MASSIVE EDH RC ban list update
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Sept. 23, 2024, 12:15 p.m. by greyninja
Dockside Extortionist is banned
Jeweled Lotus is banned
Mana Crypt is banned
Nadu, Winged Wisdom is banned
Read the FAQs....I think it's time we all realize rule 0 negates the existence of the RC and the ban list. And we give these random people far too much authority and power and respect their opinions far too much.
September 25, 2024 1:37 p.m.
RiotRunner789 says... #3
I dunno. Rule 0 doesn't always get us there. About a month ago I sat down for a game and we had our pregame discussion and 'that one guy' said he had 'an average deck.'
Well, 'that one guy' played a land, sol ring, and mana crypt turn one as the first player. I played a Cultivate that game on curve and the table was dead before their 4th turn. Going to game two, I mentioned that his deck was quite competitive and from what I saw it was cEDH, and did he have anything weaker. 'That one guy' responded with, 'all my decks are like that and they all run mana crypt.'
I didn't bring my competitive deck that day but fair to say their was no game three. I appreciate a ban list and some sort of pre-game structure. Does the RC have too much power? Sure. Are they essentially "random people?" Yes. But, it's the group we currently have.
You or me could create our own ban list or rules but the likelihood of it being picked up by the community is low. We are stuck with, for good or bad, the RC.
Personally I'd like to see more local/store ban lists and/or leagues which both create a more balanced power enviroment and add the occasional fun/silly/absurd seasonal rules to switch things up. This really wouldn't fix the RC but at least my local store would care less.
September 25, 2024 2:03 p.m.
Regarding rule zero, it is always easier to add options than remove options. When you use rule zero to remove options, you are modifying the rules to take something away from someone. When you use rule zero to add options, you are modifying the game to give someone something they were not entitled to.
The worst case scenario in both is that the rule zero is declined - but the costs of that scenario are much worse for the taking away option. After all, they have an expectation they can play their deck as the rules intend - now you are telling them they need to change their deck or not play. For the added option, they already should anticipate they might have to play rules as written - you should never expect people to just change the rules for you - and thus they should already have prepared for the “no” (and it is their fault if they did not).
The reality? There are lots of people saying “just rule zero the ban, don’t actually ban it” - but the opposite “just rule zero the inclusion and let the ban stand” is exactly as applicable while also being easier to implement.
September 25, 2024 2:30 p.m.
Coward_Token says... #5
"In other places online, this topic has brought out the worst in our community, including threats and doxing attacks against the RC and CAG."
I don't know why I'm surprised. Some people really need to touch grass. Like, full-body contact.
September 25, 2024 2:40 p.m.
I know I said I would step out of this conversation, but the discussion continues and I have questions.
Mortlocke I think we're going to fundamentally disagree on this, but why is
"My fear is if they get a little too ban happy and they target other staples and high priced collectible cards. What if they start thinking "I don't like how easy it is for players to get mana" and they ban I don't know...Fetchlands or ABUR Dual Lands, or fast mana like Mox Diamond."
a fair statement, but sergiodelrio's comment isn't? At a certain point, as long as cEDH exists, there will be certain players--not many, but they're out there--who do treat deck building as an optimization spreadsheet. If they choose one card over another, it's because they think that card will be more effective or know how to use it better, not because they like it more. Any personalization comes from choosing between two equivalents. Anecdotally, I've known people who do this. It's extreme, but it's real.
If I may analyze your comment that I quoted, I said earlier that the RC, for whatever power they should have or do have, seem to be pretty lenient and hand-off overall with bans. These are the first bans in three years, while most other major formats (Standard, Pioneer, Modern, Legacy, Pauper, Brawl, Historic) have received multiple bans or preemptive bans in that time. Even Vintage got itself a couple of restrictions. And the three fast-mana bans have been under the microscope for a long time. I agree that it's a bad look that they were allowed to stay for so long, then banned without warning, but their existence has never been a foregone conclusion. So I don't see this representing a cascade of high-profile mana rock bans at all. I'd honestly be surprised if we see any more action from the RC for another few years unless something completely broken shows up. It's true that the chance for more deep-cut bans is non-zero, but I think it's low enough that it's not worth worrying about.
Also, it kind of is conspiratorial to say that
"[T]his ban was not done for "The health of the format" or to "Prioritize creativity" or whatever nonsense the RC said in their official announcement. The whole point of this is to ensure the sale of the next high-powered hyper-pushed cards that will probably be released in the next (i'm going to guess here) 12 months."
Obviously, if a super-pushed card that would improve almost every possible EDH deck like Jeweled Lotus or Mana Crypt comes out in the next couple years, then that would support your position. But Mana Crypt is a relic of the early overpowered days, almost on par with the original Moxen, and Jeweled Lotus was an experiment that arguably was allowed to continue for too long. What would you expect this new hyper-powered hotness to do? It's got be colorless, and if it's a mana rock, it needs to be nearly or more efficient as Sol Ring. Do you expect this card to be printed in the near-but-vague future?
RiotRunner789 This is much more of a criticism of that guy than anyone else, but that wasn't much of a Rule 0 talk. This should be an actual discussion between players, not just "Yeah, I guess it's average." Average for what? How fast does it reliably hit a win con? Are there instant-speed win cons, or infinite combos? How much interaction does it have? Is preemptive conceding fair play? Is everyone okay with Prison/Stax, or do we just want to chuck huge creatures at each other tonight? This is especially true for players who are new to a group.
The ban list exists so people who never say down together have a baseline of what to expect. The RC freely allows an established group to make its own ban list and rules.
greyninja Who would arbitrate and define the levels of competitiveness? If my deck is complete jank but has a single Balance or something I want to use, which category would that fall into?
I ask these out of respect and trying to understand people's position, not any sort of malice. I try to be as honest and transparent as possible online to counteract the general negativity, just so everyone can feel free not to assume the worst about me, at least.
Looking around online, this is hugely divisive. For the people who care about this, it really does seem evenly split between "This will save the format!" and "This will destroy the format!" So the only consensus is that things are gonna change. I'm bringing this up because echo chambers are already starting on both sides, and I want to step above my authority and remind people that it's been 24 hours, it's too early to draw sweeping long-term conclusions, and not everyone agrees on what will happen next.
September 25, 2024 2:45 p.m.
Caerwyn I dont agree with it being easier to rule0 in vs out. YouTube channels, LGS's and play groups have been rule0 outing cards for for ever and it's a whole lot easier for a group to ask an individual to not play something then for an individual to get permission from everyone in the group. You tell me to rule 0 out my mana crypt, worst case I say I got nothing to swap it with so I'll play it as a basic forest. And that's the same worst case if I wanna rule 0 in and you say no
September 25, 2024 4:14 p.m.
Further bans that would not surprise me:
-
nothing else, these are the last bans for at least a couple years
-
Strip Mine and/or Wasteland
-
any single "free" counterspell
-
any single Thoracle combo piece
Further bans that would surprise me:
-
any single "free" removal
-
multiple Thoracle combo pieces
Further bans that would scare me:
-
any other "efficient" removal (Swords to Plowshares, Chaos Warp, Toxic Deluge, etc.)
-
multiple "free" counterspells and/or removal
-
any Eminence commander
Further bans that would blow my mind:
- pretty much anything else
September 25, 2024 5:16 p.m.
RiotRunner789 says... #10
Yes you're right. I abbreviated our conversation but it was slightly more involved. Also, another player stated they were playing an unaltered precon.
An indepth conversation is mostly just impractical. Also, players like that pop up every now and then but the far reaching outliers always stand out. But I believe even with an exhaustive conversation, he would of sandbagged us (which is too your point of the player being the problem). This is just to say rule 0 doesn't fix everything (nor a ban list).
September 25, 2024 5:41 p.m.
RiotRunner789 The more you know the other people and their decks and styles, the less necessary the rule 0 discussion is, and you can't always weed out the bad-faith people. I hope that if that guy was ever invited back, it came with a warning.
September 25, 2024 5:54 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #12
Mortlocke I actually 100% agree with your take on deckbuilder's intent and budget restrictions. Those players, however will be much less likely to play in a competitive environment anyway and probably more likely to sit down with friends and rule 0 in a way that benefits the play group. The official banlist is, hands down, only ever relevant in a sanctioned event. And banning gatekeeper cards only increases the odds of more people showing up, because they didn't have to invest 10k in autoslot cards first, and those people might be able to actually compete.
So TL;DR everything that is not somehow an event with prizes and unknown players already doesn't need a banlist. You communicate (rule 0).
All competitive events become more accessible and diverse (in terms of decks).
September 25, 2024 6:22 p.m.
"A fair statement, but sergiodelrio's comment isn't?"
I never once said sergiodelrio's statement was unfair, I said it was wrong. His statement was implying that every individual who attempts to build a deck is a literal robot who constructs decks only by spreadsheets and numbers. In truth, that's a passionate minority of players - as you said. If the cEDH community (the frequency of their events, and overall representation) is any measure to go by, then few individuals are likely to go out and buy the aforementioned banned cards.
"So I don't see this representing a cascade of high-profile mana rock bans at all."
What I was saying was that Pandora's box is open. Sure, the RC was sparse with their bans - but that's because Commander is fundamentally different from Standard, Pioneer, Modern, Legacy etc. because it's an eternal format not under the direct purview of Wizards AND it's considered "casual". It has no GPs and no organized tournaments. There were a lack of bans not because the RC is lenient - it's because they're not necessary. But now that the box is open, it's clear that there's a chance that bans may not come for the "health of the community" but to serve as a new means of generating more consumer interest in future product.
But Mana Crypt is a relic of the early overpowered days, almost on par with the original Moxen, and Jeweled Lotus was an experiment that arguably was allowed to continue for too long.
Wrong. Mana Crypt isn't a relic - it was the poster child of chase rares in Commander. Fierce Guardianship & Friends, The Great Henge, The One Ring, Smothering Tithe, Force of Negation - this card may be old but Mana Crypt very much matches the design philosophy of today. Most importantly, over the course of EDH/Commander's history it has been constantly marketed in just about every premium product Wizards has ever produced. Also Jeweled Lotus was not an experiment. It was an unapologetic cash grab. Do you think the price tag would have been justified for Commander Masters without the inclusion of some stupid high priced rare? Need I remind you that the Commander Masters collector's booster box came with only 4 packs, and at the time of release commanded a $379.99 asking price?
What would you expect this new hyper-powered hotness to do? It's got be colorless, and if it's a mana rock, it needs to be nearly or more efficient as Sol Ring. Do you expect this card to be printed in the near-but-vague future?
I'm not really good at thinking up cards. I assume that when it shows up it will get the community talking and most importantly - excited. I'm sticking with my spitball number of about 12 months or so for this card to show up and of course only be accessible through some sort of premium product.
September 26, 2024 9:53 a.m.
Some of the above stuff is pointing to my succinct - but not well-articulated idea that the cardboard addict market is alive & well. If there is some predatory future releases as a rider to this (which is slightly tinfoil hat, since it would mean a RC is now heavy on corporate/marketing strategim), then they know the addict market will spend beyond their' means for the next big thing to fill that empty space. Others, who could afford the cards they had in the first place will just say "meh", move on, & use more exciting options. The addicts will be incredibly upset, some might say they've quit, but most won't fully commit to putting that to action, they will say their begrudging piece & then move on to finding some next-best high-budget options that they probably shouldn't be throwing their $$ at... & maybe the RC now knows full-well that this is a hefty chunk of the market.
September 26, 2024 12:07 p.m.
@Gleeock that basically sums up my emotions and eventual acceptance of Modern Horizons/Universes Beyond sets for Modern
September 26, 2024 12:20 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #18
Wrong. Mana Crypt isn't a relic - it was the poster child of chase rares in Commander.
This is also not true though, Mana Crypt has always been a poster child of promo's. Promo for buying a book, Kaladesh Masterpieces, Ixalan Special Guests, Eternal Masters, Double Masters, Vintage Masters (online).
Until last week, Commander and Vintage were the only popular constructed formats you could play them in. You chased it to play it in commander, that doesn't mean it's a poster child voor the format. It was, as you said right after, a poster child for premium sets and series. None of those sets were printed specifically for Commander.
You can list a bunch of 3+-drops with conditional alternative casting costs, but those are not at all similar to a zero cost artifact that will start you 2 full turns ahead of everyone else.
Mana Crypt requires nothing in play, costs nothing, and does nothing but get you ahead in your game plan the earlier you play it. None of this is true of the cards you listed. They're strong and cheap and high value, but not at all free (except maybe Rograkh + C20 free spells, but that's also a restriction on deckbuilding). Which is probably why they didn't get banned. Jeweled Lotus also ticks 3 out of 3 though.
Cutting the chance on a broken opener by 2/3rds, I find probably a healthy change in the format. Not completely eliminating the chance by leaving Sol Ring is probably a good move too, the multiplayer aspect of the format is capable of compensating for that, up to a point. But the more broken zero/one mana plays, the bigger the chance you go past that point.
It sucks that I lost money off this ban announcement, but the games where these cards mattered most, are the games I enjoyed the least. I've been through enough Standard bans to know that the gameplay experience will probably improve significantly when cards this ubiquitous in the meta can't be played anymore. The same was true for Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, the last card to be banned in commander before this week.
September 26, 2024 12:35 p.m.
Mortlocke With full respect and genuine goodwill, we are definitely at the fundamental disagreement stage. As such, to avoid arguing in circles digging more trenches, I'm going to step out of this conversation for at least a couple more days after this comment.
Regarding sergiodelrio's comment, I was using "fair" as a synonym for "valid" or "correct." I could have used a better word there, and sergiodelrio ends up agreeing with you anyway. I didn't really get the implication that "every individual who attempts to build a deck is a literal robot who constructs decks only by spreadsheets and numbers". My interpretation is that the original statement was a bit hyperbolic, but no more so than a lot of other statements in this thread, including several of my own. The intention, as clarified in a followup comment, was about the competitive level, where pretty much all players make concessions of personality to a higher win percentage, and a minority of players only aim to maximize win percentage. This is why so many cEDH decks used these cards, especially the fast mana cards.
Until more bans start coming forward, I'm still not convinced Pandora's Box is open. If there are more high-profile bans by next summer, I promise I will come back to this thread and eat my words. If they're from my personal "surprise me" or "scare me" lists up there, I will apologize to every person in this thread, starting with Mortlocke. Until that happens, though, I'm more (naively?) optimistic, or at least not as pessimistic. If you believe bans will continue, where do you think they would stop? Which cards would not surprise you if they were banned?
The One Ring is widely (but not universally) considered a mistake, and at least a solid minority of people have been asking for it to be banned pretty much everywhere. The other cards you mention have color requirements, so they can't improve literally every deck.
Mana Crypt had eight different paper printings (all at high rarity, but still present) and still commanded a $100+ price tag. The other mentioned cards (except T1R, considered a mistake) have half as many prints and half the price/value. I freely admit I'm not great with economics, so I can be convinced with a deep explanation, but this to me looks like Crypt has far higher demand despite the ostensibly greater supply. My further inference is that Crypt is far beyond current design practices, with higher d mand than any of the other cards. Could this be due to color limitations? Maybe, but that ties into current design practices. Could the price be artificially inflated for some reason? I'm not going to speculate, for therein lies conspiracy and danger.
To finish this section off, Commander Masters Jeweled Lotus was absolutely a money grab (and the "stuck around too long" part of my sentence), which is a strong reason against its banning. Unless someone believes that the RC and WotC collaborated for good insider trading (which there's zero evidence for and the RC has denied), WotC stood to gain a lot more from keeping JLotus around as a chase mythic instead of having it banned out from underneath them. The Commander Legends print was the experiment, and I would say it was immediately obvious that it was overpowered. Hence, an experiment (CL, immediately shown to be overpowered) that stuck around too long (CM, blatant money grab).
Premium chase cards will always be a thing, and that goes double in supplementary products. I don't expect anything on the efficiency level of Crypt or JLotus to show up in the next year. We'll find that one out soon enough.
September 26, 2024 1:30 p.m.
RiotRunner789 says... #21
A bit of a note and a nod to the 'tin hat' folks. One member of the RC and one member of the CAG work for WOTC.
Personally, I find this a serious conflict of interest. It's one thing to talk with Wizards (such as, please don't make X because it's bad for the format) and it's another thing to actively be employed by WOTC and serve in the RC.
September 26, 2024 2:48 p.m.
sergiodelrio says... #22
(They are talking about me)
breathing intensifies
:D
September 26, 2024 4:15 p.m.
I think, to an extent, Jeweled Lotus was just a design botch. I think some of the idea was going to be to open some access/early game to color+mana intensive commanders of the crapulent/lackluster variety (maybe even some of the true "elder dragons" for eg). Meanwhile, working some nostalgia into the equation. This was all theory that I liked... but the practical application was a direction I could not stand.
It just ended up enabling more turn 1 or 2 play your high-compete commander with an otherwise suboptimal hand with no future prospects, glass-jaw, all-or-nothing BS. Lotus was popped & sacced to springboard ahead with a pivotal commander ahead of schedule, but if the commander was wiped out, with minimal future resources on-board I would see (some-quite a few) players concede. It was a pretty toxic play-pattern & pretty bad precedent to set for a chase card from a set that was supposed to be somewhat shaping the future of the format.
That card, specifically, for me felt like the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
September 26, 2024 4:48 p.m.
Mortlocke Just to make sure there's no loose ends before I disappear, I want to make sure I understand your position.
Your claim is that
-
the RC banned several cards, Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus in particular, to promote future interest in a particular set to be released within the next year or so.
-
that one or more of the cards in that set will be seen as a legitimate and worthwhile replacement for at least one of those cards.
-
that future chase cards may be preceded by additional bans of high-profile cards to promote interest.
Is that correct? If not, please let me know where I got it wrong, and even if I don't respond, I'll read it.
My claim is that
-
there will not be a card released within the next year that will be seen as a legitimate replacement for Jeweled Lotus or Mana Crypt. I'm willing to concede that quality mana rocks will be printed, but nothing on the versatility and efficiency level of those two.
-
future chase cards will not be preceded by bans. Bans will occur independently of releases and without intent to promote future sales.
If my summary of your position is correct, and there's nothing I can do to convince you except wait, then I'm gonna check out of this thread for a couple days, or until some new information comes by.
September 26, 2024 6:40 p.m.
This isn't directed at anyone on TappedOut, but I have noticed in the overall discourse about the bans across the internet that some people are floating conspiracy theories about the decision. I've certainly seen people make the statement that Wizards pushed cards just to get one last sale, or that the RC and WotC are somehow in cahoots to drive up the sales of future sets. I believe those kinds of accusations demand evidence if they are going to be made and in general can lead to the poisoning of discourse which ultimately ends up with RC members getting threatened. I know that people often jump to conspiracies when they don't understand something, but the toxic dialogue on some corners of the internet about this have been disappointing to see from our community. I'm proud that we haven't seen much of that on TappedOut and I sincerely hope we can keep it that way.
September 26, 2024 9:30 p.m.
plakjekaas, "This is also not true though, Mana Crypt has always been a poster child of promo's...Until last week, Commander and Vintage were the only popular constructed formats you could play them in. You chased it to play it in commander, that doesn't mean it's a poster child voor the format."
Commander is the cash cow format of Magic, and with the exception of Kaladesh and LCI every single one of those products commanded a premium price. Not to mention, it appeared alongside other Commander format favorites in each of the aforementioned products. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the marketing intent here. My Brother in Cardboard, not every player who wanted a copy of Mana Crypt was some hyper competitive spike - It was marketed as a cool piece of power in a trading card game that only the lucky and those with means can get. Shiny card is shiny, and everyone wants it.
"None of those sets were printed specifically for Commander."
Save maybe Eternal Masters, every one of those sets had excellent reprints for Commander. Wizards were well aware of the Commander market eclipsing all the others - and a popular sentiment in my circles at least was that all these supposed Modern products were primarily designed lure in Commander players.
"You can list a bunch of 3+-drops with conditional alternative casting costs, but those are not at all similar to a zero cost artifact that will start you 2 full turns ahead of everyone else."
You're missing the point. Those cards match a pushed power design philosophy that has emerged relatively recently in Magic. All of those cards were chase rares included in premium products alongside Mana Crypt as a crown jewel to better market those products.
"I find probably a healthy change in the format. Not completely eliminating the chance by leaving Sol Ring is probably a good move too, the multiplayer aspect of the format is capable of compensating for that, up to a point. But the more broken zero/one mana plays, the bigger the chance you go past that point."
You're forgetting player intent. Players who still want their power will simply go to the next best thing. Mana Vault has had a huge price spike recently...I wonder why. Players will still include and collect powerful cards that seem ubiquitous - these bans will only affect a minority of players: The cEDH, and High Powered/Cut Throat Meta crowd. I think the only ones getting healthier here are the investors' wallets. As the giant soulless corporation wants to encourage it's customers to buy the new powerful ubiquitous cards in the next premium product.
"And banning gatekeeper cards only increases the odds of more people showing up, because they didn't have to invest 10k in autoslot cards first, and those people might be able to actually compete."
You're forgetting deck builder's intent. If you ban one thing, the players will just go to the next best thing then that fills the void and the perceived problem from before will still remain. In this case, Mana Vault has stepped up to fill the slot of Mana Crypt. The so called autoslot cards will always be around no matter how many bans show up. Also, real talk - who are you playing with? 10k autoslot cards? Are you sure you're not playing Vintage? lol.
September 27, 2024 9:56 a.m.
sergiodelrio says... #28
I see what you are saying and I've been overexaggerating things to show a point. There is a big gap between what has been banned and the "next big thing" and that might cause deckbuilders to weigh between a generically good card versus a card that would be more fitting and synergetic in the context of the rest of their deck.
If Black Lotus is legal in a format it would be a no-brainer to try and include it (if you have it), but if Lotus gets banned, P9 Moxes get banned, etc, you will look for cards that don't just improve ANY deck, but instead YOUR specific deck. Unless you have a 0-cost artifact theme and that WAS your deck synergy all along, in that case you need to pick a new theme (or play around with what's left).
September 27, 2024 10:06 a.m.
As should be fairly obvious, of course players will move on to the next best thing - that is kind of the point of bans. Bans exist to remove the most damaging cards in a format--the cards which cross a threshold to "makes the game worse"--and encourage people to play cards which are on the right side of that threshold instead.
To that end, you can pretty easily see why Mana Crypt and Jeweled Lotus are on the wrong side of the threshold and Mana Vault is a lesser threat.
Mana Crypt gives you access to a colored mana (your land drop) and at the very first turn of the game. That means you can drop any number of dangerous cards - including colored cards - right from the get go, putting you two full turns ahead of your opponents. Then, on each subsequent turn, you remain ahead of your opponents, for a measly cost of 1 average life per turn.
Compare to Mana Vault. Mana Vault costs one mana, so, if dropped on turn 1, you have access to , but have no colored mana. That can get a bit out of control if you have an artifact-heavy hand (especially if you have other mana rocks), but you are still in a position where your casting options are limited by the lack of inherent colored mana. Further, unlike Mana Crypt, which untaps, you have to put in some degree of work to untap and reuse your Mana Vault, and it sits around doing nothing but pinging you until you do.
For Jeweled Lotus, Lotus gives the player access to three mana of any color of their choice plus the mana from their land drop. That is four mana, all colored and easily spread across two different colors from turn one. Considering Wizards typically costs as equal to a single colored mana (see or the cast cost of numerous cards), having four colored mana available at turn one is a bit like if a Mana Vault gave you . I can guarantee you if Mana Vault gave eight colorless mana, it would have been banned long ago.
If you actually think about the cards, you would see that "look, people are just playing Mana Vault now, so this ban didn't solve any problem and therefore should never have happened" is a pretty nonsensical argument. The fact people are playing Mana Vault now does solve a problem - it means people are still able to get access to powerful effects; those powerful effects just come at a more "fair" cost. That does not undermine the bans--it shows the bans are working exactly as intended.
September 27, 2024 10:42 a.m.
Last_Laugh says... #30
Someone needs to start a petition to have this overturned. When WotC sees the literal THOUSANDS of players who are contemplating quitting (or already have) it'd light a fire under their collective asses.
I know WotC and the Rules Committee are 2 separate entities but pressure from WotC as they see actual numbers and a financial impact are the correct angle to apply pressure from.
I work at an LGS, and the sheer amount of people who've sold their collections this week is staggering... not to mention the $10k pile of obsolete cards that're worth 1/10 that value (if that) now that the shop is stuck sitting on.
September 27, 2024 10:43 a.m.
Last Laugh Reversing this would just create more chaos and wouldn't really address the financial impact, which is based on a perception of stability for card values. That perception was always a bit of a fiction though.
September 27, 2024 10:59 a.m.
It is all beautiful to me.. Except the idea of banning itself, but that is more of an indictment on the players & direction of the meta at-large. If people are so upset by this that they are quitting, or doing worse things, then they probably investing beyond their means' in the 1st place. Most my playgroup falls in the other camp of "enfranchised" but life goes on. We have a few new spendy "bookmarks" after the bannings, but we never took out of the mortgage for hobby card games. Maybe if some of the "enfranchised" are actually showing the resolve to quit for this reason, maybe that is actually a good & healthy step for them to take... possibly they were playing for the wrong reasons (I understand though that LGS staff would not see it that way).
September 27, 2024 11:19 a.m.
hyalopterouslemur says... #33
TBH, I usually don't support bans, but in Mana Crypt's case, yeah, it's arguably past time. And I've done basic land, Sol Ring, signet once, but at least I couldn't play anything else with my four mana that turn. Mana Crypt is arguably worse since you now have three mana available on turn 1.
Jeweled Lotus has the same problems as all lotoi: Three mana for nothing is just too much.
Mortlocke says... "This new found RC philosophy which desires to force players into slower games might continue with the sudden banning additional favorites like Mana Drain, Sylvan Library, or Smothering Tithe."
That's actually pretty funny, I actually think of Sylvan Library as somewhat overrated. It's great if you can either double your card draw or consistently scry/reshuffle the rejected cards away, but otherwise, you will have the same two remaining cards, just with a new one on the bottom. Unless you're paying 4 (or 8) life every turn.
September 27, 2024 12:35 p.m.
Last_Laugh says... #34
Abaques I wholeheartedly disagree. A combination of WotC actually listening to and acting on player feedback coupled with the value of these cards going back up would be trending in the right direction. It would go down a lot easier with an apology from the Rules Committee for their shortsightedness in not seeing how their rash decision has actually driven people away and hurt the game they claim to love.
September 27, 2024 1:10 p.m. Edited.
Last_Laugh - I think you are confusing volume for consensus. The people clamoring against the ban are the loudest - those who are angry have always been louder than those who are content, and the disaster that is modern social media algorithms, influencers, and gaming "journalists" have all realized pushing anger is more profitable than pushing common sense.
From some polls that were conducted, it appears the community is about evenly split on this change--and that the polling data seems to slightly support the bans. There are lots of methodology issues with internet polling, to be sure--but it still is a much better source of information than trying to determine what group is the loudest.
I think it is pretty clear that, in reality, if they reversed the bans that would be just as chaotic as things are now and perhaps worse. A large chunk 50% of players who are angry now will still be angry and distrust the system; a majority chunk of the 50% of players who support the bans will be angry. People who already sold out their cards will be angry. Prices will be in flux as people try to figure out what is going on. No one will really trust bans moving forward - and the community will be taught the lesson that "being loud" can cause the RC to blink. Not exactly healthy for the game or the community and could cause problem for other necessary bans.
The RC made its choice and they based their choice on years and years and years of people begging them to ban these cards. They have plenty of reason to show why the game is unhealthy with these cards permitted; but have not had the chance to evaluate the health of the game without the cards.
Anyone who cares about the health of the game would want the RC to make an informed decision based on facts--and the reality is that we do not know how this will play out long-term. Rather than reverse course right now because a bunch of people are angry, the right answer is for the RC to stick by their decision, spend a couple months gathering data, then reevaluate based on actual gameplay, not speculative, emotional, and often financially-driven reactionary comments.
September 27, 2024 1:27 p.m. Edited.
Last_Laugh says... #36
Caerwyn I'm not sure what part of "I work at an LGS" makes you think I'm ill-informed? The Rules Committee has caused a mass exodus from MtG and if you don't believe me, go talk to ANY of your LGS owners/employees to find out firsthand. We've had 12 large collections get sold in just the last 3 days (which is unheard of... especially in the middle of the week) mostly from people I've known and played with between 6 and 15 years.
September 27, 2024 1:46 p.m.
Last_Laugh - If you would take the time to re-read my post, you would notice I never called you ill-informed. What I did say is that the evidence you are presenting is insufficient to compel the course of action you suggest.
All your anecdotal evidence can show is that there are angry elements of the community in greater numbers than there have been for prior updates. That establishes this is a controversial and divisive move by the RC. You then conclude that, just because something is more controversial and divisive than normal, it should be overturned.
This conclusion does not follow from your evidence. For starters, you do not--and cannot--assert that the majority of players overall are upset with this set of changes. Your conclusion based entirely on your anecdotal evidence could very easily make the situation worse - without additional data, you risk caving to a very vocal minority.
Further, the RC's goal is not to make everyone happy at every time. Their goal is to make a healthy format. Even if the majority of players were angry - and I am not sure that is true, since we have years and years of people begging these cards to be banned - the RC is well within their rights to make a ban that might create short-term anger, but promote the long-term health of the game. That is clearly what they believe they did--whether they were right nor not we lack the evidence to decide until more time has passed and the game has adjusted to the new reality. It is only at that point that we can tell if the new reality or the old was better--until then, everything is purely speculative.
To give you a TL;DR, since that was clearly necessary in the prior post:
- Be careful to avoid confusing a large amount of dissatisfaction for a universal amount of dissatisfaction.
- Be careful to avoid confusing anecdotal evidence for a consensus.
- Remember that, at this time, things are in a state of fluctuation and thus what the future might hold for the health of the metagame is complete speculation and will remain speculative until the meta adjusts and we can compare the stable before versus a stable after.
September 27, 2024 3:06 p.m.
hyalopterouslemur says... #38
@Caerwyn: Exactly. I'd argue that free mana (excepting Lotus Petal
maybe) is inherently OP. Notice that the Power Nine includes no fewer than six free mana artifacts. Would it make a lot of people who have Mana Crypt or Jeweled Lotus happy? Obviously it didn't. (Jeweled Lotus in particular is literally worthless now, but that's the cost of thinking of Magic cards as an "investment". The same thing happened to comic books in the 90s and nearly destroyed the industry.)
The RC can't make everyone happy. I'm still smarting over the ban on Primeval Titan and later, Sylvan Primordial; I'm eyeing Overlord of the Hauntwoods with skepticism because it so reminds me of PT. (At the time my reasoning was that ramp at six or seven mana isn't bannable when mana accel for free is still in the game; all mana accel is very dependent on mana cost.) But I understand why the ban was done, and you know? These new bans suggest the RC is starting to agree with me, by simply banning Mana Crypt and the like as well.
September 27, 2024 5:53 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #39
Mortlocke You're missing the point. Those cards match a pushed power design philosophy that has emerged relatively recently in Magic. All of those cards were chase rares included in premium products alongside Mana Crypt as a crown jewel to better market those products.
You were trying to convince people Mana Crypt wasn't an ancient relic of power, remember? The fact that it's been a chase rare doesn't tie into the fact that there's almost 25 years in design development between Mana Crypt and any of the cards you mentioned, that I was arguing still did not come close to the actual power of Mana Crypt, which is the reason it did get banned.
September 28, 2024 7:05 a.m.
Plus, fast mana has 0 panache. It sounds like heresy, since how do you say a pirate has 0 panache? but dockside had 0 panache too :)
September 28, 2024 8:24 a.m.
So as of now 2 members of the CAG (commander advisory group) have resigned...and a non disclosure agreement has been breached by a member of the Rules committee by revealing how someone voted to deter threats.
Maybe this will get walked back?
September 28, 2024 10:48 a.m.
I'm almost positive threats of violence has to be connected with $$$ and not whether or not these game pieces are fun or not.
When it comes to investors and game stores and similar I dont know how to break those kinds of ties... like on one hand I get threats of violence and making people feel uncomfortable really sucks but on the other hand messing with people's wallets and business also sucks.
I guess this is just way bigger of a deal than I thought.
September 28, 2024 10:56 a.m.
Let’s be very clear Icbrgr - this is not a “on one hand, but on the other hand” situation. That kind of language, even if not intended this way, serves to create a false equivalency between the two situations and justify abhorrent behavior. I want to make this very clear:
While it sucks that folks lost a bunch of money, threats and doxing are not acceptable or justified. Further there is no equivalence between the RC banning some cards and people threatening violence against some folks over a hobby.
Given the current tensions, everyone should be careful with their language. Even inadvertent empathy or support for those awful elements of our community who are resorting to the most base of human behaviors cannot be tolerated. We all should do our part to avoid giving any encouragement to those particular elements of the community.
September 28, 2024 11:49 a.m. Edited.
sergiodelrio says... #44
This is getting out of hand.
My gut is telling me WotC will be handed control over the Commander format, but banlist remains untouched. If people insist threatening, Hasbro will send an army of lawyers.
September 28, 2024 12:01 p.m. Edited.
Oh for sure not trying to justify or give a green light seal of approval for threats/violence, I am just trying to understand a situation is all.
September 28, 2024 12:22 p.m.
I think that a core problem to the MTG community the bans are exposing is that a lot of people believe that Magic cards are a better "investment" opportunity than they really are. Just because TCGPlayer says that your card is worth $80 doesn't mean that you'll actually be able to sell it for that and I don't believe that most players realize that. Most players don't have the expertise, experience or time to actually get market value selling cards. And reprints, bans or changing meta's have always meant that perceived card values can and will change, sometimes rapidly. I think outside of some of the cards on the reserved list (power nine, Mox Diamond, the ABUR duals and the like) that "investing" in Magic cards has always been a rather large risk. In some ways I think it is probably good that the Magic community has to face this head on because of the bans. We were going to have to face it eventually and I think it might be better to do that sooner rather than later. It's usually better to take a small hit that forces a more reasonable valuation than letting the bottom fall out later on.
September 28, 2024 1:37 p.m.
The toxicity of this whole deal probably makes me happier to keep distancing from the hobby in general. How do you get such sore-losers from one end of the spectrum when the other end of the spectrum (filthy casuals) were losing for so long & just putting up with it. Well, I've got my DnD for nerding & great storytelling (though the less imaginative elements of the videogaming world seem to pervade that these days too). I spend alot more time becoming enthralling victoresque & playing hockey. Just feeling generally alive... But then again, oof! Winter will be rolling around here in no-time. Guess I'll have to get a couple of roleplay groups rolling :)
September 28, 2024 1:46 p.m.
I think it possibly would be the "straw that broke the camels back" for me if this was all taksy-backsied somehow. That would be the most chaotic, weak-precedent action; to let some loud try-hards whine their way back into what they want the format to look like. Just the weakness of that action would be saying: "yep, maybe it just ain't for you".
The power creep of 4-6cmc legendary critters in the format & acceleration with lower input than output is a bad combo. Super-early warded dick-kickers is not super healthy, everyone else is playing a normal game & someone is just stressing a whole table out doing that.
Maybe it would be proper in a 40 life format if crypt potentially dealt you 6-8dmg potentially (an equivalent % to the 20 life format it was built for)? I still feel like that might not even be enough life-pay, since it was originally designed to accelerate chance-based hands, not ultra-powerful, game warping cards that you always have access to.
Maybe J.lotus would have brought fair power to nostalgia-commander if they worded a limitation "mana can only be used on a commander from Legends or before"?
... Honestly, I would delight in ABUR duals being banned too (even though I own them) :)
Then we would truly see a few cages rattled!
September 28, 2024 2:09 p.m.
hyalopterouslemur says... #49
Or if it did 3 with no coin flip. But we can't develop these cards.
ABUR duals are kind of interesting. They're probably the most overrated cards and I only use them because I got them (for Type 1.x/Extended and Type 1.5/Legacy) back when they were under $100, showing my age; they're good, but not as busted as people think. I would argue for banning Gaea's Cradle (which I also have) first because frankly, if the mana scales, you have to keep an eye on it in this format. Or players (not the RC, they seem to understand this, but players don't) can just admit some land destruction is healthy for the game; you just have to follow a few rules to keep it fun.
September 28, 2024 3:43 p.m.
Beautiful!.. Though if you want to compare gray-bushy-ear hairs :) - Fog comes rolling in - My Savannah was $4.00 at Shinders. Them were the wonder years when the bargain bin contained things undreamt of now
Mortlocke says... #1
""Recently" can mean different time periods to different people." Ah, now they remember their professional writing skills. :)
September 25, 2024 1:28 p.m.