I could not care less about Iona comboing with helm. That's 18 Mana to maybe with if someone doesn't respond to the equip. If you don't try to do it all on one turn, then you either telegraph by sticking the helm first, leaving it open to removal, or sticking Iona first and risk either getting then helm countered or destroyed depending on what you named with Iona. It's an expensive enough combo that even having one piece in the command zone isn't a problem, even without considering that you're in mono white, the worst color for both ramp and draw (though you do get some equipment tutors).
The issue with Iona is that even her non combo uses ruin games. I'd rather someone lock out the board with Iona/Helm because that's a win. Just casting her and ruining one guys day is worse.
Mostly agree. Bolded part I don't agree with. As while it is nice to think of what others think and how it may ruin someones's day, there is plenty of other cards in other forms that ruin days. It could be a Vanishing on a voltron commander to basically keep it out of the game as long as the player can pay UU consistently, it could be a Sadistic Sacrament that hits the combo pieces in an opponent's deck which may result in the deck having no win conditions, there is the feels bad when you got the counterspell heavy deck that is preventing one player from playing, there is losing to a Hatred + Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon in one turn and other situations which can create a "feels bad" moment which I feel is almost unavoidable in MTG.
I personally don't have any problems with Iona and would be fine with it being unbanned at the same time as PS, my problem more stems from the fact that Iona is one of the main cards that is keeping PS banned and I feel that there is a lot of better interactions one can get up to with PS.
Iona represents a singular effect in the game right now and I kinda like the game having those.
(I think the angel is a bad creature and largely a win more and never the complete earth shattering card she is claimed to be)
It wasn't about there being an alternative it is about once you have invested that much I don't think it is a thing that needs to come up in regards to banning or not. I think that line of play is generally pretty bad and I don't see Helm of the Host all that much because for the effect it is a large amount of mana.
I wasn't saying there is some other cheaper way to do this, I was saying that doing this seems needless and pointless and as a waste of mana to achieve the desired effect is all and if you are going to put in that mana the outcome should be good.
To me that is how the original comment came across.
If you feel that wouldn't be fair, then the other fair thing for the RC to do, it won't end well. As not banning the original things and new things that caused Painter's Servant to warrant a ban shows inconsistency with the original reasoning given and that it is now "fine" for those interactions. That with infinitely milling an opponent for 6 mana (Painter's Servant + Millstone) is now considered "a-okay".
Before someone says it, not everyone runs the Eldrazi titans, as I know someone will try and use that as a defense on why mill is not as powerful. Its a great stopgap, but its inconsistent due to price value.
so, i have a question, which is the philosophy of commander?... too many people complaining about fast mana, but, its worst when you lose the game without play a land... i do not believe that ban thrasios is correct, but ban flash, is a must... my meta has become very sterile with flash and protean hulk (i don't care protean hulk). The experience to the new players is awful. In that way we kill the commander philosophy.
oooh, i wish to unban sylvan primordial, but i don't believe that happen, because that cards wins games in turn 2, oh wait, its not flash.... XD.
@medvet20: i think you've smacked the nail right on the head; many of us are debating what should be banned, and/or unbanned, but we don't all necessarily share the same philosophy of what EDH should be.
I think for the other major mtg formats, i can rattle off what their driving philosophies are; legacy is a turn 3 format, vintage has no strict banlist, modern is a turn 4/showing off modern eternal magic design. EDH is different to different people; some wants it to be a competitive deck-building exercise, some use it to build janky interactions, some wants to crush their judge's minds with ridiculous interactions. And unlike the other 'supported' formats, EDH rules-committee doesn't have the same official-ness as the other format's managers, and they take a LOT of slack for managing what is basically moving goal posts.
As it stands, i still don't believe they made the right call on hybrid mana; but whatever, right? these guys have the health of the format in mind, and they're doing a good enough job considering they get paid in the number of complaints online.
@medvet20: i think you've smacked the nail right on the head; many of us are debating what should be banned, and/or unbanned, but we don't all necessarily share the same philosophy of what EDH should be.
Not sure if either of you were trying to go somewhere specific with the thing about the Philosophy and I missed it, but uh, here's the literal EDH philosophy:
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
@medvet20: i think you've smacked the nail right on the head; many of us are debating what should be banned, and/or unbanned, but we don't all necessarily share the same philosophy of what EDH should be.
Not sure if either of you were trying to go somewhere specific with the thing about the Philosophy and I missed it, but uh, here's the literal EDH philosophy:
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
I think what irks me more than anything here is that people so often forget this exists, as well as the list of ban criteria. To many discussions about a card get derailed because someone either doesn't understand or care what the criteria are, or they try to turn a discussion about the card into a general discussion of the formats philosophy and what it should be, using the card as a mere example, or they wrongly apply their own philosophy of the format to the discussion as if it's the official one.
For the record, this threads premise makes it a bit different. It's more like the dream banlist thread in that we're not discussing what the RC should actually do, but what we would do. While the dream banlist is sort of free for all, this one is a bit more restrictive, but still I thinks it's an appropriate place to discuss how the ban criteria are applied and what sort of changes can be made there.
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!
The problem with that is IMO there are multiple paragraphs of text in which you can first come to commander with, that is one this is another.
PLAY FREE-FOR-ALL MULTIPLAYER
If you're playing a game of Commander with three or more people, you play against each other in a free-for-all multiplayer format.
Each player starts with 40 life, places their commander face-up in their command zone, and draws a hand of seven cards. Players are seated randomly in a circle and turns progress one player at a time in clockwise order around the table.
During gameplay, a player may choose to attack any other player, regardless of their position on the table, and can also choose to attack multiple different players during their attack phase. Permanents, spells, and abilities can also target any player around the table (as long as they don't explicitly say they must be used on "you").
Your goal is to crush every other player, using strategy, skill, and the cards at your disposal. The last player left standing in each game wins!
The problem with that is IMO there are multiple paragraphs of text in which you can first come to commander with, that is one this is another.
PLAY FREE-FOR-ALL MULTIPLAYER
If you're playing a game of Commander with three or more people, you play against each other in a free-for-all multiplayer format.
Each player starts with 40 life, places their commander face-up in their command zone, and draws a hand of seven cards. Players are seated randomly in a circle and turns progress one player at a time in clockwise order around the table.
During gameplay, a player may choose to attack any other player, regardless of their position on the table, and can also choose to attack multiple different players during their attack phase. Permanents, spells, and abilities can also target any player around the table (as long as they don't explicitly say they must be used on "you").
Your goal is to crush every other player, using strategy, skill, and the cards at your disposal. The last player left standing in each game wins!
So? Does any of that have anything to do with format philosophy? The banlist? Its a pretty basic rundown of some of the rules. The last sentence is a bare bones description of multiplayer dressed up with wizards marketing buzzwords.
I don't think its asking all that much to expect people who want to be opinionated about something to actually read up on it first. Even if you jump in blind, once someone points out to you that this format was created by a group of people who have written up their guiding philosophy and criteria for banning cards, then they should read up on that. Continuing to pretend like it doesn't exist, and continuing to have banlist discussions about cards as if their own personal preferences, what they think the format should be about, and what they think should be ban criteria are in any way relevant to a discussion of whether or not a card should be banned/unbanned is just stupid. I can see a noob jumping on here with misconceptions, but there are some posters who argue about the ban list without any connection to the reality of what the RC does, despite knowing full well what the criteria are.
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!
The problem with that is IMO there are multiple paragraphs of text in which you can first come to commander with, that is one this is another.
PLAY FREE-FOR-ALL MULTIPLAYER
If you're playing a game of Commander with three or more people, you play against each other in a free-for-all multiplayer format.
Each player starts with 40 life, places their commander face-up in their command zone, and draws a hand of seven cards. Players are seated randomly in a circle and turns progress one player at a time in clockwise order around the table.
During gameplay, a player may choose to attack any other player, regardless of their position on the table, and can also choose to attack multiple different players during their attack phase. Permanents, spells, and abilities can also target any player around the table (as long as they don't explicitly say they must be used on "you").
Your goal is to crush every other player, using strategy, skill, and the cards at your disposal. The last player left standing in each game wins!
So? Does any of that have anything to do with format philosophy? The banlist? Its a pretty basic rundown of some of the rules. The last sentence is a bare bones description of multiplayer dressed up with wizards marketing buzzwords.
I don't think its asking all that much to expect people who want to be opinionated about something to actually read up on it first. Even if you jump in blind, once someone points out to you that this format was created by a group of people who have written up their guiding philosophy and criteria for banning cards, then they should read up on that. Continuing to pretend like it doesn't exist, and continuing to have banlist discussions about cards as if their own personal preferences, what they think the format should be about, and what they think should be ban criteria are in any way relevant to a discussion of whether or not a card should be banned/unbanned is just stupid. I can see a noob jumping on here with misconceptions, but there are some posters who argue about the ban list without any connection to the reality of what the RC does, despite knowing full well what the criteria are.
I just think you are fooling yourself if you think any large percentage of people who play Commander are aware of any of that at all (I would guess that number would be 25% maximum), this Wizard descriptions of Commander are way more in line with what the format has become especially so many years on when the major form of contact with Commander is directly from Wizards.
The problem with that is IMO there are multiple paragraphs of text in which you can first come to commander with, that is one this is another.
PLAY FREE-FOR-ALL MULTIPLAYER
If you're playing a game of Commander with three or more people, you play against each other in a free-for-all multiplayer format.
Each player starts with 40 life, places their commander face-up in their command zone, and draws a hand of seven cards. Players are seated randomly in a circle and turns progress one player at a time in clockwise order around the table.
During gameplay, a player may choose to attack any other player, regardless of their position on the table, and can also choose to attack multiple different players during their attack phase. Permanents, spells, and abilities can also target any player around the table (as long as they don't explicitly say they must be used on "you").
Your goal is to crush every other player, using strategy, skill, and the cards at your disposal. The last player left standing in each game wins!
So? Does any of that have anything to do with format philosophy? The banlist? Its a pretty basic rundown of some of the rules. The last sentence is a bare bones description of multiplayer dressed up with wizards marketing buzzwords.
I don't think its asking all that much to expect people who want to be opinionated about something to actually read up on it first. Even if you jump in blind, once someone points out to you that this format was created by a group of people who have written up their guiding philosophy and criteria for banning cards, then they should read up on that. Continuing to pretend like it doesn't exist, and continuing to have banlist discussions about cards as if their own personal preferences, what they think the format should be about, and what they think should be ban criteria are in any way relevant to a discussion of whether or not a card should be banned/unbanned is just stupid. I can see a noob jumping on here with misconceptions, but there are some posters who argue about the ban list without any connection to the reality of what the RC does, despite knowing full well what the criteria are.
I just think you are fooling yourself if you think any large percentage of people who play Commander are aware of any of that at all (I would guess that number would be 25% maximum), this Wizard descriptions of Commander are way more in line with what the format has become especially so many years on when the major form of contact with Commander is directly from Wizards.
Did I say I thought that most people who play commander are aware of that, at any point in any of my posts? I'm talking about people posting here, in a forum dedicated to discussing the rules of the format, where the RC, their philosophy, and the ban criteria are all frequently discussed. If you're posting here, you are much more likely to be aware of these things than the average player, just from being more engaged, and if you post here frequently are almost certainly aware of these things from being exposed to them here. Like I said, I can see someone posting here for the first time and not being aware of it, but there are people who regularly post here that have directly responded to posts about these things who still argue as if they don't exist, and that's my pet peeve.
Besides, the descriptions of the format from wizards don't really contradict the RCs philosophy, they just aren't nearly as detailed and focused almost entirely on the basic rules. There isn't any competing philosophy there. It's just "here's another way to play the card game you already play." You have a point in that the omission of RCs vision for the format let's people prioritize their own vision when they are starting out, but you pretty quickly run into the fact that everyone has their own ideal for the format, so at worst most players believe that the format is different things to different people (which is the overall goal anyway). Only the most literal reading of the blurb you posted gleans a philosophy, which would translate the generic marketing slogans into "play cEDH". As most players don't, and certainly most casual players who aren't aware of the RC don't, I can say that message isn't getting accross and that blurb is usually just a blank slate.
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 think that blurb being a blank slate is more line with every other aspect of MTG though. There is no Vintage or Legacy or Modern or Standard or Limited Philosophy document.
I wasn't implying that you were implying that this is common with the people who play commander but only to point out if a thing has become largely unnoticed and unremarked upon and with the majority of people who play commander and also doesn't affect how their games of Commander go is it necessary anymore.
I think that blurb being a blank slate is more line with every other aspect of MTG though. There is no Vintage or Legacy or Modern or Standard or Limited Philosophy document.
I wasn't implying that you were implying that this is common with the people who play commander but only to point out if a thing has become largely unnoticed and unremarked upon and with the majority of people who play commander and also doesn't affect how their games of Commander go is it necessary anymore.
Well that's much more clear than the original post. I do think it still matters, because the RC is still maintaining the ban list and using it to promote their vision of the format. Regardless of whether a casual player is aware of it, the format is maintained specifically as a casual format with a banlist that's more concerned about cards ruining games than with trying to balance the format, which is pretty much the opposite of banlists for competitive formats. The philosophy of the format also impacts cards that Wizards designs specifically for the format: they aren't worried about balance or balancing the format, they aren't playtesting the meta, they aren't doing a lot of things that they would do for Standard or Modern, and instead they are focusing more on splashy effects and unique effects, flavorful spells and offbeat strategies. Most of the precon decks fit pretty solidly with the RC's philosphy, as do most of the unique cards. They even consult with the RC on Commander products. Whether a new player is aware of the documents, they are effected by them, from the product they are buying from Wizards to the general notion that commander is supposed to be a casual format where you do silly things (which most players are aware of, even if they aren't aware of the actual RC philosophy documents).
And I want to point to what happened to Magic Online last year as well. Wizards killed the commander format and replaced it with a 1v1 focused format with a banlist. It sucked, badly, for multiplayer (and for 1v1 as well), and the backlash was so swift and severe that Wizards backtracked within a couple days. Most of the arguments were based on the idea that Commander's banlist isn't supposed to be focused on competitive balance, and how that's a stupid idea, with examples of why unbanning certain cards would be a problem and banning other cards would be unnecessary. Even when the complaints didn't directly mention the RC and the users may not have been aware of the underlying commander philosophy (again, at least not overtly, they obviously got the gist that its a casual format) their arguments were still based on the philosophy. The experiment failed so miserably that they even abandoned trying to force balance on the 1v1 banlist and changed it to focus on stopping early game domination instead.
Hell, its even all over the page that you cherry picked your blurb from:
"Commander is an exciting, unique way to play Magic that is all about awesome legendary creatures, big plays, and battling your friends in epic multiplayer games! In Commander, each player chooses a legendary creature as the commander of their deck. They then play with a 99-card deck that contains only cards of their commander's colors. Also, other than basic lands, each deck can only use one copy of any card. During the game, you can cast your commander multiple times, meaning your favorite Legendary Creature can come back again and again to lead the charge as you battle for victory!"
"The Commander format is all about picking your hero and building a deck around them. In this casual, multiplayer format, you choose a legendary creature to serve as your commander and build the rest of your deck around their color identity."
Both of those are pretty in line with the gist of the RC's philosophy. Casual, flavorful, and striving for epic plays. A noob going to that site to find out about the format would encounter both of those blurbs before the one you posted. They set the tone for the format in a way that the sites descriptions for standard and modern simply do not. Then they link to the RC's site when you click Full Rules.
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!
@medvet20: i think you've smacked the nail right on the head; many of us are debating what should be banned, and/or unbanned, but we don't all necessarily share the same philosophy of what EDH should be.
Not sure if either of you were trying to go somewhere specific with the thing about the Philosophy and I missed it, but uh, here's the literal EDH philosophy:
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
I think what irks me more than anything here is that people so often forget this exists, as well as the list of ban criteria. To many discussions about a card get derailed because someone either doesn't understand or care what the criteria are, or they try to turn a discussion about the card into a general discussion of the formats philosophy and what it should be, using the card as a mere example, or they wrongly apply their own philosophy of the format to the discussion as if it's the official one.
For the record, this threads premise makes it a bit different. It's more like the dream banlist thread in that we're not discussing what the RC should actually do, but what we would do. While the dream banlist is sort of free for all, this one is a bit more restrictive, but still I thinks it's an appropriate place to discuss how the ban criteria are applied and what sort of changes can be made there.
oh i think i've been mis-read. what i meant was that yes, there is an 'official' philosophy, and that is that y'all who are playing at each individual table have to figure it out for yourself. And here, many of us are sharing our experiences of our games as a "we need to ban/unban X". I'm hoping it's a bit clearer. The thing is, the RC's banlist i see as a very general "taking out the unfun/mechanically weird bits from magic", and individual house-bans are the ones that we individually should be discussing with our playgroup.
That being said, i don't see why things like the moxen, ancestral recall and library are banned. I imagine it's based off the "well, you don't want players to feel outspent/want them to feel welcome", which is something i don't buy. those cards interact well enough with the format, and i don't think there are enough "broken" interactions with the format. I mean, tabernacle of pendrell vale, mishra's workshop, bazaar of Baghdad are i think on par price-wise, but are not banned...?
The difference is that none of those cards you mentioned make any deck that they're in automatically better, where as the banned ones do.
yeah, tabernacle and bazaar have real deckbuilding consequences to be good, as does Workshop. workshop I could see the argument for being overpowered since artifacts are pretty good in EDH, but the other two are so niche as to not be worth bothering.
The difference is that none of those cards you mentioned make any deck that they're in automatically better, where as the banned ones do.
yeah, tabernacle and bazaar have real deckbuilding consequences to be good, as does Workshop. workshop I could see the argument for being overpowered since artifacts are pretty good in EDH, but the other two are so niche as to not be worth bothering.
Did you mean that tabernacle and bazaar are not good enough?
The thing is, edh banlist isn’t based off power level (otherwise, sol ring and mana crypt would instantly get banned too), and regardless, interesting cards are interesting to build around.
It just feels a shame that a format that celebrates the entire history of the game decides to shun important historical cards of the game itself. And it’s not even for the general benefit of the format itself either.
I think moxen and ancestral recall for instance (and even Library) for a combination of reasons not a single reason:
* power level
* ubiquity
* perceived barrier to entry
Tab and Bazaar don't have the ubiquity constraints or power level constraints that moxen or recall do.
I think it would be a big mistake for the RC to ever unban something on the reserved list in general for a completely different reason, which is faith in the RC.
The amount of money to be made by anyone who cornered the market on, say, Library of Alexandria, and then saw it unbanned in EDH (which would triple its price over night) would create such a schism it'd be unbelievable.
I think moxen and ancestral recall for instance (and even Library) for a combination of reasons not a single reason:
* power level
* ubiquity
* perceived barrier to entry
Tab and Bazaar don't have the ubiquity constraints or power level constraints that moxen or recall do.
I think it would be a big mistake for the RC to ever unban something on the reserved list in general for a completely different reason, which is faith in the RC.
The amount of money to be made by anyone who cornered the market on, say, Library of Alexandria, and then saw it unbanned in EDH (which would triple its price over night) would create such a schism it'd be unbelievable.
I seriously doubt someone is going to spend over a grand per copy trying to corner the market. The way the RC has been quite firm in their stance that Library or the banned P8 aren't ever getting unbanned, should that announcement ever come, we would just see a spike in price.
I think moxen and ancestral recall for instance (and even Library) for a combination of reasons not a single reason:
* power level
* ubiquity
* perceived barrier to entry
Tab and Bazaar don't have the ubiquity constraints or power level constraints that moxen or recall do.
I think it would be a big mistake for the RC to ever unban something on the reserved list in general for a completely different reason, which is faith in the RC.
The amount of money to be made by anyone who cornered the market on, say, Library of Alexandria, and then saw it unbanned in EDH (which would triple its price over night) would create such a schism it'd be unbelievable.
I seriously doubt someone is going to spend over a grand per copy trying to corner the market. The way the RC has been quite firm in their stance that Library or the banned P8 aren't ever getting unbanned, should that announcement ever come, we would just see a spike in price.
Ah that seems fair enough. I’m still not buying the 3 listed reasons though, since there are cards that already fit those criteria. But the shakeup in the secondary market is pretty hefty.
I just feel bad for the folks who play edh to experience the history of the game... only to not actually get to see it. I myself have only come across a mox pearl in-game, and that was awesome, and didn’t actually break the game.
Ah that seems fair enough. I’m still not buying the 3 listed reasons though, since there are cards that already fit those criteria. But the shakeup in the secondary market is pretty hefty.
I just feel bad for the folks who play edh to experience the history of the game... only to not actually get to see it. I myself have only come across a mox pearl in-game, and that was awesome, and didn’t actually break the game.
So PBtE is something I've been pretty vocal about feeling that it could safely be removed, especially as old cards continue to climb in price. For one thing, Library and Recall are IMO the only two cards which theoretically could be removed without much impact to the format (I won't go into detail as to why in this thread though). However, while in general the RC shouldn't let the impact of their actions on the secondary market affect their decisions (think Hulk going from $2 to $20 in minutes), we are talking about legalizing cards which are in very low supply and already command four digit prices. If Library didn't overtake Timetwister as the most expensive legal card (or is it Workshop now?), then I would he very shocked. So you would have this situation where everyone is excited because they get to play these cards, but oh wait I still need to pay my mortgage for the next three months, and then you're fighting the whole proxy debate while the Haves are basically the only ones who benefited from the announcement. Oh, you just leave well enough alone and let the social contract get the individuals who want to play them ask their groups for permission.
Yeah that part of the ban criteria always weirded me out because there is no accounting for the how someone acquired a card or more importantly the when.
Right now Twister(the cheapest one) is tied with Tabernacle as the two most expensive legal Commander cards
I don't actually think you'd see a spike in the price of Moxen. The vast majority are already deep in collections or in Vintage decks, and those are places where they have more value than in Commander decks.
I think you would see a spike in Library, as it doesn't have quite the same Vintage ubiquity.
To be clear, I own one Library, and intend to keep it that way; we take the potential insider trading concerns seriously.
I don't actually think you'd see a spike in the price of Moxen. The vast majority are already deep in collections or in Vintage decks, and those are places where they have more value than in Commander decks.
I think you would see a spike in Library, as it doesn't have quite the same Vintage ubiquity.
To be clear, I own one Library, and intend to keep it that way; we take the potential insider trading concerns seriously.
I know that in the past you've tried to emphasize this, but is it fair to interpret this statement as another nail in the coffin for removing PBtE? In other words, is the appearance of insider trading such a concern that it would influence your ban decisions?
I don't actually think you'd see a spike in the price of Moxen. The vast majority are already deep in collections or in Vintage decks, and those are places where they have more value than in Commander decks.
I think you would see a spike in Library, as it doesn't have quite the same Vintage ubiquity.
To be clear, I own one Library, and intend to keep it that way; we take the potential insider trading concerns seriously.
I think you would see the prices on beat moxen progress toward the mean as it were -- that is, moxen would all be their "on paper" price. You can see mox sapphires range from 1500 to 3-4000, I don't think you would see that anymore if they were playable in a format that has vastly more interest in EDH.
An example you can see is that Tabernacles don't have nearly the same range of prices (even beat up italian ones are pretty pricy), Bazaar and Workshop are kind of the same way.
Recall, mox jet and mox sapphire would absolutely go ape***** in my opinion. Probably in the order of Library, Recall, Jet, Sapphire.
Anyway, the stink would never come off if you guys unbanned Library and Recall so I'm glad you guys are aware of that. I don't think it's likely that people in the position to give so much of themselves for free are likely to do anything so dirty as to try to make money off their position on the sly, but just the thought that it might would be bad for the format.
I think you would see the prices on beat moxen progress toward the mean as it were -- that is, moxen would all be their "on paper" price. You can see mox sapphires range from 1500 to 3-4000, I don't think you would see that anymore if they were playable in a format that has vastly more interest in EDH.
An example you can see is that Tabernacles don't have nearly the same range of prices (even beat up italian ones are pretty pricy), Bazaar and Workshop are kind of the same way.
Recall, mox jet and mox sapphire would absolutely go ape***** in my opinion. Probably in the order of Library, Recall, Jet, Sapphire.
Anyway, the stink would never come off if you guys unbanned Library and Recall so I'm glad you guys are aware of that. I don't think it's likely that people in the position to give so much of themselves for free are likely to do anything so dirty as to try to make money off their position on the sly, but just the thought that it might would be bad for the format.
Yeah, they would probably lose most of their credibility they have with the community, and quite possibly lose some standing with Wizards.
Yeah, they would probably lose most of their credibility they have with the community, and quite possibly lose some standing with Wizards.
They sort of locked themselves in with that decision, in a way. What I really dislike about their current position is that it feels like a halfway-botched job. They selected only a tiny part of Reserved List to fall under the PBtE section back then and as time passed (along with the format's popularity and the general attitudes regarding the RL and Secondary Markets) it becomes more and more paramount to feel that they can never touch anything in the list (be it ban or unban) because it'll be awfully easy to accuse them of market manipulation.
I mean even a card like Palinchron which we all can agree is pretty much "unfun" and while it doesn't show up all the time enough to be an actual problem, it is the kind of card no one will miss when it's gone, the RC needs to take into account that it's a RL card to begin with, so unless it somehow becomes an actual problem in the format (which ironically the RL does inhibit to some degree), the incentive is for the RC to not ban the card since the risk of wrecking their reputation is greater than erasing the tiny amount of damage the card is inflicting to the format right now.
There's this weird threshold the RL sets causing reputation to be part of the equation that makes the scenario uncomfortable to me. I'm not accusing the RC of anything and I doubt even they had that far of a foresight when the format just begun, but I really wonder had the PBtE RL cards were not banned from the very start when people weren't as concerned about the RL... how much incentive would there be for the RC now to ban the more problematic cards on said list (especially considering how huge the damage some of them would wreck versus their no doubt significantly higher prices).
Sometimes I think cards like Thunder Spirit should just carry the sins of the RL and we all should treat the RL as a single unit - as long as 1 card is considered too powerful and must be banned, the whole list dies along with it. As stupid as that sounds, it's also quite true to some degree the RL is sort of an integrity promise that binds all those cards regardless of their individual power levels and while the RC didn't make that promise, the Secondary Market would not let them free of it.
But with that being said, it's also arguably too late to even try it, since even that decision will be hit by the full force of market manipulation accusations. So basically the only opportunity was the same window the RC had back then when they started the format and while I cannot blame them for not having the foresight (and me now and here having the hindsight), it will remain the half-botched job sore spot of the format to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To me that is how the original comment came across.
If you feel that wouldn't be fair, then the other fair thing for the RC to do, it won't end well. As not banning the original things and new things that caused Painter's Servant to warrant a ban shows inconsistency with the original reasoning given and that it is now "fine" for those interactions. That with infinitely milling an opponent for 6 mana (Painter's Servant + Millstone) is now considered "a-okay".
Before someone says it, not everyone runs the Eldrazi titans, as I know someone will try and use that as a defense on why mill is not as powerful. Its a great stopgap, but its inconsistent due to price value.
oooh, i wish to unban sylvan primordial, but i don't believe that happen, because that cards wins games in turn 2, oh wait, its not flash.... XD.
I think for the other major mtg formats, i can rattle off what their driving philosophies are; legacy is a turn 3 format, vintage has no strict banlist, modern is a turn 4/showing off modern eternal magic design. EDH is different to different people; some wants it to be a competitive deck-building exercise, some use it to build janky interactions, some wants to crush their judge's minds with ridiculous interactions. And unlike the other 'supported' formats, EDH rules-committee doesn't have the same official-ness as the other format's managers, and they take a LOT of slack for managing what is basically moving goal posts.
As it stands, i still don't believe they made the right call on hybrid mana; but whatever, right? these guys have the health of the format in mind, and they're doing a good enough job considering they get paid in the number of complaints online.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Not sure if either of you were trying to go somewhere specific with the thing about the Philosophy and I missed it, but uh, here's the literal EDH philosophy:
(from the front page of mtgcommander.net)
and their more detailed version:
http://forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12254
I think what irks me more than anything here is that people so often forget this exists, as well as the list of ban criteria. To many discussions about a card get derailed because someone either doesn't understand or care what the criteria are, or they try to turn a discussion about the card into a general discussion of the formats philosophy and what it should be, using the card as a mere example, or they wrongly apply their own philosophy of the format to the discussion as if it's the official one.
For the record, this threads premise makes it a bit different. It's more like the dream banlist thread in that we're not discussing what the RC should actually do, but what we would do. While the dream banlist is sort of free for all, this one is a bit more restrictive, but still I thinks it's an appropriate place to discuss how the ban criteria are applied and what sort of changes can be made there.
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!
So? Does any of that have anything to do with format philosophy? The banlist? Its a pretty basic rundown of some of the rules. The last sentence is a bare bones description of multiplayer dressed up with wizards marketing buzzwords.
I don't think its asking all that much to expect people who want to be opinionated about something to actually read up on it first. Even if you jump in blind, once someone points out to you that this format was created by a group of people who have written up their guiding philosophy and criteria for banning cards, then they should read up on that. Continuing to pretend like it doesn't exist, and continuing to have banlist discussions about cards as if their own personal preferences, what they think the format should be about, and what they think should be ban criteria are in any way relevant to a discussion of whether or not a card should be banned/unbanned is just stupid. I can see a noob jumping on here with misconceptions, but there are some posters who argue about the ban list without any connection to the reality of what the RC does, despite knowing full well what the criteria are.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I just think you are fooling yourself if you think any large percentage of people who play Commander are aware of any of that at all (I would guess that number would be 25% maximum), this Wizard descriptions of Commander are way more in line with what the format has become especially so many years on when the major form of contact with Commander is directly from Wizards.
Did I say I thought that most people who play commander are aware of that, at any point in any of my posts? I'm talking about people posting here, in a forum dedicated to discussing the rules of the format, where the RC, their philosophy, and the ban criteria are all frequently discussed. If you're posting here, you are much more likely to be aware of these things than the average player, just from being more engaged, and if you post here frequently are almost certainly aware of these things from being exposed to them here. Like I said, I can see someone posting here for the first time and not being aware of it, but there are people who regularly post here that have directly responded to posts about these things who still argue as if they don't exist, and that's my pet peeve.
Besides, the descriptions of the format from wizards don't really contradict the RCs philosophy, they just aren't nearly as detailed and focused almost entirely on the basic rules. There isn't any competing philosophy there. It's just "here's another way to play the card game you already play." You have a point in that the omission of RCs vision for the format let's people prioritize their own vision when they are starting out, but you pretty quickly run into the fact that everyone has their own ideal for the format, so at worst most players believe that the format is different things to different people (which is the overall goal anyway). Only the most literal reading of the blurb you posted gleans a philosophy, which would translate the generic marketing slogans into "play cEDH". As most players don't, and certainly most casual players who aren't aware of the RC don't, I can say that message isn't getting accross and that blurb is usually just a blank slate.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I wasn't implying that you were implying that this is common with the people who play commander but only to point out if a thing has become largely unnoticed and unremarked upon and with the majority of people who play commander and also doesn't affect how their games of Commander go is it necessary anymore.
Well that's much more clear than the original post. I do think it still matters, because the RC is still maintaining the ban list and using it to promote their vision of the format. Regardless of whether a casual player is aware of it, the format is maintained specifically as a casual format with a banlist that's more concerned about cards ruining games than with trying to balance the format, which is pretty much the opposite of banlists for competitive formats. The philosophy of the format also impacts cards that Wizards designs specifically for the format: they aren't worried about balance or balancing the format, they aren't playtesting the meta, they aren't doing a lot of things that they would do for Standard or Modern, and instead they are focusing more on splashy effects and unique effects, flavorful spells and offbeat strategies. Most of the precon decks fit pretty solidly with the RC's philosphy, as do most of the unique cards. They even consult with the RC on Commander products. Whether a new player is aware of the documents, they are effected by them, from the product they are buying from Wizards to the general notion that commander is supposed to be a casual format where you do silly things (which most players are aware of, even if they aren't aware of the actual RC philosophy documents).
And I want to point to what happened to Magic Online last year as well. Wizards killed the commander format and replaced it with a 1v1 focused format with a banlist. It sucked, badly, for multiplayer (and for 1v1 as well), and the backlash was so swift and severe that Wizards backtracked within a couple days. Most of the arguments were based on the idea that Commander's banlist isn't supposed to be focused on competitive balance, and how that's a stupid idea, with examples of why unbanning certain cards would be a problem and banning other cards would be unnecessary. Even when the complaints didn't directly mention the RC and the users may not have been aware of the underlying commander philosophy (again, at least not overtly, they obviously got the gist that its a casual format) their arguments were still based on the philosophy. The experiment failed so miserably that they even abandoned trying to force balance on the 1v1 banlist and changed it to focus on stopping early game domination instead.
Hell, its even all over the page that you cherry picked your blurb from:
"Commander is an exciting, unique way to play Magic that is all about awesome legendary creatures, big plays, and battling your friends in epic multiplayer games! In Commander, each player chooses a legendary creature as the commander of their deck. They then play with a 99-card deck that contains only cards of their commander's colors. Also, other than basic lands, each deck can only use one copy of any card. During the game, you can cast your commander multiple times, meaning your favorite Legendary Creature can come back again and again to lead the charge as you battle for victory!"
"The Commander format is all about picking your hero and building a deck around them. In this casual, multiplayer format, you choose a legendary creature to serve as your commander and build the rest of your deck around their color identity."
Both of those are pretty in line with the gist of the RC's philosophy. Casual, flavorful, and striving for epic plays. A noob going to that site to find out about the format would encounter both of those blurbs before the one you posted. They set the tone for the format in a way that the sites descriptions for standard and modern simply do not. Then they link to the RC's site when you click Full Rules.
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!
oh i think i've been mis-read. what i meant was that yes, there is an 'official' philosophy, and that is that y'all who are playing at each individual table have to figure it out for yourself. And here, many of us are sharing our experiences of our games as a "we need to ban/unban X". I'm hoping it's a bit clearer. The thing is, the RC's banlist i see as a very general "taking out the unfun/mechanically weird bits from magic", and individual house-bans are the ones that we individually should be discussing with our playgroup.
That being said, i don't see why things like the moxen, ancestral recall and library are banned. I imagine it's based off the "well, you don't want players to feel outspent/want them to feel welcome", which is something i don't buy. those cards interact well enough with the format, and i don't think there are enough "broken" interactions with the format. I mean, tabernacle of pendrell vale, mishra's workshop, bazaar of Baghdad are i think on par price-wise, but are not banned...?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
yeah, tabernacle and bazaar have real deckbuilding consequences to be good, as does Workshop. workshop I could see the argument for being overpowered since artifacts are pretty good in EDH, but the other two are so niche as to not be worth bothering.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Did you mean that tabernacle and bazaar are not good enough?
The thing is, edh banlist isn’t based off power level (otherwise, sol ring and mana crypt would instantly get banned too), and regardless, interesting cards are interesting to build around.
It just feels a shame that a format that celebrates the entire history of the game decides to shun important historical cards of the game itself. And it’s not even for the general benefit of the format itself either.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
* power level
* ubiquity
* perceived barrier to entry
Tab and Bazaar don't have the ubiquity constraints or power level constraints that moxen or recall do.
I think it would be a big mistake for the RC to ever unban something on the reserved list in general for a completely different reason, which is faith in the RC.
The amount of money to be made by anyone who cornered the market on, say, Library of Alexandria, and then saw it unbanned in EDH (which would triple its price over night) would create such a schism it'd be unbelievable.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I seriously doubt someone is going to spend over a grand per copy trying to corner the market. The way the RC has been quite firm in their stance that Library or the banned P8 aren't ever getting unbanned, should that announcement ever come, we would just see a spike in price.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Ah that seems fair enough. I’m still not buying the 3 listed reasons though, since there are cards that already fit those criteria. But the shakeup in the secondary market is pretty hefty.
I just feel bad for the folks who play edh to experience the history of the game... only to not actually get to see it. I myself have only come across a mox pearl in-game, and that was awesome, and didn’t actually break the game.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
So PBtE is something I've been pretty vocal about feeling that it could safely be removed, especially as old cards continue to climb in price. For one thing, Library and Recall are IMO the only two cards which theoretically could be removed without much impact to the format (I won't go into detail as to why in this thread though). However, while in general the RC shouldn't let the impact of their actions on the secondary market affect their decisions (think Hulk going from $2 to $20 in minutes), we are talking about legalizing cards which are in very low supply and already command four digit prices. If Library didn't overtake Timetwister as the most expensive legal card (or is it Workshop now?), then I would he very shocked. So you would have this situation where everyone is excited because they get to play these cards, but oh wait I still need to pay my mortgage for the next three months, and then you're fighting the whole proxy debate while the Haves are basically the only ones who benefited from the announcement. Oh, you just leave well enough alone and let the social contract get the individuals who want to play them ask their groups for permission.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Right now Twister(the cheapest one) is tied with Tabernacle as the two most expensive legal Commander cards
I think you would see a spike in Library, as it doesn't have quite the same Vintage ubiquity.
To be clear, I own one Library, and intend to keep it that way; we take the potential insider trading concerns seriously.
I know that in the past you've tried to emphasize this, but is it fair to interpret this statement as another nail in the coffin for removing PBtE? In other words, is the appearance of insider trading such a concern that it would influence your ban decisions?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think you would see the prices on beat moxen progress toward the mean as it were -- that is, moxen would all be their "on paper" price. You can see mox sapphires range from 1500 to 3-4000, I don't think you would see that anymore if they were playable in a format that has vastly more interest in EDH.
An example you can see is that Tabernacles don't have nearly the same range of prices (even beat up italian ones are pretty pricy), Bazaar and Workshop are kind of the same way.
Recall, mox jet and mox sapphire would absolutely go ape***** in my opinion. Probably in the order of Library, Recall, Jet, Sapphire.
Anyway, the stink would never come off if you guys unbanned Library and Recall so I'm glad you guys are aware of that. I don't think it's likely that people in the position to give so much of themselves for free are likely to do anything so dirty as to try to make money off their position on the sly, but just the thought that it might would be bad for the format.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Yeah, they would probably lose most of their credibility they have with the community, and quite possibly lose some standing with Wizards.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
They sort of locked themselves in with that decision, in a way. What I really dislike about their current position is that it feels like a halfway-botched job. They selected only a tiny part of Reserved List to fall under the PBtE section back then and as time passed (along with the format's popularity and the general attitudes regarding the RL and Secondary Markets) it becomes more and more paramount to feel that they can never touch anything in the list (be it ban or unban) because it'll be awfully easy to accuse them of market manipulation.
I mean even a card like Palinchron which we all can agree is pretty much "unfun" and while it doesn't show up all the time enough to be an actual problem, it is the kind of card no one will miss when it's gone, the RC needs to take into account that it's a RL card to begin with, so unless it somehow becomes an actual problem in the format (which ironically the RL does inhibit to some degree), the incentive is for the RC to not ban the card since the risk of wrecking their reputation is greater than erasing the tiny amount of damage the card is inflicting to the format right now.
There's this weird threshold the RL sets causing reputation to be part of the equation that makes the scenario uncomfortable to me. I'm not accusing the RC of anything and I doubt even they had that far of a foresight when the format just begun, but I really wonder had the PBtE RL cards were not banned from the very start when people weren't as concerned about the RL... how much incentive would there be for the RC now to ban the more problematic cards on said list (especially considering how huge the damage some of them would wreck versus their no doubt significantly higher prices).
Sometimes I think cards like Thunder Spirit should just carry the sins of the RL and we all should treat the RL as a single unit - as long as 1 card is considered too powerful and must be banned, the whole list dies along with it. As stupid as that sounds, it's also quite true to some degree the RL is sort of an integrity promise that binds all those cards regardless of their individual power levels and while the RC didn't make that promise, the Secondary Market would not let them free of it.
But with that being said, it's also arguably too late to even try it, since even that decision will be hit by the full force of market manipulation accusations. So basically the only opportunity was the same window the RC had back then when they started the format and while I cannot blame them for not having the foresight (and me now and here having the hindsight), it will remain the half-botched job sore spot of the format to me.