You keep throwing around words like logical outcome as if this stuff can easily be reduced to ones and zeroes.
You're oversimplifying and making questionable comparisons. And neglecting the whole for a narrow comment.
People do not play edh as if they were all game theory experts. It's rarely as simple as a couple of options.
Anyway I don't really expect or care to convince you as I'm not really sure myself if the should be banned - I take issue mostly with how you're arguing it.
Making comparisons like void winnower or new kozilek just confuses me. The mechanism is nothing like iona at all.
No one here is arguing for a ban on any card that could ever be annoying to play against. Its the specifics of iona and how her mechanics differ that people dislike.
You keep throwing around words like logical outcome as if this stuff can easily be reduced to ones and zeroes.
You're oversimplifying and making questionable comparisons. And neglecting the whole for a narrow comment.
People do not play edh as if they were all game theory experts. It's rarely as simple as a couple of options.
Anyway I don't really expect or care to convince you as I'm not really sure myself if the should be banned - I take issue mostly with how you're arguing it.
Making comparisons like void winnower or new kozilek just confuses me. The mechanism is nothing like iona at all.
No one here is arguing for a ban on any card that could ever be annoying to play against. Its the specifics of iona and how her mechanics differ that people dislike.
Agreed. Over 9000 agree. I agree with everything else as well.
I think people need to remember that while we are here “discussing” how one card affects the format and it’s worthy-ness if you will of being either banned, or unbanned, we are just an insignificant fraction of the overall playerbase of EDH. However, one could argue that the most talked about cards deserve the most attention, so, the Iona, Shield of Emeria thread is currently 19 pages long. Currently, a Void Winnower thread has yet to be created. How could this be? A card that is infinitely easier to “be annoying” with(Colorless cost, arguably a more playable tribe, affects the board as well), yet nobody is talking about it. Personally, I find Iona more annoying because all too often somebody is just “collateral damage”, much like Sunder Titan. Mono-U player getting ready to combo, or just has otherwise countered everything, so reanimate Iona to shut things down. Oh, but your Tibor and Lumia flying-tribal deck? Yeah, sorry, not today. Oh, you’re only way to interact with Iona is also U? Well, you better hope another player wants to help out.
She just really punishes you in the deckbuilding phase.
I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
I see Iona talked about all the time in my parts. The less hyper competitive players have even started taking her out of their decks because as stated above, she never makes any deck more fun, and generally generates bad feelings.
The primary reason she needs to be banned is because she attacks the primary build condition of the format. If you could splash cards outside your color to deal with her, she wouldn't be nearly as bad. But having 1+ players sit around twiddling their thumbs because Iona completely locked out their deck, but doesn't do enough to kill them, is aggravating on multiple levels.
You say that if she locks out someone, the other players ignore the locked out player. Most players I see simply kill that player so they can go do something else, or just let Iona chill on the board because that's one less opponent to deal with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
The idea you guys keep positing that you would specificly counter-pick(fundamentally) for a card you are not sure you are going to even play against is wild to me.
The multi-color decks I make generally have balanced removal only as a function of mana not being infinite so I can not guarantee what mana my deck will give me and having options for all eventualities is good deck building.
But they could have X spell so I have to make sure every deck I play has Y is so anathema to how I want to construct decks, and I don't.
So as much as I disagree with their decisions in some respects, the whole "remove the banlist because it doesn't cater to cEDH players or Jank players well enough," really has to stop.
The Format would be an unmitigated disaster if I couldn't sit down at a table anywhere and say "You playing CEDH? No, okay, let's have a game." Because that's what it would be like if there were no banlist.
This, like 30,000 times. The banned list isn't perfect. Most of us disagree with one or more decisions the RC has made (I still think making commanders invulnerable to tucking was a mistake, personally). But by and large it works, as demonstrated by the continued success of the format and by the fact people are on here arguing about it rather than having given up and decided to play or do something else.
You seem to be missing the point. EDH is predicated on the idea of the social contract. A ban list is incongruous with that idea, in that it implicitly means that we as players are incapable of policing ourselves in accordance with the social contract. Putting a card on the ban list is akin to the RC saying "we don't think the average EDH player can be trusted to use this card in a fun way, so we're taking it away." Are they wrong? I don't know, considering the first responses to the idea of entirely removing the ban list were "I'm immediately going to proxy all the most powerful cards in jam them into my decks without a second thought." Maybe we are, collectively, too stupid to be trusted.
I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
That thread wasn’t circular at all. It was a very small group of people, yourself included, applying the same reasoning you did here for why she shouldn’t be banned. I just find it odd that you continually dismiss ones anecdotal evidence with your own, like somehow your experiences hold more weight than others.
As for the bold bit, well, that would put you incredibly out of touch with reality. Reddit, numerous podcasts and YouTube videos, other blogs. Hell, it even came up in “ask the RC” Q&A, which if I’m not mistaken, brought us back to this discussion in the first place. I just find that to be an ignorant and self serving statement.
More proof? How about the dream banlist poll? Iona is routinely right there with fast mana, going back as far as 2015. So, your opinion that a “small group of loud people” are the reason we talk about Iona is incorrect.
You seem to be missing the point. EDH is predicated on the idea of the social contract. A ban list is incongruous with that idea, in that it implicitly means that we as players are incapable of policing ourselves in accordance with the social contract. Putting a card on the ban list is akin to the RC saying "we don't think the average EDH player can be trusted to use this card in a fun way, so we're taking it away." Are they wrong? I don't know, considering the first responses to the idea of entirely removing the ban list were "I'm immediately going to proxy all the most powerful cards in jam them into my decks without a second thought." Maybe we are, collectively, too stupid to be trusted.
You have it backwards. The ban list didn't come about to compliment the social contract, the social contract is meant to supplement the ban list. The ban list (and accompanying philosophy document) are in place to serve as a baseline for how the RC approaches and manages the format, as well for the players to have more insight into the default way to play. The social contract is the RC acknowledging that doing this has left the door wide open for people to interact with many different decks and playstyles. It's kind of like Monopoly. There is a default way to play the game, but enough house rules for situations to arise mid game where players clash from disagreements on the rules. This is where you can have better games from quick questions before hand, like "do we auction if someone passes on buying a property? Can I buy houses at any point in my turn or only before I roll?"
For me, the fact that many people instantly would gravitate towards a large chunk of banned cards seems to reinforce the idea that if legal, they are cards that would be widespread. Now, I have only actually played with a small number of the ones on my list, but I feel confident in my theory crafting for most of the remainder. And most of the ban list should stay right where it is.
I’ve gone over and over the Commander banlist, but can’t figure out why any of the cards on that list are banned. The old “too expensive” excuse is clearly out of date. So what does that leave? Maybe breaking the spirit of the format or being too fast/easy/powerful? But doesn’t the social contract deal with that? I’m literally confused. Am I missing something? Could someone explain it to me or provide a link to something that explains it? tyia
You have it backwards. The ban list didn't come about to compliment the social contract, the social contract is meant to supplement the ban list. The ban list (and accompanying philosophy document) are in place to serve as a baseline for how the RC approaches and manages the format, as well for the players to have more insight into the default way to play. The social contract is the RC acknowledging that doing this has left the door wide open for people to interact with many different decks and playstyles.
I disagree. The social contract is clearly the primary driving force behind the very idea of EDH. It is the notion that win or lose, you should build and play in a way that ensures all participants can have an enjoyable time. The ban list is simply an extension of that, giving examples of the things the RC found to be detrimental to their ability to uphold the social contract. It even says as much on the official ban list page (emphasis mine): "[t]hese cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." The problem is that for the majority of EDH games, the ban list isn't just a polite suggestion but the gospel by which we live. The cold, hard nature of the ban list is completely antithetical to the idea of playing whatever works for your group.
I’ve gone over and over the Commander banlist, but can’t figure out why any of the cards on that list are banned. The old “too expensive” excuse is clearly out of date. So what does that leave? Maybe breaking the spirit of the format or being too fast/easy/powerful? But doesn’t the social contract deal with that? I’m literally confused. Am I missing something? Could someone explain it to me or provide a link to something that explains it? tyia
The FAQ link in my signature has quotes from the RC on many of the cards explaining why the are banned. It also has the philosophy document that goes over what their criteria is for banning a card.
I disagree. The social contract is clearly the primary driving force behind the very idea of EDH. It is the notion that win or lose, you should build and play in a way that ensures all participants can have an enjoyable time. The ban list is simply an extension of that, giving examples of the things the RC found to be detrimental to their ability to uphold the social contract. It even says as much on the official ban list page (emphasis mine): "[t]hese cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." The problem is that for the majority of EDH games, the ban list isn't just a polite suggestion but the gospel by which we live. The cold, hard nature of the ban list is completely antithetical to the idea of playing whatever works for your group.
If the majority of EDH games are public games amongst strangers or people that aren't closely knit groups, then sure they are going to want to deviate from the established ban list. If you are playing in a closed group and they are unwilling to waver then perhaps either they also feel strongly about the banned cards you wish to play, or they are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone.
I’ve gone over and over the Commander banlist, but can’t figure out why any of the cards on that list are banned. The old “too expensive” excuse is clearly out of date. So what does that leave? Maybe breaking the spirit of the format or being too fast/easy/powerful? But doesn’t the social contract deal with that? I’m literally confused. Am I missing something? Could someone explain it to me or provide a link to something that explains it? tyia
The FAQ link in my signature has quotes from the RC on many of the cards explaining why the are banned. It also has the philosophy document that goes over what their criteria is for banning a card.
I disagree. The social contract is clearly the primary driving force behind the very idea of EDH. It is the notion that win or lose, you should build and play in a way that ensures all participants can have an enjoyable time. The ban list is simply an extension of that, giving examples of the things the RC found to be detrimental to their ability to uphold the social contract. It even says as much on the official ban list page (emphasis mine): "[t]hese cards should not be played without prior agreement from the other players in the game, and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." The problem is that for the majority of EDH games, the ban list isn't just a polite suggestion but the gospel by which we live. The cold, hard nature of the ban list is completely antithetical to the idea of playing whatever works for your group.
If the majority of EDH games are public games amongst strangers or people that aren't closely knit groups, then sure they are going to want to deviate from the established ban list. If you are playing in a closed group and they are unwilling to waver then perhaps either they also feel strongly about the banned cards you wish to play, or they are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone.
Sounds to me like they should rename it to the “watch” list or something other than “ban” list because to call it a “ban” list and then define it as as something else has proven to be misleading beyond belief.
If the majority of EDH games are public games amongst strangers or people that aren't closely knit groups, then sure they are going to want to deviate from the established ban list. If you are playing in a closed group and they are unwilling to waver then perhaps either they also feel strongly about the banned cards you wish to play, or they are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone.
This has nothing to do with any particular group. It is a general problem of the format as a function of its overwhelming size. If I'm not explaining it clearly, let me try an example; it is like if you tried to make a National Calvinball League. Calvinball is a game in which the rules are agreed upon by the participants, and they are essentially made up as the game goes on. But a league necessitates a standardized set of rules, which completely goes against the spirit of Calvinball.
Sounds to me like they should rename it to the “watch” list or something other than “ban” list because to call it a “ban” list and then define it as as something else has proven to be misleading beyond belief.
What's misleading about it? "These cards are banned, but if you talk with the people you are playing in and agree to deviate from the established rules, cool." How is this any different if I wanted to playtest a Modern deck with someone and beforehand asked if I could run Stoneforge Mystic in a deck in anticipation of it being unbanned?
This has nothing to do with any particular group. It is a general problem of the format as a function of its overwhelming size. If I'm not explaining it clearly, let me try an example; it is like if you tried to make a National Calvinball League. Calvinball is a game in which the rules are agreed upon by the participants, and they are essentially made up as the game goes on. But a league necessitates a standardized set of rules, which completely goes against the spirit of Calvinball.
You're trying to liken Commander, a format which has a very clear set of rules, to a fictional game in which the rules are made up as you go. I feel like we are talking past each other at this point.
The banlist lets you go to any shop in the country and get a decent game of EDH if you're playing a deck that is in between CEDH and Trash. That's been my experience. There is no additional "social contract" required here, there's just a banlist that encourages the type of play that would align with a social contract were there one (e.g. you're playing with your buddies).
It's not perfect. But it does a damned good job. Something about the varied level of power of the cards on the banlist just seems to get people building tuned decks but not too crazy.
The EDH banlist is kind of like a really good baseline framework for the social contract to fill out.
I understand all the arguments people make but perhaps rather than the Calvinball analogy, consider Dungeons and Dragons - there's a baseline ruleset of D&D that tells you how stuff works, you can go and play literally anywhere and join any playgroup. But you're going to get a different experience every time, because each group has a different cooperative social contract.
Because one GM has house ruled something doesn't mean you go to Wizards and tell them to eliminate that rule entirely and let people figure it out on their own.
Example: GM says they want a gritty game so they halve the amount you heal as you rest. Player response is not to call Wizards up and say "listen can you just delete all the rules about healing so we can figure it out on our own?" There're baseline rules.
I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
That thread wasn’t circular at all. It was a very small group of people, yourself included, applying the same reasoning you did here for why she shouldn’t be banned. I just find it odd that you continually dismiss ones anecdotal evidence with your own, like somehow your experiences hold more weight than others.
As for the bold bit, well, that would put you incredibly out of touch with reality. Reddit, numerous podcasts and YouTube videos, other blogs. Hell, it even came up in “ask the RC” Q&A, which if I’m not mistaken, brought us back to this discussion in the first place. I just find that to be an ignorant and self serving statement.
More proof? How about the dream banlist poll? Iona is routinely right there with fast mana, going back as far as 2015. So, your opinion that a “small group of loud people” are the reason we talk about Iona is incorrect.
You make a claim that this website is a small sliver of Commander players (I agree with that) and then you use this website?
Any ways just because someone or somepeople have dissenting opinions that comes from their experience and thoughts about the game does not also mean they believe that it means that they think that their opinions hold more sway over the conversation or truth of the matter.
A difference of opinion on the power the uniqueness is probably why the card is not banned.
(I am generally of the opinion that online Commander discourse no matter where it is is a small % that gets even further broken down)
Sounds to me like they should rename it to the “watch” list or something other than “ban” list because to call it a “ban” list and then define it as as something else has proven to be misleading beyond belief.
What's misleading about it? "These cards are banned, but if you talk with the people you are playing in and agree to deviate from the established rules, cool." How is this any different if I wanted to playtest a Modern deck with someone and beforehand asked if I could run Stoneforge Mystic in a deck in anticipation of it being unbanned?
Because they are not banned if they can be played. If you play a deck with a card in it that's banned in "Modern", then you aren't playing Modern. There is no social contract for Modern. Yeah there's a list of cards that are "banned" in Commander, yet people can play these cards if their opponents are okay with it. That isn't a ban list. It's a suggested against list. A ban list is a list of cards that can not be played whatsoever.
Because they are not banned if they can be played. If you play a deck with a card in it that's banned in "Modern", then you aren't playing Modern. There is no social contract for Modern. Yeah there's a list of cards that are "banned" in Commander, yet people can play these cards if their opponents are okay with it. That isn't a ban list. It's a suggested against list. A ban list is a list of cards that can not be played whatsoever.
So are you saying that if last Wednesday I had wanted to invite a few friends over and proxy up RNA to figure out what changes we would make to our Standard decks we aren't playing Standard? That somehow we couldn't do that even though we all agreed on a modified set of rules (legal cards)?
If I play casual 60 card Magic and don't want to face a deck that is just Sol Rings, Mana Crypts, Urza lands, and Eldrazi, that I have to create a format where those cards are specifically banned?
I think you guys are making gigantic leaps to make Iona not just be that bold thing.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
That thread wasn’t circular at all. It was a very small group of people, yourself included, applying the same reasoning you did here for why she shouldn’t be banned. I just find it odd that you continually dismiss ones anecdotal evidence with your own, like somehow your experiences hold more weight than others.
As for the bold bit, well, that would put you incredibly out of touch with reality. Reddit, numerous podcasts and YouTube videos, other blogs. Hell, it even came up in “ask the RC” Q&A, which if I’m not mistaken, brought us back to this discussion in the first place. I just find that to be an ignorant and self serving statement.
More proof? How about the dream banlist poll? Iona is routinely right there with fast mana, going back as far as 2015. So, your opinion that a “small group of loud people” are the reason we talk about Iona is incorrect.
You make a claim that this website is a small sliver of Commander players (I agree with that) and then you use this website?
Any ways just because someone or somepeople have dissenting opinions that comes from their experience and thoughts about the game does not also mean they believe that it means that they think that their opinions hold more sway over the conversation or truth of the matter.
A difference of opinion on the power the uniqueness is probably why the card is not banned.
(I am generally of the opinion that online Commander discourse no matter where it is is a small % that gets even further broken down)
It is indeed a small percent. But, funny thing, any sample is typically a rather small percent of a population.
What you are doing is being dismissive of others views on the card by attempting to minimize their concerns. You dismiss other posters experience as anecdotal, then submit your own anecdote to counter it. You accused someone of engaging in logical fallacy when they did no such thing (though to me it looks more like you just misused the word fallacy for dramatic effect as a way to make the other users argument appear weaker by implying they aren't as smart as you, but the attempt to assert intellectual dominance blew up when the user called you on it). You then try to dismiss out of hand everyone on here who makes points in favor of banning Iona by using the poor logic that since mtgsalvation users are just a small percentage of the player base, the arguments made here aren't really worthy of consideration.
There nothing wrong with you feeling that Iona doesn't deserve to be banned, but you're resorting to being dismissive of other peoples points when you can't seem to refute them. In reality, many unbanned cards have legitimate points in favor of being banned that can't really be answered, but they remain unbanned because those points just aren't enough to push them over the line. Your best argument is that Iona just isn't ubiquitous enough to warrant a ban, which may very well be true. The power level argument is irrelevant, the RC doesn't ban based on power level (though power level does impact most of the criteria they do look for). At this point, there's a lot of evidence that Iona is played a lot, as itss a frequent topic of conversation on podcasts and message boards, but there is also evidence that it isn't, such as a small showing on edh rec. My own personal experience is that I run into it less often than I used to (it was very common on mtgo 5 years ago), to the point where I would no longer say its a staple of white decks. I have stopped including it in decks because its such a toxic card, and it falls into a particularly nasty role where it both ruins games and there are other options at similar costs that do more to make you win. I really think that Avacyn, in particular, has taken over its slot. However, though I see it less, I still see it, and often enough that I wouldn't call it a rare occurrence. And when it shows up, it mostly just ruins games (I think I saw it name blue once and stop a combo, so it can, on rare occasion, do something ok rather than be griefer city).
I always like to look at cards through the lens of the ban criteria. This is how I see Iona stack up:
Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
4/5. It preys on the color restrictions in deck building, and it prevents people from playing their commanders. It also has the rare honor of its effect being less powerful in commander than 1v1, yet more problematic, due to the multiplayer nature of the format. In 1v1, a resolved Iona is more likely to be a win, while in commander its more likely to particularly aggrieve one player while merely inconveniencing others, while some opponents will not be impacted. I'll talk about this aspect more in reference to the next criteria. Lastly, it is able to be used as a commander and this makes it more problematic than if it could not be. Being mono white and expensive to cast make this last part less significant than for cards like Braids, as it is not always available early, and is tough to cast multiple times.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
4/5. Its a card that leads to one or more players playing comparable decks having minimum participation in the game, and that's almost all it does (aside from the occasional combo prevention). If it were cheaper, and thus got out earlier on its own, it would be a 5/5.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
2/5. It only seems to be run moderately, but typically has a strongly negative impact on the games in which it appears, with little deck building considerations. It doesn't reach the level of an auto include, however.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
N/A
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
N/A
It seems to me that this is a very borderline card. Its got problematic interactions with the format rules, creates undesireable board states as its primary function, and has a strong negative impact whenever it shows up. I'd venture that the reason it isn't banned is, as Taleran suggests, that it isn't omnipresent. Its a card that feels likes its played more than it is, because it just flat ruins games and that sticks in your memory. But damn if it isn't close to banworthy anyway based on how hard it hits the first two criteria.
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!
You're trying to liken Commander, a format which has a very clear set of rules, to a fictional game in which the rules are made up as you go. I feel like we are talking past each other at this point.
I'm sorry, but isn't the de facto motto of EDH "just houserule it"? The RC encourages them. And in basically every thread talking about bans or unbans someone invariably mentions it. Those are literally just made up rules.
That was more or less expected, as the only remaining cards that are deserving of a ban or unban are quite divisive. I'm more interested in the CAG announcement and hope to hear more about that.
You're oversimplifying and making questionable comparisons. And neglecting the whole for a narrow comment.
People do not play edh as if they were all game theory experts. It's rarely as simple as a couple of options.
Anyway I don't really expect or care to convince you as I'm not really sure myself if the should be banned - I take issue mostly with how you're arguing it.
Making comparisons like void winnower or new kozilek just confuses me. The mechanism is nothing like iona at all.
No one here is arguing for a ban on any card that could ever be annoying to play against. Its the specifics of iona and how her mechanics differ that people dislike.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I think you are just reading way too much into simple things
Agreed. Over 9000 agree. I agree with everything else as well.
I think people need to remember that while we are here “discussing” how one card affects the format and it’s worthy-ness if you will of being either banned, or unbanned, we are just an insignificant fraction of the overall playerbase of EDH. However, one could argue that the most talked about cards deserve the most attention, so, the Iona, Shield of Emeria thread is currently 19 pages long. Currently, a Void Winnower thread has yet to be created. How could this be? A card that is infinitely easier to “be annoying” with(Colorless cost, arguably a more playable tribe, affects the board as well), yet nobody is talking about it. Personally, I find Iona more annoying because all too often somebody is just “collateral damage”, much like Sunder Titan. Mono-U player getting ready to combo, or just has otherwise countered everything, so reanimate Iona to shut things down. Oh, but your Tibor and Lumia flying-tribal deck? Yeah, sorry, not today. Oh, you’re only way to interact with Iona is also U? Well, you better hope another player wants to help out.
She just really punishes you in the deckbuilding phase.
Also referencing the Iona thread and how long it is weird considering how circular that thread is all the time (as someone who contributed to those circles)
I agree also that this forum is such a miniscule sliver of the audience because it is the only place I evet hear anyone talk about Iona.
I see Iona talked about all the time in my parts. The less hyper competitive players have even started taking her out of their decks because as stated above, she never makes any deck more fun, and generally generates bad feelings.
The primary reason she needs to be banned is because she attacks the primary build condition of the format. If you could splash cards outside your color to deal with her, she wouldn't be nearly as bad. But having 1+ players sit around twiddling their thumbs because Iona completely locked out their deck, but doesn't do enough to kill them, is aggravating on multiple levels.
You say that if she locks out someone, the other players ignore the locked out player. Most players I see simply kill that player so they can go do something else, or just let Iona chill on the board because that's one less opponent to deal with.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
The multi-color decks I make generally have balanced removal only as a function of mana not being infinite so I can not guarantee what mana my deck will give me and having options for all eventualities is good deck building.
But they could have X spell so I have to make sure every deck I play has Y is so anathema to how I want to construct decks, and I don't.
That thread wasn’t circular at all. It was a very small group of people, yourself included, applying the same reasoning you did here for why she shouldn’t be banned. I just find it odd that you continually dismiss ones anecdotal evidence with your own, like somehow your experiences hold more weight than others.
As for the bold bit, well, that would put you incredibly out of touch with reality. Reddit, numerous podcasts and YouTube videos, other blogs. Hell, it even came up in “ask the RC” Q&A, which if I’m not mistaken, brought us back to this discussion in the first place. I just find that to be an ignorant and self serving statement.
More proof? How about the dream banlist poll? Iona is routinely right there with fast mana, going back as far as 2015. So, your opinion that a “small group of loud people” are the reason we talk about Iona is incorrect.
You have it backwards. The ban list didn't come about to compliment the social contract, the social contract is meant to supplement the ban list. The ban list (and accompanying philosophy document) are in place to serve as a baseline for how the RC approaches and manages the format, as well for the players to have more insight into the default way to play. The social contract is the RC acknowledging that doing this has left the door wide open for people to interact with many different decks and playstyles. It's kind of like Monopoly. There is a default way to play the game, but enough house rules for situations to arise mid game where players clash from disagreements on the rules. This is where you can have better games from quick questions before hand, like "do we auction if someone passes on buying a property? Can I buy houses at any point in my turn or only before I roll?"
For me, the fact that many people instantly would gravitate towards a large chunk of banned cards seems to reinforce the idea that if legal, they are cards that would be widespread. Now, I have only actually played with a small number of the ones on my list, but I feel confident in my theory crafting for most of the remainder. And most of the ban list should stay right where it is.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The FAQ link in my signature has quotes from the RC on many of the cards explaining why the are banned. It also has the philosophy document that goes over what their criteria is for banning a card.
If the majority of EDH games are public games amongst strangers or people that aren't closely knit groups, then sure they are going to want to deviate from the established ban list. If you are playing in a closed group and they are unwilling to waver then perhaps either they also feel strongly about the banned cards you wish to play, or they are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Sounds to me like they should rename it to the “watch” list or something other than “ban” list because to call it a “ban” list and then define it as as something else has proven to be misleading beyond belief.
What's misleading about it? "These cards are banned, but if you talk with the people you are playing in and agree to deviate from the established rules, cool." How is this any different if I wanted to playtest a Modern deck with someone and beforehand asked if I could run Stoneforge Mystic in a deck in anticipation of it being unbanned?
You're trying to liken Commander, a format which has a very clear set of rules, to a fictional game in which the rules are made up as you go. I feel like we are talking past each other at this point.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It's not perfect. But it does a damned good job. Something about the varied level of power of the cards on the banlist just seems to get people building tuned decks but not too crazy.
The EDH banlist is kind of like a really good baseline framework for the social contract to fill out.
I understand all the arguments people make but perhaps rather than the Calvinball analogy, consider Dungeons and Dragons - there's a baseline ruleset of D&D that tells you how stuff works, you can go and play literally anywhere and join any playgroup. But you're going to get a different experience every time, because each group has a different cooperative social contract.
Because one GM has house ruled something doesn't mean you go to Wizards and tell them to eliminate that rule entirely and let people figure it out on their own.
Example: GM says they want a gritty game so they halve the amount you heal as you rest. Player response is not to call Wizards up and say "listen can you just delete all the rules about healing so we can figure it out on our own?" There're baseline rules.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
You make a claim that this website is a small sliver of Commander players (I agree with that) and then you use this website?
Any ways just because someone or somepeople have dissenting opinions that comes from their experience and thoughts about the game does not also mean they believe that it means that they think that their opinions hold more sway over the conversation or truth of the matter.
A difference of opinion on the power the uniqueness is probably why the card is not banned.
(I am generally of the opinion that online Commander discourse no matter where it is is a small % that gets even further broken down)
Because they are not banned if they can be played. If you play a deck with a card in it that's banned in "Modern", then you aren't playing Modern. There is no social contract for Modern. Yeah there's a list of cards that are "banned" in Commander, yet people can play these cards if their opponents are okay with it. That isn't a ban list. It's a suggested against list. A ban list is a list of cards that can not be played whatsoever.
So are you saying that if last Wednesday I had wanted to invite a few friends over and proxy up RNA to figure out what changes we would make to our Standard decks we aren't playing Standard? That somehow we couldn't do that even though we all agreed on a modified set of rules (legal cards)?
If I play casual 60 card Magic and don't want to face a deck that is just Sol Rings, Mana Crypts, Urza lands, and Eldrazi, that I have to create a format where those cards are specifically banned?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
It is indeed a small percent. But, funny thing, any sample is typically a rather small percent of a population.
What you are doing is being dismissive of others views on the card by attempting to minimize their concerns. You dismiss other posters experience as anecdotal, then submit your own anecdote to counter it. You accused someone of engaging in logical fallacy when they did no such thing (though to me it looks more like you just misused the word fallacy for dramatic effect as a way to make the other users argument appear weaker by implying they aren't as smart as you, but the attempt to assert intellectual dominance blew up when the user called you on it). You then try to dismiss out of hand everyone on here who makes points in favor of banning Iona by using the poor logic that since mtgsalvation users are just a small percentage of the player base, the arguments made here aren't really worthy of consideration.
There nothing wrong with you feeling that Iona doesn't deserve to be banned, but you're resorting to being dismissive of other peoples points when you can't seem to refute them. In reality, many unbanned cards have legitimate points in favor of being banned that can't really be answered, but they remain unbanned because those points just aren't enough to push them over the line. Your best argument is that Iona just isn't ubiquitous enough to warrant a ban, which may very well be true. The power level argument is irrelevant, the RC doesn't ban based on power level (though power level does impact most of the criteria they do look for). At this point, there's a lot of evidence that Iona is played a lot, as itss a frequent topic of conversation on podcasts and message boards, but there is also evidence that it isn't, such as a small showing on edh rec. My own personal experience is that I run into it less often than I used to (it was very common on mtgo 5 years ago), to the point where I would no longer say its a staple of white decks. I have stopped including it in decks because its such a toxic card, and it falls into a particularly nasty role where it both ruins games and there are other options at similar costs that do more to make you win. I really think that Avacyn, in particular, has taken over its slot. However, though I see it less, I still see it, and often enough that I wouldn't call it a rare occurrence. And when it shows up, it mostly just ruins games (I think I saw it name blue once and stop a combo, so it can, on rare occasion, do something ok rather than be griefer city).
I always like to look at cards through the lens of the ban criteria. This is how I see Iona stack up:
Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
4/5. It preys on the color restrictions in deck building, and it prevents people from playing their commanders. It also has the rare honor of its effect being less powerful in commander than 1v1, yet more problematic, due to the multiplayer nature of the format. In 1v1, a resolved Iona is more likely to be a win, while in commander its more likely to particularly aggrieve one player while merely inconveniencing others, while some opponents will not be impacted. I'll talk about this aspect more in reference to the next criteria. Lastly, it is able to be used as a commander and this makes it more problematic than if it could not be. Being mono white and expensive to cast make this last part less significant than for cards like Braids, as it is not always available early, and is tough to cast multiple times.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
4/5. Its a card that leads to one or more players playing comparable decks having minimum participation in the game, and that's almost all it does (aside from the occasional combo prevention). If it were cheaper, and thus got out earlier on its own, it would be a 5/5.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
2/5. It only seems to be run moderately, but typically has a strongly negative impact on the games in which it appears, with little deck building considerations. It doesn't reach the level of an auto include, however.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
N/A
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
N/A
It seems to me that this is a very borderline card. Its got problematic interactions with the format rules, creates undesireable board states as its primary function, and has a strong negative impact whenever it shows up. I'd venture that the reason it isn't banned is, as Taleran suggests, that it isn't omnipresent. Its a card that feels likes its played more than it is, because it just flat ruins games and that sticks in your memory. But damn if it isn't close to banworthy anyway based on how hard it hits the first two criteria.
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!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19039
You might be burying the lead there.
That was more or less expected, as the only remaining cards that are deserving of a ban or unban are quite divisive. I'm more interested in the CAG announcement and hope to hear more about that.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg