Firstly
I'd like to especially thank Emether for this insightful window into the French metagame. I sincerely hope more dialogue between the States and France can occur like this in the future so that we can better understand what's right for our own metagames and what's out of place.
Secondly: The banned list Hermit Druid - I'm fine seeing Hermit Druid go. One card combos are the lose, and I can't really see how green or white can beat this reliably.
Oath of Druids - I think arguments could be made to ban Oath of Druids, as well, as some decks need to win with their general and cannot do so with an Oath out. The other problem is that these usually end up fueling a huge combo turn, instead of a big fatty, which is even worse.
Survival of the Fittest - Survival is incredibly powerful, as well, and I could see arguments made for that. While I play prison more often than not in EDH, and I don't have nearly as many problems with a resolved Survival as a control deck, I'm well aware of it's potential. I personally love the idea of toolbox, and I think on the surface it would seem it provides a lot of interaction. However, the extent of that might just be "You do X, I survival up an answer for X. Next turn you do Y, I survival up an answer for Y. Next turn, you don't do anything, I survival up the best creature for the situation." If that is indeed the case, it should go.
Balance - Easily my favorite card in the game, but it's insane. It's at worst a removal spell + discard + LD spell and at best it's a full on Wrath + Mind Twist + Geddon, all for 1W. This definitely adds to the luck factor of just drawing an incredibly powerful card that's almost always useful (cause chances are, if it's in your deck, it's for a reason. You're not running this in 5 color aggro, obv). Luck factor is bad, and should be reduced. Add to this that decks that can search for it when it needs to are usually decks with blue and/or black, giving them even more ability to fight aggro decks. I think this should go.
Library of Alexandria - Sometimes this card sucks, and sometimes it's nigh unbeatable. Again, I usually can blow up lands with most of my decks, but when I can't, it just takes over the game most of the time. This goes in not only every control deck I make, but even some other ones like prison or control-combo. I think this card, at 30 life, warrants a ban for the simple reason that aggro isn't as much of a contender (where this card would suck most), the decks it is best in (control) usually beat combo anyway, and vs control, if you can keep it out, will likely win the game for you outright. Again, luck of the draw, which I am all about reducing as much as possible for the name of a healthier format.
Tolarian Academy - A staple for control and combo decks, which the MTGS meta is chock full of right now. Everyone is talking about aggro needing to be more represented. While there are many ways to do this (the third and fourth points outlined below), another way is to take some of the more powerful tools away from control and combo. I personally want a balanced meta where aggro is not only viable, but actually a serious contender. I would argue that Academy is serious enough of a tutor target that taking it away would level this playing field a bit. I'm fine with it going.
Thirdly: @LennonMarx & the 20 life issue
We discussed the idea of 20 life awhile back, perhaps a year to a year and a half ago. I remember you were all for it, and I was not. While that was a long time ago, my feelings are still the same on it, and that's mainly this: 20 life with the current banned list as it is now means much shorter games. I can't speak for everyone here but I, personally, love the fact that EDH games have the capability of lasting as long as they do. It is the same reason I now prefer the more balanced and less coin flippy Legacy over Vintage, my longest played format ever. I by no means want EDH as slow as Standard, but with 20 life, I think logically the games will have to be much shorter. I think one thing to consider when voting on this idea is whether one thinks that's a good or a bad thing. Is it likely that the entire composition of most EDH decks will change to adapt to new life total? Absolutely. Is it also possible those new builds will still allow for games that are as long, on average? Of course. However I think there are better ways to allow aggro a fighting chance instead of changing life points from 30 to 20.
Also to be noted, 20 life for the most point makes commander damage useless (except in the rare cases of tremendous lifegain). I can't remember the last time I even saw someone playing significant lifegain in EDH, if ever. That said, commander damage is a unique and interesting aspect of EDH that I personally like and adds flavor to the format. Khymera said it's for the most part useless, but I think that's very commander dependent.
Regardless, I think testing out a 20 life total would be interesting, and I'm all about shaking things up for potentially beneficial change. Especially if it will bring more interest to EDH. However, I think if that shift is made, careful scrutiny should be paid to which cards end up having a greater impact at 20 life than 30. For example, at 20 life, aggro should be a much better contender, making that first turn play of Library of Alexandria much more risky. Balance ends up being more powerful, as does Oath. Survival might end up being too slow to catch up with a fast, powerful aggro deck. These are things that should be tested and looked for.
Fourthly: Partial Paris
I see a lot of talk here of a "fair and balanced" format. If we hope to achieve that, I strongly believe Partial Paris is a huge problem that needs to be addressed for a number of reasons, outlined in my posts in the tournament thread here and here. The Reader's Digest of those points being a) it allows combo decks to abuse PP to find broken starts, b) it is significantly harder to capitalize on PP for some decks (decks without tutors or draw that need consistency, like aggro decks. These decks don't want to sculpt a perfect hand so much as they want to curve out reliably), c) a randomly mana flooded or dry hand can be thrown back and Big Deck Mull gives that hand a better chance of being evenly distributed (statistically speaking, normal distribution and all that); with Partial Paris, you're punished for having to mull away parts of your hand to attempt to get a balanced on. Point c is even worse if you're an aggro oriented deck (for example) trying to achieve a level of consistency so you can curve out while your opponent is sculpting a combo. I believe this pushes aggro even further from viability and should seriously be looked at along with the 20 point life span. I theorize that a return to the Big Deck Mull would actually bring such combo decks down in power and help aggro have a more fighting chance.
Lastly - Commanders Braids - I think this wouldn't even be a concern if Partial Paris was abolished and Big Deck Mull returned, straight up. As it is, this deck in my opinion (as well as others: see above links to the tournament thread) benefits from PP more than any other, and is only a problem while PP is the mull of choice for the format. Erayo - I don't see this being as big of a deal if aggro is re-introduced into the ecosystem. I think Erayo is already fragile enough as it is, suffering a huge blowout if Erayo is killed in response to the flip, or countered a couple of times. A huge amount of gas is necessary to power Erayo out, and with cards like Thrun being printed, I think Erayo's viability is even less significant. I personally think Erayo should stay unbanned as it is now, with no other changes. Rofellos - While I think Rofellos has better tools than he ever has, that doesn't mean he's banworthy. Those tools usually depend greatly on Rofellos, and there are just plenty of ways of killing him. I think at 30 life, Rofellos wants to take a controlish approach and capitalize on the high life total and try and get to huge spells. I think at 20 life, I think Rofellos would just pack more fatties to address aggro. I haven't seen much interest in Rofellos lately, however, so this may not be an issue. I think people either hate him or are fine with him. I'd be interested to see where Rofellos goes depending on what bans take place (if any), other generals, PP, etc. I think it should also be noted that in my personal experience, I've found a resolved Rofellos to be one of the best foils for Clique, which should be taken into consideration should Clique be unbanned. Clique - I think Clique would have a harder time in a format with 20 life. Efficient dudes and burn seem like Clique's absolute nightmare. I think Clique would be forced to address the resurgence of aggro, significantly lowering it's game vs other control decks; the days of a billion counters I think would, at that point, be over. Those counters don't mean anything if one or two creatures have already resolved and are beating face.
Let's discuss.
Hermit Druid - This always struck me as being about the same as Painter's Servant. We have Grindstone banned; they have Painter's banned. I wouldn't miss it.
Oath of Druids - I can see arguments for it as well but I really can't speak as I've not played against it so far.
Survival of the Fittest - I think this still falls in the realm of merely powerful. It's remarkably efficient, but it forces your card choices to be the creature version of the answers. The creature versions cost more making this still an attackable strategy.
Balance - Again, I've not had this played against me, but I certainly don't want to either. I really don't see being able to play around this card. I don't think I'd miss it.
Library of Alexandria - I have no idea why this is still around. It's quite frankly obscene.
Tolarian Academy - Very attackable and not as easy to exploit in 1v1. I don't see it being an issue.
The 20 life issue - I am also not a fan. Haven't tried it but just doesn't seem like EDH. When I was playing combo I definitely feel the difference from 40 to 30. I don't think it would be stable with another reduction.
Partial Paris - Second that partial paris is quite unneeded and polarizing. It was awesome for me playing 5c storm. It's terrible playing R/G. (Yes, I can hold onto the Grim Lavamancer/Punishing Fire against Braids. They're not shipping the Thoughtseize/Snuff Out.)
Braids - Yeah, it'll be playable without PP. It won't be nearly as stable. Erayo - This seems held in check as much by being fragile as by there's few who'd want to run the damnable thing through a whole tournament. I also don't see it being worth the attention to ban. Rofellos - Yep, he's powerful but his presence seems to help keep everyone honest. Clique - Yes, it would have a harder time at 20 life. Assuming it stays at 30 though? It does seem to warp the format. The question is, do we like the format we have when Clique isn't around compared to the one we had before?
Given the powers to do so, I'd probably nix Hermit Druid and Balance for stabilities sake, nix Library because that should've been done forever ago and I've not heard a compelling word to keep it, go back to the big deck mull, and keep Clique as the only disallowed general. Once the format settles, try allowing Clique and see if it warps anything.
I love the talk. I'm still trying out the lifetotal differance. So far it has only mattered in one game. This game was with Godo vs Isamaru. I most likely would have been able to stabilize with another turn with a active jitte. All the toher games it made no differance.
I also got a chance to play with Christian although we only got one game in before he had to leave, He was at 7 life (Playing with 20) when he stabilized and I had plain lost to THraximunder.
When I have time I'm going to play V-Clique to hell against Isamaru. I am sad to see the life total change because Sylvan Libary/Dark Tutelage ends up hurting alot more punishing control decks even more so. Aggro decks currently are made to deal with the 30 lfie total (They really don't run out of gas they just lose to card advantage or they get comboed.)
What I cannot stand with Clique in the format is why in gods name would you play Ismaru over Clique in a 30 lifetotal format. Just like partial paris you are pretty much at a disadvantage because your opponent starts at 21 life while you start at 30. This is my biggest argument with the life total change. Me and Killkeny had some conversation or more so arguing because this is a heated debate. I would be fine with the ban list change and life totals stay the same. But if Clique is to be unbanned I would not be happy unless life totals change as well.
I will keep playing games (this weekend everyone will be home so well get alot of games in), playing games with Clique and Ill let you guys go.
Currently I'm Slanted Towards the bannings of Balance, Hermit Druid, and Library of Alexandria. I believe that these are fair bannings.
I think the hermit druid combo deck is just like Roffellos however. You just lose if you dont have a answer. I want to have the longer games that people play edh for. Roffellos and Hermit Druid and maybe even Braids all share these Qualities that turn the format into a coinflip. This along with the bannning of serra ascendant show that the french did not want the format to devolve in this manner.
Keep in mind that my opinions are towards a conservative ban list, And keeping the power level in between vintage and legacy.
I am sad to see the life total change because Sylvan Libary/Dark Tutelage ends up hurting alot more punishing control decks even more so. Aggro decks currently are made to deal with the 30 lfie total (They really don't run out of gas they just lose to card advantage or they get comboed.)
Thinking of that last game we played (my Radha vs Braids), I think I lost 20 or 24 to my Sylvan Library. Generally, the deck with G is the aggro deck, and I needed those cards. Also, the line between getting outdone by CA and running out of gas seems an unnecessary distinction, but otherwise not sure how you'd interpet this.
I think the hermit druid combo deck is just like Roffellos however. You just lose if you dont have a answer. I want to have the longer games that people play edh for. Roffellos and Hermit Druid and maybe even Braids all share these Qualities that turn the format into a coinflip. This along with the bannning of serra ascendant show that the french did not want the format to devolve in this manner.
You could justify Rofellos/Braids bannings, but that seems like slippery slope territory to me. I think getting rid of PP would be enough of a factor to let them stick around.
Library of Alexandria, Hermit Druid, and Balance are far too swingy and undercosted. The other cards are strong, but don't seem format-warping by any means (though Oath of Druids at least gets an honorable mention from me). Also, at this point, it's good to note that Braids seems to be performing fairly dismally even with the PP mulligan.
Speaking of which, the big deck mull seems preferable to the Partial Paris on the grounds that the PP just feels like change for the sake of change. Its benefits are more or less canceled out by its detriments, so why not mulligan the same way as the rest of the Magic-playing world? (EDIT: The rest of the Magic-playing world, +1 card I guess)
Changing the starting life totals to 20 from 30 is undesirable for the reasons previously stated. It would also require yet another re-evaluation of the banned list (are Necropotence and Mindslaver even that good in a 20-life format, for example?).
I've been reading this thread and after sleeping on it, Khymera has absolutely hit the nail on the head, as usual. Decks right now are adjusted for 30 life games, so it's only going to feel natural that things will feel well out of whack because we go back down to 20 life.
Hunter, if you want to bring up the argument that Sylvan Library/Bob/Tutelage/Arena get worse with reducing the life to 20, I will argue in response that we are returning the cards back to their original functionality -- aka the format they were supposed to be in... a 20 life format.
Many of you love EDH because you get to play with almost everything that's busted. This was also one of my initial reasons for beginning to play EDH, but we also need to realize that with a lean ban list, this is a completely broken format. It's fun to be tutoring all day for Balance and hosing your opponent in the process, but we should also be fostering an environment where a large pool of decks can realistically compete, and all archetypes be represented. With the ban list as it is currently, my biggest fear is that the format spirals into degeneracy where the "haves" oppress the "have nots" and the metagame becomes stifled.
Emether's post was fantastic, and it shed amazing insight on why the French metagame is the way it is. When aggro's natural predator (combo) is virtually nonexistent, of course it's going to be all over the place. We often forget that making 5c combo decks online is totally free, taking the price of duals and fetches for granted. Considering EDH isn't even an officially sanctioned format, it makes total sense. Not everyone wants to blow hundreds of dollars on lands, and then subsequently learn how to play the deck.
If we adjusted the ban list now, Library and Balance should be the first two cards to go. If the reason Library is unbanned is because Kevin owns a Library and has huge influence on the French ban list, that's just silly to keep a broken card around because of one person. Balance's power is pretty self-explanatory; a part Mind Twist, part Wrath (that circumvents indestructibility) and part Armageddon is unacceptable.
This is probably one thing that I'll likely be alone on, and I know I'm going to get backlash from those that love black, but we need to take a hard look at the "Tier 1 tutors" as Wizards puts them. Hermit Druid is largely as broken as he is because the decks that abuse him run such an extreme density of tutors that feels like Hermit Druid is the actual general instead. Tutors are already one of the strongest abilities in the entire game, and that strength is further magnified in a singleton format. Black is largely as strong as it is because it has access to so many tutors to help assemble a combo or bail out of a sticky situation for example. At the very least, Vampiric Tutor and Demonic Tutor need to looked at very closely. Tutors are the reason for why Oath and Hermit Druid are so powerful, and also why red and white are weak in comparison.
That being said about tutors, Hermit Druid is ridiculous. My beef with the card is that it issues a one-turn ultimatum to your opponent; if you answer him we continue to play normal Magic, but if you don't have that answer right now, instant game over.
@SC -- Your thoughts on the "Tier 1 tutors" are interesting. I don't think I agree, but it definitely warrants some thought. When it comes to bannings, the "Tier 1 tutor" policy is really only something the DCI applies to Legacy, but with the singleton nature of the format, EDH is probably more analogous Vintage, where said cards are only restricted (just like EDH, really). It's a very fine line we're walking, I think.
Also, because of all the talk about Hermit Druid and Erayo, I had an interesting thought while I was mulling this over on the way home from work today:
@Dosu: The raptor poses a good question. A RPS metagame, while stagnent (for the sake of simplicity I will ignore the potential for an innovative deck that beats two of the "pillars"), comes with the idea that playskill matters, and certain decks should win certain matchups when played correctly. The coin-flip scenerios, on the other hand, come from the existance of broken cards that can tip matchups. If there is a RPS metagame, but Scissors can play a random 1-of that when drawn just beats rock, then something feels wrong. Balance would be a great example of this sort of thing. Personally, I have no problem with the existance of the broken cards that can make the games flippy. That's a big part of why I play EDH, actually, but I can understand the annoyance of losing a good matchup at the hands of a broken card.
@This Thread (and more dirrectly, SC): People that have read my posts know I don't usually talk like this, so sorry for droping a few levels of elloquence here, but are we butthurt much here? EDH is broken, we all know this, and have known it for years. Why now are people comming out the woodwork talking about how Balance should be banned, or the "teir one tutors" or whatever else has been brought up. And SC, your post a few back was quit clearly talking about our Round 2, game 1. I mean, I'm sorry Balance is a blowout? I don't know what to say to that. People that want to play "fair" decks in EDH run the risk of getting run over. It happens in Legacy, it happens in Vintage. It's the nature of the eternal beast, and the answer to it is not "gut the format of everything broken" but "as a builder become more broken." That, or keep trying to play fair decks that can beat up on the broken ones, knowing that sometimes it doesn't work.
That said, Balance probably is too strong for the format. When I first started playing 1v1 with the MTGS banned list, Balance was the card that most suprised me as being legal, but that was over two years ago. If it wasn't bannable then, what has changed?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
But I don't see how do you fight Balance without counterspell.
I, for one, definitely play Second Sunrise in all my decks... and keep three mana open at all times just in case.
But in all seriousness, Balance is banned in Legacy AND the original Highlander format. There are good reasons for this, assuredly. It has absolutely no place in duel EDH, and is only made more problematic when you're limited to certain colors and can't interact with it. Bottom line: it's always been an overpowered card, and is made even MORE overpowered in EDH due to color restrictions.
@Kabuki: I'm saying that two years ago, I was arguing for its banning, and some of the people now calling for it to be banned were arguing that it was "strong but fair."
To contextualize my point a bit, at the same time I was arguing that Channel should be banned, as it was fundamentally unfair in what it did, especially in EDH. Many (most) others disagreed with me, so it stayed legal for another 6-9 months. Then Emrakul was printed, and people went crazy. For Balance, what was it's "Emrakul Moment?"
@Kabuki: I'm saying that two years ago, I was arguing for its banning, and some of the people now calling for it to be banned were arguing that it was "strong but fair."
To contextualize my point a bit, at the same time I was arguing that Channel should be banned, as it was fundamentally unfair in what it did, especially in EDH. Many (most) others disagreed with me, so it stayed legal for another 6-9 months. Then Emrakul was printed, and people went crazy. For Balance, what was it's "Emrakul Moment?"
You bring up a great point. Because how does anyone determine anything is even bannable. EDH is played because you get high power cards.
Emether noted that the ban list in france is constructed out of 4 reasons (Cost, Coinflip, something else..)
I'm all for the minumal amount of cards. Every point I've heard is valid except for someone mentioning necropotenance can be unbanned.
The banlist Should be cards that require dexterity (one can argue even this but to mantain similarities with other formats) and One card Wins. The problem comes to saying what a one card win is.
Is Serra Ascendant a one card win? In Essence yes. If the life total was brought down to 20 this card won't be scary at all.
Sol Ring/ Mana Crypt. Huge mana Advantage....
Necropotenance/Bargain. Card advantage doesn't neccessarily give you the win just like mana.
But are these cards way to flipish? that their is no way of really countering these effects outside of pure luck.
Tinker- A tutor, accelerant all in one package, This is a common excepted card that is to swingy in the format.
TimeVault/Grindstone. Time Vault some people argue ruined vintage. Again these colorless comboes could fit in every deck, Yet mostly everyone agrees that there 2 easy to assemble. At least DD and Hexmage requires colors and a turn to react...?
Gifts Ungiven ( I know the power of the card), But its the only tutor on the list that is deemed way too powerful.
Sundering Titan- Disruption that annihilates manabases no matter what you do about it. Its intresting to note that this card is 8 mana.
It's also intresting to note that Protean Hulk is banned while Hermit Druid is not.....
So looking at the ban list ( I selected examples I know) its intresting to note what is deemed overpowered for the format.
I mean Hell Crucible of Worlds, Mindslaver, Upheavel, Staff are all banned.
So what Did I really just say here. Their is a very fine line that we cross. Just like Legacy we have to adjust our ban list. I really don't know where to go from here. I think we need to establish the ban list and settle matters such as PP and Lifetotals later. After settling the ban list we can also look at Rofl. and V-Clique from there.
Should Balance be banned? Thats what we need to decide on.
@Hunter: The problem is that life totals and mulligan rules have impact on the banned list. Anything that plays with life needs to get looked at differently depending on where the starting life total gets set at. I'll go on record as saying that at 20 life, I think Necropotence and Channel could be legal again. Similarly, at 20 life Vendilion Clique could be legal, as in a format that is filled with aggro dorks, Clique looks rather foolish. These issues go hand in hand, and need to be resolved together. In fact, if one has to be settled first, it's life totals and mulligan rules, as those impact how the format plays which in turn determines what cards are too powerful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
@Hunter: The problem is that life totals and mulligan rules have impact on the banned list. Anything that plays with life needs to get looked at differently depending on where the starting life total gets set at. I'll go on record as saying that at 20 life, I think Necropotence and Channel could be legal again. Similarly, at 20 life Vendilion Clique could be legal, as in a format that is filled with aggro dorks, Clique looks rather foolish. These issues go hand in hand, and need to be resolved together. In fact, if one has to be settled first, it's life totals and mulligan rules, as those impact how the format plays which in turn determines what cards are too powerful.
Agreed, they're handled hand in hand in my opinion. Are we seriously considering changing the life totals, or are we just throwing it out there and discussing it and see what happens? I'm up for trying it out and seeing what happens, but I honestly don't think it's going to happen. When I play on MWS and someone joins my game that doesn't necessarily know the banned list we use and our starting life totals, they usually flip when I explain to them that we start at 30 life. Now, if these are the types of people that we are trying to get more interested in 1v1 (that is, the multiplayer player) how do we honestly think that they're going to want to play with half of their starting life total?
I think it would be harder to get people interested in our take on the format if we change the life totals. I mean, yeah we might see it as necessary for the health of our format but I doubt that outsiders will understand why we did what we did. I have a feeling it will just end up as all of us playing against ourselves. I mean, even though I like you guys a lot I don't necessarily want to play against ONLY you guys, you know what I mean?
And what about Strip Mine ? This card can break a manabase easily. With some recurrence, it's just awfull, no ?
Nah, Strip Mine is absolutely necessary. There are some lands that absolutely need to be dealt with. They've been discussed in this thread all ready. Crucible of Worlds makes recurring it far too easy and it can easily slip in to any deck.
Yeah I guess I basically said that myself w/o realizing that. But How do we determine These rules, just a vote? I mean no one has the power of the dci or an organization here. At least Sheldon carries the title of Level 5 Judge (what he is the judge of is up for consideration). I’m trying to get some decision making starting.
I’ve been fooling around with clique and sure I’m not losing a ton of games. But Versus Isamaru it’s impossible. Lyzolda along with Sygg is a pain as well. Radha was better simply because she’s slower in nature. These games were played at 30 life. 20 Life it would have been the same result.
Do we give up a characteristic of the format? Everything is convoluted. Chris (note how I called you chris ) is right when new comers barely come into the format. If you notice the forum is really 5 people just talking.
I’m personally against 20 life totals, simply because in a highlander format your going to draw blanks no matter how good your deck is.
Partial Paris in the same way has to exist because there are no sideboards (nor do I wish their to be). Your deck needs to be able to deal with every deck. Partial Paris helps you find the tools against combo and agro, just as it is abused by combo to help combo off.
So in the end I think surprisingly I’m not for the change in the main rules at all. The ban list however is different. But I’m afraid with different views and noone in a position of power nothing will come from this talk but talk (notice how the ban list hasn’t changed).
We have a rules committee for our banned list, don't we? I'd like to see a list of who all is on that. Changes need to be made and I'm hoping that we can reach agreements without throwing hissy fits. Maybe we could have a poll to elect someone to be put in charge? LOL DEMOCRACY? Hunter245 just mentioned to me that we should all go in to a chat room and have a discussion. I think this is a great idea if we can get as many people as we possibly can together at once online. Any thoughts?
We have a rules committee for our banned list, don't we? I'd like to see a list of who all is on that. Changes need to be made and I'm hoping that we can reach agreements without throwing hissy fits. Maybe we could have a poll to elect someone to put someone in charge? LOL DEMOCRACY? Hunter245 just mentioned to me that we should all go in to a chat room and have a discussion. I think this is a great idea if we can get as many people as we possibly can together at once online. Any thoughts?
I am opposed to changing the life totals to 20. I would prefer to keep them to 30. I am a primary aggro player and I would prefer the 30, because it makes the EDH game feel different from a regular game (i.e. it's a format defining characteristic). It also lets me play the reject cards and that's really what I love about EDH: I get to play the cards that aren't good enough elsewhere and appeal to the Timm-ay inside of me.
I am for the "big deck mull" over the partial pairs mulligan. I think that partial pairs is far too forgiving, mostly, and I would prefer the uniformity of the mulligan rules in this matter. It's easy to explain that the life total got a boost, but clunky to explain that the mulligan rules are different.
As far as bannings go: my philosophy on banning a card is that the ban list should be as long as necessary, so that the health of the format can be guarded the most. The health of the format is a nebulous thing, but I believe that it comes from having games that focus less on a couple key cards and more on building a game environment where the deck builders get to build interactive decks without sacrificing due to some half formed notion of "fair" or "non-douchey".
In that manner, I support banning:
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Hermit Druid
Balance
I also support banning Rofellos as a general because he is a complete blowout and does the same polarizing effect that I believe Khymera proved with Clique. Maybe they need to be revisted, in which case, I suggest we make a public Rofellos and Clique list and have that be the optimized list. When we have a question about if they can get out of general time out, then we can load up those decks, reoptimize them, and see how many skulls get crushed.
I think that Braids can be given a chance to play, but should be watched for whatever reason she got put on there in the first place.
I think that the amount of discussion that these cards get is somewhat proof, and I think that more importantly, if we look at Vintage and Legacy ban lists as some sort of guideline, cards like these are on their and have proven to be problem cards in the past.
@d0su: I think that the reason I'm more comfortable with a triangle set up than a coin flip is that it feels less random and while I want a small amount of randomization in my game, I do not want enough to turn the game into a coin flip. With a rock-paper-scissors set up, the archetypes give me broad access to different winning strategies and unlike RPS, an unfavorable match up is not an unwinnable one. It's one of the easier ways for me to think about balanced strategies against one another. I would be okay with adding more archetypes though, but I don't know how to effectively do that for a game.
Play to win. If you don't, you're disrespecting everyone you're playing with by wasting their time. The Douchbag check is at the level of deck construction.
I cannot add much legitimacy to this discussion. I'm a newbie/outsider to EDH and prefer to play for fun than for blood. For those of you still reading my post, I feel I can add to the discussion due to my affiliation to Legacy + general ability to look at the format with eyes wide open.
@lifetotals
This is silly. I'm a bigger fan of re-errata'd cards. For example, Serra Ascendant is one of the best white drops in the format if you play it literally. People need to change how they play/rule over these guys. There are several other cards that need to be re-errata'd.
@Hermit being banned
Putting him on the B/R list comes with ALL tutor generals (Zur, Arcum, Erayo, etc) and a other ridiculous cards (Library, Balance, Oath, Survival, Mind over Matter, etc). I want to make things clear: he's fair. He isn't an instant GG and if you come out with that argument, please take a look at some of the cards I motion to. He's not at the top of the list to ban.
@tutors
This is a tough situation. In legacy, we are losing tutors for a variety of reasons....the simplest being the "dumb" interactions new cards have with older cards. The analogy is that tutors are like wine....they get better with age.
Really? Back when the 1cc tutors were made, the game wasn't as complex and deep as it is now. Forget power-creep...I'm talking combo-creep. We're only going to see more insane/silly/unfair/fair/questionable interactions as time goes on.
What has been done? Wizards cannot properly figure out how to deal with this situation. It's a fact. The more cards you print, the more 1-2, 1-2-3, or bigger interactions you'll have. For example, where mystical tutor used to grab [insert older card], a combination of power creep and newer + stronger synergies will make it better as it ages. In legacy, we just had survival of the fittest banned because of its interaction with basking rootwalla and vengevine (amongst other issues).
I've come to the conclusion that you either ban all these aggressivetutors (non aggressive being something like Trinket Mage) or stop whining that combo is dominant.
Archetypes in a format come as a reaction to players' options. Aggro and Control are undoubtedly outclassed atm because the format caters to a wide variety of "find your puzzle piece" strategies that almost always result in "well I just win" effects. The amount of infinite loops and backbreaking combo's simply comes with the territory.
People should also realize the internet and MTG sites further streamline ideas for better and for worse. Combo atm is the best route to play because there is little holding it in check. If you cut out these aggressive tutors and cut out tutoring generals, you'll see a heavy drop-off in combo's power level. This will undoubtedly piss some off, but I believe it would bring us closer to the Rock-Paper-Scissors archetype analysis.
@Fixing the format
As it stands right now, EDH is what Type 1 wants to be. Read that again. Nobody has made this connection yet, but it's hard to argue against it. Forget the whole 'general' crap for a minute....you want to have a super-deep card pool + see all-star cards. Think about that for a minute. Seriously. The 'general' concept is just deckbuilding flair thrown on top of this "T1 as it should be" ideology. Overall it's extremely interesting to see how this young format is taking off.
In some ways, the creators and early EDH peeps tried to mitigate the damage T1 has. Obvious card interactions like turn 1 Tinker --> DSC/BSC have no place in any format. The same goes for Lotus + Moxen and the initial B/R list. However, with more joining into this bizarre format, it's clear that we need to revamp the system. I honestly don't care what the end result is...as long as there was careful consideration. Ultimately, all EDH players need to get on the same page.
I've been running off the MTGS B/R list + the original 40 life. I have fun with it. I think people get into very deep discussions online here because this clearly means a lot to them. At its core, the "correcting" of EDH has a fundamental question attached to it: how balanced would you like the format to be? Would you really like rock-paper-scissors so everyone has a chance? You'll need to do A LOT to get there. Lots of people will complain and rant and flame if you actually came up with a fair version of the format because most of these players will be on the losing end of the spectrum. Competitive EDH almost always ends with some sort of straight-up combo and it's why I prefer things on the causal end. Coin-flip MTG "just happens" if you let EDH B/R stay at a similar level imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Thanks to Emether for the great information, and everyone else contributing afterward. I'm proud of all of you: the last few pages are amongst the most constructive discussion I've ever seen on this site.
I have to be brief right now, so I'll make some quick hits and come back later.
Starting life:
This could go either way. The best argument against change is the "feel of the format," which is admittedly nebulous. I think that the best reason for change (which was briefly touched on by Surging Chaos) is that Magic cards are all inherently balanced around a life total of 20. By using a different starting life total, we're effectively neutering dozens of would-be aggressive cards, while turbo-charging another subset of cards like Ad Nauseum, Sylvan Library, Necropotence, Dark Tutelage, and so on. This is a problem that is only going to get worse, as Wizards have printed far more "life total matters" cards like Felidar Sovereign, Serra Ascendant, and Sorin Markov in recent sets than ever before.
I'm slightly in favor of changing the starting life to 20, since I think that bringing present and future cards in line with their intended power level is fairly important for long-term innovation. If some cards are just way better than they're supposed to be (like Sylvan Library), and some are way worse (like Baneslayer Angel), there's less room for new ideas. I don't think that changing starting life will have a huge impact on the average length of games or the viability of aggro (it's already viable, and will remain so). Decks will adjust. It's not imperative that this change happens though.
Partial Paris:
Again, I could go either way. I don't feel that either mulligan method is horrible, but both have their faults. Mutedequilibrium definitely has a point that some decks can "abuse" the partial paris much more than others, and that the most broken decks that can use it the best. It also allows fast decks to successfully skimp on land drops to a significant degree, which is not really a good thing for deck construction.
However, the biggest problem I see with eliminating the PP mulligan is that it actually plays a huge role in keeping speedy "1 card combo" generals in check. You say that Braids makes the best use of the PP mulligan, but I think she would actually be a lot stronger without it. This is even more true for Rofellos, Zur, Arcum, and Hermit Druid decks. Rofellos in particular is only consistently beatable because the PP mulligan allows you to find a hand with spot removal.
With a big deck mulligan, you can't really afford to mull speculatively, because you run a major risk of drawing a new hand that's just unplayable. I can imagine playing against Rofellos and mulling down to almost nothing because you see your starting hand and you KNOW it's not fast enough to beat Rofellos. So you throw it back a few times, and then the game is over before it even began because you weren't able to find a quick enough hand. That's a crappy way to lose a game.
So, I want to eliminate the PP mulligan, because I do find it very flawed, but I think that Rofellos and Zur would begin to dominate without it. I'm not sure what the solution is. I can imagine a sort of hybrid between the big deck mulligan and the PP paris...say you could only keep lands. You'd draw your opening 7, set aside any number of lands (face-up to avoid cheating), and then big deck mull the rest of your hand. This would stop you from hanging onto a combo piece and searching for more, but allow you mull more aggressively because you know you won't be stuck a landless stinker. I'm not sure this would be any better, but it's an idea.
Commanders:
Braids:
Partial Paris or not, Braids is fine. She's not tier 1, maybe not even tier 1.5.
Erayo:
Same deal as Braids. The deck may be annoying, but it doesn't have an especially high win-loss ratio. I do understand why the French wanted to ban her, but I can't agree with the decision: it's way too much of a slippery slope.
Clique:
This could go either way. Honestly, the decision isn't so much about whether Clique can be beaten anymore as about whether we like what it does to the metagame. As Emether said, "Basically, no combo deck can win against Clique" and "Clique also beats control decks." The French seem to want a combo-free, aggro-defined metagame, and making Clique legal is a good way to achieve that. It works for them. However, I don't think that we actually do want that here. If we want combo to be at all viable (and I believe that we do), then Clique should remain banned. For those who want to play a Clique-like deck, Wydwen provides a more than acceptable substitute that still permits combo and control decks a fighting chance.
I want to mention the "coin flip" thing here too. As the raptor says, a rock-paper-scissors metagame is usually a good thing, while a coin flip game is bad. The key thing to note is that, in Magic, rock doesn't always beat scissors, and so on. It has an advantage, maybe 60-40 or so, but it's not the certain victor every time. It's not a coin flip at all. Scissors might even be able to adjust to an in-between point (like aggro-control) where it has an even matchup against both rock and paper. The point being, the metagame is fluid and not totally match-up dependent. Clique doesn't really fit into any of the other archetypes. To extend the metaphor, you might call it "gun." Clique (when played well) is basically a true coin flip: it really is going to beat combo every time and control almost every time. This is what we don't like. It's frustrating for the combo pilots and boring for the Clique pilots. Since I want to avoid this situation, I'm in favor of keeping Clique banned.
Rofellos:
This is a tough one. I'm in favor of keeping him unbanned...but provisionally. As I've said, I do understand why the French chose to ban him, and in this case I think it was a reasonable decision. As with Clique, the issue is not so much whether Rofellos is beatable, but rather what he does to the metagame. If Rofellos is legal, competitive decks need to be running lots of spot removal (or be very, very fast). With the Partial Paris mulligan, I think the key number of removal slots to be able to consistently handle Rofellos is about 6, which seems reasonable. With the big deck mulligan, I think this number goes up quite a bit, which may no longer be reasonable.
I think that the French were trying to make a metagame where competitive decks aren't forced to play tons of spot removal if they don't want to. This is a format design decision: do you force people to load up on these spells or not? There isn't a definitive answer, but it's still an important question to be asking ourselves. I think the argument for not requiring so much removal is strong (more color combinations become competitive, more space in decks for innovation, less importance on the speed of starting hands). At this point, I'm inclined to say that Rofellos is okay with the Partial Paris mulligan...but if we are to revert to the big deck mulligan, as is being suggested, I think he very well might need to be banned again so as not to warp the metagame around him.
Keep in mind that the closest parallel to Rofellos is Hermit Druid, which most people seem to be in favor of banning. True, a turn 3 Rofellos activation doesn't immediately win the game...but it very often wins the game nonetheless, and you ALWAYS have turn 2 Rofellos. If Hermit Druid is deemed too difficult to reasonably handle, Rofellos might easily be too.
Banlist:
I'd say that Library of Alexandria, Balance, and Mana Drain need to go. The rest I'm less sure about. I'm inclined to say that Oath of Druids and Survival of the Fittest are fine, and that Hermit Druid and Tolarian Academy are borderline.
Oath can be dealt with in numerous ways: you have a turn to destroy it, or sacrifice your creatures, or just deal with the creature(s) it produces. None of these things are necessarily easy, but between them I think there are plenty of answers in just about any deck. I don't think I've ever played Oath in EDH myself, but I've beaten it lots of times.
Survival is very powerful, but it's slow and has its limitations. I've played with and against it a LOT, and it certainly doesn't always win games or anything like that.
Hermit Druid and Tolarian Academy are both dangerous because they're so fast. Tolarian Academy is definitely weaker without Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, but it's still really strong, and fast mana is just about the most dangerous thing for 1v1 balance. I made a Jhoira deck recently with the aim of abusing Tolarian Academy as much as possible. I'm still testing it to see just how good it is...but, well, it's still bonkers every time I use it. Any way you cut it, Academy is very very close to the dividing line between "really good" and "too good."
Balance never really had an "Emrakul moment," by the way. I believe that I was the one who thought it was strong but fair, but the reason it was unbanned in the first place is because the French had been playing with it for a while, and they seemed to feel it was fine. It seemed worth testing. After a lot more hands-on experience with the card (and more input from the French), it's become clear that the card is a bit too strong. I think it would actually be okay at like 4 mana, but as is it's just too cheap to realistically play around, so it tends to just win games it has no business winning. For the record though, Balance still isn't nearly as good as most people think it is. I keep reading that it's "Wrath AND Armageddon AND Mind Twist," and that's just not true. It's more typically like Wrath OR Armageddon OR Mind Twist, and you don't always gets to choose which (and sometimes you have to Mind Twist yourself). It's still way too good for two mana, but it's not quite as consistently backbreaking as people seem to think it is.
I'd also like to consider unbanning Mind Twist, Mindslaver, and Sundering Titan. I've been playing a fair amount of 1v1 with the multiplayer banlist online, and these cards just aren't that busted, since they're expensive. (Mind Twist can be cheap, but it's strictly worse than Hymn to Tourach until 4 mana, and even then it's not that much better). The expensive artifacts require some doing to get into play with the broken fast mana banned, and even then they don't always win the game. I think they're fine. Also, if Rofellos was banned as a general, Staff of Domination could be safely unbanned. If we did decide to go for 20 starting life, there's a good chance that Necropotence and maybe even Yawgmoth's Bargain could be unbanned, which I admit I'd sort of like to see.
(Yes, that was brief. Sue me. More to come in a day or two.)
@Khymera: Having been playing Balance in since I realized it wasn't banned, I have come into the "strong but fair" mindset. I can see how it could be banable, but (most) everyone calling for it talk about the perfect storm moments when Balance is everything. I don't think it should be banned, but if the powers that be think it should be, then have at it.
Library I have been for banning for a long time, so no complaint there.
All this talk about Mana Drain, though, is confusing. I don't recall it ever seriously being talked about for banning, yet numerous voices now are coming out against it. I understand the card is good and its strictly better than Counterspell, but how did it go from off the radar to in the middle of the discussion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
The more I think about it the more I think that Mana Drain doesn't deserve a ban at all. I think a lot of people want to ban Mana Drain because it is the best counterspell printed. I think the general consensus amongst a lot of players that play EDH (maybe not everyone in this particular subforum) are of the opinion that they hate having their spells countered. So my thought is that maybe people just don't want the best counterspell printer to be played in their format. I am of the opinion that if you can afford to buy a Mana Drain then you have earned the right to play the card. Granted, this is all online and we don't need to actually purchase the cards we play with so maybe that doesn't necessarily apply here.
Mana Drain allows you one turn to do something silly with the mana you've gotten from the card. This is not a repeatable effect. It is a one shot deal. It is situational. Sometimes you have it and sometimes you do not. Just because you countered a spell with Mana Drain does not mean you win, either. Yes, you will be able to do something pretty silly on your next turn but you do not necessarily win.
Hermit Druid, on the other hand, allows you that "Oops, I win" scenario where Mana Drain does not. I do not think I need to repeat previously stated reasons as to why Hermit Druid should be banned. However, I do think that if we are considering making changes to our banned list all the cards should be of the same power level. I do not see how Mana Drain and Hermit Druid are of the same power level. Yes, it is a very strong card but it is situational. Sure, sometimes you win with it but that is not a guarantee. Hermit Druid says, "I win."
I have been playing with Mana Drain for quite some time now. Yes, I will admit that I have done some pretty stupid things off of a Mana Drain (turn three Thraximundar) but I would say that it usually is not as amazing as everyone thinks it is. I think the criteria we should be looking for when considering banning a card is consistency.
Library of Alexandria. This card is consistently good. If you see it in your opening seven you are more inclined to keep your hand. I use it in my deck and I know that every time I see Library in my opening seven I'm keeping it because I know that it will dig me in to a better hand. Notice something here? LoA is repeatable. It sticks around. LoA is certainly not a one shot wonder by any means. Do you see the comparison I am making here? Hermit Druid and Library of Alexandria are consistent and do not rely on their opponent to be good like Mana Drain does.
I realize that I've made a lot of comparison to poor old Hermit Druid, this is because I think it is a card that we've more or less decided should get the axe. I'm using that as the control subject to compare Mana Drain against. At the very least, I hope I have offered an opposing opinion in defense of Mana Drain.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and hopefully we can continue this great discussion that we are having.
I'm absolutely against lowering the starting life, I played some games with 20 life, and it is not better by any means, it is just not feel like playing EDH... I don't want to play singleton legacy.
Perhaps then this is the source of the difference of opinion. I for one think that singleton Legacy with a commander sounds like a fun competitive and open format.
(not implying that the banlist needs to emulate Leagcy's)
Library of Alexandria. This card is consistently good. If you see it in your opening seven you are more inclined to keep your hand. I use it in my deck and I know that every time I see Library in my opening seven I'm keeping it because I know that it will dig me in to a better hand. Notice something here? LoA is repeatable. It sticks around. LoA is certainly not a one shot wonder by any means. Do you see the comparison I am making here? Hermit Druid and Library of Alexandria are consistent and do not rely on their opponent to be good like Mana Drain does.
My issue is that Library isn't consistent at all. I have played the card an awful lot, and it's more or less a 50/50 split of it being great and just another land. Seriously, even with my Thrax and Niv lists, both of which are more likely to have 7 card hands than 95% of other decks (by design), the card is strictly worse than a basic land half of the time. To me, that is the very definition of inconsistent.
Yes, Library is very powerful, and it can win games if left unchecked; however, it's also going to sit there and do nothing but tap for 1 a lot of the time. I don't agree with those who feel it should be banned, but that is largely irrelevant to me as I never play online, only IRL locally, and we developed our own 1v1 banned list that has a few differences from the MTGS banned list.
I agree with xCHRISTIANx that banning Mana Drain seems a bit silly, and that most people want it gone because it's a 2cc counter; I have Drained many times and been unable to do anything with the additional mana, so in some cases it's just another copy of Counterspell that costs you $80. Yes, the mana boost can cause a lot of ridiculous things to occur, but the truly insane plays with it, at least in my experience, are in the minority.
The biggest problem in this discussion is the transition from multiplayer EDH, which is based on "bigger" and more "epic" game states and is generally more casual in nature, to the 1v1 EDH that is far more competitive and caters to a different group of people.
In fact, it is a different format just like a Sealed format is a different format to Twin-Headed Giant. Each requires different deckbuilding skills, priorities, and the strength of certain cards will wax and wane accordingly.
Some cards in EDH are strong in 1v1 play. Some cards are very strong. What's the difference between a card that's good vs. a card that is too good? Each card will improve its owner's chance of winning by a certain percentage, a number which we cannot strictly define, but we know that certain cards like Ancestral Recall will improve this percentage beyond a reasonable and acceptable level.
In Vintage cards like Mana Crypt and Tinker and Balance can exist, and often define certain decks, but it is balanced by other competitive decks who are equipped to handle such plays by sporting full sets of Force of Will, Chalice of the Void, or other bounce/removal. The key here is that you have a reasonable chance to open on a Force in your opener in Vintage - over 40% in any given game. You have a little more than 7% to see that Force in your opening 7 for EDH. The ability for EDH decks to handle broken plays is considerably less than the same for, say, an average competitive Vintage deck which could answer that Tinker and create an interesting game.
The ultimate question is which cards push the boundaries on too powerful for an EDH environment and which ones go past that boundary.
Currently the biggest hurdle for this question, at least in this discussion, is the life total. The life total will dictate whether certain cards are or are not too powerful for the environment. I don't think 20 life is an appropriate number for 1v1 EDH. Yes, aggro decks suffer from having to cut through 30 life instead of 20, and they also suffer the most from the inconsistency that defines the EDH format. But you know what? They also gain the most by various tricks and engines such as Survival of the Fittest or Skullclamp. We don't play EDH to rehash the typical aggro-beatdown-20-to-0 strategy that is available to other formats. EDH is supposed to be more interesting. Aggressive decks can exist, but they have to do more than just hope their beatdown squad gets there on its own. 30 life promotes more interaction, which in turn promotes more interesting game dynamics, and frankly there is still a lot of room for aggressive decks to do their thing. Surprisingly I would say having 30 life would promote a number of aggressive strategies that wouldn't exist otherwise, namely ones built around a quick 21 general damage. After all, what is the purpose of 20 life if it deletes an entire aspect of the game?
Moving on, like it or not the format already contains a wide variety of quick combo kills like Oath and Hermit Druid. It makes no sense to ban the Painter/Grindstone combo yet leave Hermit Druid available for play. There needs to be a choice made that all quick and stupid combos leave, or they all stay. Personally if cards like Protean Hulk, Grindstone, and Time Vault are banned then the other quick combos need to go as well. Crucible fits into this category as well. I'm of the opinion that such cards need to go. They are not fun at all, especially in a format like EDH that doesn't have the consistency to answer them.
Similarly, Mind Twist and Sundering Titan are also perfectly safe to remove. Gifts may look scary, but it's not nearly as powerful as currently existing cards. Upheaval is also not as powerful as currently existing cards for a similar price.
There is one card in particular on the banlist that has no business being there, but it relates more to generals than it does the individual card. The card I mean is Staff of Domination. This card has no place here, and it is only the culprit of the elephant in the room - Rofellos. Rofellos is a broken mana engine and really doesn't belong being legal as a general, especially if it results in collateral damage like banning Staff of Domination. Staff is fine, remove the problem of Rofellos.
Clique is an obvious ban.
Braids and Erayo, while not fun to play against, open up different deckbuilding options. Erayo is more annoying than anything, but it just doesn't win due to its fragile nature. These cards are fine for competitive 1v1 play much in the same way that a mass LD deck filled with Stone Rains is fine. Nobody enjoys playing against it, but when it boils down to it we're here to play competitively and Erayo doesn't have the ability to win like other generals do.
Balance is powerful, but when you Wrath their board you also Mind Twist yourself. It's fine because it's a singleton effect. If decks want to tutor for it, let them because the card doesn't win the game straight up; it creates new and interesting board states where either player could pull out on top.
Mana Drain is also powerful. Yes it will win a number of 1v1 games because the player drew Drain and the other player got wrecked. I can name dozens of other cards that fit into this category like Demonic Tutor, Skullclamp, or Survival of the Fittest. But none of this is worth banning.
Library is stupid. Ban it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeHermit Druid - This always struck me as being about the same as Painter's Servant. We have Grindstone banned; they have Painter's banned. I wouldn't miss it.
Oath of Druids - I can see arguments for it as well but I really can't speak as I've not played against it so far.
Survival of the Fittest - I think this still falls in the realm of merely powerful. It's remarkably efficient, but it forces your card choices to be the creature version of the answers. The creature versions cost more making this still an attackable strategy.
Balance - Again, I've not had this played against me, but I certainly don't want to either. I really don't see being able to play around this card. I don't think I'd miss it.
Library of Alexandria - I have no idea why this is still around. It's quite frankly obscene.
Tolarian Academy - Very attackable and not as easy to exploit in 1v1. I don't see it being an issue.
The 20 life issue - I am also not a fan. Haven't tried it but just doesn't seem like EDH. When I was playing combo I definitely feel the difference from 40 to 30. I don't think it would be stable with another reduction.
Partial Paris - Second that partial paris is quite unneeded and polarizing. It was awesome for me playing 5c storm. It's terrible playing R/G. (Yes, I can hold onto the Grim Lavamancer/Punishing Fire against Braids. They're not shipping the Thoughtseize/Snuff Out.)
Braids - Yeah, it'll be playable without PP. It won't be nearly as stable.
Erayo - This seems held in check as much by being fragile as by there's few who'd want to run the damnable thing through a whole tournament. I also don't see it being worth the attention to ban.
Rofellos - Yep, he's powerful but his presence seems to help keep everyone honest.
Clique - Yes, it would have a harder time at 20 life. Assuming it stays at 30 though? It does seem to warp the format. The question is, do we like the format we have when Clique isn't around compared to the one we had before?
Given the powers to do so, I'd probably nix Hermit Druid and Balance for stabilities sake, nix Library because that should've been done forever ago and I've not heard a compelling word to keep it, go back to the big deck mull, and keep Clique as the only disallowed general. Once the format settles, try allowing Clique and see if it warps anything.
I also got a chance to play with Christian although we only got one game in before he had to leave, He was at 7 life (Playing with 20) when he stabilized and I had plain lost to THraximunder.
When I have time I'm going to play V-Clique to hell against Isamaru. I am sad to see the life total change because Sylvan Libary/Dark Tutelage ends up hurting alot more punishing control decks even more so. Aggro decks currently are made to deal with the 30 lfie total (They really don't run out of gas they just lose to card advantage or they get comboed.)
What I cannot stand with Clique in the format is why in gods name would you play Ismaru over Clique in a 30 lifetotal format. Just like partial paris you are pretty much at a disadvantage because your opponent starts at 21 life while you start at 30. This is my biggest argument with the life total change. Me and Killkeny had some conversation or more so arguing because this is a heated debate. I would be fine with the ban list change and life totals stay the same. But if Clique is to be unbanned I would not be happy unless life totals change as well.
I will keep playing games (this weekend everyone will be home so well get alot of games in), playing games with Clique and Ill let you guys go.
Currently I'm Slanted Towards the bannings of Balance, Hermit Druid, and Library of Alexandria. I believe that these are fair bannings.
I think the hermit druid combo deck is just like Roffellos however. You just lose if you dont have a answer. I want to have the longer games that people play edh for. Roffellos and Hermit Druid and maybe even Braids all share these Qualities that turn the format into a coinflip. This along with the bannning of serra ascendant show that the french did not want the format to devolve in this manner.
Keep in mind that my opinions are towards a conservative ban list, And keeping the power level in between vintage and legacy.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeThinking of that last game we played (my Radha vs Braids), I think I lost 20 or 24 to my Sylvan Library. Generally, the deck with G is the aggro deck, and I needed those cards. Also, the line between getting outdone by CA and running out of gas seems an unnecessary distinction, but otherwise not sure how you'd interpet this.
You could justify Rofellos/Braids bannings, but that seems like slippery slope territory to me. I think getting rid of PP would be enough of a factor to let them stick around.
Library of Alexandria, Hermit Druid, and Balance are far too swingy and undercosted. The other cards are strong, but don't seem format-warping by any means (though Oath of Druids at least gets an honorable mention from me). Also, at this point, it's good to note that Braids seems to be performing fairly dismally even with the PP mulligan.
Speaking of which, the big deck mull seems preferable to the Partial Paris on the grounds that the PP just feels like change for the sake of change. Its benefits are more or less canceled out by its detriments, so why not mulligan the same way as the rest of the Magic-playing world? (EDIT: The rest of the Magic-playing world, +1 card I guess)
Changing the starting life totals to 20 from 30 is undesirable for the reasons previously stated. It would also require yet another re-evaluation of the banned list (are Necropotence and Mindslaver even that good in a 20-life format, for example?).
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Hunter, if you want to bring up the argument that Sylvan Library/Bob/Tutelage/Arena get worse with reducing the life to 20, I will argue in response that we are returning the cards back to their original functionality -- aka the format they were supposed to be in... a 20 life format.
Many of you love EDH because you get to play with almost everything that's busted. This was also one of my initial reasons for beginning to play EDH, but we also need to realize that with a lean ban list, this is a completely broken format. It's fun to be tutoring all day for Balance and hosing your opponent in the process, but we should also be fostering an environment where a large pool of decks can realistically compete, and all archetypes be represented. With the ban list as it is currently, my biggest fear is that the format spirals into degeneracy where the "haves" oppress the "have nots" and the metagame becomes stifled.
Emether's post was fantastic, and it shed amazing insight on why the French metagame is the way it is. When aggro's natural predator (combo) is virtually nonexistent, of course it's going to be all over the place. We often forget that making 5c combo decks online is totally free, taking the price of duals and fetches for granted. Considering EDH isn't even an officially sanctioned format, it makes total sense. Not everyone wants to blow hundreds of dollars on lands, and then subsequently learn how to play the deck.
If we adjusted the ban list now, Library and Balance should be the first two cards to go. If the reason Library is unbanned is because Kevin owns a Library and has huge influence on the French ban list, that's just silly to keep a broken card around because of one person. Balance's power is pretty self-explanatory; a part Mind Twist, part Wrath (that circumvents indestructibility) and part Armageddon is unacceptable.
This is probably one thing that I'll likely be alone on, and I know I'm going to get backlash from those that love black, but we need to take a hard look at the "Tier 1 tutors" as Wizards puts them. Hermit Druid is largely as broken as he is because the decks that abuse him run such an extreme density of tutors that feels like Hermit Druid is the actual general instead. Tutors are already one of the strongest abilities in the entire game, and that strength is further magnified in a singleton format. Black is largely as strong as it is because it has access to so many tutors to help assemble a combo or bail out of a sticky situation for example. At the very least, Vampiric Tutor and Demonic Tutor need to looked at very closely. Tutors are the reason for why Oath and Hermit Druid are so powerful, and also why red and white are weak in comparison.
That being said about tutors, Hermit Druid is ridiculous. My beef with the card is that it issues a one-turn ultimatum to your opponent; if you answer him we continue to play normal Magic, but if you don't have that answer right now, instant game over.
Also, because of all the talk about Hermit Druid and Erayo, I had an interesting thought while I was mulling this over on the way home from work today:
(Nooo, link expired!)
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
@This Thread (and more dirrectly, SC): People that have read my posts know I don't usually talk like this, so sorry for droping a few levels of elloquence here, but are we butthurt much here? EDH is broken, we all know this, and have known it for years. Why now are people comming out the woodwork talking about how Balance should be banned, or the "teir one tutors" or whatever else has been brought up. And SC, your post a few back was quit clearly talking about our Round 2, game 1. I mean, I'm sorry Balance is a blowout? I don't know what to say to that. People that want to play "fair" decks in EDH run the risk of getting run over. It happens in Legacy, it happens in Vintage. It's the nature of the eternal beast, and the answer to it is not "gut the format of everything broken" but "as a builder become more broken." That, or keep trying to play fair decks that can beat up on the broken ones, knowing that sometimes it doesn't work.
That said, Balance probably is too strong for the format. When I first started playing 1v1 with the MTGS banned list, Balance was the card that most suprised me as being legal, but that was over two years ago. If it wasn't bannable then, what has changed?
I, for one, definitely play Second Sunrise in all my decks... and keep three mana open at all times just in case.
But in all seriousness, Balance is banned in Legacy AND the original Highlander format. There are good reasons for this, assuredly. It has absolutely no place in duel EDH, and is only made more problematic when you're limited to certain colors and can't interact with it. Bottom line: it's always been an overpowered card, and is made even MORE overpowered in EDH due to color restrictions.
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
To contextualize my point a bit, at the same time I was arguing that Channel should be banned, as it was fundamentally unfair in what it did, especially in EDH. Many (most) others disagreed with me, so it stayed legal for another 6-9 months. Then Emrakul was printed, and people went crazy. For Balance, what was it's "Emrakul Moment?"
You bring up a great point. Because how does anyone determine anything is even bannable. EDH is played because you get high power cards.
Emether noted that the ban list in france is constructed out of 4 reasons (Cost, Coinflip, something else..)
I'm all for the minumal amount of cards. Every point I've heard is valid except for someone mentioning necropotenance can be unbanned.
The banlist Should be cards that require dexterity (one can argue even this but to mantain similarities with other formats) and One card Wins. The problem comes to saying what a one card win is.
Is Serra Ascendant a one card win? In Essence yes. If the life total was brought down to 20 this card won't be scary at all.
Sol Ring/ Mana Crypt. Huge mana Advantage....
Necropotenance/Bargain. Card advantage doesn't neccessarily give you the win just like mana.
But are these cards way to flipish? that their is no way of really countering these effects outside of pure luck.
Tinker- A tutor, accelerant all in one package, This is a common excepted card that is to swingy in the format.
TimeVault/Grindstone. Time Vault some people argue ruined vintage. Again these colorless comboes could fit in every deck, Yet mostly everyone agrees that there 2 easy to assemble. At least DD and Hexmage requires colors and a turn to react...?
Gifts Ungiven ( I know the power of the card), But its the only tutor on the list that is deemed way too powerful.
Sundering Titan- Disruption that annihilates manabases no matter what you do about it. Its intresting to note that this card is 8 mana.
It's also intresting to note that Protean Hulk is banned while Hermit Druid is not.....
So looking at the ban list ( I selected examples I know) its intresting to note what is deemed overpowered for the format.
I mean Hell Crucible of Worlds, Mindslaver, Upheavel, Staff are all banned.
So what Did I really just say here. Their is a very fine line that we cross. Just like Legacy we have to adjust our ban list. I really don't know where to go from here. I think we need to establish the ban list and settle matters such as PP and Lifetotals later. After settling the ban list we can also look at Rofl. and V-Clique from there.
Should Balance be banned? Thats what we need to decide on.
Agreed, they're handled hand in hand in my opinion. Are we seriously considering changing the life totals, or are we just throwing it out there and discussing it and see what happens? I'm up for trying it out and seeing what happens, but I honestly don't think it's going to happen. When I play on MWS and someone joins my game that doesn't necessarily know the banned list we use and our starting life totals, they usually flip when I explain to them that we start at 30 life. Now, if these are the types of people that we are trying to get more interested in 1v1 (that is, the multiplayer player) how do we honestly think that they're going to want to play with half of their starting life total?
I think it would be harder to get people interested in our take on the format if we change the life totals. I mean, yeah we might see it as necessary for the health of our format but I doubt that outsiders will understand why we did what we did. I have a feeling it will just end up as all of us playing against ourselves. I mean, even though I like you guys a lot I don't necessarily want to play against ONLY you guys, you know what I mean?
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
Nah, Strip Mine is absolutely necessary. There are some lands that absolutely need to be dealt with. They've been discussed in this thread all ready. Crucible of Worlds makes recurring it far too easy and it can easily slip in to any deck.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
I’ve been fooling around with clique and sure I’m not losing a ton of games. But Versus Isamaru it’s impossible. Lyzolda along with Sygg is a pain as well. Radha was better simply because she’s slower in nature. These games were played at 30 life. 20 Life it would have been the same result.
Do we give up a characteristic of the format? Everything is convoluted. Chris (note how I called you chris ) is right when new comers barely come into the format. If you notice the forum is really 5 people just talking.
I’m personally against 20 life totals, simply because in a highlander format your going to draw blanks no matter how good your deck is.
Partial Paris in the same way has to exist because there are no sideboards (nor do I wish their to be). Your deck needs to be able to deal with every deck. Partial Paris helps you find the tools against combo and agro, just as it is abused by combo to help combo off.
So in the end I think surprisingly I’m not for the change in the main rules at all. The ban list however is different. But I’m afraid with different views and noone in a position of power nothing will come from this talk but talk (notice how the ban list hasn’t changed).
We have a rules committee for our banned list, don't we? I'd like to see a list of who all is on that. Changes need to be made and I'm hoping that we can reach agreements without throwing hissy fits. Maybe we could have a poll to elect someone to be put in charge? LOL DEMOCRACY? Hunter245 just mentioned to me that we should all go in to a chat room and have a discussion. I think this is a great idea if we can get as many people as we possibly can together at once online. Any thoughts?
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
That doesn't really feel big enough to me, to be honest.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
I am for the "big deck mull" over the partial pairs mulligan. I think that partial pairs is far too forgiving, mostly, and I would prefer the uniformity of the mulligan rules in this matter. It's easy to explain that the life total got a boost, but clunky to explain that the mulligan rules are different.
As far as bannings go: my philosophy on banning a card is that the ban list should be as long as necessary, so that the health of the format can be guarded the most. The health of the format is a nebulous thing, but I believe that it comes from having games that focus less on a couple key cards and more on building a game environment where the deck builders get to build interactive decks without sacrificing due to some half formed notion of "fair" or "non-douchey".
In that manner, I support banning:
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Hermit Druid
Balance
I also support banning Rofellos as a general because he is a complete blowout and does the same polarizing effect that I believe Khymera proved with Clique. Maybe they need to be revisted, in which case, I suggest we make a public Rofellos and Clique list and have that be the optimized list. When we have a question about if they can get out of general time out, then we can load up those decks, reoptimize them, and see how many skulls get crushed.
I think that Braids can be given a chance to play, but should be watched for whatever reason she got put on there in the first place.
I think that the amount of discussion that these cards get is somewhat proof, and I think that more importantly, if we look at Vintage and Legacy ban lists as some sort of guideline, cards like these are on their and have proven to be problem cards in the past.
@d0su: I think that the reason I'm more comfortable with a triangle set up than a coin flip is that it feels less random and while I want a small amount of randomization in my game, I do not want enough to turn the game into a coin flip. With a rock-paper-scissors set up, the archetypes give me broad access to different winning strategies and unlike RPS, an unfavorable match up is not an unwinnable one. It's one of the easier ways for me to think about balanced strategies against one another. I would be okay with adding more archetypes though, but I don't know how to effectively do that for a game.
Omnath: he's on PCP
RW Redirection
My 360 Pauper Cube
@lifetotals
This is silly. I'm a bigger fan of re-errata'd cards. For example, Serra Ascendant is one of the best white drops in the format if you play it literally. People need to change how they play/rule over these guys. There are several other cards that need to be re-errata'd.
@Hermit being banned
Putting him on the B/R list comes with ALL tutor generals (Zur, Arcum, Erayo, etc) and a other ridiculous cards (Library, Balance, Oath, Survival, Mind over Matter, etc). I want to make things clear: he's fair. He isn't an instant GG and if you come out with that argument, please take a look at some of the cards I motion to. He's not at the top of the list to ban.
@tutors
This is a tough situation. In legacy, we are losing tutors for a variety of reasons....the simplest being the "dumb" interactions new cards have with older cards. The analogy is that tutors are like wine....they get better with age.
Really? Back when the 1cc tutors were made, the game wasn't as complex and deep as it is now. Forget power-creep...I'm talking combo-creep. We're only going to see more insane/silly/unfair/fair/questionable interactions as time goes on.
What has been done? Wizards cannot properly figure out how to deal with this situation. It's a fact. The more cards you print, the more 1-2, 1-2-3, or bigger interactions you'll have. For example, where mystical tutor used to grab [insert older card], a combination of power creep and newer + stronger synergies will make it better as it ages. In legacy, we just had survival of the fittest banned because of its interaction with basking rootwalla and vengevine (amongst other issues).
I've come to the conclusion that you either ban all these aggressive tutors (non aggressive being something like Trinket Mage) or stop whining that combo is dominant.
Archetypes in a format come as a reaction to players' options. Aggro and Control are undoubtedly outclassed atm because the format caters to a wide variety of "find your puzzle piece" strategies that almost always result in "well I just win" effects. The amount of infinite loops and backbreaking combo's simply comes with the territory.
People should also realize the internet and MTG sites further streamline ideas for better and for worse. Combo atm is the best route to play because there is little holding it in check. If you cut out these aggressive tutors and cut out tutoring generals, you'll see a heavy drop-off in combo's power level. This will undoubtedly piss some off, but I believe it would bring us closer to the Rock-Paper-Scissors archetype analysis.
@Fixing the format
As it stands right now, EDH is what Type 1 wants to be. Read that again. Nobody has made this connection yet, but it's hard to argue against it. Forget the whole 'general' crap for a minute....you want to have a super-deep card pool + see all-star cards. Think about that for a minute. Seriously. The 'general' concept is just deckbuilding flair thrown on top of this "T1 as it should be" ideology. Overall it's extremely interesting to see how this young format is taking off.
In some ways, the creators and early EDH peeps tried to mitigate the damage T1 has. Obvious card interactions like turn 1 Tinker --> DSC/BSC have no place in any format. The same goes for Lotus + Moxen and the initial B/R list. However, with more joining into this bizarre format, it's clear that we need to revamp the system. I honestly don't care what the end result is...as long as there was careful consideration. Ultimately, all EDH players need to get on the same page.
I've been running off the MTGS B/R list + the original 40 life. I have fun with it. I think people get into very deep discussions online here because this clearly means a lot to them. At its core, the "correcting" of EDH has a fundamental question attached to it: how balanced would you like the format to be? Would you really like rock-paper-scissors so everyone has a chance? You'll need to do A LOT to get there. Lots of people will complain and rant and flame if you actually came up with a fair version of the format because most of these players will be on the losing end of the spectrum. Competitive EDH almost always ends with some sort of straight-up combo and it's why I prefer things on the causal end. Coin-flip MTG "just happens" if you let EDH B/R stay at a similar level imo.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I have to be brief right now, so I'll make some quick hits and come back later.
Starting life:
This could go either way. The best argument against change is the "feel of the format," which is admittedly nebulous. I think that the best reason for change (which was briefly touched on by Surging Chaos) is that Magic cards are all inherently balanced around a life total of 20. By using a different starting life total, we're effectively neutering dozens of would-be aggressive cards, while turbo-charging another subset of cards like Ad Nauseum, Sylvan Library, Necropotence, Dark Tutelage, and so on. This is a problem that is only going to get worse, as Wizards have printed far more "life total matters" cards like Felidar Sovereign, Serra Ascendant, and Sorin Markov in recent sets than ever before.
I'm slightly in favor of changing the starting life to 20, since I think that bringing present and future cards in line with their intended power level is fairly important for long-term innovation. If some cards are just way better than they're supposed to be (like Sylvan Library), and some are way worse (like Baneslayer Angel), there's less room for new ideas. I don't think that changing starting life will have a huge impact on the average length of games or the viability of aggro (it's already viable, and will remain so). Decks will adjust. It's not imperative that this change happens though.
Partial Paris:
Again, I could go either way. I don't feel that either mulligan method is horrible, but both have their faults. Mutedequilibrium definitely has a point that some decks can "abuse" the partial paris much more than others, and that the most broken decks that can use it the best. It also allows fast decks to successfully skimp on land drops to a significant degree, which is not really a good thing for deck construction.
However, the biggest problem I see with eliminating the PP mulligan is that it actually plays a huge role in keeping speedy "1 card combo" generals in check. You say that Braids makes the best use of the PP mulligan, but I think she would actually be a lot stronger without it. This is even more true for Rofellos, Zur, Arcum, and Hermit Druid decks. Rofellos in particular is only consistently beatable because the PP mulligan allows you to find a hand with spot removal.
With a big deck mulligan, you can't really afford to mull speculatively, because you run a major risk of drawing a new hand that's just unplayable. I can imagine playing against Rofellos and mulling down to almost nothing because you see your starting hand and you KNOW it's not fast enough to beat Rofellos. So you throw it back a few times, and then the game is over before it even began because you weren't able to find a quick enough hand. That's a crappy way to lose a game.
So, I want to eliminate the PP mulligan, because I do find it very flawed, but I think that Rofellos and Zur would begin to dominate without it. I'm not sure what the solution is. I can imagine a sort of hybrid between the big deck mulligan and the PP paris...say you could only keep lands. You'd draw your opening 7, set aside any number of lands (face-up to avoid cheating), and then big deck mull the rest of your hand. This would stop you from hanging onto a combo piece and searching for more, but allow you mull more aggressively because you know you won't be stuck a landless stinker. I'm not sure this would be any better, but it's an idea.
Commanders:
Braids:
Partial Paris or not, Braids is fine. She's not tier 1, maybe not even tier 1.5.
Erayo:
Same deal as Braids. The deck may be annoying, but it doesn't have an especially high win-loss ratio. I do understand why the French wanted to ban her, but I can't agree with the decision: it's way too much of a slippery slope.
Clique:
This could go either way. Honestly, the decision isn't so much about whether Clique can be beaten anymore as about whether we like what it does to the metagame. As Emether said, "Basically, no combo deck can win against Clique" and "Clique also beats control decks." The French seem to want a combo-free, aggro-defined metagame, and making Clique legal is a good way to achieve that. It works for them. However, I don't think that we actually do want that here. If we want combo to be at all viable (and I believe that we do), then Clique should remain banned. For those who want to play a Clique-like deck, Wydwen provides a more than acceptable substitute that still permits combo and control decks a fighting chance.
I want to mention the "coin flip" thing here too. As the raptor says, a rock-paper-scissors metagame is usually a good thing, while a coin flip game is bad. The key thing to note is that, in Magic, rock doesn't always beat scissors, and so on. It has an advantage, maybe 60-40 or so, but it's not the certain victor every time. It's not a coin flip at all. Scissors might even be able to adjust to an in-between point (like aggro-control) where it has an even matchup against both rock and paper. The point being, the metagame is fluid and not totally match-up dependent. Clique doesn't really fit into any of the other archetypes. To extend the metaphor, you might call it "gun." Clique (when played well) is basically a true coin flip: it really is going to beat combo every time and control almost every time. This is what we don't like. It's frustrating for the combo pilots and boring for the Clique pilots. Since I want to avoid this situation, I'm in favor of keeping Clique banned.
Rofellos:
This is a tough one. I'm in favor of keeping him unbanned...but provisionally. As I've said, I do understand why the French chose to ban him, and in this case I think it was a reasonable decision. As with Clique, the issue is not so much whether Rofellos is beatable, but rather what he does to the metagame. If Rofellos is legal, competitive decks need to be running lots of spot removal (or be very, very fast). With the Partial Paris mulligan, I think the key number of removal slots to be able to consistently handle Rofellos is about 6, which seems reasonable. With the big deck mulligan, I think this number goes up quite a bit, which may no longer be reasonable.
I think that the French were trying to make a metagame where competitive decks aren't forced to play tons of spot removal if they don't want to. This is a format design decision: do you force people to load up on these spells or not? There isn't a definitive answer, but it's still an important question to be asking ourselves. I think the argument for not requiring so much removal is strong (more color combinations become competitive, more space in decks for innovation, less importance on the speed of starting hands). At this point, I'm inclined to say that Rofellos is okay with the Partial Paris mulligan...but if we are to revert to the big deck mulligan, as is being suggested, I think he very well might need to be banned again so as not to warp the metagame around him.
Keep in mind that the closest parallel to Rofellos is Hermit Druid, which most people seem to be in favor of banning. True, a turn 3 Rofellos activation doesn't immediately win the game...but it very often wins the game nonetheless, and you ALWAYS have turn 2 Rofellos. If Hermit Druid is deemed too difficult to reasonably handle, Rofellos might easily be too.
Banlist:
I'd say that Library of Alexandria, Balance, and Mana Drain need to go. The rest I'm less sure about. I'm inclined to say that Oath of Druids and Survival of the Fittest are fine, and that Hermit Druid and Tolarian Academy are borderline.
Oath can be dealt with in numerous ways: you have a turn to destroy it, or sacrifice your creatures, or just deal with the creature(s) it produces. None of these things are necessarily easy, but between them I think there are plenty of answers in just about any deck. I don't think I've ever played Oath in EDH myself, but I've beaten it lots of times.
Survival is very powerful, but it's slow and has its limitations. I've played with and against it a LOT, and it certainly doesn't always win games or anything like that.
Hermit Druid and Tolarian Academy are both dangerous because they're so fast. Tolarian Academy is definitely weaker without Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, but it's still really strong, and fast mana is just about the most dangerous thing for 1v1 balance. I made a Jhoira deck recently with the aim of abusing Tolarian Academy as much as possible. I'm still testing it to see just how good it is...but, well, it's still bonkers every time I use it. Any way you cut it, Academy is very very close to the dividing line between "really good" and "too good."
Balance never really had an "Emrakul moment," by the way. I believe that I was the one who thought it was strong but fair, but the reason it was unbanned in the first place is because the French had been playing with it for a while, and they seemed to feel it was fine. It seemed worth testing. After a lot more hands-on experience with the card (and more input from the French), it's become clear that the card is a bit too strong. I think it would actually be okay at like 4 mana, but as is it's just too cheap to realistically play around, so it tends to just win games it has no business winning. For the record though, Balance still isn't nearly as good as most people think it is. I keep reading that it's "Wrath AND Armageddon AND Mind Twist," and that's just not true. It's more typically like Wrath OR Armageddon OR Mind Twist, and you don't always gets to choose which (and sometimes you have to Mind Twist yourself). It's still way too good for two mana, but it's not quite as consistently backbreaking as people seem to think it is.
I'd also like to consider unbanning Mind Twist, Mindslaver, and Sundering Titan. I've been playing a fair amount of 1v1 with the multiplayer banlist online, and these cards just aren't that busted, since they're expensive. (Mind Twist can be cheap, but it's strictly worse than Hymn to Tourach until 4 mana, and even then it's not that much better). The expensive artifacts require some doing to get into play with the broken fast mana banned, and even then they don't always win the game. I think they're fine. Also, if Rofellos was banned as a general, Staff of Domination could be safely unbanned. If we did decide to go for 20 starting life, there's a good chance that Necropotence and maybe even Yawgmoth's Bargain could be unbanned, which I admit I'd sort of like to see.
(Yes, that was brief. Sue me. More to come in a day or two.)
Library I have been for banning for a long time, so no complaint there.
All this talk about Mana Drain, though, is confusing. I don't recall it ever seriously being talked about for banning, yet numerous voices now are coming out against it. I understand the card is good and its strictly better than Counterspell, but how did it go from off the radar to in the middle of the discussion?
Mana Drain allows you one turn to do something silly with the mana you've gotten from the card. This is not a repeatable effect. It is a one shot deal. It is situational. Sometimes you have it and sometimes you do not. Just because you countered a spell with Mana Drain does not mean you win, either. Yes, you will be able to do something pretty silly on your next turn but you do not necessarily win.
Hermit Druid, on the other hand, allows you that "Oops, I win" scenario where Mana Drain does not. I do not think I need to repeat previously stated reasons as to why Hermit Druid should be banned. However, I do think that if we are considering making changes to our banned list all the cards should be of the same power level. I do not see how Mana Drain and Hermit Druid are of the same power level. Yes, it is a very strong card but it is situational. Sure, sometimes you win with it but that is not a guarantee. Hermit Druid says, "I win."
I have been playing with Mana Drain for quite some time now. Yes, I will admit that I have done some pretty stupid things off of a Mana Drain (turn three Thraximundar) but I would say that it usually is not as amazing as everyone thinks it is. I think the criteria we should be looking for when considering banning a card is consistency.
Library of Alexandria. This card is consistently good. If you see it in your opening seven you are more inclined to keep your hand. I use it in my deck and I know that every time I see Library in my opening seven I'm keeping it because I know that it will dig me in to a better hand. Notice something here? LoA is repeatable. It sticks around. LoA is certainly not a one shot wonder by any means. Do you see the comparison I am making here? Hermit Druid and Library of Alexandria are consistent and do not rely on their opponent to be good like Mana Drain does.
I realize that I've made a lot of comparison to poor old Hermit Druid, this is because I think it is a card that we've more or less decided should get the axe. I'm using that as the control subject to compare Mana Drain against. At the very least, I hope I have offered an opposing opinion in defense of Mana Drain.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and hopefully we can continue this great discussion that we are having.
MTGSalvation 1v1 EDH Community Members List
Perhaps then this is the source of the difference of opinion. I for one think that singleton Legacy with a commander sounds like a fun competitive and open format.
(not implying that the banlist needs to emulate Leagcy's)
My issue is that Library isn't consistent at all. I have played the card an awful lot, and it's more or less a 50/50 split of it being great and just another land. Seriously, even with my Thrax and Niv lists, both of which are more likely to have 7 card hands than 95% of other decks (by design), the card is strictly worse than a basic land half of the time. To me, that is the very definition of inconsistent.
Yes, Library is very powerful, and it can win games if left unchecked; however, it's also going to sit there and do nothing but tap for 1 a lot of the time. I don't agree with those who feel it should be banned, but that is largely irrelevant to me as I never play online, only IRL locally, and we developed our own 1v1 banned list that has a few differences from the MTGS banned list.
I agree with xCHRISTIANx that banning Mana Drain seems a bit silly, and that most people want it gone because it's a 2cc counter; I have Drained many times and been unable to do anything with the additional mana, so in some cases it's just another copy of Counterspell that costs you $80. Yes, the mana boost can cause a lot of ridiculous things to occur, but the truly insane plays with it, at least in my experience, are in the minority.
Just my thoughts.
In fact, it is a different format just like a Sealed format is a different format to Twin-Headed Giant. Each requires different deckbuilding skills, priorities, and the strength of certain cards will wax and wane accordingly.
Some cards in EDH are strong in 1v1 play. Some cards are very strong. What's the difference between a card that's good vs. a card that is too good? Each card will improve its owner's chance of winning by a certain percentage, a number which we cannot strictly define, but we know that certain cards like Ancestral Recall will improve this percentage beyond a reasonable and acceptable level.
In Vintage cards like Mana Crypt and Tinker and Balance can exist, and often define certain decks, but it is balanced by other competitive decks who are equipped to handle such plays by sporting full sets of Force of Will, Chalice of the Void, or other bounce/removal. The key here is that you have a reasonable chance to open on a Force in your opener in Vintage - over 40% in any given game. You have a little more than 7% to see that Force in your opening 7 for EDH. The ability for EDH decks to handle broken plays is considerably less than the same for, say, an average competitive Vintage deck which could answer that Tinker and create an interesting game.
The ultimate question is which cards push the boundaries on too powerful for an EDH environment and which ones go past that boundary.
Currently the biggest hurdle for this question, at least in this discussion, is the life total. The life total will dictate whether certain cards are or are not too powerful for the environment. I don't think 20 life is an appropriate number for 1v1 EDH. Yes, aggro decks suffer from having to cut through 30 life instead of 20, and they also suffer the most from the inconsistency that defines the EDH format. But you know what? They also gain the most by various tricks and engines such as Survival of the Fittest or Skullclamp. We don't play EDH to rehash the typical aggro-beatdown-20-to-0 strategy that is available to other formats. EDH is supposed to be more interesting. Aggressive decks can exist, but they have to do more than just hope their beatdown squad gets there on its own. 30 life promotes more interaction, which in turn promotes more interesting game dynamics, and frankly there is still a lot of room for aggressive decks to do their thing. Surprisingly I would say having 30 life would promote a number of aggressive strategies that wouldn't exist otherwise, namely ones built around a quick 21 general damage. After all, what is the purpose of 20 life if it deletes an entire aspect of the game?
Moving on, like it or not the format already contains a wide variety of quick combo kills like Oath and Hermit Druid. It makes no sense to ban the Painter/Grindstone combo yet leave Hermit Druid available for play. There needs to be a choice made that all quick and stupid combos leave, or they all stay. Personally if cards like Protean Hulk, Grindstone, and Time Vault are banned then the other quick combos need to go as well. Crucible fits into this category as well. I'm of the opinion that such cards need to go. They are not fun at all, especially in a format like EDH that doesn't have the consistency to answer them.
Similarly, Mind Twist and Sundering Titan are also perfectly safe to remove. Gifts may look scary, but it's not nearly as powerful as currently existing cards. Upheaval is also not as powerful as currently existing cards for a similar price.
There is one card in particular on the banlist that has no business being there, but it relates more to generals than it does the individual card. The card I mean is Staff of Domination. This card has no place here, and it is only the culprit of the elephant in the room - Rofellos. Rofellos is a broken mana engine and really doesn't belong being legal as a general, especially if it results in collateral damage like banning Staff of Domination. Staff is fine, remove the problem of Rofellos.
Clique is an obvious ban.
Braids and Erayo, while not fun to play against, open up different deckbuilding options. Erayo is more annoying than anything, but it just doesn't win due to its fragile nature. These cards are fine for competitive 1v1 play much in the same way that a mass LD deck filled with Stone Rains is fine. Nobody enjoys playing against it, but when it boils down to it we're here to play competitively and Erayo doesn't have the ability to win like other generals do.
Balance is powerful, but when you Wrath their board you also Mind Twist yourself. It's fine because it's a singleton effect. If decks want to tutor for it, let them because the card doesn't win the game straight up; it creates new and interesting board states where either player could pull out on top.
Mana Drain is also powerful. Yes it will win a number of 1v1 games because the player drew Drain and the other player got wrecked. I can name dozens of other cards that fit into this category like Demonic Tutor, Skullclamp, or Survival of the Fittest. But none of this is worth banning.
Library is stupid. Ban it.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT