If you're giving your DCI number to participate in an event at your LGS, then that event is sanctioned.
Part of playing in a sanctioned event, even one without a tournament structure or prizes, is a tacit agreement that you're playing with real Magic cards.
If it's discovered that the store is letting players play in such sanctioned events with cards that aren't real, then the store could face penalties from Wizards and the WPN up to losing their right to host any sanctioned Magic events at all.
Gold-bordered cards aren't Magic cards and shouldn't be treated as such, like DirkGently said. You can play them in your unsanctioned games if your playgroup is cool with that, but when you bring them into your LGS for sanctioned events, you're really playing with fire and should just get the real card.
I got a question regarding a card if it will ever get banned. Its about cyclonic rift. The card seems to me very powerfull being instant speed and only your opponents. There are a number of other options you have if it ever gets banned
There's some support for banning Rift among the RC/CAG, but there wasn't enough to ban it this time around.
If we take them at their word (and honestly, if we can't then discussing or even worrying about the RC is pointless), the process is democratic with each member of the RC (not CAG) giving a -2 to +2 vote. -2 or +2 means they feel strongly about their position, -1 or +1 is they want the change but aren't pushing hard for it, and 0 is indifferent to it. And I guess there is some total score threshold, but honestly not sure what that is.
The threshold for a ban or unban is +2, which means that two members vehemently against a ban/unban can keep it from happening but two members vehemently for a ban/unban can override the other two members being on average only a little against it.
What insight can you give that changed the stance of what looks like everyone on the RC given the following (many quotes)?
There has been strong and virtually unanimous support among CAG members for unbanning this card since the inception of the group.
I can only speak for myself and not for the rest of the RC/CAG, but my own personal reasons for wanting Painter's Servant unbanned are because I felt that it was unfairly banned because it was a strong enabler rather than the dangerous part of any potential combo. No other cards are banned for this reason, so it was out of place on the ban list. While I understand the past concerns of the RC, I feel like the format has changed to be much more interactive in the past few years, with a ton more quality options for removal and counterspells and the like to fight combos. Additionally, short of Tooth & Nail into Iona and Painter, there's no truly busted interaction with the card that can't be better replicated cheaper and with fewer cards in other ways. Additionally, Painter's Servant is such a unique card that it opens up a ton of space for casual brewers to really figure out interesting interactions for the card. The revision to the format's philosophy document also opened up more space to set it free.
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.
(Note: When the official site comes back up, the link to the official document will be added, as well as have the contents pasted into this post for easier reading.)
The easy answer to all of the "Why Paradox Engine and not [OTHER CARD]?" questions is that there was support for banning Paradox Engine and not those other cards among the members of the Rules Committee. Many of the other cards mentioned like Tooth and Nail were discussed, but the will wasn't there to ban them at the most recent meeting.
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
The new philosophy document goes to great lengths to say "these are not a checklist," just some things we look for.
Honestly, if you want the most important sentence in that paragraph, I would bold "it combines with cards which players already have heavy incentives to play,"
Wins out of nowhere is why Biorhythm, Coalition Victory, and Worldfire are also banned, among other reasons.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
Hey Charlotte - how influential was the CAG in these three bannings?
Do you believe the banning of Paradox Engine 'because it seemingly wins out of nowhere' is consistent with previous bannings or if it is an indication of a newer philosophy?
To be clear, the CAG doesn't actually get to vote to ban or unban cards. That's the RC's job. We just advise them with our opinions on cards and other rules changes. I feel like Iona's banning was a very CAG-led one as it's not a prominent card but one that does cause a lot of bad feels. PE was a pretty unanimous banning. Painter's Servant had much more support in the CAG than in the RC initially, but I think the update to the philosophy document really led to a re-examination of its reasons for banning and its eventual freeing.
Paradox Engine wasn't banned JUST because it can win out of nowhere. It was banned because the cards that it combos with, particularly mana rocks or mana dorks, already see heavy play in a majority of decks and so there's no cost to including it. Also, PE can just go off with one or two mana rocks without really trying.
I feel it's equally important for everyone to read the new philosophy document as well as take in the new bans, so please give it a read once the mtgcommander.net site gets back up.
That said, I'm happy to answer questions anyone might have about the announcement, so hmu.
Part of playing in a sanctioned event, even one without a tournament structure or prizes, is a tacit agreement that you're playing with real Magic cards.
If it's discovered that the store is letting players play in such sanctioned events with cards that aren't real, then the store could face penalties from Wizards and the WPN up to losing their right to host any sanctioned Magic events at all.
Gold-bordered cards aren't Magic cards and shouldn't be treated as such, like DirkGently said. You can play them in your unsanctioned games if your playgroup is cool with that, but when you bring them into your LGS for sanctioned events, you're really playing with fire and should just get the real card.
The threshold for a ban or unban is +2, which means that two members vehemently against a ban/unban can keep it from happening but two members vehemently for a ban/unban can override the other two members being on average only a little against it.
There has been strong and virtually unanimous support among CAG members for unbanning this card since the inception of the group.
I can only speak for myself and not for the rest of the RC/CAG, but my own personal reasons for wanting Painter's Servant unbanned are because I felt that it was unfairly banned because it was a strong enabler rather than the dangerous part of any potential combo. No other cards are banned for this reason, so it was out of place on the ban list. While I understand the past concerns of the RC, I feel like the format has changed to be much more interactive in the past few years, with a ton more quality options for removal and counterspells and the like to fight combos. Additionally, short of Tooth & Nail into Iona and Painter, there's no truly busted interaction with the card that can't be better replicated cheaper and with fewer cards in other ways. Additionally, Painter's Servant is such a unique card that it opens up a ton of space for casual brewers to really figure out interesting interactions for the card. The revision to the format's philosophy document also opened up more space to set it free.
Your toil was not in vain! Huzzah!
Uh, that article is from 2017.
Also, stop focusing on the bullet points in the philosophy document. The "banning criteria" section was taken out of the philosophy document because people focus too much on the letter of the law over the spirit of the format. Don't look at cards just related to those bullet points, look at them in light of what the philosophy document talks about and the types of games of Commander that we're trying to encourage.
^ THIS ^
Cryo is Cryogen, one of the EDH forum mods.
Remember, a card isn't banned just for falling into one of those categories. A card can fit a category and not be banworthy.
To be clear, the CAG doesn't actually get to vote to ban or unban cards. That's the RC's job. We just advise them with our opinions on cards and other rules changes. I feel like Iona's banning was a very CAG-led one as it's not a prominent card but one that does cause a lot of bad feels. PE was a pretty unanimous banning. Painter's Servant had much more support in the CAG than in the RC initially, but I think the update to the philosophy document really led to a re-examination of its reasons for banning and its eventual freeing.
Paradox Engine wasn't banned JUST because it can win out of nowhere. It was banned because the cards that it combos with, particularly mana rocks or mana dorks, already see heavy play in a majority of decks and so there's no cost to including it. Also, PE can just go off with one or two mana rocks without really trying.
That said, I'm happy to answer questions anyone might have about the announcement, so hmu.
Sure, once it's up on Monday, I'll be happy to talk about it.
Don't mind me, just enjoying the speculation