Context: My group plays star (kill 2-3 non-adjacent players) and assassin (kill 1 assigned player), as a result, this strategy is considered viable since the rules modifications reduce the number of opponents that need to be eliminated. The deck is tagged "competitive" because my fundamental objective is to win the game.
Thread objective:
Look for better cards that fit the same purpose (e.g. use reanimate instead of breath of life)
Gather feedback, either alternative tech that has not been considered, e.g. how are you not running Path to Exile) or obvious weaknesses, e.g. your deck is too light on removal
Rationale:
Most of the deck is dedicated to flinging large creatures, the rest is draw/tutor/ramp and a few hedges against a long game (e.g. Ugin). If the hedge doesn't make sense, that opens up a handful of additional slots.
Manabase:
TBD - not worried as I have all of the relevant non-basics.
Cards on Deck - i.e. considered but not added due to space
I always see these threads about powerful black cards in a specific category, and it is always shocking to me how every time people completely forget to invite Gary to the party. With a solid board, Gary can outright kill multiple players out of nowhere. In my black red deck, I frequently resolve him for 20+ damage, and I'm not running particularpy much devotion
For me, Gary and Disciple of Bolas are basically auto-includes in any black deck, so I forget they exist sometimes because they are like sol ring and demonic tutor for me.
Not sure if this isn't mono black enough for you, but a friend of mine recently massacred the entire table using a combination of Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord and Kresh the Bloodbraided. He basically just sacced 1-2 fatties to jarad, burning the entire table, then turned around and sacced the now ginormous kresh to jarad, finishing off everyone for about 35 damage a piece. It was a great interaction and entirely pulled off through drafting my edh cube.
If I go Jund I'll definitely consider it. Red specializes in burst so I think I'm doing myself a huge disservice not going to at least BR.
I'm currently trying to come up with some ways to "burst damage" opponents for 20-40+ damage in a relatively simple albeit non-infinite way and relatively low-mana way, e.g. consume spirit for 200 is certainly bursty but also likely telegraphed.
Open to secondary colors but would prefer monoblack, e.g. red adds additional fling variants and opportunity to fork or otherwise further double damage. Green adds recursion and LoE for derpiness. Any other black or artifact options I may be overlooking?
In short, my goal is to take or create something large and then triple - quintuple its damage output briefly. I'm inclined to have Volrath as the general, but Chainer is a second choice for the ability to hedge and play a reanimator strategy if this one fails.
If the format retains its encouragement of house rules amending the banned list to suit, I see no reason to unduly limit everyone else to the power level of the lowest denominator.
And yet, there is an argument for crafting the banlist to the lowest denominator:
If the banlist is built openly, as you suggest, with groups adding to it, then a player who walks into a new store with their banlist legal deck and discovers the store has additional bans will not be able to play their deck, because it is illegal in that meta.
On the other side, if the banlist is is built to the lowest denominator, and a person builds to that, they can walk into any new group, and regardless of group specific unbans, their deck is legal (though perhaps not as optimal).
Both banlists place the onus of customization on the playgroup, but only one list allows for a rationale of base standards such that you can have a reasonable expectation to be able to join a group and then adapt, rather than having to adapt before joining any group.
Excellent point/approach, my only concern is it leads to an excessively large starting place from which to build. Thoughts on how large of a banlist a "lowest denominator" approach leads to?
Let me see if I can hop on the analogy train (knowing that all analogies, regardless of how clever, break down).
Commander is folk music. It's of niche appeal, intentionally so. We like what we're getting out of the acoustic guitar and stand up bass. But assume for a moment that folk music, or at least some of our songs, gets popular. Saying "I love folk music, but it needs more electric guitars and thundering drums" exposes two things. First, nothing before "but" matters. Second, you don't actually love folk music, you love metal (as do I, which is beside the point). That's not a personal judgment, it's an honest assessment of what you're saying. We're going to continue to play folk music. If you want to try out some electric folk, that's awesome. If you want to take folk themes and turn it into the most bombastic crotch metal ever, that's awesome too. Nonetheless, your 24-minute sythn-and-guitar battle called "I Went to Valhalla and Odin is a Wuss" isn't folk music.
I'll follow up my analogy with a question (which I specifically asked Grushvak, whose answer may be buried in pages of discussion; if so, my apologies). What's the problem? What issue(s) broadly affecting the format is not getting addressed? Are people turning away from the format? Are people being forced to play it and it's no longer enjoyable? Good ideas are good--when they're pointed in a direction instead of into the aether.
I'll weigh in here although I'm not sure how broadly this affects the entire Commander community and admittedly coming from a perspective that when it comes to banned lists shorter is better: I do not think the RC puts enough visible effort or thought into the unbanning of cards. Visible is a keyword here, if there's work behind closed doors then thank you for it. What I propose, admittedly a repeat, is more active experimentation with unbans.
Since the banned list is effectively the final word in Commander over the net or Commander between play groups this lack of experimentation/discussion seems out of alignment with the state of the format:
1. Development communities - there's thousands of decks across TappedOut, Reddit, MTGS, Commander.net, etc. There's columns at SCG. It's been said many times the MTG player base that does NOT do research is larger than the MTG player base that does do research but I'd counter with the hypothesis that it's very unlikely someone can learn what Commander is, identify its banned list, and build a deck (shopping for singletons) without accidentally bumping into huge volume of related content on the web. There is a virtuous cycle of Commander decks becoming better, not stagnant or worse as a result.
2. Deliberate infusions of cards for the format into the format - Commander is NOT like Vintage or Legacy which get coincidental support as opposed to deliberate support. This feeds into the virtuous cycle above.
3. Proliferation of players in the format at a variety of skill levels - further feeds into the virtuous cycle, at the very least we get the 10,000 monkeys at 10,000 typewriters effect of great ideas and improving deck/play quality resulting coincidentally.
This leads to a hypothesis that cards that previously terrorized the format are less likely to do so today, or that feared interactions may be less worrisome in practice than in theory. As a result I re-propose the consideration of probationary unbans, e.g. card X is unbanned for 3 - 6 months, lets see if it harms, enhances, or does nothing to the format. A willingness to take measured risks and conduct thoughtful/deliberate experiments would, in my opinion, will ultimately improve things for players who play between playgroups or over the web and therefore cannot use "house rules", a segment of the Commander community which I think is under-served.
Potential Risks:
1. Financial - card X is unbanned, spikes in price as people buy it to play it, it gets rebanned 6 months later, people take a loss.
2. Flux - cards being unbanned and rebanned every few months requires more work to manage as players and rules committee. Decklists may need to be tuned, archetypes may emerge/dissolve, there's a website to maintain, data to be collected, posted to be posted, etc.
3. Fun - If the shortest test-cycle is 3 months there is a potential risk that an unban experiment leads to 3 months of abject misery for everyone who plays the game, highly unlikely but a risk none the less.
Potential Benefits:
1. Greater deck building freedom - this applies within groups and across groups
2. Reduced perceived banned list inconsistency - a common issue within this topic is the argument "why is X banned when Y, Z or P + Q are widely available and way worse". Paring the banned list creates an opportunity to eliminate some of these arguments.
3. Better alignment between RC and players - the RC is essentially autocratic and has no accountability to the players (not inherently bad, just making an observation) conducting experiments and soliciting input from players in a more visible and interactive fashion would, theoretically, build consensus through collaboration instead of unilateral decisions being met with resistance. It also builds trust and credibility as the bans become more empirically based. Again, I am not complaining about the existence of the RC and I think you guys get it right more often than not, this is merely an observation about the RC-playerbase dynamic. I'd rather have an RC than a full on democracy.
I think you've been gracious enough to address this concept in one of your mailbag concepts, and for that I am grateful, however I thought I might trot this out and see if you've changed your stance on the idea of more active experimentation.
Lets keep this discussion of the official RC and their banned list out of this. The point of discussing an alternate one would be in order to run it in place of the current one so discussion of the official one seems a little moot considering the point of this thread.
Some real questions to ask would be:
Who would be on said committee. How do you determine how many people would be on the committee and who would be on it for what reasons.
What level of play would it be designed for.
Do you start with a blank banned list and build it up from the ground? Or do you start with what the official RC has and alter from there?
How would this exercise balance accountability to the players with the avoidance of devolving into mob-rule/populism? Serious question as I think a root cause to dissatisfaction with the current banned list and rules modifications are largely due to one vision being unilaterally applied to the format. Failure to address this just shifts the ire from one autocratic group (RC) to a different autocratic group (MTGS-Alt). MTGS is likely to have a slightly broader vision than the RC but one can easily envision a world where a faction emerges that disagrees with both the RC's vision and the MTGS vision and yet a third faction emerges. Note: an autocratic ruling agency overseeing the format is NOT intrinsically bad, but it will invariably lead to disagreements about what's best of the format as most conceivable rule sets will be insufficiently prescriptive/restrictive as to prohibit other visions of the ideal EDH format from emerging.
Also, the anti-argument of "just use house rules" should be purged from this thread as it ends discussion rather than builds or engages in it. EDH is played across groups too frequently and "house rules" obviates the need for a unified rules anyway.
Why is Recurring Nightmare still banned? The overhang from its previous dominance is noted but the format is radically different, I don't think it will be anywhere near as oppressive, there's just flat out better/easier/faster ways to wreck a table.
Sheldon, if you unban Protean Hulk, Recurring Nightmare, or Library, I promise I'll lock this thread for a full month and infraction anyone who mentions Sol ring.
I CAN BE BRIBED!!
-Protean
+Painter's Servant
I have no authority or really anything to offer (unless you need statistical consulting) but I too can be bribed
Context: My group plays star (kill 2-3 non-adjacent players) and assassin (kill 1 assigned player), as a result, this strategy is considered viable since the rules modifications reduce the number of opponents that need to be eliminated. The deck is tagged "competitive" because my fundamental objective is to win the game.
Thread objective:
"Huge damage"
"Cheat into Play"
"Sudden Death"
"Removal"
"Draw/Tutor/Ramp"
"Miscellaneous Utility"
Rationale:
Most of the deck is dedicated to flinging large creatures, the rest is draw/tutor/ramp and a few hedges against a long game (e.g. Ugin). If the hedge doesn't make sense, that opens up a handful of additional slots.
Manabase:
TBD - not worried as I have all of the relevant non-basics.
Cards on Deck - i.e. considered but not added due to space
Also recommend:
replenish and starfield of nyx
Phyrexian Arena at 3 vs Bloodgift at 5 vs Ob Nix at 5 -> I am currently running all 3, I view them as equal.
Arena - cheap, dodges creature removal
Bloodgift - easier to recur in color, can attack if needed
Ob Nix - dodges lots of removal, can snipe creatures
I think he's best used in control/grindy decks that can keep the creature count low. Planeswalker-obliterate, sans blue, probably loves him.
For me, Gary and Disciple of Bolas are basically auto-includes in any black deck, so I forget they exist sometimes because they are like sol ring and demonic tutor for me.
If I go Jund I'll definitely consider it. Red specializes in burst so I think I'm doing myself a huge disservice not going to at least BR.
For example:
Sutured Ghoul + Essence Harvest + lots of goodies in GY + haste
Hatred on almost any attacker
Current burst package:
hatred
final strike
rite of consumption
essence harvest
sutured ghoul
minion of the wastes
Wall of Blood
Open to secondary colors but would prefer monoblack, e.g. red adds additional fling variants and opportunity to fork or otherwise further double damage. Green adds recursion and LoE for derpiness. Any other black or artifact options I may be overlooking?
In short, my goal is to take or create something large and then triple - quintuple its damage output briefly. I'm inclined to have Volrath as the general, but Chainer is a second choice for the ability to hedge and play a reanimator strategy if this one fails.
Which is why I'd prefer something in between. Prismatic was too far in the opposite direction.
Excellent point/approach, my only concern is it leads to an excessively large starting place from which to build. Thoughts on how large of a banlist a "lowest denominator" approach leads to?
I'll weigh in here although I'm not sure how broadly this affects the entire Commander community and admittedly coming from a perspective that when it comes to banned lists shorter is better: I do not think the RC puts enough visible effort or thought into the unbanning of cards. Visible is a keyword here, if there's work behind closed doors then thank you for it. What I propose, admittedly a repeat, is more active experimentation with unbans.
Since the banned list is effectively the final word in Commander over the net or Commander between play groups this lack of experimentation/discussion seems out of alignment with the state of the format:
1. Development communities - there's thousands of decks across TappedOut, Reddit, MTGS, Commander.net, etc. There's columns at SCG. It's been said many times the MTG player base that does NOT do research is larger than the MTG player base that does do research but I'd counter with the hypothesis that it's very unlikely someone can learn what Commander is, identify its banned list, and build a deck (shopping for singletons) without accidentally bumping into huge volume of related content on the web. There is a virtuous cycle of Commander decks becoming better, not stagnant or worse as a result.
2. Deliberate infusions of cards for the format into the format - Commander is NOT like Vintage or Legacy which get coincidental support as opposed to deliberate support. This feeds into the virtuous cycle above.
3. Proliferation of players in the format at a variety of skill levels - further feeds into the virtuous cycle, at the very least we get the 10,000 monkeys at 10,000 typewriters effect of great ideas and improving deck/play quality resulting coincidentally.
This leads to a hypothesis that cards that previously terrorized the format are less likely to do so today, or that feared interactions may be less worrisome in practice than in theory. As a result I re-propose the consideration of probationary unbans, e.g. card X is unbanned for 3 - 6 months, lets see if it harms, enhances, or does nothing to the format. A willingness to take measured risks and conduct thoughtful/deliberate experiments would, in my opinion, will ultimately improve things for players who play between playgroups or over the web and therefore cannot use "house rules", a segment of the Commander community which I think is under-served.
Potential Risks:
1. Financial - card X is unbanned, spikes in price as people buy it to play it, it gets rebanned 6 months later, people take a loss.
2. Flux - cards being unbanned and rebanned every few months requires more work to manage as players and rules committee. Decklists may need to be tuned, archetypes may emerge/dissolve, there's a website to maintain, data to be collected, posted to be posted, etc.
3. Fun - If the shortest test-cycle is 3 months there is a potential risk that an unban experiment leads to 3 months of abject misery for everyone who plays the game, highly unlikely but a risk none the less.
Potential Benefits:
1. Greater deck building freedom - this applies within groups and across groups
2. Reduced perceived banned list inconsistency - a common issue within this topic is the argument "why is X banned when Y, Z or P + Q are widely available and way worse". Paring the banned list creates an opportunity to eliminate some of these arguments.
3. Better alignment between RC and players - the RC is essentially autocratic and has no accountability to the players (not inherently bad, just making an observation) conducting experiments and soliciting input from players in a more visible and interactive fashion would, theoretically, build consensus through collaboration instead of unilateral decisions being met with resistance. It also builds trust and credibility as the bans become more empirically based. Again, I am not complaining about the existence of the RC and I think you guys get it right more often than not, this is merely an observation about the RC-playerbase dynamic. I'd rather have an RC than a full on democracy.
I think you've been gracious enough to address this concept in one of your mailbag concepts, and for that I am grateful, however I thought I might trot this out and see if you've changed your stance on the idea of more active experimentation.
How would this exercise balance accountability to the players with the avoidance of devolving into mob-rule/populism? Serious question as I think a root cause to dissatisfaction with the current banned list and rules modifications are largely due to one vision being unilaterally applied to the format. Failure to address this just shifts the ire from one autocratic group (RC) to a different autocratic group (MTGS-Alt). MTGS is likely to have a slightly broader vision than the RC but one can easily envision a world where a faction emerges that disagrees with both the RC's vision and the MTGS vision and yet a third faction emerges. Note: an autocratic ruling agency overseeing the format is NOT intrinsically bad, but it will invariably lead to disagreements about what's best of the format as most conceivable rule sets will be insufficiently prescriptive/restrictive as to prohibit other visions of the ideal EDH format from emerging.
Also, the anti-argument of "just use house rules" should be purged from this thread as it ends discussion rather than builds or engages in it. EDH is played across groups too frequently and "house rules" obviates the need for a unified rules anyway.
-Protean
+Painter's Servant
I have no authority or really anything to offer (unless you need statistical consulting) but I too can be bribed