I like your SCG content, Sheldon, but let me take the chance to address something you’ve said in many forms before, repeated here – “In competitive Magic, the function of a banned list is to create a balanced tournament environment… There really is no other goal for a competitive format's banned list. Those tournament formats don't care which decks actually win or how they accomplish the goal (although one-sided, long playing combo decks like Eggs aren't all that great as a spectator sport), just that there are many to viably choose from.”
I’m not sure if you have any inside track to the inner-workings of the DCI, but I see that conclusion as impossible from the public statements they have issued regarding bans. Look no further than the latest experiment – Modern.
First of all, it debuted with the explicit premise that they wanted to keep decks that win on Turn 3 or earlier out of the format. Notwithstanding whether there was diversity among those decks, or whether other decks had the tools to compete with them, they have had that as a goal because of the type of gameplay they want to foster. Maybe that’s a bit of a given, but take that for what it’s worth. The Magic players and designers want it to be a game about the board, not fishing through your deck for the fastest combo.
On top of that explicit, non-diversity related goal, Modern also initially debuted with fewer options (not more) in a couple cases, just because the DCI thought people didn’t want to play against those decks. Bitterblossom and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle were banned, not because they were thought of as hindering competitive diversity, but simply because they were foreseeably going to be used in a strong deck, and it was a deck that they didn’t want seeing played. Not diversity related at all, and in fact, were specifically intended to reduce diversity by precisely two decks. (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12 )
Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle – “…Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle doesn't do very many cool things on its own, and usually results in non-interactive combination kills any time it shows up.”
Bitterblossom – On the initial Modern banned list because “its historical popularity is not very high”.
Take further DCI statements also. Granted that the meat of the message is format diversity, but bans are also colored with statements about how fun/unfun it is to play against a certain deck. No coincidence that Jund was let to go on to the tune of 60% representation for so long – it’s not a combo deck, it always wins through combat, and it allows your spells to resolve. There was action taken in the end, but it would be disingenuous to say that it would have taken the DCI equal amounts of time to ban a combo or a prison deck.
Other examples, which you also hint at in the article. Like you mentioned above, Second Sunrise was banned because nobody liked playing with or against Eggs. Same thing with Sensei’s Divining Top in Legacy, although to a lesser degree. The bans both reduced the diversity of the format by exactly one deck (Eggs, Miracles), purely because people simply didn’t like playing the game as much when those decks were getting sleeved up.
In fact, I would say that most bans in Magic that were aimed at diversity absent the element of whether the deck(s) it supported were fun, most of those ultimately turned out to be unwarranted. Aside from the Bitterblossom scare, the DCI also tried a ban of Wild Nacatal to see if it would increase diversity of “attacking decks”, and it turns out that it just irritated people interested in Zoo and the others didn’t care. The one reason, they didn’t mind as much losing on board to a Nacatal. Likewise with Legacy, tons of things got unbanned as the card pool deepened, but stuff like Necropotence, Tinker, Survival, they stay good and banned.
…
The reason I wanted to raise this is to remind you that no player exists who is the fun-ruining boogeyman that the tournament-going players are labeled. There’s not really anyone whose voice should be ignored, on the basis that they just aren’t the kind of player we want. If they’re playing Commander, I say that they have as good of a reason as you or I do.
There are enough purely competitive games out there that those people really don’t show up in Magic anymore, if they ever did. Most players would rather play a deck they like, even to a Grand Prix. In fact, the premise of format diversity being good for the game and for organizers is that there must be some people on the fence whether to participate, but that they will do so if there is a deck in the metagame that they enjoy.
So players wanting bans, is it possible that their motivations are other than wanting to make the format more like a tournament one? In my eye, I see a large portion of the community who just wants to be able to play against a wider variety of people. I think you’re right on that the role of the ban list is to give the format “shape”, and wider playability. If bans make certain decks a little harder to make, but lead to more people being able to sit across from one another, then I say that’s a good ban. That goes not only for the purpose of a ban list itself, but the cards on it too.
Also, five color failed as a format because it was hot garbage. No other reason, really. They had to ban things because of that, not the other way around.
So players wanting bans, is it possible that their motivations are other than wanting to make the format more like a tournament one? In my eye, I see a large portion of the community who just wants to be able to play against a wider variety of people. I think you’re right on that the role of the ban list is to give the format “shape”, and wider playability. If bans make certain decks a little harder to make, but lead to more people being able to sit across from one another, then I say that’s a good ban. That goes not only for the purpose of a ban list itself, but the cards on it too.
Perhaps some do, but considering I generally only have one card in mind when it comes to cards I want banned from the format (Yes, this one), I daresay my own drive isn't from trying to diversify the format nor to make it competitive, but simply as a statement to reinforce the pillars of the format (I just summarized that 9 posts above this one).
I'm primarily Vorthos-driven and this applies to both deck-constructing for myself in the format and with regards on how I view the format (or "The Spirit of EDH" as I see it). This doesn't apply only to the banned list - for the longest time since Daxos of Meletis was printed I found the old Rule 4 to be unrefined for the format because "you may spend mana as though it as of any color" circumvents the "spirit of the rule" and since Sen Triplets and Daxos were eligible Commanders, that point was when it turned into an obvious point of contention for myself (Mycosynth Lattice alone wasn't that detrimental to me, considering it was rather broken in several other ways without comparison). I knew eventually more cards like Daxos would be printed (As of the most recent, Rivals of Ixalan just proved that right) and the Rule had 2 ways to go - either reinforced further (meaning it now only allows you to spend mana of any colors of your Commander's Color Identity) or abolished altogether, otherwise the rule will seem more and more "hypocritical" as time goes by and more cards of the effect are printed.
The reason it was abolished eventually came from a completely unrelated reasoning from my own (Thanks Kozilek!), but I was honestly really happy it happened. Like I said, there were 2 paths for the Rule to go and I didn't really care which way it went (I would simply adapt), but I really disliked that "spiritual integrity of the rule" wasn't holding up then and it definitely warranted change. With singular cards in relation to the format's pillars it becomes a lot harder to check as compared to a whole ruling, but among all the cards, Iona is pretty much the only thorn I've consciously identified to simultaneously break multiple structural pillars in theory.
First of all, it debuted with the explicit premise that they wanted to keep decks that win on Turn 3 or earlier out of the format. Notwithstanding whether there was diversity among those decks, or whether other decks had the tools to compete with them, they have had that as a goal because of the type of gameplay they want to foster. Maybe that’s a bit of a given, but take that for what it’s worth. The Magic players and designers want it to be a game about the board, not fishing through your deck for the fastest combo.
On top of that explicit, non-diversity related goal, Modern also initially debuted with fewer options (not more) in a couple cases, just because the DCI thought people didn’t want to play against those decks. Bitterblossom and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle were banned, not because they were thought of as hindering competitive diversity, but simply because they were foreseeably going to be used in a strong deck, and it was a deck that they didn’t want seeing played. Not diversity related at all, and in fact, were specifically intended to reduce diversity by precisely two decks. (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12 )
Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle – “…Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle doesn't do very many cool things on its own, and usually results in non-interactive combination kills any time it shows up.”
Bitterblossom – On the initial Modern banned list because “its historical popularity is not very high”.
This is a tremendously disingenuous and misleading representation of Modern at its inception. For whatever it is today the format was created to avoid the mistakes of Extended. Quashing ultra-fast decks didn't cripple diversity; it allowed more decks to exist and be created. Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle was the easy target because it only exists in the format to suddenly combo. Bitterblossom was NOT on the initial ban list because “its historical popularity is not very high”. If you read the rest of that explanation you'll see the mention of Faeries being a dominating force in Extended for nearly 4 years at that point and Wizards didn't want it to immediately assert itself in Modern. Extended died for many reasons and one of its pallbearers at the end was Faeries.
Other examples, which you also hint at in the article. Like you mentioned above, Second Sunrise was banned because nobody liked playing with or against Eggs. Same thing with Sensei’s Divining Top in Legacy, although to a lesser degree. The bans both reduced the diversity of the format by exactly one deck (Eggs, Miracles), purely because people simply didn’t like playing the game as much when those decks were getting sleeved up.
Second Sunrise was banned not for being unfun, but it got the Shahrazad treatment of booting a card that was routinely causing rounds to go past time. Sensei's Divining Top was banned because it was causing some games to reliably go past time while also being a part of the then most dominant deck in the format. It didn't have anything to do with "fun" versus "unfun". It was about keeping matches moving in a tournament setting.
The reason I wanted to raise this is to remind you that no player exists who is the fun-ruining boogeyman that the tournament-going players are labeled.
I've both played against that player and at times been that player. The most common mistake to make in this game, especially on an internet forum, is to have a myopic perspective.
This is a tremendously disingenuous and misleading representation of Modern at its inception. For whatever it is today the format was created to avoid the mistakes of Extended. Quashing ultra-fast decks didn't cripple diversity; it allowed more decks to exist and be created. Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle was the easy target because it only exists in the format to suddenly combo. Bitterblossom was NOT on the initial ban list because “its historical popularity is not very high”. If you read the rest of that explanation you'll see the mention of Faeries being a dominating force in Extended for nearly 4 years at that point and Wizards didn't want it to immediately assert itself in Modern. Extended died for many reasons and one of its pallbearers at the end was Faeries.
If you read the explanation on Valakut, you'll see that it wasn't feared as a Turn 3 or earlier deck itself, but that it was seen in Legacy as "thriving in a field of them". Yes, it's only point is to combo off, but what conclusion do you draw then from the DCI banning a card that is used for "non-interactive combo kills" but otherwise doesn't violate any of the format's goals? To me, the conclusion would not be disingenuous at all that a field of decks that combo off is something that they'd prefer to avoid.
For Faeries and its relation to Extended, I'm not reading that it was feared Modern would become a reincarnation of prior, poorly-attended Extended formats, only that decks that historically dominated Extended at some point were the most likely candidates to form the field of Modern. If you look at their rationale on Stoneforge Mystic, performance in Legacy was also looked at, where SFM based decks were seen to be competing in the format. There was no such data on Faeries, only that it was a dominating Extended deck, and that everyone was tired of playing against it for reasons entirely unrelated to diversity. Besides, just being a strong deck in a prior Extended formats would mean that you were competing against other strong decks based on prior Extended formats, there being arguably enough diversity just among those to support a format. So in my mind, they didn't want Faeries in the format early on because it was consciously felt that players didn't want to play against it.
Second Sunrise was banned not for being unfun, but it got the Shahrazad treatment of booting a card that was routinely causing rounds to go past time. Sensei's Divining Top was banned because it was causing some games to reliably go past time while also being a part of the then most dominant deck in the format. It didn't have anything to do with "fun" versus "unfun". It was about keeping matches moving in a tournament setting.
Well, what do you call the player experience of clock management and routinely going past time? Some would call it "unfun".
On the other hand if clock management were seen as a critical skill of the game, then clocks would be implemented in a similar way to games like Chess. It's likely that there would also be tournaments with different time constraints, blitz, so on. The competitive scene would look entirely different, with ongoing ratings, showcase matches, etc, being features of the game. But to the contrary, DCI determined that Magic is (and ought to be) a game where a match can occur in a set time frame, without any impact to the critical skills of the game, and that Swiss style tournaments offering their rewards in isolation of one another is appropriate.
The point is, there is a non-diversity related goal there. Players and organizers have an idea of what the game is and what it's not. If a game veers off and becomes something different, than bans will be made to bring it back in line with these non-diversity related expectations. That goes for matches going past time, decks ignoring the board and combo'ing off, individual cards that render critical skills of the game unnecessary, so on. I don't see agree with this view that all the DCI cares about is diversity.
The point is, there is a non-diversity related goal there.
If this is still your takeaway then there's no discussion to be had.
I don't want to weigh in too heavily here, since Magic has always been kitchen table to me, I never really cared about a banlist until this format. But this conversation reads to me as
Sheldon: ... competitive banlists only care about diversity...
Jusstice: That's not true, there's plenty of bans that were for the overall enjoyment of the game.
Shenabagananins: Don't be misleading! [goes on to list non-diversity related reasons for every ban mentioned]
Jusstice: so.... you agree?
Shenabagananins: If that's what you think, we've got nothing to discuss!
Which makes me not quite sure what your disagreement was. I want to say you agree with Jusstice in the comment on bans not just being about format diversity and that you just disagree with his assessment of modern, but then there's so much conversation left to have. There's a big wall of text up there other than "The point is, there is a non-diversity related goal there" that could be responded to as well if that's the discussion you're after, but if that line shuts you down, then I'm not sure what you're thinking.
Do you think the DCI considers things other than format diversity when banning cards? Do you think Sheldon's claims that the banning situation here is unique hold up? Do you agree with Jusstice on the most basic level but think the characterization of "fun/unfun" was a stretch to try and draw parallels from modern to edh, or do you disagree entirely and think all those bans you talked about were perceived diversity issues?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Which makes me not quite sure what your disagreement was.
This amazes me.
Again, quick decks, Valakut, and Bitterblossom got the bump to prevent them from stifling the then-new format of Modern to prevent it from simply being Extended 2.0. Banning those cards promoted diversity by attempting to create a new environment and shift away from a dying format. It didn't matter if people liked or disliked playing against Faeries--Faeries was an overwhelming force during Extended's dying years and they wanted new decks to emerge in the new format. That's how a ban creates diversity.
Second Sunrise, Top, and Shahrazad were nixed to prevent decks from manipulating the format of tournaments in an egregious fashion, with Top and Sunrise also being balance bans that allowed other decks greater breathing room and better matchups. Shahrazad is unique in that its ban was purely for time considerations in tournaments. So there, that's one ban you could say had little to do with diversity other than freeing up sideboard space in Legacy and Vintage.
Competitive lists are about balance and diversity. They exist to prevent particular cards and too few decks from strangling the format.
EDH's ban list is much more about providing a guideline on how to treat the board and how to avoid accidentally ruining games.
The stark differences between Wizards' banlists and EDH's banlist are monumental and distinct.
Again, quick decks, Valakut, and Bitterblossom got the bump to prevent them from stifling the then-new format of Modern to prevent it from simply being Extended 2.0. Banning those cards promoted diversity by attempting to create a new environment and shift away from a dying format. It didn't matter if people liked or disliked playing against Faeries--Faeries was an overwhelming force during Extended's dying years and they wanted new decks to emerge in the new format. That's how a ban creates diversity.
Second Sunrise, Top, and Shahrazad were nixed to prevent decks from manipulating the format of tournaments in an egregious fashion, with Top and Sunrise also being balance bans that allowed other decks greater breathing room and better matchups. Shahrazad is unique in that its ban was purely for time considerations in tournaments. So there, that's one ban you could say had little to do with diversity other than freeing up sideboard space in Legacy and Vintage.
Competitive lists are about balance and diversity. They exist to prevent particular cards and too few decks from strangling the format.
EDH's ban list is much more about providing a guideline on how to treat the board and how to avoid accidentally ruining games.
The stark differences between Wizards' banlists and EDH's banlist are monumental and distinct.
So you are saying that competitive lists are about balance and diversity. You must forgive me, it was a little questionable when you didn't defend that position a second time. Now that you have, it must be said that you are super dooper wrong.
I will not dispute you that "stopping extended decks from taking over modern" is essentially trying to promote diversity, but that was only one of their founding principles in modern. The first rule was "no turn 3 wins." That's not about format diversity, that's about the type of game they want to encourage. And you might think "if a deck wins in the first 3 turns, how could it not dominate the fair decks?" There are a ton of bad decks that can combo off quickly that are too easily disrupted to thrive in modern, and based on their initial goals for modern, those would have been banned too. It wasn't until shortly after that they actively rethought their plan for modern.
Before Pro Tour Philadelphia, the DCI's stated guideline for the Modern format was to avoid having decks that consistently win the game on turn three. With the results of the Pro Tour in, we are tweaking that goal to not having top-tier decks that consistently win on turn three (or earlier). We also have the goal of maintaining a diverse format.
That quote, direct from wizards site, not only indicates that they initially intended to ban away early wins regardless of the effect on format diversity, but also states that as a goal distinct from maintaining a diverse format. They didn't look at banning early wins because they'd chase out other decks, they wanted to ban early wins because they didn't want them at all. This is still the cast, evidenced by Amulet Bloom. That deck didn't overrun modern and ruin the format diversity, but it did just well enough to fulfill the criteria of "top-tier" and they went "too fast, ban it."
We look for competitively viable decks that frequently win before the fourth turn. The Amulet Bloom deck has reached a performance level that is consistent with those criteria... This deck frequently wins before the fourth turn... We looked into which card could be banned to reduce the frequency of the very early wins... For those reasons, Summer Bloom is banned from Modern.
We also look for decks that hold a large enough percentage of the competitive field to reduce the diversity of the format.
So there again, they look to ban decks that don't fit the criteria of the format they want to make, and that's explicitly a different banning criteria than balance and diversity. Modern was founded with and maintains a principle of banning away decks that can win before the 4th turn whether or not it adds diversity or balance to the format.
Additionally, a ban list in magic is an extension of the rules of the format. There are dozens of magic formats, many with banned lists, and players tend to prefer one format over another because of the vastly different styles of play. Even if the bans are explicitly to maintain balance and encourage diversity, those things are done to keep the formats interesting and ultimately get more players to support that specific style of play. Legacy bans are intended to get people to play in the style of legacy, same with modern and standard, because they ban things to keep people playing the formats, and more people playing those formats means more people playing the type of game those formats encourage. For Sheldon to suggest that edh is unique because the banned list is meant to encourage a certain style of play is silly. Formats are built to support different kinds of play, and banned lists are made to support those formats, all banned lists are made to support their unique style of play, this format is no different.
And the silliest part is that with the singular exception of Worldfire, they haven't had a ban in this format not based on overrepresentation (or the fear of inevitable overrepresentation) in like half a decade. So for something like the last 20% of MTG's entire existence they've been treating bans like every other format. How fresh and unique indeed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Sure, there is a chance of spending $4 on a booster and getting the Mythic Rare $30 super card. There is also a chance of surviving putting your tongue in a light socket.
So when can we expect the Braids, Cabal Minion unban? Kokusho didn't cause problems so I don't see Braids causing any either.
Kokusho doesn't have the potential to lock down or halt the rest of the game on Turn 1 or 2 right out of the door. This isn't even apples and oranges, this an apples and bananas comparison.
Yes but at the point at which you are making THAT Braids deck it falls out of the purview of what the RC generally bans around, (also easily the biggest victim of the BaaC change).
The first rule was "no turn 3 wins." That's not about format diversity, that's about the type of game they want to encourage.
A format which allows turn 3 wins by its nature pushes out "slower" decks which populate the majority of non-eternal formats. Banning out the quick decks allows all the other kinds of decks to exist, promoting diversity. Mentioning speed and diversity in two different sentences does not mean they are two distinct concepts.
A format which allows turn 3 wins by its nature pushes out "slower" decks which populate the majority of non-eternal formats. Banning out the quick decks allows all the other kinds of decks to exist, promoting diversity.
I spent a solid 30% of my post establishing their initial. They tweaked from not allowing too fast decks to not allowing top tier too fast decks, which means they were initially willing to ban lower tier decks for being too fast. So they did not care if those decks were pushing out slower ones, only that they existed at all. Banning out a style of deck even if the specific deck isn't hurting anyone else in particular is not promoting diversity, its just axing away one style of deck.
Mentioning speed and diversity in two different sentences does not mean they are two distinct concepts.
goodness
True, but the word "also" does mean exactly that. You wouldn't say "well, I ate some cheese and pepperoni the other day... I also had a pizza."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Banning out a style of deck even if the specific deck isn't hurting anyone else
"consistently"
The aim was to boot decks that could combo quickly on a consistent basis. It's even in what you quoted. Those are the decks that get punched, like Amulet Bloom.
Banning out a style of deck even if the specific deck isn't hurting anyone else
"consistently"
The aim was to boot decks that could combo quickly on a consistent basis. It's even in what you quoted. Those are the decks that get punched, like Amulet Bloom.
a) You're inferring that consistent means its strong enough to push out competition, which normally I'd agree with, except the article specifically says that they were changing their standards to apply only to competitive decks, and you can't change the standard to that unless it was initially something else.
b) We're discussing events of like the first year of Modern. Amulet Bloom was an example of the updated policy after the changes where they waited until it was a highly ranked deck and then banned it. Even still, they banned it more aggressively than more format warping decks because of the style, and this is following a policy that was explicitly more lenient on fast combos than they originally intended.
True, but the word "also" does mean exactly that. You wouldn't say "well, I ate some cheese and pepperoni the other day... I also had a pizza."
You're saying that the word "also" creates a hard differentiation between the linked statements?
I'm walking away, this is nonsense[/quote]
Yes, that is how you use the word also, to link two related but distinct concepts together. If a punt in football is kicked at the 50 yard line and caught at the other 10, it'd be a 40 yard punt. If it instead landed at the 20 and rolled 10 more yards before being downed, it would still be a 40 yard punt. Even with that context, if you say "the punter kicked the ball 40 yards. Also, it rolled 10 yards" anyone listening is going to assume it traveled a total of 50 yards. Why? Because the word also distinguishes the 10 from the 40, that they are related, but not the same thing. That is the purpose of the word also, to let the reader/listener know you are introducing a separate concept.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Yes but at the point at which you are making THAT Braids deck it falls out of the purview of what the RC generally bans around, (also easily the biggest victim of the BaaC change).
Yes but at the point at which you are making THAT Braids deck it falls out of the purview of what the RC generally bans around, (also easily the biggest victim of the BaaC change).
What Braids deck would THAT be, exactly?
Consistently dropping Cabal Minion on turn 1 or 2.
I think they should bring back the banned as a commander rule. We've been playing with Braids and Rofellos in the 99 and no one has consistently been able to oppress a whole table. Braids seems ridiculous because Smokestack is still allowed and can be dropped turn 2 easily, and Rofellos pales in comparison to a good cradle. And for that matter, un-ban Tolarian Academy. Cradle can do just as many shenanigans.
Same for Sylvan Primordial. People say this was because blinking it is oppressive, but really, deadeye navigator can be oppressive with many other things and skirts the banlist.
What people forget about with Deadeye Navigator is that, unlike the other blinking mechanics, it's not 1U; it's actually 5UUU, because first you need to get it on the field, soulbond it, THEN you abuse its trigger. Sure, you can cheat it into play, but that brings an extra wrench into the mechanism you may or may not have often enough to be degenerate(as well as an extra possible kink in the machine if someone blocks it).
That aside, Sylvan Primordial got the same banhammer Primeval Titan did for the same reason: as soon as one came out, the game shifted focus. While Prime Time was worse(EVERYONE wanted the lands!), Sylvan wasn't much better, enabling blow-ups on everyone's stuff for Forests if one was playing green. At least Terastodon gave you something for what was blown up, AND you could focus on someone if they were running away with the game: Sylvan gave no such option, instead trying to play 'fair'.
As for the rest, I reserve judgement...but I don't see a constant sac outlet, a Gaea's Cradle in a body, or an artifact tribal land being good things.
Tolarian Academy is insanely good and needs to stay banned. Period. Arguing for it being unbanned by comparing it to Gaea's Cradle is rather like someone arguing that private citizens should be allowed nuclear missiles if they are allowed handguns.
As to the whole "banned as a commander" thing, back when they got rid of that and placed those few cards on the banned list, I was playing each of those cards in a deck, and I still thought (and continue to think) the change was for the better. Erayo, let's be real, he does not make for more fun, social games. Rofellos is vastly more broken than other mana-making elves, green already has tons of ways to generate obscene amounts of mana, and I don't miss him a bit. Black Braids is the one possible exception. Braids is, I think, reasonably fair in the 99, and my one EDH stax deck misses her. I'm not sure anyone I ever played against with it misses her, though, and she is way, way too problematic as a commander to be allowed back under the current ruleset.
While I would love to have Braids, Cabal Minion back, along with Leovold, Emissary of Trest who should have been BAAC if that rule still existed (he's much like Braids in that he's a strong but not excessively oppressive stax piece in the 99, but horrible to play against when someone has guaranteed access to him early game and a deck built around doing so), it's really not worth adding to the rules complexity for such a small number of cards.
Tolarian Academy is so much stronger than Cradle it's not even funny.
Sylvan Primordial centralises the game around itself and gives a massive advantage to the person who plays it first. It's not just blinking it that's oppressive, it hitting play T3-4 (not unreasonable even for a non-hyper competitive list in a format with almost all the ramp and reanimation ever printed) is such a huge swing - and this is on a card that pretty much all green decks would run, not just a combo that dedicated cEDH lists win with. Deadeye Navigator meanwhile does nothing on its own and can be answered by any instant speed removal (whereas the Primordial still gets its ETB). There really is no comparison.
How has the Protean Hulk unban been treating everyone?
I still have yet to see one in a game.
Non-existent.
Our tuned decks are Pope, Kess Storm, Riku x2 (both just infinite combo with Kiki-jeeks) and that's about it. Hulk is too clunky if you're not flashing it and there are easier two-card outs to just win. It was a fine unban.
Ad Nauseam we don't really play with since it just draws most of our deck and kills on the spot on the stack with Exsanguinate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No changes, and Unstable is now unofficial.
I’m not sure if you have any inside track to the inner-workings of the DCI, but I see that conclusion as impossible from the public statements they have issued regarding bans. Look no further than the latest experiment – Modern.
First of all, it debuted with the explicit premise that they wanted to keep decks that win on Turn 3 or earlier out of the format. Notwithstanding whether there was diversity among those decks, or whether other decks had the tools to compete with them, they have had that as a goal because of the type of gameplay they want to foster. Maybe that’s a bit of a given, but take that for what it’s worth. The Magic players and designers want it to be a game about the board, not fishing through your deck for the fastest combo.
On top of that explicit, non-diversity related goal, Modern also initially debuted with fewer options (not more) in a couple cases, just because the DCI thought people didn’t want to play against those decks. Bitterblossom and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle were banned, not because they were thought of as hindering competitive diversity, but simply because they were foreseeably going to be used in a strong deck, and it was a deck that they didn’t want seeing played. Not diversity related at all, and in fact, were specifically intended to reduce diversity by precisely two decks. (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12 )
Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle – “…Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle doesn't do very many cool things on its own, and usually results in non-interactive combination kills any time it shows up.”
Bitterblossom – On the initial Modern banned list because “its historical popularity is not very high”.
Take further DCI statements also. Granted that the meat of the message is format diversity, but bans are also colored with statements about how fun/unfun it is to play against a certain deck. No coincidence that Jund was let to go on to the tune of 60% representation for so long – it’s not a combo deck, it always wins through combat, and it allows your spells to resolve. There was action taken in the end, but it would be disingenuous to say that it would have taken the DCI equal amounts of time to ban a combo or a prison deck.
Other examples, which you also hint at in the article. Like you mentioned above, Second Sunrise was banned because nobody liked playing with or against Eggs. Same thing with Sensei’s Divining Top in Legacy, although to a lesser degree. The bans both reduced the diversity of the format by exactly one deck (Eggs, Miracles), purely because people simply didn’t like playing the game as much when those decks were getting sleeved up.
In fact, I would say that most bans in Magic that were aimed at diversity absent the element of whether the deck(s) it supported were fun, most of those ultimately turned out to be unwarranted. Aside from the Bitterblossom scare, the DCI also tried a ban of Wild Nacatal to see if it would increase diversity of “attacking decks”, and it turns out that it just irritated people interested in Zoo and the others didn’t care. The one reason, they didn’t mind as much losing on board to a Nacatal. Likewise with Legacy, tons of things got unbanned as the card pool deepened, but stuff like Necropotence, Tinker, Survival, they stay good and banned.
…
The reason I wanted to raise this is to remind you that no player exists who is the fun-ruining boogeyman that the tournament-going players are labeled. There’s not really anyone whose voice should be ignored, on the basis that they just aren’t the kind of player we want. If they’re playing Commander, I say that they have as good of a reason as you or I do.
There are enough purely competitive games out there that those people really don’t show up in Magic anymore, if they ever did. Most players would rather play a deck they like, even to a Grand Prix. In fact, the premise of format diversity being good for the game and for organizers is that there must be some people on the fence whether to participate, but that they will do so if there is a deck in the metagame that they enjoy.
So players wanting bans, is it possible that their motivations are other than wanting to make the format more like a tournament one? In my eye, I see a large portion of the community who just wants to be able to play against a wider variety of people. I think you’re right on that the role of the ban list is to give the format “shape”, and wider playability. If bans make certain decks a little harder to make, but lead to more people being able to sit across from one another, then I say that’s a good ban. That goes not only for the purpose of a ban list itself, but the cards on it too.
Also, five color failed as a format because it was hot garbage. No other reason, really. They had to ban things because of that, not the other way around.
Perhaps some do, but considering I generally only have one card in mind when it comes to cards I want banned from the format (Yes, this one), I daresay my own drive isn't from trying to diversify the format nor to make it competitive, but simply as a statement to reinforce the pillars of the format (I just summarized that 9 posts above this one).
I'm primarily Vorthos-driven and this applies to both deck-constructing for myself in the format and with regards on how I view the format (or "The Spirit of EDH" as I see it). This doesn't apply only to the banned list - for the longest time since Daxos of Meletis was printed I found the old Rule 4 to be unrefined for the format because "you may spend mana as though it as of any color" circumvents the "spirit of the rule" and since Sen Triplets and Daxos were eligible Commanders, that point was when it turned into an obvious point of contention for myself (Mycosynth Lattice alone wasn't that detrimental to me, considering it was rather broken in several other ways without comparison). I knew eventually more cards like Daxos would be printed (As of the most recent, Rivals of Ixalan just proved that right) and the Rule had 2 ways to go - either reinforced further (meaning it now only allows you to spend mana of any colors of your Commander's Color Identity) or abolished altogether, otherwise the rule will seem more and more "hypocritical" as time goes by and more cards of the effect are printed.
The reason it was abolished eventually came from a completely unrelated reasoning from my own (Thanks Kozilek!), but I was honestly really happy it happened. Like I said, there were 2 paths for the Rule to go and I didn't really care which way it went (I would simply adapt), but I really disliked that "spiritual integrity of the rule" wasn't holding up then and it definitely warranted change. With singular cards in relation to the format's pillars it becomes a lot harder to check as compared to a whole ruling, but among all the cards, Iona is pretty much the only thorn I've consciously identified to simultaneously break multiple structural pillars in theory.
This is a tremendously disingenuous and misleading representation of Modern at its inception. For whatever it is today the format was created to avoid the mistakes of Extended. Quashing ultra-fast decks didn't cripple diversity; it allowed more decks to exist and be created. Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle was the easy target because it only exists in the format to suddenly combo. Bitterblossom was NOT on the initial ban list because “its historical popularity is not very high”. If you read the rest of that explanation you'll see the mention of Faeries being a dominating force in Extended for nearly 4 years at that point and Wizards didn't want it to immediately assert itself in Modern. Extended died for many reasons and one of its pallbearers at the end was Faeries.
Second Sunrise was banned not for being unfun, but it got the Shahrazad treatment of booting a card that was routinely causing rounds to go past time. Sensei's Divining Top was banned because it was causing some games to reliably go past time while also being a part of the then most dominant deck in the format. It didn't have anything to do with "fun" versus "unfun". It was about keeping matches moving in a tournament setting.
I've both played against that player and at times been that player. The most common mistake to make in this game, especially on an internet forum, is to have a myopic perspective.
If you read the explanation on Valakut, you'll see that it wasn't feared as a Turn 3 or earlier deck itself, but that it was seen in Legacy as "thriving in a field of them". Yes, it's only point is to combo off, but what conclusion do you draw then from the DCI banning a card that is used for "non-interactive combo kills" but otherwise doesn't violate any of the format's goals? To me, the conclusion would not be disingenuous at all that a field of decks that combo off is something that they'd prefer to avoid.
For Faeries and its relation to Extended, I'm not reading that it was feared Modern would become a reincarnation of prior, poorly-attended Extended formats, only that decks that historically dominated Extended at some point were the most likely candidates to form the field of Modern. If you look at their rationale on Stoneforge Mystic, performance in Legacy was also looked at, where SFM based decks were seen to be competing in the format. There was no such data on Faeries, only that it was a dominating Extended deck, and that everyone was tired of playing against it for reasons entirely unrelated to diversity. Besides, just being a strong deck in a prior Extended formats would mean that you were competing against other strong decks based on prior Extended formats, there being arguably enough diversity just among those to support a format. So in my mind, they didn't want Faeries in the format early on because it was consciously felt that players didn't want to play against it.
Well, what do you call the player experience of clock management and routinely going past time? Some would call it "unfun".
On the other hand if clock management were seen as a critical skill of the game, then clocks would be implemented in a similar way to games like Chess. It's likely that there would also be tournaments with different time constraints, blitz, so on. The competitive scene would look entirely different, with ongoing ratings, showcase matches, etc, being features of the game. But to the contrary, DCI determined that Magic is (and ought to be) a game where a match can occur in a set time frame, without any impact to the critical skills of the game, and that Swiss style tournaments offering their rewards in isolation of one another is appropriate.
The point is, there is a non-diversity related goal there. Players and organizers have an idea of what the game is and what it's not. If a game veers off and becomes something different, than bans will be made to bring it back in line with these non-diversity related expectations. That goes for matches going past time, decks ignoring the board and combo'ing off, individual cards that render critical skills of the game unnecessary, so on. I don't see agree with this view that all the DCI cares about is diversity.
If this is still your takeaway then there's no discussion to be had.
So, your position is that Shahrazad, Top, Eggs, are banned so that we can see a wider diversity of decks?
....?
I don't want to weigh in too heavily here, since Magic has always been kitchen table to me, I never really cared about a banlist until this format. But this conversation reads to me as
Sheldon: ... competitive banlists only care about diversity...
Jusstice: That's not true, there's plenty of bans that were for the overall enjoyment of the game.
Shenabagananins: Don't be misleading! [goes on to list non-diversity related reasons for every ban mentioned]
Jusstice: so.... you agree?
Shenabagananins: If that's what you think, we've got nothing to discuss!
Which makes me not quite sure what your disagreement was. I want to say you agree with Jusstice in the comment on bans not just being about format diversity and that you just disagree with his assessment of modern, but then there's so much conversation left to have. There's a big wall of text up there other than "The point is, there is a non-diversity related goal there" that could be responded to as well if that's the discussion you're after, but if that line shuts you down, then I'm not sure what you're thinking.
Do you think the DCI considers things other than format diversity when banning cards? Do you think Sheldon's claims that the banning situation here is unique hold up? Do you agree with Jusstice on the most basic level but think the characterization of "fun/unfun" was a stretch to try and draw parallels from modern to edh, or do you disagree entirely and think all those bans you talked about were perceived diversity issues?
This amazes me.
Again, quick decks, Valakut, and Bitterblossom got the bump to prevent them from stifling the then-new format of Modern to prevent it from simply being Extended 2.0. Banning those cards promoted diversity by attempting to create a new environment and shift away from a dying format. It didn't matter if people liked or disliked playing against Faeries--Faeries was an overwhelming force during Extended's dying years and they wanted new decks to emerge in the new format. That's how a ban creates diversity.
Second Sunrise, Top, and Shahrazad were nixed to prevent decks from manipulating the format of tournaments in an egregious fashion, with Top and Sunrise also being balance bans that allowed other decks greater breathing room and better matchups. Shahrazad is unique in that its ban was purely for time considerations in tournaments. So there, that's one ban you could say had little to do with diversity other than freeing up sideboard space in Legacy and Vintage.
Competitive lists are about balance and diversity. They exist to prevent particular cards and too few decks from strangling the format.
EDH's ban list is much more about providing a guideline on how to treat the board and how to avoid accidentally ruining games.
The stark differences between Wizards' banlists and EDH's banlist are monumental and distinct.
So you are saying that competitive lists are about balance and diversity. You must forgive me, it was a little questionable when you didn't defend that position a second time. Now that you have, it must be said that you are super dooper wrong.
I will not dispute you that "stopping extended decks from taking over modern" is essentially trying to promote diversity, but that was only one of their founding principles in modern. The first rule was "no turn 3 wins." That's not about format diversity, that's about the type of game they want to encourage. And you might think "if a deck wins in the first 3 turns, how could it not dominate the fair decks?" There are a ton of bad decks that can combo off quickly that are too easily disrupted to thrive in modern, and based on their initial goals for modern, those would have been banned too. It wasn't until shortly after that they actively rethought their plan for modern.
That quote, direct from wizards site, not only indicates that they initially intended to ban away early wins regardless of the effect on format diversity, but also states that as a goal distinct from maintaining a diverse format. They didn't look at banning early wins because they'd chase out other decks, they wanted to ban early wins because they didn't want them at all. This is still the cast, evidenced by Amulet Bloom. That deck didn't overrun modern and ruin the format diversity, but it did just well enough to fulfill the criteria of "top-tier" and they went "too fast, ban it."
So there again, they look to ban decks that don't fit the criteria of the format they want to make, and that's explicitly a different banning criteria than balance and diversity. Modern was founded with and maintains a principle of banning away decks that can win before the 4th turn whether or not it adds diversity or balance to the format.
Additionally, a ban list in magic is an extension of the rules of the format. There are dozens of magic formats, many with banned lists, and players tend to prefer one format over another because of the vastly different styles of play. Even if the bans are explicitly to maintain balance and encourage diversity, those things are done to keep the formats interesting and ultimately get more players to support that specific style of play. Legacy bans are intended to get people to play in the style of legacy, same with modern and standard, because they ban things to keep people playing the formats, and more people playing those formats means more people playing the type of game those formats encourage. For Sheldon to suggest that edh is unique because the banned list is meant to encourage a certain style of play is silly. Formats are built to support different kinds of play, and banned lists are made to support those formats, all banned lists are made to support their unique style of play, this format is no different.
And the silliest part is that with the singular exception of Worldfire, they haven't had a ban in this format not based on overrepresentation (or the fear of inevitable overrepresentation) in like half a decade. So for something like the last 20% of MTG's entire existence they've been treating bans like every other format. How fresh and unique indeed.
Kokusho doesn't have the potential to lock down or halt the rest of the game on Turn 1 or 2 right out of the door. This isn't even apples and oranges, this an apples and bananas comparison.
(Also known as Xenphire)
A format which allows turn 3 wins by its nature pushes out "slower" decks which populate the majority of non-eternal formats. Banning out the quick decks allows all the other kinds of decks to exist, promoting diversity. Mentioning speed and diversity in two different sentences does not mean they are two distinct concepts.
goodness
I spent a solid 30% of my post establishing their initial. They tweaked from not allowing too fast decks to not allowing top tier too fast decks, which means they were initially willing to ban lower tier decks for being too fast. So they did not care if those decks were pushing out slower ones, only that they existed at all. Banning out a style of deck even if the specific deck isn't hurting anyone else in particular is not promoting diversity, its just axing away one style of deck.
True, but the word "also" does mean exactly that. You wouldn't say "well, I ate some cheese and pepperoni the other day... I also had a pizza."
"consistently"
The aim was to boot decks that could combo quickly on a consistent basis. It's even in what you quoted. Those are the decks that get punched, like Amulet Bloom.
You're saying that the word "also" creates a hard differentiation between the linked statements?
I'm walking away, this is nonsense
a) You're inferring that consistent means its strong enough to push out competition, which normally I'd agree with, except the article specifically says that they were changing their standards to apply only to competitive decks, and you can't change the standard to that unless it was initially something else.
b) We're discussing events of like the first year of Modern. Amulet Bloom was an example of the updated policy after the changes where they waited until it was a highly ranked deck and then banned it. Even still, they banned it more aggressively than more format warping decks because of the style, and this is following a policy that was explicitly more lenient on fast combos than they originally intended.
You're saying that the word "also" creates a hard differentiation between the linked statements?
I'm walking away, this is nonsense[/quote]
Yes, that is how you use the word also, to link two related but distinct concepts together. If a punt in football is kicked at the 50 yard line and caught at the other 10, it'd be a 40 yard punt. If it instead landed at the 20 and rolled 10 more yards before being downed, it would still be a 40 yard punt. Even with that context, if you say "the punter kicked the ball 40 yards. Also, it rolled 10 yards" anyone listening is going to assume it traveled a total of 50 yards. Why? Because the word also distinguishes the 10 from the 40, that they are related, but not the same thing. That is the purpose of the word also, to let the reader/listener know you are introducing a separate concept.
What Braids deck would THAT be, exactly?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
What people forget about with Deadeye Navigator is that, unlike the other blinking mechanics, it's not 1U; it's actually 5UUU, because first you need to get it on the field, soulbond it, THEN you abuse its trigger. Sure, you can cheat it into play, but that brings an extra wrench into the mechanism you may or may not have often enough to be degenerate(as well as an extra possible kink in the machine if someone blocks it).
That aside, Sylvan Primordial got the same banhammer Primeval Titan did for the same reason: as soon as one came out, the game shifted focus. While Prime Time was worse(EVERYONE wanted the lands!), Sylvan wasn't much better, enabling blow-ups on everyone's stuff for Forests if one was playing green. At least Terastodon gave you something for what was blown up, AND you could focus on someone if they were running away with the game: Sylvan gave no such option, instead trying to play 'fair'.
As for the rest, I reserve judgement...but I don't see a constant sac outlet, a Gaea's Cradle in a body, or an artifact tribal land being good things.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
As to the whole "banned as a commander" thing, back when they got rid of that and placed those few cards on the banned list, I was playing each of those cards in a deck, and I still thought (and continue to think) the change was for the better. Erayo, let's be real, he does not make for more fun, social games. Rofellos is vastly more broken than other mana-making elves, green already has tons of ways to generate obscene amounts of mana, and I don't miss him a bit. Black Braids is the one possible exception. Braids is, I think, reasonably fair in the 99, and my one EDH stax deck misses her. I'm not sure anyone I ever played against with it misses her, though, and she is way, way too problematic as a commander to be allowed back under the current ruleset.
Tolarian Academy is so much stronger than Cradle it's not even funny.
Sylvan Primordial centralises the game around itself and gives a massive advantage to the person who plays it first. It's not just blinking it that's oppressive, it hitting play T3-4 (not unreasonable even for a non-hyper competitive list in a format with almost all the ramp and reanimation ever printed) is such a huge swing - and this is on a card that pretty much all green decks would run, not just a combo that dedicated cEDH lists win with. Deadeye Navigator meanwhile does nothing on its own and can be answered by any instant speed removal (whereas the Primordial still gets its ETB). There really is no comparison.
Non-existent.
Our tuned decks are Pope, Kess Storm, Riku x2 (both just infinite combo with Kiki-jeeks) and that's about it. Hulk is too clunky if you're not flashing it and there are easier two-card outs to just win. It was a fine unban.
Ad Nauseam we don't really play with since it just draws most of our deck and kills on the spot on the stack with Exsanguinate.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.