Eh, most mw decks in my experience will have a bomb that refuels.
Regardless we're talking about too much too quickly not too much eventually
Not to hop in on an already ongoing discussion, but I really think you have to acknowledge that MW turns are “burst” turns, and rarely are you going to maintain that burst.
Additionally, I think adding that qualifier of “bomb to refuel” is a slippery slope. That isn’t going to happen very often, if anything it just puts a bomb-y permanent into play. You aren’t playing out your hand and refueling, so there is an inherent risk to ramping with MW in that you may have chosen the wrong path.
Rofellos, though, just churns out advantage every pasaing turn. You aren’t sandbagging threats to keep the mana flowing. I think having Rofellos in a poor True-CA color limits his consistency, but he can be just as explosive as a MW and is most definetly more consistent in keeping the mana flowing.
I just don’t think it’s a good companion. Colored Mana Vs. Colorless, strict requirements on the mana generation. Giving away valuable information. I mean, I played a game one time where a player tapped MW for 8 with a Blightsteel in his hand, dropped 2 rocks(Grim Monolith and Sol Ring) held the other artifact(don’t recall) giving him 13 mana with what was in his hand and his lands + rocks(there was a L. greaves in play). Ended his turn, and had his BSC hit by Thoughtseize the following turn. Not to say that stuff doesn’t happen to other decks with ramp, but if I have 3 or less cards in my hand, I’m not getting with with ST discard spells unless my opponent knows he’s going to hit home.
Green is actually an awesome color for CA, just not in low power metas. Sylvan library, greater good, several spells that draw off of creatures. Hell, when Rofellos is your commander even expensive artifacts like the tower become good.
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!
So, Vannifar should definitely be banned. Even if you aren't trying to combo off, it is too efficient in the command zone.
I just watched Commander Clash (MTG Goldfish) where a wizard-tribal Vannifar deck was running the whole show. No untap effects.
Unless people choose not to play her, she will eat a quick ban.
So, Vannifar should definitely be banned. Even if you aren't trying to combo off, it is too efficient in the command zone.
I just watched Commander Clash (MTG Goldfish) where a wizard-tribal Vannifar deck was running the whole show. No untap effects.
Unless people choose not to play her, she will eat a quick ban.
Anyone played against Vannifar yet?
Elaborate for those who haven't watched it? As for my thoughts, I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually see her in action. But no one plays Momir Vig anymore so I'm leaning towards the leave unban side for now.
So, Vannifar should definitely be banned. Even if you aren't trying to combo off, it is too efficient in the command zone.
I just watched Commander Clash (MTG Goldfish) where a wizard-tribal Vannifar deck was running the whole show. No untap effects.
Unless people choose not to play her, she will eat a quick ban.
Anyone played against Vannifar yet?
I have, and the deck fell apart without Vannifar. Much like many decks centered so specifically on the Commander, when players wise up to it, the problem solves itself. I'd rather play against Vannifar than Narset, Enlightened Master or several other decks that are harder to deal with.
As an aside, to be frank: The bar by which one can measure the Commander Clash players compared to other players one may play with is pretty dang low. In other words, Vannifar dominating is less to do with Vannifar, and more to do with the people who play on Commander Clash. There is no reason to ban her. At all. And these people are very poor examples to go by.
She costs 4 and has to tap to do anything, in colors which offer access to flash but can get haste essentially only through artifacts. Lots of protection via counterspells, of course.
I think she's going to be strong, and if she gets Swiftfoot Boots or something on her, yeah, she's going to probably win games, the way an unchecked Birthing Pod will win games, but I have a hard time seeing her being ban-worthy.
I'm pretty sure most tables I play at are better at threat assessment, and pack more removal, than the people on Commander Clash. I haven't seen this episode, but the couple I have seen were not exactly impressive.
Elaborate for those who haven't watched it? As for my thoughts, I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually see her in action. But no one plays Momir Vig anymore so I'm leaning towards the leave unban side for now.
Seth played a 'fair' Vannifar deck that was Wizard tribal. It had combos, but no chains of untap effects to tutor a combo in one turn. His combos took a ton of set up and didn't even win him the second game. Every time he was able to activate Vannifar, the game became out of reach for the other players. Birthing Pod wins a lot of games... this is Pod in the CZ and I am not convinced there is a fair way to play her. Seth was tutoring Bane of Progress and wizards... and just shut out the other players.
I have, and the deck fell apart without Vannifar. Much like many decks centered so specifically on the Commander, when players wise up to it, the problem solves itself. I'd rather play against Vannifar than Narset, Enlightened Master or several other decks that are harder to deal with.
As an aside, to be frank: The bar by which one can measure the Commander Clash players compared to other players one may play with is pretty dang low. In other words, Vannifar dominating is less to do with Vannifar, and more to do with the people who play on Commander Clash. There is no reason to ban her. At all. And these people are very poor examples to go by.
She costs 4 and has to tap to do anything, in colors which offer access to flash but can get haste essentially only through artifacts. Lots of protection via counterspells, of course.
I think she's going to be strong, and if she gets Swiftfoot Boots or something on her, yeah, she's going to probably win games, the way an unchecked Birthing Pod will win games, but I have a hard time seeing her being ban-worthy.
I'm pretty sure most tables I play at are better at threat assessment, and pack more removal, than the people on Commander Clash. I haven't seen this episode, but the couple I have seen were not exactly impressive.
You are both right that Commander Clash does not pack enough removal and that it is a pretty low-powered meta. That being said... I think my Karador deck needs 2 birthing pod activations to win the game. Not to combo off, but maybe to combo off... I just feel like the value of tutoring 2 silver bullets is so swingy that it wins you the game.
My concern with what Commander Clash showed me is that even if she is not doing a combo chain in one turn, and even in a casual setting, she spirals out of control.
Narset is not something that is problematic at casual tables - no extra turns, no extra combats..
This is a problem at all levels, in my opinion. Whether it is a tuned deck protecting her and giving her haste to win on turn 3 or a casual deck that can find whatever answers it needs to any situation, I think she inherently makes her deck much stronger than it would be without her. Turns a tier 2 deck into tier 1, turns 75% deck into 90%.
Spot removal is important, but you cannot tuck her and there are few permanent answers.
I am not saying she is the most busted commander in the format, I am just saying that there is no fair way to play her. She makes decks way better than they otherwise would be and if she sees any widespread play she will be banned.
Remember, this is a singleton format and tutoring from the CZ is always going to be problematic in this format.
Narset is not something that is problematic at casual tables - no extra turns, no extra combats.
There's a double standard in how you're viewing Commanders here to make your case. How does one assume that Narset at casual tables is not extra turns and no extra combats? That this isn't how Narset is played at casual tables? Who says a Commander with her power and protection in colors that easily grant Haste isn't problematic in some metas? And then, why is Vannifar not treated with the same benefit of the doubt? A Commander who has no protection, requires somewhat of a board state and help to go off? Why can we assume that at the same table, the Narset player is more fair than the Vannifar player? Why do we assume they're trying to do a pod chain to win as soon as she hits the table? That's a pretty big inconsistency in that argument.
This, basically. Vannifar is pretty easy to disrupt, just keep creatures away from her, spot her, keep her from activating or tutoring. Vannifar, even as a toolbox, is much weaker than Yisan or Arcum by virtue of being only sorcery speed and require specific costs in play in order to toolbox into something it needs. Yisan is similarly constrained, but it requieres nothing else to tutor. As for comboing, shes also worse than either of those since it needs way more specific and dead cards to actually chain into a win.
Seth played a 'fair' Vannifar deck that was Wizard tribal. It had combos, but no chains of untap effects to tutor a combo in one turn. His combos took a ton of set up and didn't even win him the second game. Every time he was able to activate Vannifar, the game became out of reach for the other players. Birthing Pod wins a lot of games... this is Pod in the CZ and I am not convinced there is a fair way to play her. Seth was tutoring Bane of Progress and wizards... and just shut out the other players.
A player in my meta built a similarly "fair" Vannifar deck; it's only got something like 1 or 2 ETB untaps, and 1 or 2 untaps as an activated ability. And the deck overall is more value town than combo. It still ran away with the game as soon as Vannifar loses summoning sickness.
I'm really on the fence about whether it's worse than momir vig or not. Momir is quite a bit more mana demanding, but is also quite a bit more efficient from a card quality perspective (you can just play good cards pretty much and you don't go down cards for sacrificing stuff).
I suspect that momir vig might actually be the better commander at medium-high power levels because of how much stronger he is in longer games (where you can just cast momir, then chain a bunch of dudes). Providing card advantage *and* tutoring is pretty significant.
That said, I also see that Vannifar is far more flexible and mana efficient.
My gut instinct is that overall vannifar is going to be better than Momir overall but not an order of magnitude better.
Part of that is that I think most players get tired of tutors in the command zone after a while, and that's part of why Momir is not all that popular anymore.
Part of that is that I think most players get tired of tutors in the command zone after a while, and that's part of why Momir is not all that popular anymore.
This, pretty much. She's evidently strong. Oppressively strong? Well, not really. The deck is a bit of a glass cannon if you can keep removing her.
The primer committee is currently working on a Vannifar application for cEDH - it's extensive, and it goes off quickly. But that doesn't strike me as something requiring banning. The last commander banned was Leovold, Emissary of Trest and summing up why he got banned it easy - he makes games miserable and non-interactive. Vannifar, I don't see the same. There's opportunity to shut her down for sure - she's going to play non-interactively, from what I've seen, but that's something removal can deal with. The only criteria I can see her being a contender with is ending the game quickly; even there, she's not the quickest and that hasn't banged nails in the coffin for any of the other top tier combo commanders.
Part of that is that I think most players get tired of tutors in the command zone after a while, and that's part of why Momir is not all that popular anymore.
This, pretty much. She's evidently strong. Oppressively strong? Well, not really. The deck is a bit of a glass cannon if you can keep removing her.
The primer committee is currently working on a Vannifar application for cEDH - it's extensive, and it goes off quickly. But that doesn't strike me as something requiring banning. The last commander banned was Leovold, Emissary of Trest and summing up why he got banned it easy - he makes games miserable and non-interactive. Vannifar, I don't see the same. There's opportunity to shut her down for sure - she's going to play non-interactively, from what I've seen, but that's something removal can deal with. The only criteria I can see her being a contender with is ending the game quickly; even there, she's not the quickest and that hasn't banged nails in the coffin for any of the other top tier combo commanders.
I would disagree with the second point there Leovold made and forced games to become very interactive out of the gate. The problem with Leovold is more that there are too many cards that see play in all gamestyles that having a Leovold in the Command zone warps very easily.
If you didn't change Notion Thief at all except give it Legendary it would probably also be banned for much the same reason.
Except that Leo had an additional layer of protection around himself in that if he was targeted(with a removal spell, most likely), the controller got to draw a card; which, given the colors he's in, would most likely be an answer, which means your spell was all for naught. Notion Thief, while not much better, at least would die if you caught the controller with an empty hand. Admittedly, it's balanced out by its own keyword(flash), but I think the tipping point still lands in Leo's court. Thief needs someone playing a specific deck role; Leo flips you the bird 90% of the time just for running a normal aspect of many decks.
I think keeping opponents to one card a turn is far more potent than the expanded Shapers' Sanctuary. His second ability only seems all the more punishing because you are also unable to draw your ways into more ways to disrupt him at that point.
Part of that is that I think most players get tired of tutors in the command zone after a while, and that's part of why Momir is not all that popular anymore.
This, pretty much. She's evidently strong. Oppressively strong? Well, not really. The deck is a bit of a glass cannon if you can keep removing her.
The primer committee is currently working on a Vannifar application for cEDH - it's extensive, and it goes off quickly. But that doesn't strike me as something requiring banning. The last commander banned was Leovold, Emissary of Trest and summing up why he got banned it easy - he makes games miserable and non-interactive. Vannifar, I don't see the same. There's opportunity to shut her down for sure - she's going to play non-interactively, from what I've seen, but that's something removal can deal with. The only criteria I can see her being a contender with is ending the game quickly; even there, she's not the quickest and that hasn't banged nails in the coffin for any of the other top tier combo commanders.
I would disagree with the second point there Leovold made and forced games to become very interactive out of the gate. The problem with Leovold is more that there are too many cards that see play in all gamestyles that having a Leovold in the Command zone warps very easily.
If you didn't change Notion Thief at all except give it Legendary it would probably also be banned for much the same reason.
I mean, if you cast leo then wheel it's the definition of non interactive. And it's way too easy to accomplish that.
Running Leo at the head of sultai elf tribal with no wheels never hurt anybody, but leo wheels was an immediate and strongly negative impact on the format, and a poster child for decks that quickly and reliably make the game uninteractive. Its a game of either immediately answer Leo or nobody gets to play but leo.
If they added "an effect an opponent controls" to his draw prevention, so your opponents could still draw from effects you control, he'd be a fine card.
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!
That 'fix' wouldn't work with his first ability though, I guess you could draw for one thing if it wasn't your turn. Everything else we pretty much agree on.
Running Leo at the head of sultai elf tribal with no wheels never hurt anybody, but leo wheels was an immediate and strongly negative impact on the format, and a poster child for decks that quickly and reliably make the game uninteractive. Its a game of either immediately answer Leo or nobody gets to play but leo.
I ran Leo at the head of a morph tribal deck, and the people I played with all knew that the deck had no wheels. (I did have a number of Howling Mine style effects, though.) I was sad to take it apart.
The biggest takeaway I got from this most recent announcement is that you are actively trying to create a baseline experience due to the increased popularity and amount of public/unknown games that get played (addition of Rule 0). So what I would implore you to do is to present the challenge to the CAG to internally define that base line experience you are after and then evaluate the ban list. Because my opinion is that the social contract falls short when you are in an unknown setting and "hey what power level are we playing" falls short as well. And although I am against banning all the broken mana and fast tutors which some of the more cEDH minded players would like to see banned, I do feel that these cards contribute to unbalanced games which tend to leave players dissatisfied.
Maybe this is what you meant when you said that you guys were going to look at the philosophy document, but if not then perhaps you should.
Not sure if this would help, but along the lines of what cryogen is talking about, maybe some sort of EDH-specific language is needed to allow players who've never met previously determine what their 'try-hardedness' or 'floor' for what their deck is. Something to codify for example, that i'm whipping out a low-tiered deck with things like terror as the premier hate-card, as opposed to hermit druiding the table by turn 2.
This is one of the reasons why i don't like playing with the general public. Some while back, I figured i could take my super janky blind seer deck and my (slightly) more serious teshar deck to a local. One of the players at the table says 'oh mine ain't oppressive at all' - and then smokestack-lock the rest of the table out by turns 4-5 or so, having a measly 2/2 beater to 'win the game' with. I don't care that he was playing stax; i was just a bit annoyed that his view of non-oppressive was pretty oppressive to the rest of the table.
not having a frame of reference of what 'oppressive' or 'competitive' is is a major problem, i think, amongst players who don't have a steady group. And introducing a format-specific lingo on approximate-strength will be helpful in dispelling that, i think.
Not sure if this would help, but along the lines of what cryogen is talking about, maybe some sort of EDH-specific language is needed to allow players who've never met previously determine what their 'try-hardedness' or 'floor' for what their deck is. Something to codify for example, that i'm whipping out a low-tiered deck with things like terror as the premier hate-card, as opposed to hermit druiding the table by turn 2.
This is one of the reasons why i don't like playing with the general public. Some while back, I figured i could take my super janky blind seer deck and my (slightly) more serious teshar deck to a local. One of the players at the table says 'oh mine ain't oppressive at all' - and then smokestack-lock the rest of the table out by turns 4-5 or so, having a measly 2/2 beater to 'win the game' with. I don't care that he was playing stax; i was just a bit annoyed that his view of non-oppressive was pretty oppressive to the rest of the table.
not having a frame of reference of what 'oppressive' or 'competitive' is is a major problem, i think, amongst players who don't have a steady group. And introducing a format-specific lingo on approximate-strength will be helpful in dispelling that, i think.
It would be good, but I don't think we could easily come up with a rating system and also expect people to know it.
Not sure if this would help, but along the lines of what cryogen is talking about, maybe some sort of EDH-specific language is needed to allow players who've never met previously determine what their 'try-hardedness' or 'floor' for what their deck is. Something to codify for example, that i'm whipping out a low-tiered deck with things like terror as the premier hate-card, as opposed to hermit druiding the table by turn 2.
This is one of the reasons why i don't like playing with the general public. Some while back, I figured i could take my super janky blind seer deck and my (slightly) more serious teshar deck to a local. One of the players at the table says 'oh mine ain't oppressive at all' - and then smokestack-lock the rest of the table out by turns 4-5 or so, having a measly 2/2 beater to 'win the game' with. I don't care that he was playing stax; i was just a bit annoyed that his view of non-oppressive was pretty oppressive to the rest of the table.
not having a frame of reference of what 'oppressive' or 'competitive' is is a major problem, i think, amongst players who don't have a steady group. And introducing a format-specific lingo on approximate-strength will be helpful in dispelling that, i think.
It would be good, but I don't think we could easily come up with a rating system and also expect people to know it.
Wasn't this the exact reasoning behind the 0-100% rankings people give their decks? And I believe the people at the Command Zone also tried to come up with a system like "tuned" and "optimized" but I couldn't for the life of me tell you how those rankings worked.
Rating systems are only as good as the players who know about them. This being a casual format, the majority of players aren't as enfranchised as we are and dont visit forums or listen to podcasts. Case in point, a user here (whom shall remain nameless) but has been on these forums longer than I have didn't know about the 75% concept up until a few months ago. We tend to take for granted that everyone knows about changes to the format when they happen.
I have seen some decks recently described as 'casual 75%' that would absolutely have the game locked up by 7 or 8 unless people had multiple cheap disruptions. Now I could be way off, but that certainly does not describe 75% to me.
Outside some convoluted point system for well know cards, the best we can do is evaluate game by game I think.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to hop in on an already ongoing discussion, but I really think you have to acknowledge that MW turns are “burst” turns, and rarely are you going to maintain that burst.
Additionally, I think adding that qualifier of “bomb to refuel” is a slippery slope. That isn’t going to happen very often, if anything it just puts a bomb-y permanent into play. You aren’t playing out your hand and refueling, so there is an inherent risk to ramping with MW in that you may have chosen the wrong path.
Rofellos, though, just churns out advantage every pasaing turn. You aren’t sandbagging threats to keep the mana flowing. I think having Rofellos in a poor True-CA color limits his consistency, but he can be just as explosive as a MW and is most definetly more consistent in keeping the mana flowing.
I just don’t think it’s a good companion. Colored Mana Vs. Colorless, strict requirements on the mana generation. Giving away valuable information. I mean, I played a game one time where a player tapped MW for 8 with a Blightsteel in his hand, dropped 2 rocks(Grim Monolith and Sol Ring) held the other artifact(don’t recall) giving him 13 mana with what was in his hand and his lands + rocks(there was a L. greaves in play). Ended his turn, and had his BSC hit by Thoughtseize the following turn. Not to say that stuff doesn’t happen to other decks with ramp, but if I have 3 or less cards in my hand, I’m not getting with with ST discard spells unless my opponent knows he’s going to hit home.
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!
I just watched Commander Clash (MTG Goldfish) where a wizard-tribal Vannifar deck was running the whole show. No untap effects.
Unless people choose not to play her, she will eat a quick ban.
Anyone played against Vannifar yet?
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Elaborate for those who haven't watched it? As for my thoughts, I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually see her in action. But no one plays Momir Vig anymore so I'm leaning towards the leave unban side for now.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I have, and the deck fell apart without Vannifar. Much like many decks centered so specifically on the Commander, when players wise up to it, the problem solves itself. I'd rather play against Vannifar than Narset, Enlightened Master or several other decks that are harder to deal with.
As an aside, to be frank: The bar by which one can measure the Commander Clash players compared to other players one may play with is pretty dang low. In other words, Vannifar dominating is less to do with Vannifar, and more to do with the people who play on Commander Clash. There is no reason to ban her. At all. And these people are very poor examples to go by.
(Also known as Xenphire)
I think she's going to be strong, and if she gets Swiftfoot Boots or something on her, yeah, she's going to probably win games, the way an unchecked Birthing Pod will win games, but I have a hard time seeing her being ban-worthy.
I'm pretty sure most tables I play at are better at threat assessment, and pack more removal, than the people on Commander Clash. I haven't seen this episode, but the couple I have seen were not exactly impressive.
You are both right that Commander Clash does not pack enough removal and that it is a pretty low-powered meta. That being said... I think my Karador deck needs 2 birthing pod activations to win the game. Not to combo off, but maybe to combo off... I just feel like the value of tutoring 2 silver bullets is so swingy that it wins you the game.
My concern with what Commander Clash showed me is that even if she is not doing a combo chain in one turn, and even in a casual setting, she spirals out of control.
Narset is not something that is problematic at casual tables - no extra turns, no extra combats..
This is a problem at all levels, in my opinion. Whether it is a tuned deck protecting her and giving her haste to win on turn 3 or a casual deck that can find whatever answers it needs to any situation, I think she inherently makes her deck much stronger than it would be without her. Turns a tier 2 deck into tier 1, turns 75% deck into 90%.
Spot removal is important, but you cannot tuck her and there are few permanent answers.
I am not saying she is the most busted commander in the format, I am just saying that there is no fair way to play her. She makes decks way better than they otherwise would be and if she sees any widespread play she will be banned.
Remember, this is a singleton format and tutoring from the CZ is always going to be problematic in this format.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
There's a double standard in how you're viewing Commanders here to make your case. How does one assume that Narset at casual tables is not extra turns and no extra combats? That this isn't how Narset is played at casual tables? Who says a Commander with her power and protection in colors that easily grant Haste isn't problematic in some metas? And then, why is Vannifar not treated with the same benefit of the doubt? A Commander who has no protection, requires somewhat of a board state and help to go off? Why can we assume that at the same table, the Narset player is more fair than the Vannifar player? Why do we assume they're trying to do a pod chain to win as soon as she hits the table? That's a pretty big inconsistency in that argument.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I suspect that momir vig might actually be the better commander at medium-high power levels because of how much stronger he is in longer games (where you can just cast momir, then chain a bunch of dudes). Providing card advantage *and* tutoring is pretty significant.
That said, I also see that Vannifar is far more flexible and mana efficient.
My gut instinct is that overall vannifar is going to be better than Momir overall but not an order of magnitude better.
Part of that is that I think most players get tired of tutors in the command zone after a while, and that's part of why Momir is not all that popular anymore.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
This, pretty much. She's evidently strong. Oppressively strong? Well, not really. The deck is a bit of a glass cannon if you can keep removing her.
The primer committee is currently working on a Vannifar application for cEDH - it's extensive, and it goes off quickly. But that doesn't strike me as something requiring banning. The last commander banned was Leovold, Emissary of Trest and summing up why he got banned it easy - he makes games miserable and non-interactive. Vannifar, I don't see the same. There's opportunity to shut her down for sure - she's going to play non-interactively, from what I've seen, but that's something removal can deal with. The only criteria I can see her being a contender with is ending the game quickly; even there, she's not the quickest and that hasn't banged nails in the coffin for any of the other top tier combo commanders.
I would disagree with the second point there Leovold made and forced games to become very interactive out of the gate. The problem with Leovold is more that there are too many cards that see play in all gamestyles that having a Leovold in the Command zone warps very easily.
If you didn't change Notion Thief at all except give it Legendary it would probably also be banned for much the same reason.
Notion Thief, while not much better, at least would die if you caught the controller with an empty hand. Admittedly, it's balanced out by its own keyword(flash), but I think the tipping point still lands in Leo's court. Thief needs someone playing a specific deck role; Leo flips you the bird 90% of the time just for running a normal aspect of many decks.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
I mean, if you cast leo then wheel it's the definition of non interactive. And it's way too easy to accomplish that.
Running Leo at the head of sultai elf tribal with no wheels never hurt anybody, but leo wheels was an immediate and strongly negative impact on the format, and a poster child for decks that quickly and reliably make the game uninteractive. Its a game of either immediately answer Leo or nobody gets to play but leo.
If they added "an effect an opponent controls" to his draw prevention, so your opponents could still draw from effects you control, he'd be a fine card.
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!
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The biggest takeaway I got from this most recent announcement is that you are actively trying to create a baseline experience due to the increased popularity and amount of public/unknown games that get played (addition of Rule 0). So what I would implore you to do is to present the challenge to the CAG to internally define that base line experience you are after and then evaluate the ban list. Because my opinion is that the social contract falls short when you are in an unknown setting and "hey what power level are we playing" falls short as well. And although I am against banning all the broken mana and fast tutors which some of the more cEDH minded players would like to see banned, I do feel that these cards contribute to unbalanced games which tend to leave players dissatisfied.
Maybe this is what you meant when you said that you guys were going to look at the philosophy document, but if not then perhaps you should.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
This is one of the reasons why i don't like playing with the general public. Some while back, I figured i could take my super janky blind seer deck and my (slightly) more serious teshar deck to a local. One of the players at the table says 'oh mine ain't oppressive at all' - and then smokestack-lock the rest of the table out by turns 4-5 or so, having a measly 2/2 beater to 'win the game' with. I don't care that he was playing stax; i was just a bit annoyed that his view of non-oppressive was pretty oppressive to the rest of the table.
not having a frame of reference of what 'oppressive' or 'competitive' is is a major problem, i think, amongst players who don't have a steady group. And introducing a format-specific lingo on approximate-strength will be helpful in dispelling that, i think.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
It would be good, but I don't think we could easily come up with a rating system and also expect people to know it.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Outside some convoluted point system for well know cards, the best we can do is evaluate game by game I think.