Banlist update: 7 cards banned for offensive imagery/names

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Edit: I missed Pokken's comment but I generally agree there. As a women, I've got no problem with the traditional, uber sexy model-esque art. Liliana is fine. It's only not fine when thats the only depiction of women you have, which is something WotC has improved on greatly in recent years.
Pokken's distinction is definitely how I'd categorize my position. I only meant that Earthbind is really singular in terms of art, and a real departure from Wizards' usual policy concerning representation.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 3 years ago

Sinis wrote:
3 years ago
Pokken's distinction is definitely how I'd categorize my position. I only meant that Earthbind is really singular in terms of art, and a real departure from Wizards' usual policy concerning representation.
Yeah! I just wanted to clarify that I'd be super disappointed if it received some kind of action due to the depiction being scantly clad, when that's just so blatantly missing the problem. I'd be pretty damn insulted if WotC were to frame it that way.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
I think Jihad was banned in part because it's real world antithesis Crusade was banned. If only one or the other had been banned, there'd have been an uproar.


I view Invoke Prejudice in a vacuum (that is, without knowledge of the artists prejudices*) as "culturally and racially insensitive" but not as "racist", for the following reasons:
1. The card is monoblue, which is not a human skin tone. Even if it was, mana colors are not analogous to real life human skin tones.
2. The card name is intended to evoke a sense of something unsavory/evil, not unlike countless other Magic cards, none of which to my knowledge are meant to glorify their depictions, merely to portray them as elements of a fantasy world.
3. The figures appear to to me to be black in nature or dressed in black as opposed to the white hoods/robes of the klan.
4. There is a humanly impossible amount of smoke/mist pouring forth from the mouth of one of the figures in the back indicating to me that they're supernatural/spiritual in nature and not human(oid).
5. The klan employ several instruments of terror. Medieval two-handed battle axes is not one of them.
6. The effect doesn't single out a color. Even if it did, mana colors are not analogous to real life human skin tones.
7. The effect, like the card name, is intended to evoke a sense of something unsavory/evil, not unlike countless other Magic cards, none of which to my knowledge are meant to glorify their depictions, merely to portray them as elements of a fantasy world.

*Ban all of the artists cards if his beliefs are a factor.
onering wrote:
3 years ago
(Jihad is the most interesting card to get banned btw, in terms of effect).
Why is that?
I mean, those are a lot of attempts to justify not feeling a card called Invoke Prejudice, that lets you choose a color to hate, and features art centered on figures that clearly invoke a famous aspect of a famous hate group, doesn't have racist overtones. Unfortunately, for normal people, "he didn't draw a photo realistic depiction of actual Klan members" doesn't fly as a way to excuse a stylistic representation of Klan look alikes.

Lets pretend that the artist wasn't a neo nazi, and his stated reason for the art choice was attempting to depict a hate group as bad guys because he interpreted the card as an "evil" card. It would still be an unfortunate choice that would warrant revisiting.


As for Jihad, +2/+1 for white creatures for cmc 3 is pretty decent, and presents a interesting choice over glorious anthem in mono white. Crusade gives you a one mana discount, but I don't think that is enough to justify everyone else with white creatures getting the bonus. Jihad at least provides a more aggressive bonus that you can be better positioned to take advantage of. Still not great though.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

I recently read an explanation from Jesper Myrfors that claimed knowledge that Invoke was intended to represent the Inquisition.

I think, in general, that any had that looks like a Klan hood is out whatever the origin in much the same way that we're not getting any magic cards with toothbrush mustaches (please tell me there aren't any).

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1513
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 3 years ago

With Invoke Prejudice specifically, I can't understand why it took so long to even address it, even if only in a statement. I was 12 when the card came out, and I knew even then that the Klan was a symbol of hate; it wasn't to be venerated or held in high regard. It shouldn't have seen print in the first place.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable? I find it rather convenient for people to want genders to be equal until it's inconvenient. So it's cool if a female character is represented in card art as the victorious captain of a ship, but not as a ground-bound and defeated foe. If there was a white male in the art instead of the female, nobody would even notice.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
we're not getting any magic cards with toothbrush mustaches (please tell me there aren't any).
Poor Charlie Chaplin...
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1513
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable?
I hereby declare that any MtG related straw man fallacy now be referred to as a:
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable? I find it rather convenient for people to want genders to be equal until it's inconvenient. So it's cool if a female character is represented in card art as the victorious captain of a ship, but not as a ground-bound and defeated foe. If there was a white male in the art instead of the female, nobody would even notice.
Yes, she is saying that a card called "Murder" is more comfortable than an almost naked faerie woman being held in bondage.

And it's ironic here, because your argument boils down to "people are upset because women and minorities are unfairly depicted, but it's cool when it's a white dude", completely forgetting the %$#% storm that was outrage at WotC dating to represent a gay couple on am magic card, or even referencing them.
RxPhantom wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable?
I hereby declare that any MtG related straw man fallacy now be referred to as a:
I'm totes stealing this.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable? I find it rather convenient for people to want genders to be equal until it's inconvenient. So it's cool if a female character is represented in card art as the victorious captain of a ship, but not as a ground-bound and defeated foe. If there was a white male in the art instead of the female, nobody would even notice.
Yeah, Earthbind is way worse of a depiction than Murder. It would still be a worse depiction than the card Murder, if it featured a man in that exact same pose, and Murder featured a woman in the same predicament. Or if both cards featured the same gender. Because, again, the problem with Earthbind isn't because it shows a woman, but because it shows a submissive, non-consensual sexual pose.

You don't know me nearly well enough to make the assertion that it wouldn't be problematic if it were a man depicted.

Edit: The reason I'm using that kind of wording (non-consensual/subkmissive/etc.) Is because I cant say its outright depicting rape. Its not, even if its making allusions to that. And also trying to convey that bondage in of itself isn't inherently problematic. It probably is in the context of a card game partially marketed at kids, but isn't bad on its own. So tl;dr allusions to rape are bad regardless of gender, mmkay?

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable? I find it rather convenient for people to want genders to be equal until it's inconvenient. So it's cool if a female character is represented in card art as the victorious captain of a ship, but not as a ground-bound and defeated foe. If there was a white male in the art instead of the female, nobody would even notice.
I personally don't feel that earthbinds art is all that problematic, given that it depicts a fairy, who are typically portrayed as scantily clad in this game (male of female), and the earth itself is keeping her from flying. I don't personally see the art as depicting anything sexual, or hinting at rape. I do, however, think that it's close enough that if someone does feel that way I can see where they are coming from. It does depict a mostly naked woman restrained in bondage, on her knees and shocked. While in the context of the card and the art I don't see it suggesting rape, I'd have to be an incredibly %$#% person to tell someone else that they are wrong for seeing it in such a way. Other people have different experiences, and this isn't a piece of art that's clear cut, if I didn't know it was card art I would assume it was bondage art. If someone tells me that they consider the position the fairy is in to look rapey, well, it must look rapey to them.

Pop quiz: can you show someone get murdered on broadcast television? Yes! Can you show a nude woman get tied up and raped on broadcast television? %$#% no! You can't even show a naked woman having a great time gardening on broadcast tv.

Someone not having a problem with the card murder, but having a problem with earthbind, isn't hypocritical, it's in line with prevailing norms. You may disagree with these norms, and even have a point in doing so, but thinking that someone's feelings about a subject being largely in line with their cultures prevailing norms is somehow a gotcha moment you can use against them both weakens your argument and shows a bad misunderstanding of how people think and develop attitudes. It's also disingenuous, because you certainly aren't arguing that there is a problem with depictions of violence, only that there isn't a problem with earthbind, and rather than actually make that argument you crack sarcastic and dismiss others experiences and views.

Finally, if earthbind had a male fairy instead of a female, it would mostly be the same. I would be just as rapey or not. The only difference is that women are more often depicted in such situations than men, so people are more primed to see rapey vibes when it's a woman in the art. If I thought that earthbind was suggesting sexual assault, id feel the same way if it was a male fairy in the art. As far as I know, magic hasn't printed any similar art with a male figure (except for imprison, which just got banned). On the other side of the equation, there are numerous cards which depict violence against women which aren't going to be banned, or even considered, because they do so in a way that is consistent with what you'd expect from a PG to PG13 fantasy card game. 3 of the 5 cards in the gate watch defeat cycle feature women suffering defeat by Bolas, Slave of Bolas depicts and angel being mind controlled with the implication she will be forced to fight against her will then murdered. We see Avacyn getting her head exploded into black ash. The very premise of you argument, that people are ok with showing defeated men in magic but not women, is verifiably false, because if it were true far more than one old as dirt example with a bondage theme would be targeted. I've never actually seen someone build a straw man to take down and then lose to it before, so thanks for that new experience.

Reasonable, functional adults are capable of drawing a clear distinction between the kind of violence seen in Avengers movies and the kind seen in Game of Thrones, and similarly between a scantily clad woman in a fast and furious movie and a nude woman getting sexually assaulted in, uh, Game of Thrones. Most people reach that point by puberty. There is a clear difference between something like the Elvish Ranger Amazon Elf art that looks like it should be sprayed onto the side of a van blaring iron maiden, and the art on earthbind, even to someone like me who doesn't actually have a problem with the art. And certainly if earthbind depicted an actual sexual assault or hinted there was one in the offing, it would be a no brainier to remove it from the game.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.
So what you're saying is, Murder is consensual and comfortable? I find it rather convenient for people to want genders to be equal until it's inconvenient. So it's cool if a female character is represented in card art as the victorious captain of a ship, but not as a ground-bound and defeated foe. If there was a white male in the art instead of the female, nobody would even notice.
Yeah, Earthbind is way worse of a depiction than Murder. It would still be a worse depiction than the card Murder, if it featured a man in that exact same pose, and Murder featured a woman in the same predicament. Or if both cards featured the same gender. Because, again, the problem with Earthbind isn't because it shows a woman, but because it shows a submissive, non-consensual sexual pose.

You don't know me nearly well enough to make the assertion that it wouldn't be problematic if it were a man depicted.

Edit: The reason I'm using that kind of wording (non-consensual/subkmissive/etc.) Is because I cant say its outright depicting rape. Its not, even if its making allusions to that. And also trying to convey that bondage in of itself isn't inherently problematic. It probably is in the context of a card game partially marketed at kids, but isn't bad on its own. So tl;dr allusions to rape are bad regardless of gender, mmkay?
Unless the artist is on record stating that the art is an allusion to rape, then those that view it that way may be prudes that are projecting latent fantasies. Nothing sexual never even crossed my mind upon looking at that art
SPOILER
Show
Hide
and I like (EDIT: *consensual) bondage.
The flavor nor the context just isn't there to support such a notion.
Last edited by Legend 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Unless the artist is on record stating that the art is an allusion to rape, then those that view it that way may be prudes that are projecting latent fantasies. Nothing sexual never even crossed my mind upon looking at that art
SPOILER
Show
Hide
and I like bondage.
The flavor nor the context just isn't there to support such a notion.
The whole point of that paragraph was that I was specifically using language to indicate that it wasn't quite on that level while still being extremely problematic.

It's nice that you don't have any issue with it, that's on you to decide for yourself, but it makes me incredibly uncomfortable on a deeply personal level due to what it appears to depict and in the context of what the card does, and I'm not alone in that.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Unless the artist is on record stating that the art is an allusion to rape, then those that view it that way may be prudes that are projecting latent fantasies. Nothing sexual never even crossed my mind upon looking at that art

The flavor nor the context just isn't there to support such a notion.
"You're secretly a perv or a hopeless prude" isn't really a counterargument, tho.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Sinis wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Unless the artist is on record stating that the art is an allusion to rape, then those that view it that way may be prudes that are projecting latent fantasies. Nothing sexual never even crossed my mind upon looking at that art

The flavor nor the context just isn't there to support such a notion.
"You're secretly a perv or a hopeless prude" isn't really a counterargument, tho.
Well, if you read his spoiler, maybe he's just getting his kicks getting piled on. Some sort of rhetorical masochism.
SPOILER
Show
Hide
Yes, yes, point out my logical fallacies, point them out so hard. I'm a bad debater, so bad, tell me I'm bad at this!

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

If you like to throw fallacies around, be sure to refresh your memory on the fallacy fallacy.

Why is it that some people (no one in particular) seem incapable of steeling themselves against anything except for people that disagree with them?
onering wrote:
3 years ago
Well, if you read his spoiler, maybe he's just getting his kicks getting piled on. Some sort of rhetorical masochism.
FTR, nah. I just enjoy a little light philosophical banter centered on Magic.
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
It's nice that you don't have any issue with it, that's on you to decide for yourself, but it makes me incredibly uncomfortable on a deeply personal level due to what it appears to depict and in the context of what the card does, and I'm not alone in that.
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds to me like what's being said is, to feel comfortable is a choice, to feel uncomfortable is a compulsion. Whose to say it isn't the other way around? Or they're both choosing or they're both under compulsion?
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds to me like what's being said is, to feel comfortable is a choice, to feel uncomfortable is a compulsion. Whose to say it isn't the other way around? Or they're both choosing or they're both under compulsion?
Your relationship with that is your own business, who am I to dictate how you view things? Mine is from experience, draw your own conclusions from that and why I hate the art.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 1639
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 3 years ago

Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds to me like what's being said is, to feel comfortable is a choice, to feel uncomfortable is a compulsion. Whose to say it isn't the other way around? Or they're both choosing or they're both under compulsion?
Your relationship with that is your own business, who am I to dictate how you view things? Mine is from experience, draw your own conclusions from that and why I hate the art.
I wouldn't want to beat a dead horse. Thanks for discussing it. I'm curious, would you be willing to share a (short) list of cards that are borderline in your opinion? This question is for anyone else too. I don't want to refute them (and promise not to). I'm just curious and would like to expand my understanding of other people's views about it.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
I wouldn't want to beat a dead horse. Thanks for discussing it. I'm curious, would you be willing to share a (short) list of cards that are borderline in your opinion? This question is for anyone else too. I don't want to refute them (and promise not to). I'm just curious and would like to expand my understanding of other people's views about it.
That is the only one I can think of that has no alternative. I don't know the MTG card pool well enough to list that kind of stuff off the top of my head.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Why is it that some people (no one in particular) seem incapable of steeling themselves against anything except for people that disagree with them?
I don't think it's an issue of 'incapable of viewing it without distress'. It's more an issue of 'would rather not view it, and the powers that be believe that the would-rather-nots occupy a significant market share and are adjusting their product accordingly'.

Believe it or not, there was once a standalone board/card game called Pimp: The Backhanding. From the perspective of taste it was poorly received, and didn't go far (no subsequent versions were published, and that whole vein of aesthetic didn't take off).

It's not "can't handle it". It's "I don't want to handle it, and market forces responded accordingly."

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Airi wrote:
3 years ago
Legend wrote:
3 years ago
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds to me like what's being said is, to feel comfortable is a choice, to feel uncomfortable is a compulsion. Whose to say it isn't the other way around? Or they're both choosing or they're both under compulsion?
Your relationship with that is your own business, who am I to dictate how you view things? Mine is from experience, draw your own conclusions from that and why I hate the art.
I wouldn't want to beat a dead horse. Thanks for discussing it. I'm curious, would you be willing to share a (short) list of cards that are borderline in your opinion? This question is for anyone else too. I don't want to refute them (and promise not to). I'm just curious and would like to expand my understanding of other people's views about it.
I don't know of any cards that are as borderline as earthbind. I don't consider cards that are merely sexualized (like elvish ranger or rakish heir) to be problematic at all. The closest to earthbind was imprison, and that already got shown the door for being racially insensitive by being too evocative of irl African slavery*. Triumph of Ferocity is the only card I can think of that was even discussed along these lines at some point, but if course there is nothing sexual about it (garruk is threatening her to get her to remove a curse that she put on him) and the conclusion to this sequence is seen in Triumph of Cruelty where Liliana %$#% up Garruk even worse than she already did (and which is hinted at on Triumph of Ferocity by the spell she's forming in her free hand).


*That's actually a common thread with the banned cards here btw, that they are too evocative of real life events, groups, or slurs. Plenty of terrible things are presented in magic, but it seems like being too real in the subject matter did these cards in. As has been mentioned, two cards had ethnic slurs in their names, two were direct references to real life genocidal holy wars and their original art was tied closely to the real world versions of those events, invoke prejudice was evocative of the KKK, Imprison of the African slave trade, and Cleanse was too close to ethnic cleansing (it wouldnt have gotten the boot if it had referenced red, blue, or green creatures).

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

Something that kinda bugs me about all this...usually, when something is "banned" (like, outside of magic) that carries a certain moral connotation. Banned books, banned outfits, banned customers, etc.

That's obviously true in this case, these cards are "bad". But that's not the case for magic bannings generally. Oko isn't "bad", he just represented too much of the competitive metagame. There's no moral weight to card bannings in magic. A card isn't banned for being "bad", it's banned for having undue impact on the metagame. Which obviously these cards don't. They barely have any impact in commander, but they have absolutely zero impact in competitive constructed formats.

It just feels like a mismatch to me. It's like if everyone agreed that Jeff Bezos is bad, so we put him on the terrorist watch list. I'm not saying he's not bad, I'm just saying that isn't the point of the terrorist watch list something else?
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 1760
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 3 years ago

What i find slightly ironic is no one is upset over C.A.H which if you really go through all 1000+ cards you'd find something that would actually offend everyone at some point, but I guess since that's the point of CAH or it's meant to be funny that's okay?
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1513
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 3 years ago

Hermes_ wrote:
3 years ago
What i find slightly ironic is no one is upset over C.A.H which if you really go through all 1000+ cards you'd find something that would actually offend everyone at some point, but I guess since that's the point of CAH or it's meant to be funny that's okay?
You can't be serious. You're comparing a children's card game to one specifically marketed to adults 17+ (right on the box) with the tagline "A party game for horrible people." People sit down to games of Cards Against Humanity with that stuff in mind; Magic players generally don't go into games seeking racist overtones.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 3 years ago

RxPhantom wrote:
3 years ago
You can't be serious. You're comparing a children's card game to one specifically marketed to adults 17+ (right on the box) with the tagline "A party game for horrible people." People sit down to games of Cards Against Humanity with that stuff in mind; Magic players generally don't go into games seeking racist overtones.
Woah, woah, woah. Let's not be ridiculous... Cards Against Humanity isn't a card game. It's an automated mad lib generator.

Edit: to be clear, this isn't a stance on the serious topic at hand. Just taking potshots at Cards Against Humanity.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

Locked Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”