In light of the recent MTGO Commander Banlist announcement...
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on May 4, 2017, 1:29 p.m. by MagicalHacker
In light of the recent MTGO Commander Banlist announcement, I thought to ask everyone what the banlist would look like if they made it.
The following proposed banlist is my opinion of what the banlist should look like. You will see 3 criteria for what makes a card unfit for the format, and a list of what cards could be banned based on them:
Proposed banlist Show
Epochalyptik says... #3
It's a fundamental mistake to assume that bans based on monetary value are an appropriate way to manage a format.
Consistency is also not a bad thing.
Who exactly are you trying to cater to with this banlist?
May 4, 2017 1:42 p.m.
JerichoDarkstar says... #4
WoTC said that the MTGO Commander Banlist was specifically created because Commander is a 1v1 format. MTGO doesn't really have a way (as of yet) to do multiplayer.
May 4, 2017 1:56 p.m.
Yes, but I read that the banlist would apply to multiplayer as well. I legit know nothing about MtGO. Legit couldn't give two shits about 1v1 anyway.
May 4, 2017 1:59 p.m.
JerichoDarkstar MTGO already has a multiplayer option just they wont be doing competitive multiplayer games online (if thats what you meant then sorry just pointing this out). As for the OP I am not going to give you too much shit because you will inevitably get that but I will say this. With your logic we should also ban board wipes, without tutors it would really suck if you spend this whole game building up your board and drawing your creatures only to have them all killed at once. We should ban infect as a whole because that just kills you too fast. We should ban 1 mana commanders because they are too aggressive and kill you too fast. Cant play anything that could kill someone in one turn because thats just not fun. Like what you are doing is trying to make people purposely play bad decks and bad cards. The point of having sanctioned tournaments on MTGO is to win not to dick around and try to out value your opponent the whole time.
May 4, 2017 2:07 p.m.
JerichoDarkstar says... #7
@TheDevicer No, this banlist only applies to the 1v1 mode on MTGO. It doesn't affect the paper list at all. For now, WoTC is respecting the community rules and letting them regulate themselves.
Also, the 1v1 aspect of the banlist is exactly what was driving the ban of cards like Sol Ring. They felt cards that like made it unfair or "not fun" to play.
@EmblemMan Actually I didn't know that. I've played on MTGO a little bit, but I never could find the multiplayer option. I just thought it didn't exist. Thanks for correcting me on that.
May 4, 2017 2:10 p.m. Edited.
DrukenReaps says... #8
So what about play groups and people that enjoy combos and stax? I love how much hate certain types of players get... To me edh has always been a format about playing your way with the sheer amount of options it opens up for deck building. Do most players dislike those styles? It seems so. But how the hell am I suppose to assemble a 5 piece combo in commander? Your really hurting my johnny with this list... If people would complain less and instead run an appropriate number of answers there wouldn't even need to be a ban list. Combos, even the fastest ones, are literally the easiest things to disrupt and once disrupted the combo player doesn't generally have the ability to easily go to plan b (there are of course exceptions). For instance if you disrupt a Doomsday combo that player is out of the game, they have nothing left with an all or nothing card like that.
May 4, 2017 2:12 p.m.
Some semantics errors being made here that are actually important, so to correct them:
Clarification Show
All that out of the way. My banlist would have to be two lists: One for Multiplayer and one for 1v1 play - Duel Commander. And they would likely fit in very closely with the Rules Committee's lists, online or otherwise. I might make some minor additions (namely mana denial as was explained in the OP) but mostly, the paper format lists are just as healthy online, so long as they are separate.
May 4, 2017 2:21 p.m.
If you really can't live with the to some extent existing pay to win aspect you play the wrong format. What special kind of thinking do you need to ban lands? There are budget options and there are expensive lands that's it. If you want to play competitive as fuck you have to accept that you need to pay the price for the best cards in the game... Why do you want to get people to play more casual by enforcing a shitty ban?! Don't you think that other cards will spike in price then? Where do you draw the line. It is a principle of supply and demand. You can not beat this and you will upset a lot of people who invest heavily in a decent mana base. Plus Imperial seal was even printed as judge reward promo and lowered in price a lot...
May 4, 2017 2:24 p.m.
I understand the paper list is separate. I just wasn't clear if there was a multiplayer list online.
May 4, 2017 2:25 p.m.
To be honest I am more and more pissed because of people with your mindset. You say I don't want my commander experience be like that and assume your understanding of fun is true for everyone playing commander. Better read epochs article on commander as a social format. Then you propose a ridiculous banlist in terms of destroying strategies and a big part of variety you can play your commander game instead of just saying "I want to play commander like this, who joins" ... A big part of magic is proactive and reactive plays. If you don't play strip mine and have ways to get it out, tutor for it or have several cards that are similar you should simply not complain about tabernacle at pendrell Vale or cradle. If that guy is destroying your deck every time you should look for other people to play with, use efficient disruption (a fun aspect of playing magic IMHO) or you improve your deck to win faster. Either way I feel it is wrong to complain about that and cry for a crazy banlist.In my opinion the fun aspect of commander is the huge variety of cards you can use. If you are greedy and want all the power cards it simply needs some investment (cards that are now cheap will be expensive af in some years top). You will not feel like commander is pay to win if you play with the right playgroup or communicate with your opponents before playing to avoid unbalanced powerlevel. Sorry did not want to attack you too personal but it is sometimes hard for me as a German to express things a bit nicer. The banlist should rather be to short than to long.
May 4, 2017 2:44 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #13
TheDevicer, my proposed banlist is for multiplayer, not 1v1. However, if it works for 1v1, then I wouldn't be surprised.
Epochalyptik, if using price point for bans isn't smart, then why is Black Lotus banned? Like Sol Ring, I believe it would help most/all commander decks, so why should it be banned?
If consistency is not a bad thing, why did the creators find that a 100-card singleton format spread so quickly?
If I were trying to cater to a particular group of players with this banlist, would that make it better or worse?
AlexoBn, if this is "the wrong format", what is the right one?
To ban expensive lands that everyone would play but not everyone can afford, leading to a difference in deck performance because of a $340 price tag that some players can afford and other can't requires outside the box thinking. ;)
What is your definition of "casually" that you believe is how this ban is force players to play?
Do I think other cards would spike in price because of a banlist like this? No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
If you think that any of the cards mentioned would lose the majority of their value, then one can only assume that you forgot the fact that Commander is not the only format out there. In fact, I would say that the only cards that could tank after being banned in Commander would be ones unplayable in Vintage AND Legacy AND Modern. On the other hand, if you are instead saying that those investors would be upset because they invested a lot of value to play cards that are now banned, then I would like to remind you of something: if that even happened, would you not consider it a fair trade to make a format more fun? And by "more fun" I mean more similar to exactly what caused the format to spread the way that it did.
May 4, 2017 2:57 p.m.
A format will always evolve you won't be able not stop this. Commander is also extremely attractive because you can almost play all the cards in magic history. That this also attract people who are willing to play on a competitive level is just natural. Why don't you just find some people who play commander on a powerlevel that suits your understanding of commander instead of complaining about ABUR duals (next will be fetches then ?!) and fast mana. That is an aspect of the game as tutors. Nobody is forcing you to play against unfun (your opinion) stax or fast combo decks. Why would you then force me to play on a low powerlevel if I am not willing too (i have burn decks for commander too and always pull out an apropriate deck). I hope you get my point and why I am not bothering with other people's financial situation if there is so much more alternatives than banning some of my absolute favourite cards. -.-
May 4, 2017 3:16 p.m.
Wow, wow, wow, wow, WOW!!
You know what hurts real bad? Worse than Mana Denial, or somebody playing Combo? Not being able to play the cards I want!! It really sucks to invest all the time and effort I do into building a deck, spending sometimes $100+ on a card, and then not being able to play it!!
With that said, I move to suggest that Counterspell and friends be banned as well. It really sucks not being able to play the cards I want!!
I don't see a problem with the ban, you said, and I agree!! Getting outramped is NOT fun. That's really Green's strong point. Tutors are Black's strong point. Both of those are recommended for bans, why not Blue's strong point? Let's be honest here, I would rather my opponent Tutor than Counter something I'm trying to play.
We're trying to make this fun right? Goodbye Dispel and friends!!
P.S. Your very own Ban List doesn't even contain everything you think is unfun. Why?
May 4, 2017 3:20 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
@MagicalHacker: Black Lotus is probably banned in part because it's expensive. But it's also banned because the effect is broken, as almost anybody playing this game will admit.
Further, if Black Lotus were banned on the basis of price, it still wouldn't prove that price-based format management is appropriate.
Keep in mind that this is a trading card game. It's based by design on economic principles. Like I tell people whenever they complain about the Reserved List: you are not entitled to play. You are not entitled to own every card. You get what you pay for. If you can't or don't want to pay as much as someone else, that's your problem; it's not a concern for format legislation.
Second, consistency has almost nothing directly to do with why the format spread quickly. The fact that Commander is a unique experience and that it opens up many possibilities that simply don't exist in other modes of play are better explanations for its spread. And yes, a designed handicap to consistency has something to do with creating that environment, but that doesn't mean that consistency is the enemy or that decks must adhere to a hypothetical and arbitrary standard of inconsistency to be acceptable.
Third, my last question was rhetorical. I was challenging you to envision the impact of your proposal and what kind of environment it would create.
May 4, 2017 3:54 p.m.
I won't touch the topic of a single player banlist because 1v1 is inherently competitive and what's more I don't play 1v1 commander.
On the topic of a 4v4 banlist, why do you need one? I'm being serious. I have a friend in my playgroup who loves MLD and trying to hard cast Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger turn 4. I have another friend who loves combining vorinclex and counter magics. Both have the highest two disposable incomes among our group, and thus both tend to have the most powerful decks. Despite this, they rarely win games, as they go for each other right off the bat, knowing the other is their most dangerous opponent, allowing the remaining 2 players to grow out of control of either aforementioned spike. As a consequence, both of these two consistently ask our group for help powering down their decks so they don't get focused and killed so quickly.
What's my point? Rather than trying to ban high power cards, target the players that use them. If you have too many power players for this to be effective, you need a new playgroup, not a ban designed to impose your will on them. If you're in the majority, throw that weight around and check these power players. If you're in a minority of casual players, sadly, no matter how much the world seems to suggest it, minorities don't get to make the rules. They just have the right to relocate to somewhere that places them in the majority.
May 4, 2017 5:35 p.m.
And I thought the banlist was bad now. Holy crap. No playing good cards in commander anymore.
May 4, 2017 6:22 p.m.
I will only talk about multiplayer, because I don't play 1v1.
To me EDH is a casual format, yes I understand that there are people trying to break some commanders/cards/strategies in cEDH, but that's something else.
To me the goal of commander is to play with the cards you have, next time I'll play with my friends I'll suggest the "no banlist" option. Since we're all casual players that don't own the most broken/expensive cards this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Once someone starts building a "fully optimised" commander deck... well you can point out what's too powerfull for the playgroup and if they don't adapt... well you're not forced to play with them.
So what I mean is playgroups should decide on their own banlists.
What now when you play against people you don't know? What are the rules then? Well, I'd still go for a no-banlist approach. Why? Because it's multiplayer free for all. This means that if someone is getting too much ahead he/she will be a target for the rest of the table. I see people bitch about ramping in EDH... well don't play a battlecruiser format if you don't want people to ramp. I see people say Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Leovold, Emissary of Trest are too oppressive... well, Leovold is a normal creature, there's tons of hate against those at instant speed. And Emrakul? Well, either you can ramp to 15 mana, which isn't THAT easy to do (without going infinite) so I don't see a problem OR you get to infinite mana, but once people go infinite they usually win anyway, so once again I don't see a problem. If you play against decks you don't know, you should run answers to about everything you can and if you run enough answers (and the other players do as well) nothing should be too oppressive that it warrants a ban.
May 4, 2017 7:48 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #20
To everyone,
I appreciate the time and effort you all have put in the discussions! As much as I may disagree with some of you (or agree), I do enjoy discussing and debating these topics.
As I wrote in the OP, I also am curious to see what your ideal banlists would look like. Throw them out there! I am more than willing to hear other opinions and see other banlist proposals. :D
Bhaal666, since they are in the minority according to the statistics, I think it's fair that they be given the option to modify an official banlist to fit their needs/desires.
As for building what you like, this proposal does not prohibit you from doing cool things. What it does is make it more difficult (but still possible) for you to completely prohibit what your opponents want to do. If someone says that's unfair, how could anyone find that person a fun opponent? I honestly can't understand that.
Answers are not a perfect way to counteract combo decks in edh because having too many of them means you are losing too much card advantage (1v1 answer against opponent 1 gives opponent 2 and 3 advantages) and losing deck synergy (diluting strategies, such as the already disadvantaged aggro archetype).
AlexoBn, hey, I appreciate the effort put into refraining from personal attacks.
From all the statistics I have seen, more people play and enjoy playing tier 3-4 commander decks in a tier 3-4 environment than against tier 1-2 decks. Do you have any statistics that show this to be incorrect?
I've read Epoch's article, and it was interesting, but irrelevant for this particular discussion. The importance of a banlist is to ensure that the largest amount of people can have fun and stay in the format. I hear about many people dropping from commander because of not having enough money to compete with the decks that are at the only LGS they can go to. I think it's downright immoral to tell someone they can't play this amazing game with you because they don't have enough money, and when the banlist allows for decks to dominate against the average deck by costing somewhere in the 2K+ range, that's what the banlist is allowing. You say that Strip Mine beats Gaea's Cradle, but just because something has an answer does not mean its bad or even not broken. What is the purpose of a banlist to you?
Would you play a game of no-banlist commander? That option would still exist even if this banlist were adopted. In fact, then it would mean that those who want to play a faster version of commander could easily do so because they talked beforehand about it. That seems better than someone in a playgroup trying to convince his buddies to add more cards to the banlist.
iAzire, do you feel the same way about not being able to play cards with the current banlist? Then why not suggest playing no-banlist commander either now or in the hypothetical situation where a banlist like my proposed one was official? I think you suggesting banning counterspells is mostly irrelevant. I honestly don't see the connection you are trying to make.
The point of any good banlist is not to ban every unfun card. But even with that, I can't think of a single card that I think is oppressively unfun that isn't on my proposed banlist.
Epochalyptik, well then I am offering insight into my perspective of what is unbalanced as well, with supporting reasons.
In the past, pricing has not been a factor in banlist legislation, and what have we got? We currently have a format in which the best decks cost too much for the average player, meaning that the game/format rewards not necessarily those with the most skills in the game, but rather those with the most money invested. Name one game where people are proud that those who spend more money win more often. I guarantee that on the whole, more players of this game and every other game enjoy the game more when the difference between the worst deck and the best deck is significantly LESS than $2,000.
I don't think that consistency is the enemy. I just think that in a format where inconsistency is an important aspect of the environment it creates (as you said), eliminating that inconsistency is unbalanced at the same cost as in other formats. Do you really think a tutor that can search 1 out of 10-14 in other formats and 1 out of 35-45 in this format is balanced at the same mana? I don't.
As for the result, I can only estimate what the result would be, as can everyone. My estimation is that such a banlist would allow for a better experience for players playing against strangers for the first time.
DuTogira, you make a lot of solid points, but many people aren't fortunate to have a choice in where they go to play commander, for one reason or another. In those cases, because of a poor banlist, they can't play Commander.
robbnoble, I believe how good a card is is relative to the format. Black Lotus is bad in standard. It gets you killed automatically!
Silly situations aside, regardless of the banlist, some cards will be revealed to be good of the cardpool.
Chandrian, what is the point of a good banlist? I believe it is to facilitate fun games when people play against strangers. Without a banlist, strangers would most likely not have a good time as there are lots of cards that can guarantee they cannot do what they sat down to do: play magic.
May 4, 2017 11:11 p.m.
A big thing that draws people to edh is that you can play basically whatever you want. Got an awesome card thats shit in other formats? Edh is the place for it. This is especially the case with bulky creatures and spells with high cmc. Taking away the best ramp available takes away the viability of these spells in the one place they can be played efficiently and effectively. Where else are you going to see cards like Primal Surge played? Edh is a casual format, and honestly there should be no ban list. Don't want to go up against someone's 30,000 dollar deck? Don't. Nobody is saying you have to play with that person. Don't want to play against your buddy's oppressive leovold deck? Tell him/her. Hell, my old group had a house rule for no infinite combos because none of us found them fun to play against. Does that mean Joe Smith two states over shouldn't be able to play them? Of course not. A ban list imposes rules and negativity on a format that's supposed to be free (not in the monetary sense) and fun for everyone.
May 4, 2017 11:33 p.m.
Multiple times I've seen you talk about concepts of fun and that should be the driving force behind the game. The main issue I have with that is that fun is an entirely subjective concept. I see a lot of decks on Tapped Out where the builder talks about their playgroup "frowning on infinite combos" and all I can think to myself is "how dull". I personally love infinite combos and I know a lot of other players who feel the same way.
And I would much rather play 2-3 fast games of magic (say 15 turns each) that have one really long and drawn out game. But other people much prefer that. Players that don't run tutors/card advantage often want to see all the cool things their decks do and the only way this is possible is if the game is dragged out. So while you're using fun as an agruments, it can just as easily be used as a counter-argument.
The other issue is that with the banlist you've labelled I actually think the meta will end up more stale, not less. WIth the lack of tutors and fast mana available, more and more decks will lean towards bant/BUG goodstuff control decks as they will be the most consistent.
May 4, 2017 11:48 p.m.
Thank you enpc. That is the exact point I was trying to demonstrate. My old playgroup didn't like infinite combos. You and your group love to play that way. Why should our rules be enforced on your group? This is how I feel about the banlist. The people up in alaska who created the format don't like something and they ruin it for everyone. EDH, as a non-competetive format, should be dictated by a group's preferences and not by a headquarters far away.
Under a ban list, your group may be cool with you playing a braids cabal minion deck, but as soon as you go somewhere else and try to play it, it's, "Oh, you can't play that, it's banned," whether they even have a grudge against the commander or not. After all, they followed the ban list while building their deck, and by letting you play banned cards, they are giving you an unfair advantage. Meanwhile under no ban list, you can take your braids deck and they'll only say no to playing you if they actually have a problem with her. On top of that, they will have had no restrictions when building their own deck, meaning you would be on equal ground.
People have different views on what is fun when it comes to commander. Why ruin it for anyone when it's not necessary?
May 5, 2017 12:25 a.m.
MagicalHacker you say that a banlist is to make it so that strangers can play a fair game against eachother and have fun. I believe that, no matter what the banlist looks like, a banlist cannot achieve this.
Why? Because the expectations of people when player commander are different. I've played a lot of 4-player free for all on Untap, against total strangers. Sometimes the games were fairly balanced and fun for everyone. Sometimes you face that Arcum Dagsson player that combos off on turn 5 without anyone being able to do anything.
The balance in games of EDH will never be decided by a global banlist for all players. This is because when you play with friends you can ban certain cards because they were totally oppressive and everyone agrees to not use that card anymore. When playing against a stranger you can never know how polished their deck is. To them the deck may be casual, to you their deck can seem like a tuned monstrosity. That is because maybe I am playing with cards like Mahamoti Djinn while they're playing elfball with a twist.
Making a game between strangers balanced is impossible, that's why the multiplayer aspect is so fun, the other players can help keep in check the person with the strongest deck. Politics matter.
Because I don't think a global banlist can make games more balanced or more fun between strangers, I don't think we need a global banlist and local playgroups should define for themselves where the boundaries lie for their group.
May 5, 2017 6:23 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #25
I'll say it again: nobody is entitled to play this format or this game. Banning expensive cards so that everyone can have the same experience spits in the face of the format, which is designed to be a social format where playgroups are empowered to decide what they want.
Further, I dispute that players are, en masse, forced either out of the format or to buy increasingly expensive cards to stay in the format. If someone in your playgroup is exceeding the power level agreed upon by the others, or if they suddenly show up with a $4600 deck to play against your $100 modified precons, that's an issue for you to take up with that individual locally. It's not a problem that needs to affect everyone else in the format. Manage your own social contract.
You'll notice also (I hope) that your cost-to-value argument over tutors falls flat on its face in the presence of any other effect in the game. Notice that fast, cheap ramp or efficient removal are not banned because they're too efficient.
May 5, 2017 9:20 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #26
To everyone,
I would like to remind you that such a banlist would also unban quite a few cards. Unbanning these cards would mean that now players could do new things that were unavailable to players because, with the prevalence of hyper efficient tutors and ramp, those were considered oppressive cards by the RC.
The following is a list of those cards:
Biorhythm
Coalition Victory
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Leovold, Emissary of Trest
Painter's Servant
Panoptic Mirror
Primeval Titan
Prophet of Kruphix
Recurring Nightmare
Sway of the Stars
Sundering Titan
Sylvan Primordial
Worldfire
If you think any of these fall into one of my mentioned categories, or if you think I should create a new category in my proposed banlist because of any of these cards, let me know.
robbnoble, you say that taking away the best ramp makes the big, clunky creatures no longer viable. But should they remain unbanned and be abused for other purposes that can quickly lock out a game? In fact, there are many, many other cards that ramp. So it's not even true that banning the best ramp makes them no longer viable.
You say that playing against similar-strength decks is easy. If you go to a convention or some gathering and want to sit down to play a game of commander with 3 strangers, how exactly would you plan to ensure that everyone is playing a similar strength of deck as you? To me, that seems like a logistical nightmare. Since 99% of people want to win with their deck, everyone would play down their deck, no?
I believe a banlist is like a speed limit on the road. Yes, for many people, it sucks. But for everyone, it is a safety measure that the world would be a worse place without.
enpc and robbnoble, I agree that there are many different ideas of what commander should be like. So between the divide between the cEDH players and the more casual players, one group is going to have to adopt the "change the banlist to fit your playgroup" model. Which group would have an easier doing that? I believe it is much easier to take cards off a banlist in a group than it is to add them. Allow me to explain:
If a player is doing something undesirable to a playgroup with a card, they will feel singled out if the group motions to ban that card. Why is it that I can't do X, but that guy can do Y. Banning cards based on experience will only lead to banning players.
If a playgroup thinks a particular banned card could be alright, then they can unban it. In fact, they can adopt a position that its only unbanned for a certain amount of time, after which it will be banned again. This allows them to see if they want to permanently unban it in their group.
Not only is 2 more effective and more possible, it's also better for a playgroup's growth. As if that were not good enough, it also means that players won't be surprised with an encounter with stronger decks unless they have agreed to it beforehand.
enpc, You believe that without fast mana and hyper-efficient tutors, that the best decks will be sultai/bant control/goodstuff decks, but I just can't see that being the case. Currently, aggro decks cannot compete with the control/combo decks in general, and losing fast mana and tutors would hurt aggro less than control/combo. What I see happening is that aggro decks become more viable in the format, probably close to a balance with control and combo decks.
robbnoble, you ask why anyone should ruin a format for someone else when it's not necessary. That is exactly my point! What ruins a format more: a player building a deck only to have it get consistently beaten by strangers who spent lots of money to beat them with strategies that contradict the inherent design restrictions or a player who is in a group of players who all wish to play at a stronger level but for some reason don't actually motion to do so? I think the choice is obvious.
Chandrian, more than believing a banlist can facilitate a high occurence of fun games, I believe that a lack of a banlist (or a poor one) can ensure a higher percentage of unfun games for the majority of players.
You say that people have different perspectives on commander, and because of that, no banlist will ensure games will always be fun for everyone. Take a look at the games that were unbalanced that you've played, and tell me what you think the reasons for the lack of fun were. Were they not a combination of deck value discrepancies, hyper-consistency due to efficient tutoring, destroying each opponent's ability to produce mana, and/or the production of obscene amounts very early on in the games?
I agree that politics matter, but not when there's a Stasis lock out on turn 2. That's why I believe my proposed banlist would empower politics to matter in more games.
Epochalyptik, I completely agree with your first point. However, what would be stopping you from discussing with your playgroup to remove the cards from the banlist that your group would like to play with? According to my experience in multiple LGS stores over years, I have found that people wanting to have a highly competitive experience to be a minority. Should the majority of players be subjected to a banlist that doesn't represent their views? Also, for those that would then be unrepresented in the banlist choices, would it not be easier for them to unbanned cards than it would be for a playgroup to ban cards?
I would argue that saying the solution of resolving power differences with individuals is best in such a situation is a symptom of poor banlist management. If the banlist were better, those discussions would not be necessary.
Well, I did also include cheap ramp in the banlist, but I can respond to your final statement with regards to efficient removal. Nothing about the design of the format deals with removal. However, the format does have aspects of its design related to consistency. These aspects are exactly why tutoring is unique in its effect compared to cheap ramp and efficient removal; tutoring becomes much more powerful in a format where it can easily circumvent the only/biggest design restriction.
May 5, 2017 10:01 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
Ah, the inevitable response to the social format argument.
While it may be true that competitive players are only a portion of Commander players, they are also the ones who have the least flexibility in rule choice. Tournaments, unless they're being run with point systems or other nonsense, are run with the format's official rules. Whereas more casual players have the option to pass house rules in their non-competitive playgroups, competitive players do not really have that option when it comes to competitive environments.
If the purpose of a banlist is to ensure the greatest possible diversity of options while controlling only the most oppressive ones (those directly contrary to the openness of the format), then it stands to reason that you would make the banlist only as restrictive as minimally necessary and leave the rest of the regulation to happen at the local level as appropriate. If a casual playgroup believes that the rules don't represent their desired experience, they can pass house rules to customize their experience. If a competitive player is entering a tournament, the maximum number of options should be available to him or her. Keep in mind also that at the competitive level, the "pay to win" argument diminishes even further, as you should expect that a competitive environment will include the best of the best. Player should acknowledge that when they enter such an environment and be prepared for the consequences of their own deck design choices. Nobody gets a free pass in the Olympics because they chose not to train as hard.
You also seem to believe that the design of a 100-card singleton format is a move against consistency rather than a move to open up new options. While I have no doubts that reducing consistency is part of the motivation for the design choices made, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to lead a crusade against cards that improve consistency. I'd like to see some substantiation for your claim that efficient tutors harm the format enough to warrant mass banning.
May 5, 2017 10:23 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #28
While yes, tournaments are more inflexible than playgroups, I think adding a simple footnote saying that the banlist can be modified for a tournament if the organizer wishes to do so. If that's too much freedom, maybe even a cEDH banlist can be recommended. My point is, such an infrequently appearing situation can be easily remedied in other ways.
I agree that the best banlist for any format should be as minimal as possible while still being effective, and my proposed banlist is my best stab at such a banlist.
Here are three reasons why I believe that efficient tutors harm the format based on the understanding that (at the very least) 80% of players in the format are disinterested/repulsed by gameplay associated with cEDH:
The cheaper a tutor, the sooner it can be used to find an infinite combo. While I actually love infinite combos, I believe that using a tutor on turn one, a tutor on turn two, and playing both pieces on turn three is not fun for any opponent. Infinite combos are low-risk, high reward in a deck that uses a lot of tutors. When a piece is knocked out, the controller can use another tutor to replace it or recur it. Everyone at some point has heard someone talk about such a situation as the prime reason why infinite combos should be banned. While I think banning infinite combos is logistically ugly and mechanically disheartening for me as a Johnny, banning efficient tutors allows anyone to continue to use them without letting them abuse them to the point of creating more anti-infinite players. Outside of infinite combo, these become cards that will improve roughly 90% of decks, leading the format into a situation where certain cards are necessary for any deck to be completely optimized. This problem is exactly what killed Tiny Leaders: the format got solved quickly and became boring because players knew what cards were necessary to stay viable (then without a substantial competitive scene, few players stayed interested).
If a tutor can get multiple cards for a player, then that card can be used as a slow Coalition Victory, being used to win the game after getting 2 or 3 cards. Those cards lead to the same situation as above, except they also provide consistency in the fact that only one tutor card is needed rather than multiple. Even disregarding combos, these tutors can cause players to have games that play the same way every time. In formats with considerable support from organized tournaments, those that regularly play in those formats are given incentive to continue to play due to the aspect of winning money or prizes. Otherwise, playing against the same decks over and over would not draw them in any longer, because many (if not most) players find that scenario boring.
Lastly, if a card acts as a tutor by being able to draw the player many cards all at once, those cards have the added problem of gaining the player obscene card advantage. This is a problem because they now also have more protection for their combo in their hand, eliminating the chance that their combo can be disrupted. Forgetting combos for a second, these cards are still bad by generating an almost insurmountable advantage in any deck, especially in control decks.
May 5, 2017 12:29 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
I'd like to know where you're getting these statistics. Are they actual, sourcable information, or just figures that fit your narrative?
Your argument about competitive play wholly ignores the points I raised above, specifically that competitive players hold the least control over their circumstances. Footnoting the banlist to say competitive players can somehow change the rules of the tournaments being held is the equivalent of telling the impoverished they can simply adopt a different definition of "poor." It's a superficial suggestion that does nothing to address the reality of the problem.
Further, the official rules establish the expectations for anyone venturing outside of his or her own playgroup. Meet a new player at a PTQ? Decide to join a group at a new LGS? Your expectation of your impending experience is going to be defined by the format's rules unless (or until) you agree otherwise.
Why, then, should the format rules be designed to discriminate against specific play styles and advance a narrow selection of possibilities? In a social format, why take the decision away from the players and force people to make local rules to do what format rules should be doing in the first place?
Regarding tutors, I have several counterpoints:
First, you pretend as though the mere inclusion of tutors magically turns a deck from fun and random (note also that those two concepts are distinct and unrelated, in spite of how you present them) into hyper-consistent and oppressive (note again that these two concepts are distinct and unrelated).
I'll also note that the only way combo works in Commander is with tutors or some other way to increase component accessibility. Take tutors away and you turn combos into cute tricks that occur by happenstance. The solution to a perceived extreme is not to set course for the opposite extreme.
Your second numbered point is woefully myopic. A strong deck is a strong deck, in part, on the basis of its consistency. If doing X wins the game, why do Y instead? Aggro decks aren't forced to stop attacking early. Control decks aren't forced to counterspell less. Why should combo decks be treated with a special hatred in this regard?
Further, consistent and boring are not synonyms. Part of what makes a competitive environment exciting for competitive players is the knowledge that the decks you're facing are designed to win in a specific way and being put in the position of outplaying them through strategy, disruption, and risk-taking.
This, of course, may not be true for all players. Some players may enjoy more randomness or less intense pressure.
But why propose to make that decision on behalf of everyone?
To your last point: someone is eventually going to gain advantage. That's the way this game works. Players fight for advantage and, once they have it, try to win. The job of any format's legislating body is to ensure that the fight for advantage is reasonable and fair at the various strata of player skill and desire.
The appropriate way to manage a social format is to design the format to give competitive players options against other competitive players, give casual players options against other casual players, and give everyone the freedom to choose which one to be at which time.
May 5, 2017 1:20 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #30
Epochalyptik, I would actually say they are common knowledge. I could find sources for it, but then I'm sure someone would say that I am only picking data to support my viewpoint. Feel free to make a list of my assertions that you would like me to get information to backup. Since there is no current database of mtg playerbase statistics, I hope you'll understand my lack of primary resources on those subjects.
You misunderstood: I did not say that a footnote can tell the competitive players that they can change the banlist. I said that the footnote can tell those who organize the tournament that they can change the banlist. I personally would think a specific banlist that would be made for competitively minded individuals to operate under would be logistically more sound, but since that type of list wouldn't affect me, I think either would work just fine. Whether or not an official cEDH banlist is also made or just the footnote to tournament organizers that the banlist can be modified to fit the goals of their audience, the problem is solved. However, am I to believe that competitively minded individuals prioritize playing the way that they've become accustomed to over playing to achieve the highest possible percentage of winning within a particular environment? That is now the the third suggestion related to the question of "How would this banlist impact those who currently build Commander decks competitively?" To prevent confusion, I will summarize them:
Tournament organizers can change the banlist so that they have a good tournament that appeals to their audience.
Tournament organizers can use a second banlist that is made official for tournaments.
Competitive players can do what they do best: find the best deck in a system.
I agree 110% with your paragraph on the banlist's primary result impacting how players will interact when first playing against one another. However, by then asking why the banlist would ignore a type of play that people enjoy, you are not considering that non-competitive players outnumber competitive players in all formats including commander and that when a competitive player and a non-competitive player play with each other, the non-competitive player will be the one that will have less fun. Because of that, I think it's completely fair that players wanting a more cutthroat experience be the ones to come to an agreement among themselves rather than the players preferring a slower or less intense game.
I don't think tutors are the only things that can change a deck from fun to oppressive, but without them, that change is very difficult. How can a deck be oppressive if it cannot do so consistently?
Currently, all viable combo decks do use a large amount of tutors, but that is because every competitive deck does. Without tutors, each deck would be hurt. Yes, the most powerful archetype in commander would take the biggest hit, honestly, doesn't that seem beneficial? However, to say that combo decks could not survive without tutors is a bit short-sighted. In many casual playgroups, Johnny players enjoy having infinite combo cards in their decks that they do win with. Drawing cards is a way to increase component accessibility, and that is still a part of the format with my proposed banlist. In addition, I would like to remind you that tutoring wouldn't even be completely gone. To say that combo archetypes cannot survive without the above tutors in spite of having other cards that can tutor or cards that can draw many cards is not seeing the whole picture.
Regardless, the cards that are present on or absent from a banlist is indeed making the decision for everyone. Sure, every group can agree to change a banlist, but then that means that there is a 0% guarantee that strangers can enjoy a game together. If a banlist can bring that percentage up even a little bit, it's significantly better than a lack of a banlist, wouldn't you say?
I absolutely love the points you make in your last two paragraphs! I also feel that those are the biggest responsibilities of any group of people in charge of a format! However, I think that when a format is not effectively facilitating games that are fun for both players that are competitive in nature and players that are not, then there should be some work to try to fix that.
This may be unnecessary to say, but as always, I enjoy having these debates with you, and I am looking forward to continuing to discuss our differences of opinions! Even if, at the end of the day, we are content to agree to disagree, I did want to express my appreciation to you for engaging so thoroughly and professionally throughout our entire debate!
May 5, 2017 3:08 p.m.
MagicalHacker I really do think that you have a lot of prejudices about expensive cards and people who play competitive edh. Magic will always feature people trying to break cards. It will simply always be like that. If you really do not ban all green and white tutors (even on creatures) you will not be able to deal with my elfball deck (ie) because it is super fast drawing so much cards that it is even unnecessary to have all existing tutors. Same will be true for other combos. If might just sit there with a pillowfort deck and win when I happen to draw into Palinchron and deck myself with tasigur. You can not solve this problem by banning. You would more or less destroy the complete format. So it is IMHO better to just say "Alex, screw your deck I'll rather play alone than with you" and try to establish house rules. I can totally understand people who are not willing to drop thousands of dollars on a top level magic deck but then you simply do not need to play against those decks. Proposing each tournament to feature a different banlist is absolutely insane. You will never be able to build a deck that you can use on all tournaments because of random bans and that is just because of people who want to tell everyone how much to spend on their hobby and which playstyle to play? No I will never accept such a situation and this will make a lot of people quit I guess. You will also not be able to balance the power of the 5 colours in commander. To explain why I am so confident about keeping the banlist at an absolute minimum is also a couple of matches we had today. A guy in our playgroup is allowed to play Time Vault and Black Lotus because he plays a super fun and casual deck. EDH is always about the groups regulating themselves in terms of choosing the right powerlevel to play an focusing the best deck in a match. If this is not happening already you will be super upset about the result of your bans (because there will be people like me still trying hard af to break the cards).
May 5, 2017 7:28 p.m.
I'm not really experienced enough to suggest a ban list, with my group operating at about 80% (a few tutors and infinite combos) and the current one doesn't affect any of us (besides my raging desire for Braids). If I could make one, I'd make it smaller by removing cards that are no where near as bad as what's already allowed. For example, Biorhythm is hilarious, and it's honestly more fair than a boring turn 3 infinite combo.
I do have an idea. It's not that great since I just thought of it in the bathroom. What I am seeing is a very large divide in what is considered fun, what is oppressive, and what deserves to be banned. And obviously this is expected for the reason I don't care to make a list: our opinions and expectations are based entirely on personality and past experiences, which are different for everyone. To have a universal ban list means someone gets the short end of the stick. It's just not possible to make a list that satisfies all needs and scenarios. What some people are suggesting to help bridge the gap is house ruling and talking with players in the group.
What I propose is to eliminate the ban list entirely; anything goes. Instead though, make a list of cards to serve as a guideline. This would be comprised of cards that are seen as problematic or potential game breaking. This is a very clunky system, and turns it into our problem instead of the RC's. What this provides is a list that newer groups can go off of to create a ban list that works for them, and tournaments can create custom ban lists to cater to the crowd and game style they wish to facilitate. For some groups, this will do literally nothing since they don't use the ban list anyway, or a modified. For others, it might not include enough, and they may ban other cards. The overall intention is to give flexibility to groups to create a list that works for their needs, and to create an certain level of common expectation when mingling with other groups. If you are using a card on the list, you should be prepared for others to possibly not allow that, and have a replacement just in case. If someone has a card banned that isn't on the list, then it's no different than if you had just gone to a group with a custom list.
In summary: no ban list, but a recommended list for groups and tournaments to use for consideration. It'll help bridge the gap between the varying styles of play and groups. In some cases, it won't even affect you. And for others, it may be harmful, namely for the tournament goers with constantly changing rules for each one, and the additional burden on players to design their own list as opposed to just being told.
No one solution will ever work for everyone. Either you make a list that caters to a target audience and ignores others, or remove the list and leave others to fend for themselves. That's what we got. There's my 200 cents.
May 5, 2017 8:33 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
To start, any time you're quoting a statistic as though it were fact, I want a source for it. Saying "In my experience, people don't like combos" is entirely different from saying "80% of players don't like combos." Discussing perceptions and common opinions is fine, and it's a practical way to have this discussion, but I expect proof for numbers.
Regarding the footnote, it makes little difference whether you're addressing the players or the organizers. The issue is still that you're proposing a dismissive "change it if you want" attitude to downplay the consequences of poor format management. The ability to customize rules is a way for playgroups to tailor the game slightly to suit their tastes; it's not meant to be a remedy for poor design. And even if competitive players had an entirely separate adaptation of Commander, you'd still be left with the need to justify the proposals you made for everyone else.
Your paragraph about non-competitive players being the majority, yet not having as much fun is based on a misunderstanding of how Commander is meant to work. Commander is a social format. You engage other players first to determine if they're interested in playing a game, then to determine if they're interested in playing your kind of game. The application of basic social skills helps two people get the most out of their interaction. It tells them whether they'd enjoy playing a game with each other. For those multitudes of Commander players who carry multiple decks, it even helps them pick the deck that would be most appropriate based on the other person. If you're a casual player and the other person is a competitive player, and if it doesn't feel like you'll reconcile those inclinations over your game, you're free to decline the game.
What doesn't make sense is tightly restricting the format to appeal to a specific type of player and declaring that this is the new standard by which everyone will be expected to play. (I'll propose a better approach in my conclusion.)
On tutors and consistency: Don't ignore that consistency is important for any strong deck. A deck that isn't consistently good isn't really good. It's also a mistake to claim that all viable combo decks use tutors because all competitive decks use tutors. The two are unrelated. Competitive decks and combo decks both like tutors for selfish reasons; the fact that something appears regularly in the competitive environment doesn't mean that all decks of a certain type must include it. But these are minor things.
More egregious is the assertion that combo decks survive without strong tutors. While many players will no doubt still play combos, the reason combo decks win games is their ability to actually assemble the combo. If you're left using extremely inefficient tutors and raw draw power to assemble a combo, you'll be lucky to get your pieces in hand before Timmy beats you up for your lunch money. Were your banlist enacted, any competitive combo player would shelve their deck until they hear of a tournament organizer that read the footnote.
To your concluding paragraphs, I didn't propose that there be no banlist; a properly-maintained banlist is necessary to the health of any format. It's the "properly maintained" part that everyone always argues about. I also doubt very much that, if the social design of Commander means that there's a 0% guarantee of players from different playgroups will be able to play together, a different banlist will raise that guarantee by any amount. (I also dislike the idea of a percent chance being used to describe a guarantee, since anything that is not 100% guaranteed is not, in fact, guaranteed at all.)
Ultimately, I think some theoretically ideal Commander banlist would end up looking largely like the current banlist. A format like Commander should be managed by removing as few options as possible and relying on players to self-govern according to the social nature of the format. I've long held that if people really understood and approached Commander as a social format and made use of basic interpersonal skills, we wouldn't have the kinds of witch hunt ban discussions and griping about combo players and casuals that we see today.
@Dredge4life: Point systems are a mixed bag. Some groups love them; some groups would rather they not exist. I can offer from experience that point systems lead to more complexity, which is not (in this case) a good thing.
For point systems oriented around gameplay (e.g., kill a player = 1 point; combo out = -5 points), players end up dividing their attention between the board state and the list of punishments they're trying to avoid. What ends up happening in some cases is that players are able to "win" by traditional rules, but they're either forced into roundabout ways of getting there in order to avoid incurring arbitrary penalties or they end the game and accept the tax levied their preferred strategy.
For point systems oriented around deck construction (e.g., get 25 points to start; Sol Ring costs 3 points; cards not on the penalty list are free to include), you end up with many neutered versions of decks (few people seem to build new decks around such systems unless they're common in that locale). Of the two systems, this is more likely to produce a Goldilocks solution to the casual vs competitive dilemma in tournament settings. It's a way to push some players away from completely optimal builds without limiting much of what others can do.
However, I'm more of a traditionalist, and I prefer the banlist and standard victory condition approach to Magic. Points are a complication that require a great deal more tuning for minimal payoff.
May 5, 2017 9:55 p.m.
MagicalHacker Yes my rant about Counterspells was sarcastic but I honestly don't see the difference when you're talking about the bans you suggested. Banning Ramp and Tutors seems like banning Counterspells to me. You talked about making the format more "fun" and what's less fun than getting your spells countered?
I have to say that my opinion hasn't changed regarding the banlist. I have always said that I believe the banlist should only be for Competitive players. We shouldn't make bans based off of Casual players because Casual players are more likely to follow their own version of a banlist or disregard it completely.
This has been my personal experience. Casual players will play banned cards, have other selective bans, etc. It is only the Competitive players that are required to follow the banlist. Tournament play will follow the banlist, Competitive players will build their deck on the banlist because that's what they play for. Casual Commander players in my experience just do whatever they want.
To give you examples, Prophet of Kruphix was banned because of its effect on Casual play. Recently Leovold, Emissary of Trest was banned because of its effect on Casual play. Neither of those cards were problematic in Competitive, yet they are banned for everyone now.
I bring this up because every Casual group I have played with has said, "Please don't play that deck anymore" "No infinite combos" etc. They outline their own rules before playing.
Competitive players are REQUIRED to follow the banlist, yet Casual players dictate the banlist. What sense does this make?
May 6, 2017 12:25 a.m.
Since the goal of this banlist is to promote fun, I'm going to take this in a completely different direction, but first, bear with me on some required set-up.
First, one must understand that the kind of player we are seeking to "keep down" so to speak, is the kind that hates losing. Spike.
Second, we must also recognize that spikes will always exist, and that T1 decks will always exist because spikes exist.
Third, as a result of the first two statements, the best way to avoid constantly losing to spike cannot be by "banning him down to size." Therefore, I would propose the best alternative - due to commander's social nature - is to screen potential opponents before playing with them.
Fourth, given that people aren't always honest and that the definition of competitive and casual are subjective (at what tier is that line drawn?), there will always be a risk of playing against a spike, even if precautions are taken.
Fifth, the more restrictive a banlist, the slower a format (vintage is a turn 1.5 format, legacy turn 2.5, modern turn 4, standard turn 6), but this does not reflect how "solved" a format is (see recent saheeli cat bannings).
Combining these five statements, the greatest impact that a banlist can ever truly have on a format is to create a degree of balance among T1 decks, and to slow the format down. For casual players who aren't playing T1 decks, this means that the greatest impact that a banlist can have is to slow the game down, which begs the question "if you're going to lose pulls number from keister 1/15 games to spike, would you rather lose quickly (which often feels more unfair, but let's you get rid of spike sooner) or slowly (which often feels like a waste of time, but leaves matches feeling closer, even if they weren't)?
Now we need a statistical analysis of whether most players prefer losing quickly or slowly (I prefer slowly) and then we'll know how strict of a banlist to impose to create the most optimal casual format.
As far as trying to give a casual player a fighting chance to 1v1 spike and win... that's a pipe dream, and the proof of this is the draft format, where a casual player could be given every opportunity to sweep the table, but doesn't because of a lack of skill and experience. Spike cares more, put in more effort, put in more money, and probably has more experience. He'd better have a statistical advantage as to how often he wins.
May 6, 2017 4:13 a.m.
UpperDeckerTaco says... #37
I think the current banlist is acceptable, and I think that Protean Hulk should be rebanned.
Some additions:
Seedborn Muse = Same argument as Prophet of Kruphix plus it is almost a lock with Static Orb and makes for very unfair games.
Sorin Markov/Magister Sphinx/Tree of Perdition = Not because these are overly broken, but because one of the awesome parts of EDH is having some life to work with, the fact that 1 card can just drain you for up to 30 or more, just ridiculous and are hated cards at least in the community I play in.
Paradox Engine = Just another issue with Static Orb plus allows for other ridiculous combos. Artifacts are usually some of the most busted spells/permanents and I don't think WotC has figured a way to balance the creation of artifacts.
Deadeye Navigator = As much as I love playing with this card, it is absurdly broken and needs to go. Either that or ban these other 2 cards...
Palinchron/Peregrine Drake = Infinite mana is too easy to achieve and it is basically game ending. I don't feel that the format would suffer with either of these 2 banned.
Rafiq of the Many = I know of at least 8 players who play this as their general, and too many times have I seen the Turn 4 kill with General damage. It's too consistent. I have also seen quite a few Turn 3 kills as well.
That's all I can think of for now.
May 6, 2017 4:34 a.m.
Better play some form of removal... The cards you mention are so ridiculously easy to handle with proper interaction. You can even try to remove cards from your opponents library in order to avoid these combos. With Palinchron deadeye navigator you can remove Palinchron from the game in response to the trigger or play cards like torpor orb, cursed totem, containment priest, aven mindcensor, gaddock teeg. There is even 20ct cards that give you hexproof to avoid the tree or sorin... But better complain about unfunny interactions than building an interactive deck. Imho some people proposing a strict banlist should simply ask the spikes that made them so salty about "broken" interactions on how to improve their deck.
May 6, 2017 4:56 a.m.
PookandPie says... #39
It's 2017, there's no damn need to ban Rafiq. Killing one opponent on the fourth turn isn't that good, lol, and you should stop tapping out in the early turns to cast some removal if you need to save yourself.
Arvail says... #2
Is this talking about 1v1 or multiplayer?
May 4, 2017 1:36 p.m.