Changing to 30 life will change the format far more than banning even a large number of combo cards.
They already moved it down once, and it was not the end of the world. The original rules was 200/(#of players). Yes I think it would have a strong affect, but so would a reversal on combo. They have been more permissive of the archetype, not less, the last few years. Reversing course and upsetting the idea of 'play good cards responsibly' takes a hit.
Again, 30 also lightly disrupts the ramp into infinity games. And helps people team up to kill established threats.
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.
Changing to 30 life will change the format far more than banning even a large number of combo cards.
They already moved it down once, and it was not the end of the world. The original rules was 200/(#of players). Yes I think it would have a strong affect, but so would a reversal on combo. They have been more permissive of the archetype, not less, the last few years. Reversing course and upsetting the idea of 'play good cards responsibly' takes a hit.
Again, 30 also lightly disrupts the ramp into infinity games. And helps people team up to kill established threats.
That was before I started playing EDH and I've been playing since 2012. From what I can tell from the changelog, that was before they even started keeping a changelog in 2009 (http://mtgcommander.net/EDH_Root/changelog.php)
I don't think it's comparable at all. The population is wildly different.
Having played out similar situations to this many times, what actually happens:
One player dies, then the board is wiped, then the game goes on and the aggro player has no cards in hand. The player that went all in is unhappy because they have nothing to do with the empty hand, and the player who was eliminated is unhappy because the game can last for an hour after that.
That is laughably and demonstrably incorrect and it is obvious that you do not play with nor against Edgar Markov... or your opponents are super scrubs. Maybe a bit of both.
Casting three one drops is NOT over extending, nor does it leave your hand empty. The mass card draw that the deck has also means that you are NOT left with an empty hand.
Opening hand, 7 cards, draw to 8, play a land and a one drop down to 6 cards.
Turn two draw to 7, play a land and two one drops. 4 cards.
Turn 3 draw up to five, play a land and shared animosity go to three cards, kill a player because you swin for 36 and they have paid life and you have attacked on turn two.
Thy wrath you with three cards, you untap and draw up to 4 cards. Strange... that is not an empty hand, and with the 12-14 ways of tutoring and/or drawing available, it is very easy to rebuild both your board several times each game. It is not like decks run endless board wipes either. I have won multiple games against 4 or more board wipes and attempted wipes.
Not to mention that Scapegoat and Boros Charm are real cards which are complete blow outs against a board wipe attempt. Oh, the board is clear and I have all of my creatures. GG?
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I mean, edgar also is a 4/4 hasted anthem that pumps himself to 5 when he attacks too so not like they're gonna be unable to finish someone off after a wrath. You couldn't pay me to play against an edgar deck with 30 life.
If the perceived problem is that people are actively trying to combo out every game... and not that they have combos in their deck that they sometimes draw into.... then the obvious answer is that low cmc tutors need to be banned.
I have always said that I dislike tutors. This format is singleton, and there are enough tutors in a 3 colour deck to effectively play the same win condition in every game. Doesn't feel like singleton.
Sure, some people tutor out their jank synergies. Those decks can settle for less aggressive tutors, especially if that also means that combo decks are much weaker.
The issue isn't that people are playing scepter and reversal. It is that there are so many ways to tutor it that they may as well go for it every game.
I treat Chord of Calling like a toolbox card. But I am not getting an Acidic Slime to blow up a Cradle if I can get a Protean Hulk and win the game right away. This is the issue. Once you have the tutors, it is usually correct to tutor the combo. So you either restrict yourself by not including tutors or not including combos or you end up comboing out consistently.
The problem with this is that it--
1) is a *massive* change to the format, touching basically half of all decks if not more and requiring a banlist addition of at least 10 cards that all have broad fair uses outside of combos
2) would necessitate banning several additional generals
3) would just be replaced with filtering and cantrips immediately
4) has an extreme financial implication; it would likely cause a swing of billions in the value of cards. Billions.
I would not suggest to ban all tutors. I may not like tutoring but it is still part of the game.
I just think the cheap ones could be banned to make people play the more expensive tutors or to play other less consistent options.
I think the number of tutors is the problem, and the 1-2 cmc tutors are the best candidates for banning.
I am not calling for a banning of tutors... any really. I know I don't like them but I am just one person. I know that I find they defy the nature of singleton but other people disagree.
I just think that if Sheldon feels like people are just all trying to race to combo at casual levels, then early tutors are the problem, not the combos themselves.
The number of combos in magic will only go up
The number of tutors will also go up, but the rates are not going to be as good as the 1-2 cmc tutors.
Consistency appears to be the issue, not the fact that people have combos in their decks.
You don't want decks to consistently combo, then ban 1-2 cmc tutors and make people play build differently.
That's a pretty huge list. And you'd need to get basically all of those or at least a good subset.
And that all is completely leaving aside the fact that there are a ton of generals with one card combos with cards like staff of domination, food chain and curiosity. One card combos are extremely easy to execute if that's your focus and there's a pretty significant variety.
mystical teachings is another pretty strong option you'd see a lot more of if the cheaper ones were banned. Not to mention more exotic stuff like quiet speculation.
I mean, edgar also is a 4/4 hasted anthem that pumps himself to 5 when he attacks too so not like they're gonna be unable to finish someone off after a wrath. You couldn't pay me to play against an edgar deck with 30 life.
You realize it's still multiplayer, right?
One of my friends plays edgar and he's had a few explosive games...and a lot more total duds where he was basically inconsequential past the first few turns, and maybe one or two swingy turns where he played edgar before getting wrecked by a board wipe or whatever.
He's not on a budget either - I think he's got ABU duals and the like in there. I think it's even largely foiled out. I do think his deck could be built better, but there's nothing obviously wrong with it, and he's getting absolutely creamed most of the time. And I'm not even playing anything close to my most powerful decks.
Edgar is an aggro commander so good he's banned in 1v1. He SHOULD be scary to play against. You should have roughly the same feeling playing against Edgar, a premier aggro commander, as against one of the premier combo commanders - thrasios/tymna, gitfrog, urza, zur, yisan, etc. But even at 30 life I'd happily play against Edgar instead of one of those. Hell, in multiplayer I'd rather play against edgar at 15 life.
I'm not going to get sidetracked into a how your friend builds or plays his deck discussion but I stand by my statement Aggro decks are somewhat different than combo decks in the texture of the games, at least for me personally.
The most basic element of it is that when I stop a combo I'm down a card or two and the game goes on. When I stop an aggro deck I'm down 30 life (or 20, heh) and a card or two, and the game goes on. I'm much closer to death after stopping the aggro player.
Not all the time of course, but perhaps because I've got a punchable face, or because I try to be an uncommonly good sport about being focused on, I am the target of aggro players at a higher rate than you would expect in a 4 player game
I'm not going to get sidetracked into a how your friend builds or plays his deck discussion but I stand by my statement Aggro decks are somewhat different than combo decks in the texture of the games, at least for me personally.
The most basic element of it is that when I stop a combo I'm down a card or two and the game goes on. When I stop an aggro deck I'm down 30 life (or 20, heh) and a card or two, and the game goes on. I'm much closer to death after stopping the aggro player.
Not all the time of course, but perhaps because I've got a punchable face, or because I try to be an uncommonly good sport about being focused on, I am the target of aggro players at a higher rate than you would expect in a 4 player game
Weird statement to stand by, considering it doesn't even really make sense. You wouldn't play a game that you normally play recreationally, for ANY amount of cash, with a relatively minor rules tweak (that would, at worst, make the game shorter and thus a better $ per hour rate)? Somehow I doubt you'd actually be so true to your principles if someone was actually offering that hot, hot cash.
I know, it's just a saying but...it's a stupid saying. All you really mean, presumably, is "I'd rather not play against Edgar markov in 30 life rules". Which I think is totally fine. I'd rather not play against Gitfrog with ANY rules, but I still do it, because it's part of the game and people can be tryhards if they want. There SHOULD be aggro commanders you don't want to play against, just like there are so, so many combo ones.
You're only down on life if they've been targeting you. If you've been successfully politicking you'll be down an opponent or two, then you board wipe and you're way ahead. You know - hold up your removal for edgar turns and use it unless they promise not to attack you? Hold back threats so you aren't their biggest concern? Y'know, good politics? Can't help you with a punchable face, though. Maybe try plastic surgery?
Weird statement to stand by, considering it doesn't even really make sense. You wouldn't play a game that you normally play recreationally, for ANY amount of cash, with a relatively minor rules tweak (that would, at worst, make the game shorter and thus a better $ per hour rate)? Somehow I doubt you'd actually be so true to your principles if someone was actually offering that hot, hot cash.
I know, it's just a saying but...it's a stupid saying. All you really mean, presumably, is "I'd rather not play against Edgar markov in 30 life rules". Which I think is totally fine. I'd rather not play against Gitfrog with ANY rules, but I still do it, because it's part of the game and people can be tryhards if they want. There SHOULD be aggro commanders you don't want to play against, just like there are so, so many combo ones.
You're only down on life if they've been targeting you. If you've been successfully politicking you'll be down an opponent or two, then you board wipe and you're way ahead. You know - hold up your removal for edgar turns and use it unless they promise not to attack you? Hold back threats so you aren't their biggest concern? Y'know, good politics? Can't help you with a punchable face, though. Maybe try plastic surgery?
Yes, I stand by the obvious meaning of the statement. Sorry for using a commonly understood idiom. But good use of everyone's time being the language police.
You're backsliding into just trying to score internet points again.
*Someone* is down on life regardless. I think the likelihood exists that the game would be less fun if there were more games that were decided by an early aggro explosion accidentally kingmaking someone. Maybe it's good, maybe not. I think possibly not at least.
It's definitely different than playing against combo players for me even now, and it would be much different with lower life totals.
edit: Re: tryhard decks - there are a lot more aggro decks than tryhard decks. I see about 3 Edgars for every Gitrog.
That's a pretty huge list. And you'd need to get basically all of those or at least a good subset.
And that all is completely leaving aside the fact that there are a ton of generals with one card combos with cards like staff of domination, food chain and curiosity. One card combos are extremely easy to execute if that's your focus and there's a pretty significant variety.
mystical teachings is another pretty strong option you'd see a lot more of if the cheaper ones were banned. Not to mention more exotic stuff like quiet speculation.
Yup.
Obviously, there are some cards I would include on the list that you didn't, and some that you did but I wouldn't. That's just opinion.
I am not saying that it will fix everything. It would just make it less consistent and drive people towards other strategies.
If you don't want people tutoring up the same combo every game, have fewer tutors. You can't ban every combo.
And I cannot think of another way to stop people from playing the same combo every time.
The idea isn't to stop people from tutoring. The idea is to effectively reduce the number of tutors available by closing the door on the most flexible and popular tutors. A monoblack deck may still have Dark Petition and Beseech the Queen, but if they need a critical number of tutors to get their combo, they are going to be forced to play Diabolic Tutor or they are going to be forced to change the makeup of their deck.
If you banned these tutors on your list, I think most people would just put in good cards to replace them. Decks that are dependent on tutoring will be forced to adapt themselves.
The only other thing that anyone has said that I think could be viable (but weird to implement) would be to change the rules of EDH so there is an emblem in the command zone that says: "If you would search your library for a card, search only the top 20 cards". Something like that.
It is the consistency of tutoring combos that would need to be addressed by the RC if Sheldon feels there is a problem with the current state of commander.
My thinking is you would stand far less risk of negatively impacting the format if you just started banning the top 3 combo cards every year or so. Eventually the available combos will get so clunky or narrow that they are worse than just playing magic or aiming for pseudo-infinites like saccing 50 tokens to zulaport cuttthroat. Or they'd be very vulnerable to random hate.
It wouldn't take very long going 1-3 at a time that playing combos would start to have a real cost; you wind up playing garbage cards like mischievous quanar or stuffy doll.
The problem with combo today is more than tutors in my opinion; it's that too many combo cards are just damned fine cards on their own these days. Baaack in my day we had to slum it with rings of brighthearth and staff of domination and 3 card infinite mana combos that required an outlet.
Nowadays the kids play 4 mana infinite mana combos and a general with a mana sink, and both cards are pretty playable on their own.
Again, I don't think that this is necessarily, well, necessary. But I think it's a far more responsible approach than trying to ban an entire class of card, all the good mana rocks, or adding weird awkward rules that require people counting 20 cards from the top of their library every time they want to tutor, etc. Or even making major changes to the structure of the rules that have stood for 10 years.
Yes, I stand by the obvious meaning of the statement. Sorry for using a commonly understood idiom. But good use of everyone's time being the language police.
You're backsliding into just trying to score internet points again.
*Someone* is down on life regardless. I think the likelihood exists that the game would be less fun if there were more games that were decided by an early aggro explosion accidentally kingmaking someone. Maybe it's good, maybe not. I think possibly not at least.
It's definitely different than playing against combo players for me even now, and it would be much different with lower life totals.
edit: Re: tryhard decks - there are a lot more aggro decks than tryhard decks. I see about 3 Edgars for every Gitrog.
That's why I also responded to the figurative meaning of the sentence.
I dislike the term "kingmaking", and I don't think it applies to this circumstance. Using the google definition:
In broad terms kingmaking is defined as a game situation in which a player that has no chance to win will nonetheless choose which player does win through his actions - usually knowingly.
The aggro player doesn't have "no chance to win" (well, maybe at 40 life that's kind of true, but ideally that wouldn't be the case). They're playing to win, and the actions they take to accomplish that win - regardless of whether or not they win - will have an impact on which player DOES win. Which is as it should be, no? If a player had no impact whatsoever on which deck won, I'd say that's not a good game. What definition of kingmaking are you using?
Edgar is a recent precon commander with casual appeal, so I'm not shocked you're seeing a lot of him. A comparison of 2 random commanders from the different archetypes probably isn't the fairest way to determine which more popular. And really, I consider the problem less to be that combo is the best archetype, and more than even "noncombo" decks are being pushed to include combos just as a way to finish the game because of the ridiculous life totals. At least in my playgroup, even the aggro decks are secret combo decks, and combos end an obnoxious number of games.
I thought that putting "accidental" in front of kingmaking would make it clear that it wasn't by design on the aggro player's part, but please continue language policing, it's fun for me. Just don't send me an invoice for editing services because I'm not paying that unless someone starts paying me $$$ to play against Edgar.
I was unclear that I mean metaphorically I see 3 aggro decks for every tryhard combo deck perhaps. But that was my intended meaning there. I suspect that aggro-ish decks (aggro-ramp or true aggro) are probably about twice as common as dedicated combo if not more. But among the casual crowd I think you'll see more aggro with lower life totals.
And honesty I don't enjoy aggro games very much; it's again not about what I want, but I will say anecdotally most players don't love getting aggro'd. I used to play a very aggressive Skullbriar deck that would typically kill someone on turn 4 or so and then lose. Nothing but complaints about that.
I thought that putting "accidental" in front of kingmaking would make it clear that it wasn't by design on the aggro player's part, but please continue language policing, it's fun for me. Just don't send me an invoice for editing services because I'm not paying that unless someone starts paying me $$$ to play against Edgar.
I was unclear that I mean metaphorically I see 3 aggro decks for every tryhard combo deck perhaps. But that was my intended meaning there. I suspect that aggro-ish decks (aggro-ramp or true aggro) are probably about twice as common as dedicated combo if not more. But among the casual crowd I think you'll see more aggro with lower life totals.
And honesty I don't enjoy aggro games very much; it's again not about what I want, but I will say anecdotally most players don't love getting aggro'd. I used to play a very aggressive Skullbriar deck that would typically kill someone on turn 4 or so and then lose. Nothing but complaints about that.
It's not about language policing - I'm genuinely asking, what definition are you using for kingmaking? Because I can't think of any definition that would include the circumstance you're talking about. Is everyone "accidentally kingmaking" unless they win or do absolutely nothing? Seriously, what do you even mean?
Definitions for aggro are a little hard to nail down in commander imo, but I would describe my own meta as having very few truly aggressive decks, and a lot of midrangy decks. There are few dedicated combo decks either...although I'm not sure how dedicated is "dedicated". But none of that's super helpful - I think the more relevant question is how many games end via combo? And in the games I've played locally, I'd say it's something like:
45% I win (non-combo, usually non-bursty)
30% someone else wins (combo)
15% someone else wins (noncombo but bursty wincons like expropriate or rain of hailfire)
10% someone else wins (noncombo, non-bursty)
This is obviously pretty speculative on my part, but I think it illustrates the problem I have with the direction the game has gone - it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
If the perceived problem is that people are actively trying to combo out every game... and not that they have combos in their deck that they sometimes draw into.... then the obvious answer is that low cmc tutors need to be banned.
I have always said that I dislike tutors. This format is singleton, and there are enough tutors in a 3 colour deck to effectively play the same win condition in every game. Doesn't feel like singleton.
Sure, some people tutor out their jank synergies. Those decks can settle for less aggressive tutors, especially if that also means that combo decks are much weaker.
The issue isn't that people are playing scepter and reversal. It is that there are so many ways to tutor it that they may as well go for it every game.
I treat Chord of Calling like a toolbox card. But I am not getting an Acidic Slime to blow up a Cradle if I can get a Protean Hulk and win the game right away. This is the issue. Once you have the tutors, it is usually correct to tutor the combo. So you either restrict yourself by not including tutors or not including combos or you end up comboing out consistently.
Hit the nail on the head. Tutors are inherently good in a singleton format, so good even bad ones like Diabolic Tutor can find their way into budget lists. (I still say I'll never play Imperial Seal, topdecking at sorcery speed is bad, guys.) It's a big reason I play cards like Aven Mindcensor and Stranglehold in relevant decks. I also like using Rule of Law and Arcane Laboratory to harass combo players. (Seriously, just play one of those and watch a lot of combo decks just turn to dust.)
Want to stop combo decks? Now you can see how. Also, if it looks like another player is about to win, let us control players do our thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
It's not about language policing - I'm genuinely asking, what definition are you using for kingmaking? Because I can't think of any definition that would include the circumstance you're talking about. Is everyone "accidentally kingmaking" unless they win or do absolutely nothing? Seriously, what do you even mean?
re: Ramp - I think you're probably trying to draw the comparison out further than it is meant to be. In EDH, ramp decks are gonna ramp. The point is merely that ramp decks aiming to ramp harder is a potential consequence of making games faster because if they want to keep playing bombs they need to be even more consistent about ramping. Perhaps they will play more interaction but I think that this is probably not likely - they'll play bombs that stabilize (e.g. Thragtusk and Wurmcoil Engine instead of [card]Ulamog, the Ceaseles
In general I think aggro decks often determine the outcome of games despite having very little chance to survive once they become arch-enemy by killing (or nearly killing) another player and having a dominant board state. And I do consider that accidental kingmaking even if their intention is to win, but only if they are very unlikely to win.
I am unsure whether lowering the life total would actually help aggro players or just make this scenario of the aggro player determining the winner be more common. I suspect it's possibly a bit of both so it might be a wash--both aggro players killing at least one person but also aggro players might win more?
Generally speaking I do think that lowering the life total will make it much more likely for one player to die early, which is not something I think is great for the format -- more bench time is not desirable in my opinion.
1) On 30 Life
I think something that gets quickly lost in these threads when changing the starting life total comes up is that it isn't that the Aggro player has to deal 90 damage instead of 120.
It is that cracking a fetch and shocking a land into play puts you at 27 instead of 37, that is the change that is HUGE, a lost Mana Crypt flip to name another card that comes up here a bunch is a 1/10th of your life, even higher power staples like Fire Covenant and Toxic Deluge really change as the life total does.
You take the forms of life loss that are largely incidental in a game of Commander right now and then add them to more aggressive decks that could be spawned from this change and the math for the combo players changes greatly.
Things become more risky because no longer does that player have the cushion to just wait for the perfect time and having to go for it early can often lead you into stalls or into other disruption.
Which both makes the combo less resilient, and makes it when it works all that more satisfying.
2) On playing Combo
There is a sentiment in this thread that certain combo is fine as long as you aren't going for it right away, but that betrays how decks in MTG are built. If I am making a combo deck and where the deck fits into archetypes is one of the earliest things I am thinking about when building, it is designed from the jump to work towards that game plan, every magic deck ever made is the same way. People aren't gonna wait to counter spells or remove pieces from the board, so the idea that opportunities should not be taken in this game to forward the game plan designed in the deck being played.
Finally I am never sure what the actual style of combo people want gone if only because I am seeing far fewer infinite combos in the games I am in (in fact Isochron Scepter / Dramatic Reversal is the only one I can count on reliably showing up), everything else is more traditional mtg combo building be it eggs, or storm or nauseam or Animar creature combos or some form of elf ball all of which are not infinite and require certain situations to reallly go off generally. Oh and Bomberman but I play that one because I have an LED and it also works so well with the new Wheel on MH1.
I feel like 30 life is the simplest and biggest change that I would like to see implemented.
It is kinda annoying because I play in mostly circles that people determine outside the scope and purview of the RC and Commander but cards being banned or not will still largely effect how I play the game even if I or the people I play with have no problem with those cards. However this has been happening since Prophet was banned so whatever.
If WotC printed more tutoring hosers, would it help?
We have 2 white creatures, 1 red enchantment, 1 blue artifact, and 2 Dimir Hybrid cards. Seems to me that if there were more of these available, it could help.
If WotC printed more tutoring hosers, would it help?
We have 2 white creatures, 1 red enchantment, 1 blue artifact, and 2 Dimir Hybrid cards. Seems to me that if there were more of these available, it could help.
There is also Ob Nixilis, Unshackled.
Honestly? No, not really, no. I don't think I've ever played any of those cards and I'm not likely to do so.
1) anything that inhibits people's ability to play is generally going to be a terrible political move. Sure, it stops vamp tutor into a fast combo - it also stops fetch lands, land ramp, and lots of relatively innocuous stuff. Which means everyone is going to want to either kill me, or kill my enchantment. It's not even going to be clear that it's preventing someone from tutoring a combo, up until they actually play the tutor after the enchantment is gone.
2) Most of the cards do basically nothing except hose. Which means they aren't ever going to be core to my strategy or fit with what I'm trying to do, and I'm never going to have much desire to play them. They're not interesting.
3) Most of them cost too much to stop the best tutors anyway.
4) Before I sit down, I don't know what I'm going to be playing against. If I knew I was going to be playing against turns.dec or a medium-speed combo deck, sure, I'd throw in strangehold, but I don't know that and I'm frequently not. I don't like having dead(ish) cards in my deck.
If WotC wanted me to actually play these things and have them actually be useful, I'd say something like:
Avatar of Whoah 1W
Creature - Avatar
Flash
If an opponent would search a library, that player searches the top eight cards of that library instead.
You may activate equip abilities any time you could cast an instant.
1/1
Or something like that. Give me a reason to want to play it outside of hosing tutors, make sure it doesn't hurt opponents doing relatively fair things, make it cost little enough that it actually matters vs good combo decks. I really doubt this will ever happen, though.
(I still say I'll never play Imperial Seal, topdecking at sorcery speed is bad, guys.)
You cannot be serious. Turn one Imperial seal is NEVER interacted with. After turn one, and decent deck has draw and treats it no differently than Mystical Tutor when trying to go off: Find what you need, then cast a cantrip and win.
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
The best hatebear in EDH is Notion Thief and it's not particularly close; the reason is because it's both asymmetrical *and* provides a concrete benefit. That's generally what the requirement is for hatebears to be good.
If you want a library hate search bear, it'd probably be best to be templated like:
If an opponent would search their library for a card, instead you both search the top 10 cards of your libraries with the same restrictions and reveal if
the effect requires it.
I would slot 3 mana Thalia into the really good EDH hatebear slot especially if like mine the manabase of the people you play with gets better over time, same with Aven Mindcensor which is the best of that style of library hate card. Dryad Militant also very good and has a huge target on it for a lot of decks.
I never see Alms Collector at all, and Notion Thief like new Narset I look at as a control/combo card moreso than a hatebear.
Again, 30 also lightly disrupts the ramp into infinity games. And helps people team up to kill established threats.
That was before I started playing EDH and I've been playing since 2012. From what I can tell from the changelog, that was before they even started keeping a changelog in 2009 (http://mtgcommander.net/EDH_Root/changelog.php)
I don't think it's comparable at all. The population is wildly different.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
That is laughably and demonstrably incorrect and it is obvious that you do not play with nor against Edgar Markov... or your opponents are super scrubs. Maybe a bit of both.
Casting three one drops is NOT over extending, nor does it leave your hand empty. The mass card draw that the deck has also means that you are NOT left with an empty hand.
Opening hand, 7 cards, draw to 8, play a land and a one drop down to 6 cards.
Turn two draw to 7, play a land and two one drops. 4 cards.
Turn 3 draw up to five, play a land and shared animosity go to three cards, kill a player because you swin for 36 and they have paid life and you have attacked on turn two.
Thy wrath you with three cards, you untap and draw up to 4 cards. Strange... that is not an empty hand, and with the 12-14 ways of tutoring and/or drawing available, it is very easy to rebuild both your board several times each game. It is not like decks run endless board wipes either. I have won multiple games against 4 or more board wipes and attempted wipes.
Not to mention that Scapegoat and Boros Charm are real cards which are complete blow outs against a board wipe attempt. Oh, the board is clear and I have all of my creatures. GG?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I would not suggest to ban all tutors. I may not like tutoring but it is still part of the game.
I just think the cheap ones could be banned to make people play the more expensive tutors or to play other less consistent options.
I think the number of tutors is the problem, and the 1-2 cmc tutors are the best candidates for banning.
I am not calling for a banning of tutors... any really. I know I don't like them but I am just one person. I know that I find they defy the nature of singleton but other people disagree.
I just think that if Sheldon feels like people are just all trying to race to combo at casual levels, then early tutors are the problem, not the combos themselves.
The number of combos in magic will only go up
The number of tutors will also go up, but the rates are not going to be as good as the 1-2 cmc tutors.
Consistency appears to be the issue, not the fact that people have combos in their decks.
You don't want decks to consistently combo, then ban 1-2 cmc tutors and make people play build differently.
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's a pretty huge list. And you'd need to get basically all of those or at least a good subset.
And that all is completely leaving aside the fact that there are a ton of generals with one card combos with cards like staff of domination, food chain and curiosity. One card combos are extremely easy to execute if that's your focus and there's a pretty significant variety.
Based on the number of people playing dark petition, ad nauseam, grim tutor, survival of the fittest, beseech the queen, idyllic tutor and fabricate and whir of invention and chord of calling and intuition there is no way you make more than a dent with just cheap tutors.
mystical teachings is another pretty strong option you'd see a lot more of if the cheaper ones were banned. Not to mention more exotic stuff like quiet speculation.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
One of my friends plays edgar and he's had a few explosive games...and a lot more total duds where he was basically inconsequential past the first few turns, and maybe one or two swingy turns where he played edgar before getting wrecked by a board wipe or whatever.
He's not on a budget either - I think he's got ABU duals and the like in there. I think it's even largely foiled out. I do think his deck could be built better, but there's nothing obviously wrong with it, and he's getting absolutely creamed most of the time. And I'm not even playing anything close to my most powerful decks.
Edgar is an aggro commander so good he's banned in 1v1. He SHOULD be scary to play against. You should have roughly the same feeling playing against Edgar, a premier aggro commander, as against one of the premier combo commanders - thrasios/tymna, gitfrog, urza, zur, yisan, etc. But even at 30 life I'd happily play against Edgar instead of one of those. Hell, in multiplayer I'd rather play against edgar at 15 life.
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
The most basic element of it is that when I stop a combo I'm down a card or two and the game goes on. When I stop an aggro deck I'm down 30 life (or 20, heh) and a card or two, and the game goes on. I'm much closer to death after stopping the aggro player.
Not all the time of course, but perhaps because I've got a punchable face, or because I try to be an uncommonly good sport about being focused on, I am the target of aggro players at a higher rate than you would expect in a 4 player game
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I know, it's just a saying but...it's a stupid saying. All you really mean, presumably, is "I'd rather not play against Edgar markov in 30 life rules". Which I think is totally fine. I'd rather not play against Gitfrog with ANY rules, but I still do it, because it's part of the game and people can be tryhards if they want. There SHOULD be aggro commanders you don't want to play against, just like there are so, so many combo ones.
You're only down on life if they've been targeting you. If you've been successfully politicking you'll be down an opponent or two, then you board wipe and you're way ahead. You know - hold up your removal for edgar turns and use it unless they promise not to attack you? Hold back threats so you aren't their biggest concern? Y'know, good politics? Can't help you with a punchable face, though. Maybe try plastic surgery?
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
Yes, I stand by the obvious meaning of the statement. Sorry for using a commonly understood idiom. But good use of everyone's time being the language police.
You're backsliding into just trying to score internet points again.
*Someone* is down on life regardless. I think the likelihood exists that the game would be less fun if there were more games that were decided by an early aggro explosion accidentally kingmaking someone. Maybe it's good, maybe not. I think possibly not at least.
It's definitely different than playing against combo players for me even now, and it would be much different with lower life totals.
edit: Re: tryhard decks - there are a lot more aggro decks than tryhard decks. I see about 3 Edgars for every Gitrog.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Yup.
Obviously, there are some cards I would include on the list that you didn't, and some that you did but I wouldn't. That's just opinion.
I am not saying that it will fix everything. It would just make it less consistent and drive people towards other strategies.
If you don't want people tutoring up the same combo every game, have fewer tutors. You can't ban every combo.
And I cannot think of another way to stop people from playing the same combo every time.
The idea isn't to stop people from tutoring. The idea is to effectively reduce the number of tutors available by closing the door on the most flexible and popular tutors. A monoblack deck may still have Dark Petition and Beseech the Queen, but if they need a critical number of tutors to get their combo, they are going to be forced to play Diabolic Tutor or they are going to be forced to change the makeup of their deck.
If you banned these tutors on your list, I think most people would just put in good cards to replace them. Decks that are dependent on tutoring will be forced to adapt themselves.
The only other thing that anyone has said that I think could be viable (but weird to implement) would be to change the rules of EDH so there is an emblem in the command zone that says: "If you would search your library for a card, search only the top 20 cards". Something like that.
It is the consistency of tutoring combos that would need to be addressed by the RC if Sheldon feels there is a problem with the current state of commander.
If not, then do not change anything.
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
It wouldn't take very long going 1-3 at a time that playing combos would start to have a real cost; you wind up playing garbage cards like mischievous quanar or stuffy doll.
The problem with combo today is more than tutors in my opinion; it's that too many combo cards are just damned fine cards on their own these days. Baaack in my day we had to slum it with rings of brighthearth and staff of domination and 3 card infinite mana combos that required an outlet.
Nowadays the kids play 4 mana infinite mana combos and a general with a mana sink, and both cards are pretty playable on their own.
Again, I don't think that this is necessarily, well, necessary. But I think it's a far more responsible approach than trying to ban an entire class of card, all the good mana rocks, or adding weird awkward rules that require people counting 20 cards from the top of their library every time they want to tutor, etc. Or even making major changes to the structure of the rules that have stood for 10 years.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I dislike the term "kingmaking", and I don't think it applies to this circumstance. Using the google definition:
The aggro player doesn't have "no chance to win" (well, maybe at 40 life that's kind of true, but ideally that wouldn't be the case). They're playing to win, and the actions they take to accomplish that win - regardless of whether or not they win - will have an impact on which player DOES win. Which is as it should be, no? If a player had no impact whatsoever on which deck won, I'd say that's not a good game. What definition of kingmaking are you using?
Edgar is a recent precon commander with casual appeal, so I'm not shocked you're seeing a lot of him. A comparison of 2 random commanders from the different archetypes probably isn't the fairest way to determine which more popular. And really, I consider the problem less to be that combo is the best archetype, and more than even "noncombo" decks are being pushed to include combos just as a way to finish the game because of the ridiculous life totals. At least in my playgroup, even the aggro decks are secret combo decks, and combos end an obnoxious number of games.
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
I was unclear that I mean metaphorically I see 3 aggro decks for every tryhard combo deck perhaps. But that was my intended meaning there. I suspect that aggro-ish decks (aggro-ramp or true aggro) are probably about twice as common as dedicated combo if not more. But among the casual crowd I think you'll see more aggro with lower life totals.
And honesty I don't enjoy aggro games very much; it's again not about what I want, but I will say anecdotally most players don't love getting aggro'd. I used to play a very aggressive Skullbriar deck that would typically kill someone on turn 4 or so and then lose. Nothing but complaints about that.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Definitions for aggro are a little hard to nail down in commander imo, but I would describe my own meta as having very few truly aggressive decks, and a lot of midrangy decks. There are few dedicated combo decks either...although I'm not sure how dedicated is "dedicated". But none of that's super helpful - I think the more relevant question is how many games end via combo? And in the games I've played locally, I'd say it's something like:
45% I win (non-combo, usually non-bursty)
30% someone else wins (combo)
15% someone else wins (noncombo but bursty wincons like expropriate or rain of hailfire)
10% someone else wins (noncombo, non-bursty)
This is obviously pretty speculative on my part, but I think it illustrates the problem I have with the direction the game has gone - it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
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
Hit the nail on the head. Tutors are inherently good in a singleton format, so good even bad ones like Diabolic Tutor can find their way into budget lists. (I still say I'll never play Imperial Seal, topdecking at sorcery speed is bad, guys.) It's a big reason I play cards like Aven Mindcensor and Stranglehold in relevant decks. I also like using Rule of Law and Arcane Laboratory to harass combo players. (Seriously, just play one of those and watch a lot of combo decks just turn to dust.)
Want to stop combo decks? Now you can see how. Also, if it looks like another player is about to win, let us control players do our thing.
On phasing:
re: Ramp - I think you're probably trying to draw the comparison out further than it is meant to be. In EDH, ramp decks are gonna ramp. The point is merely that ramp decks aiming to ramp harder is a potential consequence of making games faster because if they want to keep playing bombs they need to be even more consistent about ramping. Perhaps they will play more interaction but I think that this is probably not likely - they'll play bombs that stabilize (e.g. Thragtusk and Wurmcoil Engine instead of [card]Ulamog, the Ceaseles
In general I think aggro decks often determine the outcome of games despite having very little chance to survive once they become arch-enemy by killing (or nearly killing) another player and having a dominant board state. And I do consider that accidental kingmaking even if their intention is to win, but only if they are very unlikely to win.
I am unsure whether lowering the life total would actually help aggro players or just make this scenario of the aggro player determining the winner be more common. I suspect it's possibly a bit of both so it might be a wash--both aggro players killing at least one person but also aggro players might win more?
Generally speaking I do think that lowering the life total will make it much more likely for one player to die early, which is not something I think is great for the format -- more bench time is not desirable in my opinion.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
1) On 30 Life
I think something that gets quickly lost in these threads when changing the starting life total comes up is that it isn't that the Aggro player has to deal 90 damage instead of 120.
It is that cracking a fetch and shocking a land into play puts you at 27 instead of 37, that is the change that is HUGE, a lost Mana Crypt flip to name another card that comes up here a bunch is a 1/10th of your life, even higher power staples like Fire Covenant and Toxic Deluge really change as the life total does.
You take the forms of life loss that are largely incidental in a game of Commander right now and then add them to more aggressive decks that could be spawned from this change and the math for the combo players changes greatly.
Things become more risky because no longer does that player have the cushion to just wait for the perfect time and having to go for it early can often lead you into stalls or into other disruption.
Which both makes the combo less resilient, and makes it when it works all that more satisfying.
2) On playing Combo
There is a sentiment in this thread that certain combo is fine as long as you aren't going for it right away, but that betrays how decks in MTG are built. If I am making a combo deck and where the deck fits into archetypes is one of the earliest things I am thinking about when building, it is designed from the jump to work towards that game plan, every magic deck ever made is the same way. People aren't gonna wait to counter spells or remove pieces from the board, so the idea that opportunities should not be taken in this game to forward the game plan designed in the deck being played.
Finally I am never sure what the actual style of combo people want gone if only because I am seeing far fewer infinite combos in the games I am in (in fact Isochron Scepter / Dramatic Reversal is the only one I can count on reliably showing up), everything else is more traditional mtg combo building be it eggs, or storm or nauseam or Animar creature combos or some form of elf ball all of which are not infinite and require certain situations to reallly go off generally. Oh and Bomberman but I play that one because I have an LED and it also works so well with the new Wheel on MH1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like 30 life is the simplest and biggest change that I would like to see implemented.
It is kinda annoying because I play in mostly circles that people determine outside the scope and purview of the RC and Commander but cards being banned or not will still largely effect how I play the game even if I or the people I play with have no problem with those cards. However this has been happening since Prophet was banned so whatever.
We have 2 white creatures, 1 red enchantment, 1 blue artifact, and 2 Dimir Hybrid cards. Seems to me that if there were more of these available, it could help.
There is also Ob Nixilis, Unshackled.
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
https://twitter.com/SheldonMenery/status/1146299075815464962
"Full announcement and updated philosophy document coming on Monday."
1) anything that inhibits people's ability to play is generally going to be a terrible political move. Sure, it stops vamp tutor into a fast combo - it also stops fetch lands, land ramp, and lots of relatively innocuous stuff. Which means everyone is going to want to either kill me, or kill my enchantment. It's not even going to be clear that it's preventing someone from tutoring a combo, up until they actually play the tutor after the enchantment is gone.
2) Most of the cards do basically nothing except hose. Which means they aren't ever going to be core to my strategy or fit with what I'm trying to do, and I'm never going to have much desire to play them. They're not interesting.
3) Most of them cost too much to stop the best tutors anyway.
4) Before I sit down, I don't know what I'm going to be playing against. If I knew I was going to be playing against turns.dec or a medium-speed combo deck, sure, I'd throw in strangehold, but I don't know that and I'm frequently not. I don't like having dead(ish) cards in my deck.
If WotC wanted me to actually play these things and have them actually be useful, I'd say something like:
Avatar of Whoah 1W
Creature - Avatar
Flash
If an opponent would search a library, that player searches the top eight cards of that library instead.
You may activate equip abilities any time you could cast an instant.
1/1
Or something like that. Give me a reason to want to play it outside of hosing tutors, make sure it doesn't hurt opponents doing relatively fair things, make it cost little enough that it actually matters vs good combo decks. I really doubt this will ever happen, though.
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
Alms Collector is another decent one.
If you want a library hate search bear, it'd probably be best to be templated like:
If an opponent would search their library for a card, instead you both search the top 10 cards of your libraries with the same restrictions and reveal if
the effect requires it.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I never see Alms Collector at all, and Notion Thief like new Narset I look at as a control/combo card moreso than a hatebear.
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