And? Then what happened? What exactly did they do with that mana? How long did it take them to win? In my experience, for every anecdotal game like this there are ones where the end is "and that player lost". Hell, one of my games against Sheldon at sgccon were a player opens with Sol ring into smothering tithe, and me sol ring into smothering tithe and exploding veggies. We both lost that game.
Wanderer pooped out Tyrant's Familiar and something else irrelevant by a kicked Rite of Replication and no one had the answer. It happens.
Yisan tutored up Quirion Ranger and just kinda went off from there. My removal.dec failed to draw into removal, but it happens.
To me, the crux of the argument is that while I kept two average hands in games 1 and 2, the other players had exceptional hands fueled largely by fast mana. In the exceptional hand I had in game 3, I was able to establish dominance early on due to the fast mana accelerating me into an early Myojin of Night's Reach. This thread is littered with arguments for and against banning fast mana so I won't get too into it here, but for me, it's easy to see that the common thread between the games that I found unfun was fast mana.
And? Then what happened? What exactly did they do with that mana? How long did it take them to win? In my experience, for every anecdotal game like this there are ones where the end is "and that player lost". Hell, one of my games against Sheldon at sgccon were a player opens with Sol ring into smothering tithe, and me sol ring into smothering tithe and exploding veggies. We both lost that game.
So i think that losing when you have a huge start is much more memorable than winning when you had a huge start.
I remember the time I landed as Foretold on turn 1 then lost to humility on turn 15 or so after drawing half my deck with whitemane lion and somehow not having an answer to humility in my hand But I don't remember all the times I cast Ephara on turn 2 off of Crypt/Sol ring and then destroyed the table. It happens a lot more than the alternative.
Much the same with the Gitrog Monster - my win rate with that deck is like 75%. I win almost every game by ramping like crazy, usually starting off with a turn 1 ramp of some kind and going nuts. So remembering the games I got blown out after ramping hard is easy, but remembering the wins is harder, they kinda blur together (This is not intended as a brag, the deck is way overpowered for most casual groups, I built it for playing with my semi-CEDH friends back in Phoenix who all had decks tailored to the ~85-90% but not quite CEDH power).
All of you complain too much. I play edh to play a format unlike any other. If I can jam necropotence, grim monolith, greater good, and reality scramble into the same deck and have it work, that's why I'm here.
Truthfully, I'm baffled why everyone can't just enjoy their freedom instead of breaking into these weird factions of "ban this aspect" vs "ban some other thing". Less is most certainly not more, so maybe quit trying to actively winnow the possibilities and opportunities for other people. This is a great format as-is, nothing broken, nothing to fix.
Anyway, just popped in to approve of the stellar status quo and I eagerly await yet another relatively hands-off B&R announcement in the coming weeks.
Anyway, just popped in to complain about people complaining, byeeee.
Your comment about freedom is contradictory. If freedom is your guiding principle, the logical next step as to your opinion would be to unban everything, not support the status quo. Besides, the format can still be great and still have intrinsic problems, whether it's the philosophy, the banlist, or the starting life totals. They're not mutually exclusive. I do agree that the format should be as big tent as possible with as small a banlist as is reasonable. That said, if their goal is to create meaningful, memorable games, it's my opinion that the banlist as it currently exists doesn't reflect that very well.
At the end of the day I understand it's not my format, so of course this thread is nothing but screaming into the void.
First off, unbanning everything is distinctly not what I want. I said pretty explicitly that everything is fine as-is, hence the adherence to the status quo.
The tent is huge enough right now, I'm the only one (it seems) who doesn't want it any smaller because I don't want anything new banned nor any sweeping, dramatic changes to micromanage or standardize the experience.
But to be totally fair to your hilarious quote "summary", I'm also the only one who already has what he wants, so I'll concede this might not be a thread requiring my input. On the other hand, this echo chamber of void-screaming could also occasionally remember that a lot of people are happy with EDH right now.
The tent is huge enough right now, I'm the only one (it seems) who doesn't want it any smaller because I don't want anything new banned nor any sweeping, dramatic changes to micromanage or standardize the experience.
Good bans shouldn't shrink the number of players, at least not long-term. It ought to expand it. Having a more robust, strategically-deep format by having a well-designed rules and banlist can help draw more people in.
I won't pretend that I know what the impact of banning sol ring specifically would be, of course.
The tent is huge enough right now, I'm the only one (it seems) who doesn't want it any smaller because I don't want anything new banned nor any sweeping, dramatic changes to micromanage or standardize the experience.
Good bans shouldn't shrink the number of players, at least not long-term. It ought to expand it. Having a more robust, strategically-deep format by having a well-designed rules and banlist can help draw more people in.
I won't pretend that I know what the impact of banning sol ring specifically would be, of course.
But the format is already hugely popular and hence my point: we have NONE of the tell-tale signs of format failure or deterioration. No mass deck homogeneity (edhrec aside), no wilting attendance, no truly ubiquitous must-have threats.
So by what metric exactly are we folks making determinations for these proposed bans/changes? I see a lot of disparate anecdotes but not much hard evidence. And doing away with even just fast mana would be a BIG change with considerable consequence. I understand we're all just negligible, unknowing blips floating in the soup of the universe, but I just honestly don't think balanced forethought is present in equal quantity to wishful thinking in this particular thread.
Would the format be more enjoyable without fast mana? Maybe. The fact is, we don't know. The better question then remains, is it worth the risk to change something that isn't currently broken? I'd say no. We're welcome to disagree. But if we continue to do so, I really want to see where exactly the world's burning down because of sol ring.
I ask without sarcasm, implicit or otherwise, by any and all means, please show me.
So we can only try to improve things when the world is on fire? We can't try to identify trends that might lead to larger future problems, and head them off at the pass?
Afaik none of us has a team of market researchers as WotC does, so we're all going off our own experiences for the most part. And yes, I think I've seen a significant increase in the homogeneity and higher overall power level of decklists, which makes it more and more likely that a fast mana start will generate too much value to overcome. Of course it's impossible to prove a general trend from such few data points, but there seem to be lots of other people experiencing similar issues. The format to me feels like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water. The sorts of starts fast mana allows keep getting more and more obnoxious, but never by enough in a single expansion that anyone is in too much of a rush to do anything about it. When I first started playing sol ring starts were mostly NBD unless it was one of those tryhard Azami players. Nowadays, it seems like most of the time you have to play archenemy for at least a few turns around the table just to make sure they don't snowball totally out of control.
We can't try to identify trends that might lead to larger future problems, and head them off at the pass? [...] Of course it's impossible to prove a general trend from such few data points[...]
But this is exactly my point! We do not have the data, so we shouldn't be trying to preempt things we cannot possibly predict. Crafting format-spanning changes by extrapolating the rhetoric of an angry and extremely vocal minority (which we of mtgs definitely are) is not a recipe for long-term success either. The RC, for all intents and purposes, has done a good job, as reflected in the success and expansion of EDH. Perfect? No, because that's subjective. Unlivably bad or broken? Certainly not.
For things like climate change and car maintenance, I agree we should be ahead of the curve. For EDH, with admittedly no good data, I think we should cross bridges when and if (and certainly not before) we get there.
Edit:grammar
2nd edit: I promise to eat my mtgs account if I'm totally off-base here and sweeping changes are around the corner. But I seriously just don't see where all this discontent came from.
I am not single-handedly in control of the banlist. I don't have the power to immediately change it. I can contribute one voice, which the RC may (or may not) notice when trying to determine the overall health of the format, and the broader desires of the playerbase. And I'm going to use that voice to cast my vote in favor of banning fast mana, as I always have, based on my personal experiences. The limited number of data points I have to contribute roughly correlates with the limited voice I have in the process, such as it is.
If someone actually put me in change of the banlist for some insane reason, I like to think I'd try to get wide sample of opinions, run test groups with the proposed changes, etc, before doing anything drastic. I'm not going to do that kind of work just to have a better-substantiated hot take on the internet, though.
I can respect that. I think maybe instead of remaining mired in anecdotes, rhetoric, and speculation, we as a community should devise some means to acquire the needed stats to prove stuff, with p values, standard deviations and everything. The edhrec salt score is a good start, albeit limited. I personally have limited knowledge of computers and databases, but with tech whizzes like scoeri floating around, someone could come up with something. What do you think?
I would like it if people would stop overly hating on anecdotes and assuming any anecdote is presented as proof.
Anecdotes are useful as long as we don't try to over-generalize from them. They help understand how things can play out and also give emotional context.
Much like correlation and causation we don't stop running correlations we just recognize the limitations.
Here's a post on Reddit that attempts to analyze the correlation between a t1 Sol Ring and winning the game. There's a lot of information the poster couldn't account for, but it does demonstrate that you are more likely to win if you open with Sol Ring. Not that that is news, or anything. However, banning for power reasons is decidedly against the philosophy of the format, though, so any data that suggests you are more likely to win with X card is completely irrelevant.
Cryogen earlier asked for things to calm down, I'm stepping it up and making it official. Calm down the tone, and quit the personal attacks.
The discussion on sol ring and fast mana will always be relevant, and inevitably heated, but keep your arguments to the facts, positions, and topic. Do not attack other individuals, or disparage their right to have an opinion.
I can respect that. I think maybe instead of remaining mired in anecdotes, rhetoric, and speculation, we as a community should devise some means to acquire the needed stats to prove stuff, with p values, standard deviations and everything. The edhrec salt score is a good start, albeit limited. I personally have limited knowledge of computers and databases, but with tech whizzes like scoeri floating around, someone could come up with something. What do you think?
I like the idea of trying to approach the problem subjectively, but I think there's a lot of problems with this approach.
For a start, commander doesn't have a pro-tour scene to use as a barometer for what's good in the format. There are no major tournaments and no pro players, which means there isn't really a good, objective place to look for data. The foibles of kitchen table players is, at best, loosely based on the actual strengths of the cards, whereas pros can be counted upon to do whatever is the most powerful thing available to them. The pro scene makes it possible to determine what's actually problematic based on its ubiquity at high-level competition.
But that's the second problem, which is that the goal of EDH isn't actually clear. Everyone knows (or should know) that sol ring, from a strict power level standpoint, is absurdly strong. But that isn't necessarily a problem, exactly, because it's true that multiplayer can be self-regulating and the goal isn't a perfectly balanced format. Sol ring creates powerful starts - sure, everyone knows that. Is that bad? Well, it depends what you want out of the format, and there's not an objective answer to that.
And of course a third problem is that people aren't necessarily good arbiters of what would actually make the format more enjoyable. Myself included. It's hard to see past your own personal bubble - I'll admit the loss of fast mana would be a major blow to my Kaervek deck, for example. When the mulligan rule changed away from partial paris, my zirilan deck was mighty disappointed. I think I have a relatively objective view since I don't have much attachment to any particular deck, but I definitely have an attachment to the sorts of strategies I tend to like, and the suggestion of rules changes that make those strategies less viable generally make me unhappy. But that's a fairly short-sighted view - those rules might actually make the game more fun, or maybe less fun for me but more fun for a lot of other people. It's really hard to say.
But certainly many people hate it, short-term, when their favorite cards get banned, even if they were seriously harming the format. There were plenty of people upset when ravager got banned, when jace got banned, when ancestral recall got restricted, and some of those people probably quit playing magic forever. But the formats were better for those bans. As players we don't have a great viewpoint for how to run an actual format, and even taking a poll of many players isn't necessarily going to fix that problem. I think really the only solution would be to test run the format - which is a great idea for someone in charge of the rules and banlist, but not something many people are going to be willing to do just for S&Gs. And if they are, good chance it's in the hopes of proving their own point, anyway. Which is probably what I'd be doing, intentionally or not.
The approach I would take is rather than trying to approach it as a statistical problem(which I think is very difficult) is to start with a pros/cons analysis (which is in itself objective, though the degree of impact of each of the pros/cons bleeds subjective).
I found the pros/cons analysis to be the most helpful part of talking about Planeswalkers as Commanders for me. The cons list was a mile long and the pros list very short, and it was obvious to me that it was not a very good risk to take for the format.
To do that, we need a proposal. What fast mana do you want to ban?
I can respect that. I think maybe instead of remaining mired in anecdotes, rhetoric, and speculation, we as a community should devise some means to acquire the needed stats to prove stuff, with p values, standard deviations and everything. The edhrec salt score is a good start, albeit limited. I personally have limited knowledge of computers and databases, but with tech whizzes like scoeri floating around, someone could come up with something. What do you think?
I like the idea of trying to approach the problem subjectively, but I think there's a lot of problems with this approach.
For a start, commander doesn't have a pro-tour scene to use as a barometer for what's good in the format. There are no major tournaments and no pro players, which means there isn't really a good, objective place to look for data. The foibles of kitchen table players is, at best, loosely based on the actual strengths of the cards, whereas pros can be counted upon to do whatever is the most powerful thing available to them. The pro scene makes it possible to determine what's actually problematic based on its ubiquity at high-level competition.
But that's the second problem, which is that the goal of EDH isn't actually clear. Everyone knows (or should know) that sol ring, from a strict power level standpoint, is absurdly strong. But that isn't necessarily a problem, exactly, because it's true that multiplayer can be self-regulating and the goal isn't a perfectly balanced format. Sol ring creates powerful starts - sure, everyone knows that. Is that bad? Well, it depends what you want out of the format, and there's not an objective answer to that.
And of course a third problem is that people aren't necessarily good arbiters of what would actually make the format more enjoyable. Myself included. It's hard to see past your own personal bubble - I'll admit the loss of fast mana would be a major blow to my Kaervek deck, for example. When the mulligan rule changed away from partial paris, my zirilan deck was mighty disappointed. I think I have a relatively objective view since I don't have much attachment to any particular deck, but I definitely have an attachment to the sorts of strategies I tend to like, and the suggestion of rules changes that make those strategies less viable generally make me unhappy. But that's a fairly short-sighted view - those rules might actually make the game more fun, or maybe less fun for me but more fun for a lot of other people. It's really hard to say.
But certainly many people hate it, short-term, when their favorite cards get banned, even if they were seriously harming the format. There were plenty of people upset when ravager got banned, when jace got banned, when ancestral recall got restricted, and some of those people probably quit playing magic forever. But the formats were better for those bans. As players we don't have a great viewpoint for how to run an actual format, and even taking a poll of many players isn't necessarily going to fix that problem. I think really the only solution would be to test run the format - which is a great idea for someone in charge of the rules and banlist, but not something many people are going to be willing to do just for S&Gs. And if they are, good chance it's in the hopes of proving their own point, anyway. Which is probably what I'd be doing, intentionally or not.
God damn it, Dirk. You may be the hardest person on this whole site to debate against because you're always so $#@^€& thoughtful and reasonable. Maybe they can promote you to moderater or something after the move. I mean, if jivan can do it after his early years of constant infractions, anyone can. And you're such a calming presence.
Edit: now that I think about it, it's just like the mighty pheldagriff, impossible to demonize yet constantly winning.
The approach I would take is rather than trying to approach it as a statistical problem(which I think is very difficult)is to start with a pros/cons analysis (which is in itself objective, though the degree of impact of each of the pros/cons bleeds subjective).
I found the pros/cons analysis to be the most helpful part of talking about Planeswalkers as Commanders for me. The cons list was a mile long and the pros list very short, and it was obvious to me that it was not a very good risk to take for the format.
To do that, we need a proposal. What fast mana do you want to ban?
This isn't even close to true, everyone's starting place is subjective so how can their determined pros/cons be anything but?
A list of potential pros and cons is objective because if at least one person who cares considers it to be a pro or a con it is a pro or a con. The degree to which it is meaningful is what varies.
The thing that causes me to not like a proposed change may be subjective, but the fact that it causes me to not like it is objectively true. Clearer I hope? I dunno.
That isn't how objectivity works, not even in the slightest.
I suspect you may be thinking of the philosophical concept of objective truth as opposed to the broader concept of "being objective" which means something different. Impartially collecting an unbiased list of pros/cons to consider is considering an issue 'objectively.'
You can consider a bunch of subjective ideas objectively.
---------------------------------------
Edit:
I did a bunch of reading on these terms and their broad use just to be sure I wasn't being dumb and I think the real area of confusion for me was about objective vs. subjective measures; something like your heart rate is an objective measure, but your well being is an subjective measure.
So a pros/cons list is not an objective measure in that sense. But it is quantifiable and meaningful, and the subjective statements that make it up can be quantified and analyzed as well.
We measure and quantify subjective concepts constantly and they can be very meaningful. So blah blah blah, etc., I'm sorry for muddying the waters there. Just didn't want to be talking nonsense so plopped this in here to apologize for the confusion.
--------------------------------------------
Semantics aside, I think it would be most productive to start with:
1) a proposal of what it means to ban fast mana
2) discuss the potential impact of that specific proposal
Because I don't think the impact to the format is measurable by any statistics we currently have, and I don't think you're going to get anywhere without looking at all the angles, er, as objectively as possible?
I don't think you get anywhere making a simple statement like "Ban fast mana" and then walking away without considering all the potential good and bad.
I think that one issue you'll run into with this approach is that some items will easily fall on both the pro and the con list depending on who submits it. For example, a lot of players will say the betting rod of explosive starts and normalizing the game is good, while some players may feel that explosive starts allow bigger games to take place, reduce a boring ramp up or period, or make for better come back stories and more memorable encounteres.
Either way, it would be a worthy attempt though, should you wish to start a thread for it.
Yisan tutored up Quirion Ranger and just kinda went off from there. My removal.dec failed to draw into removal, but it happens.
To me, the crux of the argument is that while I kept two average hands in games 1 and 2, the other players had exceptional hands fueled largely by fast mana. In the exceptional hand I had in game 3, I was able to establish dominance early on due to the fast mana accelerating me into an early Myojin of Night's Reach. This thread is littered with arguments for and against banning fast mana so I won't get too into it here, but for me, it's easy to see that the common thread between the games that I found unfun was fast mana.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
So i think that losing when you have a huge start is much more memorable than winning when you had a huge start.
I remember the time I landed as Foretold on turn 1 then lost to humility on turn 15 or so after drawing half my deck with whitemane lion and somehow not having an answer to humility in my hand
Much the same with the Gitrog Monster - my win rate with that deck is like 75%. I win almost every game by ramping like crazy, usually starting off with a turn 1 ramp of some kind and going nuts. So remembering the games I got blown out after ramping hard is easy, but remembering the wins is harder, they kinda blur together
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
All of you complain too much. I play edh to play a format unlike any other. If I can jam necropotence, grim monolith, greater good, and reality scramble into the same deck and have it work, that's why I'm here.
Truthfully, I'm baffled why everyone can't just enjoy their freedom instead of breaking into these weird factions of "ban this aspect" vs "ban some other thing". Less is most certainly not more, so maybe quit trying to actively winnow the possibilities and opportunities for other people. This is a great format as-is, nothing broken, nothing to fix.
Anyway, just popped in to approve of the stellar status quo and I eagerly await yet another relatively hands-off B&R announcement in the coming weeks.
At the end of the day I understand it's not my format, so of course this thread is nothing but screaming into the void.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
First off, unbanning everything is distinctly not what I want. I said pretty explicitly that everything is fine as-is, hence the adherence to the status quo.
The tent is huge enough right now, I'm the only one (it seems) who doesn't want it any smaller because I don't want anything new banned nor any sweeping, dramatic changes to micromanage or standardize the experience.
But to be totally fair to your hilarious quote "summary", I'm also the only one who already has what he wants, so I'll concede this might not be a thread requiring my input. On the other hand, this echo chamber of void-screaming could also occasionally remember that a lot of people are happy with EDH right now.
I won't pretend that I know what the impact of banning sol ring specifically would be, of course.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But the format is already hugely popular and hence my point: we have NONE of the tell-tale signs of format failure or deterioration. No mass deck homogeneity (edhrec aside), no wilting attendance, no truly ubiquitous must-have threats.
So by what metric exactly are we folks making determinations for these proposed bans/changes? I see a lot of disparate anecdotes but not much hard evidence. And doing away with even just fast mana would be a BIG change with considerable consequence. I understand we're all just negligible, unknowing blips floating in the soup of the universe, but I just honestly don't think balanced forethought is present in equal quantity to wishful thinking in this particular thread.
Would the format be more enjoyable without fast mana? Maybe. The fact is, we don't know. The better question then remains, is it worth the risk to change something that isn't currently broken? I'd say no. We're welcome to disagree. But if we continue to do so, I really want to see where exactly the world's burning down because of sol ring.
I ask without sarcasm, implicit or otherwise, by any and all means, please show me.
Afaik none of us has a team of market researchers as WotC does, so we're all going off our own experiences for the most part. And yes, I think I've seen a significant increase in the homogeneity and higher overall power level of decklists, which makes it more and more likely that a fast mana start will generate too much value to overcome. Of course it's impossible to prove a general trend from such few data points, but there seem to be lots of other people experiencing similar issues. The format to me feels like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water. The sorts of starts fast mana allows keep getting more and more obnoxious, but never by enough in a single expansion that anyone is in too much of a rush to do anything about it. When I first started playing sol ring starts were mostly NBD unless it was one of those tryhard Azami players. Nowadays, it seems like most of the time you have to play archenemy for at least a few turns around the table just to make sure they don't snowball totally out of control.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But this is exactly my point! We do not have the data, so we shouldn't be trying to preempt things we cannot possibly predict. Crafting format-spanning changes by extrapolating the rhetoric of an angry and extremely vocal minority (which we of mtgs definitely are) is not a recipe for long-term success either. The RC, for all intents and purposes, has done a good job, as reflected in the success and expansion of EDH. Perfect? No, because that's subjective. Unlivably bad or broken? Certainly not.
For things like climate change and car maintenance, I agree we should be ahead of the curve. For EDH, with admittedly no good data, I think we should cross bridges when and if (and certainly not before) we get there.
Edit:grammar
2nd edit: I promise to eat my mtgs account if I'm totally off-base here and sweeping changes are around the corner. But I seriously just don't see where all this discontent came from.
If someone actually put me in change of the banlist for some insane reason, I like to think I'd try to get wide sample of opinions, run test groups with the proposed changes, etc, before doing anything drastic. I'm not going to do that kind of work just to have a better-substantiated hot take on the internet, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Anecdotes are useful as long as we don't try to over-generalize from them. They help understand how things can play out and also give emotional context.
Much like correlation and causation we don't stop running correlations we just recognize the limitations.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
To you, I'm discontent. To them, I'm the loyal opposition. If I didn't care about and love this format, I wouldn't be so critical.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe discussion on sol ring and fast mana will always be relevant, and inevitably heated, but keep your arguments to the facts, positions, and topic. Do not attack other individuals, or disparage their right to have an opinion.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
For a start, commander doesn't have a pro-tour scene to use as a barometer for what's good in the format. There are no major tournaments and no pro players, which means there isn't really a good, objective place to look for data. The foibles of kitchen table players is, at best, loosely based on the actual strengths of the cards, whereas pros can be counted upon to do whatever is the most powerful thing available to them. The pro scene makes it possible to determine what's actually problematic based on its ubiquity at high-level competition.
But that's the second problem, which is that the goal of EDH isn't actually clear. Everyone knows (or should know) that sol ring, from a strict power level standpoint, is absurdly strong. But that isn't necessarily a problem, exactly, because it's true that multiplayer can be self-regulating and the goal isn't a perfectly balanced format. Sol ring creates powerful starts - sure, everyone knows that. Is that bad? Well, it depends what you want out of the format, and there's not an objective answer to that.
And of course a third problem is that people aren't necessarily good arbiters of what would actually make the format more enjoyable. Myself included. It's hard to see past your own personal bubble - I'll admit the loss of fast mana would be a major blow to my Kaervek deck, for example. When the mulligan rule changed away from partial paris, my zirilan deck was mighty disappointed. I think I have a relatively objective view since I don't have much attachment to any particular deck, but I definitely have an attachment to the sorts of strategies I tend to like, and the suggestion of rules changes that make those strategies less viable generally make me unhappy. But that's a fairly short-sighted view - those rules might actually make the game more fun, or maybe less fun for me but more fun for a lot of other people. It's really hard to say.
But certainly many people hate it, short-term, when their favorite cards get banned, even if they were seriously harming the format. There were plenty of people upset when ravager got banned, when jace got banned, when ancestral recall got restricted, and some of those people probably quit playing magic forever. But the formats were better for those bans. As players we don't have a great viewpoint for how to run an actual format, and even taking a poll of many players isn't necessarily going to fix that problem. I think really the only solution would be to test run the format - which is a great idea for someone in charge of the rules and banlist, but not something many people are going to be willing to do just for S&Gs. And if they are, good chance it's in the hopes of proving their own point, anyway. Which is probably what I'd be doing, intentionally or not.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Entirely too much.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I found the pros/cons analysis to be the most helpful part of talking about Planeswalkers as Commanders for me. The cons list was a mile long and the pros list very short, and it was obvious to me that it was not a very good risk to take for the format.
To do that, we need a proposal. What fast mana do you want to ban?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
God damn it, Dirk. You may be the hardest person on this whole site to debate against because you're always so $#@^€& thoughtful and reasonable. Maybe they can promote you to moderater or something after the move. I mean, if jivan can do it after his early years of constant infractions, anyone can. And you're such a calming presence.
Edit: now that I think about it, it's just like the mighty pheldagriff, impossible to demonize yet constantly winning.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This isn't even close to true, everyone's starting place is subjective so how can their determined pros/cons be anything but?
The thing that causes me to not like a proposed change may be subjective, but the fact that it causes me to not like it is objectively true. Clearer I hope?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I suspect you may be thinking of the philosophical concept of objective truth as opposed to the broader concept of "being objective" which means something different. Impartially collecting an unbiased list of pros/cons to consider is considering an issue 'objectively.'
You can consider a bunch of subjective ideas objectively.
---------------------------------------
Edit:
I did a bunch of reading on these terms and their broad use just to be sure I wasn't being dumb and I think the real area of confusion for me was about objective vs. subjective measures; something like your heart rate is an objective measure, but your well being is an subjective measure.
So a pros/cons list is not an objective measure in that sense. But it is quantifiable and meaningful, and the subjective statements that make it up can be quantified and analyzed as well.
We measure and quantify subjective concepts constantly and they can be very meaningful. So blah blah blah, etc., I'm sorry for muddying the waters there. Just didn't want to be talking nonsense so plopped this in here to apologize for the confusion.
--------------------------------------------
Semantics aside, I think it would be most productive to start with:
1) a proposal of what it means to ban fast mana
2) discuss the potential impact of that specific proposal
Because I don't think the impact to the format is measurable by any statistics we currently have, and I don't think you're going to get anywhere without looking at all the angles, er, as objectively as possible?
I don't think you get anywhere making a simple statement like "Ban fast mana" and then walking away without considering all the potential good and bad.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffEither way, it would be a worthy attempt though, should you wish to start a thread for it.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek