Sheldon's throwaway comment about banning wheels

[Sheriff]

I don't think exiling the cards discarded from a wheel is broken or bad in any way.. It really only hurts decks that have recursion or graveyard themes, and those already have to face graveyard hate anyway.

As for the actually "broken" combos like Notion Thief/Narset/breacher, I'd say that if you're playing in a high enough power-level range where those cards are seen, and the entire table allowed BOTH the Wheel AND the upset card to resolve... then it's their fault and the caster deserves that moment.

[Vertain]

Timetwister could probably get the axe, if for no other reason than every other single piece of power is banned for "perceived barrier to entry" reasons for being ungodly expensive, ubiquitous, and iconic. Twister is now worth more than any other single piece of power besides Black Lotus, and most of them at least two times more. It. along with [{Windfall]], are the two cheapest to cast in Hullbreacher/Narset colors, making them some of the easiest to use. Most of blue's other "Wheel" effects self-exile and come either with a sizeable drawback (Day's Undoing, Diminishing Returns) or a much higher mana cost.

"Perceived barrier to entry" is no longer a thing, though, so we have to sit out the unpleasant side effects of the rampant reserve list speculation. The fact that it's cheap (mana-wise) and, more importantly, in the same colour as the actual problem cards (Hullbreacher, Narset, Parter of Veils, and Notion Thief) are very valid points.

However, it is obvious that the community at large has identified Hullbreacher, and, to a lesser extend since she doesn't have flash, Narset, Parter of Veils as the actual problems behind wheel effects. Let's just hope they don't pull another Walking Dead and completely ignore us on this one by banning the wheels instead.

[onering]

I don't think exiling the cards discarded from a wheel is broken or bad in any way.. It really only hurts decks that have recursion or graveyard themes, and those already have to face graveyard hate anyway.

As for the actually "broken" combos like Notion Thief/Narset/breacher, I'd say that if you're playing in a high enough power-level range where those cards are seen, and the entire table allowed BOTH the Wheel AND the upset card to resolve... then it's their fault and the caster deserves that moment.

No, this crap is showing up fat outside of the high power levels where it could be acceptable, and this is especially true in pick up games at LDS or on mtgo. This has no place in mid or 75% yet it's there. Make that argument for cEDH, but it's spread far beyond there.

[pokken]

As for the actually "broken" combos like Notion Thief/Narset/breacher, I'd say that if you're playing in a high enough power-level range where those cards are seen, and the entire table allowed BOTH the Wheel AND the upset card to resolve... then it's their fault and the caster deserves that moment.

No, this crap is showing up fat outside of the high power levels where it could be acceptable, and this is especially true in pick up games at LDS or on mtgo. This has no place in mid or 75% yet it's there. Make that argument for cEDH, but it's spread far beyond there.

You're dead on. I'm seeing the package of notion thief hullbreacher wheel everywhere sometimes with smothering tithe instead or in addition. It's been completely normalized to the point people will often scoop when they see it.

I'm cutting hullb from my more casual decks as a result - tried it in sygg to see if the cute combo works and it does. So well it takes over what the deck is doing .

But others are not doing that. Everyone says "I'll be happy when they ban it but for now I have to play it since everyone else is." Best answer to notion thief is hullbreacher so dumb

[ilovesaprolings]

Everyone crying because Sheldon has more designer insight than wotc. Too bad the only thing he can do is ban cards.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Everyone crying because Sheldon has more designer insight than wotc. Too bad the only thing he can do is ban cards.

I mean, playtest time in R&D is limited by both budget (how many hours wotc pays them to test) and intended scope (where they think those cards will be played). Given these limitations, of course a mtg Judge with 10+ years of experience will have a more holistic insight into how EDH as an eternal format is affected by new cards. I really don't believe wotc consults the RC nearly enough to balance their greed with the general health of the format.

[Ulka]

Just a general reminder: Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss a different topic, please create a separate thread.

That said if someone is going drastically off topic, spamming joke posts, ect please report the post and let the mods handle it.
Ulka

Meant to post this last night but I feel asleep. Oops

[RxPhantom]

But others are not doing that. Everyone says "I'll be happy when they ban it but for now I have to play it since everyone else is." Best answer to notion thief is hullbreacher so dumb

I hate this mentality. I really, really hate it. This past week, I was playing at my LGS, and one guy ended our interesting, twisty turny game with a totally boring Thassa's Oracle/Demonic Consultation. Yawn boo ugh. Anyway, just a few minutes later he's going on about how one or both should be banned. It felt like an overload of cognitive dissonance. "These cards make for bad games but I'm gonna play them cuz winning."

[pokken]

I hate this mentality. I really, really hate it.

It's pretty much why power creep happens. It's almost hard to predict what CEDH tech gets normalized in lower powered commander, but it definitely cross-pollinates.

I feel like there's basically 5 years tops before CEDH is the normal assumed power level and people intentionally power down sometimes, at the rate optimization is going.

[TheGildedGoose]

I feel like there's basically 5 years tops before CEDH is the normal assumed power level and people intentionally power down sometimes, at the rate optimization is going.

Only if the RL is abolished.

So, no.

[kraus911]

But others are not doing that. Everyone says "I'll be happy when they ban it but for now I have to play it since everyone else is." Best answer to notion thief is hullbreacher so dumb

I hate this mentality. I really, really hate it. This past week, I was playing at my LGS, and one guy ended our interesting, twisty turny game with a totally boring Thassa's Oracle/Demonic Consultation. Yawn boo ugh. Anyway, just a few minutes later he's going on about how one or both should be banned. It felt like an overload of cognitive dissonance. "These cards make for bad games but I'm gonna play them cuz winning."

I think in one of the Professor's youtube videos he speaks rather eloquently about how a playgroup is responsible for creating the games it wants to experience. There's definitely a disconnect between what people are willing to inflict on others and what they get salty about when it's played against them, and that's something to pay attention to. Sometimes the answer isn't in your deck, it's in the conversation you have before you start playing.

[Vertain]

I feel like there's basically 5 years tops before CEDH is the normal assumed power level and people intentionally power down sometimes, at the rate optimization is going.

Only if the RL is abolished.

So, no.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As RL speculation gets more and more egregious, proxies are getting more and more normalized, at least in my playgroup. (anecdotal evidence, so take it with a grain of salt) And personally, if I get Hullbreachered, I don't care if the Timetwister that ruined the game was genuine or printed out, the outcome is the same.

[toctheyounger]

But others are not doing that. Everyone says "I'll be happy when they ban it but for now I have to play it since everyone else is." Best answer to notion thief is hullbreacher so dumb

I hate this mentality. I really, really hate it. This past week, I was playing at my LGS, and one guy ended our interesting, twisty turny game with a totally boring Thassa's Oracle/Demonic Consultation. Yawn boo ugh. Anyway, just a few minutes later he's going on about how one or both should be banned. It felt like an overload of cognitive dissonance. "These cards make for bad games but I'm gonna play them cuz winning."

I think in one of the Professor's youtube videos he speaks rather eloquently about how a playgroup is responsible for creating the games it wants to experience. There's definitely a disconnect between what people are willing to inflict on others and what they get salty about when it's played against them, and that's something to pay attention to. Sometimes the answer isn't in your deck, it's in the conversation you have before you start playing.

This seems accurate. Its also pretty applicable to wider aspects of life. For example here in NZ we have a phrase (it could be elsewhere but I haven't traveled enough to know how far this phrase goes) - he/she/they can dish it out but can't take it. It basically means someone to talks to other poorly and gets upset when treated the same way. Its definitely present in my family dynamic and its probably not uncommon in others. Theres no winning those arguments, either. You just have to say your piece and leave the situation before it escalates.

I think the problem with addressing reciprocity of communication in EDH is less one of family dynamics, though, and more of inter-stranger dynamics. People are less willing to show empathy towards someone they barely know, and as they can walk away from a table with no qualms over whom they've upset they don't feel bad about stomping downwards or just playing dick move decks. This is where your threat assessment has to be on point, and your only bet is to turn the rest of the table against the offending player, which arguably makes you no better than them. I guess there's a case for giving someone a taste of their own medicine, but whatever.

At any rate it does seem like for some of the guys who dish it out but can't take it it really is just about the W. For the rest of us, journey > destination.

[DirkGently]

For example here in NZ we have a phrase (it could be elsewhere but I haven't traveled enough to know how far this phrase goes) - he/she/they can dish it out but can't take it.

Pretty sure that phrase is universal.

I think a lot of the difficulty stems from the melting pot of perspectives. Not just that some people are "spikes" (and I use this loosely because imo any true spike would seek out the challenge of a competitive format), but that those perspectives are propagated to newer players even if they aren't innately that sort of player. People will say things like "you've gotta play curiosity if you're playing niv" or whatever, and newer players just accept that sort of advice uncritically in a lot of cases. This is part of why commander is kind of a garbage onboarding format imo, because people are used to "play as hard as you can" for other games. If everyone played standard for a while and had to come to the realisation - hey, it kinda sucks when everyone is metadecking, maybe I should find a format that intentionally avoids that? - I think the culture would be a lot better off.

[Dragoon]

I hate this mentality. I really, really hate it. This past week, I was playing at my LGS, and one guy ended our interesting, twisty turny game with a totally boring Thassa's Oracle/Demonic Consultation. Yawn boo ugh. Anyway, just a few minutes later he's going on about how one or both should be banned. It felt like an overload of cognitive dissonance. "These cards make for bad games but I'm gonna play them cuz winning."

Agreed, I think people that play like "It's not banned, so I'm going to play it, even if I think it should be banned" did not understand the social aspect/contract of EDH. This is why I think having a banlist is somewhat useless, as people tend to take it as the final curated experience and don't look any further. If the banlist is supposed to be seen as guidelines, then present it as actual guidelines, not as a banlist.

I think in one of the Professor's youtube videos he speaks rather eloquently about how a playgroup is responsible for creating the games it wants to experience. There's definitely a disconnect between what people are willing to inflict on others and what they get salty about when it's played against them, and that's something to pay attention to. Sometimes the answer isn't in your deck, it's in the conversation you have before you start playing.

This is one of the fundamentals of EDH in my opinion, This is a social format, which means you need to be social. If you're playing with strangers, have a chat with them before the match so you can see if you are all looking for the same experience.

I think a lot of the difficulty stems from the melting pot of perspectives. Not just that some people are "spikes" (and I use this loosely because imo any true spike would seek out the challenge of a competitive format), but that those perspectives are propagated to newer players even if they aren't innately that sort of player. People will say things like "you've gotta play curiosity if you're playing niv" or whatever, and newer players just accept that sort of advice uncritically in a lot of cases. This is part of why commander is kind of a garbage onboarding format imo, because people are used to "play as hard as you can" for other games. If everyone played standard for a while and had to come to the realisation - hey, it kinda sucks when everyone is metadecking, maybe I should find a format that intentionally avoids that? - I think the culture would be a lot better off.

Every time I hear people say stuff like that, I make it a point to speak up and say that no, nobody should play anything. Everybody needs to play what they like and find a group who wants to share the same kind of experience. EDH is for everybody, but not with anybody.

[Legend]

Sometimes the answer isn't in your deck, it's in the conversation you have before you start playing.

True, but while Rule 0 is necessary and helpful, it has significant limitations. For example, a dominant personality can leverage Rule 0 to steer a play group in directions they don't want to go. They wind up playing games they didn't really enjoy and leave the table blaming a card, an effect, the format, and their makers instead of their illustrious "leader" - or themselves! The RC exists to promote the format, but (IMO) primarily to protect its community from griefers, who could raze the format incidentally or otherwise. Thus a ban list, while regrettable, is necessary.

All that being said, some inclusions on the Commander ban list are dubious, if not suspicious, in that they seem to be there as a result of being personal peeves of the RC rather than actual threats to the format. (Including Rule 11, which is an abomination.) Sheldon's statement about wheeling is just the most recent indication of this. It's effectively:

"I/we don't like [effect], therefore it should be banned or subject to Rule 11."
Sincerely,
Sheldon/RC
"P.S. - Rule 0 will solve all of your problems, but not my/our peeves."

[BeneTleilax]

All that being said, some inclusions on the Commander ban list are dubious, if not suspicious, in that they seem to be there as a result of being personal peeves of the RC rather than actual threats to the format. (Including Rule 11, which is an abomination.) Sheldon's statement about wheeling is just the most recent indication of this. It's effectively:

"I/we don't like [effect], therefore it should be banned or subject to Rule 11."
Sincerely,
Sheldon/RC
"P.S. - Rule 0 will solve all of your problems, but not my/our peeves."

They never said wheels should be banned, stop putting words in Sheldon's mouth. He said he felt certain interactions were unhealthy, but that's just... having a pet peeve. Until they make an official announcement regarding wheels, this has to be taken as just Sheldon's druthers. Maybe something that will shape into a ban/recommendation/whatever when given further thought (which is why we've gone on about Hullbreacher so much), but right now, it's just a pet peeve. So really, his statement is "rule 0 will solve a lot of problems, also, I have some peeves".

[Legend]

They never said wheels should be banned, stop putting words in Sheldon's mouth. He said he felt certain interactions were unhealthy, but that's just... having a pet peeve. Until they make an official announcement regarding wheels, this has to be taken as just Sheldon's druthers.

It was an infelicitous remark at best, an irresponsible projection at worst. Of course, they should discuss format issues with the community but not in such a portentous manner. Someone in their position should know better (especially by now), that many people will interpret their words negatively. Which, even though I'm sometimes in that camp, I consider unfortunate. But the RC did it to themselves, as their casual comments have a tendency to result in bans - or worse: Rule 11. (Especially in the early days when they only answered to themselves.) So I'm not putting words into his mouth so much as I'm interpreting them through the lens of the RC's past actions.

[Moonlighter]

It was an infelicitous remark at best, an irresponsible projection at worst. Of course, they should discuss format issues with the community but not in such a portentous manner. Someone in their position should know better (especially by now), that many people will interpret their words negatively. Which, even though I'm sometimes in that camp, I consider unfortunate. But the RC did it to themselves, as their casual comments have a tendency to result in bans - or worse: Rule 11. (Especially in the early days when they only answered to themselves.) So I'm not putting words into his mouth so much as I'm interpreting them through the lens of the RC's past actions.

I hear you on the concern you're raising, but the question at this point is, and I mean this non-rhetorically, how has Sheldon's comment changed your playstyle, meta, or decks at this juncture? We can forecast and foretell (for ), and I am curious what this information does to your day-to-day play. I don't know that we can guarantee that Sheldon's comment means this is a line that will be followed up with a ban, and I feel like we could probably find examples of Sheldon saying something... unhealthy and it not having an effect on the format.

[BeneTleilax]

It was an infelicitous remark at best, an irresponsible projection at worst. Of course, they should discuss format issues with the community but not in such a portentous manner.

How is this portentious? The RC has gotten pretty good about making official announcements about what is a ban consideration, often months in advance. This wasn't that. This was Sheldon, clearly speaking for himself, in an unofficial form. No-one is reading Sheldon's random musings unless they're really engaged with the format, and by then they should be able to form their own opinions about Rule 0 at their tables, and what is worthy of a ban.

[toctheyounger]

It was an infelicitous remark at best, an irresponsible projection at worst. Of course, they should discuss format issues with the community but not in such a portentous manner.

How is this portentious? The RC has gotten pretty good about making official announcements about what is a ban consideration, often months in advance. This wasn't that. This was Sheldon, clearly speaking for himself, in an unofficial form. No-one is reading Sheldon's random musings unless they're really engaged with the format, and by then they should be able to form their own opinions about Rule 0 at their tables, and what is worthy of a ban.

To add in here, and I'm not 100% certain this was the case with this particular release, but Sheldon is usually pretty good at prefacing most of his personal writing with the proviso that it should be taken as his personal opinion and not indicative of any discussion within the RC unless explicitly stated as such. He seems to be quite aware of the possibility for extrapolation from the individual's opinion to the consensus of the committee, and to my mind takes reasonable steps to deter people from making a leap of intuition that isn't there and isn't intended.

[BeneTleilax]

To add in here, and I'm not 100% certain this was the case with this particular release, but Sheldon is usually pretty good at prefacing most of his personal writing with the proviso that it should be taken as his personal opinion and not indicative of any discussion within the RC unless explicitly stated as such.

He made no such specific statement in this article, but it's clear from the tone that it's far from official. He threw out a lot of random ideas, of varying levels of absurdity from going back and forth with himself over Coffers to "I'd make a 'you can't play Sol Ring unless you also play Acorn Catapult' rule in a heartbeat," It was all pretty obviously half-considered first impressions and tossing weird ideas at the wall.

[toctheyounger]

To add in here, and I'm not 100% certain this was the case with this particular release, but Sheldon is usually pretty good at prefacing most of his personal writing with the proviso that it should be taken as his personal opinion and not indicative of any discussion within the RC unless explicitly stated as such.

He made no such specific statement in this article, but it's clear from the tone that it's far from official. He threw out a lot of random ideas, of varying levels of absurdity from going back and forth with himself over Coffers to "I'd make a 'you can't play Sol Ring unless you also play Acorn Catapult' rule in a heartbeat," It was all pretty obviously half-considered first impressions and tossing weird ideas at the wall.

Yeah and this was my takeaway as well. Its not all that hard to infer from the tone of the article that this is just his musings rather than anything official.

[Legend]

It was an infelicitous remark at best, an irresponsible projection at worst. Of course, they should discuss format issues with the community but not in such a portentous manner. Someone in their position should know better (especially by now), that many people will interpret their words negatively. Which, even though I'm sometimes in that camp, I consider unfortunate. But the RC did it to themselves, as their casual comments have a tendency to result in bans - or worse: Rule 11. (Especially in the early days when they only answered to themselves.) So I'm not putting words into his mouth so much as I'm interpreting them through the lens of the RC's past actions.

I hear you on the concern you're raising, but the question at this point is, and I mean this non-rhetorically, how has Sheldon's comment changed your playstyle, meta, or decks at this juncture?

No. Haha. I may have overreacted a bit. My bad. I guess, as an advocate of wishes, the mere hint of banning another entire effect, as opposed to specific cards, triggered me. I still have nothing but respect for the RC members, even if I don't agree with all of their decisions.

Sheldon's statement only further convinced me that it's time for Sanctioned Commander with a ban list and Unsanctioned Commander with no ban list. So that wishing could default to Wizard's rule on wishing, which would eliminate the need for Rule 11, and so that the bulk of Rule 0 discussions would amount to "Sanctioned or Unsanctioned?".

[Dragoon]

Sheldon's statement only further convinced me that it's time for Sanctioned Commander with a ban list and Unsanctioned Commander with no ban list. So that wishing could default to Wizard's rule on wishing, which would eliminate the need for Rule 11, and so that the bulk of Rule 0 discussions would amount to "Sanctioned or Unsanctioned?".

Sanctioned Commander is hard to implement due to politics and collusion. I don't think Wizards will organize such tournaments any time soon, and I don't see the RC caring about that at all either.