Main person (who usually the most talkative and takes charge):
“With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them”
It’s “mainly” him projecting the rules (we have had voting but very little). When I joined not to long ago, I had gold boardered cards not only because I had them when I was young and liked them but also all the stores I played at did not care. But after a lengthily debate, they banned them all.
In regards to the initial statement, I replied “Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem).”
His reply: “We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds. **it isn’t a building problem”
Then others chimes in that there is enough control going around so things are balanced. Note: the person with the comments mainly plays combo in every deck. The rest play ramp ramp battlecruiser decks.
Please assist me with a reply...I don’t want to reply tilted....and it’s always that one guy (I’ve talked to the others, but it’s always “oh that’s just him” or “I fine with whatever”)
It sounds like your options are to ask for a group vote in response to "Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it." If they vote for the changes great! If not you should abide by their decision and either make different decks or find a different group.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pauper: UB Wight Phantasm RB Burn UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Magus of the balance kills lands, and it seems like your group doesn't like land destruction. I think this is in keeping with what they want.
That being said, if you believe that the person in charge has made a rule that others disagree with, you should be able to propose a vote on said card/mechanic.
If you want help with strategies to fight the decks in your meta without going against the rules, I am sure we would be happy to help. I just don't see how you would sway your playgroup to allow a card that is so against the spirit of what they want Commander to be.
Obviously the guy does not understand what Meta means.
That said, i think it is just MLD they don't like and that is true for a lot of people. I am one of those people who when given a set of rules, will play around them. Stax is always nice (sarcasm). Or even make it so they need to start saccing lands. There is a card that allows them to sac a permanent, but if they sac a non-land, repeat the process. so they need to sac their land. Blood moon may be banned, but you can play blood sun or even alpine moon.
There are also prison cards, and you can also use Spreading seas or convincing mirage on their Gaea's cradle.
Your playgroup rules are screwed if they won't allow MLD but run all of these ramp decks. They've allowed themselves to run amok with decks who's weakness is the one thing that keeps a ramp deck in check - killing lands.
Sounds like a petty lot
For the kind of money you're spending, I would think you'll get a more enjoyable experience with your purchases if you found a more casual playgroup. I would like to introduce you to Wake of Destruction. I used it on a mono-white pillow fort deck on saturday - it was delicious. Player got upset but I reminded him that he was doing white things just fine, slowing our game down to a 2.5hr match, so it was only fair that my red deck got to be red and do red things to him - to slow him down. He later agreed after the game that it was fair. We spent an hour and a half with no attacks.... ugh!
It sounds like your options are to ask for a group vote in response to "Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it." If they vote for the changes great! If not you should abide by their decision and either make different decks or find a different group.
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone.
Pretty much got back with that we already voted. It took a while to go from not a single piece of Land Destruction to its ok to use single target on utility lands.
Magus of the balance kills lands, and it seems like your group doesn't like land destruction. I think this is in keeping with what they want.
That being said, if you believe that the person in charge has made a rule that others disagree with, you should be able to propose a vote on said card/mechanic.
If you want help with strategies to fight the decks in your meta without going against the rules, I am sure we would be happy to help. I just don't see how you would sway your playgroup to allow a card that is so against the spirit of what they want Commander to be.
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone
Yes, after rethinking it, anything close to MLD is off limits. Thanks for offering help. I have a few decks that I need combating certain tactic but if I don’t know to what extent I can fight them, it would be hard find solutions.
Obviously the guy does not understand what Meta means.
That said, i think it is just MLD they don't like and that is true for a lot of people. I am one of those people who when given a set of rules, will play around them. Stax is always nice (sarcasm). Or even make it so they need to start saccing lands. There is a card that allows them to sac a permanent, but if they sac a non-land, repeat the process. so they need to sac their land. Blood moon may be banned, but you can play blood sun or even alpine moon.
There are also prison cards, and you can also use Spreading seas or convincing mirage on their Gaea's cradle.
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone
Yes, a lot hate MLD. I guess I’m so use to it, that when I build decks, I keep a lot of strategies in mind.
ANYTHING that alters lands is banned. Including blood sun. Anything that turns them into lands, artifacts or enchantments is banned. Any type of bouncing is banned.
I got hated on a while ago for strip mining a bounce because I knew they had a counter up and removing it allowed me to win.
Your playgroup rules are screwed if they won't allow MLD but run all of these ramp decks. They've allowed themselves to run amok with decks who's weakness is the one thing that keeps a ramp deck in check - killing lands.
Sounds like a petty lot
For the kind of money you're spending, I would think you'll get a more enjoyable experience with your purchases if you found a more casual playgroup. I would like to introduce you to Wake of Destruction. I used it on a mono-white pillow fort deck on saturday - it was delicious. Player got upset but I reminded him that he was doing white things just fine, slowing our game down to a 2.5hr match, so it was only fair that my red deck got to be red and do red things to him - to slow him down. He later agreed after the game that it was fair. We spent an hour and a half with no attacks.... ugh!
Yes, I agree- MLD and Stax counter certain styles of decks.
This is my first playgroup after 8+ years. The store I used to go to shut down. I would run EDH Thursday and he would allow me to close the store up when we were done. Was an awesome deal. The great thing about this was I could avoid certain people. I started going to another store and it’s been working out. However, with this group meeting on Sunday mornings, it works better.
Personally, I think its far too soon to cast judgement on Magus of the Balance. Lets look historically at all of the different Magus cards. Essentially EVERY magus that imitates a spell has been nowhere near as impactful as the spell that they are imitating.
This new Magus is no different. Actual Balance costs 2 mana and while the Magus also costs two mana, it costs 5 mana to activate its ability and it needs to tap to do that as well. If you are trying to fire that all off in one go that means needing 5WW and needing haste to speed it up (or flashing it in and using it sooner). LOTS of the power of balance comes from its low cost and the fact that it comes from nowhere. Given the high activation cost and the fact that its a slow activate creature, it means that your opponents have a lot more time before it can be activated as well as your own land count probably not being some punishing low count that the original balance spell allows.
Ultimately, this comes back a little to how I HATE local meta rules. I hate them because its incredibly hard to organize a playgroup and vote in such a way that it feels like everyone has a say. I totally understand that the rules committee wants to encourage this but realistically..... its absolutely a nightmare to organize and implement in a way that doesn't make things feel like someone is being some sort of rules tyrant. It's why I have never been a fan of deviating from the actual RC banned list.
My opinion is you need to tell this guy to back off and see the card tested at least. I am in agreement with the RC that Balance has no place in being played in commander but I am not convinced that any of the power level of the card translates to the new magus (without at least first seeing it myself). As a super random side note.... why is Blood Moon off limits in your meta? I could understand things like Ruination but Blood Moon????
I would hate to play in your metagame. I am not a big fan of MLD, but I am a big fan of answers and of smart deckbuilding, and if something like Blood Moon completely shuts people down, they definitely need to build their decks smarter.
As to worrying about something like Magus of the Balance, all decks should be running at least some spot removal. If he becomes a thing, maybe more people will run Sigarda, Host of Herons.
If your group doen't find mass land destruction fun then don't play it. In commander you have control over how much fun 3+ other players have so it's entirely reasonable to have a social contract. I would certainly if you can try out strategies and if they don't like them, then remove them. That one person doesn't speak for the group, but if you have a good playgroup it's not really worth making enemies with a single person over a strategy that you will likely get bored with. If that person in particular is keeping you from having fun then that's a different issue. It's not unreasonable to lift the usual constraints everyone and a while for something different. For example I have a stax deck that I play occasionally, and never get a complaint because it is only occasionally and i ask before hand. I have also left a play group because one of the players drove me up the wall (I'll save that rant for another thread).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
How accurate are these statements? Verbatim from email/text, or just based on memory?
Anyway, from your description it seems fairly ridiculous - blood moon is off limits, but combos are ok? (I assume you mean infinite combos? How many pieces?) And no one else cares? Obviously it sounds like he's being a bit of a tyrant but it's hard to be totally sure without a full picture of the situation. I do think it's weird that he's against turning lands into creatures/artifacts regardless of any follow-up board wipe or whatever. Does that mean memnarch can't be used? Or he can't be used to steal lands? I feel like the point is "no mass LD" then that seems a lot easier to get across. And Magus can be totally fair as long as you aren't running it with zuran orb and a ton of mana rocks, or whatever (even then it's one card out of 99 and it costs 7 total mana and is weak to removal and stifles, so it doesn't seem that bad to me).
Mostly it sounds like he's been annoyed with other groups and is trying to force this one to match his definition of fair, even though it sounds like no one except him is spiky enough to be a problem. But that's just the impression I get from what you're saying, not the whole picture.
Something I find is a consistent problem is there are playgroups that ban entire strategies without ever actually seeing one. (Mass) Land Destruction + Land Hate cards are usually limited to the typical single-target suspects (Strip Mine, Wasteland, Encroaching Wastes, etc) to counter utility/ramp lands. Personally, I'd have no compunctions about building a MLD-centered deck, but on principal it wouldn't be something to take out very often. Not many people even want to play it in the first place. But Blood Moon? I've only ever seen it played in mono, or the occasional two-color list (maybe tri if their manabase is mostly basics). If you're so incredibly afraid of cards affecting your nonbasic lands, you can change your list - even just swapping in a few extra basics, the odd Counterspell, etc can make a huge difference. I prefer my groups to be minimally restrictive; we're all here to have fun and play magic, so unless one particular strategy is genuinely oppressive, why ban it? Your group sounds odd to me.
Also, I kind of feel on the gold-bordered card debate. I used to think only "legal" cards would be acceptable. But god, some of those cards are stupid expensive nowadays, and it's not like they warp the game state or can't be destroyed like any other card. You just don't have to pay $400 out of pocket for an actual copy.
Personally, I think its far too soon to cast judgement on Magus of the Balance. Lets look historically at all of the different Magus cards. Essentially EVERY magus that imitates a spell has been nowhere near as impactful as the spell that they are imitating.
This new Magus is no different. Actual Balance costs 2 mana and while the Magus also costs two mana, it costs 5 mana to activate its ability and it needs to tap to do that as well. If you are trying to fire that all off in one go that means needing 5WW and needing haste to speed it up (or flashing it in and using it sooner). LOTS of the power of balance comes from its low cost and the fact that it comes from nowhere. Given the high activation cost and the fact that its a slow activate creature, it means that your opponents have a lot more time before it can be activated as well as your own land count probably not being some punishing low count that the original balance spell allows.
Ultimately, this comes back a little to how I HATE local meta rules. I hate them because its incredibly hard to organize a playgroup and vote in such a way that it feels like everyone has a say. I totally understand that the rules committee wants to encourage this but realistically..... its absolutely a nightmare to organize and implement in a way that doesn't make things feel like someone is being some sort of rules tyrant. It's why I have never been a fan of deviating from the actual RC banned list.
My opinion is you need to tell this guy to back off and see the card tested at least. I am in agreement with the RC that Balance has no place in being played in commander but I am not convinced that any of the power level of the card translates to the new magus (without at least first seeing it myself). As a super random side note.... why is Blood Moon off limits in your meta? I could understand things like Ruination but Blood Moon????
Cards aren't normally testing if they fall within a category immediately. And that, per them, falls under MLD. And they won't try it out (I asked). Fair enough...I moved on.
The group consists of about 7-8 people that either worked together or knew each other from past. I am the last to join the group --- and I only joined the group through I guy I work with (he doesn't voice his opinion a lot).
Blood messes with people lands (same reason why living plane is banned. Prevents people from playing. I said it was a deck building problem if your deck gets hosed by it. "it is a deck building problem if cards are available to make it one. since they [blood moon and the alike] were banned, it lets people run gates and bounce lands." I responded "Saying this nicely-thats greedy and there are basic lands for a reason" ..."greedy or not, it is what the group wanted." I did not respond to that because 2 people (one of which was semi-involved in the chat) left the facebook group chat.
And to respond to your last statement, here is the answer I got back:
"Blood sun doesnt hurt lands that only make mana. Same as we dont allow LD on just mana lands. Blood moon does."
I would hate to play in your metagame. I am not a big fan of MLD, but I am a big fan of answers and of smart deckbuilding, and if something like Blood Moon completely shuts people down, they definitely need to build their decks smarter.
As to worrying about something like Magus of the Balance, all decks should be running at least some spot removal. If he becomes a thing, maybe more people will run Sigarda, Host of Herons.
True, I am not a huge fan of MLD. But, and a big but at that, I see it as a viable strategy to win the game. Hear me out: either as an instant win or creates a board state in your favor so much, the only result would be to scoop (for example Cataclysm + Titania, Protector of Argoth.
I tried to help a lot about deck building and assist with threat assessment on the board. I can only do so much.
I run Sigarda as a commander and as a one of ---- she has helped me oh-so-many times. I had to add her when black decks starting showing up and more Grave Pacts were around.
If your group doen't find mass land destruction fun then don't play it. In commander you have control over how much fun 3+ other players have so it's entirely reasonable to have a social contract. I would certainly if you can try out strategies and if they don't like them, then remove them. That one person doesn't speak for the group, but if you have a good playgroup it's not really worth making enemies with a single person over a strategy that you will likely get bored with. If that person in particular is keeping you from having fun then that's a different issue. It's not unreasonable to lift the usual constraints everyone and a while for something different. For example I have a stax deck that I play occasionally, and never get a complaint because it is only occasionally and i ask before hand. I have also left a play group because one of the players drove me up the wall (I'll save that rant for another thread).
Before I joined, I had a MLD that gave benefits to other cards (one example Titania, Protector of Argoth. I dismantled it to edit other decks and build more.
After rereading the chat discussion, one of the main phrases that are brought up is it has already been decided. And to me, that is a disservice as that shuts down talk about future unbanning or banning.
I am trying not to make enemies...but there have been a lot of bumping heads...other people have left the chat group (and rejoined later) because of a discussion.
They will not lift any constraints. It is what it is. And combo is fine.
I am trying to build a stax deck, but almost stopped when today I found out that living plane cant be played...because it took me months to trade for a damaged The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (traded a way a few modern decks as I was transitioning to EDH only).
Regarding playgroups- this is the first one I have had. Long story short-friend owned a second hand book/media store that also had magic. He would let me lock the store up for Thursday night EDH. It was always random; sometimes 4 people shows, other times 20. I got to pick and choose people and had even ducked out of games.
Leaving this group would mean magic would mean I would get 4-10 hours a month to play.......
How accurate are these statements? Verbatim from email/text, or just based on memory?
Anyway, from your description it seems fairly ridiculous - blood moon is off limits, but combos are ok? (I assume you mean infinite combos? How many pieces?) And no one else cares? Obviously it sounds like he's being a bit of a tyrant but it's hard to be totally sure without a full picture of the situation. I do think it's weird that he's against turning lands into creatures/artifacts regardless of any follow-up board wipe or whatever. Does that mean memnarch can't be used? Or he can't be used to steal lands? I feel like the point is "no mass LD" then that seems a lot easier to get across. And Magus can be totally fair as long as you aren't running it with zuran orb and a ton of mana rocks, or whatever (even then it's one card out of 99 and it costs 7 total mana and is weak to removal and stifles, so it doesn't seem that bad to me).
Mostly it sounds like he's been annoyed with other groups and is trying to force this one to match his definition of fair, even though it sounds like no one except him is spiky enough to be a problem. But that's just the impression I get from what you're saying, not the whole picture.
I have the facebook chat up side-by-side with my browser.
Here is the last statement to me before it was squashed:
"It isnt that you rehash a category, you continually push us to try and conform with what your idea of "balanced" magic is. We have had disagreements before where people have quit the group but we worked through them and they no longer get brought up. But with messing with peoples lands, it is a constant rehash of the same old same old.
"Okay I cant do land destruction, but what if I turn them all into creatures and cast toxic deluge?"
"Okay, but what if i cast mycosynth Lattice then vandalblast for overload?"
"Okay but what if I dont kill all the lands but just some of them by making them sac some lands?"
Its just never ending. No one has had this much trouble with agreeing to our playstyle. If your goal is to hope that people scoop because of how unfun you are making the game, then your views and ours dont align and I think its best you find a group that welcomes that play style. I enjoy talking with you about different combos and interesting cards that are out of the public eye or hidden away, and I think you bring a lot of valuable interactions to the group because the way our meta is, but seriously man. Leave it be."
Here is the initial statement that turn things on for me:
"With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them"
I responded with:
"Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem)."
Answered by
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
Let me know if you have questions about specific responses.
Something I find is a consistent problem is there are playgroups that ban entire strategies without ever actually seeing one. (Mass) Land Destruction + Land Hate cards are usually limited to the typical single-target suspects (Strip Mine, Wasteland, Encroaching Wastes, etc) to counter utility/ramp lands. Personally, I'd have no compunctions about building a MLD-centered deck, but on principal it wouldn't be something to take out very often. Not many people even want to play it in the first place. But Blood Moon? I've only ever seen it played in mono, or the occasional two-color list (maybe tri if their manabase is mostly basics). If you're so incredibly afraid of cards affecting your nonbasic lands, you can change your list - even just swapping in a few extra basics, the odd Counterspell, etc can make a huge difference. I prefer my groups to be minimally restrictive; we're all here to have fun and play magic, so unless one particular strategy is genuinely oppressive, why ban it? Your group sounds odd to me.
Also, I kind of feel on the gold-bordered card debate. I used to think only "legal" cards would be acceptable. But god, some of those cards are stupid expensive nowadays, and it's not like they warp the game state or can't be destroyed like any other card. You just don't have to pay $400 out of pocket for an actual copy.
I agree that certain strategies being banned. Besides stax, I am trying to find a way to slow down / shut down these green ramp decks. Also, everyone is running blue (most people don't own a deck without an island).
Me telling them to change cards to swap things does not work. Unbanning cards would ultimately force people to change their decks around (taken from chat). Yes, it is odd...the main vocal person here only plays combo desk (Mizzix of the Izmagnus, Animar, Soul of Elements, Sharuum the Hegemon)
*edit* I did get them to change their mind about single target LD. Mainly because of all the powerful new flip lands. People were removing Acidic Slime and similar spells because they didnt want LD in the deck.
Tried to response as best as I could. I am sorry if I sound salty...just a touchy subject when combo is ok'd by those who will never do combo (and only want to win via turning things sideways) and the only thing being done is ban ban ban cards.
"I really wasnt trying to make you feel unwelcome in the group, or try to push you out. Regardless of who feels most strongly about adding or keeping MLD out of the group, we all just want to have fun and play out brewed decks. To be honest, I didnt know we couldnt destroy lands until I played Rain of Thorns targeting person B's land😂
You have brought a lot to the table and we appreciate you changing your decks to align with our group rules/ban lists. That has honestly hit a lot of people equally too. Person C wanted a non legendary commander at one point that we didnt agree with. Person B wanted to make a Gadock Teeg deck. I had a gold bordered Survival of the Fittest that I didnt even ask the group if I could run lol.
If you want to know the truth, I wouldnt mind having a mini side group that plays a more cEDH, no holds barred style. Ive been trying to get that going for a while now but there havent been many takers. That could be a perfect outlet for MLD or hyper control stax. I have a few decks that could possibly qualify for a competitive side group."
LOL great....comments of no holds bar came out....not what I was hoping for. Then you got later-comers who simply added "see why I said simply making a blanket rule of dont mess with lands in ANY way period would be so much easier. for the group it mitigates any conversation about possibilities, but that is just my opinion." Followed up with "to me there is not [a difference between MLD and land modification] and the constant talk of what is acceptable when it comes to lands is tiring and annoying. I have said my last peace about it and I am done."
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
I was under the impression that a 'meta' included the back-and-forth in deckbuilding. Someone playing aggro? You add more wipes. If someone IS playing Mass Land Destruction, you counter it/focus them as a table/find ways to punish them in-game. Everyone playing Blue? Play nonsense like Pyroblast or Boseiju, who shelters all.
In my experience I prefer when people build what they want, and everyone adapts. My group just decided on a general power level and all of our decks float around that mark. No one is playing Jhoira w/ Eldrazi, MLD, and Wheels or Doomsday Zur or a deck that can win on turn 3. It isn't wrong to have a preference, but I think placing down hard rules that tell people not to play anything that does X is going too far. Most people would rather play big dumb stuff, battlecrusier, combo or control before they consider MLD.
*edit* I did get them to change their mind about single target LD. Mainly because of all the powerful new flip lands. People were removing Acidic Slime and similar spells because they didnt want LD in the deck.
But... they're easier to get for everyone? And not all of them are game-breaking? Phyrexian Tower is great, but it doesn't break the game or tutor combo pieces. the gold-border one is $9, while black-bordered is 50? 60? more than that.
How accurate are these statements? Verbatim from email/text, or just based on memory?
Anyway, from your description it seems fairly ridiculous - blood moon is off limits, but combos are ok? (I assume you mean infinite combos? How many pieces?) And no one else cares? Obviously it sounds like he's being a bit of a tyrant but it's hard to be totally sure without a full picture of the situation. I do think it's weird that he's against turning lands into creatures/artifacts regardless of any follow-up board wipe or whatever. Does that mean memnarch can't be used? Or he can't be used to steal lands? I feel like the point is "no mass LD" then that seems a lot easier to get across. And Magus can be totally fair as long as you aren't running it with zuran orb and a ton of mana rocks, or whatever (even then it's one card out of 99 and it costs 7 total mana and is weak to removal and stifles, so it doesn't seem that bad to me).
Mostly it sounds like he's been annoyed with other groups and is trying to force this one to match his definition of fair, even though it sounds like no one except him is spiky enough to be a problem. But that's just the impression I get from what you're saying, not the whole picture.
I have the facebook chat up side-by-side with my browser.
Here is the last statement to me before it was squashed:
"It isnt that you rehash a category, you continually push us to try and conform with what your idea of "balanced" magic is. We have had disagreements before where people have quit the group but we worked through them and they no longer get brought up. But with messing with peoples lands, it is a constant rehash of the same old same old.
"Okay I cant do land destruction, but what if I turn them all into creatures and cast toxic deluge?"
"Okay, but what if i cast mycosynth Lattice then vandalblast for overload?"
"Okay but what if I dont kill all the lands but just some of them by making them sac some lands?"
Its just never ending. No one has had this much trouble with agreeing to our playstyle. If your goal is to hope that people scoop because of how unfun you are making the game, then your views and ours dont align and I think its best you find a group that welcomes that play style. I enjoy talking with you about different combos and interesting cards that are out of the public eye or hidden away, and I think you bring a lot of valuable interactions to the group because the way our meta is, but seriously man. Leave it be."
Here is the initial statement that turn things on for me:
"With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them"
I responded with:
"Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem)."
Answered by
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
Let me know if you have questions about specific responses.
To be fair to the other person (people) in that conversation, those responses are very reasonable in my mind. As with anything like this thread, this thread is bound to be fairly one sided since we basically have your thoughts/point of view to go off of. However, those responses show that the group seems open to the idea of discussion, but they don't want to change the current "rules". That is their right as a playgroup. I believe it is your right to bring these topics up and have those discussions, but if the rest of the group is fine with the way things are, your are the outlier.
As Tvtyrant said in the first response in this thread, you have the options of working with the rest of the group beyond just the one who seems to be in charge and try to change the majority opinion on these cards or you can accept that you are the minority and you can then either adapt or find a new playgroup. I know you said finding a new playgroup is difficult so is it really worth losing this group over the fact that you can't play MLD? I know there are varying opinions on whether it should be allowed or how fun it is to play with/against, but it doesn't seem worth it to make this a sticking point. Find a different strategy and have fun with that.
Also, your reference to "fair and balanced" magic is a bit leading, don't you think? I agree with arguing for the inclusion of MLD on its own merits, but that argument suggests that you feel things are currently going on that are unfair. Is that the case or are you just trying to make the argument that MLD is fair? I can see the latter argument, but the way you frame this it makes it sounds like the current rules are unfair in some way.
Right, I see the two different sides that you and that play group have.
So simply put, they do not like "mass land destruction". You've even pointed out that they don't like ANY land removal, hence Strip Mine type effect is even considered bad.
Now you've categorized this approached as "Fair and Balanced". This is the same spin that Faux..I mean Fox News used to run.
I completely understand both views. I myself HATE mass land destruction, but yet also I am willing to play it. It is perhaps the biggest divider in commander period...almost political
The thing is that it's understandable if a group doesn't want this. The reason is that it can really slow games down, without producing a winner anytime soon. You can go from playing 3 or 4 games in an evening to only playing 2. And this is a real issue for some people who want to get in a variety of plays and decks.
Now I also understand your frustration, because I also design decks around land destruction. The other thing is that it is actually balanced. Your deck has to align in order for you to actually win from the position that you remove lands, and it's actually harder than you'd think. At that stage it becomes you versus everybody else and for you to control everybody at that stage is an uphill battle.
It might sound like you have to find another group (as well) elsewhere to get your true desire to play your Stax decks, as it sounds like it's something that you look forward to.
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
I was under the impression that a 'meta' included the back-and-forth in deckbuilding. Someone playing aggro? You add more wipes. If someone IS playing Mass Land Destruction, you counter it/focus them as a table/find ways to punish them in-game. Everyone playing Blue? Play nonsense like Pyroblast or Boseiju, who shelters all.
In my experience I prefer when people build what they want, and everyone adapts. My group just decided on a general power level and all of our decks float around that mark. No one is playing Jhoira w/ Eldrazi, MLD, and Wheels or Doomsday Zur or a deck that can win on turn 3. It isn't wrong to have a preference, but I think placing down hard rules that tell people not to play anything that does X is going too far. Most people would rather play big dumb stuff, battlecrusier, combo or control before they consider MLD.
*edit* I did get them to change their mind about single target LD. Mainly because of all the powerful new flip lands. People were removing Acidic Slime and similar spells because they didnt want LD in the deck.
But... they're easier to get for everyone? And not all of them are game-breaking? Phyrexian Tower is great, but it doesn't break the game or tutor combo pieces. the gold-border one is $9, while black-bordered is 50? 60? more than that.
He later stated that meta wasn't the correct word to use, but meant more along the lines of what decks and playstyles there are in the group.
I have done a lot of meta changes. Because everyone is running blue, my R / GR decks need REB and Pyroblast as you showed.
People aren't going over the top with stupid broken things. Unless you consider tutor on turn 4/5 for the combo pieces....well that would be one guys and all of his decks. But that is fair game to most other people.
Like land, it was a blanket rule to only run legal cards.
How accurate are these statements? Verbatim from email/text, or just based on memory?
Anyway, from your description it seems fairly ridiculous - blood moon is off limits, but combos are ok? (I assume you mean infinite combos? How many pieces?) And no one else cares? Obviously it sounds like he's being a bit of a tyrant but it's hard to be totally sure without a full picture of the situation. I do think it's weird that he's against turning lands into creatures/artifacts regardless of any follow-up board wipe or whatever. Does that mean memnarch can't be used? Or he can't be used to steal lands? I feel like the point is "no mass LD" then that seems a lot easier to get across. And Magus can be totally fair as long as you aren't running it with zuran orb and a ton of mana rocks, or whatever (even then it's one card out of 99 and it costs 7 total mana and is weak to removal and stifles, so it doesn't seem that bad to me).
Mostly it sounds like he's been annoyed with other groups and is trying to force this one to match his definition of fair, even though it sounds like no one except him is spiky enough to be a problem. But that's just the impression I get from what you're saying, not the whole picture.
I have the facebook chat up side-by-side with my browser.
Here is the last statement to me before it was squashed:
"It isnt that you rehash a category, you continually push us to try and conform with what your idea of "balanced" magic is. We have had disagreements before where people have quit the group but we worked through them and they no longer get brought up. But with messing with peoples lands, it is a constant rehash of the same old same old.
"Okay I cant do land destruction, but what if I turn them all into creatures and cast toxic deluge?"
"Okay, but what if i cast mycosynth Lattice then vandalblast for overload?"
"Okay but what if I dont kill all the lands but just some of them by making them sac some lands?"
Its just never ending. No one has had this much trouble with agreeing to our playstyle. If your goal is to hope that people scoop because of how unfun you are making the game, then your views and ours dont align and I think its best you find a group that welcomes that play style. I enjoy talking with you about different combos and interesting cards that are out of the public eye or hidden away, and I think you bring a lot of valuable interactions to the group because the way our meta is, but seriously man. Leave it be."
Here is the initial statement that turn things on for me:
"With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them"
I responded with:
"Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem)."
Answered by
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
Let me know if you have questions about specific responses.
To be fair to the other person (people) in that conversation, those responses are very reasonable in my mind. As with anything like this thread, this thread is bound to be fairly one sided since we basically have your thoughts/point of view to go off of. However, those responses show that the group seems open to the idea of discussion, but they don't want to change the current "rules". That is their right as a playgroup. I believe it is your right to bring these topics up and have those discussions, but if the rest of the group is fine with the way things are, your are the outlier.
As Tvtyrant said in the first response in this thread, you have the options of working with the rest of the group beyond just the one who seems to be in charge and try to change the majority opinion on these cards or you can accept that you are the minority and you can then either adapt or find a new playgroup. I know you said finding a new playgroup is difficult so is it really worth losing this group over the fact that you can't play MLD? I know there are varying opinions on whether it should be allowed or how fun it is to play with/against, but it doesn't seem worth it to make this a sticking point. Find a different strategy and have fun with that.
Also, your reference to "fair and balanced" magic is a bit leading, don't you think? I agree with arguing for the inclusion of MLD on its own merits, but that argument suggests that you feel things are currently going on that are unfair. Is that the case or are you just trying to make the argument that MLD is fair? I can see the latter argument, but the way you frame this it makes it sounds like the current rules are unfair in some way.
I can't multi-quote well on a phone, I'll respond to your points in each paragraph.
I agree, the conversation was fair and rules have been fair. I believe most were unhappy about the constant talk about the bans (I brought it up because the initial post banned a card asap and a strategy was banned as well that I had no idea of). And I agree, I am the outlier --- I try add my input on everything (as I have playing for more than all of their years combined).
There is not really a good or decent way (without someone throwing up their arms) if chatter comes up about on certain cards. The first talks about gold/silver bordered cards and land were fiery and people were leaving and rejoining the group chat due to strong opinions on both sides. I feel like I have been adapting nonstop as each change of rules / bans affects a deck or a handful of cards across decks. I am getting over the fact of no MLD. What I am struggling with is blanket rules that force you to ask the group if you can play X card.
I agree that 'fair and balanced' is misleading. I feel the unfairness is lack of balance and lack of discussion about it. I am talking about combo here. Some people hate and won't run it but don't care if other people do. Some are on budget (<$100) and no one wants to bring down their power level. The combo person (who I have been going back and forth with) does complain when being targeted a lot (mainly because one or more people know he is about to combo). I found out, because of this, someone has been keeping track of who wins more...and guess what...that guy has.
Regarding your point on MLD, after reading what you said, I feel my thought of it is skewed. I have been at the no closed store for so long, that you had to be ready for anything. There wasn't any cEDH. The main two rules were no douche scooping (i.e. to prevent triggers) and can only conceded/quit at sorcery speed. I see it as a game ending strategy, but to do it in spite or prolong the game is bad form.
Main person (who usually the most talkative and takes charge):
“With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them”
It’s “mainly” him projecting the rules (we have had voting but very little). When I joined not to long ago, I had gold boardered cards not only because I had them when I was young and liked them but also all the stores I played at did not care. But after a lengthily debate, they banned them all.
In regards to the initial statement, I replied “Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem).”
His reply: “We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds. **it isn’t a building problem”
Then others chimes in that there is enough control going around so things are balanced. Note: the person with the comments mainly plays combo in every deck. The rest play ramp ramp battlecruiser decks.
Please assist me with a reply...I don’t want to reply tilted....and it’s always that one guy (I’ve talked to the others, but it’s always “oh that’s just him” or “I fine with whatever”)
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
UB Wight Phantasm
RB Burn
UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Legacy:
R Burn
CG-Post
That being said, if you believe that the person in charge has made a rule that others disagree with, you should be able to propose a vote on said card/mechanic.
If you want help with strategies to fight the decks in your meta without going against the rules, I am sure we would be happy to help. I just don't see how you would sway your playgroup to allow a card that is so against the spirit of what they want Commander to be.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
That said, i think it is just MLD they don't like and that is true for a lot of people. I am one of those people who when given a set of rules, will play around them. Stax is always nice (sarcasm). Or even make it so they need to start saccing lands. There is a card that allows them to sac a permanent, but if they sac a non-land, repeat the process. so they need to sac their land. Blood moon may be banned, but you can play blood sun or even alpine moon.
There are also prison cards, and you can also use Spreading seas or convincing mirage on their Gaea's cradle.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Sounds like a petty lot
For the kind of money you're spending, I would think you'll get a more enjoyable experience with your purchases if you found a more casual playgroup. I would like to introduce you to Wake of Destruction. I used it on a mono-white pillow fort deck on saturday - it was delicious. Player got upset but I reminded him that he was doing white things just fine, slowing our game down to a 2.5hr match, so it was only fair that my red deck got to be red and do red things to him - to slow him down. He later agreed after the game that it was fair. We spent an hour and a half with no attacks.... ugh!
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334931-what-is-the-most-pimp-card-deck-youve-seen-or?comment=5361
Commander
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage Grenades! EDHGR
UWSygg's Defense, EDH - Voltron & ControlWU
BUGMimeoplasm EDH ft. Ifnir Cycling-discard comboBUG
WBTeysa, Connoisseur of CullingBW
BWSelenia & Recruiter of the Guard suicice combo EDHWB
UBRWGO-Kagachi - 5 Color Enchantments - EDHUBRWG
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone.
Pretty much got back with that we already voted. It took a while to go from not a single piece of Land Destruction to its ok to use single target on utility lands.
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
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone
Yes, after rethinking it, anything close to MLD is off limits. Thanks for offering help. I have a few decks that I need combating certain tactic but if I don’t know to what extent I can fight them, it would be hard find solutions.
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
Sorry for the delayed response; can’t log into MTGS (as twitch is blocked) and low service on phone
Yes, a lot hate MLD. I guess I’m so use to it, that when I build decks, I keep a lot of strategies in mind.
ANYTHING that alters lands is banned. Including blood sun. Anything that turns them into lands, artifacts or enchantments is banned. Any type of bouncing is banned.
I got hated on a while ago for strip mining a bounce because I knew they had a counter up and removing it allowed me to win.
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
Yes, I agree- MLD and Stax counter certain styles of decks.
This is my first playgroup after 8+ years. The store I used to go to shut down. I would run EDH Thursday and he would allow me to close the store up when we were done. Was an awesome deal. The great thing about this was I could avoid certain people. I started going to another store and it’s been working out. However, with this group meeting on Sunday mornings, it works better.
Also, some of the people haaaaaate long games.
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
This new Magus is no different. Actual Balance costs 2 mana and while the Magus also costs two mana, it costs 5 mana to activate its ability and it needs to tap to do that as well. If you are trying to fire that all off in one go that means needing 5WW and needing haste to speed it up (or flashing it in and using it sooner). LOTS of the power of balance comes from its low cost and the fact that it comes from nowhere. Given the high activation cost and the fact that its a slow activate creature, it means that your opponents have a lot more time before it can be activated as well as your own land count probably not being some punishing low count that the original balance spell allows.
Ultimately, this comes back a little to how I HATE local meta rules. I hate them because its incredibly hard to organize a playgroup and vote in such a way that it feels like everyone has a say. I totally understand that the rules committee wants to encourage this but realistically..... its absolutely a nightmare to organize and implement in a way that doesn't make things feel like someone is being some sort of rules tyrant. It's why I have never been a fan of deviating from the actual RC banned list.
My opinion is you need to tell this guy to back off and see the card tested at least. I am in agreement with the RC that Balance has no place in being played in commander but I am not convinced that any of the power level of the card translates to the new magus (without at least first seeing it myself). As a super random side note.... why is Blood Moon off limits in your meta? I could understand things like Ruination but Blood Moon????
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
As to worrying about something like Magus of the Balance, all decks should be running at least some spot removal. If he becomes a thing, maybe more people will run Sigarda, Host of Herons.
Anyway, from your description it seems fairly ridiculous - blood moon is off limits, but combos are ok? (I assume you mean infinite combos? How many pieces?) And no one else cares? Obviously it sounds like he's being a bit of a tyrant but it's hard to be totally sure without a full picture of the situation. I do think it's weird that he's against turning lands into creatures/artifacts regardless of any follow-up board wipe or whatever. Does that mean memnarch can't be used? Or he can't be used to steal lands? I feel like the point is "no mass LD" then that seems a lot easier to get across. And Magus can be totally fair as long as you aren't running it with zuran orb and a ton of mana rocks, or whatever (even then it's one card out of 99 and it costs 7 total mana and is weak to removal and stifles, so it doesn't seem that bad to me).
Mostly it sounds like he's been annoyed with other groups and is trying to force this one to match his definition of fair, even though it sounds like no one except him is spiky enough to be a problem. But that's just the impression I get from what you're saying, not the whole picture.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Also, I kind of feel on the gold-bordered card debate. I used to think only "legal" cards would be acceptable. But god, some of those cards are stupid expensive nowadays, and it's not like they warp the game state or can't be destroyed like any other card. You just don't have to pay $400 out of pocket for an actual copy.
Cards aren't normally testing if they fall within a category immediately. And that, per them, falls under MLD. And they won't try it out (I asked). Fair enough...I moved on.
The group consists of about 7-8 people that either worked together or knew each other from past. I am the last to join the group --- and I only joined the group through I guy I work with (he doesn't voice his opinion a lot).
Blood messes with people lands (same reason why living plane is banned. Prevents people from playing. I said it was a deck building problem if your deck gets hosed by it. "it is a deck building problem if cards are available to make it one. since they [blood moon and the alike] were banned, it lets people run gates and bounce lands." I responded "Saying this nicely-thats greedy and there are basic lands for a reason" ..."greedy or not, it is what the group wanted." I did not respond to that because 2 people (one of which was semi-involved in the chat) left the facebook group chat.
And to respond to your last statement, here is the answer I got back:
"Blood sun doesnt hurt lands that only make mana. Same as we dont allow LD on just mana lands. Blood moon does."
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
True, I am not a huge fan of MLD. But, and a big but at that, I see it as a viable strategy to win the game. Hear me out: either as an instant win or creates a board state in your favor so much, the only result would be to scoop (for example Cataclysm + Titania, Protector of Argoth.
I tried to help a lot about deck building and assist with threat assessment on the board. I can only do so much.
I run Sigarda as a commander and as a one of ---- she has helped me oh-so-many times. I had to add her when black decks starting showing up and more Grave Pacts were around.
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
Before I joined, I had a MLD that gave benefits to other cards (one example Titania, Protector of Argoth. I dismantled it to edit other decks and build more.
After rereading the chat discussion, one of the main phrases that are brought up is it has already been decided. And to me, that is a disservice as that shuts down talk about future unbanning or banning.
I am trying not to make enemies...but there have been a lot of bumping heads...other people have left the chat group (and rejoined later) because of a discussion.
They will not lift any constraints. It is what it is. And combo is fine.
I am trying to build a stax deck, but almost stopped when today I found out that living plane cant be played...because it took me months to trade for a damaged The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (traded a way a few modern decks as I was transitioning to EDH only).
Regarding playgroups- this is the first one I have had. Long story short-friend owned a second hand book/media store that also had magic. He would let me lock the store up for Thursday night EDH. It was always random; sometimes 4 people shows, other times 20. I got to pick and choose people and had even ducked out of games.
Leaving this group would mean magic would mean I would get 4-10 hours a month to play.......
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 have the facebook chat up side-by-side with my browser.
Here is the last statement to me before it was squashed:
"It isnt that you rehash a category, you continually push us to try and conform with what your idea of "balanced" magic is. We have had disagreements before where people have quit the group but we worked through them and they no longer get brought up. But with messing with peoples lands, it is a constant rehash of the same old same old.
"Okay I cant do land destruction, but what if I turn them all into creatures and cast toxic deluge?"
"Okay, but what if i cast mycosynth Lattice then vandalblast for overload?"
"Okay but what if I dont kill all the lands but just some of them by making them sac some lands?"
Its just never ending. No one has had this much trouble with agreeing to our playstyle. If your goal is to hope that people scoop because of how unfun you are making the game, then your views and ours dont align and I think its best you find a group that welcomes that play style. I enjoy talking with you about different combos and interesting cards that are out of the public eye or hidden away, and I think you bring a lot of valuable interactions to the group because the way our meta is, but seriously man. Leave it be."
Here is the initial statement that turn things on for me:
"With the new decks coming just want to make sure everyone knows based on our rules what is off limits. As of right now magus of balance is outside of our agreement. Making lands into artifacts or creatures is off limits. Blood moon and cards with like abilities off limits. Mass bouncing lands is off limits. Just one to cover this since one of the decks is based around lands and balance is in one of them"
I responded with:
"Please assist me with understanding why “fair and balanced” magic is against our group? Specifically looking at Magus. If you don’t run a lot of removal, that is a deck building problem. If that one card is ruining your decks, that is a deck building problem. That is similar to asking to have a ban on torpor orb because without ETBs, you are useless (deck building problem)."
Answered by
"We agreed on a type of card the group didn’t want. Decks were all made based on the agreement. It is not a problem building if you build based on meta of group. Changing of meta makes everyone rebuild the decks. Which isn’t an issue if the group agrees to the change. Not just one or two people wanting to change it. If they want to play different styles play games outside of the group. I’ve played outside our group so I can do nasty builds."
Let me know if you have questions about specific responses.
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 agree that certain strategies being banned. Besides stax, I am trying to find a way to slow down / shut down these green ramp decks. Also, everyone is running blue (most people don't own a deck without an island).
Me telling them to change cards to swap things does not work. Unbanning cards would ultimately force people to change their decks around (taken from chat). Yes, it is odd...the main vocal person here only plays combo desk (Mizzix of the Izmagnus, Animar, Soul of Elements, Sharuum the Hegemon)
Banning gold boardered cards, from what I can remember, restricts power level (easier to get a gold vampiric tutor or survival of the fittest)
*edit* I did get them to change their mind about single target LD. Mainly because of all the powerful new flip lands. People were removing Acidic Slime and similar spells because they didnt want LD in the deck.
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 really wasnt trying to make you feel unwelcome in the group, or try to push you out. Regardless of who feels most strongly about adding or keeping MLD out of the group, we all just want to have fun and play out brewed decks. To be honest, I didnt know we couldnt destroy lands until I played Rain of Thorns targeting person B's land😂
You have brought a lot to the table and we appreciate you changing your decks to align with our group rules/ban lists. That has honestly hit a lot of people equally too. Person C wanted a non legendary commander at one point that we didnt agree with. Person B wanted to make a Gadock Teeg deck. I had a gold bordered Survival of the Fittest that I didnt even ask the group if I could run lol.
If you want to know the truth, I wouldnt mind having a mini side group that plays a more cEDH, no holds barred style. Ive been trying to get that going for a while now but there havent been many takers. That could be a perfect outlet for MLD or hyper control stax. I have a few decks that could possibly qualify for a competitive side group."
LOL great....comments of no holds bar came out....not what I was hoping for. Then you got later-comers who simply added "see why I said simply making a blanket rule of dont mess with lands in ANY way period would be so much easier. for the group it mitigates any conversation about possibilities, but that is just my opinion." Followed up with "to me there is not [a difference between MLD and land modification] and the constant talk of what is acceptable when it comes to lands is tiring and annoying. I have said my last peace about it and I am done."
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 was under the impression that a 'meta' included the back-and-forth in deckbuilding. Someone playing aggro? You add more wipes. If someone IS playing Mass Land Destruction, you counter it/focus them as a table/find ways to punish them in-game. Everyone playing Blue? Play nonsense like Pyroblast or Boseiju, who shelters all.
In my experience I prefer when people build what they want, and everyone adapts. My group just decided on a general power level and all of our decks float around that mark. No one is playing Jhoira w/ Eldrazi, MLD, and Wheels or Doomsday Zur or a deck that can win on turn 3. It isn't wrong to have a preference, but I think placing down hard rules that tell people not to play anything that does X is going too far. Most people would rather play big dumb stuff, battlecrusier, combo or control before they consider MLD.
But... they're easier to get for everyone? And not all of them are game-breaking? Phyrexian Tower is great, but it doesn't break the game or tutor combo pieces. the gold-border one is $9, while black-bordered is 50? 60? more than that.
As Tvtyrant said in the first response in this thread, you have the options of working with the rest of the group beyond just the one who seems to be in charge and try to change the majority opinion on these cards or you can accept that you are the minority and you can then either adapt or find a new playgroup. I know you said finding a new playgroup is difficult so is it really worth losing this group over the fact that you can't play MLD? I know there are varying opinions on whether it should be allowed or how fun it is to play with/against, but it doesn't seem worth it to make this a sticking point. Find a different strategy and have fun with that.
Also, your reference to "fair and balanced" magic is a bit leading, don't you think? I agree with arguing for the inclusion of MLD on its own merits, but that argument suggests that you feel things are currently going on that are unfair. Is that the case or are you just trying to make the argument that MLD is fair? I can see the latter argument, but the way you frame this it makes it sounds like the current rules are unfair in some way.
So simply put, they do not like "mass land destruction". You've even pointed out that they don't like ANY land removal, hence Strip Mine type effect is even considered bad.
Now you've categorized this approached as "Fair and Balanced". This is the same spin that Faux..I mean Fox News used to run.
I completely understand both views. I myself HATE mass land destruction, but yet also I am willing to play it. It is perhaps the biggest divider in commander period...almost political
The thing is that it's understandable if a group doesn't want this. The reason is that it can really slow games down, without producing a winner anytime soon. You can go from playing 3 or 4 games in an evening to only playing 2. And this is a real issue for some people who want to get in a variety of plays and decks.
Now I also understand your frustration, because I also design decks around land destruction. The other thing is that it is actually balanced. Your deck has to align in order for you to actually win from the position that you remove lands, and it's actually harder than you'd think. At that stage it becomes you versus everybody else and for you to control everybody at that stage is an uphill battle.
It might sound like you have to find another group (as well) elsewhere to get your true desire to play your Stax decks, as it sounds like it's something that you look forward to.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
He later stated that meta wasn't the correct word to use, but meant more along the lines of what decks and playstyles there are in the group.
I have done a lot of meta changes. Because everyone is running blue, my R / GR decks need REB and Pyroblast as you showed.
People aren't going over the top with stupid broken things. Unless you consider tutor on turn 4/5 for the combo pieces....well that would be one guys and all of his decks. But that is fair game to most other people.
Like land, it was a blanket rule to only run legal cards.
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 can't multi-quote well on a phone, I'll respond to your points in each paragraph.
I agree, the conversation was fair and rules have been fair. I believe most were unhappy about the constant talk about the bans (I brought it up because the initial post banned a card asap and a strategy was banned as well that I had no idea of). And I agree, I am the outlier --- I try add my input on everything (as I have playing for more than all of their years combined).
There is not really a good or decent way (without someone throwing up their arms) if chatter comes up about on certain cards. The first talks about gold/silver bordered cards and land were fiery and people were leaving and rejoining the group chat due to strong opinions on both sides. I feel like I have been adapting nonstop as each change of rules / bans affects a deck or a handful of cards across decks. I am getting over the fact of no MLD. What I am struggling with is blanket rules that force you to ask the group if you can play X card.
I agree that 'fair and balanced' is misleading. I feel the unfairness is lack of balance and lack of discussion about it. I am talking about combo here. Some people hate and won't run it but don't care if other people do. Some are on budget (<$100) and no one wants to bring down their power level. The combo person (who I have been going back and forth with) does complain when being targeted a lot (mainly because one or more people know he is about to combo). I found out, because of this, someone has been keeping track of who wins more...and guess what...that guy has.
Regarding your point on MLD, after reading what you said, I feel my thought of it is skewed. I have been at the no closed store for so long, that you had to be ready for anything. There wasn't any cEDH. The main two rules were no douche scooping (i.e. to prevent triggers) and can only conceded/quit at sorcery speed. I see it as a game ending strategy, but to do it in spite or prolong the game is bad form.
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