I feel that while both Enchanted Evening and Mycosynth Lattice have very similar effects the stuff like Iona, Sheild of Emeria, All is Dust, and their ilk, the main reason those aren't banned is that while they effect mostly everything, they don't effect the library which is huge and it leaves things colorless or just in their colors which is huge as being able to effect the library is huge.
Now I am one who I'd love to see PS unbanned for the sake of all the johnny things that can happen from an Isochron Scepter with Pyroblast to just having Compost out. The good out weights the evil for me in this case unlike majority of cards on the banned list but comparing PS to EE or ML is an underwhelming comparison in my eyes.
Agree. While PS is a unique card that doesn't in itself does anything busted or broken its interaction with a lot of other cards turns it into a bit of a problem child. We could argue for the ban of the rest of the cards mentioned, but instead of just chopping off the heads of a hydra that ultimately will regrow, I think it is correct to ban the engine itself that enable these cards. It is unfortunate as the effect is unique, but this seems to be a case of killing off one card in order to save many.
the majority of all magic players playing at FNM have ordered singles online
You got a source for this? It's a heck of a statement to just throw in, and I'd wager good money it's wrong.
Meant to say: "And yes, some players only buy boxes and boosters, but the majority of all magic players playing at FNM have at some point ordered singles online so I don't consider this a huge point of contention."
Don't think it changes much regarding your stance on my postulation, but this was what I thought out despite not completing it in text. Sorry for misleading people.
No I don't have a source for this and I don't think anyone's got the number on this, so it was based upon my own observations at my LGS, as well as extrapolating those, believing it to be representative of a greater scale. Given there are players who haven't and likely never will order singles, but alone attending a FNM will expose you to what other people play and thus entice and incentivise people to seek this possibility if attainable. Younger magic players is of course here the point of contention as they don't necessarily have access to online stores, while at the same time not being intimidated by showing up to a local FNM (That is actually a genuine thing among players, basically not wanting to play at local events due to not wanting to expose themselves). As for audiences, that do have the access to buying singles online or at their store, but chooses not to and instead rely on boosters, displays and trades in their local community, I think, are people who already have established local playgroups outside their LGS where everyone operates under the same conditions (In this case cracking boosters and using those to build their decks).
In the end I might be wrong. I might also be right. But we will likely never know for sure. Using my own observations and experiences for commenting is likely what I ever will be able to on this matter, which may be conceited of me to think being representative, but in the end we all to certain degree do this. We argue our case, sharing our experiences to hopefully reach something we all could call agreements or solutions, but alas in the end it is all in the eye of the beholder.
I agree that would be the place to tune if there was a large scale issue with the speed. I just don't think we agree on if there is an issue. Just as you said not ban list can fix power issues, no speed will be perfect for every one. The current game can be fairly quick, but if people are playing at the same level they either expect early answers and/or help from the other players.
The list just can't serve two masters. If there was exactly one card wrecking those types of games (I agree it wouldn't likely exist), I bet it actually would get considered. The issue is with the overall direction, not a single card. The list can be for tournaments, as a baseline for social games, or reasonably short. Pick two.
I think me way need to disagree on this, based on your own statement, that the format banlist and I presume the format itself can't accommodate different audiences namely the high-powered players and low-powered players due to the difference in their approach to the format as well as the format philosophy, correct? As we have already talked about, there will by necessity of how the format currently looks be games where either part won't joy themselves should they be pitted against each other. When such a scenario occurs I think there is a problem. It is not a problem that can be entirely fixed as we have already concluded, but I think it is something that can be alleviated by tweaking the nobs of the format (Mentioned previously) through the banlist, while at the same time raising awareness of etiquette before play. A lot can be fixed by simply asking a few questions before any match, but I think only relying on this as a means to balance an entire format is a bit naive, as many social contracts in the "wild" simply devolve to "Is it on the banlist? If not, fair game". I am not saying it is easy, but I don't think it is impossible either and while it does require some serious effort, then simply dismissing the possibility and accepting a fractured format seems unhealthy in the long run. EDH has already been fractured with Duel Commander, so I think we also need to ask ourselves: How many times will we allow the format to e fractured before considering what can be done to unify us under one banner instead of dismissing part of our community as heretics not understanding the spirit/philosophy of EDH.
Jusstice already pointed out the banlist being so deeply intertwined with the philosophy, that they can no longer be discussed separately and if that is the case, then I would like to see both brought into the light of discussion. Not to radically change the initial thought of EDH, but rather defining clear lines of what is expected, acknowledged and frowned upon and how the banlist reflects those guidelines.
This really sounds like 'people need to get better cards in all their decks'. Thats not something everyone can or should do. Powering up isnt the answer all the time. In a strictly competitive venue thats always the right answer : Find a strat to stop the one thats killing you. In a social format there are other outs, and people should use them.
Allow me to clarify this one as you and others might have misunderstood. No I am not saying people shouldn't play certain cards that does something they desire or enable something cool or fun, but while doing this look for the most efficient version within your budget/reach. Magic players are smart and this is a process many simply does by themselves as it is a very easy and usually affordable way to improve ones deck. To exemplify if you wanna play a blue card draw spell at sorcery that draws you 2 cards, so you put Thoughtcast in knowing your decks contains no artifacts (Hypothetical, so play along), but you could play Divination that costs 2 generic mana less and fulfills the same function while being cheap and affordable. And yes, some players only buy boxes and boosters, but the majority of all magic players playing at FNM have ordered singles online so I don't consider this a huge point of contention.
Because of "availability of suitable replacements are also considered". There are lots cards that do such, they just printed Day's Undoing.
Yeah, but many of those are just bad, when compared to timetwister. What makes it good is the 3 cmc and although Diminishing Returns is close, but lets face it, nobody likes exiling their own library and especially not 10 cards.
The card is not ubiquitous in blue decks. I often actively do not want that type of effect, and if I did, many suitable substitutes are available. Time Spiral is often stronger in this format anyway. There is someone in my area that played Timetwister for a while, simply because he could. I think he took it out, because it wasn't that good.
I am not sure about that, sure you don't want to fill your decks with these kind of effects, but I think many decks if not all blue decks could benefit from a 1 of these. Given certain strategies would likely want other versions like Windfall if they abuse the graveyard etc. However it is still a powerful effect allowing you to reshuffle your yard into your deck, drawing 7 cards if you are out of gas or even hose other players openers should you be able to power it out in 1 or 2 turns due to its low cost of 3 mana. Despite not owning one myself due to the 700$ price, which I don't exactly find cheap, I will use my Day's undoing as a proxy and test it in the near future to be able to provide a better and more informed response.
My initial thought was actually Library of Alexandria, but that was because I mis-remembered it as not producing mana, which does change my stance on it significally. Although I could still see myself swapping Library for another colorless land if the deck really wanted a certain effect. My bad on this one, sorry :S Also I thought Tabernacle was on there (Brain fahrt) -_- All the other expensive cards are pretty much power 9.
Can somebody explain to me what PBtE means? Have seen it thrown around a couple of times, but not sure what it means....
Perceived Barrier to Entry. "Because it’s a non-competitive format, we don’t want players to feel as though they need to spend a great deal of money to be able to play. It is not sufficient for a card to simply be expensive - expected ubiquity and the availability of suitable replacements are also considered. This rule is mostly invoked for cards fifteen or more years out of print and is unlikely to impact the list further."
What the Format Philosophy didn't say is that this is basically reserved solely for the Power 8+1 due to their iconic status and being instantly recognizable, potentially turning people away from the format just by seeing the cards being played.
Then why is Timetwister not on? Seems like a card I would run in every blue deck if it wasn't 1500$.
What do you mean by "off(?)"? It was legal for a while, then banned because the whole game revolved around it. Pro colors makes answers pretty rough, especially after the person most likely to answer just lost 6 permanents
Was more a queston mark to regard me not knowing. Haven't played with it ever, so can't talk from own experience.
#2 - what extremely high dollar cards are on the list which wouldn't be played in most of the legal decks they could be ran in?
#5 - it should be noted that up until RoE there was only one colorless general available if memory serves me, and not many all-in artifact generals. Artifact-heavy builds are still a minority, but they aren't quite the niche deck that they were when Workshop was probably considered safe from PBtE. (Yes, I know it still doesn't have that iconic status)
My initial thought was actually Library of Alexandria, but that was because I mis-remembered it as not producing mana, which does change my stance on it significally. Although I could still see myself swapping Library for another colorless land if the deck really wanted a certain effect. My bad on this one, sorry :S Also I thought Tabernacle was on there (Brain fahrt) -_- All the other expensive cards are pretty much power 9.
Can somebody explain to me what PBtE means? Have seen it thrown around a couple of times, but not sure what it means....
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
For me, the drawback is that Commander has a clean rule which gives it a unique twist and flavor, one which can be seen just by looking at a playing field. In addition to the mess I discussed above, you lose that visual aspect. Plus, Wizards is constantly designing new ways to bend the way color works, so changing the rule not only leaves the RC wide open for a barrage of "why this but not that" questions, but there is no way of knowing what the future holds.
I am all about the flavour argument (Personaly like the visual aspect) and the restrictions this imparts on the player (Restrictions breed creativity), but I still think this is a case of us being sticklers about this rule. As I said I don't acre much about it myself, but like the visual aspect of it, which is also why I am A-ok with them only allowing on-color fetches as a possible rule to come. Even though a card like Wooded foothills don't have any mana symbols on it, then it is still color coded with half of it being red and the other green, which to me, ruins the whole visual cohesion and fidelity otherwise. As long as we allow this I don't think adding hybrid mana would be that far fetched, but again, don't care enough about it to start a riot.
As so much as ANY playerbase can be measured in dozens. The Vintage player base is in the tens to a few hundreds of thousands. While not on the scale of millions, it's still nothing to scoff at.
Considering there are only about 22k black lotuses that even exist, saying the playerbase is in the hundreds of thousands is pure BS to me.
There's a large number of people who play Vintage online, too.
Part of that can be traced to the overarching issue of awareness. There are a great number of players who don't put the effort we do into this format. For many of them they rely upon word of mouth or Wizards for information. That's why it's on us to try and spread the message of what the format is about because Wizards isn't.
That's a reasonable point. But isn't the official EDH website still the place people go?
Yes, but this is considering physical copies of mana crypt opened, so physical players are the only ones pertinent to the discussion.
But didn't you yourself bring up the black lotuses as the reason for a low vintage playerbase? Yes, many players play vintage on MTGO, so the number is very likely higher than the 22K you mentioned. Suddenly changing the argument to Mana Crypts seem confusing to me. As for the actual number of Mana Crypts it is likely lower than 22K as it was only printed as a promo with Eternal Masters being the first set to actually have Mana Crypt in it.
Could come off the ban list to test it for a few months. The thing that seems insane is the extra turn, but you need 15 mana to do that! At that point you deserve something epic. I can however see the issue being the very limited interactivity there is with Emrakul compared to her brethren Kozilek and Ulamogg.
It was legal for awhile, so the data is in. with the new support for colorless cards, yikes.
'Ramp to Ema before someone casts Bribery was far too common a deck.
I wasn't aware of that, but if it has already been tested, then I guess it should be off(?). As for what cards that pushes it Emrakul I can think of Conduit of Ruin as well as Sanctum of Ugin, but that is more in terms of finding her. Personally I think if you let it stay for a while the meta would flow back and forth with people putting it and people answering with cards like bribery causing people to take it out until the answers think out, rinse repeat. But again, wasn't there when it first was tested so what do I know.....
Since it's gotten almost no discussion at all the times I mentioned it, it probably deserves a thread. Sure, it's powerful, but it's also 15 mana.
Could come off the ban list to test it for a few months. The thing that seems insane is the extra turn, but you need 15 mana to do that! At that point you deserve something epic. I can however see the issue being the very limited interactivity there is with Emrakul compared to her brethren Kozilek and Ulamogg.
As long as Sol ring is legal this to me isn't even worth debating. they don't do PBTE bans anymore and this is not near as good as ring/crypt especially in a casuals deck.
Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. - nope as stated sol ring doesnt fit this catogry they are looking at cards that can make 6 mana turn 2 not cards that make 3 artifact only mana turn 1 using your land drop
Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. - They dont ban cards for this reason any more. it not something that most decks want anyway
Creates Undesirable Games/Game Situations. - Nope not even close if someone playing dedicated lock everyone out of playing.dec is an issue at a table its got nothing to do with workshop and also nothing to do with the banlist as they clearly dont follow the RC's vision or play toward the intended spirit of the format this is a stretch anyway...
Interacts Badly With the Structure of Commander - Again playing workshop does not equal playing stax lock this ones not even close pretty cut and dry nothing about it interacts poorly with the format
Warps The Format Strategically - Nope not even close this card being legal has no impact whatsoever.
so not only does it meet none of the criteria buts while i can play mana crypt and sol ring its not even worth discussing.
1) As long as Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are not banned, then there is no need for Workshop to be.
2) They are likely not, but then why are a few very expensive cards on the ban list, which likely aren't that powerful in all types of decks?
3) Agreed. Although I will say it can be a problem, as it is the engine that powers out a lot of those effects, if we are talking stax. As such this might warrant the hammer instead of the pieces that construct the entire archetype itself. In fair artifact decks it is just an even better Ancient Tomb, which at current I don't think there is anything wrong with.
4) Yup
5) Could imagine this being due to the high price point, but since that won't change I can only examine the situation at hand, which is that few people have access to it -> Few people play it --> Its ability to warp the format is thus highly limited as few people need to adpat to it.
Most decks that would play hulk would have sac outlets at the ready.
So you're saying you expect your sac outlets to always live on through a game? Especially the ones that can be used repeatedly for free? 'Cause in that case, I'd raise some serious questions about your group's threat assesment skills.
But again, if two card combos are such a problem (And Hulk requires a lot more moving pieces, none of which may be in your hand by the time you start it) then why do we allow Staff of Domination, Palinchron and a myriad of other things?
There simply is no reason to keep Hulk unbanned. I think the flaw in the RC's testing with it is that they focussed too much on the Hulk. Confirmation bias playing a thing, maybe. In normal games, Hulk will not be abused/copied/reanimated nearly as often. Not every deck capable of doing such will have a sac outlet handy, but more importantly, there's often plenty of better targets around. Except in decks built to combo around Hulk, I cannot think of many times where people will actually want to steal/copy/reanimate it in favor of creatures with powerful ETB effects. On 7 mana you have the likes of Rune-Scarred Demon and Sphinx of Uthuun flying around, and just below that you have Titans.
Hulk is a relic from the past and while it'd be a good value creature (Especially in decks with nice Pod chains, for example), it's far from broken.
I think we are back at trying to regulate the players for using "bad" combinations instead of the card itself, which I think is not the way to go. If that was the case then we could fill up the ban list with cards that people are using in a "bad" way, which would never be ideal. Centralizing is a different matter and if it is as bad as Prophet of Kruphix, then it might stray towards the "Ban Hulk and T+N" camp, but so far I think we could let Hulk loose for a few months see what happens and the re-asses, while keeping "Is it the players choice to do so? or is PH just intrinsically broken?" thought in mind.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
I'm another one who's also quite sick of going round in circles around this topic (I briefly thought of the chain of arguments and my mind "self-regulated-slapped" itself almost immediately for thinking that).
So instead of the typical long arguments I put about how a hybrid card is still mechanically two-colored and so on... let's put it this way:
I see Color Identity as the sum of all the parts of Mana Symbols (that are on the text, not including reminder text) and Color Indicators on a card. It can only be a sum and therefore cannot be "subtracted" by anything that would reduce the color(s) of a card, be it the flexibility of the mana cost, the uselessness of the ability in the text box, or devoid.
Well, put this way, it does sort of feel like a "large inflexible block of a rule", but it also feels simple and elegant (two sides of the same block), the way the Committee likes the rules of the format to be defined.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
I think lowering the life total could alleviate a lot on certain cards (Ad Nauseum and Sylvan Library spring to mind). Having played Duel Commander some time, makes me think that 30 might be more on the right numbering. Would also shorten some games sometimes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. My only issue is with how ingrained the 40 life have become and as such it might be really hard to change although magic players are some of the most adept at managing change and adapting to them, so maybe it could work.
Agree. While PS is a unique card that doesn't in itself does anything busted or broken its interaction with a lot of other cards turns it into a bit of a problem child. We could argue for the ban of the rest of the cards mentioned, but instead of just chopping off the heads of a hydra that ultimately will regrow, I think it is correct to ban the engine itself that enable these cards. It is unfortunate as the effect is unique, but this seems to be a case of killing off one card in order to save many.
Meant to say: "And yes, some players only buy boxes and boosters, but the majority of all magic players playing at FNM have at some point ordered singles online so I don't consider this a huge point of contention."
Don't think it changes much regarding your stance on my postulation, but this was what I thought out despite not completing it in text. Sorry for misleading people.
No I don't have a source for this and I don't think anyone's got the number on this, so it was based upon my own observations at my LGS, as well as extrapolating those, believing it to be representative of a greater scale. Given there are players who haven't and likely never will order singles, but alone attending a FNM will expose you to what other people play and thus entice and incentivise people to seek this possibility if attainable. Younger magic players is of course here the point of contention as they don't necessarily have access to online stores, while at the same time not being intimidated by showing up to a local FNM (That is actually a genuine thing among players, basically not wanting to play at local events due to not wanting to expose themselves). As for audiences, that do have the access to buying singles online or at their store, but chooses not to and instead rely on boosters, displays and trades in their local community, I think, are people who already have established local playgroups outside their LGS where everyone operates under the same conditions (In this case cracking boosters and using those to build their decks).
In the end I might be wrong. I might also be right. But we will likely never know for sure. Using my own observations and experiences for commenting is likely what I ever will be able to on this matter, which may be conceited of me to think being representative, but in the end we all to certain degree do this. We argue our case, sharing our experiences to hopefully reach something we all could call agreements or solutions, but alas in the end it is all in the eye of the beholder.
I think me way need to disagree on this, based on your own statement, that the format banlist and I presume the format itself can't accommodate different audiences namely the high-powered players and low-powered players due to the difference in their approach to the format as well as the format philosophy, correct? As we have already talked about, there will by necessity of how the format currently looks be games where either part won't joy themselves should they be pitted against each other. When such a scenario occurs I think there is a problem. It is not a problem that can be entirely fixed as we have already concluded, but I think it is something that can be alleviated by tweaking the nobs of the format (Mentioned previously) through the banlist, while at the same time raising awareness of etiquette before play. A lot can be fixed by simply asking a few questions before any match, but I think only relying on this as a means to balance an entire format is a bit naive, as many social contracts in the "wild" simply devolve to "Is it on the banlist? If not, fair game". I am not saying it is easy, but I don't think it is impossible either and while it does require some serious effort, then simply dismissing the possibility and accepting a fractured format seems unhealthy in the long run. EDH has already been fractured with Duel Commander, so I think we also need to ask ourselves: How many times will we allow the format to e fractured before considering what can be done to unify us under one banner instead of dismissing part of our community as heretics not understanding the spirit/philosophy of EDH.
Jusstice already pointed out the banlist being so deeply intertwined with the philosophy, that they can no longer be discussed separately and if that is the case, then I would like to see both brought into the light of discussion. Not to radically change the initial thought of EDH, but rather defining clear lines of what is expected, acknowledged and frowned upon and how the banlist reflects those guidelines.
Allow me to clarify this one as you and others might have misunderstood. No I am not saying people shouldn't play certain cards that does something they desire or enable something cool or fun, but while doing this look for the most efficient version within your budget/reach. Magic players are smart and this is a process many simply does by themselves as it is a very easy and usually affordable way to improve ones deck. To exemplify if you wanna play a blue card draw spell at sorcery that draws you 2 cards, so you put Thoughtcast in knowing your decks contains no artifacts (Hypothetical, so play along), but you could play Divination that costs 2 generic mana less and fulfills the same function while being cheap and affordable. And yes, some players only buy boxes and boosters, but the majority of all magic players playing at FNM have ordered singles online so I don't consider this a huge point of contention.
Yeah, but many of those are just bad, when compared to timetwister. What makes it good is the 3 cmc and although Diminishing Returns is close, but lets face it, nobody likes exiling their own library and especially not 10 cards.
I am not sure about that, sure you don't want to fill your decks with these kind of effects, but I think many decks if not all blue decks could benefit from a 1 of these. Given certain strategies would likely want other versions like Windfall if they abuse the graveyard etc. However it is still a powerful effect allowing you to reshuffle your yard into your deck, drawing 7 cards if you are out of gas or even hose other players openers should you be able to power it out in 1 or 2 turns due to its low cost of 3 mana. Despite not owning one myself due to the 700$ price, which I don't exactly find cheap, I will use my Day's undoing as a proxy and test it in the near future to be able to provide a better and more informed response.
Then why is Timetwister not on? Seems like a card I would run in every blue deck if it wasn't 1500$.
Was more a queston mark to regard me not knowing. Haven't played with it ever, so can't talk from own experience.
My initial thought was actually Library of Alexandria, but that was because I mis-remembered it as not producing mana, which does change my stance on it significally. Although I could still see myself swapping Library for another colorless land if the deck really wanted a certain effect. My bad on this one, sorry :S Also I thought Tabernacle was on there (Brain fahrt) -_- All the other expensive cards are pretty much power 9.
Can somebody explain to me what PBtE means? Have seen it thrown around a couple of times, but not sure what it means....
I am all about the flavour argument (Personaly like the visual aspect) and the restrictions this imparts on the player (Restrictions breed creativity), but I still think this is a case of us being sticklers about this rule. As I said I don't acre much about it myself, but like the visual aspect of it, which is also why I am A-ok with them only allowing on-color fetches as a possible rule to come. Even though a card like Wooded foothills don't have any mana symbols on it, then it is still color coded with half of it being red and the other green, which to me, ruins the whole visual cohesion and fidelity otherwise. As long as we allow this I don't think adding hybrid mana would be that far fetched, but again, don't care enough about it to start a riot.
But didn't you yourself bring up the black lotuses as the reason for a low vintage playerbase? Yes, many players play vintage on MTGO, so the number is very likely higher than the 22K you mentioned. Suddenly changing the argument to Mana Crypts seem confusing to me. As for the actual number of Mana Crypts it is likely lower than 22K as it was only printed as a promo with Eternal Masters being the first set to actually have Mana Crypt in it.
I wasn't aware of that, but if it has already been tested, then I guess it should be off(?). As for what cards that pushes it Emrakul I can think of Conduit of Ruin as well as Sanctum of Ugin, but that is more in terms of finding her. Personally I think if you let it stay for a while the meta would flow back and forth with people putting it and people answering with cards like bribery causing people to take it out until the answers think out, rinse repeat. But again, wasn't there when it first was tested so what do I know.....
Could come off the ban list to test it for a few months. The thing that seems insane is the extra turn, but you need 15 mana to do that! At that point you deserve something epic. I can however see the issue being the very limited interactivity there is with Emrakul compared to her brethren Kozilek and Ulamogg.
1) As long as Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are not banned, then there is no need for Workshop to be.
2) They are likely not, but then why are a few very expensive cards on the ban list, which likely aren't that powerful in all types of decks?
3) Agreed. Although I will say it can be a problem, as it is the engine that powers out a lot of those effects, if we are talking stax. As such this might warrant the hammer instead of the pieces that construct the entire archetype itself. In fair artifact decks it is just an even better Ancient Tomb, which at current I don't think there is anything wrong with.
4) Yup
5) Could imagine this being due to the high price point, but since that won't change I can only examine the situation at hand, which is that few people have access to it -> Few people play it --> Its ability to warp the format is thus highly limited as few people need to adpat to it.
I think we are back at trying to regulate the players for using "bad" combinations instead of the card itself, which I think is not the way to go. If that was the case then we could fill up the ban list with cards that people are using in a "bad" way, which would never be ideal. Centralizing is a different matter and if it is as bad as Prophet of Kruphix, then it might stray towards the "Ban Hulk and T+N" camp, but so far I think we could let Hulk loose for a few months see what happens and the re-asses, while keeping "Is it the players choice to do so? or is PH just intrinsically broken?" thought in mind.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.