COMMANDER/EDH BANNED LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: January 2016
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 18, 2016, 11:39 a.m. by Ender666666
Summary:
- Commander-specific mulligan rules are removed
- Rule 4 (mana generation restriction) is removed
- Prophet of Kruphix is banned
Mulligans:
We promised in the last update that, with the advent of the Vancouver Mulligan, we'd be evaluating the mulligan process in Commander. This announcement is the culmination of that research. After examining several popular options, and coming up with a few of our own, we've concluded that the Vancouver Mulligan (with the standard first-one-free in multiplayer and a scry once you go to 6 or fewer) is the best option. The RC continues to use and recommend the Gis ("Mulligan 7s to a playable hand. Don't abuse this") for trusted playgroups, but that's not something that can go in the rules.
Ultimately, the goal of mulligans in Commander is to ensure that you start the game with enough lands to be a participant. With Commander games running an hour plus, it's unfortunate if you can't play anything because you miss land drops and get run over quickly.
We didn't want to solve the problems of Magic itself - mana screw and mana flood are part of the game - and players need to make a reasonable effort with their land counts, but we wanted a mulligan rule that tried to minimize unplayable opening hands. So, we brainstormed, and ran computer simulations. And what ultimately came out was... it didn't much matter. Nothing provided a clear enough upgrade to justify having additional rules for mulligans. For example, with 37 lands, Partial Paris was "successful" (which we defined as playing a 4th land on turn 4) 89% of the time versus Multiplayer Vancouver at 86%, but it came at a cost of about a fifth of a card on average. On the whole, 86% success is a rate that seems reasonable.
If you find yourself playing 1v1 (perhaps while waiting for a friend to show up), you should still use the free multiplayer mulligan. With a deck this size, variance is high enough to make not having the free mulligan potentially punishing - without the free mulligan you drop down to about 80% success rate, which, combined with being the only opponent to focus on, leads to too many unfortunate games.
Finally, its not an official rule, but we recommend setting aside the hands you're mulliganning away until you get a keeper. That saves shuffling time, and we're all for minimizing shuffling 100-card decks.
Rule 4:
We still love Rule 4. It's a nice piece of flavor and reinforces the idea that this format goes beyond simple mechanical restrictions into a deeper philosophical approach around color and mana symbols. Its effect on the game was pretty small, but that flavor message made it worthwhile to preserve.
However, the mana system of Magic is very complicated, and trying to insert an extra rule there has consequences in the corners. Harvest Mage. Celestial Dawn. Gauntlet of Power. And now, colorless-only mana costs.
Being able to generate colorless mana more easily in Commander wasn't going to break anything. But, it represented another "gotcha" moment for players, who were now likely to learn about Rule 4 when someone exploited the colorless loophole. We could paper over it (both "mana generated from off-color sources can only pay generic costs" and "you can't pay a cost outside your color identity" were considered), but a lot of the flavor would be lost in the transition, defeating the purpose. Without the resonant flavor, Rule 4 was increasingly looking like mana burn - a rule that didn't come up enough to justify it's existence.
We don't expect removing the rule to have a big impact. Some Sunburst and Converge cards might get a bit more of a look. Sen Triplets works more like you'd expect, as does Praetor's Grasp. The clone-and-steal deck, already one of the most popular archetypes, gets better, but less than you might think. It turns out there really aren't that many impactful non-blue activated abilities on cards that commonly get stolen in Commander. It's OK if you can regenerate that creature you just stole, and you'll need to work for it a bit anyway.
One side benefit to the removal of both the color production and mulligan rules is that, in terms of game play, Commander becomes a normal game of multiplayer Magic with a higher life total and a set of additive rules to bring a new piece (your Commander) into the game. That's good streamlining in terms of teaching people the format and reducing gotcha moments while still preserving the essential flavor of Commander.
Prophet of Kruphix:
This was challenging. Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander, so we chose to take a conservative approach and see if casual groups could adapt. In the past, we've seen unpopular cards generate a lot of outcry, but be handled reasonably well. Powerful cards existing is OK and exploring them responsibly is an essential part of Commander.
This didn't happen with Prophet. Casual groups haven't been able to work around it and problematic play has not dropped off in hoped-for ways. Instead, the primary approach has been to steal it, clone it, run it yourself, or get run over. Ultimately, it seems the card is too perfect - it does everything U/G Commander players want to be doing and it does it in a way that makes counterplay difficult. With traditional boogeymen such as Consecrated Sphinx, you're forced to expend a lot of your mana to cast it and will have a challenge protecting it as the turn goes around the table. With Prophet, it has virtual protection built in, negating that disadvantage almost immediately.
Prophet becomes only the second multicolored card on the banlist (after the structurally-problematic Coalition Victory). It's telling just how pervasive Prophet is despite such a restriction. Yes, U/G is the most popular color combination in Commander, but we've reached the point where Prophet is driving U/G deck choice, rather than vice-versa. That's centralizing in ways we can't ignore, so it's time for Prophet to take a break.
Whenever we decide to ban a card, we take a long look at the current list to see if any cards can come off, as we believe a casual format is better served by a minimalist banlist. After extensive discussion, however, we concluded that everything on the list served a purpose, so we won't be unbanning anything. It's been two years since the last (non-consolidation) card got banned, which is an acceptable growth rate!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18057
There seems to be some confusion about what the removal of Commander Rule #4 means, so here is some clarification.
The normal Commander rules regarding Colour Identity still apply. You may only include Spells, Artifacts, Planeswalkers, Creatures and Lands in your deck that match your commander's Colour Identity. The ONLY exception is with cards where mana symbols show up in reminder text which explain a mechanic, for example, cards with the "Extort" mechanic. Crypt Ghast is an example of a card that is purely Black, even though there is a 
symbol in the reminder text that explains how the "Extort" mechanic works.
Your commander's Colour Identity is determined by each and every COLOUR of mana symbol, printed anywhere on it (Again, with the exception of reminder text).
Cards with the mechanic of "Devoid" are colourless, but still fall under the normal rules in Commander when determining its legality for your deck. Want to play Transgress the Mind, but your commander is Green? Sorry, you can't. Transgress the Mind may be colourless, but it has a Black Colour Identity when you are determining if you can legally include it in your deck because it has 
in its casting cost.
What the removal of Commander Rule #4 means is that lands like Forbidden Orchard, Mana Confluence, City of Brass, and cards like Birds of Paradise can now legally make you mana of ANY colour (
), regardless of your Commander's Colour Identity. In the past, if something caused a mana of a colour that wasn't part of your Commander's Colour Identity to be added to your mana pool, it INSTEAD added that many 
to your mana pool.
Oh, and IS NOT A COLOUR. Got it?
So what about Command Tower? Can it create any colour of mana now? NOPE. Because of the wording on Command Tower, it will still only create 1 mana of any colour IN YOUR COMMANDER'S COLOUR IDENTITY
I hope that this helps clarify things for anyone who might be confused.
Raging_Squiggle says... #2
No. Producing mana outside of identity Does Not Equal having cards in the deck that are outside of the commander's identity.
Rule 4 being gone means you can tap Birds of Paradise to produce in a mono- deck. You can not half Llanowar Dead in the mono- deck because Llanowar Dead has in its color identity.
January 19, 2016 3:49 p.m.
I'm still excited about the Rule 4 change though. My Nicol Bolas deck runs plenty of steal effects as I find it thematic for his character. I will be able to make much more use out of stolen permanents.
January 19, 2016 5:35 p.m.
Alright, so let's explain the rule 4 change so everyone understands what we mean:
You know Command Tower? You know how it produces 5 colors of mana? Well, now you can produce all 5 colors of mana with it even if your deck is mono-.
You know Arcane Sanctum and how it produces , and ? You still can't run it if your deck is mono-.
Color production is changed, color identity remains the same.
January 19, 2016 5:45 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Now that I'm done work, let me address the actual "arguments" being made here. Some of you have already addressed these points, but I figure I should offer what I can.
The RC is quite clear about their stance. They don't consider the competitive meta when identifying possible changes to the rules. They focus only on the casual crowd.
I argue (and I in fact had a discussion with Sheldon to this effect a short while ago) that the RC should consider both competitive and casual interests when making format-level decisions. This does not mean, however, that only the competitive crowd should be considered.
Because Commander is a social format, people play it competitively or casually depending on their own preferences and the preferences of their playgroups. Therefore, the format should be managed in such a way as to facilitate the greatest degree of openness in both camps if possible. Rules changes should be made for the benefit of the format and community as a whole.
Now, the argument that only competitive players have to abide by the rules is blatantly false. Although competitive players may find themselves in stricter environments with greater regularity, they aren't the only ones who play by the rules. Plenty of casual players and playgroups also follow the official rules. More importantly, the official rules define a sort of contract between players that allows them to form expectations and find common ground when playing outside of their established playgroups. For example, if you travel to a major event or even to another store, you won't be sure what players in those locations may use as house rules. However, you can be fairly sure that all players know the official rules and that they will likely be following them. Therefore, you can use the official rules to define your expectations when playing with strangers.
I don't think it's productive to argue that a format that's billed as social and that began (and still is played) largely as casual should be managed according to what is competitive. Tournament situations are not a reasonable metric for gauging how the majority of Commander players experience the format. And appeals from personal experience are equally unhelpful. Format-level decisions require a format-level perspective if they're to be appropriately scoped and justified.
Further, the application of house rules is not an appropriate excuse for excluding the interests of one group. Usually it's applied in the opposite direction, though. A lot of decisions overtly made for the casual meta or mindset are defended by people who dismiss criticism by saying "If you don't like it, then implement a house rule." This does nothing to assist people who play in structured environments that cannot implement house rules, and it is true that these environments are considered by the RC to be beyond the purview of their managerial concern. However, it's equally unfair to say that competitive decisions can just be overturned by casual players who are more likely to implement (or to be able to implement) house rules. The fact is that house rules are not an acceptable justification for any ruling. The onus should not be on the players to correct a poorly-justified decision. The onus is on the RC to make appropriately-justified decisions that are beneficial for the format at a high level.
In this case, I think they've succeeded in doing that. Regarding the change to Rule 4 in particular, the support offered for the decision indicates a function-over-flavor philosophy that I've pressed the RC to move toward.
January 19, 2016 5:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
@JA14732: Command Tower cannot produce colors outside of your commander's color identity. It is explicitly limited to producing colors within your commander's color identity.
City of Brass, however, can produce all five colors in any deck.
January 19, 2016 5:48 p.m.
Command Tower only produces mana in your Commander's color identity. Rupture Spire, City of Brass and such can produce any.
Birds of Paradise for Mono-Green, or Darksteel Ingot in anything. Gilded Lotus is my favorite though, I run it in almost everything already.
January 19, 2016 5:50 p.m. Edited.
JuiceboxHero says... #10
Yeah, I'll leave it to my playgroup to make this decision. Not like that deck was headed to Competitive play anyway. There are way worse cards out there than Prophet of Kruphix. Also, she doesn't really have protection built-in (sure you have creatures with Flash), but she isn't hexproof. It's not like she can't be countered. What's the big deal?
And people laughed when I said Iona, Shield of Emeria was broken (from a mono-colored perspective).
January 19, 2016 7:17 p.m.
JuiceboxHero says... #11
Not to incite flaming again, but the argument for Iona was just this:
You can counter (with a colorless removal spell/artifact that exiles). That was it.
Wouldn't the same apply to PoK?
January 19, 2016 7:53 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #12
I mean, I think that Iona is a pretty serious candidate for banning, but I don't really see it happening anytime soon. It kills casual pretty bad, but doesn't do much at a competitive level.
January 19, 2016 8:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
Which would theoretically make it a perfect ban as far as the RC is concerned.
Why Iona is legal has sort of baffled me. And the "dies to removal" and equivalent arguments are almost always badly applied (as they always are).
January 19, 2016 8:06 p.m.
My personal play group has a soft ban on Iona. Also, I've personally always hated how Serra Ascendant is legal, but I get that it isn't on the same level of power as the other banned cards.
T1 Serra Ascendant, though...ugh...
January 19, 2016 8:11 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #15
It's been legal for quite a while now, so I don't think it'll come off, at least for the next year. Though Twin did get the hammer... (even though it's not the same committee). I could see it happening, but as far as "unfair" or "mean" cards go, Iona is way past the Prophet, and look who got banned first.
January 19, 2016 8:11 p.m.
JuiceboxHero says... #16
FWIW, the bans appear to be about what a card lets a player do, not what it prevents others from doing.
January 19, 2016 8:31 p.m.
Two atrociously bad limited sets, an overexpensive standard, weird modern bans and another stupid commander rule change.
The universe really wants me to stop playing this card game.
January 19, 2016 9:25 p.m.
golgarigirl says... #18
I can get behind all these rules changes. Admittedly the mulligan one doesn't really affect my group. We partial, and that's how we like it. House rules over official as long as everyone agrees. Mana makes sense to me. Feels more intuitive with the upcoming mana changes, plus allows me to make better use of some of my favorite cards (Dark Impostor come to mama!). And Prophet needed to go. No if's. I've handed that card to players just started out, and things get out of hand immediately, even in a 'beginner' deck not designed to do anything super degenerate. And let's face it, take over is exactly what the card was designed to do. Let me get out my hammer pants and dance all over this one.
January 19, 2016 9:39 p.m.
Does that mean devoid will be played morn in colorless decks?
January 20, 2016 12:27 a.m.
PookandPie says... #20
No. Rule 4 applies to proceedings during play of a game of Magic, it says nothing about deck construction. The color identity of a card with devoid is still the mana symbols on the card. Blisterpod can still only be played in decks with a Commander who has a green color identity.
What this means, however, is that if your deck is Sydri, Galvanic Genius, and you cast Reins of Power targeting the Ezuri, Renegade Leader player and exchange creatures, you can tap his Priest of Titania for green mana (it used to be colorless, since Sydri has a color identity), pump the Elves with Ezuri's ability, and then kill the table.
Before the change, the above couldn't happen. Now it can. The rule does not change anything about deck construction at all.
January 20, 2016 12:34 a.m.
PookandPie devoid says the card is colorless but take color mana to play it and now since we have color mana we can use should mean more people will play them.
January 20, 2016 12:37 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #23
@FAMOUSWATERMELON: I don't think Iona comes anywhere even remotely close to the degeneracy that happens with PoK. All she does is go "hey, you over there... you can't cast some stuff." That's all. Prophet?
The moment it makes an appearance we're all playing "Prophet of Kruphix: The Gathering".
@Yuki_onna: Devoid cards still cannot be played in colorless decks because they have colored mana symbols on them. They are illegal cards in the deck, so it doesn't matter that you can now produce the mana you'd need to cast them.
January 20, 2016 12:40 a.m.
PookandPie says... #24
So you can now play them in what?
You can't use Blisterpod in Kozilek, the Great Distortion or any other colorless Commander for the reasons I mentioned above (deck building restrictions in the format did not change and devoid does not interact with color identity at all).
Commander format rules following:
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that cards mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204)
Look at the above, and it should be clear that Blisterpod, despite being a colorless card due to Devoid, has a green color identity. Now, we'll move on to the next rule:
903.5c A card cant be included in a Commander deck if it has any colors that arent part of the commanders color identity or if it has any mana symbols in its mana cost or rules text that arent of a color in the commanders color identity.
Devoid does not change any of rule 903.4 or 903.5c, therefore you cannot play an off-color Devoid card in your deck. You can produce mana outside of your colors with something like Fellwar Stone, but that has nothing to do with 903.5c.
January 20, 2016 12:43 a.m.
ComradeJim270 devoid says they are colorless and u look up colorless cards on the database they show up.
January 20, 2016 12:44 a.m.
PookandPie says... #26
The rules say it doesn't matter, and I copied them into my post so you wouldn't have to look them up.
January 20, 2016 12:47 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #27
Yuki_onna: As evidenced by this thread, a common misunderstanding is that a card's color and its color identity are the same thing. Color identity does not care what the card's color is, only what colored mana symbols are on the card. That's why a Tasigur, the Golden Fang deck can run blue and green cards: Taz has 
in his rules text even though the card itself is black. For this same reason, a card like Eldrazi Skyspawner has a blue color identity even though it is colorless, because it has in its cost.
January 20, 2016 12:57 a.m.
I don't believe the misunderstanding is with color and color identity. I believe it's with the fact that Devoid is supposed to be special rules but really doesn't change much.
I feel as though this was a huge missed opportunity. The RC immediately dismissed it due to not being able to produce the mana to cast them yet they later remove Rule 4 yet don't amend Devoid.
Devoid is a useless characteristic in EDH. Except for a few extremely rare occasions Devoid won't be useful. Considering the cards themselves aren't great, it makes sense that nobody is running them in EDH.
January 20, 2016 2:09 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #30
iAzire: Yeah, but that's true of a huge number of cards. When you can use it to get around Iona or protection from a color though, it's quite relevant.
You've got a point about the contradiction there from the RC, but having devoid not impact color identity is IMO still the right choice; think about how much confusion people have about color identity already. Adding to it with devoid? Maybe not the best way to help the format.
People do get confused, too. I think it is color/color identity... if you understand how the two are distinct then devoid not affecting color identity in any way is quite intuitive.
January 20, 2016 3:20 a.m.
yavimaya_eldred says... #31
I'm not shocked Prophet was banned, because it was whined about from the beginning. I'm disappointed about it, but I get it. The problem I have with a banning like this is it inevitably starts a trend where the next most powerful card gets banned over and over again. Deadeye Navigator. Consecrated Sphinx. Cyclonic Rift. Derevi. Purphoros. Ad Nauseam. Narset. Complaints about these cards (and many more) are constant, and the RC has made it clear that if you whine enough, the card will get the hammer. Which, if you hate those cards, then hey, it's great for you.
But the format is so big with so many different levels of play and a wide gap in power level between decks. I'm in favor of banning cards that don't work in the format or are broken in the base concept of the word "broken", but beyond that any ban seems a little heavy-handed. To me, the cards that get complained about the most are the cards that embody the format. Prophet was such a cool card that it got me interested in EDH. I have a friend who adores Consecrated Sphinx and would probably die inside if it got banned. Most of you probably have a favorite card that someone else wants banned. Our opinions don't matter to everyone else because they just see a problem that the RC must deal with rather than a unique and cool card with a unique and cool ability.
The RC inevitably bans the card you hate, but another card will always be a problem. No one will ever be satisfied because the power level will never be flat. The format will always warp around the top cards, like it or not. To me banning the most powerful cards is just glorified cherry-picking, since no one can actually agree what the biggest "problem card" is. Is Prophet really a bigger problem than Sol Ring? Does it really matter? Just let the good cards be good.
As for the other changes, the Rule 4 change will take some getting used to but makes sense. The mulligan rule is whatever. Maybe it encourages less greedy deckbuilding but I don't expect to see widespread adoption of the rule.
January 20, 2016 4:14 a.m.
JuiceboxHero says... #32
@yavimaya_eldred I completely agree with you. Honestly, I play casual, but our playgroup used to have folks who played with competitive decks, so it kept it interesting, and help me grow as an EDH deck builder (I'm still very novice). All being told? Prophet of Kruphix was the least of my concerns on the table with them, even when I did see her. I guess that's why I'm a bit shocked about it. There are far worse combinations (remember, PoK is really an enabler, so if you don't have the cards in hand, it's not necessarily a win-con).
January 20, 2016 10:06 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #33
@yavimaya_eldred: Except that the card's power level is only part of the reason it was banworthy. If it was just super-powerful, it would not deserve a ban.
January 20, 2016 11:34 a.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #34
iAzire but Devoid really isn't any different in EDH than it is in any other format. All it does it lets Wizards print cards that count as colorless but need colors to cast. Even in Block / Standard it's less that Devoid itself does anything, but that the ability interacts with Protection and other cards that specifically care about colorless.
Your complaint really seems to be about Devoid as a mechanic, which is a complaint about Wizards, not the EDH committee.
It occurs to me that making devoid different in EDH would be arbitrary and nonsense generally. Especially because it's been established countless times in this thread that color and color identity are different things; why would a mechanic that changes color have anything to do with color identity?
On a side note, I understand that they changed Rule 4 for functional reasons, but was anyone really worried about having access to (<>) mana? If you want to jump through hoops using produce-any-color sources or Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth to... what? Use some of the cards in OGW? Cast Kozilek, the Great Distortion? Was anyone really worried about abuse from the ease of "cheating" (<>) in EDH? Seems like Sol Ring and Thran Dynamo and Temple of the False God and Ancient Tomb and filters and pain lands and lands with abilities are everywhere anyway. It seems like there will be more abuse from the removal of Rule 4 than there would have been with "extra" (<>).
January 20, 2016 11:43 a.m.
Ender666666 says... #35
The whole discussion of Colour and Colour Identity keeps cropping up over and over. I appended the main announcement post with an addendum that explains it for those who are not as experienced or just confused. Hopefully that will reduce confusion.
January 20, 2016 1:09 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #36
DiamondFlavor You can make this symbol by typing out [ [ c ] ] without the spaces in between
January 20, 2016 1:44 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #37
Good call, Ender666666. Hopefully that helps us stay on track.
January 20, 2016 2:18 p.m.
DiamondFlavor: While I do somewhat agree with you, I think of this more as a pre-emptive strike. Who's to say WOTC won't bring back these colorless symbols in the future? It's possible that one day they may even consider making it a normal or every-set thing. If that were the case, it may be bad to allow so many decks access to large amounts of colorless. A good example of this would be a X cost spell that said you can only pay for X with .
Much like Birthing Pod had to be removed in modern due to it constricting card development by allowing people to tutor for things too often, this end to Rule 4 feels like a bit of quick action to prevent trouble with Colorless mana in the future.
January 20, 2016 2:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #39
The addendum to the original post is somewhat misleading.
The point is that a card's color identity is the sum of the colored mana symbols in its mana cost and rules text in addition to characteristic-defining abilities and color indicators.
So a devoid card with a black mana symbol in its cost is colorless with a black color identity. It isn't that the card is colorless at certain times and black at other times. It's very important to remember that when you say a card is black or white or whatever, you're talking about its color. Our example card is colorless and has a black identity. It is never a black card.
January 20, 2016 2:35 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #40
Ender666666 thanks, I knew there was a way to do it but I was too lazy to look it up. !
Spootyone I feel that. My friends are skeptical that will ever be used again, but I find it odd that they would introduce it in the second and last set of a block, then errata all the relevant entries on the Gatherer, and print on all the relevant Expeditions, just to never use it again.
If it was truly just a block mechanic, I feel they would've introduced it in BFZ. It seems like too big a thing to be one-and-done.
January 20, 2016 2:52 p.m.
Mhm. Don't get me wrong - I think it'll be a few blocks before we see it again, but WOTC would be insane to leave it there. It'll probably come back when we finally see Emrakul again.
January 20, 2016 2:59 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #42
They could even do hybrid mana with it, like how they did 
only / or 
/.
Also I don't think we saw anything with , for example. Everything so far has been or with a ability somewhere.
I really think they wanted to test it out mechanically with flavor as an excuse in case it was too much and/or produced player backlash. But it seems executed in a way that allows it to return.
I feel like they may want to use it again for an artifact themed/heavy block.
This isn't really about EDH, sorry for being off topic ;)
January 20, 2016 3:01 p.m.
Ender666666 says... #43
Fair point Epochalyptik. I'll modify it when I get a chance tonight.
January 20, 2016 3:08 p.m.
Iona used to be a super salty card mostly houseruled away by the fraction of EDH players who preferred monocolor builds, but she's still a 9 drop creature who chooses one color in a game where SOME form of removal was given to each color. And now that the eldrazi are churning out "colorless" spells, its anything but impossible to deal with her.
Eventually, the arguments for why cards should be considered banned devolve into a saltfest of "I'm only having fun if I'm winning/at the advantage!" As slippery a slope as it is, you can already see it in this thread. My buddy doubted it, but DEN has already popped up again.
My major concern is that people are gonna look at the rulings for prophet, and further discussions are gonna sprout for further cards. "The game instantly changed when it resolved!" is true for Mirari's Wake, Avacyn, Vorinclex, and Asceticism. Every game I've played where I got one to resolve instantly changed to one of "OK, who can/wants to get rid of it?" Every time I play Dragonlord Dromoka, I hear a high pitched whine from every single control player within 10 miles. Rite of Replication kicked on the right creature will cause infinitely more people to scoop compared to prophet.
As much as I agree that prophet was broken as hell, my main concern with her was cost. Otherwise, she was only as busted as your hand, mana dumps. When we start whining at "she's too good!" that's when there's a concern it devolves into a discussion on "Alright guys, lets go over how busted it is to play exploration on turn 1!" or "Thassa is too busted in a voltron deck!"
January 20, 2016 3:11 p.m.
I don't have too much to add, but I like where you're coming from, Reyo.
January 20, 2016 3:35 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #47
Why was rule 4 removed? I felt that it made perfect sense, since a deck should not be allowed to generate mana outside of its color identity in this format.
I am very displeased about Prophet of Kruphix being banned; yes, it is a powerful card, but not utterly broken, as are such cards as Primeval Titan, Memnarch, or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. I have that card in several of my decks, so I must now replace it with the much more expensive (monetarily) Seedborn Muse, which I really hope is reprinted soon, for that very reason. Does being able to cast creature spells as though they had flash really make the prophet that much more powerful than the muse, and is it really that much of a reason to ban it? A friend of mine uses the prophet in his blue/green deck (with Prime Speaker Zegana as his general), and it works wonderfully in that deck, but I would not say that it is overpowered, by any stretch of imagination.
For how long might this ban be in effect? Will this be a permanent ban, or only for a certain duration? I really hope that it does not last forever, since I am very fond of that card.
What are the chances that Memnarch may be banned in this format? Another of my friends has created a deck with Memnarch as the general that is so unbelievably powerful that it is virtually impossible to defeat, and I find it to be so unfun and frustrating to play against.
January 20, 2016 10:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
How is Memnarch more broken than Prophet of Kruphix? Or broken at all, for that matter?
And yes, flash does make a difference. Prophet of Kruphix allows you to generate a lot of actualized advantage (see my explanation from a few pages ago) every single turn, meaning that you generate a stupid amount of advantage over the course of a turn cycle. Given that it's , it has plenty of draw engines to support it.
Bans are indefinite. I don't know of a single format with temporary bans.
Memnarch has a sub-1% chance of even being considered for a ban. It isn't banworthy.
January 20, 2016 10:48 p.m.
Permanent, until evidence is found that the card isn't format warping (which it kinda is, pushing people to want to play /). The problem with Prophet is that she's an amazingly efficient card without any real drawbacks and, while she was legal, invalidated other cards with similar effects, not to mention the whole "kill, steal or copy" game that tends to happen when she finds the battlefield, which the RC tends to dislike.
If a card has that effect, it gets axed. See Sylvan Primordial.
Also, I think rule 4 was removed because of Oath. I think the RC was a little afraid of everyone being able to simply tap City of Brass for in a Mayael deck to easily recur a World Breaker, as well as align themselves with WOTC's desires to make colorless mana essentially a "sixth" color.
January 20, 2016 10:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #50
There are enough auto-include mana rocks (and colorless-only utility lands) in the format that paying for still won't be very difficult.
nobu_the_bard says... #1
@SilverIronMan No. Color Identity still matters. Vault of the Archangel is white/black. Captain Sisay is white/green. However, if Captain Sisay is your commander, you could tap City of Brass for black mana without it becoming colorless mana.
January 19, 2016 3:49 p.m.