July 2021 Banlist Announcement

[Hermes_]

I love the reactions on reddit and the discord...."Sheldon lost to the card" "No, he actually played it against me in a game"

and my favorite:

From reddit: " Also Sheldon makes his living off of his position."

From the discord:

Hermes_ — Today at 12:44 PM
Sheldon did you know you make money off being the head of the RC roflol

Sheldon — Today at 12:44 PM
Um, I guess I should tell my accountant???

[BeneTleilax]

sure, just not sure why you direct this at me
never demanded anything

You were defending Ilakunsaa, so I was explaining my issue with them.

I'm pretty sure lot of hobbies refund you. You can refund video games just because you think they are bad. Wotc refunds you if they ban cards on arena.

Then stick to those and keep your fixation on ROI out of EDH. Go collect stamps or something if you want a hobby that will always appreciate in value. We're here to play a game and have fun over here, sorry if that's getting in the way of your price speculation.

[Legend]

I really don't get it.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

[TheGildedGoose]

I really don't get it.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

I wish people were more self-aware.

[kraus911]

Feels bad to have bought a card you thought was cool and find out it was a waste of money for sure. Even if it's a good idea to temper your spending based on the fact that the RC will ban cards regardless of their price, most of use have gotten burned on a card purchase before one way or another. You get excited and pull the trigger and then *sad trombone sound*. I think we should empathize with anyone who's lost money. I also think the banning was a good call. The card was only going to go up in price and cause more unfun games and this is a good point to cut bait and move on.

[Magiqmaster]

This banning was coming, sooner or later, no doubt about it. Several articles / podcasts also talked about HB, I guess mostly everyone agreed to some degree about it's unfairness. If I had owned a copy, I would have sold it a few months ago when the community started to complain loudly about it's feelbad moments.

I feel the pain for all of you who lost money following the ban, so my advise would be to get rid of such cards when you realize things are starting to go downhill. A good example would be Paradox Engine; I didn't own a copy, but here again, I would have sold it before the ban hammer fell down. It was obvious it was coming!

I just don't get how come WotC makes such cards, they should know better by now.

[umtiger]

I just don't get how come WotC makes such cards, they should know better by now.

The current paradigm is to push the envelope and ban later for any oopsies.

I'm somewhat fine with that. But not to the extreme that they've taken it. You can't/shouldn't print stuff and act as if you can wash your hands with ban hammer.

Of course, people love to push the narrative of the power ramp up from Tempest Block → Urza Block and then the subsequent power down of Mercadian. And how that was a lull in interest because power=fun and no power=no fun. But they end the story short because they never bring up Invasion block which immediately followed Mercadian.

My point being that you don't have print Mercadian-ish blocks just to bring things to balance when you can just carefully craft Invasion-ish blocks instead. However, the current paradigm isn't about printing Invasions after Invasions to make interesting formats organically. Instead, it's about printing Urzas afters Urzas...

So we have stuff like Narset (one-sided stax pieces) and Hullbreacher (one-sided stax pieces that also win games). Imagine Lodestone Golem being 5/5 and only taxing opponents. They do know better, but imho it's not their utmost concern.

Feels bad to have bought a card you thought was cool and find out it was a waste of money for sure. Even if it's a good idea to temper your spending based on the fact that the RC will ban cards regardless of their price, most of use have gotten burned on a card purchase before one way or another. You get excited and pull the trigger and then *sad trombone sound*. I think we should empathize with anyone who's lost money. I also think the banning was a good call. The card was only going to go up in price and cause more unfun games and this is a good point to cut bait and move on.

I agree with this. No one should be rubbing this in. It's a feel bad that the card got printed just as much as it was being banned.

The ban hammer does not wash away things clean.

EDH is a big part of MTG. Even mtgfinance people base their content on EDH. It wasn't long ago when they were suggesting people to spec out on foil/extended versions of Hullbreacher.

If they didn't ban it now, it would have just slowly ramped up in price. And then you'd be in this even more anxiety-ridden limbo about buy to play vs. not buy to avoid bans. Regardless of how you feel about the money side of the game, why should players have to go through that crap?

This is the right ban, even if six months late.

[Legend]

I really don't get it.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

I wish people were more self-aware.

Then again, "self"-awareness is hardly uncommon in this age of narcissism. I wish people were more aware of others than themselves. Perhaps then Commander wouldn't even need banned cards and singular rules.

[DirkGently]

I feel the pain for all of you who lost money following the ban, so my advise would be to get rid of such cards when you realize things are starting to go downhill. A good example would be Paradox Engine; I didn't own a copy, but here again, I would have sold it before the ban hammer fell down. It was obvious it was coming!

You must be clairvoyant or something. PE was legal for years before getting banned. I'm super happy that it did, mind, but I have no idea how you'd be able to see it coming, let alone it being "obvious".

Personally I've had both cards pre-ban but never played either. But Idgaf about some measly $30 card. Seems wild to be dumping those sorts of things out of fear it'll get banned. I'm not a fan of either, but if you playgroup doesn't mind it and you like playing it, then I'd say worrying about potential bans is a waste of brain power and you're way more likely to end up jumping the gun on a ban than getting it right.

[pokken]

Seems wild to be dumping those sorts of things out of fear it'll get banned

For me the labor cost involved in rushing to sell/trade something is just not worth my time mostly, even trading honestly is not worth the effort most of the time anymore People make trading into such a chore.

[3drinks]

Seems wild to be dumping those sorts of things out of fear it'll get banned

For me the labor cost involved in rushing to sell/trade something is just not worth my time mostly, even trading honestly is not worth the effort most of the time anymore People make trading into such a chore.

That's why I don't even bother trading. Show up somewhere to play and the first thing I hear is "trades?" from three different people that no doubt are looking to under rate my cards and overrate their own. So I just buy singles from my LGS or TCGPlayer. And I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

[BeneTleilax]

It's a trading card game. I vastly prefer to trade than to buy. I know the people at my store, I play with them, I trust them more than I trust faceless monoliths like TCGPlayer or StarCity, both of which are known for creating artificial scarcity. I don't really care if the trade is a couple dollars off, and the card I want is a staple/in low supply, I'll even overtrade for it a bit. I've also taken overtrades from people who know that that's what they're doing, if I have a card they want, but they don't have anything I want to use myself.

[DirkGently]

My problem is that I end up with a ton of stuff from limited that I don't have a use for. Feels kinda stupid to let it just sit in boxes and never get played. So I trade, but only when I don't have something better to do and I try not to sweat small amounts.

[pokken]

My problem is that I end up with a ton of stuff from limited that I don't have a use for. Feels kinda stupid to let it just sit in boxes and never get played. So I trade, but only when I don't have something better to do and I try not to sweat small amounts.

If I could have all the time back people have spent pawing through my <$5 box of trades looking to fix a trade that's $1 off I'd probably be 39 instead of 40.

That's why I don't even bother trading. Show up somewhere to play and the first thing I hear is "trades?" from three different people that no doubt are looking to under rate my cards and overrate their own. So I just buy singles from my LGS or TCGPlayer. And I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

I will say that not caring at all is serious ammo when it comes to tradin. If someone tries to sweat me for value I'll pack my stuff in a second.

I'm more in your camp though, I can't be arsed to waste my time trading anymore. No one ever has the 7 specific things I'm looking for and the foil Cloud of Faeries I want for my Ephara binder anyway

[3drinks]

My problem is that I end up with a ton of stuff from limited that I don't have a use for. Feels kinda stupid to let it just sit in boxes and never get played. So I trade, but only when I don't have something better to do and I try not to sweat small amounts.

That's why I stopped playing limited. Too much chaff I end up with. But I'll play if someone buys me in (and keeps the cards, ofc).

[Dunharrow]

This banning was coming, sooner or later, no doubt about it. Several articles / podcasts also talked about HB, I guess mostly everyone agreed to some degree about it's unfairness. If I had owned a copy, I would have sold it a few months ago when the community started to complain loudly about it's feelbad moments.

I feel the pain for all of you who lost money following the ban, so my advise would be to get rid of such cards when you realize things are starting to go downhill. A good example would be Paradox Engine; I didn't own a copy, but here again, I would have sold it before the ban hammer fell down. It was obvious it was coming!

I just don't get how come WotC makes such cards, they should know better by now.

1. Most people playing Commander are not heavily enfranchised. They don't necessarily read articles and listen to podcasts.
2. If it was not banned, then the price would have gone up with time. It is hard to decide to sell a card you want to play with based on hunches and guesses.

Your air of superiority is really frustrating. Your post reads like "Anyone who failed to sell a card before it was banned is an idiot'.


Personally, my frustration with the banning is the fact that I have 3 boxes of Commander legends I intend to draft, and that every one of them I open is useless now.

[DirkGently]

Personally, my frustration with the banning is the fact that I have 3 boxes of Commander legends I intend to draft, and that every one of them I open is useless now.

It's still a fantastic draft experience. You could always make a set cube - at least now one of the most expensive inclusions in the cube no longer feels as bad to leave there.

[Yatsufusa]

That's why I don't even bother trading. Show up somewhere to play and the first thing I hear is "trades?" from three different people that no doubt are looking to under rate my cards and overrate their own. So I just buy singles from my LGS or TCGPlayer. And I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

I will say that not caring at all is serious ammo when it comes to tradin. If someone tries to sweat me for value I'll pack my stuff in a second.

I'm more in your camp though, I can't be arsed to waste my time trading anymore. No one ever has the 7 specific things I'm looking for and the foil Cloud of Faeries I want for my Ephara binder anyway

When there were still GPs (and way before when Pre-releases were almost GP-sized events rather the LGS events), trading was real fun because you didn't meet a lot of people over time, so the chances of finding "7 specific things the LGSes don't have" was substantially raised to the point it was fun to trade (but I guess it helped back then I had more than only 7 specific things, to be honest), but when you're enclosed to a (few, if you're lucky) LGS, the circle becomes substantially smaller to the point it isn't worth it.

Back during those days (and technically it still holds now, except I barely move any cards for it to matter), I buy, sell & trade all at slightly under retail, in that comfortable range between retail buy-ins and retail prices. If anyone underrates my cards or overrate theirs, I make it a simple point that at that value I might as well sell to / buy from the LGS and score some "social points" with them (which is obviously worth more than scoring with a random player/trader I might never see again).

I can't even remember if I had to say that in response to someone trying to sweat value, it helps this is pretty much the gold standard for all local players/traders I know, and outside players/traders that come in are usually polite enough to ask for the policy before even starting going through binders (or the latest have it verified with the first card they saw interest in). Even LGS owners that come in to larger events when they don't have a booth switch to this standard so it's fair to the LGS that forked out the fees for the actual booths of the event (granted, they probably only brought in specific inventory they wanted out/harder-to-move since they obviously couldn't bring everything, but that's not the point).

Granted, now with the greater normalization of online marketplaces (which do functionally act like those big events in a way, except without the socialization), I can see why people eschew trading in favor of the straightforward online version of it. But on a personal level there are reasons I don't like it (mostly because I've been conditioned before that era and sort of appreciate not having almost every card available all the time makes you plan budget and timing a whole lot better and while there are protective measures online, the hoops you might have to jump through when something wrong happens just feels troublesome to me, whereas IRL deals are basically resolved on the spot - I basically like Magic as a hobby I visit occasionally and have its problem enclosed within those occasions than lingering over online systems).

Nowadays I just reached a point I just accept that I have to sell-and-buy to my LGS accordingly (with the pandemic locking any major events for me to trade and my reluctance to let the online experience turn the hobby more sour than it already naturally has). Even with that, if sufficient planning, I could still sustain with such a narrower scope, as long as I timed my deals with more precision. But I guess I've also reached the point of "7 specific cards" and it's a matter of waiting for the LGS to land those cards in, then check out what I own that spiked up to obvious "a reprint's gonna crash this and I won't be moving this card for more than LGS buy-in prices in time anyway" and trade accordingly.

[Artaud]

I'm not sure how far card errata procedures can go but if it would be errated by removing the word "instead" it would still be a fine card and a ban would be unnecessary.

[vandertroll]

I really don't get it.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

Thanks for the compliment

It may sound a bit counter-intuitive but using logic to justify a decision is not the same as using evidence. I understand the reasoning behind the ban, even though I find it a bit hypocritical and I strongly disagree with it. But trying to use ''evidence'' in a format without any universal metrics is plain wrong in my book. Also I've been on the receiving end of Hullbreacher more times than I've cast it.

[RxPhantom]

I'm not sure how far card errata procedures can go but if it would be errated by removing the word "instead" it would still be a fine card and a ban would be unnecessary.

Not very far. That's just now how WotC uses errata. Besides, the RC wouldn't be able to issue errata anyway. It wouldn't be worth the headache. Better to let it die.

[3drinks]

I'm not sure how far card errata procedures can go but if it would be errated by removing the word "instead" it would still be a fine card and a ban would be unnecessary.

This would emphatically be power level errata, much the same with the attempt to change Time Vault to require skipping a turn to put a time counter on it to utilize it. WotC does not do power level errata as it fundamentally changes the card as designed.

I really don't get it.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

Thanks for the compliment

It may sound a bit counter-intuitive but using logic to justify a decision is not the same as using evidence. I understand the reasoning behind the ban, even though I find it a bit hypocritical and I strongly disagree with it. But trying to use ''evidence'' in a format without any universal metrics is plain wrong in my book. Also I've been on the receiving end of Hullbreacher more times than I've cast it.

You're using statistical data to discredit a decision made by a governing entity over a non-sanctioned format, and that is your mistake. Sometimes unheathy cards need to just go for the sanity of the player base at large, much the same way Prophet of Kruphix had to go. Perhaps you would be better suited to play Legacy (where this card does see play, and such statistical analysis is utilized in ban decisions), rather than an unsanctioned format where there is no cash on the line.

[Legend]

It may sound a bit counter-intuitive but using logic to justify a decision is not the same as using evidence.

Yeah I realized that later but had already been quoted so just left it. *shrug*

[vandertroll]

I'm not sure how far card errata procedures can go but if it would be errated by removing the word "instead" it would still be a fine card and a ban would be unnecessary.

This would emphatically be power level errata, much the same with the attempt to change Time Vault to require skipping a turn to put a time counter on it to utilize it. WotC does not do power level errata as it fundamentally changes the card as designed.

Actually, you do get it.

It amazes me how so many substantially intelligent, rather logical individuals are happy to eschew logic for feelings.

Thanks for the compliment

It may sound a bit counter-intuitive but using logic to justify a decision is not the same as using evidence. I understand the reasoning behind the ban, even though I find it a bit hypocritical and I strongly disagree with it. But trying to use ''evidence'' in a format without any universal metrics is plain wrong in my book. Also I've been on the receiving end of Hullbreacher more times than I've cast it.

You're using statistical data to discredit a decision made by a governing entity over a non-sanctioned format, and that is your mistake. Sometimes unheathy cards need to just go for the sanity of the player base at large, much the same way Prophet of Kruphix had to go. Perhaps you would be better suited to play Legacy (where this card does see play, and such statistical analysis is utilized in ban decisions), rather than an unsanctioned format where there is no cash on the line.

RC's announcement has used the term ''evidence'' first. What I am trying to say is that there are no ''evidence'' to support this decision, or any of the ban decisions for that matter.

[DirkGently]

RC's announcement has used the term ''evidence'' first. What I am trying to say is that there are no ''evidence'' to support this decision, or any of the ban decisions for that matter.

1) I don't know why you'd get hung up on the term "evidence". Evidence isn't strictly statistical analysis. It's any information that is relevant to the decision. A bunch of people complaining online is evidence that many people dislike the card. Whether that's sufficient evidence to ban a card is up to the RC.

2) He said evidence that "[hullbreacher] is too tempting even [in casual play]", not that it has an aberrant winrate or whatever. I don't think the prevalence is too hard to prove (or at least find good evidence of), really, just look at how many people were using the card on EDHrec for a start. Idk current numbers since it's probably gone down a lot since the ban, but 23K is still quite a few. A lot more than, say, Winter Orb, a card that is similarly nasty and would 100% be banned if it was showing up frequently in casual games, but isn't - especially considering it can be run anywhere while hullbreacher is blue only. That difference in popularity is why hullbreacher is banned and not other nasty cards that aren't played often. If you think that difference doesn't exist or that there isn't enough evidence to support it...then you're allowed to think that...but based on the evidence I think you're probably wrong.

3) This is a minor and irrelevant point, but you earlier said "I've been on the receiving end of Hullbreacher more times than I've cast it." which shouldn't surprise you if you think about it for 2 seconds. If you've got 3 opponents and you play it at the same frequency, then you'd expect to be on the receiving end 3x as often. If you're close to parity than you're playing it significantly more often than your opponents on average.