• Cause severe resource imbalances
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
• Lead to repetitive game play.
I believe that the second point is not one that has been enforced since Coalition Victory (though Biorythm probably hits this and 'interacts poorly with the rules of commander').
However, the second point was the main cause for Paradox Engine's banning:
Paradox Engine is a card that has proven to be intensely problematic. Not only does it provide easy wins seemingly out of nowhere, it has demonstrated the potential to unintentionally wreck games. Easily inserted into any deck, it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play, generating a great deal of mana with virtually no deck building cost. While we don’t ban cards which are only problematic if you build around them, Paradox Engine has clearly demonstrated that it doesn’t need to be built around to be broken.
It would seem that it was banned for providing easy wins out of nowhere, but that also considered was the fact that it required little deck building focus - it could go into many decks.
I would like to discuss this because I believe this is the first banning of a card for this reason since the banlist was originally conceived, and because I think it opens the door for other cards to be considered for banning.
What cards do you think should now be examined for similar reasons?
Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
Without going to deep down this rabbit hole, are there other cards that feel hit the same level of “fits in every deck” like Paradox Engine did?
I ask this because I haven’t experienced many PE problems. I haven’t played it myself, I don’t even own a copy. I’ve seen it a handful of times since release, and nothing impactful enough to make me remember the experience, good or bad.
I just feel like many cards hit this criteria much harder. First example is Tooth and Nail. I’ll be the first to say it has fair uses, but to “win out of nowhere” requires 3 dedicated deck slots to any Gx deck.
I’m probably wrong, but to me, this ban seems to be pandering to a vocal minority. The Iona and Painters ban/unban is obvious, and welcomed. I also won’t say that banning PE was a mistake, either. I just think by doing so, it’s going to tilt discussions about borderline cards into “should be banned”.
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
Honestly, this leads to many more questions than answers.
For instance, Tutors. May be a bit on the hyperbole side, but the point is a valid one. I think this adjustment allows borderline cards to hit a few more check boxes.
Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
What other reasons were Paradox Engine banned for? This was the only thing mentioned, and also that doesn't require very specific deckbuilding. Isn't Tooth and Nail in the same boat?
Biorhythm, CV and Worldfire interact poorly with the rules of the format.
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
That was not one of criteria on the list. I understand it is not a checklist, but that is also not a criteria for banning - it just tipped the scale.
I would say that T&N also just has for incentive cards that you are already incentivized to play - mana and impactful creatures.
If PE is banned then it seems to me that there are other cards that also seemingly win out of nowhere with minimal deckbuilding restraints. I think T&N is obvious. I think Expropriate is probably close.
I understand that Doomsday is not played enough to be in the same conversation - that there is a consideration for how much a card is played - and I am not saying any of the cards I mentioned need to be banned. It just seems to me that PE is really the only card to be banned solely based on this one criteria, and that it ought to warrant discussion about other cards that play similarly to PE.
The easy answer to all of the "Why Paradox Engine and not [OTHER CARD]?" questions is that there was support for banning Paradox Engine and not those other cards among the members of the Rules Committee. Many of the other cards mentioned like Tooth and Nail were discussed, but the will wasn't there to ban them at the most recent meeting.
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
Disclaimer: No offense to any RC/CAG member, I'm trying to give constructive feedback, based on my understanding of both the "actual reason" and why I think people might have focused on the "wrong" areas.
The delivery of the entire paragraph seems a bit off. "Not only does it provide" gives the implication that "wins games out of nowhere" is the primary reason, especially since its placement in the statement is first. As mentioned, the document is not a checklist, but things to look out for, and I feel like in Engine's case, the "wins out of nowhere" is a support secondary consequence of the actual reason you highlighted as the most important.
Let me try to rephrase the paragraph with minimal word changes:
"Paradox Engine is a card that has proven to be intensely problematic, mainly because it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play (e.g. Mana Rocks) to create undesirable game states too easily (infinite mana, which often leads to sudden wins or games wrecked) and often unintentionally. It is also easily inserted into any deck with virtually no deck building cost. While we don’t ban cards which are only problematic if you build around them, Paradox Engine has clearly demonstrated that it doesn’t need to be built around to be broken."
I feel bad on having to nitpick on sentence structure and delivery (and as disclaimed, it was not meant as an offense to any RC/CAG member), but I really feel that as an announcement for a format so widely played, more attention should really be paid to it so that the intent/reason is conveyed as effectively as possible (in this case, the focus on how easily & quickly Engine escalates into sudden wins, rather than the sudden wins themselves).
The easy answer to all of the "Why Paradox Engine and not [OTHER CARD]?" questions is that there was support for banning Paradox Engine and not those other cards among the members of the Rules Committee. Many of the other cards mentioned like Tooth and Nail were discussed, but the will wasn't there to ban them at the most recent meeting.
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
Then they shouldn’t exist? It always feels like a cop-out when stuff like this changes, and these are the responses. “Yeah, we listed them, but that doesn’t mean they matter”. Personally, I don’t believe anything should be written if it doesn’t hold legitimate value.
I understand the “spirit of the format” side, but, you’re delusional if you think tweaking that is going to change things. Specifically the point Sheldon made about Combos. We’ve had this debate many times over, people play the way they play, philosophy change or not. It’s an unfortunate reality of this format.
The only other card in recent memory that evoked a similar notion of breakability on release is Bolas's Citadel, and I'm hoping requiring colored mana saves it from a similar fate.
Personally I think the #1 reason to ban it wasn't so much "wins out of nowhere" so much as "takes forever to win while everyone else sits there staring at their hands and longing for death".
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
They go hand in hand, because "spirit of the format" means different things to different people, but "takes the game away from other players" is pretty east to grok.
Case in point, I already (jokingly) asked if I can start asking to unban Library again since you all removed PBtEx and he pointed me to the 4th bullet about Problematic cards. Well i took that combined with the rest of the philosophy document to be more applicable to cards like Cyclonic Rift than Library.
I don't disagree that the old list causes headaches and rules lawyering, but humans crave direction. And as your best source for feedback, the enfranchised players that read and digest this document are better served if we have that baseline.
I fear that too much emphasis and scrutiny will be placed on the banning criteria. For me, the single most important line in the Philosophy document is this one:
Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format).
The banning "criteria" list is merely a guideline to help identify things which go against this spirit. It isn't a ruleboard. A card could in theory hit every single category, but still not be banned because it doesn't fundamentally impact the enjoyment or social aspect of the game. That's what's important, not the bullets. The bullets are there to help identify, not to measure.
I fear that too much emphasis and scrutiny will be placed on the banning criteria. For me, the single most important line in the Philosophy document is this one:
Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where and individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format).
The banning "criteria" list is merely a guideline to help identify things which go against this spirit. It isn't a ruleboard. A card could in theory hit every single category, but still not be banned because it doesn't fundamentally impact the enjoyment or social aspect of the game. That's what's important, not the bullets. The bullets are there to help identify, not to measure.
"Play nice" is very far from a structured commander philosophy.
Let's say I interpret this as 'maybe I should cut my Reveillark combos'.
And you interpret it as 'I should not play Eater of the Dead in Phenax'
But then player 3 looks at this and says 'I will cut stasis and winter orb and put Dead-Eye Navigator and Palinchron instead'.
I am actually very disappointed by the philosophy document. It is very vague... so instead of thinking about it philosophically, all we can discuss is the criteria for banning cards.
Those styles of documents focused around fun will always be vague they want the big tent it is also why the actual focus of that document is on communication and interaction.
This is still the whims of a group of people and how those feelings differ from yours will not be fixed by better bullet points this format is exceedingly subjective as anyone paying attention will have figured out.
Which is why I believe they should really just eliminate the bulleted points all together. It adds absolutely nothing to document other than create confusion.
I would be interested to hear a bit more on "Cause severe resource imbalances". There can be a great many cards that you could examine under that stance. Cradle and Coffers for instance are cards that create great resource imbalances but you could also say the same about Necropotence. Its such a broad criteria that it can really be widely interpreted. I feel it might be one of the more vaguely stated ban criteria.
I suspect there is probably a lot more depth to this mostly involving how quickly it comes online and how complex it is to set up and cost to assemble as well as what it does for you. For example if you were to cast Sphinx's Revelation for 20 it would be a big resource imbalance but that would be ignoring the setup you put into doing that effect.
I guess what drives me a little crazy is how vague and up to interpretation it is. Tolarian Academy for example could be either kept banned or unbanned depending on where you draw the line with this. Really the same thing could be said for anything that produces mana, ramps lands, or draws cards. Hell, you could call a Wrath of God effect a means of imbalancing resources assuming you are clearing out a resource you have little of that someone else is using.
Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
What other reasons were Paradox Engine banned for? This was the only thing mentioned, and also that doesn't require very specific deckbuilding. Isn't Tooth and Nail in the same boat?
Biorhythm, CV and Worldfire interact poorly with the rules of the format.
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
That was not one of criteria on the list. I understand it is not a checklist, but that is also not a criteria for banning - it just tipped the scale.
I would say that T&N also just has for incentive cards that you are already incentivized to play - mana and impactful creatures.
If PE is banned then it seems to me that there are other cards that also seemingly win out of nowhere with minimal deckbuilding restraints. I think T&N is obvious. I think Expropriate is probably close.
I understand that Doomsday is not played enough to be in the same conversation - that there is a consideration for how much a card is played - and I am not saying any of the cards I mentioned need to be banned. It just seems to me that PE is really the only card to be banned solely based on this one criteria, and that it ought to warrant discussion about other cards that play similarly to PE.
T&N grabbing a couple swole bois to wreck face is fine, but the combo creatures that can win almost regardless of board state are not necessarily cards you'd normally play. Triskelion is only hitting decks that combo with it. Hoof/Avenger is a combo that involves two cards you are already incentivized to run in green, but it doesn't get the win off of an empty board unless you've already got a decent amount of lands (so ramping into T&N off of rocks isn't going to do it, turn 5 it'll kill 1 person).
I'm all for a T&N banning though, it's as borderline as they come
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 most similar banning ever was probably staff of domination. A card that combo'd with a number of other cards and its existence was primarily to combo.
I think they eventually unbanned staff because it required quite a bit more work to combo (essentially needing a single creature that taps for +5 mana or an infinite mana outlet on board). Comboing with "critical mass" instead of "very specific other cards" is what I think eventually doomed PE.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
The only other card in recent memory that evoked a similar notion of breakability on release is Bolas's Citadel, and I'm hoping requiring colored mana saves it from a similar fate.
On the other hand, I would have preferred to see Citadel go long before Engine.
Expropriate is so much better than most cards on the ban list. I can't take this ban list seriously and it's irony that they now offer these criteria - it all just looks even more random
The only other card in recent memory that evoked a similar notion of breakability on release is Bolas's Citadel, and I'm hoping requiring colored mana saves it from a similar fate.
On the other hand, I would have preferred to see Citadel go long before Engine.
Have you been seeing it regularly? What are people doing that makes you want it gone?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe that the second point is not one that has been enforced since Coalition Victory (though Biorythm probably hits this and 'interacts poorly with the rules of commander').
However, the second point was the main cause for Paradox Engine's banning:
It would seem that it was banned for providing easy wins out of nowhere, but that also considered was the fact that it required little deck building focus - it could go into many decks.
I would like to discuss this because I believe this is the first banning of a card for this reason since the banlist was originally conceived, and because I think it opens the door for other cards to be considered for banning.
What cards do you think should now be examined for similar reasons?
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
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Without going to deep down this rabbit hole, are there other cards that feel hit the same level of “fits in every deck” like Paradox Engine did?
I ask this because I haven’t experienced many PE problems. I haven’t played it myself, I don’t even own a copy. I’ve seen it a handful of times since release, and nothing impactful enough to make me remember the experience, good or bad.
I just feel like many cards hit this criteria much harder. First example is Tooth and Nail. I’ll be the first to say it has fair uses, but to “win out of nowhere” requires 3 dedicated deck slots to any Gx deck.
I’m probably wrong, but to me, this ban seems to be pandering to a vocal minority. The Iona and Painters ban/unban is obvious, and welcomed. I also won’t say that banning PE was a mistake, either. I just think by doing so, it’s going to tilt discussions about borderline cards into “should be banned”.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
^ THIS ^
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Honestly, this leads to many more questions than answers.
For instance, Tutors. May be a bit on the hyperbole side, but the point is a valid one. I think this adjustment allows borderline cards to hit a few more check boxes.
What other reasons were Paradox Engine banned for? This was the only thing mentioned, and also that doesn't require very specific deckbuilding. Isn't Tooth and Nail in the same boat?
Biorhythm, CV and Worldfire interact poorly with the rules of the format.
That was not one of criteria on the list. I understand it is not a checklist, but that is also not a criteria for banning - it just tipped the scale.
I would say that T&N also just has for incentive cards that you are already incentivized to play - mana and impactful creatures.
If PE is banned then it seems to me that there are other cards that also seemingly win out of nowhere with minimal deckbuilding restraints. I think T&N is obvious. I think Expropriate is probably close.
I understand that Doomsday is not played enough to be in the same conversation - that there is a consideration for how much a card is played - and I am not saying any of the cards I mentioned need to be banned. It just seems to me that PE is really the only card to be banned solely based on this one criteria, and that it ought to warrant discussion about other cards that play similarly to PE.
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
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
magicjudge.tumblr.com
GWU Angus Mackenzie's Fog of War GWU / B Sheoldred's Sleepless Cemetery B / R Ashling's Purifying Pilgrimage R
U Unesh's Sphinx Storm U / R Ib's Goblins: What It Says On The Tin R / UR Okaun & Zndrsplt Flip Out UR
Oathbreaker: UB Ashiok's Persistent Nightmare UB
Disclaimer: No offense to any RC/CAG member, I'm trying to give constructive feedback, based on my understanding of both the "actual reason" and why I think people might have focused on the "wrong" areas.
The delivery of the entire paragraph seems a bit off. "Not only does it provide" gives the implication that "wins games out of nowhere" is the primary reason, especially since its placement in the statement is first. As mentioned, the document is not a checklist, but things to look out for, and I feel like in Engine's case, the "wins out of nowhere" is a support secondary consequence of the actual reason you highlighted as the most important.
Let me try to rephrase the paragraph with minimal word changes:
"Paradox Engine is a card that has proven to be intensely problematic, mainly because it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play (e.g. Mana Rocks) to create undesirable game states too easily (infinite mana, which often leads to sudden wins or games wrecked) and often unintentionally. It is also easily inserted into any deck with virtually no deck building cost. While we don’t ban cards which are only problematic if you build around them, Paradox Engine has clearly demonstrated that it doesn’t need to be built around to be broken."
I feel bad on having to nitpick on sentence structure and delivery (and as disclaimed, it was not meant as an offense to any RC/CAG member), but I really feel that as an announcement for a format so widely played, more attention should really be paid to it so that the intent/reason is conveyed as effectively as possible (in this case, the focus on how easily & quickly Engine escalates into sudden wins, rather than the sudden wins themselves).
Then they shouldn’t exist? It always feels like a cop-out when stuff like this changes, and these are the responses. “Yeah, we listed them, but that doesn’t mean they matter”. Personally, I don’t believe anything should be written if it doesn’t hold legitimate value.
I understand the “spirit of the format” side, but, you’re delusional if you think tweaking that is going to change things. Specifically the point Sheldon made about Combos. We’ve had this debate many times over, people play the way they play, philosophy change or not. It’s an unfortunate reality of this format.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
They go hand in hand, because "spirit of the format" means different things to different people, but "takes the game away from other players" is pretty east to grok.
Case in point, I already (jokingly) asked if I can start asking to unban Library again since you all removed PBtEx and he pointed me to the 4th bullet about Problematic cards. Well i took that combined with the rest of the philosophy document to be more applicable to cards like Cyclonic Rift than Library.
I don't disagree that the old list causes headaches and rules lawyering, but humans crave direction. And as your best source for feedback, the enfranchised players that read and digest this document are better served if we have that baseline.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The banning "criteria" list is merely a guideline to help identify things which go against this spirit. It isn't a ruleboard. A card could in theory hit every single category, but still not be banned because it doesn't fundamentally impact the enjoyment or social aspect of the game. That's what's important, not the bullets. The bullets are there to help identify, not to measure.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
"Play nice" is very far from a structured commander philosophy.
Let's say I interpret this as 'maybe I should cut my Reveillark combos'.
And you interpret it as 'I should not play Eater of the Dead in Phenax'
But then player 3 looks at this and says 'I will cut stasis and winter orb and put Dead-Eye Navigator and Palinchron instead'.
I am actually very disappointed by the philosophy document. It is very vague... so instead of thinking about it philosophically, all we can discuss is the criteria for banning cards.
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
This is still the whims of a group of people and how those feelings differ from yours will not be fixed by better bullet points this format is exceedingly subjective as anyone paying attention will have figured out.
I suspect there is probably a lot more depth to this mostly involving how quickly it comes online and how complex it is to set up and cost to assemble as well as what it does for you. For example if you were to cast Sphinx's Revelation for 20 it would be a big resource imbalance but that would be ignoring the setup you put into doing that effect.
I guess what drives me a little crazy is how vague and up to interpretation it is. Tolarian Academy for example could be either kept banned or unbanned depending on where you draw the line with this. Really the same thing could be said for anything that produces mana, ramps lands, or draws cards. Hell, you could call a Wrath of God effect a means of imbalancing resources assuming you are clearing out a resource you have little of that someone else is using.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
T&N grabbing a couple swole bois to wreck face is fine, but the combo creatures that can win almost regardless of board state are not necessarily cards you'd normally play. Triskelion is only hitting decks that combo with it. Hoof/Avenger is a combo that involves two cards you are already incentivized to run in green, but it doesn't get the win off of an empty board unless you've already got a decent amount of lands (so ramping into T&N off of rocks isn't going to do it, turn 5 it'll kill 1 person).
I'm all for a T&N banning though, it's as borderline as they come
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 think they eventually unbanned staff because it required quite a bit more work to combo (essentially needing a single creature that taps for +5 mana or an infinite mana outlet on board). Comboing with "critical mass" instead of "very specific other cards" is what I think eventually doomed PE.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Paradox Engine is basically a cEDH vers. of Panoptic Mirror, but actually good.
PE just sometimes won, sometimes did nothing, but always took 20 mins to do either
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Have you been seeing it regularly? What are people doing that makes you want it gone?