Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Dec-05 1:03 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 4:01 am 

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Dragon
Sovarius wrote:
Gath Immortal wrote:
Mikaeus the Unhallowed - Mikaeus is honestly just too strong. In addition to infinite combos with triskelion, walking atlas

Walking Atlas


I mixed it up with walking ballista, sue me, jesus.

Carthain wrote:
Sovarius wrote:
Gath Immortal wrote:
Mikaeus the Unhallowed - Mikaeus is honestly just too strong. In addition to infinite combos with triskelion, walking atlas

Walking Atlas

Not trying to insult you, but it's hard to see where you're coming from when you often misunderstand cards.

I'm pretty sure he meant Walking Ballista. Which combos with Mikaeus just fine.

That said -- there is a "Preview" button which I often use to make sure I'm linking to the right cards (mostly just so I know I haven't misspelled the names -- but occasionally I think of one card, but have the wrong name along with it.)



that post was a massive pile of text, i was previewing, and had corrected a few other mistakes, and missed one, good god I'm basically hitler.

Quote:
I find it hard to put too much credibility in Gath's proposed bans -- mostly due to his attitude. He's usually pretty aggressive about how badly the format is being handled whenever it comes up in threads, and then he uses language such as "...the needs of the upper end of the format" Typically "upper" means "higher" which is associated with aristocratic "better-than-thou" attitudes.

It's fairly easy to say " .. the needs of the competitive side/end of the format..." and not offend anyone. Now, he can say that he's casual -- but just building tribal decks, or +1/+1 counters, or token spam doesn't imply causal at all. There's enough depth of cards that many of these can get pretty far on the "competitive" side of the casual <-> competitive spectrum that sir squab was talking about.

And then he dismisses Mr Degradation with a " I can tell you we aren't playing even remotely the same format." just reinforces this attitude that he shows.

Why would we want to cater to someone like that in a format that is supposed to foster friendly interactive games? I, for one, find his attitude distinctly unfriendly.


First, I was referring to the upper end of the power scale, next time maybe ask what I meant, rather than just arbitrarily getting offended by something you THINK I said. Sorry if I'm not an exquisite, perfect essay writer who can just telepathically divine what language and tone will and won't offend people on the internet, the most toneless place you can say anything.

Second, If my language seems unfriendly, it's probably because posting an opinion on this forum contrary to the regulars here is akin to walking outside and repeatedly slamming my head into the side of my house until a beehive falls on me. And just let me say, as far as unfriendliness goes, some of said regulars don't really treat randoms who post their opinions in here particularly well either from my experience, which is at least something the rules committee handles far better. If anything I commend them on their restraint, but they don't need to attack people with you guys around.

If I'm hostile, it's only because I honestly feel like posting in this forum is hostile territory.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 4:51 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Now, he can say that he's casual -- but just building tribal decks, or +1/+1 counters, or token spam doesn't imply causal at all. There's enough depth of cards that many of these can get pretty far on the "competitive" side of the casual <-> competitive spectrum that sir squab was talking about.

Why would we want to cater to someone like that in a format that is supposed to foster friendly interactive games? I, for one, find his attitude distinctly unfriendly.

I think that this is always important to try to clarify. Especially because some people "identify" in one area of the spectrum and others see them as being elsewhere along that spectrum. So like for me, i'm looking at DEN and Kiki like they are bad cards. I can't remember the last time i've seen them played in what i call "competitive" games, and i am the only one who plays Mikaeus around here. In the "competitive side" of the format, i find 5/6 mana creature combos to be... pretty unreliable and easy to beat.

Gath Immortal wrote:
Sovarius wrote:
Gath Immortal wrote:
Mikaeus the Unhallowed - Mikaeus is honestly just too strong. In addition to infinite combos with triskelion, walking atlas

Walking Atlas


I mixed it up with walking ballista, sue me, jesus.

I should have picked up on that, sorry.

But to clarify, and not to insinuate or insult, you do know this is not a 2-card combo? Now you are not just talking about Mikaeus + "cool +1/+1 counter guys" but a 3-card combo, which gives opponents many more opportunies to interact. Mikaeus/Ballista is like... assuredly not reliable imo.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 5:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
In my group, we rarely see Mikaeus (I think one person runs him in one deck), and I haven't seen DEN for ages. I think, 'cuz people realize they aren't that fun (or, that they get killed on sight ... so become less worth the slot... spending 6 mana to pull out removal from someone's hand isn't the best of deals.)

Kiki I see a bit of. One person (who rarely shows up) has him as his commander ... so, he can get a little silly with him, but just need to watch out for a few things. And another person has him in his 99, and combines him with stuff like E-Witness, or Mystic Snake, or even just Mulldrifter. This one is much more annoying.

But regardless, Kiki often has a "kill on sight" or at least "kill before he has a friend" bounty on him, so he rarely will ever hugely impact the board.

I once threw in Sudden Shock as an amusing answer to Kiki .... and then found out it was immensely useful against a wide range of targets, so it's stuck around in my decks even if Kiki doesn't show up much.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 7:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
If I'm hostile, it's only because I honestly feel like posting in this forum is hostile territory.


This is mostly why I didn't respond the ad hominem shift. This is all about perception. I find the dissent and long winded extrapolation of our opinions here to be the charm of the forum. We're all passionate and honest- but through disagreements with members like Kong, I feel like I've gotten better perspective on the format (because what I consider "regular Magic" is very different from other member's points of view.) None of us are telling you that your opinion is irrelevant, and if your playgroup can't hang with certain types of power, then you're encouraged to eschew it!

With respect to what's been laid out though, I'm just used to Nim Deathmantle, Ashnod's Altar etc. sort of combos- and I've learned to have fun with powered EDH, where it can be incredibly uncomfortable for others- and my philosophy of "Talk it out, or tech it out" comes from my early experience with the format largely being about trying to break it in the company of a playgroup doing a similar thing. Where posters are taking umbrage is the hostility directed towards the RC, who put a great deal of time and effort to create what amounts to a guiding light for creating a somewhat fair and enjoyable variant of the format within your playgroups. Sheldon and co. work very hard to give us a solid foundation- and then point us in the right direction to craft our own metagames- and if you disagree with the format as is, then by all means- share your own format variations and decklists pertinent to your meta, so that we can understand how EDH works for your group.

I certainly wouldn't have started posting here, if this were a forum that was actually hostile (like how I defected to the "No Goblins Allowed" group when the competitive standard forums on the Wizards Community Forum went belly-up. Many of the regulars there were brilliant, and through discussion taught me quite a bit about how Magic fundamentally works.)

Noone here is actually looking to attack anyone, but Magic players tend to be a lot who enjoy a good bit of philosophical debate- it comes with the forum culture too.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 9:29 am 

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

But to clarify, and not to insinuate or insult, you do know this is not a 2-card combo? Now you are not just talking about Mikaeus + "cool +1/+1 counter guys" but a 3-card combo, which gives opponents many more opportunies to interact. Mikaeus/Ballista is like... assuredly not reliable imo.


cast walking ballista for 0 with mike on board, it dies, comes back with a +1/+1 counter, remove counter, ping someone, walking ballista dies and undies again, coming back with another +1/+1 counter, repeat until dead.

Mr Degradation wrote:
Gath Immortal wrote:
If I'm hostile, it's only because I honestly feel like posting in this forum is hostile territory.


This is mostly why I didn't respond the ad hominem shift. This is all about perception. I find the dissent and long winded extrapolation of our opinions here to be the charm of the forum. We're all passionate and honest- but through disagreements with members like Kong, I feel like I've gotten better perspective on the format (because what I consider "regular Magic" is very different from other member's points of view.) None of us are telling you that your opinion is irrelevant, and if your playgroup can't hang with certain types of power, then you're encouraged to eschew it!

With respect to what's been laid out though, I'm just used to Nim Deathmantle, Ashnod's Altar etc. sort of combos- and I've learned to have fun with powered EDH, where it can be incredibly uncomfortable for others- and my philosophy of "Talk it out, or tech it out" comes from my early experience with the format largely being about trying to break it in the company of a playgroup doing a similar thing. Where posters are taking umbrage is the hostility directed towards the RC, who put a great deal of time and effort to create what amounts to a guiding light for creating a somewhat fair and enjoyable variant of the format within your playgroups. Sheldon and co. work very hard to give us a solid foundation- and then point us in the right direction to craft our own metagames- and if you disagree with the format as is, then by all means- share your own format variations and decklists pertinent to your meta, so that we can understand how EDH works for your group.


it wasn't intended as hostility, but I can see why it came off that way. This is also all perception. The rules committee spent the better part of the last two years making little to no changes to the format, some people don't view that approach as a positive. Me, mostly because I've been playing this format since original zendikar came out and have gotten to a point where I am equal parts jaded about the state of the format for three plus years, frustrated at seeing nothing serious being done about it since the release of Avacyn Restored, and passionate enough that I'm still playing it despite the fact that the things I hate about still come up almost every week.

_________________
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


Last edited by Gath Immortal on 2017-May-08 9:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 9:34 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
If my language seems unfriendly, it's probably because posting an opinion on this forum contrary to the regulars here is akin to walking outside and repeatedly slamming my head into the side of my house until a beehive falls on me. And just let me say, as far as unfriendliness goes, some of said regulars don't really treat randoms who post their opinions in here particularly well either from my experience, which is at least something the rules committee handles far better. If anything I commend them on their restraint, but they don't need to attack people with you guys around.

If I'm hostile, it's only because I honestly feel like posting in this forum is hostile territory.


Tone on the internet is indeed hard to read, so let me stress that I am saying this only to help, and not criticise:

You are not helping your case.

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
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: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 9:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
First, I was referring to the upper end of the power scale, next time maybe ask what I meant, rather than just arbitrarily getting offended by something you THINK I said.

Fair enough, I deserve that rebuke. But do keep in mind that my interpretation of it is coloured by your other posts, and I included another part from your posts in this very thread.

However ... since when does the Commander Ban list cater, or not cater, to a power level at which you play the game? I mean ... they've specifically said (paraphrased) "Congrats, you broke the format." and haven't done anything to prevent that from happening. So why would it matter if you and your group is part of the "upper power level" of the format?

Gath Immortal wrote:
cast walking ballista for 0 with mike on board, it dies, comes back with a +1/+1 counter, remove counter, ping someone, walking ballista dies and undies again, coming back with another +1/+1 counter, repeat until dead.

Except, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Mikaeus also give it +1/+1 so it doesn't die if you ping something other than itself?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: American 1v1 rules change
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 9:37 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Gath Immortal wrote:
...my negligent would be your "keeping the ban list as small as possible" and that's fine. It's your format, you decide what you think is best for it, but that doesn't mean everyone sees it that way. A lot of the people I play with feel like the rules committee is out of touch with at the very least the needs of the upper end of the format, I tend to agree. I think most of it comes from the fact that in our area, our LGS is full of people with very finely tuned decks that are about as strong as you can get before you get into the "combo you out on turn 2" meta of decks that include things like Hermit Druid, Ad Nauseam and Doomsday.
If you're in that area where things are competitive but not in the extreme I can see why it would be frustrating. I'm looking at the list of cards down below and while none of them are truly ban-worthy they are a big pain the butt.

The problem with banning stuff like this is it leaves the other end of the spectrum without the tools to do cool things- even if we say they aren't "fair" (I'm of the opinion that none of my opponents should truly thing what I'm doing is "fair." Rather they should appreciate my attempt at victory and respond.)

Quote:
Despite that, none of us feel like we're "Competitive". We still run goofy tribal decks, decks themed around +1/+1 counters, token spam, decks that copy and clone everything, enchantress decks. While our area isn't full of U/G or U/G/x goodstuff players or constant 2 card combo decks, the cards that make those decks so oppressive are the cards that start to blur the line between competitive and casual and they don't just show up in combo decks. When people run a casual list that wants one of those game breaking cards, it gets thrown in because pretty much everyone accepts there's no reason not to if it's not banned.

It's an interesting dichotomy, because a lot of the players around my area won't run cards that generally get extreme personal hatred directed at them, like MLD, Stax cards, Vorinclex or Iona and the like because of the reactions they get. Still, we pretty much all run the power cards when the deck calls for it, and constantly complain that they're not banned.

I honestly think the reason that we don't move away from them is that no one can agree on where the line starts.

I think this is because there is no line. OR, if there is a line, it shifts constantly for each player.

Rather than evaluating a card for what it is, we have always looked at what the card does to our games. Sometimes a card can cause a problem... but if the problem is fixable by adapting a deck, or was just a weird interaction we move on without worry. I've seen a game ruined by a friend of mine dropping Elesh Norn in play while I had Teysa and Darkest Hour.. He didn't realize that without instant speed removal to respond to stuff the game was locked with Teysa Triggering and black tokens dying to Elesh Norn. Of course there was nothing wrong with any of those cards, he just didn't realize what was going to happen, so we moved on with the next game.

Quote:
Cards that combo far too easily and also produce too much value outside of their combos:
This seems overly subjective.

Quote:
Players Cannot Take Extra Turns - Extra turn effects are absolutely counter to the point of this format, I've believed that for a long time. A single extra turn essentially skips three players worth of chances to interact with whatever insane thing you're trying to set up with the extra time. Even something as innocouous as using Time Warp, Temporal Manipulation or Walk the Aeons to draw a card and drop a land could either spiral into more turns or simply set up a late game easy win because time spells interact very badly with regrowth effects. Now that every single blue deck can take up to three turns or more in a row simply by virtue of having Archaeomancer and Mnemonic Wall, and skipping as many as nine players worth of possible counterplay, the value proposition of extra turns is simply too high. This rule is really the only way to efficiently deal with the massive issue that extra turns create.
I've only ever seen one time where Time Stretch wasn't a game ender, but to ban extra turns is a little overboard.

Something like Ugin's Nexus is a perfectly acceptable card.

This just something players need to deal with through Social contract of metagaming.
Quote:
Deadeye Navigator - I still to this day cannot fathom why this card isn't banned. Even outside the realm of combo, spending two mana to repeatedly recur ETB effects is simply too much power in the hands of a color that absolutely does not need it. The amount of value generated by deadeye navigator paired even with a simple ETB cantrip effect is enough to bury your opponents in card advantage. Now pair it instead with Jace's Mindseeker and cast half your opponent's deck for free, or Puppeteer Clique to psuedo insurrection everyone's graveyard, or Zealous conscripts to steal someone else's creature, blink and pair it with deadeye navigator and keep it permanently. Deadeye Navigator with six mana on the table is the swiss army knife to end all swiss army knives. Deadeye Navigator with twelve to twenty plus mana on the table is unstoppable.
I know its a dead horse, but the dead eye isn't the problem. Rather its the deck that this is slotted into. DEN loses to instant speed removal and to mass removal. If a deck is unstoppable because of a DEN then we're looking at more serious issues.

Were the card running rampant format-wide then maybe you would have a point here.

Quote:
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker - While less spammable than deadeye navigator, the raw flexibility and power of kiki-jiki puts him on the same level. Even barring the fact that he goes infinite with every creature with an ETB untap effect and Intruder Alarm, simply having access to instant speed creature copying for no mana is unbelievably powerful. Add in an Illusionist Bracers, Panharmonicon, strionic resonator or one of the few untap effects that DONT go infinite with kiki-jiki and you're quickly going to approach the same level of unstoppability as deadeye navigator. On top of that, kiki-jiki's immediate copy effect can create extroaordinarily devastating one sided plays, like playing and copying Terastodon and nuking six permanents, Angel of Serenity, exiling six creatures, Chancellor of the Spires casting two copies of a bomb spell from someone's graveyard. And much like deadeye, his effect early on copying utility creatures like solemn simulacrum or Burnished Hart can very easily accelerate that player to the lead position.
I can't get behind this at all. Aside from obnoxious untap combos this card is exactly the type of thing EDH is meant for. Big powerful plays with quirky creatures.

Quote:
Mikaeus the Unhallowed - Mikaeus is honestly just too strong. In addition to infinite combos with triskelion, walking atlas, and persist creatures, Mikaeus can create massive value simply by being on board at the right time, completely blunting a sweeper, or casting wake the dead, spamming Corpse Dance to resurrect a bunch of ETB value creatures, only to sac them or have them die at end step and come back in the case of wake the dead. Mikaeus's mere existence is backbreaking, as he is in the one color that has zero issues recurring him, and by proxy allowing constant spammable recursion of every other creature in the deck while also making exile effects the only real way of dealing with him, but the second you have a mass reanimation spell. sac outlet and mikaeus, There are almost no ways to get rid of him if the player behind him knows what they are doing.
Again, I think this is a metagame issue. Are we not playing graveyard hate?

Quote:
Protean Hulk - Good god why? There is almost no fair way to use this card outside of MAYBE mono green, but even then, protean hulk is just too much value. There are so many ways to sacrifice creatures for value, Life's Legacy/Momentous Fall/Disciple of Bolas, drawing six cards is usually strong enough, but also tutoring for 6 CMC worth of dudes on top of it is game warping as all getout. That's not even counting what Natural Order, Birthing Pod, or Eldritch Evolution can do with hulk. And if you want to get out of mono green, there are even more insane ways to break protean hulk. Sac hulk to Diabolic Intent, Karmic Guide + Viscera Seer fetching hulk out of the yard grabbing (who else) dark mike and getting 12 CMC worth of creatures and a free demonic tutor. Or we could go into red green instead, pick up sneak attack, sneak out hulk for Eternal witness and Feldon to get bakc hulk and sneak it in again, get kiki-jiki and start going ape. Blue green, mercifully might actually be the most mediocre color combo, but still has access to Flash, so besides that you still get all the green sac for value cards as well as Body Double to copy him in the yard and a whole lot of value creatures you can grab with hulk, and oh yeah, you're playing blue. I cannot understand this decision, but I hope to god it gets reversed quickly.
We'll have to wait and see. I can understand how this card might cause problems, but I think most players are going to allow it to exist in their deck as good value rather than back breaking combo. And if we're crying about good value... then Maybe Reveillark and Genesis Wave need to be banned.

Quote:
While there may be more cards that would fit this critera, these are quite clearly the worst offenders by a country mile, and they show up all the time for various reasons even in the casual setting, and they quite often take over games.
Why is that an issue? Some cards should take over in a casual environment. It isn't possible to police power level like this when we have such a wide spectrum of players and decks. An overly large ban list is going to drive players away more than it draws them in.

Quote:
Maybe negligent wasn't accurate, but because i'm passionate about the format I still can't help but interpret the rules committee's desire to keep the ban list as small as possible as inaction. With the slow speed of updates to the format I can't help but feel frustrated and that's a lot of the feedback I seem to get from those I play with when it comes to the ban list. On the flip side, do I want wotc to take control? absolutely not given their recent actions and decisionmaking, but I do want SOMETHING to happen.
[/quote]Not being privy to all that goes on between them I can only look at the format as a whole to judge their philosophies. And what I see is growth and health. I'm not seeing players discouraged because of bannings or oppressive strategies (though my buddy did just lose Leovold. Leo wasn't integral to the strategy just there for value).

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 9:46 am 

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Except, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Mikaeus also give it +1/+1 so it doesn't die if you ping something other than itself?


oh yeah, I guess you do need a sac outlet, I'm just too used to that being a given in any deck running mike

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 4:16 pm 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
So I am sure this has been asked before, so I apologize if its know data to others: If you have roughly the same people, and they feel about the same way, can't you bypass the issue? I don't even mean house bans or anything else, but just play with people you know and want to play the same?

_________________
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: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-08 6:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Sep-15 5:03 am
Age: Dragon
Sovarius wrote:
Carthain wrote:
Now, he can say that he's casual -- but just building tribal decks, or +1/+1 counters, or token spam doesn't imply causal at all. There's enough depth of cards that many of these can get pretty far on the "competitive" side of the casual <-> competitive spectrum that sir squab was talking about.

Why would we want to cater to someone like that in a format that is supposed to foster friendly interactive games? I, for one, find his attitude distinctly unfriendly.

I think that this is always important to try to clarify. Especially because some people "identify" in one area of the spectrum and others see them as being elsewhere along that spectrum. So like for me, i'm looking at DEN and Kiki like they are bad cards. I can't remember the last time i've seen them played in what i call "competitive" games, and i am the only one who plays Mikaeus around here. In the "competitive side" of the format, i find 5/6 mana creature combos to be... pretty unreliable and easy to beat.


See, tho, this is exactly why I call it a spectrum. Because it's entirely possible for certain decks or certain metas to lean more competitively on the spectrum, while simultaneously being unable to compete with truly competitive decks or metas.

I have decks that crush casual metas, then I take it to my LGS store and have approximately a 0% win-rate with it. And my LGS is is the competitive side of the spectrum, but all the decks I've see played there would get crushed by actual competitive EDH decks. (Largely because the social contract at my LGS means no one plays true competitive decks, despite several players having enough of a collection to do so if they wish.)

_________________
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Curse of the Swine is like the unholy love child of Terastodon and Dregs of Sorrow. AND it makes bacon!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-09 4:12 am 

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Dragon
MRHblue wrote:
So I am sure this has been asked before, so I apologize if its know data to others: If you have roughly the same people, and they feel about the same way, can't you bypass the issue? I don't even mean house bans or anything else, but just play with people you know and want to play the same?


You would think that right? For whatever reason, even playing with likeminded people the prevailing of "if it's not banned and good for my deck, I may as well use it" attitude is still the same. Maybe it has something to do with playing exclusively at an LGS. We tried a group ban list once, and the realization was if someone showed up to play and we were the only group available, we'd let them join and their decks would be far more powerful since we cut a significant portion of the power cards out of the format, and it sort of dissolved from there. You can't really expect to play with exactly the same people every week when you play at a store because even regulars aren't always there. This is one of the biggest issues with the idea of a social contract, it only works at a store if either A: the store endorses a specific style of play, usually in a league setting or B: 99% of players agree with how the format should be played.

and B is pretty much not a thing at an LGS.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-09 5:12 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
The rules committee spent the better part of the last two years making little to no changes to the format


Other than changing the tuck rule, changing the mulligan rule, changing the mana production rule, rewriting the format philosophy and ban criteria, removal of official house rules, various Comprehensive Rules changes, and banning Prophet, what has the RC ever done for us?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-09 5:18 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
The solution to playing at a shop with rotating players is to have multiple decks at different power levels.

Its not ideal, but its a little more practical than expecting everyone to come to a consensus. I've been working on my decks since... um... Lorwyn I think, and now have 36 of them that I think run the gamut of casual to competitive- maybe the along the interquartile range. Nothing completely terrible, and nothing thats looking to combo on turn 3.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-09 5:29 am 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-24 10:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
papa_funk wrote:
Gath Immortal wrote:
The rules committee spent the better part of the last two years making little to no changes to the format


Other than changing the tuck rule, changing the mulligan rule, changing the mana production rule, rewriting the format philosophy and ban criteria, removal of official house rules, various Comprehensive Rules changes, and banning Prophet, what has the RC ever done for us?


Those people are slackers.

_________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dee123, Google [Bot] and 36 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