It's tough to provide specific pointers without you being very specific about exactly how you weren't able to do anything?
Did your opponents have removal for all of your threats? Did your opponents counter all of your spells? Did your mana get disrupted? Were you locked out with a stax piece?
If you want to build a deck to make others miserable, that's also tough. I mean, I like playing against stax so if you bring it against me, I'm going to have fun. And to clarify, I like playing against stax and I don't have any cEDH decks. Want to make me "feel" miserable, play Control Magic or Sower of Temptation, I don't like my cards on the other side of the table with other people tapping them.
I agree about Lightning Bolt. I mean, the best strategy to combat being locked out is to win-faster or have good, appropriate low-cmc answers.
However, I just don't feel that population who complain about stax pieces and people who actually want to play Lightning Bolt overlap.
My point about Narset is just that in the grand scheme of how many decks get built:
1.) Narset + Wheel of Fortune played back to back
2.) Leovold + Wheel of Fortune played back to back
I believe that #2 would be easier for decks to interact against.
I agree that 30 life (or starting life total) can be an entirely separate discussion apart from combo being so strong.
edhREC is quite an imperfect source of data. We don't need data to know that Blue is best. It's cute to suggest another color is better. But Blue not even being the 2nd best color...yeah, sure. Blue can be overrated and the best at the same time.
Protean Hulk was printed in Dissension but was been banned for a while. So it's disingenuous to suggest that it's been around the entire time since 2006.
You point to the data and want to be "scientific." I'm not going to move goalposts, Humans is an aggro deck and it has done its fair share of winning. Having 12 free City of Brass and impactful additions from each and every set will do that for you. Well, you only present a limited glance of the data (mtgtop8 or tcdecks.net).
Sure, take a cursory glance of the data and "aggro" shows at a decent rate. But any serious look into the data shows otherwise. Is a "fish" deck really aggro when it's only 5 creatures are Snapcaster, Tasigur, Yixlid Jailer, and 2x Deathrite? In Modern, I would not consider Izzet Phoenix "aggro."
The way they categorize decks will never be perfect, but a look at the actual decklists will show that attacking for damage just does not win games.
C'mon...optimal play or deck building is not enough to close the gap between combo and aggro. You telling someone to "git gud" is essentially telling them to play Edgar or Edric to close the gap or play combo. Being "gud" at combo sure is easier when you have 40 life.
You can look at EDH through a rock-paper-scissors lens, but I don't think EDH resembles that. That's a framework for looking at competitive formats, and like you said, EDH isn't a competitive format. EDH isn't about archetypes so much as it's about what decks try to do. It's not aggro-control-combo. But in EDH it's voltron, tribal, infect, +1/+1 counters, pillowfort, group slug, stax, draw-go, food chain, flash, eggs, T&N, group-hug, artifacts-matters, lands-matter, Urza themed, all white-bordered, etc.
I don't view combos being around as a problem. I view the chasm between combo and attacking for damage as the problem. It's impossible to outrace combo as the format stands.
Very fun card. You're definitely right about sad robot. It was the favorite thing to imprint for awhile.
It does have a lower floor than people realize. I've seen people fit it in their 99 without having many/enough creatures themselves. I guess they're banking on other players having creatures for them? But then, they're also not playing enough removal, so what exactly was their plan...?
I am wanting to build an extremely degenerate deck. I don't care if it is not fun to pilot, as I only plan to use it against people j would not have fun playing against anyway (damn spikes) I want to make it so no one gets to play anything and no one gets to have fun. Basically I want it to make the fun police seem pretty chill.
But I need help to construct this evil abomination.
Jhoira worked for a while, but I got bored and I try to play all of my decks. Since I have been going against a lot of spikes and combo players, I'm salty and want some revenge.
Probably just need to play a deck similar to theirs and practice until you get better.
I think that in the process of playing a deck of this sort, your opponents actually might have more fun. Spikes do like to play through interaction and against a deck that might beat them.
You can try, but I'm sure you're more likely to have success trying to win yourself than trying to stop everyone else from doing stuff.
Unlike artifacts and enchantments, you can attack Planeswalkers.
Notion Thief has been around a long time never considered for banning, and it is way more versatile. Why is not worth banning? Because it is not a commander.
I didn't misspeak. You can attack my PW's, but I can block.
You want to destroy my Winter Orb lock piece with Fragmentize? Well, I cannot block. I have to counter it to stop you, so either I have to be playing blue or just move on.
You want to destroy my PW lock piece? Well, PW specific removal isn't nearly good enough to run often so you're probably attacking. But I don't have to play Blue to block. Whereas I had to play Blue to protect an artifact/enchantment or play more pieces to protect each other, I can play any color and protect my PW's from the most common form of destruction. Or I can just interact with your easily interacted-with creatures to protect my PW's.
Which is why PW's as lock pieces are extremely dangerous. I hope War of the Spark is just an aberration. If enough PW's with static abilities start to imitate stax pieces (and do so asymmetrically ala Karn & Narset), that'll just be crazy. It's almost unbelievable how they lock out and at the same time provide value. Something that stax pieces just shouldn't be able to do.
It's more nuanced than just "attack the PW." If a stax player can diversify lock pieces by type, it changes the game. Just look to how Karn & Narset are completely changing Vintage/Legacy/Modern to see how good they are.
Notion Thief, it's not a problem card. But I'd say that it's an extremely fragile creature. Look, I'm not advocating for a Narset ban. I actually like playing against stax. I just wanted to address the OP's limited analysis of Narset and reply to his "what does everyone else think" prompt.
uwotm8? There's tons of efficient removal for planeswalkers and it's not even limited to cards that say "destroy target planeswalker'. Smh. Just wut, I can't even with this narrow line of thought.
Sure, there is Assassin's Trophy. But many cards that say "destroy target planeswalker" are not efficient. You just cannot show that they are anywhere near the efficiency of creature/artifact/enchantment removal. That's just a function of planeswalkers not existing for the first 75% of magic.
I'm not proposing banning any card, so don't let that color your response.
Thought experiment: if Expropriate was a modal spell and the first one was Ponder for UU, would it be broken?
It's already broken enough, so...yeah
However, I think it wouldn't be treated the same as Finale of Devastation. I believe most players psychologically don't see playing a non-ultimate'd Finale as a downer. Whereas, if Expropriate had that lesser mode, few players would ever play it for the lesser mode, even if it was the right play.
Ponder is a bigger step down from Expropriate than Green Sun's Zenith is from ultimate-form Finale. Having a creature Wargate'd into play is still more than good.
I think a better card to reference it against would be Cyclonic Rift. Rarely played for it's 2 cmc mode, but still clutch when you have to. Except Cyclonic Rift is a powerful answer card (perhaps the best), and it cannot be a finisher on its own. Finale is an okay answer card (sorcery speed), and can still be a devastating finisher on its own.
By the way, I play and resolve Ad Nauseam a bunch. I play it a bunch because my main deck has 60 lands. I get to resolve it because I'm playing it in a pod where I'm trying to win with Maze's End. I wouldn't say it's a problem card in cEDH or non-cEDH.
I'm just not seeing how this type of change would destroy EDH. If it was horrible enough to ruin EDH, you don't presume that they'd reverse the change?
That doesn't mean they should just "do it just because." But just saying', having to walk back a change is tough to do- for your ego. But it's as easy as the next rules bulletin.
The rules committee has done a pretty good job. I'm for lowering starting life totals, but okay if it stays at 40.
Not even close to true and you should know better.
Yes, infinite mana has been a go-to for decks, but so has infinite turns, infinite damage, infinite storm, infinite etb/sacrifice, infinite tokens and so on.
I'm quite sure that combos have gotten stronger over time. You can insist that they haven't but that's just not the case. I don't understand how you want to frame me as the one who's being disingenuous.
Least important point first, when you said one color is better than the others, yet fail to state which one, I bet that you want us all to assume that it is blue because that is the stereotype.
Blue is the strongest color. I thought it was obvious. It's not a "stereotype" or cliche to believe blue is the strongest color.
You've sourced EDH data a couple of times. I think you should be careful with how you use that imperfect source of information. Black -and guilds/wedges/shards with black- might be more popular but what does that have to do with the strength of the color?
Next, you even acknowledge that lowering life totals is not about combos, but making aggro decks more viable, yet fail to miss my entire point that despite aggro being considerably more VIABLE in other formats, they still are not being played at a proportionally higher rate. Even before Commander was a format, people played star magic and casual free for all at 20 life with 60x4 decks and combo/stax decks were still the most effective decks. Asking to lower the starting life total is crying into the wind. It is not going to happen, nor should it happen, and you have failed to give any evidence that it would make any meaningful difference, regardless of your reason to want it.
Sure, I'll address it now then. First off, your presumption about aggro is incorrect. Aggro is not considerably more viable in other formats. Aggro is not viable in Vintage (besides Shops/Eldrazi, which aren't aggro in a sense but simply just means to abuse Mishra's Workshop and Eye of Ugin). It's also not viable in Legacy. It's also not viable in Modern. You must be delusional if you think that it's the case that aggro decks have fared well in any format other than Standard for a long time. And even then, aggro in Standard has needed considerable amounts of playable red burn to be winning GP's and PT's.
Lowering should happen even if it won't. But I'm okay either way. I'll play EDH still. Attacking lowers life totals. Having to lower someone who starts lower is easier. If that's not a meaningful difference, then...
That anecdotal story just supported my position perfectly and worked to disprove what Sheldon wrote. Sheldon is/was worried that the response to an infinite combo is that other player will try to go for their combos, and try to go for them as quickly if not faster than the person they lost to. Instead, you and your group teamed up and attacked the combo player. but why would you do that if attacking is not viable? Especially at 40 life?
I don't think my anecdote supports you at all. Even if you want to try to turn it against me. I'm sure that more than a reasonable amount of players will view 3 players having to full-on attack one specific player for an entire game...not particularly effective. Sure, we eliminated him but if his deck was more dedicated to combos, we probably wouldn't have be able to.
One of the reasons why we didn't just go for a faster combo instead of attacking him was because we didn't want to switch decks. It wasn't because of what you're saying. Sheldon wasn't talking about the arms race as some instantaneous thing that you are suggesting that it is. But if that game leads someone to go, "Hey next time I'm bringing something else just like that." That's what Sheldon's talking about.
The fact that players use too few interactive/reactive/defensive cards to stop combo is a whole other topic and more of a problem than combo is.
Yeah, I feel that's a problem as well. It's probably the main problem in EDH deck building. And deck building is the most important part of magic.
You can tell someone to play more interaction but I'll tell you exactly what they say, "But that doesn't mean I'm going to draw it." A player doesn't do anything meaningful an entire game, but gets his one impactful play on turn 10 dealt with instantly who then complains about how the control deck counters/removes everything.
Being able to tell when/if it's time to help a player improve at magic and what/how to say/do is important in a community.
However, you don't have to consider hypothetical, made-up cards. Just take a look at Narset, Parter of Veils. It's a lock piece that is ALSO asymmetric and Impulse x 2. Here's the kicker, it's a planeswalker. Unlike an enchantment or artifact hate piece or a creature hate-bear, there is no efficient removal for them other than attacking.
I'm not calling for a ban. But perhaps you need to provide a more critical analysis of why Narset was discussed.
Combo is WAY, WAYeasier than before. I mean, back in the old days, making infinite mana was the goal of most playable infinite loops...and then you'd do something with the mana (e.g. Stroke of Genius). Now, you don't even need infinite mana often. The combo pieces themselves go infinite and provide the win-con.
Changing life totals is not about stopping 2-card combos or decreasing how often they are played. It will always be the fastest way to win no matter what they change. That's not going to change. Just like how one color has always been better than the others.
I feel like talking about how combo is bad for the format or that combo is growing rampant is a straw man. The point of lowering starting life total is not to hobble combo. It's about giving attacking more value in EDH.
It's important in any game to communicate with people you play with. But how do you communicate with that player when 40 life x 3 or 4 to them feels unsurmountable? And honestly, it is to most players. They're just not going to be able to close out a game.
3 players in a 4-man pod archenemy'd a player for two games after he went infinite in the first. He wondered how come? We said it was because of his infinite loops. He replied, "I have to play infinite loops because everyone attacks me." We explained, "The infinite loops are the only reason we're attacking you first all the time. Unless someone else has something crazy, we're just going to attack you first." Then he said, "I won't win many games without the combo."
There's a reason why infinite loops are clutches/safety-valves. Notice how defensive cards or interaction (e.g.Force of Will, Nature's Claim, etc.) aren't the defacto safety-valves for these types of players.
I have bias, I hate bans, and I don't play infinite loops. I also cannot read Sheldon's mind, but I don't think the purpose of him bringing up "combo" was not to discuss the strengths/merits of individual combos or combo decks.
If you'll actually start by reading his "thoughts on combos" rather than the posts in this thread, Sheldon discusses how games seem to end too often or unsatisfyingly via an infinite loop. He mentioned how "games have to end" and how many players will pack an infinite to end the game as a back-up plan. However, in the end, that infinite combo that was initially just played as a back-up win-con just becomes the primary win-con because it's effective.
As he mentioned, the discussion shouldn't be framed around "demonizing combo," not whether a combo is "too good" or not, and not what to ban?
Ban all the tutors you want, but 2-card combos are still going to end the game without tutors. Ban one card out of a 2-card combo and players will just sub into a different 2-card combo. The means are different, but the ends are the same. Ban fast mana and people will still lose to 2-card combos. Banning never works and sucks. Save bans for Black Lotus and Balance.
So let's look at one the the problems that Sheldon is supposedly leading to the arms race: "games have to end." Due to the nature of EDH (multiplayer and 40 life), games are most effectively won through infinite loops. If you only address individual combos themselves, it won't change the nature of the format and combo will still always be the most effective win-con.
Now, combo being the leader in efficiently winning is not a bad thing in and of itself. After all, someone always has to be the leader. However, at the moment, combo is so far above everything else. That's why people will put seemingly useless combo pieces into their decks, cards with no synergy beyond facilitating a single 2-card combo (e.g. draft chaff like Village Bell Ringer).
It's not about combo bad unfair magic...attacking good fair magic. It's about how come so many players clutch unto 2-card combos are safety valves.
Players are worried about not being able to close out a long game. That's why they pack in these combos. But the "just-in-case" ends up being "all-the-time." Lowering starting life totals is just the only way to go. Games can end sooner through conventional methods (i.e. damage) and control/combo decks no longer have the insane life buffer.
I don't know that i think lowering life totals is necessarily bad but it would easily impact the game more than banning say the top 20 combo enablers.
Most people don't play combos but everyone has a life total and their decks are built with that in mind.
Fetches and shocks change. Night's whisper is worse. Mana crypt can become a death sentence. Sweepers have to be player more and cheaper.
So many impacts it's hard to even guess at. Go find every card in edh that says pay life and think on it. Serra ascendant actually gets better by a lot because now its a 5 turn clock instead of 7.
Turn one plays become way more critical. Bad manabase with tons of etb tapped lands become waaaaay worse.
The consequence are wildly unpredictable but it's far more likely to kill the format than banning kiki and ashnods altar or whatever.
I think the worst consequences I can think of relate to the pressure to play expensive manabase.
If games are 2 turns shorter on average your early turns are even more important. So there's a lot of pressure to lower curve, play expensive cheap ramp, mulligan aggressively and so on.
The gulf between cheap and expensive decks could widen significantly just by the casual consequences on manabase further stratifying the community by budget. That's already a thing but more so when the games are faster.
I guess that all of the "negatives" that you listed are things that I see as positives.
I agree that most people don't play combos [or combo decks] and, like you, I don't see combos as a problem. They don't make for the best games but they are going to exist. However, I believe that issues with combo are more a structure of the format (i.e. 40 life, multiplayer) rather than a function of the banned list (i.e. you can't possibly have a palatable banned list that eliminates it).
Fetches/Shocks, Night's Whisper, and Mana Crypt should all have meaningful costs/downsides/drawbacks. I don't understand how that is a negative. You said that all people build with 40 life in mind...but are you going to ignore that almost every magic card is designed with 20 life in mind? Having an extra 20 life to buffer fetch->shock is ridiculous.
Serra Ascendant would be weaker. At 30 starting life, a fetch on turn 1 (or any chip damage) would stop it from entering as 6/6. Lower life total would probably lead to more early creatures and more early removal spells. How does lower life make it better?
Instead of banning every single "pay life" card printed, it's just cleaner to have life start at 30 instead of 40. There's a lot of "pay life" cards that are fair but just get too much juice at 40 life.
Turn one plays being a critical part of the game is a good thing. Explain why it shouldn't be the case? Come into play tapped lands are mostly bad, but there are many tools available for deck builders besides fetch->ABUR dual to fix mana. Are they not as good? Sure, but I think almost every single deck builder worth his salt would tell you that $$$-to-effectiveness, ABUR duals offer the worst return over any other upgrade. Lower life total doesn't pressure players into feeling like they "have to" buy duals. That's just a non-sequitur.
You're suggesting banning Kiki-Jiki? That's ridiculous. More people would dislike not being able to play their cards than starting out at 30.
I've played in so many games where players with creatures on boards, facing no blockers, still skip attacking. "Don't want to make enemies." There is truth in that. But the complete answer is just that in the face of 3/4 other players with 40 life, chip damage feels meaningless.
Lowering life totals is pretty format defining change. It'd make a huge impact. I think it's far more risky than banning and unbanning personally. You could ban 20 or 30 cards and it would be less impactful than changing the life totals to how the game fundamentally plays--if they were the right 20 or 30 cards.
20-30 cards? That's a disaster...mass bannings impact 3 out of these 4 objectives that you stated:
* Do my thing
* Hopefully see other people do their thing
* Chat with people
* Have a good time
However, you haven't mentioned how exactly you think lowering life totals would negatively impact the game? I'm interested in knowing that from your perspective.
cEDH hasn't been the main driver in the massive power creep in EDH. Neither has it been a big driver, nor small driver. cEDH's impact isn't nothing, but it's closer to being nothing than not.
It's been the annual CMDR pre-cons and the cards made specifically for EDH that pop each with each set. Also consider that EDH has grown but so has it's player base. Even if only ~10% of players become better deck builders, you'll notice it even if they don't play cEDH.
Yeah and I'm not really convinced it's a problem personally. I think some of the combos are a bit too easy and powerful and resilient, but there really is a huge variety of combo decks.
I have a control-combo deck (inalla), an aggro-control deck with a combo finisher (ephara), and a couple weird ramp decks (gitrog and maelstrom wanderer). All of my decks play pretty differently, despite there being combos in some.
I keep hearing a lot of tutors and ramp are the problem but I see lots of people using those responsibly and in fun ways, but there are an awful lot of "must include" combo cards like food chain, isochron scepter and paradox engine that are independently very strong cards and also combo engines. I think those cards are more likely the problem than tutors and fast mana or even life totals.
Back when I got into EDH the go to mana combo was Basalt Monolith with rings or power artifact. These cards were all pretty clunky and awkward to find and half the combo didn't do much by itself. Almost no one used food chain really until well after Prossh was printed and popularized it by being a one-card combo basically (and then Eternal Scourge getting printed did not help. Isochron scepter didn't really see much play until Dramatic Reversal either, and of course Protean Hulk was banned.
Storm decks also have come a really long way since the earlier ones, with reservoir and some of the new nutterbutter enchantments (for casuals) and reversal/scepter and dark petition, etc.
Now combo packages are super dense, stronger, and faster. It's crazy to me how much faster and tighter decks have gotten even on the less than CEDH side. And it's mostly related to cards printed in the last few years.
I'm not really sure what to make of it to be honest but I would not shed any tears if a couple of the more degenerate pieces went away. I think that could be done with a lot less impact than some of the more exotic suggestions I've heard, if it were even warranted.
I think lowering starting life totals is the least "exotic" suggestion. For anyone wanting to keep the starting totals at 40, how come? How does giving 4 players such high life totals make games better than having them start at 30 instead?
Banning cards is a massive feel bad. Like you said, Isochron Scepter was okay for years until Dramatic Reversal. In fact, it was dismissed as actively bad for a long time.
A lot of the discussion has gone far off the path/problem that Sheldon laid out. He's not talking about cEDH combo decks or decks built entirely around combos. He talked about how decks too often pack some type of infinite loop to end games "just in case." However, the "just in case" scenario just happens to become every game. There's no amount of bannings that can eliminate theses types of "just in case" combo packages.
Games where all previous interactions are deemed meaningless through an out of nowhere infinite occurs are not satisfying. How many times do you sweat leaving someone at 4-5 life because you just know that everyone packs "infinites?" Lowering life totals just helps games end faster and more games will end organically.
And for the types of games Sheldon's referring to, most of the infinites are out of nowhere. The infinities have no synergy with the rest of the deck. They are simply "oopsies" I have the loop. And they're incredibly unsatisfying because the game and board-state never built up for the game to end that way.
He's not discussing cEDH battles where there are stacks that go 6-7 spells deep, where passing priority properly is important. When combos end those games, they are satisfying because the entire game was fought back and forth along that axis (card draw, counter-magic, decks with only 1v1 instant speed disruption).
One archetype that hasn't been discussed so far is Ramp. Lower life total definitely helps aggro vs ramp.
Did your opponents have removal for all of your threats? Did your opponents counter all of your spells? Did your mana get disrupted? Were you locked out with a stax piece?
If you want to build a deck to make others miserable, that's also tough. I mean, I like playing against stax so if you bring it against me, I'm going to have fun. And to clarify, I like playing against stax and I don't have any cEDH decks. Want to make me "feel" miserable, play Control Magic or Sower of Temptation, I don't like my cards on the other side of the table with other people tapping them.
But if you don't want to be specific and you have the budget, I think someone already mentioned Urza with Orbs. You don't even have to win, just have the Orbs out. Maybe even Tormod's Crypt + Mist of Stagnation. Stasis + Unwinding Clock. Mana Vortex
However, I just don't feel that population who complain about stax pieces and people who actually want to play Lightning Bolt overlap.
My point about Narset is just that in the grand scheme of how many decks get built:
1.) Narset + Wheel of Fortune played back to back
2.) Leovold + Wheel of Fortune played back to back
I believe that #2 would be easier for decks to interact against.
I agree that 30 life (or starting life total) can be an entirely separate discussion apart from combo being so strong.
edhREC is quite an imperfect source of data. We don't need data to know that Blue is best. It's cute to suggest another color is better. But Blue not even being the 2nd best color...yeah, sure. Blue can be overrated and the best at the same time.
Protean Hulk was printed in Dissension but was been banned for a while. So it's disingenuous to suggest that it's been around the entire time since 2006.
You point to the data and want to be "scientific." I'm not going to move goalposts, Humans is an aggro deck and it has done its fair share of winning. Having 12 free City of Brass and impactful additions from each and every set will do that for you. Well, you only present a limited glance of the data (mtgtop8 or tcdecks.net).
Sure, take a cursory glance of the data and "aggro" shows at a decent rate. But any serious look into the data shows otherwise. Is a "fish" deck really aggro when it's only 5 creatures are Snapcaster, Tasigur, Yixlid Jailer, and 2x Deathrite? In Modern, I would not consider Izzet Phoenix "aggro."
The way they categorize decks will never be perfect, but a look at the actual decklists will show that attacking for damage just does not win games.
C'mon...optimal play or deck building is not enough to close the gap between combo and aggro. You telling someone to "git gud" is essentially telling them to play Edgar or Edric to close the gap or play combo. Being "gud" at combo sure is easier when you have 40 life.
You can look at EDH through a rock-paper-scissors lens, but I don't think EDH resembles that. That's a framework for looking at competitive formats, and like you said, EDH isn't a competitive format. EDH isn't about archetypes so much as it's about what decks try to do. It's not aggro-control-combo. But in EDH it's voltron, tribal, infect, +1/+1 counters, pillowfort, group slug, stax, draw-go, food chain, flash, eggs, T&N, group-hug, artifacts-matters, lands-matter, Urza themed, all white-bordered, etc.
I don't view combos being around as a problem. I view the chasm between combo and attacking for damage as the problem. It's impossible to outrace combo as the format stands.
Very fun card. You're definitely right about sad robot. It was the favorite thing to imprint for awhile.
It does have a lower floor than people realize. I've seen people fit it in their 99 without having many/enough creatures themselves. I guess they're banking on other players having creatures for them? But then, they're also not playing enough removal, so what exactly was their plan...?
I think that in the process of playing a deck of this sort, your opponents actually might have more fun. Spikes do like to play through interaction and against a deck that might beat them.
You can try, but I'm sure you're more likely to have success trying to win yourself than trying to stop everyone else from doing stuff.
I didn't misspeak. You can attack my PW's, but I can block.
You want to destroy my Winter Orb lock piece with Fragmentize? Well, I cannot block. I have to counter it to stop you, so either I have to be playing blue or just move on.
You want to destroy my PW lock piece? Well, PW specific removal isn't nearly good enough to run often so you're probably attacking. But I don't have to play Blue to block. Whereas I had to play Blue to protect an artifact/enchantment or play more pieces to protect each other, I can play any color and protect my PW's from the most common form of destruction. Or I can just interact with your easily interacted-with creatures to protect my PW's.
Which is why PW's as lock pieces are extremely dangerous. I hope War of the Spark is just an aberration. If enough PW's with static abilities start to imitate stax pieces (and do so asymmetrically ala Karn & Narset), that'll just be crazy. It's almost unbelievable how they lock out and at the same time provide value. Something that stax pieces just shouldn't be able to do.
It's more nuanced than just "attack the PW." If a stax player can diversify lock pieces by type, it changes the game. Just look to how Karn & Narset are completely changing Vintage/Legacy/Modern to see how good they are.
Notion Thief, it's not a problem card. But I'd say that it's an extremely fragile creature. Look, I'm not advocating for a Narset ban. I actually like playing against stax. I just wanted to address the OP's limited analysis of Narset and reply to his "what does everyone else think" prompt.
Sure, there is Assassin's Trophy. But many cards that say "destroy target planeswalker" are not efficient. You just cannot show that they are anywhere near the efficiency of creature/artifact/enchantment removal. That's just a function of planeswalkers not existing for the first 75% of magic.
I'm not proposing banning any card, so don't let that color your response.
It's already broken enough, so...yeah
However, I think it wouldn't be treated the same as Finale of Devastation. I believe most players psychologically don't see playing a non-ultimate'd Finale as a downer. Whereas, if Expropriate had that lesser mode, few players would ever play it for the lesser mode, even if it was the right play.
Ponder is a bigger step down from Expropriate than Green Sun's Zenith is from ultimate-form Finale. Having a creature Wargate'd into play is still more than good.
I think a better card to reference it against would be Cyclonic Rift. Rarely played for it's 2 cmc mode, but still clutch when you have to. Except Cyclonic Rift is a powerful answer card (perhaps the best), and it cannot be a finisher on its own. Finale is an okay answer card (sorcery speed), and can still be a devastating finisher on its own.
By the way, I play and resolve Ad Nauseam a bunch. I play it a bunch because my main deck has 60 lands. I get to resolve it because I'm playing it in a pod where I'm trying to win with Maze's End. I wouldn't say it's a problem card in cEDH or non-cEDH.
That doesn't mean they should just "do it just because." But just saying', having to walk back a change is tough to do- for your ego. But it's as easy as the next rules bulletin.
The rules committee has done a pretty good job. I'm for lowering starting life totals, but okay if it stays at 40.
I'm quite sure that combos have gotten stronger over time. You can insist that they haven't but that's just not the case. I don't understand how you want to frame me as the one who's being disingenuous.
I concede that Doomsday is old but Laboratory Maniac & Gitaxian Probe are new. Food Chain is old but Misthollow Raven, Squee, the Immortal, and Eternal Scourge are new. Lion's Eye Diamond is old but Auriok Salvagers is [relatively] new as well as most of the infinite mana outlets.
Mephidross Vampire turned into Mikaues, the Unhallowed. I remember when Crystal Shard + Eternal Witness + Time Warp was "strong" and people thought Crystal Shard was OP.
Blue is the strongest color. I thought it was obvious. It's not a "stereotype" or cliche to believe blue is the strongest color.
You've sourced EDH data a couple of times. I think you should be careful with how you use that imperfect source of information. Black -and guilds/wedges/shards with black- might be more popular but what does that have to do with the strength of the color?
Sure, I'll address it now then. First off, your presumption about aggro is incorrect. Aggro is not considerably more viable in other formats. Aggro is not viable in Vintage (besides Shops/Eldrazi, which aren't aggro in a sense but simply just means to abuse Mishra's Workshop and Eye of Ugin). It's also not viable in Legacy. It's also not viable in Modern. You must be delusional if you think that it's the case that aggro decks have fared well in any format other than Standard for a long time. And even then, aggro in Standard has needed considerable amounts of playable red burn to be winning GP's and PT's.
Lowering should happen even if it won't. But I'm okay either way. I'll play EDH still. Attacking lowers life totals. Having to lower someone who starts lower is easier. If that's not a meaningful difference, then...
I don't think my anecdote supports you at all. Even if you want to try to turn it against me. I'm sure that more than a reasonable amount of players will view 3 players having to full-on attack one specific player for an entire game...not particularly effective. Sure, we eliminated him but if his deck was more dedicated to combos, we probably wouldn't have be able to.
One of the reasons why we didn't just go for a faster combo instead of attacking him was because we didn't want to switch decks. It wasn't because of what you're saying. Sheldon wasn't talking about the arms race as some instantaneous thing that you are suggesting that it is. But if that game leads someone to go, "Hey next time I'm bringing something else just like that." That's what Sheldon's talking about.
Yeah, I feel that's a problem as well. It's probably the main problem in EDH deck building. And deck building is the most important part of magic.
You can tell someone to play more interaction but I'll tell you exactly what they say, "But that doesn't mean I'm going to draw it." A player doesn't do anything meaningful an entire game, but gets his one impactful play on turn 10 dealt with instantly who then complains about how the control deck counters/removes everything.
Being able to tell when/if it's time to help a player improve at magic and what/how to say/do is important in a community.
I mean, what if Winter Orb and Howling Mine were combined into the same card at 3?
However, you don't have to consider hypothetical, made-up cards. Just take a look at Narset, Parter of Veils. It's a lock piece that is ALSO asymmetric and Impulse x 2. Here's the kicker, it's a planeswalker. Unlike an enchantment or artifact hate piece or a creature hate-bear, there is no efficient removal for them other than attacking.
I'm not calling for a ban. But perhaps you need to provide a more critical analysis of why Narset was discussed.
Changing life totals is not about stopping 2-card combos or decreasing how often they are played. It will always be the fastest way to win no matter what they change. That's not going to change. Just like how one color has always been better than the others.
I feel like talking about how combo is bad for the format or that combo is growing rampant is a straw man. The point of lowering starting life total is not to hobble combo. It's about giving attacking more value in EDH.
It's important in any game to communicate with people you play with. But how do you communicate with that player when 40 life x 3 or 4 to them feels unsurmountable? And honestly, it is to most players. They're just not going to be able to close out a game.
3 players in a 4-man pod archenemy'd a player for two games after he went infinite in the first. He wondered how come? We said it was because of his infinite loops. He replied, "I have to play infinite loops because everyone attacks me." We explained, "The infinite loops are the only reason we're attacking you first all the time. Unless someone else has something crazy, we're just going to attack you first." Then he said, "I won't win many games without the combo."
There's a reason why infinite loops are clutches/safety-valves. Notice how defensive cards or interaction (e.g.Force of Will, Nature's Claim, etc.) aren't the defacto safety-valves for these types of players.
If you'll actually start by reading his "thoughts on combos" rather than the posts in this thread, Sheldon discusses how games seem to end too often or unsatisfyingly via an infinite loop. He mentioned how "games have to end" and how many players will pack an infinite to end the game as a back-up plan. However, in the end, that infinite combo that was initially just played as a back-up win-con just becomes the primary win-con because it's effective.
As he mentioned, the discussion shouldn't be framed around "demonizing combo," not whether a combo is "too good" or not, and not what to ban?
Ban all the tutors you want, but 2-card combos are still going to end the game without tutors. Ban one card out of a 2-card combo and players will just sub into a different 2-card combo. The means are different, but the ends are the same. Ban fast mana and people will still lose to 2-card combos. Banning never works and sucks. Save bans for Black Lotus and Balance.
So let's look at one the the problems that Sheldon is supposedly leading to the arms race: "games have to end." Due to the nature of EDH (multiplayer and 40 life), games are most effectively won through infinite loops. If you only address individual combos themselves, it won't change the nature of the format and combo will still always be the most effective win-con.
Now, combo being the leader in efficiently winning is not a bad thing in and of itself. After all, someone always has to be the leader. However, at the moment, combo is so far above everything else. That's why people will put seemingly useless combo pieces into their decks, cards with no synergy beyond facilitating a single 2-card combo (e.g. draft chaff like Village Bell Ringer).
It's not about combo bad unfair magic...attacking good fair magic. It's about how come so many players clutch unto 2-card combos are safety valves.
Players are worried about not being able to close out a long game. That's why they pack in these combos. But the "just-in-case" ends up being "all-the-time." Lowering starting life totals is just the only way to go. Games can end sooner through conventional methods (i.e. damage) and control/combo decks no longer have the insane life buffer.
I guess that all of the "negatives" that you listed are things that I see as positives.
I agree that most people don't play combos [or combo decks] and, like you, I don't see combos as a problem. They don't make for the best games but they are going to exist. However, I believe that issues with combo are more a structure of the format (i.e. 40 life, multiplayer) rather than a function of the banned list (i.e. you can't possibly have a palatable banned list that eliminates it).
Fetches/Shocks, Night's Whisper, and Mana Crypt should all have meaningful costs/downsides/drawbacks. I don't understand how that is a negative. You said that all people build with 40 life in mind...but are you going to ignore that almost every magic card is designed with 20 life in mind? Having an extra 20 life to buffer fetch->shock is ridiculous.
Serra Ascendant would be weaker. At 30 starting life, a fetch on turn 1 (or any chip damage) would stop it from entering as 6/6. Lower life total would probably lead to more early creatures and more early removal spells. How does lower life make it better?
Instead of banning every single "pay life" card printed, it's just cleaner to have life start at 30 instead of 40. There's a lot of "pay life" cards that are fair but just get too much juice at 40 life.
Turn one plays being a critical part of the game is a good thing. Explain why it shouldn't be the case? Come into play tapped lands are mostly bad, but there are many tools available for deck builders besides fetch->ABUR dual to fix mana. Are they not as good? Sure, but I think almost every single deck builder worth his salt would tell you that $$$-to-effectiveness, ABUR duals offer the worst return over any other upgrade. Lower life total doesn't pressure players into feeling like they "have to" buy duals. That's just a non-sequitur.
You're suggesting banning Kiki-Jiki? That's ridiculous. More people would dislike not being able to play their cards than starting out at 30.
I've played in so many games where players with creatures on boards, facing no blockers, still skip attacking. "Don't want to make enemies." There is truth in that. But the complete answer is just that in the face of 3/4 other players with 40 life, chip damage feels meaningless.
20-30 cards? That's a disaster...mass bannings impact 3 out of these 4 objectives that you stated:
* Do my thing
* Hopefully see other people do their thing
* Chat with people
* Have a good time
However, you haven't mentioned how exactly you think lowering life totals would negatively impact the game? I'm interested in knowing that from your perspective.
cEDH hasn't been the main driver in the massive power creep in EDH. Neither has it been a big driver, nor small driver. cEDH's impact isn't nothing, but it's closer to being nothing than not.
It's been the annual CMDR pre-cons and the cards made specifically for EDH that pop each with each set. Also consider that EDH has grown but so has it's player base. Even if only ~10% of players become better deck builders, you'll notice it even if they don't play cEDH.
I think lowering starting life totals is the least "exotic" suggestion. For anyone wanting to keep the starting totals at 40, how come? How does giving 4 players such high life totals make games better than having them start at 30 instead?
Banning cards is a massive feel bad. Like you said, Isochron Scepter was okay for years until Dramatic Reversal. In fact, it was dismissed as actively bad for a long time.
A lot of the discussion has gone far off the path/problem that Sheldon laid out. He's not talking about cEDH combo decks or decks built entirely around combos. He talked about how decks too often pack some type of infinite loop to end games "just in case." However, the "just in case" scenario just happens to become every game. There's no amount of bannings that can eliminate theses types of "just in case" combo packages.
Games where all previous interactions are deemed meaningless through an out of nowhere infinite occurs are not satisfying. How many times do you sweat leaving someone at 4-5 life because you just know that everyone packs "infinites?" Lowering life totals just helps games end faster and more games will end organically.
And for the types of games Sheldon's referring to, most of the infinites are out of nowhere. The infinities have no synergy with the rest of the deck. They are simply "oopsies" I have the loop. And they're incredibly unsatisfying because the game and board-state never built up for the game to end that way.
He's not discussing cEDH battles where there are stacks that go 6-7 spells deep, where passing priority properly is important. When combos end those games, they are satisfying because the entire game was fought back and forth along that axis (card draw, counter-magic, decks with only 1v1 instant speed disruption).
One archetype that hasn't been discussed so far is Ramp. Lower life total definitely helps aggro vs ramp.