My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
Because they've done such a bad job tending it that it's gone from some dudes in a single playgroup to the most popular (and successful) casual format? People tend to gloss over the amount of time and effort it took to get the format where it is today and would rather armchair coach with half-baked ideas.
That's the problem with minimalist approaches when it comes to... marketing (not that the RC pushed for marketing to begin with), people only see the end result and complain, but the point of it was to make it so the format requires as little changes as possible. Much work is done to make sure "nothing" is accomplished.
At the end of the day, the article was pretty much just an opinionated piece from Sheldon and he outright stated it as so, along with the assurance that it doesn't affect the decision-making process of the RC. Using the "Stax case" as an example, so what if he's surprised by his experiences there? We already knew his stand on the matter - bluntly put he generally doesn't favor it, but at the same time he acknowledges there are people out there who enjoy it and therefore doesn't let his personal bias stand in the way of RC decision-making. His surprise of the prevalency of the stax archetype in a larger event isn't going to change that stance (and what I would personally classify as "professionalism"), regardless of how it may have impacted his personal bias.
My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
Because they've done such a bad job tending it that it's gone from some dudes in a single playgroup to the most popular (and successful) casual format? People tend to gloss over the amount of time and effort it took to get the format where it is today and would rather armchair coach with half-baked ideas.
That's the problem with minimalist approaches when it comes to... marketing (not that the RC pushed for marketing to begin with), people only see the end result and complain, but the point of it was to make it so the format requires as little changes as possible. Much work is done to make sure "nothing" is accomplished.
At the end of the day, the article was pretty much just an opinionated piece from Sheldon and he outright stated it as so, along with the assurance that it doesn't affect the decision-making process of the RC. Using the "Stax case" as an example, so what if he's surprised by his experiences there? We already knew his stand on the matter - bluntly put he generally doesn't favor it, but at the same time he acknowledges there are people out there who enjoy it and therefore doesn't let his personal bias stand in the way of RC decision-making. His surprise of the prevalency of the stax archetype in a larger event isn't going to change that stance (and what I would personally classify as "professionalism"), regardless of how it may have impacted his personal bias.
This. Even if he personally changes his stance from "I hate stax" to "stax sure is swell", nothing would change in terms of rules or the banlist, because his anti stax bias hasn't impacted the list or rules (at least not currently, I'm not sure about when it was in it's infancy, as the RC had an anti combo bias that was reflected in the banlist, something they have been slowly undoing though their anti combo bias persists).
The minimalist approach is the greatest strength of the format. It allows playgroups to develop the format to be what they want it to be. It encourages house bans (and unbans) and house rules. The base banlist, while not perfect, works well enough that it allows the format to be pretty great even in pick up games between strangers and in mtgo.
I've said it before and I'll keep repeating it: wizards tried to impose their own banlist on mtgo that was created like it's banlists for sanctioned formats like standard, to competitively balance the format rather than to chase the more nebulous ideal of casual fun, the opposite of what the RCs banlist is meant to do. It was a collosal failure. Wizards had to backtrack and reinstate the real banlist as an option immediately, though it took a month to actually bring it back, during which few commander games fired and generally the format went into a coma. Afterwards, players could make decks and games with the RCs ba list or Wizards "balanced" banlist. Multiplayer games were dominated by the RCs list and 1v1 games slightly favored the "balanced list". The balanced list was revised dramatically and often as it never actually achieved balance, though it did eventually approach balance in 1v1 after banning a load of commanders and staples (though it wasn't anymore balanced than the regular banlist at that point, it's just that the wizards banlist that was meant to instill balance ended up creating a format that was even more unbalanced the 1v1 commander with the RC banlist). Last year, they basically scrapped it and reinstalled the RCs banlist with some minor changes as the 1v1 banlist (with the changes mainly aimed at unbanning cards that are banned for interacting poorly with the multiplayer format, and banning cards that are designed for multiplayer and interact poorly with a 1v1 20 life format).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Total agreeance with the last few posts. It's clear Sheldon has some biases, which he admits in the article itself - hell, we all do to some degree. For myself, I'm not immediately a big fan of full stax, although using some elements in a deck doesn't faze me, likewise with dedicated combo and MLD. I can dig it sometimes, but I've had to really work on accepting this and having options to prepare for it. However, its pretty clear that this hasn't impacted on how the RC works. They've generally always used a light touch, and I for one think that's the perfect approach.
I think what we're seeing in this article is Sheldon starting to address some of his biases and assess whether they're an accurate representation of reality. Given that there's a very good chance he's held these opinions for the vast amount of time he's been involved with the RC, I think it's commendable that these views have not impacted on the ban list. He hasn't tried to impose these views on anyone by banning the use of said cards, it's just that he prefers not to play them. I get that, and it's the prerogative of anyone sitting down to a game to have their preferences acknowledged at the very least.
I think in terms of these articles, the reader needs to keep in mind that Sheldon (and the other members of the RC) play magic as individuals. When they game, they don't necessarily represent the RC - they all have their preferences, and they're entitled to them as are we all. Maybe putting these thoughts out into the general community Sheldon could've been a little more careful with wording - I'm sure his intent was not to alienate anyone. I think it probably cuts both ways - readers should keep perspective that these are gamers with preferences just like all of us, and Sheldon et al probably need to be aware that when they speak publicly, what they say will have an impact on the larger community given their status as RC members. For myself, I've always thought of his articles as implicitly separate from his actions within the RC, but maybe it isn't all that clear.
My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
Because they've done such a bad job tending it that it's gone from some dudes in a single playgroup to the most popular (and successful) casual format? People tend to gloss over the amount of time and effort it took to get the format where it is today and would rather armchair coach with half-baked ideas.
My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
But really why should he care? He is still having fun with his playgroup, what's his gain after that?
It's not like it's a job, he's not getting paid for this.
He didn't create commander for attention.
Commander isn't a religion and he isn't the pope. He doesn't need proselytes.
Honestly if all the spikes and stax players and whoever else feel offended by this article would threathen to quit, why should he care? It's not his loss.
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
The only card even remotely stax worthy on the ban list is Braids, Cabal Minion, and it should be there. Likewise with combo, and MLD - there really are minimal pieces on the banlist in both categories. Besides, I actually think these experiences probably do teach him a little about what the community he serves wants. Clearly he doesn't see MLD too much in his games, but I also imagine most of his games are with a fixed meta, not randos.
Also, as far as possible, the RC does try to make their banlist decisions fairly transparent; they obviously get a lot of feedback about what people want to play, what they don't want to face down and so forth - so I'd say this article is purely from a gamer's point of view and doesn't at all conflict with his duties as a member of the RC. If cards are under consideration, any regular reader of his articles would likely know about it.
Once again, he's not stopping anyone else playing these cards, it's just clear he doesn't want to. I can't blame the guy, personally.
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
The only card even remotely stax worthy on the ban list is Braids, Cabal Minion, and it should be there. Likewise with combo, and MLD - there really are minimal pieces on the banlist in both categories. Besides, I actually think these experiences probably do teach him a little about what the community he serves wants. Clearly he doesn't see MLD too much in his games, but I also imagine most of his games are with a fixed meta, not randos.
Also, as far as possible, the RC does try to make their banlist decisions fairly transparent; they obviously get a lot of feedback about what people want to play, what they don't want to face down and so forth - so I'd say this article is purely from a gamer's point of view and doesn't at all conflict with his duties as a member of the RC. If cards are under consideration, any regular reader of his articles would likely know about it.
Once again, he's not stopping anyone else playing these cards, it's just clear he doesn't want to. I can't blame the guy, personally.
Good to see we are on agreement that its good he has a better understanding of the community even if it doesn't necessarily changes his views of a specific type of play.
I wouldn't expect it to change, either; the heart wants what the heart wants. He seems to be reasonably aware of the fact that his gaming preferences don't match everyone's, and that's sort of reflected in the minimalist approach to banlists and overarching rules.
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
No, I'm saying that your fundamental premise is flawed if you think that he isn't acutely aware of the stax archetype and th as t there is a subset of players that enjoy playing with and against it. This is a man who was at one point a L5 judge surrounded by the most competitive Magic there is, and being engrossed in EDH longer than probably anyone else in the world. To say that playing against Stax puts him out of his comfort zone or expands his view is a farfetched notion.
As people before ke have stated more eloquently than I, this was an opinion article and not at all reflective of his approach at managing the format. If he truly was trying to see stax removed from the format you'd see more Armggedons and less Primevl Titans on the ban list.
You don't think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
In a social setting it actually IS more important that more people have a good time, that's the point of going to something social. That in no way actually stops you from playing those decks, it stops you from playing them against people who don't want to do so. Of course that leads to a conversation that ...
I don't want to have a conversation about what is or isn't acceptable in a given group of veritable strangers. I want to play Magic. I want a banlist that promotes balanced play so that gaps in power level aren't as large so that enjoyment is more homogeneous.
I think thats a noble goal, but I don't actually see anyone working towards it. Make one, use it, show people how great it is, get people to adopt it. But to take all the hard work of the RC, who specifically says 'talk first', and then just say 'make it better for me' seems really off-putting when you have no interest in a primary calibration.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Are each of you against the betterment of the self through expanding one's views and knowledge, especially when serving on a council that is meant to govern? Would you say that Sheldon being removed from his comfort zone isn't conducive to him having a more well-informed opinion on how to handle the format and shift his focus when regarding which cards to remove or add to the list even if no change is actually made?
No, I'm saying that your fundamental premise is flawed if you think that he isn't acutely aware of the stax archetype and th as t there is a subset of players that enjoy playing with and against it. This is a man who was at one point a L5 judge surrounded by the most competitive Magic there is, and being engrossed in EDH longer than probably anyone else in the world. To say that playing against Stax puts him out of his comfort zone or expands his view is a farfetched notion.
As people before ke have stated more eloquently than I, this was an opinion article and not at all reflective of his approach at managing the format. If he truly was trying to see stax removed from the format you'd see more Armggedons and less Primevl Titans on the ban list.
I personally think you are being overly defensive as if I were attacking him when that is clearly not the case and am in fact praising him.
Good to see we are on agreement that its good he has a better understanding of the community even if it doesn't necessarily changes his views of a specific type of play.
Good to see we are on agreement that its good he has a better understanding of the community even if it doesn't necessarily changes his views of a specific type of play.
I mean....it's a really, really slippery slope. If you ban letters A-C, you're opening a case for banning D-Z. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want an endless list. Besides, I have no essential problem with people playing the strongest cards ever printed, that's part of why this format exists. Using them responsibly, well that's on the individual - a card is only as broken as the deck builder allows it to be, and I think a lot of people excuse themselves and blame the cards they use, when it's 100% clear that the intention was to break the card in question.
Ultimately, my thoughts are that it's not worth going down that route. It's an incredibly murky route to navigate, and it won't ever be without controversy, complaints and criticism. Besides which, it's an arbitrary line in the sand - what works for the RC doesn't need to be gospel, and they've always said this; doing a turnabout would be a drastic change of position. I honestly think the best way to move forward with navigating satisfactory gaming is to communicate your wishes prior to starting the game, during the game, and following up afterwards. It's already necessary in order to make it clear what you're trying to achieve anyway - any stack discussions, rulings queries or decisions need to be made verbally, so why do we not start with this and save everyone a ton of grief? I get that people are shy or introverted, not every group is welcoming, and people online can be absolute douches, but communication is not something we should be looking to divert a course around, it's something we should be improving on.
I had to read back and find this comment of mine in context.
In my opinion the answer is that there are cards that you can't play without people getting a bad vibe from them, or they're just too easy to break. It really is all that the RC have to be able to sculpt the format into what they want it to be, so without the banlist you're just playing 100 card singleton vintage or legacy. If you want to do that, go right ahead. I'm never going to be happy sitting across from someone playing the power 9 though, because that's not a level playing field - I'll never afford them. I'll never be happy playing against Sundering Titan, because the only feelings it knows are bad ones. Likewise with Worldfire; I get you can counter it, but I can't think of a less satisfying way to end the game. If you want to play against Erayo, go right ahead. I don't want to though.
I guess maybe the logic was flawed, but my stance is that of supporting a minimal banlist that covers the worst offenders and not much more. Nonetheless, working on the premise that what is good about this format is that it encourages a social, inclusive environment, there's no reason to eradicate the banlist entirely.
9 mana red sorcery
-Rc: "This is sick filth needs to stay banned!"
I'd have no problem with both being banned, personally. I'm not here to justify what is and isn't on the banlist, although I am happy enough with how it looks at present.
So that is why Sheldon has not yet banned many cards that should be. He lives in his own little bubble, unaware how other people who have adopted the EDH format play.
Hmm. He should play against a guy i know who runs a Derevi deck. It tales one game for you to not enjoy playing against it a second time. (Even 3 v 1 can't stop it)
I run a jhoira deck for cEDH and my deck should be banned (19-1 win rate) i can consistently win turn 1.
So that is why Sheldon has not yet banned many cards that should be. He lives in his own little bubble, unaware how other people who have adopted the EDH format play.
Hmm. He should play against a guy i know who runs a Derevi deck. It tales one game for you to not enjoy playing against it a second time. (Even 3 v 1 can't stop it)
I run a jhoira deck for cEDH and my deck should be banned (19-1 win rate) i can consistently win turn 1.
So your argument is that a guy who is writing an article describing his most recent public trip to play Commander against strangers for three days needs to get outside his bubble? C'mon Gashnaw, you're better than this and you know it's a blatant lie.
So that is why Sheldon has not yet banned many cards that should be. He lives in his own little bubble, unaware how other people who have adopted the EDH format play.
Hmm. He should play against a guy i know who runs a Derevi deck. It tales one game for you to not enjoy playing against it a second time. (Even 3 v 1 can't stop it)
I run a jhoira deck for cEDH and my deck should be banned (19-1 win rate) i can consistently win turn 1.
So your argument is that a guy who is writing an article describing his most recent public trip to play Commander against strangers for three days needs to get outside his bubble? C'mon Gashnaw, you're better than this and you know it's a blatant lie.
Regardless i do feel the RC needs to take a look at the community a whole. While sol ring can never be banned since it has been in lime what? Every commander set? There are still many cards that kill the fun. Iona for starters.
Regardless i do feel the RC needs to take a look at the community a whole. While sol ring can never be banned since it has been in lime what? Every commander set? There are still many cards that kill the fun. Iona for starters.
Sure, I can agree with that, but it is disingenuous and ill-informed to say that he or the RC is living in a bubble. Personally, if I could say anything to Sheldon, it would be that no card, regardless of stigma or perceived status should be "exempt" from being given honest discussion.
Regardless i do feel the RC needs to take a look at the community a whole. While sol ring can never be banned since it has been in lime what? Every commander set? There are still many cards that kill the fun. Iona for starters.
Sure, I can agree with that, but it is disingenuous and ill-informed to say that he or the RC is living in a bubble. Personally, if I could say anything to Sheldon, it would be that no card, regardless of stigma or perceived status should be "exempt" from being given honest discussion.
I agree with having a banlist, but there are too many cards that ruin the fun.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
but really there are also influxes in balance. Academy is banned, but Cradle gets to stay? Green FOCUSES on creatures. Coffers is also good, when urborg is out, i feel it is not even close to the same power as Cradle.
there are many factors i feel the RC ignore which is why i claim they are in their own little bubble. I feel the ban list support their games and not games we play.
End of the day, no one person that plays EDH will ever convince everyone that their style of play is the best. Or most correct, or most efficient, or whatever. Where's the fun in playing exactly the same game every time? No one wants that. Ultimately everyone here is entitled to their opinions barring any prejudice.
The RC tries to walk a fine line; it's a socially minded game, and one of the first things that drew me to this format is that power levels and acceptable limits are dictated by the people you sit down with; that's the way it should be, and that's what is encouraged by the RC. If you don't like their recommended banlist, don't use it, or make your own. If you want a game where fast combo is accepted and welcomed, great. You want to lock everyone else out of the game, go for it. If you want to embrace your inner Timmy and play battlecruiser stompy, you can. So long as the people you sit down with are happy with you doing that. That's where it's at.
I think at the end of it all, from what I read in the article, Sheldon maybe could have been more specific in his questions towards the guy in question - instead of 'are you the kind of guy we wanna play with?' 'just so you know, we're not interested in MLD, hope that's ok'. It's his prerogative to want to enjoy the game the way he wants to, as it is everyone's. The only real part of this that shouldn't sit well with anyone is the way communication broke down in this instance.
It's why I'm absolutely clear with what to expect, and what I can expect, when I sit down with a new group of people. I have a little something for everyone - stompy decks, chaos decks, control, a couple combo decks, a tiny splash of stax in some, I can handle land destruction with some too, I just need to know what vibe we're going for. I sit down with people and game to make friends, that's the whole point. No one needs to defend what play style they enjoy, they just need to make it clear what they don't enjoy, so that everyone involved has fun. It isn't that hard.
100% this.
Pretty much all of the problems in the format at large, in Sheldon's Article and in this thread stem from a lack of proper communication. Y'all just need to talk to each other before you sit down for a game. And yes, if you play with total strangers for the first time, chances are that the communication may fail even though everybody has good intentions. But at least you will avoid games with Tier 1 competitive decks against precons. And if everyone involved is a somewhat sensible human being, you can just go from there and try to find a better fit in the next game. (Obviously, this all works best in a regular playgroup)
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's the problem with minimalist approaches when it comes to... marketing (not that the RC pushed for marketing to begin with), people only see the end result and complain, but the point of it was to make it so the format requires as little changes as possible. Much work is done to make sure "nothing" is accomplished.
At the end of the day, the article was pretty much just an opinionated piece from Sheldon and he outright stated it as so, along with the assurance that it doesn't affect the decision-making process of the RC. Using the "Stax case" as an example, so what if he's surprised by his experiences there? We already knew his stand on the matter - bluntly put he generally doesn't favor it, but at the same time he acknowledges there are people out there who enjoy it and therefore doesn't let his personal bias stand in the way of RC decision-making. His surprise of the prevalency of the stax archetype in a larger event isn't going to change that stance (and what I would personally classify as "professionalism"), regardless of how it may have impacted his personal bias.
This. Even if he personally changes his stance from "I hate stax" to "stax sure is swell", nothing would change in terms of rules or the banlist, because his anti stax bias hasn't impacted the list or rules (at least not currently, I'm not sure about when it was in it's infancy, as the RC had an anti combo bias that was reflected in the banlist, something they have been slowly undoing though their anti combo bias persists).
The minimalist approach is the greatest strength of the format. It allows playgroups to develop the format to be what they want it to be. It encourages house bans (and unbans) and house rules. The base banlist, while not perfect, works well enough that it allows the format to be pretty great even in pick up games between strangers and in mtgo.
I've said it before and I'll keep repeating it: wizards tried to impose their own banlist on mtgo that was created like it's banlists for sanctioned formats like standard, to competitively balance the format rather than to chase the more nebulous ideal of casual fun, the opposite of what the RCs banlist is meant to do. It was a collosal failure. Wizards had to backtrack and reinstate the real banlist as an option immediately, though it took a month to actually bring it back, during which few commander games fired and generally the format went into a coma. Afterwards, players could make decks and games with the RCs ba list or Wizards "balanced" banlist. Multiplayer games were dominated by the RCs list and 1v1 games slightly favored the "balanced list". The balanced list was revised dramatically and often as it never actually achieved balance, though it did eventually approach balance in 1v1 after banning a load of commanders and staples (though it wasn't anymore balanced than the regular banlist at that point, it's just that the wizards banlist that was meant to instill balance ended up creating a format that was even more unbalanced the 1v1 commander with the RC banlist). Last year, they basically scrapped it and reinstalled the RCs banlist with some minor changes as the 1v1 banlist (with the changes mainly aimed at unbanning cards that are banned for interacting poorly with the multiplayer format, and banning cards that are designed for multiplayer and interact poorly with a 1v1 20 life format).
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think what we're seeing in this article is Sheldon starting to address some of his biases and assess whether they're an accurate representation of reality. Given that there's a very good chance he's held these opinions for the vast amount of time he's been involved with the RC, I think it's commendable that these views have not impacted on the ban list. He hasn't tried to impose these views on anyone by banning the use of said cards, it's just that he prefers not to play them. I get that, and it's the prerogative of anyone sitting down to a game to have their preferences acknowledged at the very least.
I think in terms of these articles, the reader needs to keep in mind that Sheldon (and the other members of the RC) play magic as individuals. When they game, they don't necessarily represent the RC - they all have their preferences, and they're entitled to them as are we all. Maybe putting these thoughts out into the general community Sheldon could've been a little more careful with wording - I'm sure his intent was not to alienate anyone. I think it probably cuts both ways - readers should keep perspective that these are gamers with preferences just like all of us, and Sheldon et al probably need to be aware that when they speak publicly, what they say will have an impact on the larger community given their status as RC members. For myself, I've always thought of his articles as implicitly separate from his actions within the RC, but maybe it isn't all that clear.
The only card even remotely stax worthy on the ban list is Braids, Cabal Minion, and it should be there. Likewise with combo, and MLD - there really are minimal pieces on the banlist in both categories. Besides, I actually think these experiences probably do teach him a little about what the community he serves wants. Clearly he doesn't see MLD too much in his games, but I also imagine most of his games are with a fixed meta, not randos.
Also, as far as possible, the RC does try to make their banlist decisions fairly transparent; they obviously get a lot of feedback about what people want to play, what they don't want to face down and so forth - so I'd say this article is purely from a gamer's point of view and doesn't at all conflict with his duties as a member of the RC. If cards are under consideration, any regular reader of his articles would likely know about it.
Once again, he's not stopping anyone else playing these cards, it's just clear he doesn't want to. I can't blame the guy, personally.
No, I'm saying that your fundamental premise is flawed if you think that he isn't acutely aware of the stax archetype and th as t there is a subset of players that enjoy playing with and against it. This is a man who was at one point a L5 judge surrounded by the most competitive Magic there is, and being engrossed in EDH longer than probably anyone else in the world. To say that playing against Stax puts him out of his comfort zone or expands his view is a farfetched notion.
As people before ke have stated more eloquently than I, this was an opinion article and not at all reflective of his approach at managing the format. If he truly was trying to see stax removed from the format you'd see more Armggedons and less Primevl Titans on the ban list.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think thats a noble goal, but I don't actually see anyone working towards it. Make one, use it, show people how great it is, get people to adopt it. But to take all the hard work of the RC, who specifically says 'talk first', and then just say 'make it better for me' seems really off-putting when you have no interest in a primary calibration.
It really hasn't seemed like you were praising him, quite the opposite in fact. Well, except for this one part:
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Well that's good.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
By this logic, why have a ban list at all?
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
I had to read back and find this comment of mine in context.
In my opinion the answer is that there are cards that you can't play without people getting a bad vibe from them, or they're just too easy to break. It really is all that the RC have to be able to sculpt the format into what they want it to be, so without the banlist you're just playing 100 card singleton vintage or legacy. If you want to do that, go right ahead. I'm never going to be happy sitting across from someone playing the power 9 though, because that's not a level playing field - I'll never afford them. I'll never be happy playing against Sundering Titan, because the only feelings it knows are bad ones. Likewise with Worldfire; I get you can counter it, but I can't think of a less satisfying way to end the game. If you want to play against Erayo, go right ahead. I don't want to though.
I guess maybe the logic was flawed, but my stance is that of supporting a minimal banlist that covers the worst offenders and not much more. Nonetheless, working on the premise that what is good about this format is that it encourages a social, inclusive environment, there's no reason to eradicate the banlist entirely.
-Rc: "we see nothing wrong here"
9 mana red sorcery
-Rc: "This is sick filth needs to stay banned!"
I'd have no problem with both being banned, personally. I'm not here to justify what is and isn't on the banlist, although I am happy enough with how it looks at present.
Sol Ring! Drink!
But seriously, where are you going trying to compare apples to pumpkins?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Hmm. He should play against a guy i know who runs a Derevi deck. It tales one game for you to not enjoy playing against it a second time. (Even 3 v 1 can't stop it)
I run a jhoira deck for cEDH and my deck should be banned (19-1 win rate) i can consistently win turn 1.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
So your argument is that a guy who is writing an article describing his most recent public trip to play Commander against strangers for three days needs to get outside his bubble? C'mon Gashnaw, you're better than this and you know it's a blatant lie.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Regardless i do feel the RC needs to take a look at the community a whole. While sol ring can never be banned since it has been in lime what? Every commander set? There are still many cards that kill the fun. Iona for starters.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Sure, I can agree with that, but it is disingenuous and ill-informed to say that he or the RC is living in a bubble. Personally, if I could say anything to Sheldon, it would be that no card, regardless of stigma or perceived status should be "exempt" from being given honest discussion.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I agree with having a banlist, but there are too many cards that ruin the fun.
That is where the problem lies though. If they make the ban list too big, people will stop playing, and if the ban list is abolished, even more nasty things will come out. I say abolish the list and keep P9 and balance on the list. With that effect in play, the community will change tactics. You play a deck that is not fun, play with others who are playing only to win. I try to avoid playing against CEDH decks, but I will pull out my Jhoira deck when that is the only option... or had a game where i was not allowed to play stuff because all 3 opponents would target me with removal and counters. Even when i had NOTHING)
but really there are also influxes in balance. Academy is banned, but Cradle gets to stay? Green FOCUSES on creatures. Coffers is also good, when urborg is out, i feel it is not even close to the same power as Cradle.
there are many factors i feel the RC ignore which is why i claim they are in their own little bubble. I feel the ban list support their games and not games we play.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Pretty much all of the problems in the format at large, in Sheldon's Article and in this thread stem from a lack of proper communication. Y'all just need to talk to each other before you sit down for a game. And yes, if you play with total strangers for the first time, chances are that the communication may fail even though everybody has good intentions. But at least you will avoid games with Tier 1 competitive decks against precons. And if everyone involved is a somewhat sensible human being, you can just go from there and try to find a better fit in the next game. (Obviously, this all works best in a regular playgroup)
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.