iplaymtg wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
So, I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of the BAC list returning, but it's more because it's an elegant solution to Braids, Leovold, Zur, and Jhoira- but also leaves room for Saffi, Teeg, Arbiter, Jeleva, or any other General who in the future, due to support accidentally becomes far too good at violating the social contract.
The concept of a card being able to violate the "social contract" is like the concept that a car can drive faster than the speed limit. Almost all cars are capable of violating the speed limit, just like all cards are capable of breaking the "social contract". It's up to the driver what they do with them.
That's something of a poor analogy; on many roads you're expected to exceed the speed limit by atleast 5mph. Also, describing the act of driving on civilian roads doesn't align with the idea of sitting down for a game of Commander. If we use a racetrack metaphor, then the social contract is a device that keeps Snake Oiler and Cruncher Block from trying to create a non-games. The degree of what's permissible changes with each group, but the agreed upon rules in any Commander setting, as well as commander's Banlist are entirely based on social contract (which is why Sheldon and the crew are thorough about it.)
iplaymtg wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
But the elegance of the BAC list was always rooted in the footnote that accompanied it, specifying that the BAC list exists as a guideline, and that each group should discuss the cards on it before using them as commanders.
This "guideline" concept only applies to those that
1) have groups of regular friends they play commander with and 2) those friends agree to change the rules of the game.
Most of us don't have those luxuries, and must default to the vanilla rules when playing at a local game shop or event.
And anyways, if you do have a regular group of friends who are willing to
break the rules, why do you care about the official rules? Who cares about guidelines or whatever is scribbled on a website somewhere? I agree that your perspective on the format as merely a teaching tool might be skewing your perspective with regards to this issue.
This might be the saddest thing I've read here. So, uh- you know that brick and mortar cardshops are a place to make friends, right? Like, most people who go to a brick and mortar frequently, are doing so for the social environment. If you aren't making friends to play EDH with at a brick and mortar, why are you posting here? Also, it isn't "breaking the rules" to add house rules- the format has always encouraged it. The reason people care about the rules as prescribed by this web domain, is because it's the most solid guideline to start with, it's the baseline for a new playgroup- because cards like
Sylvan Primordial will just do obnoxious things if a group goes into EDH blind with no bans.
The BAC list gives players an understanding of which cards cross the line as commander, but not as a piece of the 99. Braids and Leovold already occupy this twilight zone. But, the footnote that exists on the current banlist, and the similar one that was for the BAC list, encourages discussion to create the best EDH experience possible for the group.