Restrictive Mana Costs Cloaking Effect of Problematic Cards

[pokken]

So I had this nugget in the wheel thread that I think maybe is worth a second thread.

I remember thinking back when prophet of kruphix was legal that the only reason it lasted so long was its restrictive Mana cost. Similarly effects like tainted pact and thassa's oracle coast by not being quite omnipresent because casual players don't just jam simic and dimir decks at the rate you'd expect from how good those color pairs are.

Similarly cards like Notion Thief garners basically no attention in wheel discussions because it's just not represented as much as a card that is great but not multicolored.

Another kind of connected thought is that as the mean color count per deck rises (presumably?) Do these cards get more attention as potentially problematic?

A very interesting supporting point here's that there is exactly one multicolored card on the banlist that would be banned on its merits as a card in the 99 (prophet). And that card is in the most played combo.

I wonder if philosophically speaking the attitude for what represents omnipresence has to shift from overall market share to market share within its colors at some point. Because if hullbreacher cost UWR I don't think we ever talk about it.

[Mookie]

To some extent, I would say this is baked into the mana system. As a general rule, multicolored cards are stronger than monocolored cards of the same mana value. This is to balance out the increased difficulty and deckbuilding required to cast those multicolored cards. Are there strong multicolored cards that would be more widespread if they were monocolored? Yes, absolutely. Similarly, there are many monocolored cards that would be problems if they were colorless.

That said, I don't think this is necessarily a problem. To some extent, I view these strong multicolored cards as rewards for playing their colors - I built a Grixis deck because I wanted to play with Cruel Ultimatum, for example. I don't think I would want for Cruel Ultimatum to be cast in every game... but since Grixis decks only show up in a relatively small percentage of games, it isn't really a problem in practice.

That said, it does become a problem if you start to feel like you have to play a specific color or colors for access to some card. When Prophet of Kruphix was legal, it felt common to have a minimum of three Simic decks in every game, with the fourth player also running clone / theft effects for it. Still, looking at EDHREC, most of the top-played multicolored cards are removal spells like Anguished Unmaking which are incremental improvements over the monocolored options available to those colors. I'll also note that multicolored decks also have a much deeper cardpool available, which makes their slots even more competitive - it's more difficult for a multicolored card to show up in a large percentage of decks.

Anyway.... would Notion Thief or Ruinous Ultimatum be problematic if they weren't multicolored? Almost certainly. But as multicolored cards, I don't think they're usually a problem.

[Gamazson]

A card does not have to be multicolored to be restrictive.

Zombie Trailblazer is basically mana denial with haste. Also it has the ability to make any creature unblockable. If it wasn't for the and tribal activation cost he would have been banned long ago.

[DirkGently]

1) As a non-competitive format, the brokenness level in a vacuum doesn't really matter that much imo. What matters is the actual impact on the format. Hence why I think cards like Coalition Victory could probably be unbanned, because it'd rarely get played (especially since all the good 5c commanders aren't even 5c lol). Same reason I don't think it's that important to ban Winter Orb or whatever - if it's not getting played, then it's not really a problem.

2) I think if we started banning based on strength within a color pair, we'd end up with a much longer banlist.

3) rofl @ banning Zombie Trailblazer. I promise that the mana cost is not what's keeping that card from getting banned. Opposition is so much better and it has a whopping 1% on EDHrec.

[Wallycaine]

If you want a better example of a BBB cost keeping something from being banned, Necropotence would be my go to. I doubt it 100% would get banned, but a version that was 2B would skate much closer to the line, and likely could have gotten swept onto the initial ban list with Yawgmoth's Bargain. At the very least, a spashable version would be a lot more ubiquitous.

[pokken]

Anyway.... would Notion Thief or Ruinous Ultimatum be problematic if they weren't multicolored? Almost certainly. But as multicolored cards, I don't think they're usually a problem.

I would differentiate the gameplay between Ruinous Ultimatum and Notion Thief - Cyclonic Rift is a problematic card on many levels, but if it were sorcery speed I don't think it's problematic

Notion Thief creates awful games when it sticks. It just does it less often because of its color identity. I think if you took the impact of NT on a game and compared it to Hullbreacher you'd find NT is actually even worse to play against - it just not as common.

[ I say this as someone who has seen a LOT of notion thief over the years ]

The thing I think about is like -- Static Orb is not great to play against mostly, and it's made OK mostly because of 1) being rarely seen, and 2) having a high deckbuilding barrier.

Fundamentally though, people avoid Static Orb because of the social contract. There seem to be big classes of problematic cards that people will not avoid through the social contract, cards like Prophet of Kruphix being pretty much the best examples.

Not sure where that all leads but I'm not convinced that just not seeing a card every game because of its mana cost is a good enough reason to let it go -- if it's in a ridiculously high percentage of decks it can be in, I think that ought to be considered I guess?

2) I think if we started banning based on strength within a color pair, we'd end up with a much longer banlist.

I'm assuming you're tracking with me that I mean considering omnipresence relative to the decks a card could be in (not strength). A card should have problematic qualities to even be considered.

Today the impression I get is that the general metric they think about is "What percentage of games played does this card crap on?"

But yes. If you change that metric to "What percentage of games where this card could be played does it crap on?" you might get a longer banlist.

That said:
* It wouldn't be *that* much longer. There aren't that many cards that have their issues cloaked. There just aren't that many multicolor cards in the era of pushed EDH cards
* It might be better?

I dunno. I will say that it blew me away that Notion Thief was as played as it was on EDHrec. If you'd told me it was 5% I'd have bought that. It's 15%. Obviously only so many conclusions you can draw from EDHrec data but it's interesting.

(Just wanted to clarify that this is not a shadow thread about notion thief, it's more that the parallels between it and Hullbreacher are the best example I can think of offhand)

If you want a better example of a BBB cost keeping something from being banned, Necropotence would be my go to. I doubt it 100% would get banned, but a version that was 2B would skate much closer to the line, and likely could have gotten swept onto the initial ban list with Yawgmoth's Bargain. At the very least, a spashable version would be a lot more ubiquitous.

Yeah this is a great example, Necropotence is a slam dunk for banning if it costs even 3B and maybe even at 4b

[Lifeless]

It really depends on the impact of the effect. Leovold wasn't going to slide by just because he has a restrictive mana cost.

[Sinis]

I think that Tainted Pact isn't played as much because there's a somewhat onerous deckbuilding restriction in there: You need to be playing only two of each basic (one snow and one not).

I do agree in principle though: If you look at the saltiest cards on EDHREC, you'll find a multicoloured card at slot 18. Everything before it is mono-colour or colourless. Even once you scroll past that, you'll see that the saltiest cards are almost entirely monocolour or colourless.

I think this will always be the case, though. The use-case for a bi-coloured card like Notion Thief is + decks, while the use case for Stasis is + decks. There will always be more decks that are blue plus than dimir plus.

[pokken]

It really depends on the impact of the effect. Leovold wasn't going to slide by just because he has a restrictive mana cost.

Leovold was a commander. If he was a non-legendary creature named "Bad game advisor" I doubt he'd be banned.\

I think that Tainted Pact isn't played as much because there's a somewhat onerous deckbuilding restriction in there: You need to be playing only two of each basic (one snow and one not).

I do agree in principle though: If you look at the saltiest cards on EDHREC, you'll find a multicoloured card at slot 18. Everything before it is mono-colour or colourless. Even once you scroll past that, you'll see that the saltiest cards are almost entirely monocolour or colourless.

I think this will always be the case, though. The use-case for a bi-coloured card like Notion Thief is + decks, while the use case for Stasis is + decks. There will always be more decks that are blue plus than dimir plus.

Yar, probably true for pact

Interestingly you have to go down to like #25 before you find a salty card that is multicolored but not a commander (T3fefri??).

[DirkGently]

I'm assuming you're tracking with me that I mean considering omnipresence relative to the decks a card could be in (not strength). A card should have problematic qualities to even be considered.

Sure, my bad.

Today the impression I get is that the general metric they think about is "What percentage of games played does this card crap on?"

But yes. If you change that metric to "What percentage of games where this card could be played does it crap on?" you might get a longer banlist.

I'm just not sure why that would be a better metric, though. Why is it worse for an annoying card like notion thief to have a high play% within a restrictive CI, than for an annoying card like winter orb to have a low play% within a broad CI? At the end of the day, why isn't it total play that matters?

I dunno. I will say that it blew me away that Notion Thief was as played as it was on EDHrec. If you'd told me it was 5% I'd have bought that. It's 15%. Obviously only so many conclusions you can draw from EDHrec data but it's interesting.

That's still lower than hullbreacher, though, and hullbreacher is competing across all blue decks instead of just blue black. It is pretty high though.

I much prefer notion thief to hullbreach though - multicolor cards can be easier to anticipate and play around. If someone is in Mardu, you're a lot more likely to play around Ruinous Ultimatum than you are to play around Cyclonic Rift or whatever, because cyclonic rift can come up basically any game, whereas RU is going to be relatively rare, and relatively predictable to be in a mardu deck because of its high usage rate within that CI. Similar for the reason I think coalition victory is basically fine. When I sit down against a deck, I'm already running through potential things I might need to look out for, and it's a lot easier to keep in mind powerful multicolor cards than all the on-average-less-splashy - and far more numerous - monocolor ones.

Not to say I'd shed a tear for notion thief, but I think the game is better when the best cards are multicolor(or heavily monocolor) since they reward you for playing a certain CI. Ofc then we get to the problem of fixing being way too good, but most people aren't playing fetch/duals and most people don't play 5c just for the CI because they want a commander they actually like.

[Gamazson]

3) rofl @ banning Zombie Trailblazer. I promise that the mana cost is not what's keeping that card from getting banned. Opposition is so much better and it has a whopping 1% on EDHrec.

Opposition is certainly more flexible since it can hit more types of permanents, but it can't tap itself to pay for it's ability. It also can't turn a land "off" lands with problematic abilities, such as Glacial Chasm, for a turn. Opponent casts Scapeshift, that Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle or Field of the Dead is a basic swamp in response. Activate Thespian's Stage? That Dark Depths is now a basic swamp. Their Cabal Coffers is relying on my Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, that becomes a basic swamp for the duration of their turn.

If you want a better example of a BBB cost keeping something from being banned, Necropotence would be my go to. I doubt it 100% would get banned, but a version that was 2B would skate much closer to the line, and likely could have gotten swept onto the initial ban list with Yawgmoth's Bargain. At the very least, a spashable version would be a lot more ubiquitous.

Fair point. Necropotence is a far better, and less debatable example. I certainly wouldn't want to see a version that is splashable.

[pokken]

I'm just not sure why that would be a better metric, though. Why is it worse for an annoying card like notion thief to have a high play% within a restrictive CI, than for an annoying card like winter orb to have a low play% within a broad CI? At the end of the day, why isn't it total play that matters?

I guess that's really what the thread is about yep, I've got a leaning but I'm willin to be convinced.

I'm not sure that you get to a healthier environment if (in a hypothetical world) 100% of dimir decks playing Superpowered Dimir Card X is OK, but 100% of blue decks playing Superpowered Blue card Y is not?

Necropotence and Static Orb type cards that are partially policed by the social contract and partially by restrictive use are hard to judge. *part* of Necropotence not seeing that much play is its life loss and the discard to exile rider and its weird timing rules.

I'm thinking that if, hypothetically, Static Orb cost UWB but it was in almost every esper deck, that would be way worse than what we have now where it's policed by the social contract? Despite that you'd probably see just about as often, knowing that you're 100% going to see it when someone drops an esper deck feels awful.

That's awfully far into difficult to conceptualize what-if land I guess

[DirkGently]

Opposition is certainly more flexible since it can hit more types of permanents, but it can't tap itself to pay for it's ability. It also can't turn a land "off" lands with problematic abilities, such as Glacial Chasm, for a turn. Opponent casts Scapeshift, that Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle or Field of the Dead is a basic swamp in response. Activate Thespian's Stage? That Dark Depths is now a basic swamp. Their Cabal Coffers is relying on my Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, that becomes a basic swamp for the duration of their turn.

Are there niche cases where zombie trailblazer is more effective? Sure. But in terms of mana denial, which is what you initially advertised trailblazer as, opposition is far far stronger - and it still sucks.

If they're already playing black, trailblazer doesn't really deny their mana at all. Any land they play that turn, you can't effectively disable, so they're still easily able to cast anything with 0-1 color pips. Artifact mana, trailblazer can't turn off. You can't turn off mana they use as an instant.

But most importantly, for both cards, it's rarely possible to have so many creatures that you can use one on every single land each of your opponents control to attempt to lock down the game, and even if you could, you've probably got better things to do with your massive army of creatures, such as just winning the freaking game already.

It's not an effective strategy for mana denial in multiplayer. It might look decent once in a blue moon but it's extremely, extremely far from overpowered, let alone banworthy. I mean, even if it was as nasty as you think it is, people rarely play mana denial cards, so they don't really need a ban in most circumstances.

I'm thinking that if, hypothetically, Static Orb cost UWB but it was in almost every esper deck, that would be way worse than what we have now where it's policed by the social contract? Despite that you'd probably see just about as often, knowing that you're 100% going to see it when someone drops an esper deck feels awful.

That's awfully far into difficult to conceptualize what-if land I guess

I actually disagree. If you know it's coming when you sit down against esper, you can plan for it. I'd much rather live in that world (well, aside from the fact that esper's market share is way, way, way higher than the % of decks playing static orb).

[papa_funk]

Today the impression I get is that the general metric they think about is "What percentage of games played does this card crap on?"

I have 3 tests. That's one.

2 is "How badly does it crap on it?"
3 is "How big is the blast radius to fix it?"

(these are basically the 3 criteria I use to evaluate tournament policy changes, too!)

[pokken]

I actually disagree. If you know it's coming when you sit down against esper, you can plan for it. I'd much rather live in that world (well, aside from the fact that esper's market share is way, way, way higher than the % of decks playing static orb).

I can understand that, jus different tastes I guess. I am rapidly starting to hate that every dimir deck in my meta will have a Hullbreacher Notion Thief package