This is turning more into your own personal dream ban list,rather than some thing for the community as a whole. By the way that ban list is from 5 color or Prismatic.
This is turning more into your own personal dream ban list,rather than some thing for the community as a whole. By the way that ban list is from 5 color or Prismatic.
I believe the ban list you posted has many cards that do not need to be banned in a 40 life multiplayer format designed to be played for fun. Cards like gush have absolutely no place on the ban list.
And I am acting as a quality control check for if cards actually belong, because I am putting it together and I can't just blindly accept whatever people say.
I think it's meant to be a thought exercise. If you're not interested Hermes don't whine and don't reply.
If you feel the urge to criticize provide some constructive feedback instead.
Anyways with regards to your "tutor" problem. I prefer not to have a list of cards. Rather, I would narrow them down to a definition that you're comfortable with. In fact, I would do the same with all the listed cards. It will be presented under your philosophy. But I do understand why you would wanna list them for now.
For example, my playgroup only allows permanent-based tutors with the exception of survival of the fittest. Planar Portal, Birthing Pod, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, etc.
Land tutors are allowed. Rampant Growth, Explosive vegetation. Demonic Tutor is "not" a land tutor. "search for land card" is the criteria.
______________________________________________
So what is a banned "tutor"? A tutor is any non-permanent card that has the text "search your library for a card" that is not a land.
______________________________________________
The above description is clear enough without the need for listing cards upon cards upon cards. You can guide your reader, in this case my playgroup, a few examples of a banned "tutor".
I don't know; my "Let's play for fun" banlist is about the same length as the current official banlist, although about 1/3 of it are cards which are not currently on the official list.
Yeah, I don't think many cards need to be banned. There are some cards that I wouldn't shed a tear for if they do hit the list (Such as Craterhoof Behemoth) but plenty of people do consider it to be fun. I think that with my changes, more crazy combinations are possible and everyone can play the decks they like. There's no need to ban everything some people deem to be "unfun", just cards that consistently cause bad feelings every time they are played. There's plenty of folks who enjoy the kind of challenge a card like Smokestack presents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Yeah, I don't think many cards need to be banned. There are some cards that I wouldn't shed a tear for if they do hit the list (Such as Craterhoof Behemoth) but plenty of people do consider it to be fun. I think that with my changes, more crazy combinations are possible and everyone can play the decks they like. There's no need to ban everything some people deem to be "unfun", just cards that consistently cause bad feelings every time they are played. There's plenty of folks who enjoy the kind of challenge a card like Smokestack presents.
I would love it if there was no ban list at all, so that I didn't run into arbitrary restrictions when trying to make decks. But since that isn't happening, I am trying to make my list a very strict guideline, make it scream at the top of its lungs stop playing decks that will make casual players quit!
As much as I would like to make a ban list that is statements instead of cards, such as "don't play cards that remove all lands from play", I think that would be too hard for people to follow and I'm almost certain people would dive in looking for loopholes.
I decided to add enchanted evening and Mycosynth Lattice to the list. It's much too easy for these cards to create horrible game states.
Ward of bones is not used to keep fast players in check, it is used to lock the game down completely. "I have no lands, so you cannot have lands either".
Humility is just not fun to play against for creature decks, because they don't even get ETB effects. This substantially narrows down the cards that can actually answer it, and creatures are nothing until it is removed. A mono red creature deck might as well concede on the spot to humility. It is the opposite of an exciting card.
Craterhoof ruining casual play by turning almost any board state into a player kill warrants its removal from the format.
Mind over matter is too easy to break. Anything that taps to draw a card is going to win the game as long as laboratory maniac is in the deck.
Serra ascendant is tremendously unfun to play against. Focus down one player and they almost have no recourse unless they kept a cheap targeted removal in hand. You can't even block the thing without flying. When its played on the first turn fun things are not happening.
Edric is an extremely oppressive general when built correctly, he is very much stronger than "average".
Ward of bones is not used to keep fast players in check, it is used to lock the game down completely. "I have no lands, so you cannot have lands either".
I've used Ward of Bones to slow games down when it was in my mono black rat deck.
I don't know; my "Let's play for fun" banlist is about the same length as the current official banlist, although about 1/3 of it are cards which are not currently on the official list.
Maybe this means I'm overly competitive, but to each their own.
This is a pretty solid list. The only changes I would make to this are add the rest of the 1-mana tutors (Enlightened Tutor, Worldly Tutor, and Mystical Tutor... not Gamble though, I pity mono-red). It feels bad to take 3 different tutors away from Black but none from the rest of the colors. On the subject of tutors, Natural Order and Tinker would also get added. And finally, as much as I'd like to see Prophet of Kruphix unbanned because I have a huge stockpile of them, it really isn't fun playing with or against that card.
I spent of bit of time creating a much larger ban list centered around the idea of trying to play a slower, less combo centric version of edh with little in the way of resource denial and non-interactive combo strategies.
After writing it all out, I think I'd be ok if the format actually did go in this direction. It would give much stricter guidance to players. After having my play experience ruined repeatedly by players who were totally within the ban list but playing extremely unfun decks, I would much rather the format have a ban list like this than its current minimal one. I've stopped attending weekly commander gatherings because the decks are steadily shifting more and more to winning instead of having fun.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
My experience has been that even if people claim to have that mindset, they will continue to get more and more competitive because they like winning, until the game is not fun anymore. It is hard to stay at a lower power level as you play the game longer and your collection and card knowledge grows.
You don't lose the ideas and playing for fun as that happens though.
Fun is not a thing defined by power of a deck it is a thing built by the people sitting around the table.
I am basing this on a few factors.
I believe edh became as popular as it did because of the sudden huge increase in cards and strategies that became playable when the format was less optimized. Suddenly a six drop creature was not your top end, you could run a bunch of them! The goal of this banlist would be to increase the number of playable cards overall. Some strategies and cards are too good at what they do, reducing variety by obsoleting so many other cards.
There are certain things that a large number of players hate, such as mass land destruction, solitaire wins, and prison strategies. The game has seen an explosion in popularity since these strategies have been getting less and less support in new sets. The banlist would look to reduce the power of these strategies greatly.
Sure, there is a group of players who want to play the game at its strongest level and find that fun, but that this group is relatively small compared to the playerbase that likes the new world order design.
I would need an example of a card you feel is not playable currently to better understand this because right now it doesn't make any sense at all, I don't agree with the current Banlist in a couple places but everything in this thread feels like a step too far.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
My experience has been that even if people claim to have that mindset, they will continue to get more and more competitive because they like winning, until the game is not fun anymore. It is hard to stay at a lower power level as you play the game longer and your collection and card knowledge grows.
Players who truly play for fun will have depowered decks next to their high-power juggernauts as well. Yes, I can mow you over on turn 3/4 with my Tazri list. Yes, I can end the game on turn 6/7 with a massive field with Selvala. But on the other hand, I also have a Dragon Tribal list and a Karador list that's based around replaying big splashy coolstuff all the time, and I even have a Lady of the Mountain deck for when completely new players need a simple introduction.
Only full spikes who only care about winning will NOT build some lesser decks to go with their big hitters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
My experience has been that even if people claim to have that mindset, they will continue to get more and more competitive because they like winning, until the game is not fun anymore. It is hard to stay at a lower power level as you play the game longer and your collection and card knowledge grows.
Players who truly play for fun will have depowered decks next to their high-power juggernauts as well. Yes, I can mow you over on turn 3/4 with my Tazri list. Yes, I can end the game on turn 6/7 with a massive field with Selvala. But on the other hand, I also have a Dragon Tribal list and a Karador list that's based around replaying big splashy coolstuff all the time, and I even have a Lady of the Mountain deck for when completely new players need a simple introduction.
Only full spikes who only care about winning will NOT build some lesser decks to go with their big hitters.
This is a strange place direction to come at it from.
It is not that people who want to win eschew fun when creating decks only built for winning (this is probably the most common misconception I see about Commander), it is more that they have found a group of like minded people who also have fun playing the same type of game and build decks around winning because that is what everyone finds fun, it is a game with a win condition after all.
It is why I believe that fun has no place in a banlist because fun is such a nebulous thing especially in this game in a multiplayer context.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
My experience has been that even if people claim to have that mindset, they will continue to get more and more competitive because they like winning, until the game is not fun anymore. It is hard to stay at a lower power level as you play the game longer and your collection and card knowledge grows.
Players who truly play for fun will have depowered decks next to their high-power juggernauts as well. Yes, I can mow you over on turn 3/4 with my Tazri list. Yes, I can end the game on turn 6/7 with a massive field with Selvala. But on the other hand, I also have a Dragon Tribal list and a Karador list that's based around replaying big splashy coolstuff all the time, and I even have a Lady of the Mountain deck for when completely new players need a simple introduction.
Only full spikes who only care about winning will NOT build some lesser decks to go with their big hitters.
This is a strange place direction to come at it from.
It is not that people who want to win eschew fun when creating decks only built for winning (this is probably the most common misconception I see about Commander), it is more that they have found a group of like minded people who also have fun playing the same type of game and build decks around winning because that is what everyone finds fun, it is a game with a win condition after all.
It is why I believe that fun has no place in a banlist because fun is such a nebulous thing especially in this game in a multiplayer context.
True, true, I spoke mostly from my own perspective which is that of one with an ever changing playgroup. I enjoy high powered games but there's also some folks at my LGS who play "lower tier" stuff, so I adapt to all that. And even those with the high-end competitive decks hold a few lower-tier decks for more relaxed games. It was mostly as an argument against "Decks only get stronger" which is only true if your group can only have fun when winning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
If you are creating a banlist with the intention to reign in combo and resource denial and power level, then your banlist is going to be at least 150 cards long.
We did a thought exercise on these very forums here where I came up with a 101 card banned list (that should have been 104-108 after looking at it again). The intent was to reign in combo and ban cards based on Vintage principles to try and balance a 5-Archetype metagame (Aggro, Aggro-Control, Control, Combo, and Prison).
But this also assumed that Prison decks and resource denial would not only be perfectly acceptable, but preferable as a segment of the metagame due to how it helps reign in combo. If you want to reign in Prison and Resource Denial in general, be prepared to ban another 50-100 cards (the actual number will depend on where you draw the line). Mass-LD, Repetitive LD, Mass Bounce, Taxation effects, Stax Effects, Lockout Cards,... the list of categories that can constitute "resource denial" is long in and of itself.
I think that you should make a list of all the various resource denial categories that you want to hit and state exactly what you want to do with each category. For example, you have Kozilek, Butcher of Truth and Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre listed presumably for Annihilator 4, so does that mean Annihilator 3 or Annihilator 2 are okay? You have 8 Extra Turn cards listed, but no Time Vault (obvious oversight) or Sage of Hours; is an extra turn card okay if it exiles itself (which is why I assume there is no Part The Waterveil) or is creature-based?
I would replace all the resource denial with the cardinal rule, AKA "Don't Be a Dick" because that's how casual scrublords roll. (note, I am not insulting casual scrublords, I am THE casual scrublord) and maybe just another rule for "no extra turns. period, any problems, see rule 1"
and then ban actual annoying cards. I'm also surprised not to see Avacyn Angel of Hope because casual scrublords hate her, or the lamest game enders: Insurrection, Exsanguinate/Debt to The Deathless, and any card with the words "you win the game" printed on them (oh hey, theres a good third rule).
Also, I do love kiki-jiki, but hes too good not to ban.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
I believe the ban list you posted has many cards that do not need to be banned in a 40 life multiplayer format designed to be played for fun. Cards like gush have absolutely no place on the ban list.
And I am acting as a quality control check for if cards actually belong, because I am putting it together and I can't just blindly accept whatever people say.
If you feel the urge to criticize provide some constructive feedback instead.
Anyways with regards to your "tutor" problem. I prefer not to have a list of cards. Rather, I would narrow them down to a definition that you're comfortable with. In fact, I would do the same with all the listed cards. It will be presented under your philosophy. But I do understand why you would wanna list them for now.
For example, my playgroup only allows permanent-based tutors with the exception of survival of the fittest. Planar Portal, Birthing Pod, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, etc.
Land tutors are allowed. Rampant Growth, Explosive vegetation. Demonic Tutor is "not" a land tutor. "search for land card" is the criteria.
______________________________________________
So what is a banned "tutor"? A tutor is any non-permanent card that has the text "search your library for a card" that is not a land.
______________________________________________
The above description is clear enough without the need for listing cards upon cards upon cards. You can guide your reader, in this case my playgroup, a few examples of a banned "tutor".
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Something like:
Primeval Titan and Limited Resources would both probably see test unbans.
Maybe this means I'm overly competitive, but to each their own.
Reinstate the Banned as a Commander list.
Braids, Cabal Minion, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary are allowed in the 99 again. Griselbrand and Emrakul, the Aeons Thorn stay banned. Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and Leovold, Emissary of Trest go onto the BaaC list.
Painter's Servant, Protean Hulk, Recurring Nightmare and Gifts Ungiven get released from the banlist.
Iona, Shield of Emeria goes onto the banlist.
Yeah, I don't think many cards need to be banned. There are some cards that I wouldn't shed a tear for if they do hit the list (Such as Craterhoof Behemoth) but plenty of people do consider it to be fun. I think that with my changes, more crazy combinations are possible and everyone can play the decks they like. There's no need to ban everything some people deem to be "unfun", just cards that consistently cause bad feelings every time they are played. There's plenty of folks who enjoy the kind of challenge a card like Smokestack presents.
I would love it if there was no ban list at all, so that I didn't run into arbitrary restrictions when trying to make decks. But since that isn't happening, I am trying to make my list a very strict guideline, make it scream at the top of its lungs stop playing decks that will make casual players quit!
As much as I would like to make a ban list that is statements instead of cards, such as "don't play cards that remove all lands from play", I think that would be too hard for people to follow and I'm almost certain people would dive in looking for loopholes.
I decided to add enchanted evening and Mycosynth Lattice to the list. It's much too easy for these cards to create horrible game states.
Humility is just not fun to play against for creature decks, because they don't even get ETB effects. This substantially narrows down the cards that can actually answer it, and creatures are nothing until it is removed. A mono red creature deck might as well concede on the spot to humility. It is the opposite of an exciting card.
Craterhoof ruining casual play by turning almost any board state into a player kill warrants its removal from the format.
Mind over matter is too easy to break. Anything that taps to draw a card is going to win the game as long as laboratory maniac is in the deck.
Serra ascendant is tremendously unfun to play against. Focus down one player and they almost have no recourse unless they kept a cheap targeted removal in hand. You can't even block the thing without flying. When its played on the first turn fun things are not happening.
Edric is an extremely oppressive general when built correctly, he is very much stronger than "average".
You make your list, and try to make a format with it. People will just play different combos. You can't police the entire 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
I've used Ward of Bones to slow games down when it was in my mono black rat deck.
On the flip side, I would probably leave Crucible of Worlds and Grindstone legal. They're annoying with one other card (Strip Mine and Painter's Servant respectively) and pretty darn fair otherwise.
Let's play for fun is an attitude not a banned list. Such a list would actually be smaller because the cards that are banned because of their power to set up combos would be ignored by players. Such a banned list would only need the worst game ending offenders: mass Ld like armageddon and bust. Things that slow the game to a crawl like primeval Titan and winter orb, Everything else would be fine, assuming the players commit.
My experience has been that even if people claim to have that mindset, they will continue to get more and more competitive because they like winning, until the game is not fun anymore. It is hard to stay at a lower power level as you play the game longer and your collection and card knowledge grows.
Fun is not a thing defined by power of a deck it is a thing built by the people sitting around the table.
I am basing this on a few factors.
I believe edh became as popular as it did because of the sudden huge increase in cards and strategies that became playable when the format was less optimized. Suddenly a six drop creature was not your top end, you could run a bunch of them! The goal of this banlist would be to increase the number of playable cards overall. Some strategies and cards are too good at what they do, reducing variety by obsoleting so many other cards.
There are certain things that a large number of players hate, such as mass land destruction, solitaire wins, and prison strategies. The game has seen an explosion in popularity since these strategies have been getting less and less support in new sets. The banlist would look to reduce the power of these strategies greatly.
Sure, there is a group of players who want to play the game at its strongest level and find that fun, but that this group is relatively small compared to the playerbase that likes the new world order design.
Players who truly play for fun will have depowered decks next to their high-power juggernauts as well. Yes, I can mow you over on turn 3/4 with my Tazri list. Yes, I can end the game on turn 6/7 with a massive field with Selvala. But on the other hand, I also have a Dragon Tribal list and a Karador list that's based around replaying big splashy coolstuff all the time, and I even have a Lady of the Mountain deck for when completely new players need a simple introduction.
Only full spikes who only care about winning will NOT build some lesser decks to go with their big hitters.
This is a strange place direction to come at it from.
It is not that people who want to win eschew fun when creating decks only built for winning (this is probably the most common misconception I see about Commander), it is more that they have found a group of like minded people who also have fun playing the same type of game and build decks around winning because that is what everyone finds fun, it is a game with a win condition after all.
It is why I believe that fun has no place in a banlist because fun is such a nebulous thing especially in this game in a multiplayer context.
True, true, I spoke mostly from my own perspective which is that of one with an ever changing playgroup. I enjoy high powered games but there's also some folks at my LGS who play "lower tier" stuff, so I adapt to all that. And even those with the high-end competitive decks hold a few lower-tier decks for more relaxed games. It was mostly as an argument against "Decks only get stronger" which is only true if your group can only have fun when winning.
We did a thought exercise on these very forums here where I came up with a 101 card banned list (that should have been 104-108 after looking at it again). The intent was to reign in combo and ban cards based on Vintage principles to try and balance a 5-Archetype metagame (Aggro, Aggro-Control, Control, Combo, and Prison).
But this also assumed that Prison decks and resource denial would not only be perfectly acceptable, but preferable as a segment of the metagame due to how it helps reign in combo. If you want to reign in Prison and Resource Denial in general, be prepared to ban another 50-100 cards (the actual number will depend on where you draw the line). Mass-LD, Repetitive LD, Mass Bounce, Taxation effects, Stax Effects, Lockout Cards,... the list of categories that can constitute "resource denial" is long in and of itself.
I think that you should make a list of all the various resource denial categories that you want to hit and state exactly what you want to do with each category. For example, you have Kozilek, Butcher of Truth and Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre listed presumably for Annihilator 4, so does that mean Annihilator 3 or Annihilator 2 are okay? You have 8 Extra Turn cards listed, but no Time Vault (obvious oversight) or Sage of Hours; is an extra turn card okay if it exiles itself (which is why I assume there is no Part The Waterveil) or is creature-based?
and then ban actual annoying cards. I'm also surprised not to see Avacyn Angel of Hope because casual scrublords hate her, or the lamest game enders: Insurrection, Exsanguinate/Debt to The Deathless, and any card with the words "you win the game" printed on them (oh hey, theres a good third rule).
Also, I do love kiki-jiki, but hes too good not to ban.