Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jan-19 12:38 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 11:01 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
The entire discussion around Braids stems from the challenge that IF the BaaC list were to return, there would need to be a good reason for it, there would need to be cards on it that are either banned now and enabling them to be played in the 99 is of benefit or there would need to be cards that are legal now that would be better not allowed in the command zone.

Braids was the potential example of a card that should be banned as a commander but should be legal in the deck. That it's current banning is a "casualty of the BaaC going away". I disagree, but that's the idea presented.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 12:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
specter404 wrote:
Braids was the potential example of a card that should be banned as a commander but should be legal in the deck. That it's current banning is a "casualty of the BaaC going away". I disagree, but that's the idea presented.
I don’t even disagree, I just don’t think it’s relevant. “Braids would be a casualty of removing the list” was an argument against removing the list. It doesn’t follow that merely because of that, Braids being banned is a good reason to reinstate the list.

Not only is it possible, but I think it is entirely the case, that the following statements are simultaneously true:

1. The decisicion that caused Braids to be fully banned was a mistake, for reasons X, Y, and Z.

2. Reversing that decision now that it’s been made would also be a mistake, for reasons A, B, and C

_________________
Current Generals:
III Omnath, Locus of Mana III Thada Adel, Acquisitor III Geth, Lord of the Vault III Eight-and-a-Half-Tails III Zo-Zu the Punisher III BruseIkra III Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis III Kess, Dissident Mage, III AkriSilas III Grenzo, Havoc Raiser III Ghalta, Primal Hunger III Ambassador Laquatus III Anax and Cymede III Sidisi, Brood Tyrant III Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest III Ghave, Guru of Spores III Zurgo Helmsmasher III Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder III


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 12:37 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I see what you're saying there. But there must be some overlap between situation A and situation B, because IF there is an agreement that Braids should be allowed in the format THEN there is a supporting argument for the BaaC list.

It's a logical progression:
Why should we have Baac?
Because we can have Braids back
Why would we want Braids back?
Because reasons.
If reasons are true, then we would want braids back, so we would support BaaC. If reasons are not true then we dont want Braids back, so this does not support BaaC.

It's not the only reason you would need to actually bring back the BaaC but it is one possible one, which is why it is relevant.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 7:39 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
It's not even about Braids, she is merely an example supporting the position. The BaaC list let us play more cards while recognizing that they were too strong and too present in the Command Zone. The list worked for many years, and Brawl shows us that WotC thinks it has merit also.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 7:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
The list worked for many years
Debateable, since the RC got rid of it, but we'll agree to disagree on that front
Quote:
and Brawl shows us that WotC thinks it has merit also.
This one, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a majority agreement on. The fact that WotC thinks it has merit is no guarantee at all of its merit. See also: the recent 1v1 online banlist reversal

_________________
"Degenerate, unfun decks generally come from degenerate, unfun players in my experience." - Cthulus Thrall

"- if this spell is played ten times in a given game then I suggest you warm up the tar and pluck some chickens" - tarnar

"I'm happy to serve as a quote machine" - Sheldon


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-31 10:42 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
cryogen wrote:
The list worked for many years
Debateable, since the RC got rid of it, but we'll agree to disagree on that front
Quote:
and Brawl shows us that WotC thinks it has merit also.
This one, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a majority agreement on. The fact that WotC thinks it has merit is no guarantee at all of its merit. See also: the recent 1v1 online banlist reversal

I am separating the practicality of maintaining a ban list which (would currently) contain at minimum three cards (I still contend that Leovold would be on the BaaC list) with the purpose the list served. I don't disagree for one minute that the RC was successful in streamlining the list and made bad decisions regarding the cards that used to be on the list. I am approaching this from the mental exercise of the list as a tool to allow players to still play with these unique creatures but not ensuring they are always in your starting hand.

WotC has proven time and time again to not make the best decisions, but for this they had the wisdom and years of experience from the RC at their disposal.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 1:57 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
... Brawl shows us that WotC thinks it has merit also.
How so? The cards banned in Brawl are all or nothing, there are no BaaC cards. Heck Baral CoC falls right into that description if it existed.

_________________
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.


Last edited by MRHblue on 2018-Aug-01 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 1:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
WotC has proven time and time again to not make the best decisions, but for this they had the wisdom and years of experience from the RC at their disposal.

Whoa whoa.

This wisdom & years of experience that has decided to remove the BaaC list? So... are they wise & experienced and know what they're doing by removing the BaaC list? Or did they (in your opinion) make a mistake by removing the BaaC list -- in which case, why hold them up as wise about this matter?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 2:55 am 

Joined: 2011-Feb-15 7:09 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
cryogen wrote:
WotC has proven time and time again to not make the best decisions, but for this they had the wisdom and years of experience from the RC at their disposal.

Whoa whoa.

This wisdom & years of experience that has decided to remove the BaaC list? So... are they wise & experienced and know what they're doing by removing the BaaC list? Or did they (in your opinion) make a mistake by removing the BaaC list -- in which case, why hold them up as wise about this matter?

Maybe baac was wise while edh was a niche format, but with the growth of player base it is wiser to simplify. Or in other words things don't stay the same


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 4:15 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
MRHblue wrote:
cryogen wrote:
... Brawl shows us that WotC thinks it has merit also.
How so? The cards banned in Brawl are all or nothing, there are no BaaC cards. Heck Baral CoC falls right into that description if it existed.

I don't remember if there was a BaaC list on the initial Brawl announcements but Gavin is clear that they debated making Baral banned as a commander only, and that they haven't ruled out a BaaC list.
Carthain wrote:
cryogen wrote:
WotC has proven time and time again to not make the best decisions, but for this they had the wisdom and years of experience from the RC at their disposal.

Whoa whoa.

This wisdom & years of experience that has decided to remove the BaaC list? So... are they wise & experienced and know what they're doing by removing the BaaC list? Or did they (in your opinion) make a mistake by removing the BaaC list -- in which case, why hold them up as wise about this matter?

Again, the only explanation I have seen for the change is a desire to simplify the ban list. That has nothing to do with the health of the format, and yes, it is my opinion that it was a mistake. That doesn't change that the members of the Rules Committee are perhaps the most experienced at the format and that they were mistaken in their reason for this decision.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 4:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Again, the only explanation I have seen for the change is a desire to simplify the ban list. That has nothing to do with the health of the format, and yes, it is my opinion that it was a mistake. That doesn't change that the members of the Rules Committee are perhaps the most experienced at the format and that they were mistaken in their reason for this decision.

1) But if they made a mistake on this, then how can you hold them up as 'wise & experienced' for WotC to emulate? Especially when WotC isn't currently emulating the RC on the topic that we're talking about.

2) How you can you say the RC are all wise & experienced, but then in the same breath say they made a mistake -- one that they have continued to stand by over time? That would make it more of a "not a mistake" category, or... not so wise as you seem to be holding them up as. (at least, not in your view as you view the removal of BaaC as a mistake.)

It feels like with this particular bit (that WotC is going off of the guidance of the RC's past behavior) that you stretched too far trying to prove things.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 6:09 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
cryogen wrote:
Again, the only explanation I have seen for the change is a desire to simplify the ban list. That has nothing to do with the health of the format, and yes, it is my opinion that it was a mistake. That doesn't change that the members of the Rules Committee are perhaps the most experienced at the format and that they were mistaken in their reason for this decision.

1) But if they made a mistake on this, then how can you hold them up as 'wise & experienced' for WotC to emulate? Especially when WotC isn't currently emulating the RC on the topic that we're talking about.

2) How you can you say the RC are all wise & experienced, but then in the same breath say they made a mistake -- one that they have continued to stand by over time? That would make it more of a "not a mistake" category, or... not so wise as you seem to be holding them up as. (at least, not in your view as you view the removal of BaaC as a mistake.)

It feels like with this particular bit (that WotC is going off of the guidance of the RC's past behavior) that you stretched too far trying to prove things.

Yeah, I see what you're saying and how it comes off. What I meant was that they had years and years of using the BaaC list so they had ample time to evaluate its effectiveness. But I'll concede that it was a poorly framed argument.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 6:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Yeah, I see what you're saying and how it comes off. What I meant was that they had years and years of using the BaaC list so they had ample time to evaluate its effectiveness.

Yeah I can see that part there makes a whole lot more sense as an argument for what you're saying :)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-01 9:27 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
cryogen wrote:
Yes, but the RC in their infinite wisdom have recognized that there is more than one way to have fun, and that it is a fool's errand to try and define fun with the ban list. Hence stressing that it is a social format and that you should talk with your group to find games you will all enjoy.

Right, they don't define it - but they do try to use it to guide people away from some things. Some people take the ban list as a guidance, others take it as a "I can play anything else I want." Not much they can do about it -- but that doesn't mean they shouldn't forcefully guide things using the ban list when they get too oppressive/un-fun for most players.

What it does mean is that they should have more of a reason to ban something other than that it isn't their exact version of fun. Perhaps it is too easy to accidentally abuse it like commander Leovold. Perhaps it reduces diversity in the format like Prophet of Kruphix. Unfun doesn't have to be the reason why a card gets banned, and a card should have to be more than merely unfun to warrant banning. If it really is as simple as being unfun, the individual player and the playgroup will figure it out and the problem will solve itself. The banlist should only enter into it if the playgroup fails or is likely to fail.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 12:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MMLgamer wrote:
What it does mean is that they should have more of a reason to ban something other than that it isn't their exact version of fun. Perhaps it is too easy to accidentally abuse it like commander Leovold. Perhaps it reduces diversity in the format like Prophet of Kruphix. Unfun doesn't have to be the reason why a card gets banned, and a card should have to be more than merely unfun to warrant banning. If it really is as simple as being unfun, the individual player and the playgroup will figure it out and the problem will solve itself. The banlist should only enter into it if the playgroup fails or is likely to fail.

You do realize that the criteria for banning is mostly "This kind of thing makes the game really unfun - so it's why we're banning some cards" right?

Too easy to abuse isn't why Leovold was banned btw, it's because he creates undesirable gamestates -- or in other words, makes it unfun for most players at the table.

Reducing diversity in the format is a situation that is unfun. It's just stated better than simply saying "it's unfun" as fun is subjective, and reducing diversity isn't.

The ban list is (mostly) a codified list of things that are generally considered unfun.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 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: