This would be fine, except every "discussion" about a card being banned/unbanned, or potentials of cards being banned/unbanned always falls back to the exact same point of "it's not within the RC's vision of the format."
You can't have a discussion if that is always the answer.
A discussion requires some magnitude of "grey-area". That answer eliminates it and makes it black and white.
I disagree. When the face of the RC Publicly decries merits of a certain group of players, and then proceeds to throw up a huge middle finger to them, that doesn't exactly sound like "listening".
My views that this is now the primary target of this,this, and this, and I fail to see the difference from doing that with this?
What's funny is you don't want this to be a competetive format, yet, the cEDH (French) ban list accomplishes this better. What separates cEDH from this is the deck building philosophy. Those decks are tuned. Decks don't need to be tuned to mop the floor with Tooth and Nail. They don't need to be tuned to take the obvious advantage of an early Sol Ring.
Well, I wanted to catch up, tie up some loose ends with some other posters, then I came across this. Why is this thread here, then? What's the point of discussing the banned list? If somebody doesn't agree, "oh well, don't play commander, we don't care".
Not to take words out of anyone's mouths, but it isn't about ignoring disagreements with the banlist, it's a disagreement on the taking the banlist from a competitive view.
The RC continues to participate in discussions over the banlist, and they certainly want to improve the format. The (still) recent changes to the banlist even show that they do listen, and do change their opinions on topics occassionally due to good feedback.
What Sheldon is saying in that statement is simply that Commander is not built to cater to the competitive crowd, and so it won't. It would be like going to the Modern banlist and saying, "Can we please unban some of the reserve list cards?" That's just not what the format is for.
This format isn't built for the tournament spikes. Some of them play it, sure, but it's not built with them in mind, and it won't change the vision simply because some of them happen to play.
What I find to be utterly hilarious is that you have a banned list, yet encourage those that don't agree to "house rule". Doesn't that sound like a gigantic waste of time? "Hey, we've spent a considerable amount of our time crafting this ban list in our vision, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to".
I bet some people play Monopoly competitively too. Having a few house-rules about the bank or 'free parking' in my house doesn't mean that I've thrown out the rules of monopoly, or the work gone into making them. It means that I've found something that I think is a more fun addition to the game.
The RC quite literally would rather discourage those Spikey new players from EDH than deviate from their vision
This is 100% correct, with no apologies.
Well, I wanted to catch up, tie up some loose ends with some other posters, then I came across this. Why is this thread here, then? What's the point of discussing the banned list? If somebody doesn't agree, "oh well, don't play commander, we don't care".
The purpose of the thread is to discuss the current banlist, desired changes, confirmed changes, and in some cases to show data whether or not a card belongs.
The RC doesn't say "don't play Commander". It's more like "Play Commander how you want but the intent is meant to be X" (where X is the RC's vision for the format).
So feel free to play however, but know the banlist is designed around a specific playstyle and will not be tuned for a more "competitive" play.
Skipped that part about how I don't play competitively.
(Almost)Every post I've made has absolutely been in the spirit of this discussion. "All ban list discussion takes place in this thread-Cryogen". Every card I've discussed has ban merit based on the explanations of the other cards on the ban list.
For those that used sports analogies, the ban list is like the catch rule. It is, unless it isn't, and it's because we said so.
The RC quite literally would rather discourage those Spikey new players from EDH than deviate from their vision
This is 100% correct, with no apologies.
Well, I wanted to catch up, tie up some loose ends with some other posters, then I came across this. Why is this thread here, then? What's the point of discussing the banned list? If somebody doesn't agree, "oh well, don't play commander, we don't care".
I've sculpted 90% of my collection around commander. Selling/trading off multiples of some to acquire singles of others.
I don't play competitively, even though I still play to win, which is the definition of game BTW. So I came here. Voiced my displeasure with the banned list. How it is inconsistent. Over half of the explanations of cards on the banned list applies to another 30-40 cards. Now I would understand if you actually gave a reason for why they aren't banned, but you don't, and nobody has. The only statement that you all cling too is "not ban worthy in the eyes of the RC". That's not an acceptable response. And the worst part is, we who do voice displeasure are basically given a big "FU" and told to shove off, with no apologies.
What I find to be utterly hilarious is that you have a banned list, yet encourage those that don't agree to "house rule". Doesn't that sound like a gigantic waste of time? "Hey, we've spent a considerable amount of our time crafting this ban list in our vision, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to". Although I'm not surprised. It's the same stance you, and many others have taken on cards brought up in this very thread. "It may be broken, but don't do broken things with it". That's like giving a prison inmate a fork and telling him he can only use it for his salad.
Guess what, none of the cards on the banned list read "win the game" except Coalition Victory. So they should come off the banned list. And then we just house rule the rest.
And that 10-turn quota that has been left out twice now? I didn't make that up, it's there in the link after all. Eliminate Sol ring, how do you get a turn-3 Damia? Without a god-hand, you don't. Why should a game end ~2 turns earlier, based solely on the luck of landing ONE card?
No, I've been saying for, oh 3-4 pages maybe, that a tucked commander shouldn't be an auto-lose. As he stated above, a tucked Zada can still win without Zada.
This is wrong. Every word I used to describe each card is on that page, attached as the criteria for banning. I'd say what you are accusing me of is hypocritical, and therefore, irrelevant.
I'd be on board with a Crypt ban, but your reasoning behind not banning Sol Ring just doesn't make sense.
I agree, but the root of the discussion boils down to inconsistencies with both the application of the ban list, as well as the explanations.
I didn't directly compare Channel to Sol Ring, but what I did do is say the end result is the same. I read all the time about the gold standard of Turn-10. Sol Ring and Mana Crypt push that clock back 2 turns, without assistance. Throw in all of the other things that are free with those cards, and suddenly turn-6 becomes the endgame, and then other deck strategies push that into the 4-turn range. If I'm on a 10-turn clock, and somebody pops off at 4 because they were "lucky" enough to open, or draw into either of those, I feel shafted. Not "good game", but "lucky bounce". You remove Ring/crypt from this format, and you are going to be incredibly hard pressed to push that clock below 6, without an over commitment to doing so. What sounds more enjoayble, 4 turns around the table, or 6? Digging 15 cards into your singleton deck, or digging 25+?
It may sound like I only ask for their removal based on how it affects me, personally, and that's not true. I feel absolutely dirty going Forest, Sol Ring, signet/Talimasn/Rock turn one, into Swamp, Natures Lore and the like, into a turn 3 Damia, Sage of Stone. At that point, my opponents don't care about Sol Ring, but without it, I'm two turns behind that, and much less *sad faces*, and more of an actual game.
Buffsam, if you click on the "Commander FAQ" link I'm my signature, the second post has a list of everything that has ever been on the banned list, almost all of which have some sort off official statement about why it was banned.
The Rules Committee's goal for Commander is for it to be different than other Magic games. Where competitive formats seek to balance the playing field for all styles and strategies we want to encourage a style of game that is more open and directed towards all players having a good time regardless of who wins. This is summarized as: "Create games that you'd love to remember not the ones others would like to forget."
Hey, remember that time you had a turn-1 ring/crypt and proceeded to end the game on turn 5? Those were the days.
"Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format about epic plays but the turn 10 epic play happening on turn 3 is deflating. Limited acceleration is good but we don't want the format to turn into "who can go off earliest" so we rein in large quantities of early mana."
So This is bad, but requires a board state, but this isn't, as both push that turn-10 clock backwards. Makes perfect, logical sense.
Creates Undesirable Games / Game Situations. Some cards produce the kinds of games we'd like to avoid and we see them as creating a negative experience for a majority of the player base. They tend to be anticlimactic wins out of nowhere unexpected combos that end an otherwise enjoyable game or creating situations which completely take play of the game away from the other players. This includes some cards that have a casting cost far too low for their effect or whose abilities simply break the format at any cost.
5 drops on turn 2. That's desirable. I love seeing that. This is the exact reason I play commander!
God forbid I dothis, but thisis cool.
Oh, but that isn't true for Crypt/Ring? Players don't Sculpting Steel or Phyrexian Metamorph either of those, ever, right? Dack Fayden doesn't instantly grab one of those, ever. Thada players don't grab those immediately. Or, as you ignored above, the abundance of tutors that only see play to grab them?
The RC has turn-10 as their sweet spot. Yet cards that cost less than 10, and can be pushed out as early as turn 4 (looking at you T&N) end games well before that threshold, and they see no problem with that?
There's very frequently a better target for all of those cards come midgame. You're not going to spend Sculpting Steel to copy a Sol Ring when Gilded Lotus is sitting right there.
A tutor frequently grabs Sol Ring in the early game when you're stumbling on mana. But when you've got a solid mana base, you're going to spend that tutor on something that actually advances your gameplan.
Meanwhile, cards like Primetime were always the right choice.
If you make it that far. Secondly, copying Gilded Lotus with Sculting Steel is a net-0. Still have to wait to untap with it, and my mana base, while the other player vomits out threats. Taking the net-loss by targeting the other is almost always more advantageous.
Is it that hard of a concept to grasp, the player with a turn-1 ring/crypt puts themselves ahead by 2 full turns. I'm building a mana-base while they are building their board. The opposing player has no choice but to play defense, until the board stabilizes, and that rarely ever happens.
They were deemed overcentralizing due to being agressivly cloned and reanimated and the fact that players would rather copy them then remove them. It's not my place to call the RC liers I'm simply starring if you asked Sheldon if PT was banned because of its power level your answer would be "no". In fact since it's not a ban criterion the answer to that question would always be "no". I don't even agree with the system im simply stating facts. If you do not like the way things are you can A. Argue the entire stayed should he changed or B use house rules. In my experience choice B is far superior but since you plainly don't like that idea I suggest you argue as to why the banlist should be based off power level instead of refermceing situations that have no relevance to the reasons they give for banning cards.
Oh, but that isn't true for Crypt/Ring? Players don't Sculpting Steel or Phyrexian Metamorph either of those, ever, right? Dack Fayden doesn't instantly grab one of those, ever. Thada players don't grab those immediately. Or, as you ignored above, the abundance of tutors that only see play to grab them?
The RC has turn-10 as their sweet spot. Yet cards that cost less than 10, and can be pushed out as early as turn 4 (looking at you T&N) end games well before that threshold, and they see no problem with that?
It affects my entire mindset from the very beginning of the game. I mulligan aggressively to fight back in case one gets dropped early, giving myself access to cards that can deal with an accelerated curve.
Dude, I don't really buy that you mulligan aggressively on the off chance someone might get a Sol Ring in their opener. If you are so afraid of someone starting the game with it and cannonballing from there, I suggest you play a handful of cheap removal spells that can also handle Sol Ring (think Mental Misstep) and you should be set, at least statistically speaking.
That was hyperbole. I'm glad you're response was "hey, if you don't like getting rail roaded by sol ring, run incredibly nich answers only for sol ring.", because, dude, that makes way more sense.
By aggresivley, I mean keeping a lower curved hand to establish a board presence. Without the threat of Sol Ring, I can keep a hand of Land, Land, Signet, 2-cmc draw, 3-cmc ramp, 5cmc, 7cmc. When decking up with Sol Ring, I don't, and never will. I will want some sort of removal, not just for ring, but whatever it accelerates into. Which is my entire point. Why should it be ok that the player who has a sol ring can keep a 1-land hand and not be punished, but I have to use my resources just to catch up?
Everybody here must be a journalist, cherry picking arguments out of context, and completely ignoring any supporting statements.
You can't have a discussion if that is always the answer.
A discussion requires some magnitude of "grey-area". That answer eliminates it and makes it black and white.
Or is it my views that make you say otherwise?
My views that this is the exact opposite of casual or fun?
My views that this warps the game?
My views that this is now the primary target of this,this, and this, and I fail to see the difference from doing that with this?
What's funny is you don't want this to be a competetive format, yet, the cEDH (French) ban list accomplishes this better. What separates cEDH from this is the deck building philosophy. Those decks are tuned. Decks don't need to be tuned to mop the floor with Tooth and Nail. They don't need to be tuned to take the obvious advantage of an early Sol Ring.
Skipped that part about how I don't play competitively.
(Almost)Every post I've made has absolutely been in the spirit of this discussion. "All ban list discussion takes place in this thread-Cryogen". Every card I've discussed has ban merit based on the explanations of the other cards on the ban list.
For those that used sports analogies, the ban list is like the catch rule. It is, unless it isn't, and it's because we said so.
Well, I wanted to catch up, tie up some loose ends with some other posters, then I came across this. Why is this thread here, then? What's the point of discussing the banned list? If somebody doesn't agree, "oh well, don't play commander, we don't care".
I've sculpted 90% of my collection around commander. Selling/trading off multiples of some to acquire singles of others.
I don't play competitively, even though I still play to win, which is the definition of game BTW. So I came here. Voiced my displeasure with the banned list. How it is inconsistent. Over half of the explanations of cards on the banned list applies to another 30-40 cards. Now I would understand if you actually gave a reason for why they aren't banned, but you don't, and nobody has. The only statement that you all cling too is "not ban worthy in the eyes of the RC". That's not an acceptable response. And the worst part is, we who do voice displeasure are basically given a big "FU" and told to shove off, with no apologies.
What I find to be utterly hilarious is that you have a banned list, yet encourage those that don't agree to "house rule". Doesn't that sound like a gigantic waste of time? "Hey, we've spent a considerable amount of our time crafting this ban list in our vision, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to". Although I'm not surprised. It's the same stance you, and many others have taken on cards brought up in this very thread. "It may be broken, but don't do broken things with it". That's like giving a prison inmate a fork and telling him he can only use it for his salad.
I'd be on board with a Crypt ban, but your reasoning behind not banning Sol Ring just doesn't make sense.
I didn't directly compare Channel to Sol Ring, but what I did do is say the end result is the same. I read all the time about the gold standard of Turn-10. Sol Ring and Mana Crypt push that clock back 2 turns, without assistance. Throw in all of the other things that are free with those cards, and suddenly turn-6 becomes the endgame, and then other deck strategies push that into the 4-turn range. If I'm on a 10-turn clock, and somebody pops off at 4 because they were "lucky" enough to open, or draw into either of those, I feel shafted. Not "good game", but "lucky bounce". You remove Ring/crypt from this format, and you are going to be incredibly hard pressed to push that clock below 6, without an over commitment to doing so. What sounds more enjoayble, 4 turns around the table, or 6? Digging 15 cards into your singleton deck, or digging 25+?
It may sound like I only ask for their removal based on how it affects me, personally, and that's not true. I feel absolutely dirty going Forest, Sol Ring, signet/Talimasn/Rock turn one, into Swamp, Natures Lore and the like, into a turn 3 Damia, Sage of Stone. At that point, my opponents don't care about Sol Ring, but without it, I'm two turns behind that, and much less *sad faces*, and more of an actual game.
Thanks. However, this furthers my point about "power level".
P8-Power and Price.
Balance-An effect that's too Powerful(at that CMC).
Braids, Cabal Minion-Not wanting games to devolve based on one card in play. Uh, pretty sure this sums up Crypt/Ring.
Channel-Bust mana, but by the very explanation describes exactly what Crypt/Ring inevitably lead too.
Gifts Ungiven-Labled as broken, which is just another way to say "too Powerful". Is also Labled as a 1-card game ender, then what is this?
Primetime- Ubiquity, or "supreme being". Effects on the game that couldn't be ignored, uh, too powerful is less of a mouthful.
I could keep going, Coalition Victory, Panoptic Mirror, etc.
These aren't my words, just what I pulled from what you gave me.
Let me guess, I'm misinterpreting....
Hey, remember that time you had a turn-1 ring/crypt and proceeded to end the game on turn 5? Those were the days.
"Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format about epic plays but the turn 10 epic play happening on turn 3 is deflating. Limited acceleration is good but we don't want the format to turn into "who can go off earliest" so we rein in large quantities of early mana."
So This is bad, but requires a board state, but this isn't, as both push that turn-10 clock backwards. Makes perfect, logical sense.
Creates Undesirable Games / Game Situations. Some cards produce the kinds of games we'd like to avoid and we see them as creating a negative experience for a majority of the player base. They tend to be anticlimactic wins out of nowhere unexpected combos that end an otherwise enjoyable game or creating situations which completely take play of the game away from the other players. This includes some cards that have a casting cost far too low for their effect or whose abilities simply break the format at any cost.
5 drops on turn 2. That's desirable. I love seeing that. This is the exact reason I play commander!
God forbid I do this, but this is cool.
If you make it that far. Secondly, copying Gilded Lotus with Sculting Steel is a net-0. Still have to wait to untap with it, and my mana base, while the other player vomits out threats. Taking the net-loss by targeting the other is almost always more advantageous.
Is it that hard of a concept to grasp, the player with a turn-1 ring/crypt puts themselves ahead by 2 full turns. I'm building a mana-base while they are building their board. The opposing player has no choice but to play defense, until the board stabilizes, and that rarely ever happens.
Oh, but that isn't true for Crypt/Ring? Players don't Sculpting Steel or Phyrexian Metamorph either of those, ever, right? Dack Fayden doesn't instantly grab one of those, ever. Thada players don't grab those immediately. Or, as you ignored above, the abundance of tutors that only see play to grab them?
The RC has turn-10 as their sweet spot. Yet cards that cost less than 10, and can be pushed out as early as turn 4 (looking at you T&N) end games well before that threshold, and they see no problem with that?
That was hyperbole. I'm glad you're response was "hey, if you don't like getting rail roaded by sol ring, run incredibly nich answers only for sol ring.", because, dude, that makes way more sense.
By aggresivley, I mean keeping a lower curved hand to establish a board presence. Without the threat of Sol Ring, I can keep a hand of Land, Land, Signet, 2-cmc draw, 3-cmc ramp, 5cmc, 7cmc. When decking up with Sol Ring, I don't, and never will. I will want some sort of removal, not just for ring, but whatever it accelerates into. Which is my entire point. Why should it be ok that the player who has a sol ring can keep a 1-land hand and not be punished, but I have to use my resources just to catch up?
Everybody here must be a journalist, cherry picking arguments out of context, and completely ignoring any supporting statements.