There's more stages of the game beyond the opening hand. Sol Ring gets evaluated through a lens of what it does when you draw it in the middle or late game, so why restrict LoA to only considering the opening hand?
Because Sol Ring is some ungodly black hole that messily devours all reason and logic when people discuss it. When a card has the potential to spiral the game out of control on turn 1, that's how you evaluate it. People that argue about casting Sol Ring on turn 10 are arguing about things that simply don't matter, and it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes those arguments seriously.
Because Sol Ring is some ungodly black hole that messily devours all reason and logic when people discuss it. When a card has the potential to spiral the game out of control on turn 1, that's how you evaluate it. People that argue about casting Sol Ring on turn 10 are arguing about things that simply don't matter, and it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes those arguments seriously.
Totally discount the way a card gets played sometimes and focus on one portion of the data. Got it.
There's more stages of the game beyond the opening hand. Sol Ring gets evaluated through a lens of what it does when you draw it in the middle or late game, so why restrict LoA to only considering the opening hand?
This is the best argument made for LoA so far. I think that Sol Ring actually interacts pretty positively with the nature of the format late game, essentially negating a round of commander tax and letting players who didn't draw enough mana catch up. Its best performance late game is significantly weaker than its performance early game. 2 mana ramp turn 8 is nice, but not particularly impactful, while its bonkers turn 1. LoA's best performance is still drawing a card every turn. Sure, the likelihood that it simply won't work, and will just be a untapped colorless land, is higher, but drawing an extra card every turn is almost as important turn 8 as it is turn 1, and the likelihood that you'll have to sacrifice tempo to draw cards is much lower. The opportunity cost for including it is essentially zero for anything but 4 and 5 color decks (or 3 color with bad mana bases, but lets face it, if you can afford to run LoA after its unbanned, you can afford duals, shocks, and all the relevant fetches, so you'll be fine). Unlike Tabernacle, it works in any deck, and it takes a land slot rather than a spell slot (the latter is also unlike Sol Ring). Now, there are certain decks where it will be less good of course, if your deck runs best by playing out its hand quickly then its not going to be active enough to be an auto include. If you have any card draw and recursion, however, and your deck tends to sit at 4-5 cards in hand, its very easy to make up the extra couple of cards needed to turn on Library.
It may not be much, but I think that, and how powerful it is early, combine to make it somewhat more problematic for the format than Sol Ring. The issue here is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and if Sol Ring is the poster child for borderline, then anything over that line should stay banned. Personally, I think that's also an argument for banning Mana Crypt, the one legal rock I'd be fine with seeing go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
and it takes a land slot rather than a spell slot (the latter is also unlike Sol Ring)
What? Are you arguing that Library is a land and so it takes a land sot where Sol Ring isn't a land so it takes a non-land slot? If you think Library is less of a spell and more of a land in function, you're wrong. Sol Ring is ramp, but it's so low to the ground, you can cut a and for it without weakening your mana base, and that is a good quality few other ramp cards share. Library of Alexandria is a land, but its powerful secondary ability means you can pay it as a draw spell, letting you play an additional land in your deck without lowering your density of draw spells, and that's also a good quality. I don't agree with the "goes in any deck" assessment on Library because there are decks that want to play aggressively to the board, but the deck that wants to sit back on a full grip is also the deck that wants to consistently hit land drops and would probably be happy to play an additional land if it could draw a card every turn. That it doesn't necessarily just take up a land slot is a point in Library's favor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Totally discount the way a card gets played sometimes and focus on one portion of the data. Got it.
Implying there is ever a reason to not play Library as your first land assuming you can. "The way a card gets played" involves slamming Library as quickly as possible. Saying it's less powerful later in the game so it's okay is like saying Worldfire is okay because you can't cast it on turn 1; that's not the problem with the card and you know it, so trying to argue otherwise is intentionally misleading.
Personally, I think that's also an argument for banning Mana Crypt, the one legal rock I'd be fine with seeing go.
I have to disagree here. With well over half a decade playing both, Sol Ring is the stronger card in most typical games of Commander. I have seen players, myself included, lose to Mana Crypt triggers far more often than the CMC 1 of Sol Ring noticably affect the outcome of a game.
I believe both need to be banned. Failing that, they are close enough to functional copies that neither should be banned.
and it takes a land slot rather than a spell slot (the latter is also unlike Sol Ring)
What? Are you arguing that Library is a land and so it takes a land sot where Sol Ring isn't a land so it takes a non-land slot? If you think Library is less of a spell and more of a land in function, you're wrong. Sol Ring is ramp, but it's so low to the ground, you can cut a and for it without weakening your mana base, and that is a good quality few other ramp cards share. Library of Alexandria is a land, but its powerful secondary ability means you can pay it as a draw spell, letting you play an additional land in your deck without lowering your density of draw spells, and that's also a good quality. I don't agree with the "goes in any deck" assessment on Library because there are decks that want to play aggressively to the board, but the deck that wants to sit back on a full grip is also the deck that wants to consistently hit land drops and would probably be happy to play an additional land if it could draw a card every turn. That it doesn't necessarily just take up a land slot is a point in Library's favor.
Cutting a quote mid-sentence to avoid context and declare someone wrong is rather rude, and raises scepticism about anything else you say, regardless of how valid it may or may not be. With your phrasing, I also cannot tell if you are saying that is a point in favor of, or against banning.
What was said was that Library of Alexandria occupies a land slot, not a spell slot, & that this differs from the Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale,
Meaning Tabernacle takes a spell slot, not a land slot.
On an unrelated note, I have just learned edditing post quotes on a phone is a pain in the ass.
Cutting a quote mid-sentence to avoid context and declare someone wrong is rather rude
Or it saves space and makes it obvious what part of the post I'm responding to. Also, it's a bit harsh to call it declaring someone wrong when prefaced with a coupe question marks and the "if you think" qualifier.
, and raises scepticism about anything else you say, regardless of how valid it may or may not be.
What's there to be skeptical about? I presented no facts or data to even be lying about. It was all conceptual discussion of deckbuilding that you're free to agree or disagree with.
With your phrasing, I also cannot tell if you are saying that is a point in favor of, or against banning.
What was said was that Library of Alexandria occupies a land slot, not a spell slot, & that this differs from the Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale,
Meaning Tabernacle takes a spell slot, not a land slot.
I meant that it was a point in favor of playing Library in a deck, that you don't have to think of it as a land slot. If, for example, you had Crygen's reasonable worry that adding a colorless land like this would make it problematically difficult to hit all your colors of mana, you could still choose to leave all of your color producing lands in your deck and cut a draw spell instead, and think of the option to work as a land as a fringe benefit.
Perhaps I read it backwards, and Onering was saying that Tabernacle is unlike Sol Ring because Sol Ring takes a land slot and not a spell slot (I read "the latter" as the second thing referenced in that sentence, but it does make more sense when flipped around.) But that seems like another good reason to trim quotes and point out exactly where I was mistaken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Implying there is ever a reason to not play Library as your first land assuming you can. "The way a card gets played" involves slamming Library as quickly as possible. Saying it's less powerful later in the game so it's okay is like saying Worldfire is okay because you can't cast it on turn 1; that's not the problem with the card and you know it, so trying to argue otherwise is intentionally misleading.
Well I guess that's where we differ. I'm not some brainless nub thst approaches deckbuilding like it's 98 cards plus Sol Ring. I want every card to serve a specific purpose, and when I'm making cuts to my deck the first cards on the chopping block are ones that have a very narrow window for full potential.
And I'm not discounting LoA and saying that it does nothing when you aren't drawing a card off it. Being able to tap for mana is great. But I maintain that most of my decks already want to run a handful of colorless lands, and when given a choice of running something like Kessig Wolf Run OR Library, I'm going to run KWR every time.
And I'm not discounting LoA and saying that it does nothing when you aren't drawing a card off it. Being able to tap for mana is great. But I maintain that most of my decks already want to run a handful of colorless lands, and when given a choice of running something like Kessig Wolf Run OR Library, I'm going to run KWR every time.
For any single land to be a better inclusion than Library, it must serve a specific, unique, and vital purpose. Examples include Forbidden Orchard in my Glissa, the Traitor deck, or Cavern of Souls in a deck that requires its Commander to resolve to function.
And in the rare case this applies? You have another thirty or more cards to look at, before you even begin to consider nonland cards. To imply otherwise is factitious.
Unless the central premise of your deck is Jund Hellbent, where your goal is to cast One With Nothing, Library is an objectively better inclusion than Wolf Run.
That you would choose to deliberately weaken your deck by not playing Karakas is not a valid argument in favor of its legality. This applies to any ban discussion.
I also find it interesting that on my firsthand report you requested on the impact Library has on games, and likely long-term influence it would have on deck construction, the singular point you deigned to comment on was that Library was played turn one, and how that does not apply because it won't happen every game.
Edit: I hate managing tags on a phone. Why is Cavern of Souls (above) not displaying a card link for me? Is it linking correctly for others? As far as I can tell, the tag is correct. Edit: Fixed Cavern tag on desktop.
Well I guess that's where we differ. I'm not some brainless nub thst approaches deckbuilding like it's 98 cards plus Sol Ring. I want every card to serve a specific purpose, and when I'm making cuts to my deck the first cards on the chopping block are ones that have a very narrow window for full potential.
I don't understand. Why would the person playing Sol Ring be the brainless nub when they are objectively correct. Also, what exactly do you think Sol Ring does? It has a very specific purpose, and in that purpose Sol Ring stands alone as the best. Sol Ring (andfriends, obviously) is the best currently legal ramp spell available in EDH. Full stop. The next best comparisons aren't even close. Green Sun's Zenith for Dryad Arbor? Good enough to be banned in Modern but laughably inadequate in EDH.
Like I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What about a card that cost 0 and said "Search your library for 5 basic lands and put them into play"? You wouldn't look at that card and go 'Gee Whiz that card sure doesn't help much when I already have 10 lands in play, it must be a bad card.' Because that's what you're trying to do with Sol Ring and Library.
And I'm not discounting LoA and saying that it does nothing when you aren't drawing a card off it. Being able to tap for mana is great. But I maintain that most of my decks already want to run a handful of colorless lands, and when given a choice of running something like Kessig Wolf Run OR Library, I'm going to run KWR every time.
You're making it sound like it is difficult to run both for some reason. Even 3-color decks can easily fit 5-8 colorless lands in without breaking a sweat.
For any single land to be a better inclusion than Library, it must serve a specific, unique, and vital purpose. Examples include Forbidden Orchard in my Glissa, the Traitor deck, or Cavern of Souls in a deck that requires its Commander to resolve to function.
And in the rare case this applies? You have another thirty or more cards to look at, before you even begin to consider nonland cards. To imply otherwise is factitious.
Unless the central premise of your deck is Jund Hellbent, where your goal is to cast One With Nothing, Library is an objectively better inclusion than Wolf Run.
That you would choose to deliberately weaken your deck by not playing Karakas is not a valid argument in favor of its legality. This applies to any ban discussion.
I also find it interesting that on my firsthand report you requested on the impact Library has on games, and likely long-term influence it would have on deck construction, the singular point you deigned to comment on was that Library was played turn one, and how that does not apply because it won't happen every game.
Edit: I hate managing tags on a phone. Why is Cavern of Souls (above) not displaying a card link for me? Is it linking correctly for others? As far as I can tell, the tag is correct.
(Cavern d9esnt show tagged for me either, which is why I don't bother on mobile)
I do appreciate your experiences with the card, and I didn't address them specifically because they are your experiences and it's not my place to say they are wrong, any more than the way I saw it played was wrong. I beleive I've said that a T1 LoA can be very strong, although I question whether it's stronger than T1 Sol Ring. But it's interesting that you mention the player acknowledged a tempo loss (opportunity cost).
Regarding the ease of adding it to a deck, as an example my Karador runs 5 colorless nonbasics. Sure I could go to 6, but that would make a much greater risk of bad opening hands which don't have sufficient colored mana. And of those 5, 4 of them have synergy with the goal of the deck and are more valuable, leaving only Wasteland as the card I could cut. The deck is durdly enough that this is probably the correct play, and would give me another discard outlet potentially. Were I only running two or three colorless lands, then sure I could snap add it.
Lastly, I disagree with choice not factoring into a ban list discussion. The choice to run a less optimized deck list absolutely matters, because it's what actually happens that drives the ban list, not what should happen. The correct deckbuilding choice for everyone is to run tier 1 Hermit Druid or Food chain lists, resulting in those cards getting banned. And yet the majority of players would rather run bird tribal or some janky mill deck than an optimized net deck.
Lastly, I disagree with choice not factoring into a ban list discussion. The choice to run a less optimized deck list absolutely matters, because it's what actually happens that drives the ban list, not what should happen. The correct deckbuilding choice for everyone is to run tier 1 Hermit Druid or Food chain lists, resulting in those cards getting banned. And yet the majority of players would rather run bird tribal or some janky mill deck than an optimized net deck.
There is a difference between choosing to play a weaker deck, and choosing to make your deck weaker. The latter is what you are proposing, and has no value to a discussion on card legality.
What is of value is what impact a card has, when played in a group of otherwise comparable power level, and comparable skill (perhaps with a bit of additional weight given to the ~'75% - 85%' range, as that seems to be the primary target audience).
Any time I refer to 'balance' as a factor for consideration in Commander, this is what I mean. What impact does Hermit Druid have when every deck played is at the '100%' mark? What impact does it have when every deck played is at the '75%' mark? When making a fair comparison, Hermit Druid tends to be very good, perhaps even dominant, but by no means overpowered. Similar for Ad Nauseam.
I argue for Sol Ring & Mana Crypt to be banned, because I have consistently seen them over-perform by significant margins in groups of all power levels.
I argue for Library of Alexandria to remain banned, because I have consistently seen it be more impactful than Sol Ring or Mana Crypt.
It doesn't help that the impact Sol Ring & Mana Crypt have is often subtle, and inexperienced players often attribute the problem to what the artifacts allowed them to cast, rather than the artifacts themselves. Though less so with Library, this is still a factor that affects it (inexperienced players are less likely to identify the significance of that level of additional draw, and instead attribute any problems to the cards drawn - particularly when they are playing against Library).
Edit: To try to illustrate that difference, I will describe how I build decks.
The first step is to decide what I want the deck to do. Is it a control deck? Aggro deck? Is there a tribal theme? Does the deck support a Commander, or does the Commander support the deck?
A persistent 'theme' for me is that Black is always a Primary Color, and Liliana will be included in some iteration. After that, I make the strongest deck I can - I simply do not enjoy playing weak decks.
Will I be playing the strongest deck possible? No.
Will I choose to weaken my deck? No.
It does not matter what deck I make. Including Library would always be the correct decision.
For any single land to be a better inclusion than Library, it must serve a specific, unique, and vital purpose. Examples include Forbidden Orchard in my Glissa, the Traitor deck, or Cavern of Souls in a deck that requires its Commander to resolve to function.
And in the rare case this applies? You have another thirty or more cards to look at, before you even begin to consider nonland cards. To imply otherwise is factitious.
Unless the central premise of your deck is Jund Hellbent, where your goal is to cast One With Nothing, Library is an objectively better inclusion than Wolf Run.
That you would choose to deliberately weaken your deck by not playing Karakas is not a valid argument in favor of its legality. This applies to any ban discussion.
I also find it interesting that on my firsthand report you requested on the impact Library has on games, and likely long-term influence it would have on deck construction, the singular point you deigned to comment on was that Library was played turn one, and how that does not apply because it won't happen every game.
Edit: I hate managing tags on a phone. Why is Cavern of Souls (above) not displaying a card link for me? Is it linking correctly for others? As far as I can tell, the tag is correct.
(Cavern d9esnt show tagged for me either, which is why I don't bother on mobile)
I do appreciate your experiences with the card, and I didn't address them specifically because they are your experiences and it's not my place to say they are wrong, any more than the way I saw it played was wrong. I beleive I've said that a T1 LoA can be very strong, although I question whether it's stronger than T1 Sol Ring. But it's interesting that you mention the player acknowledged a tempo loss (opportunity cost).
Regarding the ease of adding it to a deck, as an example my Karador runs 5 colorless nonbasics. Sure I could go to 6, but that would make a much greater risk of bad opening hands which don't have sufficient colored mana. And of those 5, 4 of them have synergy with the goal of the deck and are more valuable, leaving only Wasteland as the card I could cut. The deck is durdly enough that this is probably the correct play, and would give me another discard outlet potentially. Were I only running two or three colorless lands, then sure I could snap add it.
Lastly, I disagree with choice not factoring into a ban list discussion. The choice to run a less optimized deck list absolutely matters, because it's what actually happens that drives the ban list, not what should happen. The correct deckbuilding choice for everyone is to run tier 1 Hermit Druid or Food chain lists, resulting in those cards getting banned. And yet the majority of players would rather run bird tribal or some janky mill deck than an optimized net deck.
But is LoA always the correct choice?
I don’t think it is. I’d argue in any given deck, besides colorless, it competes with 5-7 lands as you mentioned(not 30...).
These are just some of the cards that have a higher value to me in the deckbuilding process than LoA would were it unbanned. Having a repeatable uncounterable, yet conditional, cantrip isn’t as appealing in this format as it is in other eternal formats. I play both, so I’m speaking from experience as well.
There is a home for it where it will pull it’s weight and make people say “wow, that’s broken”, but it surely isn’t every deck, definitely not all of the time, and lots of times, it’ll just remain on the sidelines.
I argue for Sol Ring & Mana Crypt to be banned, because I have consistently seen them over-perform by significant margins in groups of all power levels.
I argue for Library of Alexandria to remain banned, because I have consistently seen it be more impactful than Sol Ring or Mana Crypt.
It doesn't help that the impact Sol Ring & Mana Crypt have is often subtle, and inexperienced players often attribute the problem to what the artifacts allowed them to cast, rather than the artifacts themselves. Though less so with Library, this is still a factor that affects it (inexperienced players are less likely to identify the significance of that level of additional draw, and instead attribute any problems to the cards drawn - particularly when they are playing against Library).
I’ve been around the EDH block quite a few times and I wholeheartedly disagree. I’d even go so far as to say I take offense to being lumped in with “inexperienced” players because I believe Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are only as strong as the cards used to cast them. For example, I can go
T:2 forest Eternal Witness all the same as if I were to cast a Sol Ring T1. What you are casting with that additional mana absolutley does matter. I’d argue what you are implying is actually the opposite, and that inexperienced players go “WOW, T1 Sol Ring? Welp, games over now, I won’t be able to keep up”, when I’m reality, there is still an entire game to be played and that they have just as much of a chance to brick with that advantage than they are to explode to victory with it.
Of all the lands you mentioned, only Wasteland & Strip Mine are what I would call 'must include', and I would happily replace either of them with Library of Alexandria in literally any deck, if there was no other option.
I play Kor Haven in every White deck I build. It is correct to cut it for Library.
I play Ancient Tomb in most decks, regardless of color. It is correct to cut it for Library.
Tectonic Edge is bad, and should only ever be played if you cannot afford Wasteland, and your group disallows the use of proxies.
I played Reliquary Tower a few times, eight years ago. It has never been included in a deck since, and in the rare circumstance it is actually worth playing, it is correct to cut it for Library.
Of all the lands you mentioned, only Wasteland & Strip Mine are what I would call 'must include', and I would happily replace either of them with Library of Alexandria in literally any deck, if there was no other option.
I play Kor Haven in every White deck I build. It is correct to cut it for Library.
I play Ancient Tomb in most decks, regardless of color. It is correct to cut it for Library.
Tectonic Edge is bad, and should only ever be played if you cannot afford Wasteland, and your group disallows the use of proxies.
I played Reliquary Tower a few times, eight years ago. It has never been included in a deck since, and in the rare circumstance it is actually worth playing, it is correct to cut it for Library.
Repeat this for the rest of your list.
Well, I don’t see it that way. Like, at all. All this time, I’ve been playing this format wrong, whodathunkit?
That’s a pretty strong statement without anything tonreally back it up, though.
I did not say you are playing 'wrong'
I said the objectively correct choice is to play Library in literally every deck, and that your deliberate choice to weaken your deck by not doing so (whatever the reason may be) , or your inability to do so, is not a relevant point of discussion when debating the legality of its use.
There is a difference between choosing to play a weaker deck, and choosing to make your deck weaker. The latter is what you are proposing, and has no value to a discussion on card legality.
What is of value is what impact a card has, when played in a group of otherwise comparable power level, and comparable skill (perhaps with a bit of additional weight given to the ~'75% - 85%' range, as that seems to be the primary target audience).
Any time I refer to 'balance' as a factor for consideration in Commander, this is what I mean. What impact does Hermit Druid have when every deck played is at the '100%' mark? What impact does it have when every deck played is at the '75%' mark? When making a fair comparison, Hermit Druid tends to be very good, perhaps even dominant, but by no means overpowered. Similar for Ad Nauseam.
I argue for Sol Ring & Mana Crypt to be banned, because I have consistently seen them over-perform by significant margins in groups of all power levels.
I argue for Library of Alexandria to remain banned, because I have consistently seen it be more impactful than Sol Ring or Mana Crypt.
It doesn't help that the impact Sol Ring & Mana Crypt have is often subtle, and inexperienced players often attribute the problem to what the artifacts allowed them to cast, rather than the artifacts themselves. Though less so with Library, this is still a factor that affects it (inexperienced players are less likely to identify the significance of that level of additional draw, and instead attribute any problems to the cards drawn - particularly when they are playing against Library).
Edit: To try to illustrate that difference, I will describe how I build decks.
The first step is to decide what I want the deck to do. Is it a control deck? Aggro deck? Is there a tribal theme? Does the deck support a Commander, or does the Commander support the deck?
A persistent 'theme' for me is that Black is always a Primary Color, and Liliana will be included in some iteration. After that, I make the strongest deck I can - I simply do not enjoy playing weak decks.
Will I be playing the strongest deck possible? No.
Will I choose to weaken my deck? No.
It does not matter what deck I make. Including Library would always be the correct decision.
I don't think we approach decks that much differently, and I don't think we disagree so much on the power level of Library (or Sol Ring for that matter). Where we differ is this: my underlying argument is that PBtE should be removed as a ban criteria. Once you do that you are only left with the power level and ubiquity of the card. And while I agree with you that (much like Sol Ring) it can give a significant advantage when played in the first couple of turns, and while I do agree that it is a subtle advantage often misattributed to the other flashier cards played, I disagree that this strength is detrimental to a multiplayer format which at best has multiple opponents and at worst multiple opponents ganging up on you. And unlike Sol Ring, Library isn't going to ruin as many games all over the world because of supply issues.
I did not say you are playing 'wrong'
I said the objectively correct choice is to play Library in literally every deck, and that your deliberate choice to weaken your deck by not doing so (whatever the reason may be) , or your inability to do so, is not a relevant point of discussion when debating the legality of its use.
It’s not objective, though. I’m not going to tutor for it with Crop Rotation or Expedition map. It’s not going to be a good top deck. It’s not going to steal a game that I’m behind in. It has a niche role. I’d run Sensei’s Divining Top and Scroll Rack over LoA all day every day, they’re just flat out better, and at all stages of the game.
Where we differ is this: my underlying argument is that PBtE should be removed as a ban criteria. Once you do that you are only left with the power level and ubiquity of the card.
I fully agree. The only time I ever indulge in the Perceived Barrier to Entry argument is to explain that secondary market value is a small, derived aspect of that criteria.
And yet, every one of the nine cards banned with that listed as criteria need to stay banned for simply being grossly overpowered and universally played in every deck they are legal. They are all significantly and negatively warping.
Basically, I want PBtE removed as a listed ban criteria (even with the current 'obsolete' qualifier) as an academic function, mostly to get people to stop using it in misguided arguments for banning a plethora of other cards they cannot afford.
I fully agree. The only time I ever indulge in the Perceived Barrier to Entry argument is to explain that secondary market value is a small, derived aspect of that criteria.
And yet, every one of the nine cards banned with that listed as criteria need to stay banned for simply being grossly overpowered and universally played in every deck they are legal. They are all significantly and negatively warping.
Basically, I want PBtE removed as a listed ban criteria (even with the current 'obsolete' qualifier) as an academic function, mostly to get people to stop using it in misguided arguments for banning a plethora of other cards they cannot afford.
And that's where we differ. I don't view Library as negatively warping.
I fully agree. The only time I ever indulge in the Perceived Barrier to Entry argument is to explain that secondary market value is a small, derived aspect of that criteria.
And yet, every one of the nine cards banned with that listed as criteria need to stay banned for simply being grossly overpowered and universally played in every deck they are legal. They are all significantly and negatively warping.
Basically, I want PBtE removed as a listed ban criteria (even with the current 'obsolete' qualifier) as an academic function, mostly to get people to stop using it in misguided arguments for banning a plethora of other cards they cannot afford.
And that's where we differ. I don't view Library as negatively warping.
Just for the sake of clarity, this is also my stance. I’m not saying LoA isn’t powerful, but it’s not banworthy, even though I could never shell out the dough to obtain one in IRL. I just can’t see myself ever saying, “Ya know, my deck could really use LoA.”
Just for the sake of clarity, this is also my stance. I’m not saying LoA isn’t powerful, but it’s not banworthy, even though I could never shell out the dough to obtain one in IRL. I just can’t see myself ever saying, “Ya know, my deck could really use LoA.”
For full disclosure, were it legal (and I didn't already own one) it would 100% be a card which I would want to own and lament not being able to afford without some sort of monetary windfall. It's how I currently feel about Timetwister, and to a lesser extent Workshop.
Just for the sake of clarity, this is also my stance. I’m not saying LoA isn’t powerful, but it’s not banworthy, even though I could never shell out the dough to obtain one in IRL. I just can’t see myself ever saying, “Ya know, my deck could really use LoA.”
For full disclosure, were it legal (and I didn't already own one) it would 100% be a card which I would want to own and lament not being able to afford without some sort of monetary windfall. It's how I currently feel about Timetwister, and to a lesser extent Workshop.
No, because I only own one copy and don't proxy. I also have a self-imposed building restriction to only own one copy of my cards and never overlap in my decks. Not even Sol Ring. *gasp*
But for the real answer to your question, no, it would not be an auto include in "literally every deck". I would certainly pull it for inclusion, but when the time came to cut from 120+ down to 99 it would get evaluated on the merit of how well my deck could work to keep it from being Waste if I topdecked it. And depending on the number of other colorless lands I was running I would have to evaluate it against those.
The only way I can call it an auto include is if the deck only ran a couple of nonbasics.
Totally discount the way a card gets played sometimes and focus on one portion of the data. Got it.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
This is the best argument made for LoA so far. I think that Sol Ring actually interacts pretty positively with the nature of the format late game, essentially negating a round of commander tax and letting players who didn't draw enough mana catch up. Its best performance late game is significantly weaker than its performance early game. 2 mana ramp turn 8 is nice, but not particularly impactful, while its bonkers turn 1. LoA's best performance is still drawing a card every turn. Sure, the likelihood that it simply won't work, and will just be a untapped colorless land, is higher, but drawing an extra card every turn is almost as important turn 8 as it is turn 1, and the likelihood that you'll have to sacrifice tempo to draw cards is much lower. The opportunity cost for including it is essentially zero for anything but 4 and 5 color decks (or 3 color with bad mana bases, but lets face it, if you can afford to run LoA after its unbanned, you can afford duals, shocks, and all the relevant fetches, so you'll be fine). Unlike Tabernacle, it works in any deck, and it takes a land slot rather than a spell slot (the latter is also unlike Sol Ring). Now, there are certain decks where it will be less good of course, if your deck runs best by playing out its hand quickly then its not going to be active enough to be an auto include. If you have any card draw and recursion, however, and your deck tends to sit at 4-5 cards in hand, its very easy to make up the extra couple of cards needed to turn on Library.
It may not be much, but I think that, and how powerful it is early, combine to make it somewhat more problematic for the format than Sol Ring. The issue here is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and if Sol Ring is the poster child for borderline, then anything over that line should stay banned. Personally, I think that's also an argument for banning Mana Crypt, the one legal rock I'd be fine with seeing go.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
What? Are you arguing that Library is a land and so it takes a land sot where Sol Ring isn't a land so it takes a non-land slot? If you think Library is less of a spell and more of a land in function, you're wrong. Sol Ring is ramp, but it's so low to the ground, you can cut a and for it without weakening your mana base, and that is a good quality few other ramp cards share. Library of Alexandria is a land, but its powerful secondary ability means you can pay it as a draw spell, letting you play an additional land in your deck without lowering your density of draw spells, and that's also a good quality. I don't agree with the "goes in any deck" assessment on Library because there are decks that want to play aggressively to the board, but the deck that wants to sit back on a full grip is also the deck that wants to consistently hit land drops and would probably be happy to play an additional land if it could draw a card every turn. That it doesn't necessarily just take up a land slot is a point in Library's favor.
I have to disagree here. With well over half a decade playing both, Sol Ring is the stronger card in most typical games of Commander. I have seen players, myself included, lose to Mana Crypt triggers far more often than the CMC 1 of Sol Ring noticably affect the outcome of a game.
I believe both need to be banned. Failing that, they are close enough to functional copies that neither should be banned.
Cutting a quote mid-sentence to avoid context and declare someone wrong is rather rude, and raises scepticism about anything else you say, regardless of how valid it may or may not be. With your phrasing, I also cannot tell if you are saying that is a point in favor of, or against banning.
What was said was that Library of Alexandria occupies a land slot, not a spell slot, & that this differs from the Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale,
Meaning Tabernacle takes a spell slot, not a land slot.
On an unrelated note, I have just learned edditing post quotes on a phone is a pain in the ass.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Or it saves space and makes it obvious what part of the post I'm responding to. Also, it's a bit harsh to call it declaring someone wrong when prefaced with a coupe question marks and the "if you think" qualifier.
What's there to be skeptical about? I presented no facts or data to even be lying about. It was all conceptual discussion of deckbuilding that you're free to agree or disagree with.
I meant that it was a point in favor of playing Library in a deck, that you don't have to think of it as a land slot. If, for example, you had Crygen's reasonable worry that adding a colorless land like this would make it problematically difficult to hit all your colors of mana, you could still choose to leave all of your color producing lands in your deck and cut a draw spell instead, and think of the option to work as a land as a fringe benefit.
Perhaps I read it backwards, and Onering was saying that Tabernacle is unlike Sol Ring because Sol Ring takes a land slot and not a spell slot (I read "the latter" as the second thing referenced in that sentence, but it does make more sense when flipped around.) But that seems like another good reason to trim quotes and point out exactly where I was mistaken.
Well I guess that's where we differ. I'm not some brainless nub thst approaches deckbuilding like it's 98 cards plus Sol Ring. I want every card to serve a specific purpose, and when I'm making cuts to my deck the first cards on the chopping block are ones that have a very narrow window for full potential.
And I'm not discounting LoA and saying that it does nothing when you aren't drawing a card off it. Being able to tap for mana is great. But I maintain that most of my decks already want to run a handful of colorless lands, and when given a choice of running something like Kessig Wolf Run OR Library, I'm going to run KWR every time.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
For any single land to be a better inclusion than Library, it must serve a specific, unique, and vital purpose. Examples include Forbidden Orchard in my Glissa, the Traitor deck, or Cavern of Souls in a deck that requires its Commander to resolve to function.
And in the rare case this applies? You have another thirty or more cards to look at, before you even begin to consider nonland cards. To imply otherwise is factitious.
Unless the central premise of your deck is Jund Hellbent, where your goal is to cast One With Nothing, Library is an objectively better inclusion than Wolf Run.
That you would choose to deliberately weaken your deck by not playing Karakas is not a valid argument in favor of its legality. This applies to any ban discussion.
I also find it interesting that on my firsthand report you requested on the impact Library has on games, and likely long-term influence it would have on deck construction, the singular point you deigned to comment on was that Library was played turn one, and how that does not apply because it won't happen every game.
Edit: I hate managing tags on a phone. Why is Cavern of Souls (above) not displaying a card link for me? Is it linking correctly for others? As far as I can tell, the tag is correct.
Edit: Fixed Cavern tag on desktop.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Like I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What about a card that cost 0 and said "Search your library for 5 basic lands and put them into play"? You wouldn't look at that card and go 'Gee Whiz that card sure doesn't help much when I already have 10 lands in play, it must be a bad card.' Because that's what you're trying to do with Sol Ring and Library.
You're making it sound like it is difficult to run both for some reason. Even 3-color decks can easily fit 5-8 colorless lands in without breaking a sweat.
(Cavern d9esnt show tagged for me either, which is why I don't bother on mobile)
I do appreciate your experiences with the card, and I didn't address them specifically because they are your experiences and it's not my place to say they are wrong, any more than the way I saw it played was wrong. I beleive I've said that a T1 LoA can be very strong, although I question whether it's stronger than T1 Sol Ring. But it's interesting that you mention the player acknowledged a tempo loss (opportunity cost).
Regarding the ease of adding it to a deck, as an example my Karador runs 5 colorless nonbasics. Sure I could go to 6, but that would make a much greater risk of bad opening hands which don't have sufficient colored mana. And of those 5, 4 of them have synergy with the goal of the deck and are more valuable, leaving only Wasteland as the card I could cut. The deck is durdly enough that this is probably the correct play, and would give me another discard outlet potentially. Were I only running two or three colorless lands, then sure I could snap add it.
Lastly, I disagree with choice not factoring into a ban list discussion. The choice to run a less optimized deck list absolutely matters, because it's what actually happens that drives the ban list, not what should happen. The correct deckbuilding choice for everyone is to run tier 1 Hermit Druid or Food chain lists, resulting in those cards getting banned. And yet the majority of players would rather run bird tribal or some janky mill deck than an optimized net deck.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
There is a difference between choosing to play a weaker deck, and choosing to make your deck weaker. The latter is what you are proposing, and has no value to a discussion on card legality.
What is of value is what impact a card has, when played in a group of otherwise comparable power level, and comparable skill (perhaps with a bit of additional weight given to the ~'75% - 85%' range, as that seems to be the primary target audience).
Any time I refer to 'balance' as a factor for consideration in Commander, this is what I mean. What impact does Hermit Druid have when every deck played is at the '100%' mark? What impact does it have when every deck played is at the '75%' mark? When making a fair comparison, Hermit Druid tends to be very good, perhaps even dominant, but by no means overpowered. Similar for Ad Nauseam.
I argue for Sol Ring & Mana Crypt to be banned, because I have consistently seen them over-perform by significant margins in groups of all power levels.
I argue for Library of Alexandria to remain banned, because I have consistently seen it be more impactful than Sol Ring or Mana Crypt.
It doesn't help that the impact Sol Ring & Mana Crypt have is often subtle, and inexperienced players often attribute the problem to what the artifacts allowed them to cast, rather than the artifacts themselves. Though less so with Library, this is still a factor that affects it (inexperienced players are less likely to identify the significance of that level of additional draw, and instead attribute any problems to the cards drawn - particularly when they are playing against Library).
Edit: To try to illustrate that difference, I will describe how I build decks.
The first step is to decide what I want the deck to do. Is it a control deck? Aggro deck? Is there a tribal theme? Does the deck support a Commander, or does the Commander support the deck?
A persistent 'theme' for me is that Black is always a Primary Color, and Liliana will be included in some iteration.
After that, I make the strongest deck I can - I simply do not enjoy playing weak decks.
Will I be playing the strongest deck possible? No.
Will I choose to weaken my deck? No.
It does not matter what deck I make. Including Library would always be the correct decision.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
But is LoA always the correct choice?
I don’t think it is. I’d argue in any given deck, besides colorless, it competes with 5-7 lands as you mentioned(not 30...).
Kessig Wolf Run
Kor Haven
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Tectonic Edge
Volraths Stronghold
Ancient Tomb
Academy Ruins
Arcane Lighthouse
Reliquary Tower
Opal Palace
Mishra’s Factory
Riptide Laboratory
Alchemist Refuge
Winding Canyons
These are just some of the cards that have a higher value to me in the deckbuilding process than LoA would were it unbanned. Having a repeatable uncounterable, yet conditional, cantrip isn’t as appealing in this format as it is in other eternal formats. I play both, so I’m speaking from experience as well.
There is a home for it where it will pull it’s weight and make people say “wow, that’s broken”, but it surely isn’t every deck, definitely not all of the time, and lots of times, it’ll just remain on the sidelines.
I’ve been around the EDH block quite a few times and I wholeheartedly disagree. I’d even go so far as to say I take offense to being lumped in with “inexperienced” players because I believe Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are only as strong as the cards used to cast them. For example, I can go
T:1- Fetch/Forest, Llanowar elf.
T:2 forest Eternal Witness all the same as if I were to cast a Sol Ring T1. What you are casting with that additional mana absolutley does matter. I’d argue what you are implying is actually the opposite, and that inexperienced players go “WOW, T1 Sol Ring? Welp, games over now, I won’t be able to keep up”, when I’m reality, there is still an entire game to be played and that they have just as much of a chance to brick with that advantage than they are to explode to victory with it.
Yes, it is.
Of all the lands you mentioned, only Wasteland & Strip Mine are what I would call 'must include', and I would happily replace either of them with Library of Alexandria in literally any deck, if there was no other option.
I play Kor Haven in every White deck I build. It is correct to cut it for Library.
I play Ancient Tomb in most decks, regardless of color. It is correct to cut it for Library.
Tectonic Edge is bad, and should only ever be played if you cannot afford Wasteland, and your group disallows the use of proxies.
I played Reliquary Tower a few times, eight years ago. It has never been included in a deck since, and in the rare circumstance it is actually worth playing, it is correct to cut it for Library.
Repeat this for the rest of your list.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Well, I don’t see it that way. Like, at all. All this time, I’ve been playing this format wrong, whodathunkit?
That’s a pretty strong statement without anything tonreally back it up, though.
I said the objectively correct choice is to play Library in literally every deck, and that your deliberate choice to weaken your deck by not doing so (whatever the reason may be) , or your inability to do so, is not a relevant point of discussion when debating the legality of its use.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
I don't think we approach decks that much differently, and I don't think we disagree so much on the power level of Library (or Sol Ring for that matter). Where we differ is this: my underlying argument is that PBtE should be removed as a ban criteria. Once you do that you are only left with the power level and ubiquity of the card. And while I agree with you that (much like Sol Ring) it can give a significant advantage when played in the first couple of turns, and while I do agree that it is a subtle advantage often misattributed to the other flashier cards played, I disagree that this strength is detrimental to a multiplayer format which at best has multiple opponents and at worst multiple opponents ganging up on you. And unlike Sol Ring, Library isn't going to ruin as many games all over the world because of supply issues.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It’s not objective, though. I’m not going to tutor for it with Crop Rotation or Expedition map. It’s not going to be a good top deck. It’s not going to steal a game that I’m behind in. It has a niche role. I’d run Sensei’s Divining Top and Scroll Rack over LoA all day every day, they’re just flat out better, and at all stages of the game.
I fully agree. The only time I ever indulge in the Perceived Barrier to Entry argument is to explain that secondary market value is a small, derived aspect of that criteria.
And yet, every one of the nine cards banned with that listed as criteria need to stay banned for simply being grossly overpowered and universally played in every deck they are legal. They are all significantly and negatively warping.
Basically, I want PBtE removed as a listed ban criteria (even with the current 'obsolete' qualifier) as an academic function, mostly to get people to stop using it in misguided arguments for banning a plethora of other cards they cannot afford.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
And that's where we differ. I don't view Library as negatively warping.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Just for the sake of clarity, this is also my stance. I’m not saying LoA isn’t powerful, but it’s not banworthy, even though I could never shell out the dough to obtain one in IRL. I just can’t see myself ever saying, “Ya know, my deck could really use LoA.”
For full disclosure, were it legal (and I didn't already own one) it would 100% be a card which I would want to own and lament not being able to afford without some sort of monetary windfall. It's how I currently feel about Timetwister, and to a lesser extent Workshop.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
But, would you play it in every deck?
Now I really want to "At the end of your draw step, activate Library of Alexandria; in response, sacrifice Mindslicer to Viscera Seer."
If I continue testing with Library locally, that is something most of my decks would be capable of.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
No, because I only own one copy and don't proxy. I also have a self-imposed building restriction to only own one copy of my cards and never overlap in my decks. Not even Sol Ring. *gasp*
But for the real answer to your question, no, it would not be an auto include in "literally every deck". I would certainly pull it for inclusion, but when the time came to cut from 120+ down to 99 it would get evaluated on the merit of how well my deck could work to keep it from being Waste if I topdecked it. And depending on the number of other colorless lands I was running I would have to evaluate it against those.
The only way I can call it an auto include is if the deck only ran a couple of nonbasics.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg