Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-13 8:48 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-14 12:43 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain, I sense we are rapidly losing patience with each other. You are playing a numbers game, and trying to say that the experiences of those who disagree with you don't matter because they don't align with yours. I am telling you that we do not have the data, either of us, to get anything useful out of numbers games.

You are assuming the point at issue here- that Iona only causes problems for a handful of groups and no action needs to be taken. I am telling you that nobody outside the RC has the data to back up this claim, and even Sheldon is on the record saying he could be convinced it was a problem for a lot of people. How can you be so sure of yourself, given that?

Carthain wrote:
See, that's where you're wrong.

What you're proposing is a format wide change, due to local metagame issues. Why is your local metagame so important that we should consider it over the hundreds or thousands of others? Why is your problem something that needs to impact everyone else to fix?


You asked me what it told me that a lot of people disagreed with me (apparently as many as agree with me, based on your last post, but anyway). I replied that it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree- one compelling argument would be enough to sway me. It still would. What part of this is wrong?

I am indeed proposing a format wide change due to local metagame issues- but not my local metagame, a great many people's. We shouldn't consider it in isolation, we should consider it alongside the rest of the groups where Iona does bad things to games, and would do in many more groups if people hadn't stopped running it.

Carthain wrote:
Because it's not poison to everyone.


From what I've seen in this discussion, and elsewhere, it definitely isn't good for anyone either. Since when was "well, it only ruins games for some people" a legitimate defence? Were there not leagues of people who used Trade Secrets fairly, or Painter's Servant, or even Prophet? All of these cards did more for the format than Iona ever will.

Carthain wrote:
A better analogy would be if a doctor has something that they prescribe to you (say some blood thinners or something), but it ends up giving you a horrific rash all over your face that itches. Does the doctor say "oh, well suck it up?" No, they prescribe something else. That something else may not be as effective at it's job, but if doesn't cause severe side effects, then its better.

In this case, your group is the doctors and they aren't willing to alter the prescription. The fault isn't in that particular drug - but in those who continue to prescribe it in areas that cause issues.


No. This example fails to account for the fact that I'm not taking said medicine willingly, it's being forced on me by the other players in my group (they are playing Iona, not me). You are the doctor- I ask you to get rid of the bad medicine so it can't be force-fed to anyone (ban Iona) and you are telling me to suck it up because most people don't have the same reaction to it that I do.

Carthain wrote:
We don't need to exonerate Iona. She's not a problem in the majority of groups.


As I have told you, neither of us have the data to claim the bold. I think the vast majority of people think Iona, if asked, is bad for the format. Not a problem, but bad nonetheless. They don't necessarily want it banned, but they definitely don't think it's a healthy card, either. In fact, looking back through the thread, there are a few people who want it to be legal who admit that right here. Are you so sure Iona doesn't need exonerating, when even the people who don't want her banned agree she's awful?

Carthain wrote:
You need to prove that it is. That's how it works. If you feel the status quo is wrong, the onus is on you to prove the issues. And in this case, the onus is on you to prove that the majority of groups have issues with Iona. You've not cleared that threshold.


No, that's a criteria you've invented. I have never claimed Iona is a problem for the majority of groups- just that it's definitely problematic for more groups than you seem to think it is. Remember, I think Iona is banworthy due to poor interactions with the format, a question entirely removed from individual metagames.

You claim Iona is fine as is (legal). I claim Iona is not. The onus is on each of us to back up our own points. But this is irrelevant either way because neither of us can. Appealing to the status quo isn't proving this- the status quo is often wrong and takes a great deal of time to change (look, for instance, at Kokusho).

Carthain wrote:
Good thing that's not the case then. You've been given situations where playing her isn't a jerk move. I've seen games where she is cast, doesn't name the mono-colour player, and decidedly wasn't a jerk move. Why? Because not naming the mono-colour player's colour would have been the jerk move, and it was more advantageous to name a different colour.


Ok, so in hindsight I can see that there may be cases where this is true- maybe you really need to shut off one specific colour so the blue player doesn't combo out or something. My strong instinct remains that these sorts of games are rare- much rarer than the cases where it's optimal to lock down a player and just kill them. As I said earlier in the thread, especially in smaller games, dead players are a lot of value. I congratulate you on being one of the lucky ones not to have to face them.

Therefore, I accept this criticism, but it only really reduces my case to "Iona very often, but not necessarily always, forces jerkish play if you run her against mono-decks." I'm pretty sure my argument still holds up with that weaker version of the point.

Carthain wrote:
Also, games in which there are no mono-colour players, the "jerk" level of playing Iona goes down as there's no possibility to shut someone out (except through luck -- naming one of their two colours, but they only have that colour in hand.)


You're arguing against a case I didn't make.

I said, and I quote, "There's no way to play Iona in a game with a mono-colour deck without being a jerk." Not that Iona could never be played anywhere without making someone a jerk. Crokaycete's group, which lacks mono-colour, shows us that. I now acknowledge "no way" was too strong, because there are at least some cases where that's not true. So it becomes "There are a few cases where you can play Iona in a game with a mono-colour deck without being a jerk."

Add that premise to the second premise- that the vast majority of groups contain mono-colour decks- and you get my conclusion: that Iona causes problems in the vast majority of groups she is played in, not a few isolated ones like mine.

Others, like Zirilan, have argued that this isn't true on other grounds- that naming half of a bi-colour deck can often cripple them as much as naming a mono-deck would do, and not just through luck. Is this another thing that doesn't happen often enough to matter? There's quite a few of those beginning to pile up.

Carthain wrote:
This isn't a black and white situation. She's not always a jerk move. But the way you describe your group of players using her -- she is. Where's the source of this? The player, not the card.


Not always, no. Just a great deal of the time, and not just in my meta. In hindsight, I'm ok with that claim. Iona's effect- the card, nothing more- creates these jerk moves by forcing the choice I described earlier on people. It is not a player issue to want your opponents to play at their best, and it is not a player issue to take optimal lines during play. It is those things, plus Iona's effect, that creates her toxic effect on games. No part of this is a player issue beyond the initial decision to run Iona, which as we've already discussed is not inherently a player issue either because as you yourself said, there are fair ways of using her even against mono-colour decks.

Carthain wrote:
I've not seen any evidence in this thread that what you are experiencing with Iona is the majority. If you have any other sources on this, you have yet to bring it forth.


Physician, heal thyself. This is literally what I was going to say to you.

Out of interest, what sources would you accept? Quite a few people have told you Iona has caused, or is causing, bad experiences in their metas whether they want her banned or not. You have claimed this still doesn't accurately reflect the big picture because it doesn't match your experiences. How many more would you like me to find?

Carthain wrote:
I did ask you for references on some bits, and you seem to have ignored me (on the duration of Iona locks). Do you not have that data? If not, then how can you possibly claim that what you see is absolute, let alone the majority situation/perception?


I haven't ignored you. I responded to your request for data already- I can't provide that data, no more than you can provide any data for your claim that Iona isn't a problem for most metas where she's played. Neither of us have access to a large enough sample size- unless you're asking what the length of an Iona lock in my game specifically, in which case it's around 4-5 turns in games that last an average of 12-15. So, about a third of the game.

For the last time, I have not claimed my experience is the majority. I claimed it was a higher number than you thought it was. I also claimed that my experience didn't need to be a majority for Iona to be banworthy, and I stand by both those claims.

You're playing this strange line of argument where Iona needs to be played above a certain percentage in a bad way before it's a problem, and since I can't prove that's the case it's not banworthy. But even ignoring the fact that the percentage point is wrong anyway, the exact same argument works in reverse- Iona needs to be played above a certain % to be a problem, and you cannot tell me Iona is not being played above that % because we both lack that data. Therefore, you cannot show Iona is not appearing in damaging amounts, and therefore cannot show Iona isn't banworthy. The result is a stalemate of competing anecdotes which has accounted for a good portion of this entire thread.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Last edited by Swmystery on 2016-May-14 8:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-14 3:40 pm 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
So while there's 9 people here who say she should be banned, 7 of them haven't said she should be banned 'cause she's a problem in their metagames, but more due to philosophical reasons.
So its a dead even split, despite you saying it was a majority agreeing with you, then try and spin the ones who don't agree. Where exactly did you put me in that 'analysis'?

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-14 4:48 pm 

Joined: 2016-Feb-13 2:14 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Orlando, Florida
In related news, my league recently house banned Iona as a test. Last week, there were plenty of mono colored decks abound. Most of these weren't freshly built either; decks I hadn't played against in years (Starke of Rath, Cao Ren, Wei Commander, and even a silly deck using Phage the Untouchable). It wasn't because they weren't good, but because they could play them without having to be stressed out about whether or not they'd waste their time playing at all.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 12:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MRHblue wrote:
So its a dead even split, despite you saying it was a majority agreeing with you, then try and spin the ones who don't agree. Where exactly did you put me in that 'analysis'?

Yup, I was wrong about there being a majority. Amazing what happens when you actually look at things objectively instead of subjectively or off of memory.

I put you as an implied "ban Iona" .. .didn't see you explicitly say that you wanted her banned, but you did say something along the lines of "I don't like cards designed to stop people from casting spells based on color, in a color limited format" and "all downside to casual players"

Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to when I say that I "try and spin the ones who don't agree."? I mean ... it's a sample size of 18 people. That makes the results pretty statistically insignificant. I was just curious what I would find. And I figured since I had the information, others might be curious as well.

On the up side - we now have someone else saying that Iona is an actual problem in their group. More information that we didn't have before.
Swmystery wrote:
How can you be so sure of yourself, given that?
Because all that we both have is what we have posted here, and our own experiences. And I can be so sure because I'm talking about needing the majority, while you talk in absolutes.
Swmystery wrote:
I replied that it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree- one compelling argument would be enough to sway me. It still would. What part of this is wrong?
That thread was talking about Iona being a bannable card. And we don't ban cards just because a few groups have issues with her and they make some good points. We ban a card if it is actively causing issues in a significant portion of the format's groups (of which we don't have the data here to accurately represent - we both seem to agree on that) and there is good reasons to ban the card. You were only talking about the latter bit. That's not the whole picture on how/why cards get banned (or else Iona would have been banned by now I think.)

Swmystery wrote:
No, that's a criteria you've invented.
That's standard criteria to alter the status quo. Not something I've invented. And the onus on people wanting Kokusho unbanned was to demonstrate that it's fine now. People went out and tested it.
Swmystery wrote:
As I said earlier in the thread, especially in smaller games, dead players are a lot of value.
It that you keep coming back to that reasoning for choosing the colour of Iona that shows the issue you are facing is player dependent. Yes, a dead opponent can be useful ... but often I've seen that to be the worse play. Sure, may win you that game, but then that player has it out for you directly for the next bunch of games. You don't get to start the game with a neutral slate vs all your opponents, you have one already gunning for your head with zeal (and sometimes regardless of what the others are doing.) All your examples seem to ignore the political aspect. Which is odd, considering the one person with the power to influence a ban on her who chimed in here was focusing on the political aspect of the card.
Swmystery wrote:
You have claimed this still doesn't accurately reflect the big picture because it doesn't match your experiences. How many more would you like me to find?
One of the things to keep in mind, is that those who post on forums aren't the typical person who plays magic. We're people who have a much higher interest in the game. You need to try and figure out how to determine what is happening at the games where nobody there comes online to talk about. The RC tries this by talking with people at large events (as it can draw out the local people who don't go to magic forums.) Alternately, if you have other sources of online representation regarding her and people's local metagames - so far you've just been using your own experiences which are tainted by players who don't play as is intended for the format.
Swmystery wrote:
For the last time, I have not claimed my experience is the majority. I claimed it was a higher number than you thought it was. I also claimed that my experience didn't need to be a majority for Iona to be banworthy, and I stand by both those claims.
You have made absolute claims about stuff that is blatantly and provably false. Those are the ones I was talking about.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 5:04 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to when I say that I "try and spin the ones who don't agree."? I mean ... it's a sample size of 18 people. That makes the results pretty statistically insignificant. I was just curious what I would find. And I figured since I had the information, others might be curious as well.


Whilst I appreciate you collating the data, he's probably referring to the "9 people want Iona banned, but 7 for philosophical reasons" bit.

Carthain wrote:
Because all that we both have is what we have posted here, and our own experiences. And I can be so sure because I'm talking about needing the majority, while you talk in absolutes.


So if all we both have is what we have posted here, and our own experiences...how on earth can you be sure the majority backs you? Neither of those are enough to indicate that. I don't claim anything near that strong when we're talking about actual playgroups. I just say Iona ruins more games than you think she does.

Carthain wrote:
That thread was talking about Iona being a bannable card. And we don't ban cards just because a few groups have issues with her and they make some good points.


Right, but I'm suggesting we should. I'm aware this isn't how we currently ban things (though I think Iona meets the current ban critieria anyway). I'm in favour of changing this policy- remember, I also want T&N gone and your post is a perfect description of that card's situation too.

That thread started by you asserting that most players/groups don't agree with me. I replied that the number of people who disagreed with me makes no difference to my position, hence why I said one good argument would convince me.

Carthain wrote:
We ban a card if it is actively causing issues in a significant portion of the format's groups (of which we don't have the data here to accurately represent - we both seem to agree on that) and there is good reasons to ban the card. You were only talking about the latter bit. That's not the whole picture on how/why cards get banned (or else Iona would have been banned by now I think.)


You seem to think, based on this, that issues in the majority/significant number of groups are necessary for us to ban a card. But they aren't- Trade Secrets, Painter's Servant, Erayo, and Braids definitely weren't doing that when they were banned, or in Braid's case moved from banned-as-Commander to banned simpliciter. There's other cases too- if cards are banned immediately after release (Griselbrand, Worldfire, etc) for interacting badly with the format then they basically don't have the chance to reach that level of saturation, so it cannot be a necessary condition. Nor should it be.

Carthain wrote:
That's standard criteria to alter the status quo. Not something I've invented.


With respect, that's not the case. The status quo doesn't magically make your position any stronger or mine any weaker. The onus is on both of us to defend our own arguments. If Iona is causing problems, and it is (we dispute the extent), the onus on you to defend that status quo. You don't just get to say "this is how it is, you need to show me it's wrong and I don't have to do anything."

Carthain wrote:
It that you keep coming back to that reasoning for choosing the colour of Iona that shows the issue you are facing is player dependent. Yes, a dead opponent can be useful ... but often I've seen that to be the worse play.


I believe you when you say this is your experience. You seem to believe me when I say mine is often very different- that often it's the better play in my group and at least some others.

Having both admitted we lack the data to say whose experience is more common, are we simply now comparing testimony again?

Carthain wrote:
Sure, it may win you that game, but then that player has it out for you directly for the next bunch of games. You don't get to start the game with a neutral slate vs all your opponents, you have one already gunning for your head with zeal (and sometimes regardless of what the others are doing.


That sounds massively anti-social to me. If people are often gunning for each other based on their past actions, that sounds like a player issue with that group.

Carthain wrote:
All your examples seem to ignore the political aspect. Which is odd, considering the one person with the power to influence a ban on her who chimed in here was focusing on the political aspect of the card.


I only place a low emphasis on the political because, as I said to that person, one can often only be political when playing against Iona as a locked deck if the other players need you or are charitable. The first at least doesn't happen often, I hope we can agree. Why else would they waste their removal spells on a card that's not a threat to them, and is keeping one of their mutual enemies in check? You often have nothing to negotiate with unless 1) they need you alive to handle the Iona player, or 2) you're threatening reprisals in future games, which is not ok.

Politics in EDH is founded on the basic "you help me I help you" principle. But I can't help anyone whilst under an Iona lock (well, unless the Iona player has been a fool and locked me whilst I've got a board state to beat them to death with), so Iona actually chills the political element of the game rather than enhances it. Colourless answers to Iona don't help this either- if I can answer Iona myself, I obviously don't need political allies to do it.

Carthain wrote:
One of the things to keep in mind, is that those who post on forums aren't the typical person who plays magic. We're people who have a much higher interest in the game. You need to try and figure out how to determine what is happening at the games where nobody there comes online to talk about. The RC tries this by talking with people at large events (as it can draw out the local people who don't go to magic forums.) Alternately, if you have other sources of online representation regarding her and people's local metagames - so far you've just been using your own experiences which are tainted by players who don't play as is intended for the format.


Absolutely. I agree completely. This is why I believe generally most people who play Magic are ill-equipped to answer Iona (re: the length of the average Iona lock), and why for the "typical" person who plays Magic if Iona shows up it's a negative experience.

Now, Segrus. I said I'd come back to you. I appreciate your consistency. I would not, in fact, extend the argument as far as kill spells, wraths, and counterspells, though I understand why you think I would. That's because I don't really think you can be justifiably upset by the mere fact of people playing those sorts of cards, in the way you can be with tuck and Iona. And, indeed, the way you approach those sorts of cases is rightfully different (you don't stop playing all kill spells/wraths/counterspells, you just don't play decks that overload on them).

I understand why you'd think it's a player issue that my group places the tactical power of Iona (et al), above people's fun. On further reflection, I agree with you. However, I still think that there are still inherent card issues with Iona because of how her abilities interact with the format's rules and the type of environment she often (not always, but often) encourages. especially if one thinks holding back is disrespectful to one's opponents (not that I do). The fact that my meta has a player issue with her, which I now accept, does not somehow negate the stuff that her abilities alone cause.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 5:16 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Swmystery wrote:
Carthain wrote:
Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to when I say that I "try and spin the ones who don't agree."? I mean ... it's a sample size of 18 people. That makes the results pretty statistically insignificant. I was just curious what I would find. And I figured since I had the information, others might be curious as well.


Whilst I appreciate you collating the data, he's probably referring to the "9 people want Iona banned, but 7 for philosophical reasons" bit.
Exactly correct.

And to put me in that 7 is pretty skewed, since I have been for her banning for years, and been on record about that and why.

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 1:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MRHblue wrote:
And to put me in that 7 is pretty skewed, since I have been for her banning for years, and been on record about that and why.

I'm pretty sure I was explicit on saying I was looking at stuff from this thread. So if you haven't reiterated everything you've previously said, it's not my fault for not including it.

So MRHblue, does Iona cause a problem in your local metagame?

Swmystery wrote:
So if all we both have is what we have posted here, and our own experiences...how on earth can you be sure the majority backs you?
Because I also have history on my side. I do fully believe that if Iona was a problem in the majority of metagames, that she would likely be banned. Yet, she's got over 6 years of not being banned ... so I conclude that she's not an issue for the majority of groups.
Swmystery wrote:
You seem to think, based on this, that issues in the majority/significant number of groups are necessary for us to ban a card.
Let me be more explicit then: In this case, the majority needs to. Why? Because she's been legal for over 6 years, has been brought up as a card desired by people to be banned, but hasn't been. Nothing about her has changed over the years - she's not got any errata, the format hasn't significantly changed in any way that relates to her ability ... so what else could be enough to suddenly make her ban worthy? A shift in how many metagames she's a problem in would do it.

And, as much as you keep saying she's ban-worthy based on the ban criteria (which is only a guideline) - she obviously isn't in the eyes of the RC, or else she would have been banned already, don't you think?
Swmystery wrote:
That sounds massively anti-social to me. If people are often gunning for each other based on their past actions, that sounds like a player issue with that group.
That's a form of politics. I'm not surprised you don't agree, as it seems you don't see Iona as a potential political card (while others do.)

It may be somewhat anti-social ... but it's also potentially a case of "fighting-fire-with-fire." We've gotten rid of some problematic commanders in our local groups by doing this -- and the games we have are better because of it. But we are also very up front about why we are doing such things. It's a form of diplomacy. Akin to various businesses (film makers, sports associations, etc) threatening to stop using a location if they pass certain legislature. It's all part of diplomacy. You leverage what you have to persuade others to play nice.

Swmystery wrote:
Politics in EDH is founded on the basic "you help me I help you" principle. But I can't help anyone whilst under an Iona lock (well, unless the Iona player has been a fool and locked me whilst I've got a board state to beat them to death with), so Iona actually chills the political element of the game rather than enhances it. Colourless answers to Iona don't help this either- if I can answer Iona myself, I obviously don't need political allies to do it.
Do you really think that's all there is? What about the very basic situation of "If you get rid of Iona, once she's gone I can help you do ______" ? Yes, while you are under the lock you are very limited in what you can accomplish -- but after 2-3 turns of being under a lock, surely you've drawn some things that you can target the way someone else might wish if they are willing to help you out.

You continue to draw very basic and black and white situations of the politics available to you.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 4:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2013-Aug-06 1:27 pm
Age: Drake
Would anyone in this thread ever ask another player to make a move knowing it would hurt that player?

I think this question tells a lot about a person and how they play EDH.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 5:57 pm 

Joined: 2009-May-05 9:45 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Acworth, GA
MatthewB wrote:
Would anyone in this thread ever ask another player to make a move knowing it would hurt that player?

I think this question tells a lot about a person and how they play EDH.


It is more telling of the people they play with, since very few would do that playing with a regular group of friends, while most would if playing with strangers they never expected to see again. Sadly, the vast majority of people have less integrity the lower the applied level of accountability in the situation is. The internet proves this time and time again.

It is the old point that integrity is defined by what you would not do, even if 100% sure you would have gotten away with it.

_________________
Well, that was special.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 6:36 pm 

Joined: 2013-Oct-09 7:02 am
Age: Elder Dragon
MatthewB wrote:
Would anyone in this thread ever ask another player to make a move knowing it would hurt that player?

I think this question tells a lot about a person and how they play EDH.

Um... I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean like, "Could you please kill your own creature?"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-15 8:25 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
MatthewB wrote:
Would anyone in this thread ever ask another player to make a move knowing it would hurt that player?

I think this question tells a lot about a person and how they play EDH.


Just responding to this separately so it doesn't get trapped in the next long post.

So, I'm reading this question as "would you ask someone to do something they know is bad for them, for your sake/the sake of the game?" In essence, sub-optimal play for other people's fun. Please correct me if that's not the case.

I have, in the past, after twiddling my thumbs under a particularly long Iona lock, asked the Iona player to sacrifice it so I could cast something. Is this the sort of thing you mean? Normally I wouldn't do something like this.

Note that trying to deceive someone about what's good and bad for them is very amusing and not at all the same thing.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-16 12:02 am 

Joined: 2011-Sep-30 6:08 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I think there is a huge grey area here. The "political" game in EDH is encouraging people to do things that they seem as good for them, but you see as good (potentially better) for you. If you end up winning the game, you could easily argue that anything they did that benefited you was "bad" for them.

How overtly bad are we talking here?

_________________
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Cryocerete (sp?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-16 12:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crokaycete wrote:
I think there is a huge grey area here. The "political" game in EDH is encouraging people to do things that they seem as good for them, but you see as good (potentially better) for you. If you end up winning the game, you could easily argue that anything they did that benefited you was "bad" for them.

It doesn't even have to be better for you -- you can do politics just by pointing out options, and how it will benefit the player. It may even benefit them more than you. I've seen lots of time someone is choosing targets for stuff and they just didn't see a card come down, or forgot it was there and should be removed.

But asking a player to do something that negatively impacts that player (and doesn't impact anyone else) .. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-16 1:12 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
I want Iona banned, along with grindstone, so I can have painters servant back. That is all.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-16 3:48 am 

Joined: 2012-Jun-01 6:02 am
Age: Drake
Location: South Carolina
After reading all 12 (as of this writing) pages of this (surprisingly civil) discussion, I want to say this:

  • There's been a bit of talk about the Rules Committee accumulating data, and until the last post or so I had no idea where they were getting this data from, so thanks for shedding some light on that. I do wonder about the difference in people who attend large-scale events versus kitchen table/LGS metagames, though.
  • I want Iona banned, and I never understood why she wasn't banned because of the color interaction reasons already mentioned. But, I'm the kind of player who took Food Chain out of my Prossh deck after realizing what it did mid-game, and I am still looking for a way to make mono-blue not obnoxious, so I might not be best indicator of what's going on in the World at Large.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: