Commander is aimed at the majority of players that don't engage with LGSs or organized play. That's who the banlist is set up for.
We are misaligned on what target audience means here. Yes the RC has a strong focus on kitchen-table style games, but they know those people can regulate themselves if there is an issue. The ban list is the best starting point for those groups, and the best place for people who don't belong to such a group to focus on.
People playing at a shop or GP with random folks have a place to build from. Of course a rule 0 discussion could be had, but the ban list preempts that unless purposely engaged. I meant 'target audience' as those who get the most from it. You mean who the RC builds rules for.
So what would change in the ban list, for your ideal state, if the target audience was LGS players?
So the intended audience has the banlist suited for them, but they're the ones who need it least. Whereas LGS players are not the target audience of the banlist, but they're the ones that have to play with it whether they want it or not.
I actually believe LGS and GP people are the 'target audience' for the ban list. If you look at the rest of what you said, it seems to slide right into place.
Really I'm going to just assume that sheldon was recently destroyed by some engine deck, got hosed by iona, and was trapped in a conversation by someone that wanted him to unban painter and he was too beta to do anything otherwise. That or he stockpiled painters and is using his role to get some cash.
These sorts of comments are exactly why the RC should never listen to people on the internet.
People love EDH while virtually spitting in the face of the people who brought it to us. It's sad, and predictable
you think he went out of his way to find that combo and that's some horrible offense, but it really isn't. its natural progression of the game. if he went out of his way to find a combo, or he found it accidentally, it doesn't really make a difference. this just happens to be the one he used. there have been a lot of games over the years where i've seen someone go 'oh that's a combo' and they've woops into it and now its what they gun for every time.
And there are people who go 'whoa need to change one of those cards'. Claiming build to infinite and power is natural rejects people's choice.
you can't really stop the arms race that is magic deck building. you can try to mitigate it through bannings, but thats about it. even then you ban one thing and then something else crops up, then something else, then something else, then something else.
the philosophy behind edh was sound years ago, or would be with a very static pool of cards to pick from. that's not a reality that exists with new sets coming out all the time. every single set ends up with cards that break other cards intentional or otherwise. players find them. even a casual group will become competitive
No, groups often self-mitigate because they don't want to deal with this stuff. Stating the opposite as a known fact is just purposely disingenuous
to ban iona... can you remember the last time you even saw someone PLAY iona?
Yes, it sucked. Just like it sucked every time. Banning stuff like that should be exactly what the list hits.
as it stands, a lot of these decisions, and especially the articles and statements, come across as a group of people who aren't actually playing the game in 2019, but are instead caught up in what it was back in 2010. building ***** out of whatever was laying around with no real motive other than to see how many times craw wurm can be cloned and thrown into more craw wurms.
Its too bad you dont have the sort of games many of us enjoy. That must be frustrating. Keep looking, good groups exist where its a lot more than CW's and clones, but you dont see Mike and Trike style junk.
I think if you really look at decks the RC publishes, its a lot more than draft chaff. And they win games with powerful cards. And I think you actually know that.
The only other card in recent memory that evoked a similar notion of breakability on release is Bolas's Citadel, and I'm hoping requiring colored mana saves it from a similar fate.
On the other hand, I would have preferred to see Citadel go long before Engine.
Have you been seeing it regularly? What are people doing that makes you want it gone?
cEDH player checking in with some of my thoughts, though it sounds like we're all at least mostly in agreement.
Firstly, combos are easier, faster, more available, and more resilient nowadays. That's just going to happen as you print more cards. But would I say combo is more prevalent? No. I don't think so at all. If people are going down the combo route now, they would have done so before. Arms race was happening in my playgroup in 2011, it's the natural progression of things. Why is Sheldon talking about it now? Because he's starting to actually play EDH with people outside his niche and realizing that a large percentage of people don't play the game the way he does. Immediately after, he started the Commander Advisory Group as a way to combat being so out of the loop.
Anyone pretending Sheldon just now started playing with people outside "his niche" really have not been paying attention.
Iona, on the other hand, is very up front about what she does. Even the Timmiest Timmy runs her to kick the mono colored decks in the groin. It's also not like Armageddon; land destruction is often followed by "now what?" Iona's "now what?" is beats.
Of course there's a lot of people who justifiably don't want to worry about Iona showing up at the table. I don't blame them. But it's not a trap, it's not an accident, and treating it as such masks what it does. It's a hard control option on a stick, not a mythical Timmy-tricking boogeyman.
I dont think this is true. Many people play multicolors, and big costly angels seem cool and fun. Maybe after it ruins a few games people come around, but I can see for sure why new folks think it looks cool.
What JqlGirl said. Card has always been borderline and the CAG convinced us that the Johnny opportunities outweighed the potential downsides.
I'd say that of the three, this is the one we're most nervous about, but I'm excited to see where it goes.
'Ugin is the nail in the coffin of Painter's Servant' sure does not sound borderline. I am all for 'hey we were wrong', but revisionist history seems uncool.
We are misaligned on what target audience means here. Yes the RC has a strong focus on kitchen-table style games, but they know those people can regulate themselves if there is an issue. The ban list is the best starting point for those groups, and the best place for people who don't belong to such a group to focus on.
People playing at a shop or GP with random folks have a place to build from. Of course a rule 0 discussion could be had, but the ban list preempts that unless purposely engaged. I meant 'target audience' as those who get the most from it. You mean who the RC builds rules for.
So what would change in the ban list, for your ideal state, if the target audience was LGS players?
https://www.blackfire.eu/product.php?id=33368
People love EDH while virtually spitting in the face of the people who brought it to us. It's sad, and predictable
No, groups often self-mitigate because they don't want to deal with this stuff. Stating the opposite as a known fact is just purposely disingenuous
Yes, it sucked. Just like it sucked every time. Banning stuff like that should be exactly what the list hits.
I think if you really look at decks the RC publishes, its a lot more than draft chaff. And they win games with powerful cards. And I think you actually know that.
Have you been seeing it regularly? What are people doing that makes you want it gone?
I dont think this is true. Many people play multicolors, and big costly angels seem cool and fun. Maybe after it ruins a few games people come around, but I can see for sure why new folks think it looks cool.
'Ugin is the nail in the coffin of Painter's Servant' sure does not sound borderline. I am all for 'hey we were wrong', but revisionist history seems uncool.