the most degenerate cards from seeing play. It doesn't matter in Standard, or Legacy, or Vintage, or anything else if the card can be played fairly. Worldgorger Dragon can be played like a 7/7 beatstick for 6cmc with a drawback. But since some people can abuse it, and when it is abused it's extremely, stupidly degenerate, the only fair solution is to ban it so nobody can use it.
In other words, the time-proven strategy for a fair banlist is to hold every single card to its most degenerate, format-warping standard, and to ban the cards whose degeneracy at that standard rises far above and beyond the others. If certain playgroups thereafter feel that all the players in that group are responsible enough to use those cards in a non-degenerate way (i.e. using WGD as a 7/7 beater rather than a combo piece) then they can house-unban them as necessary.
Note that I'm not comparing EDH as a format to other formats. The EDH banlist will naturally be different from other formats because we're playing a different form of Magic; cards that are super-degenerate elsewhere might be underwhelming here and vice versa (i.e. you'll never see Biorhythm on any other format's banlist, and you'll [probably] never see Memory Jar banned in EDH). I am, however, asserting that the banlist philosophy of EDH should be the same as other formats, i.e. all cards held to the most-degenerate standard, if it is to be fair and concrete.
Legacy: GWR Enchantress <--That's my banner! (lol tinypic removed it)
Casual: WB [[Primer]]Clerics Tribal; BU Affinity
EDH: ...U [[Primer]]Arcum Dagsson; BG Legal Stax; B Illegal Stax
Proxy: .WX TriniStax
Other stuff: [[Official]]Shuffling, Truth + Maths
I am adamantly opposed to banning her
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