Okay, I thought perhaps I should go through the issues I have with this point by point. I will (try to remember to) post another reply later, when I have more time, discussing what I feel the philosophy should be, and why.
Snipped the rest of the post to save space.
I feel the real issue with the bulleted "guidelines" is that some of them are actually secondary consequences of others that act as compounding reasons, rather than factors on their own.
There needs to be a clear distinction between "cause" and "effect" and not just randomly compile both into a bullet-point list to confuse people. Based on the points we currently have, I would divide them like this:
Group A (Causes)
•Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
•Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
Group B (Effect)
•Cause severe resource imbalances
•Allow players to win out of nowhere
•Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
•Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
•Lead to repetitive game play.
Noticed something? Those in group B have terms (like "cause", "allow", "prevent", "lead to") that imply they are an "effect caused by another factor". The focus should really be on those "factors", in which the document only lists 2 probable ones. By mixing the two together, it creates a whole lot more confusion and assumption that the "causes" are "effects" as well and then they end up thinking more often than not that "causes" are merely the existence of a card breaking a rule, like in some of the cases you listed (Boundless Realms for resource imbalance, for example).
Let's use an example - Biorhythm. It isn't banned because it "Allow players to win out of nowhere" PLUS "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander".... it is banned because it "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander" "allowing players to win out of nowhere".
It's specifically because one factor leading to another that got the card banned, not the mere addition of two factors on the list.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is the document presents everything in a "buffet-style" of "reasons" without distinction of causes and effects, so guess what, people have to assume on their own - if a card "Allow players to win out of nowhere" because it can "Cause severe resource imbalances" (e.g. Gaea's Cradle), shouldn't it be considered for banning as well?
It's been over 37 months since I started the SCD for Iona and 34 months since we all basically exhausted every argument regarding the card in one of the longer threads in this subforum. Even before I started the thread I sort of resigned myself to fate that because it wasn't played as much and even when it was played it doesn't always create the feel-bad/inverse archenemy scenario, so I only had the point that the scenario itself was bad enough as an experience that the other scenarios aren't exactly saving graces, especially for a card not really played to be a saving grace anyway.
While I still stand by that the RC as a whole should never cater to a specific bubble, Sheldon's personal experiences still always strike me that he's really stuck in a bubble (not that it affects his decision-making). I'll be blunt - what he noticed I already realized years ago and the context in which he states it sort of proves it - in these past few years I've been basically occasionally playing at my LGS, but I very, very seldom play with friends (when we do get together we favor Cube). Meanwhile, just from reading Sheldon's articles/posts/responses I generally assess that he plays the format mostly with friends.
Okay, to clarify it better... it's more of playing at the LGS with strangers or acquaintances-at-best VS playing at friends that's the real issue here, because you can play with friends at the LGS, so I think this might confuse some people. You can play with friends almost anywhere, but you don't usually play with strangers/acquaintances other than the LGS/Events. Not everyone has (or want) the luxury of having friends to play EDH with and they're perfectly fine with EDH being the "game we play with strangers/acquaintances at the LGS".
I know I'm harping on making these distinctions, but it's important because Sheldon's post heavily implies he's basically new to the "strangers/acquaintances meta", so to speak, if he's using Open Events and a NEW LGS as the examples.
Also very important is that with everyone talking about "social contracts/communication" and "winning the game is not the only objective", that the "LGS stranger/acquaintances meta" has to operate on a more nuanced/silent version of the rule. The RC encouraging the above statements does not automatically equate to everyone in the LGS automatically becoming "friends". Just like the RC has to adopt a minimalist approach to keep the game open to as many bubbles as possible, communication/contracts at the LGS are also minimalized to cater to various strangers/acquaintances dropping at different times.
Combine that minimalism with the "the only actual rule of winning is... winning the actual game", that becomes the silent agreement that is most easily accepted by most "stranger/acquaintances meta" players adopt by, which leads to the "natural progression" of things Sheldon himself said. As I read somewhere, it's easier to go infinite that it is to go 120 divided 3 evenly in the game anyway.
Before anyone points out "but my LGS pulls off communication and house rules successfully", let me preempt that not all LGS operate like that and considering the general turbulence/turnovers LGS are going through overall now, I daresay statistics would favor the silent agreement and those with vocalized different ones are actually the minority of exceptions, especially once you throw open events into the calculations as well.
Like I said at the start, this is not aimed at RC at any way, they're doing great keeping the minimalist approach so different type of "metas" can exists, I'm just baffled every time Sheldon cites his personal experience (years late at that) that he's surprised by the "naturally progressed silent agreement stranger/acquaintance meta" out there and I don't quite agree that it would get the format in trouble - every participant in said meta silently agreed to it and after years, I daresay it actually regulates itself somewhat, it doesn't actually outright (de)volve right into cEDH territory.
Even though I am still more on the "No Change" side I actually think needing growth should not be underevaluated but unfortunately as you stated before we don't know why people don't try it/stick with it. If it is the PW debate for the majority and the growth trumps the losses I would be all for it, even though I don't think that it opens much more doors gameplay wise, and those opened may be on the moe obnoxius side.
Because it is always easier for the smaller group to Housrule stuff so if we gain more people than we'd loose the ones who don't like the change can still use houserules. It is however more difficult to houserule the bigger group.
I wouldn't say more growth is a straight reason for change (the previous post was more of a general observation of the format from my perspective), just pointing out the format is potentially stunting growth (that is doesn't really need now) due to the marketing direction of the game and in a hypothetical case that a sizable portion of the players leave (for whatever reasons), the format would actually struggle to recover numbers because the appeal doesn't line up with the newer player pool.
I'm fully aware of the gameplay consequences of such a change, which is why I don't actually advocate for the change like, right now, but I feel like a flat "no" and just listing down the mechanic/gameplay negatives is akin to ignoring that "growth" factors I mentioned. I don't foresee the marketing direction changing anytime soon so I only feel this issue would get more and more vocal with time as the bulk of players become newer and newer. I actually think what we should be doing instead is figuring out how to fit planeswalkers in without splitting the format into two. Just like I think saying a flat "no change" is ignoring the format's adaptability in the long run, saying "change, add them in", without any specifics and reasoning will wreck the game forefront (but that is already addressed by the straightfoward negatives we all can list).
I understand your houserule part - I'm a huge supporter of the RC's minimalism approach of the game and typically I would be on the "no change" side, but it struck me from the responses that at end of the day, the format itself is a "smaller group" to the game's "larger group" and the "larger group" has been on a quite the course in terms of marketing. Them creating Brawl (although it failed due to a myriad of factors of itself) already set off the alarms that we should not take the format for granted despite how robust it is now and it could easily languish in obscurity down the road if someone finds a formula that's "better" than the format that allows for planeswalkers, which in turn would appeal to an increasing number of newer players. We all know we can't just add planeswalkers in and call it a day, but is anyone doing the math to figure which rules we can change minimally to enable them with the least disruption?
Liliana is not a Mary Sue at all, but there are many aspects of her characters that are just plain frustrating. I think a lot of this "Mary Sue-ness" and/or frustration comes from the fact that while she does suffer consequences, it always seems to pale in comparison to what she seems like she is going to suffer from. I'm not belittling the actual suffering she went through (in real-life terms she has it bad), but seriously when you put it beside her "main storyline presentation" which pretty much involves her appealing for help against her demon contracts and repeat it 4 times over the years, as a consumer it becomes sort of grating to the point of "maybe the demon contract ending you would be a better release for all of us here".
The Chain Veil definitely needed better buildup and as a threat-level, because after Kothophed and Griselbrand I literally gave up on Razaketh and Belzenlok even before I knew their names and by downplaying the Veil against the later two demons (and Bolas) trying to invoke Liliana's character development was a mistake. I'm not saying Liliana didn't need the development, I just felt the Veil (as a "character") really badly needed a bit more autonomy in the whole scheme of things despite its origins, because honestly the Raven Man is fighting for the same spot and they diluted each other real badly.
The Veil was supposed to be a "consequence" and it was instead used as a tool of "don't use it, use friendship instead" tug-o-war Liliana had, and while that gave her needed character development, it also diminished some expectation of consequences (and Raven Man) and coming from a character who had 4 demonic contracts, the dissonance is laughable. Call me evil, but bluntly speaking, for someone who makes mistakes of such sizes, the consequences Liliana actually suffers from is really sort of laughable in scale. Perhaps they tried to appeal to "realism link" of her suffering (since as I said in real life it would be pretty bad) but I can never get the "people get similar cases in real life, so you're telling me demonic contracts are no worse than their problems?" out of my head and it becomes sort of absurd instead.
Disclaimer: Eldrazi fanboy alert. I heard the Eldrazi were being wrongly belittled again and returned to defend them.
Anybody comparing Bolas's dismal record with the Eldrazi as antagonists are doing it wrong. Yes, the Eldrazi have a kill score less then Bolas, but that's like calling a tornado with no casualties a failure as a criminal compared to a murderer.
The Eldrazi don't register anything than their purposes (I'm inclined to believe Emrakul only did so because Ulamog and Kozilek are gone, otherwise it wouldn't have bothered either). Yes, you could argue they failed in their purpose (to erase the planes they were on) and as such were failures as "antagonists" to the planes, but all because the Gatewatch selflessly threw themselves in the way doesn't automatically equate to the Eldrazi becoming antagonists to the planeswalkers - they never were and won't be, even Emrakul's message was "Hey fly I need to sleep so here's some cryptic messages so you can stop disturbing me".
I'm not saying BFZ was good, it was terrible, but not because the Eldrazi are terrible antagonists - it's because they decided to conveniently hide all the important characters of the plane behind invulnerable meatshields of planeswalkers... who conveniently have the correct skill sets to be said meatshields... and conveniently squeezed in a "create a Gatewatch" storyline written a way that it seems like they were a neighborhood police unit rather than a disaster relief unit which in turn made people think of the Eldrazi as antagonists/murderers/criminals than the natural disasters they are.
Bolas has no such backing - this is the Elder Dragon we knew on Amonkhet (and Time Spiral) who could be as patient as he wanted, the Elder Dragon who set up Liliana's demons knowing she would subvert every last one of them and as much as Test of Metal was questionable in placement, he was at the top of his game there toying with Jace, Liliana and Tezz. Even when he "lost" on Alara, he still had control of situation mostly and only had his hissy fit at the end because the plan was not 100% completed due to Ajani-ex-machina.
I would say the saving grave is that this is also the same Elder Dragon who lost to an Umezawa due to arrogance... so even if we wrote the Liliana-double-switcheroo out of the equation... this time he also lost his contingency plan (which allowed him to remain arrogant) because he let his twin brother who's aware of it into this war (and it's not like he didn't know Ugin's back). There's arrogance and arrogance-that-lets-the-one-thing-that-let's-you-come-back-after-being-killed-by-arrogance-be-demolished-level arrogance.
And I think that there is nothing wrong with them being content providers. They are already public figures and a familiar face to certain segments of the Commander community, they have a built-in forum for disseminating information or opinions, and they have access to lots of player feedback as part of what they do. Seems to me like these would be the kinds of people who you can go to not just hear their own opinions, but that they would also have a hand on the pulse of their audience.
While the realistic (and what I believe to be correct) decision is to simply wait it out and wait for the trust in the CAG to be built over time (which would greatly require the RC's efforts considering a number of us probably aren't and won't be following the CAG on their social media) and that we're currently right on the starting point of the introductory phase no less, I felt the need to express concerns upfront first so the parties involve "get the memo", many of which that stem from our general impressions of content producers, which in turn is shaped by pretty much the entirely of its industry (relation to MTG not withstanding nor specific).
I've thought of how to phrase this "nicely" several times before, but I gave up, so I'm just going to be really blunt but with the full disclosure that it definitely isn't aimed at anyone specific nor a generalization that every content producer is like that. Alright, it basically boils down to how much content producers may be willing to "compromise" in order to garner views and because of how much time, effort and passion the industry demands of them (which is honestly a respectable thing, but hey irony), how much of said "compromising" nature seeps into their lives and becomes "second nature", so to speak.
Throw in the fact EDH is full of grey "flexible" areas (plenty of cards we won't miss being banned but don't really care either way, yet if we were to produce an ordered list our lists would most likely be all different in order), I cannot help but wonder if feedback from content providers would end up as a "marketing tool" for themselves rather than an amplifier for the communities they interact with, because they instinctively craft how they output their words on such a frequent basis. If Card A is one of those cards they don't care for regardless of state, but their community routinely wants it banned (and it shows up on statistics relating to their content related to the topic/card), would the way they present their opinions to the RC be the same or different from the way they present it to their own communities?
While I do trust the RC to have their own personal filters between themselves and the CAG as well (the same way they filter our opinions to begin with), I daresay content providers definitely have better skills at refining their words to appeal to a specific purpose and it's also likely much more ingrained into their lives as well due to the industry's demands. I'm doubting them sort of in the same way people further outside the details of the format like to simply accuse the RC of being an "echo chamber" of their own making, except that I'm marking the CAG as "an unknown quantity that could either be the best amplifier of their communities, or an echo chamber of wrongness if it goes wrong" and I reserve my right to "doubt first for clarity then to trust first and get burned".
I'm making it very clear that I can see both sides of the coin, but my natural deposition tilts me to err on the side of caution in this introductory phase and therefore it is both the RC's and CAG's job to display that trust-building to me. My emphasis on the "negative" side of the coin might seem like a downer (and probably is), but it also comes from the perspective that I'm trying to make sure both the RC and CAG are aware of this themselves (and acts actively to prevent it), but as I just said, this is me erring on the side of caution rather than being a downer for the sake of being a downer.
Sheldon, I know you had a separate thread in the main sub-forums for your own content suggestions, but since it's related very closely to this, it'll be nice to have periodical updates on your interactions with the CAG (rather than waiting for the usual update dates), so we have a clearer view on how the CAG interacts with the RC and also admittedly to assess on how the RCs filters their feedback, especially during this introductory phase (of initial doubt) and I would say this might be important as a habit down the road since you're intending to expand the CAG (and considering some of them as RC members/successors).
Even after reading the recent article, I'm still skeptical on the whole idea... in a few different ways. Having read it, I'm aware the whole thing just started and has nothing practical to show for it, but the skeptical part of me cannot stop murmuring "it's merely a formality", but not the in the "RC is in an echo chamber and made it larger" way, but in the "RC is already listening to the community from many online resources, how does the entire concept itself particularly change anything to begin with" way.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
The banlist lets you go to any shop in the country and get a decent game of EDH if you're playing a deck that is in between CEDH and Trash. That's been my experience. There is no additional "social contract" required here, there's just a banlist that encourages the type of play that would align with a social contract were there one (e.g. you're playing with your buddies).
It's not perfect. But it does a damned good job. Something about the varied level of power of the cards on the banlist just seems to get people building tuned decks but not too crazy.
The EDH banlist is kind of like a really good baseline framework for the social contract to fill out.
I understand all the arguments people make but perhaps rather than the Calvinball analogy, consider Dungeons and Dragons - there's a baseline ruleset of D&D that tells you how stuff works, you can go and play literally anywhere and join any playgroup. But you're going to get a different experience every time, because each group has a different cooperative social contract.
Because one GM has house ruled something doesn't mean you go to Wizards and tell them to eliminate that rule entirely and let people figure it out on their own.
Example: GM says they want a gritty game so they halve the amount you heal as you rest. Player response is not to call Wizards up and say "listen can you just delete all the rules about healing so we can figure it out on our own?" There're baseline rules.
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
As someone trying to stick with foil-only, it'll probably be just a Reserved List card with a foil, like Survival of the Fittest, Gaea's Cradle and Grim Monolith are the ones I immediately thought of, in that order.
Just as an extra, if I had to choose a nonfoil card instead, I'd probably just go for a Alpha Gauntlet of Might for my Ryusei deck. Yes, I know Timetwister is P9 and powerful, but there's something about playing Gauntlet in a Mono-Red deck that appeals to me more than just throwing a powerful P9 card into utility use if I had to pick 1 nonfoil after all.
That being said, if we go the absurd mile, if I could wish for Shichifukujin Dragon to play in Ryusei instead of the Gauntlet (or anything above, actually) I definitely would, just the sheer reputation of getting to actually play that card would be worth the any loss of power-level in the deck. I mean everything else above has "inferior/budget" options to go by, but nothing is more unique than getting to play a 1-of card in the entire game.
1
Snipped the rest of the post to save space.
I feel the real issue with the bulleted "guidelines" is that some of them are actually secondary consequences of others that act as compounding reasons, rather than factors on their own.
There needs to be a clear distinction between "cause" and "effect" and not just randomly compile both into a bullet-point list to confuse people. Based on the points we currently have, I would divide them like this:
Group A (Causes)
•Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
•Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
Group B (Effect)
•Cause severe resource imbalances
•Allow players to win out of nowhere
•Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
•Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
•Lead to repetitive game play.
Noticed something? Those in group B have terms (like "cause", "allow", "prevent", "lead to") that imply they are an "effect caused by another factor". The focus should really be on those "factors", in which the document only lists 2 probable ones. By mixing the two together, it creates a whole lot more confusion and assumption that the "causes" are "effects" as well and then they end up thinking more often than not that "causes" are merely the existence of a card breaking a rule, like in some of the cases you listed (Boundless Realms for resource imbalance, for example).
Let's use an example - Biorhythm. It isn't banned because it "Allow players to win out of nowhere" PLUS "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander".... it is banned because it "Interacts poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander" "allowing players to win out of nowhere".
It's specifically because one factor leading to another that got the card banned, not the mere addition of two factors on the list.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is the document presents everything in a "buffet-style" of "reasons" without distinction of causes and effects, so guess what, people have to assume on their own - if a card "Allow players to win out of nowhere" because it can "Cause severe resource imbalances" (e.g. Gaea's Cradle), shouldn't it be considered for banning as well?
3
It's been over 37 months since I started the SCD for Iona and 34 months since we all basically exhausted every argument regarding the card in one of the longer threads in this subforum. Even before I started the thread I sort of resigned myself to fate that because it wasn't played as much and even when it was played it doesn't always create the feel-bad/inverse archenemy scenario, so I only had the point that the scenario itself was bad enough as an experience that the other scenarios aren't exactly saving graces, especially for a card not really played to be a saving grace anyway.
1
Okay, to clarify it better... it's more of playing at the LGS with strangers or acquaintances-at-best VS playing at friends that's the real issue here, because you can play with friends at the LGS, so I think this might confuse some people. You can play with friends almost anywhere, but you don't usually play with strangers/acquaintances other than the LGS/Events. Not everyone has (or want) the luxury of having friends to play EDH with and they're perfectly fine with EDH being the "game we play with strangers/acquaintances at the LGS".
I know I'm harping on making these distinctions, but it's important because Sheldon's post heavily implies he's basically new to the "strangers/acquaintances meta", so to speak, if he's using Open Events and a NEW LGS as the examples.
Also very important is that with everyone talking about "social contracts/communication" and "winning the game is not the only objective", that the "LGS stranger/acquaintances meta" has to operate on a more nuanced/silent version of the rule. The RC encouraging the above statements does not automatically equate to everyone in the LGS automatically becoming "friends". Just like the RC has to adopt a minimalist approach to keep the game open to as many bubbles as possible, communication/contracts at the LGS are also minimalized to cater to various strangers/acquaintances dropping at different times.
Combine that minimalism with the "the only actual rule of winning is... winning the actual game", that becomes the silent agreement that is most easily accepted by most "stranger/acquaintances meta" players adopt by, which leads to the "natural progression" of things Sheldon himself said. As I read somewhere, it's easier to go infinite that it is to go 120 divided 3 evenly in the game anyway.
Before anyone points out "but my LGS pulls off communication and house rules successfully", let me preempt that not all LGS operate like that and considering the general turbulence/turnovers LGS are going through overall now, I daresay statistics would favor the silent agreement and those with vocalized different ones are actually the minority of exceptions, especially once you throw open events into the calculations as well.
Like I said at the start, this is not aimed at RC at any way, they're doing great keeping the minimalist approach so different type of "metas" can exists, I'm just baffled every time Sheldon cites his personal experience (years late at that) that he's surprised by the "naturally progressed silent agreement stranger/acquaintance meta" out there and I don't quite agree that it would get the format in trouble - every participant in said meta silently agreed to it and after years, I daresay it actually regulates itself somewhat, it doesn't actually outright (de)volve right into cEDH territory.
1
I wouldn't say more growth is a straight reason for change (the previous post was more of a general observation of the format from my perspective), just pointing out the format is potentially stunting growth (that is doesn't really need now) due to the marketing direction of the game and in a hypothetical case that a sizable portion of the players leave (for whatever reasons), the format would actually struggle to recover numbers because the appeal doesn't line up with the newer player pool.
I'm fully aware of the gameplay consequences of such a change, which is why I don't actually advocate for the change like, right now, but I feel like a flat "no" and just listing down the mechanic/gameplay negatives is akin to ignoring that "growth" factors I mentioned. I don't foresee the marketing direction changing anytime soon so I only feel this issue would get more and more vocal with time as the bulk of players become newer and newer. I actually think what we should be doing instead is figuring out how to fit planeswalkers in without splitting the format into two. Just like I think saying a flat "no change" is ignoring the format's adaptability in the long run, saying "change, add them in", without any specifics and reasoning will wreck the game forefront (but that is already addressed by the straightfoward negatives we all can list).
I understand your houserule part - I'm a huge supporter of the RC's minimalism approach of the game and typically I would be on the "no change" side, but it struck me from the responses that at end of the day, the format itself is a "smaller group" to the game's "larger group" and the "larger group" has been on a quite the course in terms of marketing. Them creating Brawl (although it failed due to a myriad of factors of itself) already set off the alarms that we should not take the format for granted despite how robust it is now and it could easily languish in obscurity down the road if someone finds a formula that's "better" than the format that allows for planeswalkers, which in turn would appeal to an increasing number of newer players. We all know we can't just add planeswalkers in and call it a day, but is anyone doing the math to figure which rules we can change minimally to enable them with the least disruption?
3
The Chain Veil definitely needed better buildup and as a threat-level, because after Kothophed and Griselbrand I literally gave up on Razaketh and Belzenlok even before I knew their names and by downplaying the Veil against the later two demons (and Bolas) trying to invoke Liliana's character development was a mistake. I'm not saying Liliana didn't need the development, I just felt the Veil (as a "character") really badly needed a bit more autonomy in the whole scheme of things despite its origins, because honestly the Raven Man is fighting for the same spot and they diluted each other real badly.
The Veil was supposed to be a "consequence" and it was instead used as a tool of "don't use it, use friendship instead" tug-o-war Liliana had, and while that gave her needed character development, it also diminished some expectation of consequences (and Raven Man) and coming from a character who had 4 demonic contracts, the dissonance is laughable. Call me evil, but bluntly speaking, for someone who makes mistakes of such sizes, the consequences Liliana actually suffers from is really sort of laughable in scale. Perhaps they tried to appeal to "realism link" of her suffering (since as I said in real life it would be pretty bad) but I can never get the "people get similar cases in real life, so you're telling me demonic contracts are no worse than their problems?" out of my head and it becomes sort of absurd instead.
2
Anybody comparing Bolas's dismal record with the Eldrazi as antagonists are doing it wrong. Yes, the Eldrazi have a kill score less then Bolas, but that's like calling a tornado with no casualties a failure as a criminal compared to a murderer.
The Eldrazi don't register anything than their purposes (I'm inclined to believe Emrakul only did so because Ulamog and Kozilek are gone, otherwise it wouldn't have bothered either). Yes, you could argue they failed in their purpose (to erase the planes they were on) and as such were failures as "antagonists" to the planes, but all because the Gatewatch selflessly threw themselves in the way doesn't automatically equate to the Eldrazi becoming antagonists to the planeswalkers - they never were and won't be, even Emrakul's message was "Hey fly I need to sleep so here's some cryptic messages so you can stop disturbing me".
I'm not saying BFZ was good, it was terrible, but not because the Eldrazi are terrible antagonists - it's because they decided to conveniently hide all the important characters of the plane behind invulnerable meatshields of planeswalkers... who conveniently have the correct skill sets to be said meatshields... and conveniently squeezed in a "create a Gatewatch" storyline written a way that it seems like they were a neighborhood police unit rather than a disaster relief unit which in turn made people think of the Eldrazi as antagonists/murderers/criminals than the natural disasters they are.
Bolas has no such backing - this is the Elder Dragon we knew on Amonkhet (and Time Spiral) who could be as patient as he wanted, the Elder Dragon who set up Liliana's demons knowing she would subvert every last one of them and as much as Test of Metal was questionable in placement, he was at the top of his game there toying with Jace, Liliana and Tezz. Even when he "lost" on Alara, he still had control of situation mostly and only had his hissy fit at the end because the plan was not 100% completed due to Ajani-ex-machina.
I would say the saving grave is that this is also the same Elder Dragon who lost to an Umezawa due to arrogance... so even if we wrote the Liliana-double-switcheroo out of the equation... this time he also lost his contingency plan (which allowed him to remain arrogant) because he let his twin brother who's aware of it into this war (and it's not like he didn't know Ugin's back). There's arrogance and arrogance-that-lets-the-one-thing-that-let's-you-come-back-after-being-killed-by-arrogance-be-demolished-level arrogance.
1
While the realistic (and what I believe to be correct) decision is to simply wait it out and wait for the trust in the CAG to be built over time (which would greatly require the RC's efforts considering a number of us probably aren't and won't be following the CAG on their social media) and that we're currently right on the starting point of the introductory phase no less, I felt the need to express concerns upfront first so the parties involve "get the memo", many of which that stem from our general impressions of content producers, which in turn is shaped by pretty much the entirely of its industry (relation to MTG not withstanding nor specific).
I've thought of how to phrase this "nicely" several times before, but I gave up, so I'm just going to be really blunt but with the full disclosure that it definitely isn't aimed at anyone specific nor a generalization that every content producer is like that. Alright, it basically boils down to how much content producers may be willing to "compromise" in order to garner views and because of how much time, effort and passion the industry demands of them (which is honestly a respectable thing, but hey irony), how much of said "compromising" nature seeps into their lives and becomes "second nature", so to speak.
Throw in the fact EDH is full of grey "flexible" areas (plenty of cards we won't miss being banned but don't really care either way, yet if we were to produce an ordered list our lists would most likely be all different in order), I cannot help but wonder if feedback from content providers would end up as a "marketing tool" for themselves rather than an amplifier for the communities they interact with, because they instinctively craft how they output their words on such a frequent basis. If Card A is one of those cards they don't care for regardless of state, but their community routinely wants it banned (and it shows up on statistics relating to their content related to the topic/card), would the way they present their opinions to the RC be the same or different from the way they present it to their own communities?
While I do trust the RC to have their own personal filters between themselves and the CAG as well (the same way they filter our opinions to begin with), I daresay content providers definitely have better skills at refining their words to appeal to a specific purpose and it's also likely much more ingrained into their lives as well due to the industry's demands. I'm doubting them sort of in the same way people further outside the details of the format like to simply accuse the RC of being an "echo chamber" of their own making, except that I'm marking the CAG as "an unknown quantity that could either be the best amplifier of their communities, or an echo chamber of wrongness if it goes wrong" and I reserve my right to "doubt first for clarity then to trust first and get burned".
I'm making it very clear that I can see both sides of the coin, but my natural deposition tilts me to err on the side of caution in this introductory phase and therefore it is both the RC's and CAG's job to display that trust-building to me. My emphasis on the "negative" side of the coin might seem like a downer (and probably is), but it also comes from the perspective that I'm trying to make sure both the RC and CAG are aware of this themselves (and acts actively to prevent it), but as I just said, this is me erring on the side of caution rather than being a downer for the sake of being a downer.
Sheldon, I know you had a separate thread in the main sub-forums for your own content suggestions, but since it's related very closely to this, it'll be nice to have periodical updates on your interactions with the CAG (rather than waiting for the usual update dates), so we have a clearer view on how the CAG interacts with the RC and also admittedly to assess on how the RCs filters their feedback, especially during this introductory phase (of initial doubt) and I would say this might be important as a habit down the road since you're intending to expand the CAG (and considering some of them as RC members/successors).
1
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
3
This is probably the best post concerning the general situation regarding the format and its banlist I've seen in recent pages. EDH is essentially D&D in MTG form. The only reason there is a banlist at all is because EDH wasn't "built from scratch" alongside the whole MTG game itself, so there plenty of cards that clash with the format that simply exist - if EDH was "built from scratch", then most, if not all cards on the list wouldn't even exist to begin with... along with a lot of "Cards not banned but we "shouldn't" play as well" and there would be no banlist.
The only reason many cards that "shouldn't be played" aren't on the list is simply because of the minimalist policy keeping it in check - nobody wants a banlist that contains as many cards as the Reserved List - how many of us can accurately recall 75% of the Reserved List by heart? Even with the list as "small (mileage varies)" as it is now, there are still (especially newer) players who think some cards aren't banned. "Check it online" isn't exactly the kind of argument one presents to a (again, especially a newer) player face-to-face, plus I trust most of us who bother even participating in this thread (or this forum in general) are the kind to check online by default, so we're a bubble of our own in that aspect.
1
Just as an extra, if I had to choose a nonfoil card instead, I'd probably just go for a Alpha Gauntlet of Might for my Ryusei deck. Yes, I know Timetwister is P9 and powerful, but there's something about playing Gauntlet in a Mono-Red deck that appeals to me more than just throwing a powerful P9 card into utility use if I had to pick 1 nonfoil after all.
That being said, if we go the absurd mile, if I could wish for Shichifukujin Dragon to play in Ryusei instead of the Gauntlet (or anything above, actually) I definitely would, just the sheer reputation of getting to actually play that card would be worth the any loss of power-level in the deck. I mean everything else above has "inferior/budget" options to go by, but nothing is more unique than getting to play a 1-of card in the entire game.