NotMyOwlbear wrote: ↑
1 year ago
The idea that 1000 cEDH games should suffer so that 1 casual game may live can't be healthy.
If some element of the philosophy document is destroying more fun than it protects, is it really succeeding just because the victims play differently? Or should it be made slightly less absolute? Or preferably just interpreted in a less absolute way when the situation calls for it.
For what it's worth though, if flash starts cropping up in casual pods, before long I expect to see it do things like flashing in rector for omniscience, or doubling season to get a nasty planeswalker ult. If they pull that off right with holding priority, could be pretty bad news.
That was my quote, of course, and I am not sure it was right - was just how I have felt about it for a while because of how the philosophy document is worded. My instinct is still that allowing competitive end ("tuned") to dictate changes is a big risk on multiple fronts. It's largely how I feel about myself - I would never want the RC to make banning decisions to make life easier in my power level (my history of being anti-Paradox Engine was 100% play pattern related in more-casual-than-me metas, if you want to go there).
I think Flash is probably a small enough risk to warrant consideration but I think there is still some concern there.
I can think of a lot of examples of cards that ride close to Flash (Food Chain
) in terms of being very lightly played in casual, and it makes me wonder where exactly we draw the line.
And more to the point, where casual players who come into the format thinking it's designed with a particular goal in mind fit into things. Is breaking their expectations (which have been backed up by words from the RC for a long time
Something you may find useful to know about me is that most of my decks tend hard toward the tuned or even borderline competitive side of the house. And I still don't think they should ban for me or to reinforce my style of play. This format is for people who play hard to work within the parameters of and it's really dangerous to start asking for changes.
There's a common accusation here of the slippery slope fallacy but the thing to remember is that this is not asking for a one time ban, this is asking for a change in the RC's philosophy on banning - the RC doesn't ban things without them aligning with their philosophy, so banning something out of band would necessitate an update there.
Once that philosophy changes the floodgates *are* opened whether we like it or not. cEDH players can start petitioning for bannings under whatever the new criteria is, and then we have to deal with that. Right now there is a straight up "get out of jail free" card in the criteria saying in essence, "we don't ban for competitive play." Change that, and everything changes.
So anyway that's some of why I am apprehensive about the ban - despite generally being on board with the reasoning. I do think it's potentially a big shift.
I realize the CEDH guys all think I don't think they are human or whatever -- I just worry about the much bigger group of humans who don't have any reason to think bannings for competitive reasons will ever happen, and operate on that assumption and have for a very long time.