MTGNexus

This thread will serve as a catch-all thread for discussing whatever concern, thought, opinion, etc., about the official rules and philosophy. This thread will be fluid in nature, so if you wish for more in-depth discussion about a specific card or other aspect of the official rules, please use the appropriate dedicated thread. If one doesn't exist already, you are encouraged to create one. When creating one, please include at a minimum, the card link and image, and a thought out stance on the subject (moderators reserve the right to edit the first post to conform to these standards).

The ban list is a very contentious subject for some, so please be courteous to other users and public figures. Flaming will not be tolerated.

Well today's announcement is a welcome one. Painter's Servant has some really unique design space, and Iona has been nothing but complaints for years. And I think Paradox Engine gets some new card that combos with it every set, so thank god.

Excellent job, RC and CAG!

There were some pretty major updates to the banning criteria which I think are potentially a huge step forward.

• Cause severe resource imbalances
• Allow players to win out of nowhere
• Prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way.
• Cause other players to feel they must play certain cards, even though they are also problematic.
• Are very difficult for other players to interact with, especially if doing so requires dedicated, narrow responses when deck-building.
• Interact poorly with the multiplayer nature of the format or the specific rules of Commander.
• Lead to repetitive game play.

These are much tighter than the previous criteria, including several phrases from the old ones (e.g. resource imbalances, win out of nowhere).

I think I like "allow players to win out of nowhere" and "prevent players from contributing to the game in a meaningful way" as those allow quite a bit more flexibility in terms of removing popular stax and combo cards than the previous ones.

I'm not entirely sure though. One of the things I liked about the more nuanced/detailed nature of the old criteria is that they excluded more things and gave you a bit more to think about, but I think this will be OK. It does seem like they could be used to justify banning almost anything though which I think is a risk.

These types of criteria are quite a bit harder to address for sure in the sense of "assess problem card X against these" - basically every card people hate will have a big score in "allow players to win out of nowhere" for example.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of how broadly versed these are. At least they make a promise of not being too heavy-handed with the banning going forward.

The way they are handling things, imo, is that if somebody creates a Stasis lock against Sheldon in a game then we'll see every stax card banned, at least at this rate.

ClydeBankston wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The way they are handling things, imo, is that if somebody creates a Stasis lock against Sheldon in a game then we'll see every stax card banned, at least at this rate.

I've seen people make comments like this elsewhere, and I have no reason to believe there's any rationale behind it whatsoever. The recent philosophy document adjustments and banlist changes came after eons of "no changes", and then they brought additional voices into the decision making process and it lead to banlist changes. I don't know how that series of events leads anyone to believe just Sheldon must have had his first game against Iona and used his monolithic banhammer on the card.

Also, "at this rate" after one event can't not remind me of this joke.

tstorm823 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

ClydeBankston wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The way they are handling things, imo, is that if somebody creates a Stasis lock against Sheldon in a game then we'll see every stax card banned, at least at this rate.

I've seen people make comments like this elsewhere, and I have no reason to believe there's any rationale behind it whatsoever. The recent philosophy document adjustments and banlist changes came after eons of "no changes", and then they brought additional voices into the decision making process and it lead to banlist changes. I don't know how that series of events leads anyone to believe just Sheldon must have had his first game against Iona and used his monolithic banhammer on the card.

Also, "at this rate" after one event can't not remind me of this joke.

Indeed! Not only that, but an even slight amount of research into the RC and CAG shows that they are not one localized playgroup, and certainly not Sheldon alone (any more than MaRo is Magic). In fact he has gone on record stating that there have been decisions made were he was in the minority. But it is easier to have a scapegoat than to deal with change (also see: "MaRo is ruining Magic!1!!!").

Look, I played with and against Iona since I started playing this Format in 2014.
Not once was I really annoyed when someone dropped it against one of my decks - even the mono colored ones.
Infact something like Bribery is one of the main arguments for her: If she is in your deck, then people can steal her, copy her, reanimate her and say one of YOUR colors. Which happend more often, than I can remember.

To avoid that - don't play her, you know it will happen if people know you have it.

It's sad to lose one of the best Angels, which also was one of the only ways to effectively do something against blue in mono white.

Meanwhile I'll just reanimate T2 Jin-Gitaxias and Void Winnover instead.

"Yeah but you can Bribery her and name white!" shouldn't really be an argument in defence of her.

cryogen wrote: ↑

4 years ago

"Yeah but you can Bribery her and name white!" shouldn't really be an argument in defence of her.

It was merely an example what others will start doing when you play these type of cards, sooner or later you will ask yourself "Is it really worth it?"

I know this mentality is frowned upon here, but I'm sorry when I have to word it like this: "If I'm too dumb to run answers or just talk to the player about that card, then I have to blame myself and not the player nor the card."

People run too few answers anyway and this type of ban will only encourage this mindset even more.

You know what is one of the best feelings? Beeing able to destroy a card you hate, because you planned ahead.

Souma wrote: ↑

4 years ago

cryogen wrote: ↑

4 years ago

"Yeah but you can Bribery her and name white!" shouldn't really be an argument in defence of her.

It was merely an example what others will start doing when you play these type of cards, sooner or later you will ask yourself "Is it really worth it?"

I know this mentality is frowned upon here, but I'm sorry when I have to word it like this: "If I'm too dumb to run answers or just talk to the player about that card, then I have to blame myself and not the player nor the card."

People run too few answers anyway and this type of ban will only encourage this mindset even more.

You know what is one of the best feelings? Beeing able to destroy a card you hate, because you planned ahead.

Emrakul and Primeval Titan were cards that were so centralizing that you'd run specific cards to meta against them. So as appropriate as it may be to use Iona against her owner, my comment was meant to highlight how centralizing you made her seem.

I agree that tona certain extent "run answers" is the right answer. My approach to the "should we ban this" question begins with;

What answers are available?
Are they ones you should run even without this card?
Does this card care about those answers?

I think at one point in the history of commander the "play more answers" rhetoric had some value but I think these days it's just basically caricature that doesn't exist. Everyone I see has removal these days even the most casual decks.

As an argument it mostly lines up with most "git gud scrub" lines that don't really mean anything or address the person's complaint and seem to dismiss it without engaging with it.

cryogen wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Emrakul and Primeval Titan were cards that were so centralizing that you'd run specific cards to meta against them. So as appropriate as it may be to use Iona against her owner, my comment was meant to highlight how centralizing you made her seem.

The funny thing is, that both these cards do something immediately even when they leave the field. Titan nets two lands and Emrakul gets an extra turn (when you cast her obviously), where you can swing with her, triggering the sweet sweet Annihilator 6.
Where Iona usually goes: Drop. Pass turn. Her presence ends the moment she leaves the field - with no additional benefits and 1 or more player/s who want your head now.

What answers are available?: For mono? Nev's Disk, Boom Pile, Oblivion stone, Meteor Golem, Spine of Ish Sah, Duplicanth, New Ugin,....
And if you play more than one color it affects you less anyway, so you have more opportunities.
Are they ones you should run even without this card?: In mono black for example you want something against enchantments and artifacts anyway or not?
Does this card care about those answers?: Iona down I'd say.

pokken wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Everyone I see has removal these days even the most casual decks.

I wish that statement was true in one of my 2 metas. I took a break for about half a year from it, because "I played too much removal" for one guy with a gitrog deck. After I started playing again he told me, that he won pretty much every game he played with it, since I wasn't around to kill his stuff/target him out. He really got bored of playing it.

ClydeBankston wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The way they are handling things, imo, is that if somebody creates a Stasis lock against Sheldon in a game then we'll see every stax card banned, at least at this rate.

Do people honestly think Sheldon has never been on the receiving end of any of the Orbs? And yet they roam free making Johnny cry and cEDH tables do even more intricate math.

Souma wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I know this mentality is frowned upon here, but I'm sorry when I have to word it like this: "If I'm too dumb to run answers or just talk to the player about that card, then I have to blame myself and not the player nor the card."

So what cards does this not apply to?

I just want to point out that with the release of King Arthur, the ratio of true 5-color Commanders (16, or 12 if you count all Slivers as one because lets be honest it's the same deck regardless of who is at the helm) versus Commanders with a 5-color identity but that aren't actually 5-color (8) continues to dwindle.

When do we get to stop taking "just play lands and your Commander" as a legitimate reason to keep Coalition Victory banned? Because it is becoming increasingly likely that a random 5-color deck doesn't actually have a 5-color Commander.

CV was never worthy of the ban, so now I guess

Well they are still making new 5c legendary creatures as well, so....

pokken wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I think at one point in the history of commander the "play more answers" rhetoric had some value but I think these days it's just basically caricature that doesn't exist. Everyone I see has removal these days even the most casual decks.

As an argument it mostly lines up with most "git gud scrub" lines that don't really mean anything or address the person's complaint and seem to dismiss it without engaging with it.

I think it still holds water for most cards, but because people have gotten better at running removal you see fewer cards that can easily be answered by such being complained about. The permanents that now draw the most complaints are ones that either cannot be answered by removal or those which generate enough value that the caster comes out ahead despite the permanent eating immediate removal. Still though, I see people complain about things that can be simply solved by removal, even if that removal isn't immediate, so not everyone has gotten the message.

So I am genuinely curious if anyone can help me see the light on this one. Why hasn't a card like Bribery been banned from the format? It seems like it's sole purpose is to create feel bad "gotcha" moments, especially in casual playgroups. Obviously this is just my personal experience, but I don't think I've ever seen the card used for anything healthy. It's always either stealing an Blightsteel Colossus|MBS or a Terastodon|WWK out of someone's deck on turn 4 or 5 which is much earlier than these kinds of cards should be hitting the field in a casual environment. It's one of those cards that just really messes up the flow of the game and makes people hold grudges. It's one thing to have your stuff stolen after you've cast it, but to have it stolen right out of your deck just makes players feel cheated, in my experience.

Bribery is only as good as the deck your opponent is running, so it is a self regulating card. It's more often that insee someone settle on a Sad Robot as they grab a bomb, and more often they end up getting a midrange creature for value.

I really love bribery effects as punishment for running stupid bombs in your deck. Sometimes they get Mindclaw Shaman'd or cloned or bribed or Acquire'd.

Seeing someone bribery out a blightsteel doesn't make me wary of the bribery player, it makes me wary of the guy running blightsteel. Bribery for Terastadon is really powerful, but unless you are just deciding to wreck on players day it's fair enough. Usually it's gonna be blowing up a rock and some artifacts and enchantments everyone but the controller wants gone. And besides, that's an 8 Mana card in green, it's normally going to come down turn 6 or 7 because green is going to be ramping even more than all decks ramp in edh, and yes that's what I'd expect in a casual environment off a Sakura tribe elder and a cultivate. Out of the box unmodified green precons should be able to do that most games, and most are capable of dropping Tdon turn 5 reasonably often, so that's hardly much earlier than it should be coming down in a casual environment.

I picked up a library of alexandria so it can now be unbanned. I'm ready

So I haven't put a lot of deep thought into this yet, but just glancing st the list of partner commanders, what changes do you think we would see if the Commander damage rule was changed such that you lost of you received a combined 21 points of commander damage from a player's full team of generals?

Honestly? None. The best partners have nothing to do with voltron anyway, plus voltron as a strategy is quite feeble in the current EDH landscape.