I love the salt coming from r/MTGfinance for example
"I think PE should be banned, that being said, I don't think Sheldon should be the final say on bans anymore but I also think the ban list should be binding and not a suggestion.
I don't know what the right answer is but it def feels bad having a singular PLAYER be able to cut or add millions of dollars from/to magic collections world wide with a tweet."
As far as I know, that's not even how it works. I'm under the impression the RC is more democratic. I'm sure Sheldon's opinion carries a whole lot more, maybe the most, gravitas behind it, but that only goes so far. The idea of King Menery and his Court of Merry Men dictating bans from a single mind doesn't really add up to the impressions the RC gives at each B/R update.
I love the salt coming from r/MTGfinance for example
"I think PE should be banned, that being said, I don't think Sheldon should be the final say on bans anymore but I also think the ban list should be binding and not a suggestion.
I don't know what the right answer is but it def feels bad having a singular PLAYER be able to cut or add millions of dollars from/to magic collections world wide with a tweet."
As far as I know, that's not even how it works. I'm under the impression the RC is more democratic. I'm sure Sheldon's opinion carries a whole lot more, maybe the most, gravitas behind it, but that only goes so far. The idea of King Menery and his Court of Merry Men dictating bans from a single mind doesn't really add up to the impressions the RC gives at each B/R update.
It's not even close, they meet up or meet via discord or something and talk and then take a vote but like i said i love the tears out of that subreddit
As far as I know, that's not even how it works. I'm under the impression the RC is more democratic. I'm sure Sheldon's opinion carries a whole lot more, maybe the most, gravitas behind it, but that only goes so far. The idea of King Menery and his Court of Merry Men dictating bans from a single mind doesn't really add up to the impressions the RC gives at each B/R update.
If we take them at their word (and honestly, if we can't then discussing or even worrying about the RC is pointless), the process is democratic with each member of the RC (not CAG) giving a -2 to +2 vote. -2 or +2 means they feel strongly about their position, -1 or +1 is they want the change but aren't pushing hard for it, and 0 is indifferent to it. And I guess there is some total score threshold, but honestly not sure what that is.
Wow. Banning Paradox Engine, that requires alot of setup to actually go nuts, but keeping various A+B Combos in the Format. I seriously don't get Sheldon. I think both bans are utter nonsense.
Literally just started getting into commander from competetive legacy and kitchen vintage, I never liked commander as a format to begin with but had a bunch of friends so I thought why not just one deck. I recently just Finished an All ANGEL deck and one of the cards that inspired me was iona. The deck is casual because everything is high cmc and i usually dont win much, if at all with the deck. Iona made it possible to stay in those games. Now im thinking I'll just ditch commander because frankly it inst a fun format for me. I have more fun in competitive legacy and casual 60 card kitchen table magic. I gave commander several shots and its just not a good format or fun. I have people with "casual" decks kill me on turn 3 and 4, or basically aggro me down with infect on t4. Id rather have a chance on equal ground with my 60 card decks. Why am I making this post? Giving you insight from someone who tried to have fun in commander. Two cents.
Literally just started getting into commander from competetive legacy and kitchen vintage, I never liked commander as a format to begin with but had a bunch of friends so I thought why not just one deck. I recently just Finished an All ANGEL deck and one of the cards that inspired me was iona. The deck is casual because everything is high cmc and i usually dont win much, if at all with the deck. Iona made it possible to stay in those games. Now im thinking I'll just ditch commander because frankly it inst a fun format for me. I have more fun in competitive legacy and casual 60 card kitchen table magic. I gave commander several shots and its just not a good format or fun. I have people with "casual" decks kill me on turn 3 and 4, or basically aggro me down with infect on t4. Id rather have a chance on equal ground with my 60 card decks. Why am I making this post? Giving you insight from someone who tried to have fun in commander. Two cents.
Oathbreaker might be what you're looking to get out of a casual format in Magic despite being more degenerate than Commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Literally just started getting into commander from competetive legacy and kitchen vintage, I never liked commander as a format to begin with but had a bunch of friends so I thought why not just one deck. I recently just Finished an All ANGEL deck and one of the cards that inspired me was iona. The deck is casual because everything is high cmc and i usually dont win much, if at all with the deck. Iona made it possible to stay in those games. Now im thinking I'll just ditch commander because frankly it inst a fun format for me. I have more fun in competitive legacy and casual 60 card kitchen table magic. I gave commander several shots and its just not a good format or fun. I have people with "casual" decks kill me on turn 3 and 4, or basically aggro me down with infect on t4. Id rather have a chance on equal ground with my 60 card decks. Why am I making this post? Giving you insight from someone who tried to have fun in commander. Two cents.
I think if you never liked the format, and you went into it hating it, and you still hate it, then saying you're gonna quit because one card was banned is a little silly. Quit because you don't like the format!
Good riddance to both these cards. Iona is awful, and I was sick of feeling pressured to play Paradox Engine in every one of my decks just to go infinite with it. The card literally served no other purpose than to slowly bleed the game to death.
I got a question regarding a card if it will ever get banned. Its about cyclonic rift. The card seems to me very powerfull being instant speed and only your opponents. There are a number of other options you have if it ever gets banned
If we take them at their word (and honestly, if we can't then discussing or even worrying about the RC is pointless), the process is democratic with each member of the RC (not CAG) giving a -2 to +2 vote. -2 or +2 means they feel strongly about their position, -1 or +1 is they want the change but aren't pushing hard for it, and 0 is indifferent to it. And I guess there is some total score threshold, but honestly not sure what that is.
The threshold for a ban or unban is +2, which means that two members vehemently against a ban/unban can keep it from happening but two members vehemently for a ban/unban can override the other two members being on average only a little against it.
I got a question regarding a card if it will ever get banned. Its about cyclonic rift. The card seems to me very powerfull being instant speed and only your opponents. There are a number of other options you have if it ever gets banned
There's some support for banning Rift among the RC/CAG, but there wasn't enough to ban it this time around.
The threshold for a ban or unban is +2, which means that two members vehemently against a ban/unban can keep it from happening but two members vehemently for a ban/unban can override the other two members being on average only a little against it.
Ok, thanks. That was the only mystery left of their meetings that I was unsure of.
Paradox Engine getting banned is whatever; I didn't mind playing against it, never played with it, but it's such a casually strong card that I won't mourn it.
Painter's Servant getting unbanned is good; it's another combo piece for a format full of them and won't break anything. I don't personally know many people who will just goof with it, which is a shame, but it's a neat card and I'm glad the people who will goof with it have a chance.
Iona getting banned is annoying, but whatever--it's the silly reasoning given in the official post that has me steamed
So you're telling me that after a decade of the card existing as it is it's now, just now, that the RC is all "well it turns out reanimator exists! how could we have forgotten??"
Seriously people, y'all got convinced to unban PS (again, not a bad move!) and you didn't want to deal with it and Iona in the format simultaneously. I don't think having them both around is any more or less degenerate than a laundry list of things you can do, but that's neither here nor there. Y'all, as the RC, don't want to put up with that. And that's your prerogative. Just say as much.
Don't give us a song and dance that makes you sound like you just realized that Iona exists; it's disingenuous. Just say you don't want Iona and PS in the format at the same time.
hint: the format would be fine with both in it. Just like it would be fine with Gifts Ungiven back in it. It's not 2008 anymore. The stated intended audience for the ban list is not the group that gets wrecked by these cards. It's the 7/10 players who don't want to jump into cEDH but also don't want to derp around that don't want to put up with strong combo pieces and how semi-spikes play them.
This decision is quite clearly something where the new CAG had its hand in. Which is good. But they are new and this is the first Banlist announcement where they were fully engaged (if I understand correctly). I don't believe for a second that PS and Iona were a "swap" ban. Iona was banned because she is obnoxious in this format and the CAG argued as such. And PS, as a ban, didn't really make sense in the context of the rest of the ban list (as JqlGirl has argued in this thread). That they happened to come off at the same time is likely more coincidental than anything. While I could see where not having Iona was certainly a point in PS's favor I don't believe Iona was banned solely because they wanted PS unbanned and the RC has definitely known of Iona for a long time and the feel bad moments she created. The CAG's input simply seems to have moved their thought of her to "over the line".
I do agree about Gifts though. While it would be a powerful card, it would likely just be a powerful card in a sea of other powerful cards. I can see where they want to be cautious, which is fine as papa_funk said they are kind of watching PS too, so letting two questionable cards loose at the same time is probably more than they want. Over time, and perhaps with more CAG and RC deliberation, maybe Gifts will be free at some point.
This decision is quite clearly something where the new CAG had its hand in. Which is good. But they are new and this is the first Banlist announcement where they were fully engaged (if I understand correctly). I don't believe for a second that PS and Iona were a "swap" ban. Iona was banned because she is obnoxious in this format and the CAG argued as such. And PS, as a ban, didn't really make sense in the context of the rest of the ban list (as JqlGirl has argued in this thread). That they happened to come off at the same time is likely more coincidental than anything. While I could see where not having Iona was certainly a point in PS's favor I don't believe Iona was banned solely because they wanted PS unbanned and the RC has definitely known of Iona for a long time and the feel bad moments she created. The CAG's input simply seems to have moved their thought of her to "over the line".
First off PS, even though it shouldn't have been banned in the first place, was not unique in the context of the ban list. PS was banned for a being the enabler for Not Good Things with the kicker that the interactions going forward would only get worse. It's like Recurring Nightmare getting banned for enabling Not Good Things, except RN is comically difficult to deal with and justifiably banned. Now, the kicker of banning against future interactions was certainly unique, and bad, but PS was banned for being an enabler. And that's not unique.
Next, the CAG supporting PS getting unbanned and Iona getting banned is the same thing. Iona was the biggest reason PS got banned in the first place. Putting her in the sin bin was the easiest path to getting PS unbanned. Ignoring this means you're also ignoring the vast majority of the "unban PS" conversation that's taken place online the past several years.
Lastly, if the RC really did just happen to ban Iona independent of its decision to free PS, then their release doesn't reflect that. It's written as if Iona is a new card printed in the past year, and gosh they sure did want to give it a shot, but shucks, it didn't work out! The circumstances that were listed in the ban announcement have existed since the card's creation. You could even argue that she hasn't really gotten stronger; there aren't any new interactions with her that exacerbate the problem beyond, what, Helm of the Hosts? Was anyone doing that?
Just say, "Hey, you know what? It's gone on long enough. Iona is a profound net negative for the format and we're done protecting her." Don't make it sound like you just discovered that cheating creatures into play is a thing.
also bring back Banned as Commander new players aren't smooth brained babies they can understand the concept kthx
Darn, the Engine I bought for $9 at release and turned into $50 some time ago is now $10. Curse it all, I made $1!
Well, it was fun and I got two years of solid pubstomping with my good ol' engine. Definitely one of my favorite powerful cards of all time, right up there with necropotence and grim monolith. Sad to see it go, but it was all so worth it.
Faith in the RC is definitely at an all-time low after this one.
The PE ban follows a long trend of random bans that don't adhere to any sort of consistent logic, and even EDH content creators are finally beginning to grumble about it. Hell, the scions of casual EDH from Command Zone and Goldfish mentioned in their recent videos that they don't agree with the PE ban and feel like these decisions are made using inconsistent metrics.
When people playing at the lower levels think you're banning the wrong stuff, and you aggressively proclaim that you don't care about people playing at the higher power levels, who exactly is your audience?
What a ridiculous assessment. "Long trend of random bans"? During this ban announcement Iona was banned and she has been "grumbled" about being legal for a long time and the RC finally took action against it. PE hasn't been around as long but has also had its detractors. Prior to this, we had Leovold banned on 04/24/2017 (over 2 years ago) and prior to that, in January 2016, we had Prophet of Kruphix banned. Going back to January of 2015, those have been the only bans in 4.5 years. I am not going to go back any further because these show that your "long trend" is essentially "this most recent announcement" which is dumb.
The RC, for the most part, has been content to let the format live on its own and has repeatedly shown they are avoiding being heavy handed with the format. 4 bans in a 4.5 year period (with 2 being this announcement) is nothing. We also got 2 unbans in that time period. Hell, Standard has had more bans than that.
People are fine to complain about PE (and Iona if they want to, though that seems like the less "controversial" banning) but it does not serve one's cause to make this something it is not. It is the first unbanning in a year and both cards have been discussed by a number of people on both sides. The RC, with the input of the CAG, felt these two cards did not foster the types of games they wanted the format to be about.
And I will say that I think both were absolutely the right bans. You may have a complaint about it, but don't make your voice the voice of everyone at "lower levels" because it is not. As for WotC taking it over, they already tried that online and they failed miserably. They ended up having to back out their banlist for Multiplayer after 3-6 months or so. Wizards does fine with tournament formats (not perfect, but good enough overall) but they have already shown they have no idea how a ban list should look for EDH because they want to handle it like a tournament format.
So, no, dissent over a single ban is not enough to start proclaiming the sky is falling and that the RC is out of touch. It is a severe overreaction to a decision a subset of people find poor. It is nowhere near unanimous that this is a bad decision.
And, for some metrics (using the current data we have):
There is a survey that is going around that currently has 9000+ responses. Within that survey, regarding the 4 most recent bans above, here is where things stand (do note the percentages are a little higher as they don't count people who said "no changes" so I added that percentage in parenthesis):
More people want Coalition Victory unbanned than PE and almost as many people want Gifts Ungiven. And I would wager a lot of those responses for PE are more emotional than logical. Not to say the number will change a lot in the long run but I would expect it would go down once people stop to think about it. And, who knows; maybe it will go up later but what we have is what we have for now.
But, the point is that less than 40% of people want it unbanned. Your dissent over this ban isn't even the majority opinion. Likely there are plenty of people that are indifferent to the ban but this still shows that less than the majority actually want it back.
As for faith in the RC:
38.3% are either Extremely or Moderately Satisfied with the RC. If we add in those that are still satisfied but only "Somewhat" the number goes to 52.3.
Only 35.8 people are dissatisfied (using the same ratings of "Extremely", "Moderately", or "Somewhat").
11.8% are in the middle.
I would be curious to see your data showing this is a lower number than any previous lows in "all time" numbers. But, again, your statements seem a bit hyperbolic and I would wager that at least some of the dissatisfaction comes about directly from PE's banning and these numbers coming so soon after that. Not sure how much this would change in a year or so.
Also worth pointing out is that I realize not everyone everywhere is going to take this survey and there will be people on both sides that are not included in it. But 9,000+ people is a reasonable sample size to discuss the points brought up
To defend the position about random bans, let us look at what I personally see as the RC's mistakes in a relatively ordered series (which you're free to disagree with me on but I'm by far not the only one who sees most or all of these as incorrect):
-Planeswalkers still not legal as commanders (no good reason available and people definitely want it).
-Paradox Engine banned (note that I've never played with the card, only against it).
-Protean Hulk unbanned while Flash is unbanned (this is very obviously not ok).
-Prophet of Kruphix banned (this card is and was strong but fine as long as people run removal).
-Banned as commander removed because EDH players are ostensibly too stupid to read two tiny lists.
-Metalworker unbanned (this card is incredibly not safe).
-Tuck rule changed (no non-emotional reason given to take away the ability to answer broken generals).
-Sylvan Primordial banned (was annoying but never a problem).
-Kokusho banned as commander (was never a problem and in fact got unbanned later).
-Primeval Titan banned (was very good but in lower power games but never a problem).
-Worldfire banned (completely safe joke card).
-Sundering Titan banned (was annoying but never a problem).
-Tolarian Academy banned while Gaea's Cradle remains legal (I can see banning both or neither).
-Staff of Domination banned (was never a problem and in fact got unbanned later).
-Painter's Servant banned (noting that I agree with the recent swap-ban)
-Sol Ring not banned, Mana Crypt not banned, Mana Vault not banned, Ad Nauseam not banned, Hermit Druid not banned (if banning format breakers is a concern, which they claim it is).
-Winter Orb not banned, Static Orb not banned, Contamination not banned, Armageddon not banned, Ravages of War not banned, Jokulhaups not banned, Obliterate not banned, etc. (if banning 'unfun' cards is a concern, which they claim it is).
-Coalition Victory banned, Gifts Ungiven banned, Library of Alexandria banned, Recurring Nightmare banned, Sway of the Stars banned, Upheaval banned (these are all incredibly silly for various reasons).
As for the CAG's involvement in the PE ban, do you consume any media put out by CAG members? There really wasn't a lot of support for the PE ban among them, and it appears that the RC acted unilaterally on that one against the opinions of more informed and community-active advisors. Most people seem to realize that PE was just one more in a long line of high-cmc combo pieces (albeit a really good one) that is both outclassed by still-legal cards and easily answered. There was dramatically more support for banning Cyclonic Rift (which I find hilarious, but it would definitely be a more reasonable ban due to ubiquity than PE in spite of being silly on its face).
To the point of WotC's divisive initial foray into a Commander banlist, I'd say that their attempt was 1) a way better first stab than the RC's by a large margin, 2) always doomed to failure because MTGO is a horrible place to play EDH since you lose the social aspect and it devolves into mono-cEDH, 3) always doomed to failure because human beings despise sudden change.
The reality is that WotC has a much more vested and active interest in seeing EDH be a healthy and flourishing format, where the RC has proven that they don't really want to have their hands in it except to make emotional decisions based on their own narrow set of experiences. Hell, Sheldon has admitted fairly recently that he basically lives in an EDH bubble, and that he would both be trying to get outside of said bubble and seeking outside advice for the format (read: the CAG). Unfortunately he seems intent on ignoring his new sources, and everything he's said recently re: combo on social media smacks of a cave hermit hissing at the sun after seeing it for the first time in a decade.
As far as that survey goes, the current numbers tell me the following:
-There is a statistically significant contingent that think many of the things I listed above about the change-log are true. Not the majority, but a large percentage none-the-less.
-Human logic (ie: people hate change) would dictate that PE/Iona/PS numbers are inflated right now, but the flip-side of that is absolutely all of the 'no change, things are good as is' votes are exactly as likely to be suspect.
-Less people are 'very satisfied' with this announcement than any other option, and the majority of people who have an opinion either way are unhappy about this.
-Approval ratings for the RC are lower than happiness with the format as a whole, indicating that people love EDH, but the consensus is that that RC could be doing a better job.
My opinion that faith in the RC is at an all-time low is not based in data (as yours isn't, we don't have a history of polling to look at) but from observing reactions in all the communities I'm a part of. I work and live in the absolute center of Magic, and my casual players are upset that their fun toy got taken away while the cards that make them sad keep getting a pass, my 75%ers are confused by the decisions being made, and my cEDH folks are laughing about how out of touch the RC is with what is actually broken about the format.
Variant formats are cropping up left and right of late, indicating a desire for change in the core EDH format. The popularity of Oathbreaker speaks to the desire for planeswalkers to be legal as commanders, the rise of Canlander speaks to the desire for more sane power-level management, and the very existence of 2DH speaks to unhappiness with the balance of what is playable in the format.
These are anecdotal bits of information, but given that I play at one of the top-rated LGS's in the world, work in the industry, and regularly break bread with high-profile content creators and WotC employees, I feel like my anecdotal evidence is relevant. Yes this is vague and very 'my dad works at Nintendo' of me but I love my job and would like to keep it.
At the same time, and perhaps more telling, the rhetoric from content creators who have historically been extremely supportive of the RC has shifted as of this announcement, and on multiple occasions the opinion that bans are made kinda randomly has been floated on air in front of huge online audiences. You can tell that in their response video that Command Zone's Josh Lee Kwai was restraining himself from calling the PE ban stupid, or venting his frustration that the CAG's voice was ignored on this one. He even went so far as to distance himself from the decision and say he had no part in it. This is a line-toeing member of the CAG (not a spicy dissenter) saying that a mistake was made and subtly implying that the RC is not doing their job right. Hell, Saffron (the most insanely and utterly casual of casual players) said the same things. Whether these guys are indicative of the opinions of the playerbase as a whole is less important than the way their opinions will in fact shape the opinions of the playerbase.
Confidence is absolutely lower than I've ever seen it, regardless of the exact numerical value being above or below 50%.
You cannot have a 3rd party that exists in the secondary market be in charge of a banlist. It leads to corruption. Prime example unbanning Painter's Servant. Any player who's been in mtg awhile knows the cards that are inherently used around this and can just hoard them, unban servant and sell out.
It's insider trading and WotC needs to take over the banlist before this gets out of hand.
Yes, I'm sure that a Wizards employee, a level 5 judge, a PhD, and a dude who writes for SCG weekly, gets an active duty military pension, and has a rocket scientist wife need to skim a couple of bucks by unbanning cards just to flip them.
As not-happy as I am with the RC at the moment under no circumstances do I think WotC should take over
For better or worse the idea of "just goof around" is the foundation of the format and I have no faith that WotC would take the time to maintain it. We'd wind up with a vastly different format, and that's not what I think we should be striving for.
To rewind to the middle of a previous post I don't feel like chopping up and editing to quote, I think Coalition Victory is the most-wanted card on the banlist because, based on my own scientific assumptions, a large portion of the EDH crowd recognize that as cheesy as it is it's a super weak card. It is certainly emblematic of a kind of wincon the RC doesn't want to encourage, and I genuinely understand that, but hoo boy it's the saddest, weakest card on the banlist by a country mile.
You cannot have a 3rd party that exists in the secondary market be in charge of a banlist. It leads to corruption. Prime example unbanning Painter's Servant. Any player who's been in mtg awhile knows the cards that are inherently used around this and can just hoard them, unban servant and sell out.
It's insider trading and WotC needs to take over the banlist before this gets out of hand.
Yes, I'm sure that a Wizards employee, a level 5 judge, a PhD, and a dude who writes for SCG weekly, gets an active duty military pension, and has a rocket scientist wife need to skim a couple of bucks by unbanning cards just to flip them.
which one has the Rocket scientist wife or is this just one person?
As far as I know, that's not even how it works. I'm under the impression the RC is more democratic. I'm sure Sheldon's opinion carries a whole lot more, maybe the most, gravitas behind it, but that only goes so far. The idea of King Menery and his Court of Merry Men dictating bans from a single mind doesn't really add up to the impressions the RC gives at each B/R update.
It's not even close, they meet up or meet via discord or something and talk and then take a vote but like i said i love the tears out of that subreddit
If we take them at their word (and honestly, if we can't then discussing or even worrying about the RC is pointless), the process is democratic with each member of the RC (not CAG) giving a -2 to +2 vote. -2 or +2 means they feel strongly about their position, -1 or +1 is they want the change but aren't pushing hard for it, and 0 is indifferent to it. And I guess there is some total score threshold, but honestly not sure what that is.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Thank you. I agree completely.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
As for the bans, I won't shed tears.
I think if you never liked the format, and you went into it hating it, and you still hate it, then saying you're gonna quit because one card was banned is a little silly. Quit because you don't like the format!
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
The threshold for a ban or unban is +2, which means that two members vehemently against a ban/unban can keep it from happening but two members vehemently for a ban/unban can override the other two members being on average only a little against it.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Ok, thanks. That was the only mystery left of their meetings that I was unsure of.
Please don't.
===============================
Hey Charlotte, I don't feel like repeating myself, but my thoughts on the updated philosophy are here in case you want feedback.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Paradox Engine getting banned is whatever; I didn't mind playing against it, never played with it, but it's such a casually strong card that I won't mourn it.
Painter's Servant getting unbanned is good; it's another combo piece for a format full of them and won't break anything. I don't personally know many people who will just goof with it, which is a shame, but it's a neat card and I'm glad the people who will goof with it have a chance.
Iona getting banned is annoying, but whatever--it's the silly reasoning given in the official post that has me steamed
So you're telling me that after a decade of the card existing as it is it's now, just now, that the RC is all "well it turns out reanimator exists! how could we have forgotten??"
Seriously people, y'all got convinced to unban PS (again, not a bad move!) and you didn't want to deal with it and Iona in the format simultaneously. I don't think having them both around is any more or less degenerate than a laundry list of things you can do, but that's neither here nor there. Y'all, as the RC, don't want to put up with that. And that's your prerogative. Just say as much.
Don't give us a song and dance that makes you sound like you just realized that Iona exists; it's disingenuous. Just say you don't want Iona and PS in the format at the same time.
hint: the format would be fine with both in it. Just like it would be fine with Gifts Ungiven back in it. It's not 2008 anymore. The stated intended audience for the ban list is not the group that gets wrecked by these cards. It's the 7/10 players who don't want to jump into cEDH but also don't want to derp around that don't want to put up with strong combo pieces and how semi-spikes play them.
I do agree about Gifts though. While it would be a powerful card, it would likely just be a powerful card in a sea of other powerful cards. I can see where they want to be cautious, which is fine as papa_funk said they are kind of watching PS too, so letting two questionable cards loose at the same time is probably more than they want. Over time, and perhaps with more CAG and RC deliberation, maybe Gifts will be free at some point.
First off PS, even though it shouldn't have been banned in the first place, was not unique in the context of the ban list. PS was banned for a being the enabler for Not Good Things with the kicker that the interactions going forward would only get worse. It's like Recurring Nightmare getting banned for enabling Not Good Things, except RN is comically difficult to deal with and justifiably banned. Now, the kicker of banning against future interactions was certainly unique, and bad, but PS was banned for being an enabler. And that's not unique.
Next, the CAG supporting PS getting unbanned and Iona getting banned is the same thing. Iona was the biggest reason PS got banned in the first place. Putting her in the sin bin was the easiest path to getting PS unbanned. Ignoring this means you're also ignoring the vast majority of the "unban PS" conversation that's taken place online the past several years.
Lastly, if the RC really did just happen to ban Iona independent of its decision to free PS, then their release doesn't reflect that. It's written as if Iona is a new card printed in the past year, and gosh they sure did want to give it a shot, but shucks, it didn't work out! The circumstances that were listed in the ban announcement have existed since the card's creation. You could even argue that she hasn't really gotten stronger; there aren't any new interactions with her that exacerbate the problem beyond, what, Helm of the Hosts? Was anyone doing that?
Just say, "Hey, you know what? It's gone on long enough. Iona is a profound net negative for the format and we're done protecting her." Don't make it sound like you just discovered that cheating creatures into play is a thing.
also bring back Banned as Commander new players aren't smooth brained babies they can understand the concept kthx
Well, it was fun and I got two years of solid pubstomping with my good ol' engine. Definitely one of my favorite powerful cards of all time, right up there with necropotence and grim monolith. Sad to see it go, but it was all so worth it.
The PE ban follows a long trend of random bans that don't adhere to any sort of consistent logic, and even EDH content creators are finally beginning to grumble about it. Hell, the scions of casual EDH from Command Zone and Goldfish mentioned in their recent videos that they don't agree with the PE ban and feel like these decisions are made using inconsistent metrics.
When people playing at the lower levels think you're banning the wrong stuff, and you aggressively proclaim that you don't care about people playing at the higher power levels, who exactly is your audience?
Definitely time for WotC to take over.
The RC, for the most part, has been content to let the format live on its own and has repeatedly shown they are avoiding being heavy handed with the format. 4 bans in a 4.5 year period (with 2 being this announcement) is nothing. We also got 2 unbans in that time period. Hell, Standard has had more bans than that.
People are fine to complain about PE (and Iona if they want to, though that seems like the less "controversial" banning) but it does not serve one's cause to make this something it is not. It is the first unbanning in a year and both cards have been discussed by a number of people on both sides. The RC, with the input of the CAG, felt these two cards did not foster the types of games they wanted the format to be about.
And I will say that I think both were absolutely the right bans. You may have a complaint about it, but don't make your voice the voice of everyone at "lower levels" because it is not. As for WotC taking it over, they already tried that online and they failed miserably. They ended up having to back out their banlist for Multiplayer after 3-6 months or so. Wizards does fine with tournament formats (not perfect, but good enough overall) but they have already shown they have no idea how a ban list should look for EDH because they want to handle it like a tournament format.
So, no, dissent over a single ban is not enough to start proclaiming the sky is falling and that the RC is out of touch. It is a severe overreaction to a decision a subset of people find poor. It is nowhere near unanimous that this is a bad decision.
And, for some metrics (using the current data we have):
There is a survey that is going around that currently has 9000+ responses. Within that survey, regarding the 4 most recent bans above, here is where things stand (do note the percentages are a little higher as they don't count people who said "no changes" so I added that percentage in parenthesis):
Paradox Engine: 39.7% (35.5%)
Iona: 27.3% (24.4%)
Leovold: 15.7% (14.1%)
Prophet: 26% (23.2%)
More people want Coalition Victory unbanned than PE and almost as many people want Gifts Ungiven. And I would wager a lot of those responses for PE are more emotional than logical. Not to say the number will change a lot in the long run but I would expect it would go down once people stop to think about it. And, who knows; maybe it will go up later but what we have is what we have for now.
But, the point is that less than 40% of people want it unbanned. Your dissent over this ban isn't even the majority opinion. Likely there are plenty of people that are indifferent to the ban but this still shows that less than the majority actually want it back.
As for faith in the RC:
38.3% are either Extremely or Moderately Satisfied with the RC. If we add in those that are still satisfied but only "Somewhat" the number goes to 52.3.
Only 35.8 people are dissatisfied (using the same ratings of "Extremely", "Moderately", or "Somewhat").
11.8% are in the middle.
I would be curious to see your data showing this is a lower number than any previous lows in "all time" numbers. But, again, your statements seem a bit hyperbolic and I would wager that at least some of the dissatisfaction comes about directly from PE's banning and these numbers coming so soon after that. Not sure how much this would change in a year or so.
Also worth pointing out is that I realize not everyone everywhere is going to take this survey and there will be people on both sides that are not included in it. But 9,000+ people is a reasonable sample size to discuss the points brought up
To defend the position about random bans, let us look at what I personally see as the RC's mistakes in a relatively ordered series (which you're free to disagree with me on but I'm by far not the only one who sees most or all of these as incorrect):
-Planeswalkers still not legal as commanders (no good reason available and people definitely want it).
-Paradox Engine banned (note that I've never played with the card, only against it).
-Protean Hulk unbanned while Flash is unbanned (this is very obviously not ok).
-Prophet of Kruphix banned (this card is and was strong but fine as long as people run removal).
-Banned as commander removed because EDH players are ostensibly too stupid to read two tiny lists.
-Metalworker unbanned (this card is incredibly not safe).
-Tuck rule changed (no non-emotional reason given to take away the ability to answer broken generals).
-Sylvan Primordial banned (was annoying but never a problem).
-Kokusho banned as commander (was never a problem and in fact got unbanned later).
-Primeval Titan banned (was very good but in lower power games but never a problem).
-Worldfire banned (completely safe joke card).
-Sundering Titan banned (was annoying but never a problem).
-Tolarian Academy banned while Gaea's Cradle remains legal (I can see banning both or neither).
-Staff of Domination banned (was never a problem and in fact got unbanned later).
-Painter's Servant banned (noting that I agree with the recent swap-ban)
-Sol Ring not banned, Mana Crypt not banned, Mana Vault not banned, Ad Nauseam not banned, Hermit Druid not banned (if banning format breakers is a concern, which they claim it is).
-Winter Orb not banned, Static Orb not banned, Contamination not banned, Armageddon not banned, Ravages of War not banned, Jokulhaups not banned, Obliterate not banned, etc. (if banning 'unfun' cards is a concern, which they claim it is).
-Coalition Victory banned, Gifts Ungiven banned, Library of Alexandria banned, Recurring Nightmare banned, Sway of the Stars banned, Upheaval banned (these are all incredibly silly for various reasons).
As for the CAG's involvement in the PE ban, do you consume any media put out by CAG members? There really wasn't a lot of support for the PE ban among them, and it appears that the RC acted unilaterally on that one against the opinions of more informed and community-active advisors. Most people seem to realize that PE was just one more in a long line of high-cmc combo pieces (albeit a really good one) that is both outclassed by still-legal cards and easily answered. There was dramatically more support for banning Cyclonic Rift (which I find hilarious, but it would definitely be a more reasonable ban due to ubiquity than PE in spite of being silly on its face).
To the point of WotC's divisive initial foray into a Commander banlist, I'd say that their attempt was 1) a way better first stab than the RC's by a large margin, 2) always doomed to failure because MTGO is a horrible place to play EDH since you lose the social aspect and it devolves into mono-cEDH, 3) always doomed to failure because human beings despise sudden change.
The reality is that WotC has a much more vested and active interest in seeing EDH be a healthy and flourishing format, where the RC has proven that they don't really want to have their hands in it except to make emotional decisions based on their own narrow set of experiences. Hell, Sheldon has admitted fairly recently that he basically lives in an EDH bubble, and that he would both be trying to get outside of said bubble and seeking outside advice for the format (read: the CAG). Unfortunately he seems intent on ignoring his new sources, and everything he's said recently re: combo on social media smacks of a cave hermit hissing at the sun after seeing it for the first time in a decade.
As far as that survey goes, the current numbers tell me the following:
-There is a statistically significant contingent that think many of the things I listed above about the change-log are true. Not the majority, but a large percentage none-the-less.
-Human logic (ie: people hate change) would dictate that PE/Iona/PS numbers are inflated right now, but the flip-side of that is absolutely all of the 'no change, things are good as is' votes are exactly as likely to be suspect.
-Less people are 'very satisfied' with this announcement than any other option, and the majority of people who have an opinion either way are unhappy about this.
-Approval ratings for the RC are lower than happiness with the format as a whole, indicating that people love EDH, but the consensus is that that RC could be doing a better job.
My opinion that faith in the RC is at an all-time low is not based in data (as yours isn't, we don't have a history of polling to look at) but from observing reactions in all the communities I'm a part of. I work and live in the absolute center of Magic, and my casual players are upset that their fun toy got taken away while the cards that make them sad keep getting a pass, my 75%ers are confused by the decisions being made, and my cEDH folks are laughing about how out of touch the RC is with what is actually broken about the format.
Variant formats are cropping up left and right of late, indicating a desire for change in the core EDH format. The popularity of Oathbreaker speaks to the desire for planeswalkers to be legal as commanders, the rise of Canlander speaks to the desire for more sane power-level management, and the very existence of 2DH speaks to unhappiness with the balance of what is playable in the format.
These are anecdotal bits of information, but given that I play at one of the top-rated LGS's in the world, work in the industry, and regularly break bread with high-profile content creators and WotC employees, I feel like my anecdotal evidence is relevant. Yes this is vague and very 'my dad works at Nintendo' of me but I love my job and would like to keep it.
At the same time, and perhaps more telling, the rhetoric from content creators who have historically been extremely supportive of the RC has shifted as of this announcement, and on multiple occasions the opinion that bans are made kinda randomly has been floated on air in front of huge online audiences. You can tell that in their response video that Command Zone's Josh Lee Kwai was restraining himself from calling the PE ban stupid, or venting his frustration that the CAG's voice was ignored on this one. He even went so far as to distance himself from the decision and say he had no part in it. This is a line-toeing member of the CAG (not a spicy dissenter) saying that a mistake was made and subtly implying that the RC is not doing their job right. Hell, Saffron (the most insanely and utterly casual of casual players) said the same things. Whether these guys are indicative of the opinions of the playerbase as a whole is less important than the way their opinions will in fact shape the opinions of the playerbase.
Confidence is absolutely lower than I've ever seen it, regardless of the exact numerical value being above or below 50%.
Yes, I'm sure that a Wizards employee, a level 5 judge, a PhD, and a dude who writes for SCG weekly, gets an active duty military pension, and has a rocket scientist wife need to skim a couple of bucks by unbanning cards just to flip them.
That seems like a perfectly logical conclusion.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
For better or worse the idea of "just goof around" is the foundation of the format and I have no faith that WotC would take the time to maintain it. We'd wind up with a vastly different format, and that's not what I think we should be striving for.
To rewind to the middle of a previous post I don't feel like chopping up and editing to quote, I think Coalition Victory is the most-wanted card on the banlist because, based on my own scientific assumptions, a large portion of the EDH crowd recognize that as cheesy as it is it's a super weak card. It is certainly emblematic of a kind of wincon the RC doesn't want to encourage, and I genuinely understand that, but hoo boy it's the saddest, weakest card on the banlist by a country mile.
which one has the Rocket scientist wife or is this just one person?
Sheldon is the trophy husband.
Unfortunately, yes.
But I think since you have zero evidence it's more likely that greed wasn't a motivating factor here.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Yes, if you're a greedy person. Do you have any evidence that they have been greedy in the past or done shady things with the market?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg