January 2020 Ban List Update - No Changes

[Zealcat]

There's a weird amount of non-cEDH players in this thread that seem to think that their personal dislike of cEDH justifies not only ignoring the cEDH crowd but actively shutting down their involvement in the format.

You don't need to agree with the way that someone enjoys this format, nor do you necessarily need to agree with their stance on a ban, but I think it would go a long way for a lot of our community at large, not just on Nexus, to have some empathy for the situation.

The link pokken posted addresses exactly this, from a member of the CAG. "Many RC and CAG members, myself included, sympathize with the concerns of the cEDH community in regards to Flash, Oracle, and its metagame issues in general. We have heard your concerns and have been in conversation with luminaries of the cEDH community almost continuously in the past few months. We understand the nature of the problem, but we have our own concerns about how making a ban solely for the benefit of cEDH players would be perceived by the broader community and if it would actually serve to "fix" that end of the format. We worry that it would just be a bandaid over a deeper wound and that we would all end up in the same position again in six months or a year.

Additionally, while Flash may not see much casual play, there is nothing to say that recent printing of cards such as Arena Rector or Nyxbloom Ancient won't lead to it seeing wider adoption in the community. While I'm personally of the opinion that Flash should be banned, that opinion isn't universal among the RC and CAG, and many wish to be more cautious about making such a change. What if the next card to break cEDH is something like Sol Ring or Cyclonic Rift? Should such broadly played cards be banned for the sake of the competitive edge of the format? These are the questions we have been considering."

Most casual players don't have it out for cEDH players blindly. I know no true cEDH scotsman is supposed to pubstomp, but it does happen and with more regularity the more popular cEDH becomes. I assume that's where some of the bitterness comes from. But what I really don't like is this attempt to commandeer a format that was designed for casual play, with a banlist that serves that goal. It seems disrepectful and at worst, entitled. When the banlist announcement happened a few days ago, there were more than a few angry cEDH players promising to pubstomp EDH players with flash hulk until they get what they want.

I personally don't want to start down the slippery slope of competitive minded bans. It won't stop at flash, especially as new and more powerful cards are printed. cEDH is singleton vintage, the banlist would need to be extensive for true competitive balance.

[pokken]

The main concern I have is still that the philosophy document does not admit a flash ban, and I cannot envision a change to the philosophy document that admits a Flash ban but does not admit other competitive bans in the future.

I don't think the "one time thing" that people are asking for is possible to do coherently.

[Airi]

I still think it's shortsighted to look at it as a competitive vs casual problem. I'd rather see a format that focuses on looking after all of it's players. Competitive, Casual, or those of us stuck in the middle whom the current philosophy and banlist also don't really cover (e.g. those of us who predominately play pick up games with random people, where Rule 0 often fails to bridge gaps). It's not about micromanaging any one group, it should be about improving the play experience of as many people as possible, in my opinion.

As to the earlier comment aimed at me, [mention]Zealcat[/mention], I disagree that the CAG post lines up with my intended point. I think it says things that kind of line up, but I don't agree with a lot of their deflection as to why they don't want to take a stance. To me, a lot of this just pushes us back to Us vs. Them. I also generally disagree with the sentiment that cEDH players are the largest source of pubstomping. Mismatched games do happen, and usually are not repeat experiences in the same night, but the people who actually LIKE to dominate games with mismatched power levels probably fall more in to the 75% category, where they wouldn't be able to compete at an actual cEDH table (due to skill/budget/deck style/whatever), but try to build as far past a lower power level as possible.

That's not to say it doesn't happen, there's rotten apples in every group of EDH players, even causal players, but pubstomping is it's own problem that probably needs a solution that is outside of any single ban or set of bans that you could conceivably come up with short of us all playing 99 mountain Ashling decks.

And I'm saying all of this at someone who could in no way, ever be called a cEDH player.

[pokken]

I still think it's shortsighted to look at it as a competitive vs casual problem. I'd rather see a format that focuses on looking after all of it's players. Competitive, Casual, or those of us stuck in the middle whom the current philosophy and banlist also don't really cover (e.g. those of us who predominately play pick up games with random people, where Rule 0 often fails to bridge gaps). It's not about micromanaging any one group, it should be about improving the play experience of as many people as possible, in my opinion.

Your opinion is meaningful and very empathic but it runs contrary to the current banlist philosophy. We would need to see a rephrasing of the current philosophy that accepts some competitive bans to achieve the utilitarian maximum happiness end.

I absolutely agree that just banning Flash is likely to increase overall happiness with the format. But so do most people, most people who play flash casually are even willing to get rid of it. It is addressing a bit of a straw man to argue against people who hate CEDH and want them to suffer -- which is how the argument is currently being phrased (not by you, generally by most proponents I've seen and engaged with).

That's the point I don't think anyone is addressing; they simply say that we can just ban this one thing, but don't address how that changes the philosophy.

Principles matter.

[Zealcat]

.

[Hermes_]

someone over at reddit posted the following : ""From the view of the CAG/RC, the format being solved is different than a specific card being unfun." and I think it sums up the issue.

[RxPhantom]

I really don't care that Flash is only played in 2% of decks. Those of us that do run it shouldn't have to lose it because a certain group wants to fundamentally change the core philosophy of the format. That's what it'll take, and the consequences could, and likely would be more far-reaching than that. If ubiquity is a criterion for banning, how is it logical that niche status also becomes a criterion?

If this was Major League Baseball, it's as if the Dodgers want to play cricket all of a sudden, and they want the rest of the league to change the rules to make playing cricket easier.*

I have no enmity toward the cEDH crowd. They want a certain play experience, and they should be able to have it. It should not, however, come at the expense of the format's philosophy or the players who subscribe to it.

*A clumsy analogy, I know. Sorry.

[pokken]

What I'd like to see is some proposals of how you change "does not seek to regulate competitive play" to something that opens the door to a flash ban without making future bans inevitable. What is the sort of criteria you can use to justify a ban on Flash but not a ban on ad nauseam or whatever in a few years when it becomes the bogeyman again.

What's the replacement phrasing?

Something like

Will only consider competitive play under exceptional circumstances where a card (1) has sustained a long period of overwhelming metagame share and (2) has negligible impact on casual play.

[gilrad]

I wonder: if the RC officially recommended on their website that those who aim for a competitive play style utilize the French 1v1 banlist, what kind of effect do you think that would have? Positive? Negative? Not much at all?

[Airi]

I wonder: if the RC officially recommended on their website that those who aim for a competitive play style utilize the French 1v1 banlist, what kind of effect do you think that would have? Positive? Negative? Not much at all?

Negative, for a few reasons. The 1v1 banlist has generally been an extremely bumpy right for the last few years with constant reworks. In addition to that, it's not a banlist that is supported at side events for EDH, such as those held at MagicFest, so for anyone using the 1v1 list, there would be a very good chance their deck isn't legal, and in some cases of cards, will be at a disadvantage to people who are running the "normal" ban list even if they aren't running any cards that are banned under the RC's list.

And lastly, they're not going to just be able to play with people during pick up games, even if those people are running similarly powered decks. At the end of the day, they are EDH players like the rest of us, splitting them off isn't really going to improve everyone else's experience. The people who want to play in fair cEDH games will lose a lot of opportunities by losing the WotC official status of the format, for those that do like to compete at events (which, to note, is not all of them but is some), and for the rest of us, the people who actively seek to pubstomp are still going to be running the normal banlist and causing problems.

[pokken]

Little reddit cross posting but I thought it was a shame this well written and very thoughtful post was buried down in comments instead of at the top -- probably a better top level post than most of what's going on on reddit these days.

[Airi]

I will say, I really, really hate the emphasis on rule 0. It is not really a super effective tool for those of us who largely play in pick up groups. Sometimes prior discussions work, sometimes people really misrepresent their decks power level, sometimes there are cards on the banlist that aren't problems that I'd love to play with, and sometimes, you can't stop people from playing problematic stuff for whatever group you're in at the moment.

[cryogen]

Little reddit cross posting but I thought it was a shame this well written and very thoughtful post was buried down in comments instead of at the top -- probably a better top level post than most of what's going on on reddit these days.

Yeah I've chatted with Braden a bit. He seems like he has a good head on his shoulders and is trying to go about this thr right way.

[pokken]

I will say, I really, really hate the emphasis on rule 0. It is not really a super effective tool for those of us who largely play in pick up groups. Sometimes prior discussions work, sometimes people really misrepresent their decks power level, sometimes there are cards on the banlist that aren't problems that I'd love to play with, and sometimes, you can't stop people from playing problematic stuff for whatever group you're in at the moment.

I really do not think you can put enough cards on the banlist to make rule 0 unnecessary in commander - the experience is just too varied.

In my experience anyway the prior discussions work a lot more often than they don't and then if whey don't discussions can be had after the fact. And worst case you have a bad game and stop playing.

What do you think would be the alternative to rule 0 for pickup groups?

[Airi]

I really do not think you can put enough cards on the banlist to make rule 0 unnecessary in commander - the experience is just too varied.

In my experience anyway the prior discussions work a lot more often than they don't and then if whey don't discussions can be had after the fact. And worst case you have a bad game and stop playing.

What do you think would be the alternative to rule 0 for pickup groups?

I don't necessarily have one, but the constant response of "just talk it out!" or "make the changes to the banlist in your group that you don't like" is irritating to constantly hear even if there isn't necessarily a great alternative.

Edit: Just to clarify, my issue is more with the fact that it's seen as the ultimate answer when it's really only most effective if you play with a regular group. Not all of us are so fortunate to have access to that, and it really is thrown as a response back to every argument for change within EDH ban discussions. "If you don't like it, that's what rule 0 is for!" Yes, well, I don't think every single person who walks in to my LGS is down to swap up the ban list so candidly on the spot.

[Zealcat]

CEDH players claim they're just playing EDH but pregame discussions about power levels and expectations are an inseparable part of EDH. Their condescending attitude towards rule 0 and such discussions, as not being concrete and therefore invalid, just makes it more obvious they're not playing the same format in anything but the most technical sense.

I play most often with strangers and these discussions work in the majority of cases. If someone is too stubborn to have them, or too stubborn to not run Armageddon/whatever when people don't want it, that's a personal problem with that player, not a failing of rule 0.

The formats already self segregate (pubstompers notwithstanding) so splitting off solves all problems with both formats trying to coexist like oil and water. But the fear is format death, or official tournaments not supporting their new competitive banlist. So why not petition to have official tournaments exclusively use the cEDH banlist? That's a way better solution than trying to warp the most popular format in Magic around the desires of a tiny competitive minority. It's the only format casual players have.

[Airi]

I play most often with strangers and these discussions work in the majority of cases. If someone is too stubborn to have them, or too stubborn to not run Armageddon/whatever when people don't want it, that's a personal problem with that player, not a failing of rule 0.

I just want to point out that, while my personal issues with rule 0 are separate from the cEDH discussion (because, I cannot in any way, shape, or form be called a cEDH player. Just ask some of the other Nexus mods who have had the misfortune of trying to help me cut pet cards from my decks), but your stance is as anecdotal as my position that rule 0 often fails, either because people are not honest about the power level of their decks (usually, people talk up their decks and it leads to some very unfortunate matchups), or when it comes to the idea of the ban list existing in its current format to not be set in stone because your group can just adjust it.

I know, just from having modded an EDH community for the last four years, that it's not really just a local problem to me. It's definitely not ever single store, but it is something that comes up, especially in areas where the level of play is really wide-ranged.

cEDH players complaint of rule 0 falls more in to modifying the banlist in their own groups. Yes it works for those with set groups, no it does not often work in a wider setting because it's hard to modify an existing deck for a pick up game. I largely mentioned it because, even if it works for a lot of people, rule 0 is not a catch all, especially when it comes to hard modifying a banlist for a subset of players.

[Zealcat]

Luckily soft banning only a single card doesn't require it to be a catch all. That's a pretty simple ask and unlike the large and disparate EDH, the cEDH community is small and insular enough to make it work. If they don't want to self regulate like the rest of us, they can make their own RC and banlist and petition for official support of that format at Magicfests and other tournaments.

Rule 0 isn't a perfect solution but without splintering off there is no perfect solution. And nothing is ever good enough. CEDH disregards EDH rules and the RC, but want to call themselves EDH. And they won't splinter off because of speculative what if's.

I've been playing EDH for 10 years, ran tournaments at a LGS, modded a large MTG group so trust me, I've heard and witnessed plenty too. Especially as a female player like yourself. Magic players love to complain and doomcall and some are just problem people. But for most of us, adult discussion and social grace gets the job done.

[Airi]

Luckily soft banning only a single card doesn't require it to be a catch all. That's a pretty simple ask and unlike the large and disparate EDH, the cEDH community is small and insular enough to make it work. If they don't want to self regulate like the rest of us, they can make their own RC and banlist and petition for official support of that format at Magicfests and other tournaments.

Rule 0 isn't a perfect solution but without splintering off there is no perfect solution. And nothing is ever good enough. CEDH disregards EDH rules and the RC, but want to call themselves EDH. And they won't splinter off because of speculative what if's.

I've been playing EDH for 10 years, ran tournaments at a LGS, modded a large MTG group so trust me, I've heard and witnessed plenty too. Especially as a female player like yourself. Magic players love to complain and doomcall and some are just problem people. But for most of us, adult discussion and social grace gets the job done.

I'm glad it works for you! Really, I am. But I don't think it's a catch-all saving grace, otherwise there would be no need for a banlist. But rule 0 gets harder and harder to act as the cornerstone, game to game, in a meta with a very wide power level. My store, for example, has a range of precons to cEDH players, it really just depends on who walks in the door. Couple that with the issue that is defining the power level of a deck, where, say we use the Command Zone's basis of a scale of 1 - 10, I might say all of my decks are a 6, except for Lovisa who is a 5, and Marath who is a 7/8, and much less from my store, there are probably people on this forum who would look at the lists, and disagree with that assessment, going both directions.

That soap box aside, it is really hard to get people to actively adjust the cards in their deck for a pick up game. The best example I can think of is Sylvan Primordial, around the point it got banned. A lot of people had a gentleman's agreement to just not run it, but how do you tell someone to just cut the card from their deck when they're just there for a game or two, and that's not a standard in their other games? You can certainly try, but it's not a failing on either side for them to stick to their guns because the card is legal. I imagine Flash is the same. There are cEDH groups who will be able to cut it with 0 problems, and there are cEDH metas in stores where cutting it in your own deck is going to be intentionally gimping yourself. It'll work sometimes for sit down games like that, but it's a much harder ideal to meet when you're maybe only going to be playing against those particular people for a game or two. My problems are less with rule 0's existence, and more of it being seen as a complete argument against bans, be they for casual or competitive cards. In cases like Leovold, Emissary of Trest, it clearly didn't work to stop the card, hence it's ban.

[pokken]

For CEDH it's quite a bit harder even since a deck is often quite tailored around a wincon; cutting Flash means a 5-6 card swap at least, sometimes more.

I do feel like people are getting *way* better at rating their decks. A couple years ago it was worthless. Nowadays the 1-10 scale is starting to work really well.

[Airi]

To be fair, when it comes to rating deck powerlevel, the bar for improvement was pretty low, lol.

[kirkusjones]

I've been thinking about this a lot since the Paradox Engine ban. I wonder if Commander needs to be thought of as a social, rather than casual format. The emphasis on interactivity and dialogue between players, rather than on casual vs. competitive.

There was some draft language for comminicating a similar message to go into the pre-cons that was being kicked around on the old commander.net forums, but I guess that's lost now.

[pokken]

I've been thinking about this a lot since the Paradox Engine ban. I wonder if Commander needs to be thought of as a social, rather than casual format. The emphasis on interactivity and dialogue between players, rather than on casual vs. competitive.

There was some draft language for comminicating a similar message to go into the pre-cons that was being kicked around on the old commander.net forums, but I guess that's lost now.

It doesn't actually say casual anywhere in the philosophy document:
https://mtgcommander.net/index.php/the- ... commander/

The emphasis is heavily on social and allowing the social nature to mediate competitiveness.

I think casual has just developed as a shorthand for saying "not competitive." Not sure if it's a problem or not really but there is definitely a divide between how you look at the format; the social nature loses its effectiveness at the extreme end of the power spectrum and that's a fact.

The banlist historically now has been focused on cards that the social nature of the format struggle to regulate -- cards that are just fair enough and just powerful enough to be ubiquitous, existing in the goldilocks zone of brokenness. It's hard to get people to stop playing primeval titan because it's just so desirable for so many styles of play.

And one really useful way to sum up that type of card is to say that they have broad casual appeal.

[Hermes_]

I love twitter cuz I get to watch [mention]cryogen[/mention] talk to others about flash

[bobthefunny]

I will say, I really, really hate the emphasis on rule 0. It is not really a super effective tool for those of us who largely play in pick up groups. Sometimes prior discussions work, sometimes people really misrepresent their decks power level, sometimes there are cards on the banlist that aren't problems that I'd love to play with, and sometimes, you can't stop people from playing problematic stuff for whatever group you're in at the moment.

I think an important piece is how to discuss rule 0 or power level. I don't think that in most cases it's that people misrepresent their decks - it's that the scale isn't defined. Everyone thinks that they're a 7 or 8 on a 1-10, but that's because everyone's evaluation of the scale is vastly different based on their experiences. This is actually a known psychological problem that I was introduced to in marketing. When people are given a scale of 1-10, very few people actually put a 10 down for very happy. 8 or 9 is a more realistic number to expect, and anything below a 7 is bad.

I had this issue in spades at Command Fest DC. I joined casual tables - pick up events, scheduled events, and also free play - and the first question people asked was the "1-10" and everyone said 7 or 8. I took it a step further, and asked for just a few words on (without giving away secrets) what the deck planned to do, how it planned to win, and when. For example, I introduced my Aryel Knights deck like this:

This is my Aryel Knights Tribal deck. My playgroup plays without infinite combos, and I aim to primarily win through combat damage, usually over the course of an hour-long game, during which I try to get about 15 mana out. There are some alternate win conditions, as well as some strong synergies, but the deck also avoids some format staples in order to maintain the tribal theme.

Even so, there were some games where people were not ready for a field of Knights and Anthem effects, and other games where we crashed futilely against Superfriends non-interactive decks.

My strongest memory of this was a structured event, where I was paired with a (guessing) 13-14 year old boy, a 15-16ish? girl, and her father. After giving a similar introduction to the above, the boy mentioned that his main deck, Meren, was more combo focused, and instead switched to a Zombie Tribal deck. The girl and her father said that their decks were new, and that they were generally new to Commander, so they weren't 100% sure on the power level. She ended up playing Ur Dragon, and he was playing Xengos. She got out an early Dromoka thanks to ramp and Ur Dragon, so she had ever growing dragons of scariness. (Knights don't do well with flyers).

So we're all discussing about how we might reign that in, and I'm saying "I think I can deal with one," while Zombie kid says that he can stall another. Then her father goes "I think I might be able to kill you." This is turn 4, fyi. (Previous turn he'd dropped Xenagos). Sure enough, he tries for it, drops Godo, Bandit Warlord, fetches and auto equips Embercleave, Xenagos doubles him, for 8 double strike, second combat for another double into 16 more double strike. Although Zombies manages to bounce Godo (so he can't autoequip, so it's at least a stall), Xenagos follows up with Sneak attack, Worldspine Wurm sneak,+xenagos to kill zombies, leaving several large wurms, into me dead on the next follow up, as I couldn't deal with a wurm army + god + sneak, any of which would certainly seal the game unanswered.

Thing is - both Ur Dragon, plus every individual card Xenagos played are definitely casual... I wouldn't even say that anything really topped it off into serious territory (well, maybe sneak attack), but there wasn't anything unfair - it was just an issue of communication and expectations. Which is difficult.