Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jul-16 12:57 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-22 10:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
If Sol Ring isn't "too much mana, too fast" -- then I can't see how the moxes would be. If moxes get tested against it and are found to be banned due to it - then why isn't Sol Ring?


But there is a difference between one Sol Ring being ok and six different Sol Rings, all with difference names being, ok. If there was no Sol Ring, and only Ruby Mox existed, even at a high price, it might not have been banned, but that is not the case.

This format does have to recognize that if there are multiple cards available with an undesirable effect, that this is a different situation than if there is only one or two cards with that same effect.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-23 1:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cheethorne wrote:
But there is a difference between one Sol Ring being ok and six different Sol Rings, all with difference names being, ok. If there was no Sol Ring, and only Ruby Mox existed, even at a high price, it might not have been banned, but that is not the case.


That's fine - but we already sort of have that now ... there's multiple artifacts that can be used to provide more mana than they cost - Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault... Are you saying that 1-5 more of those will be what's enough to break the camels back?

Or will this be a case of "oh, you're playing in that style ...that's not what we want" again? (ie, fast combo.) Remember, we (as a community) generally acknowledge that you can break the format if you try. The ban list is more to protect people from doing so accidentally. If you're throwing 5+ artifacts in your deck that produce more mana than they cost, you kinda know what you're doing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-23 4:36 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
cheethorne wrote:
But there is a difference between one Sol Ring being ok and six different Sol Rings, all with difference names being, ok. If there was no Sol Ring, and only Ruby Mox existed, even at a high price, it might not have been banned, but that is not the case.


That's fine - but we already sort of have that now ... there's multiple artifacts that can be used to provide more mana than they cost - Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault...

If Mana Crypt had no drawback but was just a better Ring, i imagine that it would be banned. Ring is purported (every time i can recall, anyway) to be self regulating. It's pretty apparent that 'poster child' applies to it i think. Crypt does damage, so not every deck (in my experience, most decks) even wants it.

Carthain wrote:
Are you saying that 1-5 more of those will be what's enough to break the camels back?

Well i personally i would. I do imagine if there was no PBTE that the original 5 moxes would be banned for too much mana. The reason they are at all PBTE is because there is virtually no downside to playing them and every deck would be better with 1. Even though you say...

Carthain wrote:
Plus - they aren't fully free. They cost a card slot. Replace a land? Then mass artifact destruction will set you back on your lands available. Use a non-land slot? Then you have less threats or other cards that do things.

You're not wrong. But everything costs a card slot. Lands cost a card slot. This seems immaterial.
Mass artifact destruction isn't normally playable in every circle (idk that i've really seen anything like that except meta calls and stuff like Disk or Akroma's Wrath, and those cards don't make Sol Ring and Signets bad cards).
Less threats and action cards, sure, technically correct. But you can't do anything without mana and you can do more things sooner with extra fast mana.

This is similar to arguing against the effectiveness of land ramp spells, no?
Yes, lands are less fragile but you also generally pay 2-3 mana per land. The original 5 moxes cost 0 mana for +1 mana. Yes, more frail, but also 2-3 mana less.

Regarding replacing land slots with Moxes. I think you could count them as half a land. If you normally play 40 lands in a deck but then include 3 moxes, Ring, Crypt, Vault, a few signets/Thought Vessel/Fellwar then you're totally fine playing with 37 lands. I'm just making up numbers and obviously depends on play style, mana curve, commander, if you do or do not play land ramp, etc.

I don't think there is more than a tiny amount of decks that don't want to add a couple Moxes. Same basically applies to Sol Ring now and it's normally (again, in my experience playing and reading online) only eschewed by those who think it's broken and should be banned. The same would apply for Moxes if they were unbanned. Mostly they would be unplayed since most people don't own them and don't proxy, but there would be a small fraction of people who think they are OP and unacceptable. That doesn't really make them less powerful/ideal though.

I already have Sol Ring in every single deck except 5c Hermit Druid and that's obviously because colorless mana does nothing. I have 1 deck, my Reaper King, that has only a single mana rock, and it's Sol Ring.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-23 6:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Okay, I'm just going to sum this all up with: I don't think there's a need to remove the PBTE criteria - thus I don't want to spend time going down the hypothetical path that this thread seems to be going in.

However, I will say that the "Too much mana, too quickly" criteria may be considered to be sufficient for banning the moxes (or, keeping them banned) - I change my mind on this after looking at the detailed description of that particular criteria (instead of just going on the name of it.)

But now - back to the main thread - I don't see the need to remove the PBTE criteria. It does it's job, it's not (that I'm aware of) keeping out any cards that we'd otherwise want in our possible card pool... So why get rid of it?

It's not "pointless" -- it keeps people from feeling that they need those cards if they go looking at decklists. While the precons do a good job - once someone starts looking at it and if they go online to research deck ideas & decklists -- then they could see decklists that include the moxes and get discouraged at that point. I think all that has been accomplished is we've pushed back when this happens. So yes, someone could have played some games and seen that it's not strictly necessary - but some people have the mindset that they need to use the best options at all times.

Also, it isn't "never applied." It's been applied to certain cards - and it's specifically stated that it is unlikely to be applied again. Just because it's not going to be applied in the future doesn't mean it isn't still doing it's current job.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-25 11:50 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
There are two reasons I would want to keep the criteria:

The first is that is that it unequivocally justifies the bans on several cards that I don't not want in the format, specifically the moxes. It is possible that you could construct reasons to ban all the cards currently held under the barrier criteria with the other criteria, however, I would prefer not to have the risk that the arguments are not good enough.

Secondly, it remains as a marker of the philosophy of the format. It is there to remind anyone who plays that spending thousands on dual lands and high-value cards is not the point, and whilst you can play legacy and vintage cards, you are not expected to. It is a point which can be used not just as a ban criteria, but also as a discussion point when looking at the format more generally.

It does not need to be actively applied to maintain relevance.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Mar-10 2:30 am 

Joined: 2015-Sep-02 2:49 am
Age: Drake
Location: Connecticut
The moxen, if unbanned, would really only augment the kind of decks that benefit from rituals and one-off artifact ramp in the vein of Lotus Petal and Lion's Eye Diamond. I don't think other sacrifice-based artifact ramp see too much widespread play. Maybe in the most competitive metas? Would the Moxen really slot into all that many decks? Maybe they'd warp the format so that five color Storm/Ad Nauseam/Yawgmoth's Will decks become the go-to for serious players? I don't know. I just know I never see non-permanent mana sources in decks I've come across. I'm not against them remaining banned, for symbolic purposes, but I don't think they're much out of Vintage, and they're even less if you're not running all of them plus lesser variants.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Mar-10 3:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Baron Cappuccino wrote:
I don't think other sacrifice-based artifact ramp see too much widespread play.

Umm.... Moxen aren't sacrifice-based one-shot effects. They're literally free land substitutes.

Mox Emerald
Mox Pearl
Mox Sapphire
Mox Jet
Mox Ruby

You're probably thinking of Black Lotus, which IS a one-shot ritual.

_________________
"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: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Mar-10 4:58 am 

Joined: 2015-Sep-02 2:49 am
Age: Drake
Location: Connecticut
You're right - sorry. They'd see widespread play. Shows how much I actually look up power nine. I did conflate the texts of Black Lotus and the Moxen.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 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: