You can also have a pile of cards worth hundreds of dollars each that isn't a good strategy.
A new player at my location has reportedly been complaining about losing to 'expensive decks'.
Coincidentally, I recently decided to start constructing a Reserved Deck.
It will be expensive, and I have every expectation it will be bad. I only have access to what, ~26 mana-producing lands?
And very small numbers of (mostly) awful ramp?
Edit: Just did a count. Unless I am missing any, it looks like 30 Commander-legal lands with mana abilities. Many of which have heavy costs or restrictions.
I of course would also be running ~6 lands that do not have mana abilities, to help fuel the Weatherlight lands and Mox Diamond.
So can 75%, 50%, or whatever number you want to pull out of your ass.
If everyone's definition of casual competitive or somewhere in between is subjective then the numbers used to represent exactly those same things are just as subjective by definition.
0.75*(Subjective Thing) = (Subjective Thing)
Maybe this will help. Take a look at the color gradient below.
Can you tell which part of the picture is blue? How about which part of the picture is green? You can obviously do both of those things, but how come? Blue and green are completely subjective here, and one person's idea of blue might not match the next's, especially when it comes to the band in the middle.
What's important to note here is that even though individuals may disagree on exactly which parts of the picture are blue and exactly which parts of the picture are green, people will universally agree that the left part of the picture is blue and that the right side of the picture is green. That's because we don't need precise definitions in order to accurately differentiate two things. The two "things" need only be different enough for us to recognize it. This holds true for Magic decks as well.
75% decks look sufficiently different from 100% decks, and it's useful to be able to talk about the two as different entities because the two kinds of decks can easily be differentiated from one another. Yes, the band in the middle is hazy, and nobody can exactly quite tell where the blue part becomes the green part, but that doesn't mean people can't tell blue from green (or 75% from 100%) just because the two are subjective.
This is just supporting everything I have said. My problem is not labeling or organizing.
That the terms casual, competitive and somewhere in-between are nothing different and in fact less abstract than trying to make it sound more official by giving it a number.
This is just supporting everything I have said. My problem is not labeling or organizing.
That the terms casual, competitive and somewhere in-between are nothing different and in fact less abstract than trying to make it sound more official by giving it a number.
Then I'm totally confused because blue and green are different. 75% decks are not the same as 100% decks, and while they each may exist on the same spectrum, both types of decks are unique and identifiable. Saying that they're not is like saying blue and green are the same color.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
75% decks look sufficiently different from 100% decks, and it's useful to be able to talk about the two as different entities because the two kinds of decks can easily be differentiated from one another. Yes, the band in the middle is hazy, and nobody can exactly quite tell where the blue part becomes the green part, but that doesn't mean people can't tell blue from green (or 75% from 100%) just because the two are subjective.
Feels like you're missing the point here. Nobody is going to confuse a deck full of Craw Wurms with a cutthroat Doomsday-combo deck. The problem, as you put it, is the hazy middle part. Assigning an arbitrary number to it doesn't make it less hazy, because the number is based on the personal beliefs of the one assigning the number. For example, if someone is asking for help to build their 75% deck and I suggest Kiki-Conscripts that person might think I'm an ******** for suggesting an infinite combo because that doesn't fit into what they think a 75% deck should be.
Ah, now I see. So the issue isn't that this particular style of deck is named per-se, but that the name itself is misleading due to the subjective nature of the beast. Now I understand.
I could make an argument that that still doesn't matter, that the public still has a conceptual idea about what a 75% deck is regardless whether or not the information that name conveys holds true, but that's a rabbit hole I don't really care to go down since I think I agree that the naming convention isn't necessarily helpful here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yes, because once you're in the "75%" range of that picture it's a color which some people may be able to correctly name, but others will lazily say blue or green. Pretty much only the pilot will be able to say it's 75% because they know that they intentionally pulled some punches during deckbuilding.
So can 75%, 50%, or whatever number you want to pull out of your ass.
If everyone's definition of casual competitive or somewhere in between is subjective then the numbers used to represent exactly those same things are just as subjective by definition.
0.75*(Subjective Thing) = (Subjective Thing)
Maybe this will help. Take a look at the color gradient below.
Can you tell which part of the picture is blue? How about which part of the picture is green? You can obviously do both of those things, but how come? Blue and green are completely subjective here, and one person's idea of blue might not match the next's, especially when it comes to the band in the middle.
What's important to note here is that even though individuals may disagree on exactly which parts of the picture are blue and exactly which parts of the picture are green, people will universally agree that the left part of the picture is blue and that the right side of the picture is green. That's because we don't need precise definitions in order to accurately differentiate two things. The two "things" need only be different enough for us to recognize it. This holds true for Magic decks as well.
75% decks look sufficiently different from 100% decks, and it's useful to be able to talk about the two as different entities because the two kinds of decks can easily be differentiated from one another. Yes, the band in the middle is hazy, and nobody can exactly quite tell where the blue part becomes the green part, but that doesn't mean people can't tell blue from green (or 75% from 100%) just because the two are subjective.
This is just supporting everything I have said. My problem is not labeling or organizing.
That the terms casual, competitive and somewhere in-between are nothing different and in fact less abstract than trying to make it sound more official by giving it a number.
All the numbers do is create more gradients beyond the labels casual and competitive. They aren't there to make it "more official", that's just your personal hang up. They caught on because they were more descriptive than casual and competitive. Competitive as a descriptor is generally associated with decks tuned for tournament play, and by strict definition anything made for non-tournament play is casual. If you ever played online, you may remember that the non-tournament rooms used to be "casual" and "tournament practice", and it caused constant *****ing in the chat because nobody could agree on what casual meant. With 25, 50, 75, and 100, there is disagreement about exactly where the boundaries are, but not nearly as much as the disagreements over what "casual" means, which is WHY the numbers caught on. Using Axolotl's gradient picture, with the numbers you get disagreements over where the blue ends and the green begins, or over what's blue, what's blue green, what's cyan, and what's green, but with casual/competitive you can't even get people to agree that cyan even exists. Sticking with the metaphor, casual/competitive also had the problem of only acknowledging blue and green, whereas the numbers acknowledge the gradients. In order to describe differences in power level for casual decks when just using casual and competitive, you have to be a lot more descriptive, which is good for a deep dive but crap for shorthand, which is after all the role that casual/competitive and 25,50,75,100 is meant to serve, as shorthand for quickly describing deck strength without getting into a long description. That leads me into another important point I haven't even mentioned yet, that the numbers simply translate better than casual/competitive and descriptions of somewhere in between. I mean literally translate. Magic is an international game, and the concept of percentages being used to describe deck strength translates more easily across culture and language (and automatic browser translation especially) than casual/competitive, and lengthy description of "somewhere in between" does, and this gives the numbers another leg up over casual/competitive.
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!
I'm flabbergasted after reading the last couple pages. Surely y'all must be really, really bored given the overall good health of the format and are just in need of something to argue about? This can't be serious. Go play Magic, good lord.
I'm flabbergasted after reading the last couple pages. Surely y'all must be really, really bored given the overall good health of the format and are just in need of something to argue about? This can't be serious. Go play Magic, good lord.
Why must we be bored to want a more consistent list?
I'm flabbergasted after reading the last couple pages. Surely y'all must be really, really bored given the overall good health of the format and are just in need of something to argue about? This can't be serious. Go play Magic, good lord.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought people might enjoy talking about some different things for awhile. You know, explore things we don't usually talk about instead of arguing in circles about the actual problems. But Kelzem commands serious business, so serious business we shall have:
Seriously guys, what's up with Sol Ring? Why isn't that card banned yet?
I'm flabbergasted after reading the last couple pages. Surely y'all must be really, really bored given the overall good health of the format and are just in need of something to argue about? This can't be serious. Go play Magic, good lord.
Lots of people have time to discuss items on a message board when they don't have time to play. You clearly have free time as well, so its kinda the point here.
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.
Not to dredge up a topic that must mean we are all bored and have nothing to do but this interaction from in this sub-forum is the perfect summation of the stuff being talked about on the previous page
My gitrog deck? Yeah, go compare it to a CEDH gitrog deck It's definitely tuned down quite a lot. I've played vs CEDH decks and I'm lucky to take 1/10 at a CEDH table. It's geared to win in the midgame (T5-8 or so). Maybe it's an 80-85% deck? I tend to lump everything "powerful but not highly competitive" in that category.
It's not at all atypical of what I see power-level wise on a regular basis, especially if you're talking just about ramp. And my store is one of the least competitive I've seen in the area.
It might not be 100%, but thats a bit too much for 75%. Its more like 87%
Am I the only one that thinks the Banned list needs to be slimmed down and local ban lists need to be encouraged? I feel like a universal banned list is not really in the spirit of the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
Am I the only one that thinks the Banned list needs to be slimmed down and local ban lists need to be encouraged? I feel like a universal banned list is not really in the spirit of the format.
No, you aren’t. But... that poses an even larger problem considering you are going to have varying lists at every shop/table. It’s one thing to have an inconsistent universal banlist, and quite another for the onus to be put on each individual group to successfully manage their own.
Am I the only one that thinks the Banned list needs to be slimmed down and local ban lists need to be encouraged? I feel like a universal banned list is not really in the spirit of the format.
Local ban lists are already encouraged. However, not enough people have a consistent local playgroup to make this a truly viable option. That is, if they unbanned stuff like Worldfire the number of groups that ban it will be much lower than the number of groups that now have to deal with it because the "official" list does not have it banned. So, instead of cleaning up the banlist, you instead just add more tension and frustration to the groups that use that as their ban list for simplicity sake.
Local ban lists also change between stores. I have about 8 different places I can play. If they all used their own list, I would have to keep updating my decks to be legal at each place. One store actually allowed Library of Alexandria. I used it because I could, but any time I went somewhere else I had to keep changing my deck to remove it or just say it was an Island.
Am I the only one that thinks the Banned list needs to be slimmed down and local ban lists need to be encouraged? I feel like a universal banned list is not really in the spirit of the format.
Local ban lists are already encouraged. However, not enough people have a consistent local playgroup to make this a truly viable option. That is, if they unbanned stuff like Worldfire the number of groups that ban it will be much lower than the number of groups that now have to deal with it because the "official" list does not have it banned. So, instead of cleaning up the banlist, you instead just add more tension and frustration to the groups that use that as their ban list for simplicity sake.
Local ban lists also change between stores. I have about 8 different places I can play. If they all used their own list, I would have to keep updating my decks to be legal at each place. One store actually allowed Library of Alexandria. I used it because I could, but any time I went somewhere else I had to keep changing my deck to remove it or just say it was an Island.
I mean, I understand that. But it is a casual format, and i see many players simply lose interest because htey cannot play something like Griselbrand in a casual format because their local game store defaults to an official Universal Ban List that is based on the entirety of players all over the world griping that some dick at their local playmat took the format as competitively as possible.
As someone trying to encourage more players to play the format, I would say the Ban List is probably the most frequent reason why people tell me they do not want to play the format. That is pretty sad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
Those players are free to use the local ban list you are suggesting to *allow* Griselbrand then. He is broken in a 40 life format so unbanning him for 100% of the player base just to sate the 1% (or whatever) that won't play without him is shortsighted. There will always be players that don't want to play a format for different reasons. You can't satisfy everyone so if some players don't want to play because of the ban list, then they won't play. There is an equally likely possibility that players will stop playing if they have to deal with Griselbrand(or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Prophet of Kruphix).
I get EDH is about big, splashy plays, but some cards just do too much or are just oppressive (or a whole host of other reasons). There are already cards in the gray area; we don't need to add to this list cards that were already decided to be over the line.
Those players are free to use the local ban list you are suggesting to *allow* Griselbrand then. He is broken in a 40 life format so unbanning him for 100% of the player base just to sate the 1% (or whatever) that won't play without him is shortsighted. There will always be players that don't want to play a format for different reasons. You can't satisfy everyone so if some players don't want to play because of the ban list, then they won't play. There is an equally likely possibility that players will stop playing if they have to deal with Griselbrand(or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Prophet of Kruphix).
I get EDH is about big, splashy plays, but some cards just do too much or are just oppressive (or a whole host of other reasons). There are already cards in the gray area; we don't need to add to this list cards that were already decided to be over the line.
To be fair, Commander is a politics game at heart and you don't always win by drawing a bunch of cards. It isn't just Griselbrand though, it is a few cards that people want to play in a casual spirit but the shop defaults to a generalized banned list provided by WOTC because they don't play that format - they just want to get people in and they don't feel like deviating for the sake of the players.
Many of us veteran players look back at when Commander was starting out, as EDH and even afterwards before WOTC officially started supporting the format at large, and there are lots of discussion about how if you tried to do something dumb and over the top, players would just kill you and that was how it was. As the format has gained even more momentum, players have found more and more efficient ways to take advantage of cards which has lead to the curation of a larger banned list. When the reality is that there are more small pockets of players who don't even play the format to that extent.
I get that many players feel things like Griselbrand are unfair when you have 40 life... but so is Darevi taxing you out of the game. There used to be a time when players would have to construct with their playgroup in mind and that was the social aspect of the format - which has since dissipated and lead to things like a universal banned list.
I just find it sad that there is little promotion for curating your own EDH/Commander circle like there used to be and some players feel like the format now has a tarnished image to many. I think your 1% is an absolutely arbitrary number.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
I think your 1% is an absolutely arbitrary number.
It obviously is (as I implied in my initial comment). If you have a hard number, backed up by a large amount of research, feel free to share it.
The point still stands; the amount of people being dissuaded from the format currently because of the banlist is likely fewer than the amount that will be dissuaded by allowing cards that have already proven to be too much for the people the RC cares about.
If change is to be made, there needs to be something to support that change. If not enough evidence is present to show that the growth of EDH is truly stunted due to the Ban List,and those changes would not otherwise drive away existing players, then there should be no changes. And, from what we have seen from the RC as well as the success of Wizards' products geared towards EDH and Multiplayer play in general, I find it hard to believe that the current use of the Ban List should not continue.
This is not to say that there are not cards that can come off. I personally feel Painter's Servant would be interesting (though Iona and Ugin make this a tough sell) and I have seen arguments for removing Gifts Ungiven that I agree with. Even with those, there needs to be more than a random internet person (me, in this case) saying they are fine. The same applies to your stance about trimming the ban list as a general stance.
If you feel that Griselbrand is fine, you are free to have that opinion but the justification for unbanning needs to be more than just "little Timmy wants to play with it".
Also, Wizards has no control over the Ban List. The Ban List is decided up by the RC. If the shop owner's do not want to deviate from the list because they don't play the format, then that is their choice. But, since they don't play the format, it seems that is probably the right call.
I think it adds too much pointless confusion to make it any way official. If people really want to the option is there I disagree with some cards that are banned but it is enough of a non-issue that it doesn't really bother me when I go to play.
A new player at my location has reportedly been complaining about losing to 'expensive decks'.
Coincidentally, I recently decided to start constructing a Reserved Deck.
It will be expensive, and I have every expectation it will be bad. I only have access to what, ~26 mana-producing lands?
And very small numbers of (mostly) awful ramp?
Edit: Just did a count. Unless I am missing any, it looks like 30 Commander-legal lands with mana abilities. Many of which have heavy costs or restrictions.
I of course would also be running ~6 lands that do not have mana abilities, to help fuel the Weatherlight lands and Mox Diamond.
ABU Dual Cycle (10)
Ice Age Depletion Cycle (5)
Alliances Sacrifice Cycle (5)
Weatherlight Sacrifice Cycle (2)
Urza Count Cycle (2)
Miscelanious (6)
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
This is just supporting everything I have said. My problem is not labeling or organizing.
That the terms casual, competitive and somewhere in-between are nothing different and in fact less abstract than trying to make it sound more official by giving it a number.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I could make an argument that that still doesn't matter, that the public still has a conceptual idea about what a 75% deck is regardless whether or not the information that name conveys holds true, but that's a rabbit hole I don't really care to go down since I think I agree that the naming convention isn't necessarily helpful here.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
All the numbers do is create more gradients beyond the labels casual and competitive. They aren't there to make it "more official", that's just your personal hang up. They caught on because they were more descriptive than casual and competitive. Competitive as a descriptor is generally associated with decks tuned for tournament play, and by strict definition anything made for non-tournament play is casual. If you ever played online, you may remember that the non-tournament rooms used to be "casual" and "tournament practice", and it caused constant *****ing in the chat because nobody could agree on what casual meant. With 25, 50, 75, and 100, there is disagreement about exactly where the boundaries are, but not nearly as much as the disagreements over what "casual" means, which is WHY the numbers caught on. Using Axolotl's gradient picture, with the numbers you get disagreements over where the blue ends and the green begins, or over what's blue, what's blue green, what's cyan, and what's green, but with casual/competitive you can't even get people to agree that cyan even exists. Sticking with the metaphor, casual/competitive also had the problem of only acknowledging blue and green, whereas the numbers acknowledge the gradients. In order to describe differences in power level for casual decks when just using casual and competitive, you have to be a lot more descriptive, which is good for a deep dive but crap for shorthand, which is after all the role that casual/competitive and 25,50,75,100 is meant to serve, as shorthand for quickly describing deck strength without getting into a long description. That leads me into another important point I haven't even mentioned yet, that the numbers simply translate better than casual/competitive and descriptions of somewhere in between. I mean literally translate. Magic is an international game, and the concept of percentages being used to describe deck strength translates more easily across culture and language (and automatic browser translation especially) than casual/competitive, and lengthy description of "somewhere in between" does, and this gives the numbers another leg up over casual/competitive.
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!
(Also known as Xenphire)
Why must we be bored to want a more consistent list?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Seriously guys, what's up with Sol Ring? Why isn't that card banned yet?
Drink!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
No, you aren’t. But... that poses an even larger problem considering you are going to have varying lists at every shop/table. It’s one thing to have an inconsistent universal banlist, and quite another for the onus to be put on each individual group to successfully manage their own.
Local ban lists also change between stores. I have about 8 different places I can play. If they all used their own list, I would have to keep updating my decks to be legal at each place. One store actually allowed Library of Alexandria. I used it because I could, but any time I went somewhere else I had to keep changing my deck to remove it or just say it was an Island.
Which, ironically, is far more broken than Library of Alexandria.
I mean, I understand that. But it is a casual format, and i see many players simply lose interest because htey cannot play something like Griselbrand in a casual format because their local game store defaults to an official Universal Ban List that is based on the entirety of players all over the world griping that some dick at their local playmat took the format as competitively as possible.
As someone trying to encourage more players to play the format, I would say the Ban List is probably the most frequent reason why people tell me they do not want to play the format. That is pretty sad.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
I get EDH is about big, splashy plays, but some cards just do too much or are just oppressive (or a whole host of other reasons). There are already cards in the gray area; we don't need to add to this list cards that were already decided to be over the line.
To be fair, Commander is a politics game at heart and you don't always win by drawing a bunch of cards. It isn't just Griselbrand though, it is a few cards that people want to play in a casual spirit but the shop defaults to a generalized banned list provided by WOTC because they don't play that format - they just want to get people in and they don't feel like deviating for the sake of the players.
Many of us veteran players look back at when Commander was starting out, as EDH and even afterwards before WOTC officially started supporting the format at large, and there are lots of discussion about how if you tried to do something dumb and over the top, players would just kill you and that was how it was. As the format has gained even more momentum, players have found more and more efficient ways to take advantage of cards which has lead to the curation of a larger banned list. When the reality is that there are more small pockets of players who don't even play the format to that extent.
I get that many players feel things like Griselbrand are unfair when you have 40 life... but so is Darevi taxing you out of the game. There used to be a time when players would have to construct with their playgroup in mind and that was the social aspect of the format - which has since dissipated and lead to things like a universal banned list.
I just find it sad that there is little promotion for curating your own EDH/Commander circle like there used to be and some players feel like the format now has a tarnished image to many. I think your 1% is an absolutely arbitrary number.
STANDARD|UW Control MODERN| UBG Midrange PAUPER| UG Fog COMMANDER| UBG The Mimeoplasm
The point still stands; the amount of people being dissuaded from the format currently because of the banlist is likely fewer than the amount that will be dissuaded by allowing cards that have already proven to be too much for the people the RC cares about.
If change is to be made, there needs to be something to support that change. If not enough evidence is present to show that the growth of EDH is truly stunted due to the Ban List,and those changes would not otherwise drive away existing players, then there should be no changes. And, from what we have seen from the RC as well as the success of Wizards' products geared towards EDH and Multiplayer play in general, I find it hard to believe that the current use of the Ban List should not continue.
This is not to say that there are not cards that can come off. I personally feel Painter's Servant would be interesting (though Iona and Ugin make this a tough sell) and I have seen arguments for removing Gifts Ungiven that I agree with. Even with those, there needs to be more than a random internet person (me, in this case) saying they are fine. The same applies to your stance about trimming the ban list as a general stance.
If you feel that Griselbrand is fine, you are free to have that opinion but the justification for unbanning needs to be more than just "little Timmy wants to play with it".
Also, Wizards has no control over the Ban List. The Ban List is decided up by the RC. If the shop owner's do not want to deviate from the list because they don't play the format, then that is their choice. But, since they don't play the format, it seems that is probably the right call.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Or Ad Nauseam, or Enter the Infinite.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg