A Possible Idea Concerning Bans
General forum
Posted on July 21, 2017, 10:31 a.m. by pleasiodmakerblooloo
I realize that banning cards is an important part of Wizards job. Some cards are just either too strong, or have too strong synergies. This question is about the latter. One of the issues that some people, myself included, have with banning certain cards, is that bans mean that cards such as Summer Bloom, for example, cannot be played in decks other than the Amulet Bloom deck, even though it is only broken when combined with Amulet of Vigor. That being said, I just wanted to ask and see what people thought about an idea I had. What if there were two sides to banning. On the one hand, Wizards could ban a card like Deathrite Shaman outright for being too strong, but then they could also 'ban' decks that contained BOTH Summer Bloom and Amulet of Vigor in the same 75 card deck + sideboard. As in, they only disallow decks to contain two or more cards TOGETHER, but these same cards would be allowed to be used in decks that didn't have both or more of them. I realize that this would complicate things a little more, but it would then allow some people to use otherwise banned cards in fun but not broken ways.
Just wanted to see what people thought on this.
If you go back and read the original ban announcement for Summer Bloom, they very clearly outline the difficulty of the decision they faced in choosing which piece to ban from the combo, and why they chose what they did. They were aware other decks would now be disallowed from using Summer Bloom. It was an associated risk. They didn't want to cripple the archetype entirely, which banning Amulet of Vigor would have done. So they removed the enabler. The much smaller piece of the puzzle overall.
I suggest reading their explanation in full.
July 21, 2017 11:48 a.m. Edited.
Oloro_Magic says... #4
It sounds like you are suggesting a restricted list similar to what is seen in Vintage with the power nine. An interesting concept to be sure but the current system of banning cards (taking a piece that makes a deck too good) is sufficient. It is under this system that we see Death's Shadow not being banned as banning shadow would be a mistake in my opinion, instead there is talk of banning Street Wraith to slow down the shadow deck. Summer Bloom made the Amulet deck too good but if you remove Amulet the deck is dead, or if you restrict amulet there is no point in playing the deck, so I think the current method of banning cards is sufficient even if I don't always agree with the cards being banned.
July 21, 2017 11:59 a.m.
Wotc was looking into doing this before they hit marvel in standard and they said it was too confusing basically. But they are willing to consider it in the future
July 21, 2017 1:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
It's worth mentioning that Commander (traditional Commander, not its variants) eliminated its "banned as commander" category. That format probably had the best cause for maintaining conditional bans, but even the RC moved toward a simpler model.
That's not to say I agree with the decision, but it does support the value of simplicity in format management.
July 21, 2017 1:27 p.m.
You also have to remember that Wizards is trying to make this game as accessible to new players as possible. The game is in need of new players and they see that. But when you've got a game that's been around for twenty years and has all the complexities associated to it that MTG does, its very unbecoming to new players looking into the game.
I have enough difficulty as it is just explaining to somebody why they can't use their RTR cards in their Standard deck or why they can't use Ponder or Seething Song in their first Modern deck. Creating conditional bans like this would make it a lot harder for MTG authorities to keep track of and teach to new players.
Just think about deck checks at big events for a second, and the complexity conditional bans would add to that.
July 21, 2017 1:32 p.m.
If you need a fucking diagram to know what is banned together, then you make things so much harder for the casual players to enjoy.
Epochalyptik says... #2
I think the current ban philosophy is to eliminate critical pieces of overpowered decks that are played exclusively or almost exclusively in those decks. This reduces the impact on "acceptable" decks while nerfing the "unacceptable" ones.
It does take the card away from players who want to use it in unconventional ways, but maintaining the simplicity of the ban list is of greater benefit than managing to the exception. Less confusion is better.
Back when Cawblade decks got hit in Zendikar-Scars Standard, WOTC allowed Stoneforge Mystic to still be played as long as it was in an unmodified event deck (which had been released shortly before the ban, if I recall correctly). You could do some research as to how that panned out; most players in my area just didn't bother with it.
July 21, 2017 10:44 a.m.