Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jul-16 1:05 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-16 12:21 pm 

Joined: 2013-Mar-15 8:39 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Canada, Ontario
Can we remove from the EDH philosophy document,

"* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Because it’s a non-competitive format, we don’t want players to feel as though they need to spend a great deal of money to be able to play. It is not sufficient for a card to simply be expensive - expected ubiquity and the availability of suitable replacements are also considered. This rule is mostly invoked for cards fifteen or more years out of print and is unlikely to impact the list further."

It seems pointless and it is never applied. Even in it's description it says how useless it is. It also doesn't stop the print your own cards edh players that seem to have populated my play group to print all of the legal and expensive cards to use in their own decks. Like the blue white control player with all the tutors running the combo Winter Orb + The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale.

It will stop people from complaining that expensive cards should be banned and will force them to make an argument on why the card is overpowered instead. Plus if a card is powerful it will be expense anyways and by power terms I mean the card by itself only.

Overall the "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry" seems really useless and people if they want to play them will print out the cards anyways.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-16 1:18 pm 

Joined: 2009-Oct-08 1:00 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
The RC have (wisely) stated that the specific cards that fall under this category are never really getting considered for unbanning, so I think it's worth starting the discussion there. (Not that you were suggesting otherwise, mind.)

So with that said: I do actually think it's worth eliminating the guideline. As a lot of people have pointed out, it's confusing and fairly inaccurate -- cards don't go off this list because they get cheap, and they certainly don't go on it because they've become expensive. (If you look at the price of a Mox when the format was first created, there are far more than ten cards that cost more than that today which don't make the list.) It sticks out because it's an artifact of the format's origin, not really a living part of the philosophy the way the other reasons are.

For me, I think you could justify every card from this list (minus maybe Timetwister) just under the other rules, especially Warps the Format or Makes Too Much Mana. But if that isn't good enough, I'd just put them under a label, specifically identified as something that won't grow or expand, as the "Commander Isn't Vintage" bans and leave it at that.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-16 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Bull wrote:
It seems pointless and it is never applied.

Well, it HAS been applied, it is merely stated that it is unlikely to ever impact another card.

Bull wrote:
It will stop people from complaining that expensive cards should be banned

Who is doing that? I never hear calls for things to be banned because "they're expensive".

Bull wrote:
Overall the "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry" seems really useless and people if they want to play them will print out the cards anyways.

Not everyone finds fake cards acceptable for play. The entire purpose of PBTE is to prevent the kind of situation where someone feels they cannot play without a number of $800 cards that they would have to either acquire legitimately or proxy (bearing in mind that proxy is not an option for some people).

I guess the real question here Bull is "Why do you really want this criteria gone?" Drop the PBTE and plenty of cards banned under it probably stay banned for power reasons (Time Walk, for example, is just not a fair card). People already complain about fast mana - should we unban what are effectively lands that don't follow the usual restrictions on lands? What benefit is there to dropping the PBTE criteria?

charlequin wrote:
I'd just put them under a label, specifically identified as something that won't grow or expand, as the "Commander Isn't Vintage" bans and leave it at that.

That's basically what PBTE IS. You really can't play competitive Vintage if you don't have a ton of obscenely expensive cards. People know this and therefore don't even try. The whole idea of PBTE is to not have people think that way about EDH. So essentially you're saying "Keep the PBTE criteria, just call it something different".

_________________
"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-Jan-16 4:23 pm 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
You can easily stop the "print your own cards" crowd by not playing with proxies... If you can't afford the cards you don't need to play them. Use your imagination instead of net decking a combo.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-16 6:27 pm 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
Unban everything. Let the social contract do it's magic. :wink:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-16 8:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Dec-26 7:50 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Amsterdam, Holland
I believe Bull's point may be that having it in the philosophy leads to people expecting the PBTE to be applied in the future, especially as "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible". I have indeed seen discussions where people argued some cards should go on the ban list for PBTE.

Looking at the current banlist the only cards that conceivably are on there for financial reasons are the Power 8, Library and Vault. I doubt any of these cards would be unbanned if they were only $1 as they are simply too good at what they do. As such it seems that removing the PBTE criteria from the EDH philosophy wouldn't change a thing when it comes to the banned list. Obviously you could disagree on that, but I would assume that everyone would agree that those cards are close to being too powerful to be legal even if you think any of them don't cross the line. If the rules committee agrees with me then PBTE is not needed to keep these cards on the list and thus removing PBTE changes nothing.

In my view the PBTE could be removed and as such it leads to a cleaner document and removes any suggestion of cards possibly being banned for financial reasons in the future. I consider this a minor improvement, but as Sheldon indicated the document would be looked at anyway I can see the point in asking for it now.

_________________
I'm a gabber and I feel alright
I sleep all day and I dance all night
I'm a gabber and I feel OK
I dance all night and I sleep all day


3 Steps Ahead - I'm A Gabber


Automatically add card tags to the card names in any text:
http://manabase.com/autocard.php


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 12:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
pi wrote:
Looking at the current banlist the only cards that conceivably are on there for financial reasons are the Power 8, Library and Vault.

Remember that PBTE isn't purely based on price point. The card must also be infamous enough among magic players to be well-known as expensive. There are plenty of expensive cards that do not fit this. Even more modern overpriced cards like Jace the Money Sculptor have not made the banned list over PBTE.

pi wrote:
I believe Bull's point may be that having it in the philosophy leads to people expecting the PBTE to be applied in the future, especially as "unlikely" isn't the same as "impossible".

If leaving the door slightly open to the possibility of needing it in the future is that big a deal, changing "unlikely" to "impossible" seems like a cleaner solution.

pi wrote:
Obviously you could disagree on that

There are people that do. This isn't the first time we've had this discussion.

_________________
"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-Jan-17 4:13 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Remove it, is my opinion.

If the cards would be banned based on power level (you know, "warping" or "too much mana"), then do so.

This is sloppy, and this isn't a new game. People should understand you don't need the Moxes to compete or play, since it's incessantly touted as a casual format and it's well known very few people actually own any of the Moxes.

On that note, i don't really think that the Moxes should be banned either but i am insane, so whatever.

As an aside, does anyone realize how close Sol Ring was to a $600 banned PTBE card? :p

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Who is doing that? I never hear calls for things to be banned because "they're expensive".

I mean i could give you anecdotes if you wanted but it would be besides the point. I've heard complaints about Workshop, Tabernacle, Bazaar, Cradle, Duals, Seal, and even once (i'm admitting this is 100% worthless data) that Zendikar fetches needed a reprint before being allowed in a casual format.
I don't think i need to add a disclaimer that i disagree with those people, though.

Epsilon wrote:
You can easily stop the "print your own cards" crowd by not playing with proxies... If you can't afford the cards you don't need to play them. Use your imagination instead of net decking a combo.

Are you just the saltiest person ever, or does this statement actually refer to something in some way? I can't even think of any combos that require very expensive cards except for not-good ones involving Candelabra. What, Living Plane and Linvala? Most combos are inexpensive cards.
I'm just really struggling to see how combos have to do with price of cards and netdecking.

onedayweek wrote:
Unban everything. Let the social contract do it's magic. :wink:

I wish, i really do. But i can see the need, i think. It's the same with laws, i generally think you should have many more privileges, but that doesn't mean it works out as a net positive in the end.

It would be nice if the social contract could be used for everything. I mean, nothing is being done about Derevi stax* and that deck is finely weeded out from casual play.
* I'm not saying something should be done about Derevi, i think she's fine but i selected her as a very anti-social deck to play that is relatively easy to use to ruin games, if not win/completely ruin a casual metagame/playgroup.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 5:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Sovarius wrote:
Are you just the saltiest person ever, or does this statement actually refer to something in some way? I can't even think of any combos that require very expensive cards except for not-good ones involving Candelabra. What, Living Plane and Linvala? Most combos are inexpensive cards.
I'm just really struggling to see how combos have to do with price of cards and netdecking.

You're probably overthinking it. Bull was talking about people printing expensive cards. People usually feel the need to do this because those cards are the "best" choices. He's just saying "If you don't have it and can't get it, then just run something else and use a little improvisation / creativity, rather than relying on the "best" cards", something I completely agree with. There's no need to harp on the words "netdeck" and "combo" to get the gist of the message.

Although to be fair I actually have played games with people that netdecked, and were so bad they didn't even know what they were doing with their own decks... as in tapped a bunch of mana, dropped 3 sorcery speed cards onto the table at once and declared "I win", and when told to explain was not even able to do so.

Sovarius wrote:
People should understand you don't need the Moxes to compete or play

"Should" and "do" are frequently not the same thing.

Sovarius wrote:
I mean i could give you anecdotes if you wanted but it would be besides the point. I've heard complaints about Workshop, Tabernacle, Bazaar, Cradle, Duals, Seal, and even once (i'm admitting this is 100% worthless data) that Zendikar fetches needed a reprint before being allowed in a casual format.
I don't think i need to add a disclaimer that i disagree with those people, though.

You certainly don't. I'm curious though how much those arguments are actually being made. It's one thing to see it once or twice, it's another to see it all the time. The vast majority of complaints I've seen fall under "not fun" or "too powerful".

_________________
"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-Jan-17 6:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
It made sense when the format was just starting out to ensure that people properly understood what to expect out of the format. If they did a general reworking of the banning guidelines and just didn't include it while keeping everything currently banned for power level reasons then I doubt many people would complain.

It has been enough years now that Commander probably doesn't have a "is this vintage or not" perception problem that needs to be overcome.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 11:27 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Removing the criterion now would only open up the floor for why cards like the Moxen are banned but things like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are not. Either way, I think the impact is going to be fairly negligible, with keeping it as the path of least resistance.

Rather than remove it, the banned list might have explicit explanations attached to each banning so that players, new and old, might better understand and apply the banned listed and its principles. I dunno. Again, I don't think it makes much difference.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 3:10 pm 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
You're probably overthinking it. Bull was talking about people printing expensive cards. People usually feel the need to do this because those cards are the "best" choices. He's just saying "If you don't have it and can't get it, then just run something else and use a little improvisation / creativity, rather than relying on the "best" cards", something I completely agree with. There's no need to harp on the words "netdeck" and "combo" to get the gist of the message.

I could be made to believe that's what he meant, but i took it at what i thought was face value/literal interpretation that it was about dollars. Harping on the words only because i didn't understand the relation between them.

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Although to be fair I actually have played games with people that netdecked, and were so bad they didn't even know what they were doing with their own decks... as in tapped a bunch of mana, dropped 3 sorcery speed cards onto the table at once and declared "I win", and when told to explain was not even able to do so.

I have seen this, seen people "build" decks and then fumble with the win con because they were not actually up to speed on the workings of a combo. It's sad and unfortunate :(

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Sovarius wrote:
People should understand you don't need the Moxes to compete or play

"Should" and "do" are frequently not the same thing.

I would certainly agree with that, but i would not agree that more than a minority of people actually believe unbanned Moxes are truly a barrier to entry. Barrier to entry is also wholly different from "barrier to competitive tiered play which this format is not at all designed for".

This is the format with 25 precons and 45 (i'm counting in my head so forgive me if off) specifically designed legendary cards. My anecdote to add is that i see an overwhelming amount of people who think this format can be played with junk rares on the cheap, that the precons are actually tuned and contain value, and that it's the format for casuals compared to people i see complain about the prices. That's one of the most common praises i hear; the money cards matter way less and you don't need them.

I definitely think we are passed the PTBE.

I have also made it apparent before that i am more or less fundamentally against bannings for price, but i should repeat that because i don't think i was explicit this time. Money should not be banning criteria.

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Sovarius wrote:
I don't think i need to add a disclaimer that i disagree with those people, though.

You certainly don't. I'm curious though how much those arguments are actually being made. It's one thing to see it once or twice, it's another to see it all the time. The vast majority of complaints I've seen fall under "not fun" or "too powerful".

In my experience, not terribly often.

And i know as a logical person trying to make a sound argument, i'm not supposed to attack the people but rather their position... but i can't help but say that the people who do complain about the prices and pay-to-win are also people who complain about everything else possible anyway and it makes me inclined to believe that some number of those against money cards are against virtually everything they lose to.

I'm not sure if you thought i meant i hear these complaints all the time, but if so, that's not what i was trying to say. I would agree with your last statement.

niheloim wrote:
Removing the criterion now would only open up the floor for why cards like the Moxen are banned but things like Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are not.

Does it really?

Besides my feelings about whether we should ban or unban Moxes (and you calling them Moxen with an 'n'), i don't think they would be (logically) lumped together. Having Ring and Crypt (and maybe Vault and Grim Monolith are up there) legal is just a couple powerful mana rocks any deck can have.
Having Moxes legal are are +3 powerful rocks that 3 color decks can have for a total of 5 or 6 super powered cards. A 5 color deck can run what essentially amount to 7 free lands (which does not include Mana Vault or the 3 already-legal Moxes)
It's a lot different.
Banning Ring and Crypt and Vault in favor of unbanning 5 Moxes seems like it *could* be a play except that 1. Ring is the poster child, 2. Ring is cheap and not RL, and also 3. Five Moxes legal with none of the colorless OP rocks makes color balance lopsided.

niheloim wrote:
Either way, I think the impact is going to be fairly negligible, with keeping it as the path of least resistance.

I don't disagree, but in my opinion this is ugly and unnecessary (incorrect, if you will) at best. Probably close to lazy at worst.

niheloim wrote:
Rather than remove it, the banned list might have explicit explanations attached to each banning so that players, new and old, might better understand and apply the banned listed and its principles. I dunno. Again, I don't think it makes much difference.

I wish. Some are obvious, and others are not so much. It would be quite thorough and facilitate understanding at least, if not contribute to constructive arguments people try to raise.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 3:23 pm 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sovarius wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
You can easily stop the "print your own cards" crowd by not playing with proxies... If you can't afford the cards you don't need to play them. Use your imagination instead of net decking a combo.

Are you just the saltiest person ever, or does this statement actually refer to something in some way? I can't even think of any combos that require very expensive cards except for not-good ones involving Candelabra. What, Living Plane and Linvala? Most combos are inexpensive cards.
I'm just really struggling to see how combos have to do with price of cards and netdecking.


The OP is literally complaining about the PHBtE rule because people in his meta just print out cards to play stuff like Winter orb + Tabernacle or other BS rendering the actual value irrelevant. Literally the first post. Read the thread before insulting people?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-17 3:29 pm 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
It didn't seem like you were talking about one specific card, but in general.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remove "Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry"?
AgePosted: 2017-Jan-18 2:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Dragon
Bull wrote:

It seems pointless and it is never applied.


the rules committee hasn't applied much of anything lately.

_________________
Maluko wrote:
We need a clear set of objective rules so that everybody always knows what to expect, and how to prepare for it. As of now, I think I spend more time arguing with players about the format than I do playing fun and interactive games of Commander. And last time I read, this was not the format's purpose.

QFT


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

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 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: