Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-20 4:10 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-12 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-May-16 12:03 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: The Blind Eternities
Hello ladies and gentlemen, I’m here today to propose an idea for a new card banning criteria since some things even need to change, so as not to waste any time. Let’s get started!

1. Mana cost, primarily focusing on the Mana cost vs. The Effect severity of the card. A decent example would be Limited Resources, a White mana for an enchantment that causes major land destruction and prevents players from playing lands. Now compared to Armageddon, 4 CMC to destroy all lands as opposed to limiting the number of lands (Albeit as much as everyone despises land destruction). Limited resources can be played turn one while Armageddon would take 3 to 4 turns to be played.

2. Monetary cost, taking into account the old philosophy, some super expensive cards deserve a ban for their sheer cost alone. This rule I would definitely incorporate into the new criteria.

3.Card Interactions, namely broken ones that affect gameplay severely, now they aren’t many that may meet this but to give an example. Dark Depths + Vampire Hexmage, which turns something that normally costs 30 mana into 2 mana cost, and that played turn three is devastating. This also takes #1 effect, Mana cost vs. Effect severity, so by this logic, Vampire hexmage would be banned for having multiple broken interactions with other cards, of course this is just an example.

4.Counterability, How easily and quickly can something be countered, and taking #3 into consideration. While most card are counterable, their interactions can quickly sour a game. An example of such would be Iona, Shield of Emeria whom can null the usage of a specific color (Albeit Devoid screws her big time as a threat), but if a Swiftfoot boots/lightning greaves attached to her, it lowers her counterability, hypothetically increasing priority for her ban.

5.Rarity and Availability, How commonly available is said card available in retail locations and taking Criteria #2 in consideration. A lot of cards that fall into Tenth edition sets and before they started printing the modern-esqued borders are hard to come by and often fall into a higher price range as opposed to recently printed cards. Example, Prophet of Kruphix vs. Seedborn muse, a 5$ vs. 22$ to 30$, which one would be more logical to pick when playing a casual format.

6.Frequency of play, namely certain combinations or cards, cards themselves, or even decks, that alter gameplay or affect how players play. If said card or combination becomes Hyperprevalent, it increases its priority for ban. *See addendum

7.Community Survey, if a card reaches a high enough priority for a ban, we the community should vote on its banning and the case for its banning, not a council. If we all agree to ban a card based on evidence that it alters gameplay drastically or creates an unfair board state, it will be the community’s decision.

*One issue I noticed with the prior ban criteria is their playtest group which in my opinion is limiting in some way. Most players may build decks according to lists online but some careful construct their decks to a certain principle or theme. In Game Shop Environment or on MTGO, there is always cycling of players and different decks, sure they may have the same commander but they may play different

Now I hope the community will discuss my idea for a revised banning criteria because there is some cards on the banlist that aren’t worthy of being banned.

_________________
Image

RaiRai's Decks of Otherworldlyness:

Unknown Horizons
Bane of the Vast 1.0
Call from Eternity
Twisted Nightmares


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-12 4:54 pm 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
How large do you think a ban list based on these criteria would be?

RaiRai wrote:
7.Community Survey, if a card reaches a high enough priority for a ban, we the community should vote on its banning and the case for its banning, not a council. If we all agree to ban a card based on evidence that it alters gameplay drastically or creates an unfair board state, it will be the community’s decision.
And the people who don't frequent this board don't count as a part of our EDH community? What makes the users on this website better equipped to decide a cards legal status than "a council"? What stops good finishing cards ending up on the list because people a tired of losing to them? How do cards get off your proposed list?

_________________
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: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-12 5:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
1. I'm going with a solid no on this one. Serra Ascendant, Sylvan Library, Rhystic Study, Phyrexian Reclamation, Impending Disaster, Beast Within, Sol Ring, Vindicate, Chaos Warp, Mana Drain, Force of Will, and Swords to Plowshares are a bunch of examples of criminally undercosted cards (mana wise), all of which should NEVER be considered for banning. Furthermore, I'd argue there has yet to be a card banned whose status would be affected in either direction by the existence of this criterion.

2. Calling it "monetary cost" completely misses the point of why the current policy ("Creates a perceived barrier to entry") is in place.

3. Your explanation of this one is so full of holes I'm not even sure where to start. The first being that Hexmage is a terrible terrible example. Out of all of the cheesy two card combos you had to choose from, you picked one that is barely playable, virtually never complained about, and then added some weird elaborations (30 mana? Hexmage having other broken interactions?) that actually worked to discredit your argument. Secondly banning combo pieces in general is just a stupid idea for a non-competive format like EDH. You ban one, players will move on to the next, and nothing will have been accomplished. That very mentality was what killed 5-Color Star, and it was the policy of the EDH RC until they realized that it doesn't work and have currently erased all (except one card) of the damage done by that failed philosophy.

4. I think this idea is merely an example of an "undesirable game state", an already existing and more broad/encompassing idea. Especially since plenty of cards like Tefer, Mage of Zhalfir or Thrun, the Last Troll have little to no counterplay but are far from broken/problematic.

5. I'm honestly not even sure what you're saying. Are you saying rarer cards are worse because only some can have them, or are more common cards worse because everybody and their mother is playing them?

6. Can't argue with this too much, except to say that this one is rarely relevant except in extreme cases. As in out of all the cards on the banlist, I'd argue that only 4 of them (PT, SP, Prophet, and RN) even took this into consideration, and I'm not even sure about the last 3.

7. No. Just no. This format was created by the RC (specifically Sheldon) to pursue their/his vision. They have a specific goal for the format. If you don't like it, you can house rule it differently or find a different format. That isn't to say that they shouldn't listen to popular opinion, but the end decision should be down to a benevolent autocracy. Especially since there is no one "EDH community", creating all sorts of logistical problems alongside philosophical/logical ones.

*Ummm, what? I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say, especially because what it seems you're saying (the RC bases most its decisions off their own playgroup/personal experiences) is just flat out wrong.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-12 7:34 pm 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
RaiRai wrote:
*One issue I noticed with the prior ban criteria is their playtest group which in my opinion is limiting in some way.


Hi, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm curious about this opinion. Could you tell us what about the current playtest group structure is limiting?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-12 10:26 pm 

Joined: 2016-Feb-13 2:14 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Orlando, Florida
1. While mana cost is occasionally a factor in what goes on the ban list, it is not nearly as important as damaging the format itself. Cards like the infamous Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix highlight that, where games become centered around one card, and not the multiplayer environment where crazy and epic plays are supposed to happen, not "ramp all the lands out of my deck and win" or "play all of my creatures and counter all your spells" games that those two cards tend to make.

2. "Monetary cost" is exactly the same as "creates a high perceived barrier to entry." Not every expensive card belongs on the list, as not every deck would play them. I just spent $600USD on a copy of The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale. Is it expensive? Oh yes. Would every deck play it? Of course not.

3. Card interactions are not factors when it comes to cards being banned, unless they are common to the format, like reanimation and clone effects. Dark Depths and Hexmage are a combo. Don't like it? Play exile removal, bounce Marit Lage, destroy the land itself in response to the Hexmage activation. Combos in a 99 card deck are to be encouraged, not discouraged, as they are difficult to pull off due to the nature of the format.


4. This is already part of the ban criteria. Moving on.

5. So you want to punish players who took the time to get hard to find cards in the only format that really highlights their play? No. That defeats part of what it means to play this format to begin with. Also, saying old frame cards are hard to find is silly. If your local store doesn't carry them, there are plenty of stores online that do. I recently built a themed Old Phyrexian deck for kitchen table Legacy with my playgroup, and I had to buy most of the cards for it. The newest cards in that deck are from 2001 (Invasion Block).

6. Ubiquity is the word you're looking for, and is already part of the ban criteria. In fact, that was part of the reason Emrakul, Prophet of Kruphix, and Primeval Titan were banned. They were everywhere and over centralizing. Next.

7. No, some direction of purpose and unity is required to make EDH a healthy format. The rules committee listens to us when things become a problem, and have made this a fun and engaging format.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 3:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-May-16 12:03 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: The Blind Eternities
MRHblue wrote:
How large do you think a ban list based on these criteria would be?

RaiRai wrote:
7.Community Survey, if a card reaches a high enough priority for a ban, we the community should vote on its banning and the case for its banning, not a council. If we all agree to ban a card based on evidence that it alters gameplay drastically or creates an unfair board state, it will be the community’s decision.
And the people who don't frequent this board don't count as a part of our EDH community? What makes the users on this website better equipped to decide a cards legal status than "a council"? What stops good finishing cards ending up on the list because people a tired of losing to them? How do cards get off your proposed list?



Ehh, it might remove some cards from the ban list while adding some cards, it all depends if they meet the criteria.

People who don't frequent the board count, but I would say we represent a good portion of EDH community. "What stops good finishing cards from ending up on a ban list." well, the Frequency of play criteria, which means statistically how many decks and players are using said card both online and in real life play.Example, Repercussion, an enchantment that is shenanigans with blasphemous act, Online lets say only 1 out of 10 MTGO Players have reperchssion in their commander deck that incorporates red, and 0 out of 10 Real life Players have in their deck, meaning stastically speaking only 5 out of 100 players use it, which wouldn't count against it being banned. It also being from older edition would count against it being banned, as well as it being cheap.

papa_funk wrote:
RaiRai wrote:
*One issue I noticed with the prior ban criteria is their playtest group which in my opinion is limiting in some way.


Hi, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm curious about this opinion. Could you tell us what about the current playtest group structure is limiting?


Well presuming you have a smaller playtest group than the population that most Players encounter, you won't encounter decks and combinations that most people actually play. I lived in vegas and at my local card shop for commander night, we were always cycling through new players and their respective decks, partially since they were military personnel and always coming and going, along with diversity of strategies except for the occasional deck built using a tappedout deck list.I'd say probably have played with 30 to 40 different players and against roughly that many commander decks, 10 of them the usimg same freaking Kaalia of Vast deck mind you.

Uktabi_Kong wrote:
1. I'm going with a solid no on this one. Serra Ascendant, Sylvan Library, Rhystic Study, Phyrexian Reclamation, Impending Disaster, Beast Within, Sol Ring, Vindicate, Chaos Warp, Mana Drain, Force of Will, and Swords to Plowshares are a bunch of examples of criminally undercosted cards (mana wise), all of which should NEVER be considered for banning. Furthermore, I'd argue there has yet to be a card banned whose status would be affected in either direction by the existence of this criterion.

3. Your explanation of this one is so full of holes I'm not even sure where to start. The first being that Hexmage is a terrible terrible example. Out of all of the cheesy two card combos you had to choose from, you picked one that is barely playable, virtually never complained about, and then added some weird elaborations (30 mana? Hexmage having other broken interactions?) that actually worked to discredit your argument. Secondly banning combo pieces in general is just a stupid idea for a non-competive format like EDH. You ban one, players will move on to the next, and nothing will have been accomplished. That very mentality was what killed 5-Color Star, and it was the policy of the EDH RC until they realized that it doesn't work and have currently erased all (except one card) of the damage done by that failed philosophy.

5. I'm honestly not even sure what you're saying. Are you saying rarer cards are worse because only some can have them, or are more common cards worse because everybody and their mother is playing them?

6. Can't argue with this too much, except to say that this one is rarely relevant except in extreme cases. As in out of all the cards on the banlist, I'd argue that only 4 of them (PT, SP, Prophet, and RN) even took this into consideration, and I'm not even sure about the last 3.
.


Utabii_kong I was referring to cards such as Forbid, Limited Resources and cards with Effects that would be normally associated with cards with higher CMC but instead have a disproportionate mana cost. The cards you mentioned don't even remotely come close to it, especially with such a low severity.

For Vampire hexmage and Dark depths, I was just using it as a sample of a broken interaction because it was the one on off the top of my head at that moment. I was saying if a card had a broken interaction with another it would count towards the consideration of it potentially being banned.

As far as availability, and considering I mentioned we need to considering the cost of said card and the availability of a card from its set. I would say that the more available a card is the less likely the chance it should be banned, because the chance its alternatives might be way more expensive and harder to come by, which I exampled with the Prophet versus Seedborn muse.

Yeah, A lot of cards that are on the banlist now probably didn't even consider how frequently some cards are even played, and should considered be unbanned in my opinion since some are highly unlikely to be encountered. Example, i never once playing against Blue Green deck have I ever seen anyone use prophet of Kruphix before it was banned.

Marit Lage wrote:
1. While mana cost is occasionally a factor in what goes on the ban list, it is not nearly as important as damaging the format itself. Cards like the infamous Primeval Titan and Prophet of Kruphix highlight that, where games become centered around one card, and not the multiplayer environment where crazy and epic plays are supposed to happen, not "ramp all the lands out of my deck and win" or "play all of my creatures and counter all your spells" games that those two cards tend to make.

5. So you want to punish players who took the time to get hard to find cards in the only format that really highlights their play? No. That defeats part of what it means to play this format to begin with. Also, saying old frame cards are hard to find is silly. If your local store doesn't carry them, there are plenty of stores online that do. I recently built a themed Old Phyrexian deck for kitchen table Legacy with my playgroup, and I had to buy most of the cards for it. The newest cards in that deck are from 2001 (Invasion Block).


Umm, you do realize you don't even need prophet of Kruphix in blue green to ramp out creatures, there is lands that compensate for that such as Urza's lands, and if you seen my Blue Green Kruphix, God of Horizions eldrazi deck, you know I could ramp every creature in my deck. Removing some of these cards actually hinder the format.

Vintage and legacy highlight older cards but I'm going to emphasize the fact that older editions are harder to come by, and not many new commander players are going to feel weclomed when their opponents decks are comprised of editions that they have little to no access and knowledge of and to.

_________________
Image

RaiRai's Decks of Otherworldlyness:

Unknown Horizons
Bane of the Vast 1.0
Call from Eternity
Twisted Nightmares


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 4:14 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
RaiRai wrote:
People who don't frequent the board count, but I would say we represent a good portion of EDH community.
We would strongly disagree about that estimation.
Quote:
"What stops good finishing cards from ending up on a ban list." well, the Frequency of play criteria, which means statistically how many decks and players are using said card both online and in real life play.Example, Repercussion, an enchantment that is shenanigans with blasphemous act, Online lets say only 1 out of 10 MTGO Players have reperchssion in their commander deck that incorporates red, and 0 out of 10 Real life Players have in their deck, meaning stastically speaking only 5 out of 100 players use it, which wouldn't count against it being banned. It also being from older edition would count against it being banned, as well as it being cheap.

I really think interactions like you describe here and with Vampire Hexmage are just terrible banning criteria. They don't have good enough definitions, and boil down to 'combos RaiRai does not like'. It would make the ban list long and poorly defined.

No thanks.

_________________
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: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 4:28 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Some random thoughts, since i can't bother to properly articulate and quote.

What's the point of ban list criteria if people are going to vote anyway? It either meets well thought out criteria or it doesn't. If it has to meet criteria before we vote, why even vote - it meets the criteria. If it doesn't have to meet the criteria before we vote - why have any criteria at all?
How does it ever get "high enough priority" since some people are going to say some ban criteria are ridiculous, or disagree about the severity?

You said people who are not on this forum matter, but how is that true? They aren't here to vote. That means only the voters matter, or we have to presume to vote on their behalf.

Are you saying Limited Resources should or should not be banned? I can't even tell if you already know it's banned or not.

Just because you never saw Prophet of Kruphix doesn't mean it was not played.
Re: Seedborn @ $30 and Prophet @ $5 which would be a better choice for a casual format? - Seedborn by a margin. Because Prophet is ugly amounts of broken. Even though i miss it.

Re: some cards being banned even if they will be very rarely played - they are stupidly broken and are poor cards in this format. Sway of the Stars is dumb and should be banned. Worldfire is dumb and should be banned.

Repercussion costs $3, doesn't matter how old the set is. No one plays it. It's not really that good. That's why it's $3 and who doesn't have a card to order one online? In no way should "From Urza's block" mean "it's old, most people can't even get one".
Price should never, ever be considered for bans/unbans. Seedborn muse may eventually be reprinted into a $5 card in a standard legal set. Are you going to just ban it when it's $30 and from old sets, then unban when it's new and $5, and then ban it once more if it's not reprinted in 8 years and they are $40? (Seedborn is example. I literally can not even tell if you are advocating for a Seedborn ban)

So Kaalia was popular in your meta. What is the point of mentioning that? It doesn't even seem related to the point you were making about your revolving door of players. I for one have played against a Kaalia deck exactly only once.

Forbid is good only in very certain decks. 2 cards to get a free (well, not 'free' because you still pay the mana cost unlike Force of Will) counterspell is actually steep.

Urza's lands lol.

Where's the RC in all this? The thing i can't get behind is why people would think a voting system would ever happen. What a privileged misconception of what this actually is. It's not yours. Just because they throw around the word casual and social doesn't mean anyone has the entitlement to turn it into a voting system. They are actually too lax with the format by saying it's casual, social, and 'you should house rule bans or unbans and mulligans if you want'. I mean, that's all true and a solid suggestion, but obviously people totally misinterpret the intention.
"Given an inch, and they take a mile".
This is just like entitlement anywhere else - new soldiers, my daughter, social media vloggers, kid celebrities. Yuck.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 4:39 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Current criteria are fine.

As said, the voting criterion is nonsense. Voting belongs to house rules and possibly league stuff, not format wide changes.

Price only matters when the price adversely affects the format. If the moxen were legal they could potentially turn off players from the format (though I don't think so any longer). If sol ring were $150+ it could understandably be banned, but its cheap and readily available and isn't a big deal otherwise. We don't ban cards for being expensive (mishra's workshop for example) unless allowing them to run around in the format would hurt it.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 5:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
niheloim wrote:
Current criteria are fine.

As said, the voting criterion is nonsense. Voting belongs to house rules and possibly league stuff, not format wide changes.

Price only matters when the price adversely affects the format. If the moxen were legal they could potentially turn off players from the format (though I don't think so any longer). If sol ring were $150+ it could understandably be banned, but its cheap and readily available and isn't a big deal otherwise. We don't ban cards for being expensive (mishra's workshop for example) unless allowing them to run around in the format would hurt it.

All of this.

The vote thing especially is a terrible idea. 2 problems;
Logistics: Actually doing this would be a huge pain in the spanx.
Human nature: Sometimes the unpopular decision is the best decision. Leaving management of the format up to a popular vote is a very bad idea.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 6:13 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
RaiRai wrote:
papa_funk wrote:
RaiRai wrote:
*One issue I noticed with the prior ban criteria is their playtest group which in my opinion is limiting in some way.


Hi, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm curious about this opinion. Could you tell us what about the current playtest group structure is limiting?


Well presuming you have a smaller playtest group than the population that most Players encounter, you won't encounter decks and combinations that most people actually play.


Now I'm confused. You say that, in your opinion, the RCs playtest group is limiting, but now you are saying that you don't know how the RC works and are merely presuming. These would seem to be incompatible statements.

How do you call for change when you don't know what it is that you are trying to change?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 6:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
RaiRai wrote:
Uktabi_kong I was referring to cards such as Forbid, Limited Resources and cards with Effects that would be normally associated with cards with higher CMC but instead have a disproportionate mana cost. The cards you mentioned don't even remotely come close to it, especially with such a low severity.

For Vampire hexmage and Dark depths, I was just using it as a sample of a broken interaction because it was the one on off the top of my head at that moment. I was saying if a card had a broken interaction with another it would count towards the consideration of it potentially being banned.

As far as availability, and considering I mentioned we need to considering the cost of said card and the availability of a card from its set. I would say that the more available a card is the less likely the chance it should be banned, because the chance its alternatives might be way more expensive and harder to come by, which I exampled with the Prophet versus Seedborn muse.

Yeah, A lot of cards that are on the banlist now probably didn't even consider how frequently some cards are even played, and should considered be unbanned in my opinion since some are highly unlikely to be encountered. Example, i never once playing against Blue Green deck have I ever seen anyone use prophet of Kruphix before it was banned.
1. What? Forbid isn't even close to undercosted: it's a Cancel with an optional upside, the upside itself coming at a severe card disadvantage. And using your Limited Resources example of being 3 undercosted:
Rhystic Study+Sylvan Library: effects at 2-3 mana that normally see play at 5-6
Serra Ascenant: a 1 mana Baneslayer Angel
Sol Ring: An effect usually seen at 3-4 mana on a 1 colorless artifact
Impending Disaster: 2 mana Armageddon
Vindicate, Beast Within, Chaos Warp: 3 mana effects, usually seen in the 6-7 range
Mana Drain: A strictly better version of an already undercosted card (Counterspell), having a functional reprint at the cost of 4 and being multicolored.
Force of Will: It's a free Counterspell. Free is much less than 2
Swords to Plowshares: Exile target creature, unrestricted. Most of these effects are seen at 3-4 mana.

3. Except it's not an example of a broken interaction, at least by the standards of EDH. In 60-card where Marit Lage can literally one-shot a player and the combo itself can make up roughly 15% of the whole deck, it is arguably broken. In EDH, where you fight multiple opponents, they all take (at least) 2 hits to die, and the odds of getting the combo without tutors/excessive draw is tiny? Not even close. And my point is that when you use an example this poor instead of one of the dozens of FAR better examples (Twin/Kiki, Mike&Trike, Craterhoof+any token maker, DEN, ect), it gives the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about.

5. Doesn't this contradict the idea of extreme ubiquity being a criterion? If it's easily accessible, then that lowers the chance of it being banned, but if it sees a lot of play it raises it? There's also the fact that cards like Prophet don't have any "replacement". Sure, there are cards that can duplicate parts of its abilities, but not them together, and with those two abilities, the whole was far greater than the sum of the parts. Same with pretty much every card that's been banned in the past 5-7 years.

6. To start off, your experience with Prophet is far from the norm. Not that there's ever been a popular vote to ban a card before, but the banning of Prophet is about as close as we'll ever get (Primeval Titan and Sylvan Primoridal were up there too) to that. Secondly, while I agree with the genera sentiment that the banlist should be as small as possible, the way to achieve that isn't to unban blatantly problematic cards because "oh, nobody uses them anyway".
RaiRai wrote:
Umm, you do realize you don't even need prophet of Kruphix in blue green to ramp out creatures.
Removing some of these cards actually hinder the format.
These two sentences contradict each other. How does banning a card hurt the format if the decks that can use it can do the non-broken things it does fine without it?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 6:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
Secondly, while I agree with the genera sentiment that the banlist should be as small as possible, the way to achieve that isn't to unban blatantly problematic cards because "oh, nobody uses them anyway".

That nobody uses them is probably heavily influenced by currently being on the ban list :) That's lovely logic you've found in RaiRai.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 8:58 am 

Joined: 2016-Feb-13 2:14 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Orlando, Florida
RaiRai wrote:
Umm, you do realize you don't even need prophet of Kruphix in blue green to ramp out creatures, there is lands that compensate for that such as Urza's lands, and if you seen my Blue Green Kruphix, God of Horizions eldrazi deck, you know I could ramp every creature in my deck. Removing some of these cards actually hinder the format.

Vintage and legacy highlight older cards but I'm going to emphasize the fact that older editions are harder to come by, and not many new commander players are going to feel weclomed when their opponents decks are comprised of editions that they have little to no access and knowledge of and to.

1. Primeval Titan does the ramping. Read my post more carefully next time. And removal of problematic cards enhances the format in ways you might not get to see, and if you don't understand a ban ruling or anything else, ask instead of assuming you know why. You've made that mistake more than once already.

2. Your inability or unwillingness to learn about and acquire older cards shouldn't hamper my ability to play them. The same goes for new players. Most of then have no idea of what some cards do, and that's fine. They'll learn. As should you. There are plenty of databases online for magic cards. Try magiccards.info. It's easy to use, and all the scans are high quality.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Idea for a revised card ban critera
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-13 10:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-May-16 12:03 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: The Blind Eternities
Sovarius wrote:
Some random thoughts, since i can't bother to properly articulate and quote.

What's the point of ban list criteria if people are going to vote anyway? It either meets well thought out criteria or it doesn't. If it has to meet criteria before we vote, why even vote - it meets the criteria. If it doesn't have to meet the criteria before we vote - why have any criteria at all?
How does it ever get "high enough priority" since some people are going to say some ban criteria are ridiculous, or disagree about the severity?

You said people who are not on this forum matter, but how is that true? They aren't here to vote. That means only the voters matter, or we have to presume to vote on their behalf.

Are you saying Limited Resources should or should not be banned? I can't even tell if you already know it's banned or not.

Just because you never saw Prophet of Kruphix doesn't mean it was not played.
Re: Seedborn @ $30 and Prophet @ $5 which would be a better choice for a casual format? - Seedborn by a margin. Because Prophet is ugly amounts of broken. Even though i miss it.

Re: some cards being banned even if they will be very rarely played - they are stupidly broken and are poor cards in this format. Sway of the Stars is dumb and should be banned. Worldfire is dumb and should be banned.

Repercussion costs $3, doesn't matter how old the set is. No one plays it. It's not really that good. That's why it's $3 and who doesn't have a card to order one online? In no way should "From Urza's block" mean "it's old, most people can't even get one".
Price should never, ever be considered for bans/unbans. Seedborn muse may eventually be reprinted into a $5 card in a standard legal set. Are you going to just ban it when it's $30 and from old sets, then unban when it's new and $5, and then ban it once more if it's not reprinted in 8 years and they are $40? (Seedborn is example. I literally can not even tell if you are advocating for a Seedborn ban)

So Kaalia was popular in your meta. What is the point of mentioning that? It doesn't even seem related to the point you were making about your revolving door of players. I for one have played against a Kaalia deck exactly only once.

Forbid is good only in very certain decks. 2 cards to get a free (well, not 'free' because you still pay the mana cost unlike Force of Will) counterspell is actually steep.

Urza's lands lol.

Where's the RC in all this? The thing i can't get behind is why people would think a voting system would ever happen. What a privileged misconception of what this actually is. It's not yours. Just because they throw around the word casual and social doesn't mean anyone has the entitlement to turn it into a voting system. They are actually too lax with the format by saying it's casual, social, and 'you should house rule bans or unbans and mulligans if you want'. I mean, that's all true and a solid suggestion, but obviously people totally misinterpret the intention.
"Given an inch, and they take a mile".
This is just like entitlement anywhere else - new soldiers, my daughter, social media vloggers, kid celebrities. Yuck.



Well, having people vote on it should count for it part of the ban, and if it met 4 out 7 of the criteria, it would act as a nail in the coffin if it only met 3 out of 7 of the criteria.

I just mentioned the cards i mentioned as example, like I would want Vampire hexmage and or dark depths banned because nobody really runs that combo, although Forbid is an exception.

Under this criteria, a card like forbid would be banned because meets several requirements. Example:

Forbid:
1.it costs 3 mana and is easily played turn two or three, and has a buyback cost of discarding two cards
2. Its cheap at 2.50 to .01 eg format friendly
3. It does have a broken interaction with cards that have madness or madness like effect, allowing them to be played for their madness cost. Good combo but severely broken.
4. If this card is countered, it still returns to the graveyard and its buyback cost is enabled, unless exiled permanently.
5. Its a common from an older set, so its moderately easy to acquire
6. This card is infrequently or rarely played in most decks and amongst playgroups and online

Ruling: 3 Positives vs. 3 Negatives, time for the tiebreaker of a community vote
Of course this is merely an example, and voting should only come down when it is needed.

(I only mentioned Kaalia cause I loathe her as a commander creature, and the fact that out of my playgroup she always had the automatic victory especially 3 vs 1 working against her.)

Also to answer a question, I would like the council to evaluate a card before having the community vote on its ban because this way we all take the blame, because if we shoot ourselves in the foot, we all do it together.

_________________
Image

RaiRai's Decks of Otherworldlyness:

Unknown Horizons
Bane of the Vast 1.0
Call from Eternity
Twisted Nightmares


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 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:  
cron