Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-13 1:26 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Misinterpretation of the three EDH banning principles
AgePosted: 2008-Mar-07 1:30 am 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-09 4:17 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Calgary, AB
A misguided phenonmenon I've observed is that every time we've announced the banning of a card a few people will complain (often ones who haven't even been playing the format for very long) about other cards which should be or should have been banned instead/first/as well. Lately, it seems to have gotten worse with people misinterpreting the "formalized" banning principles so I wanted to clear something up:

The three ground rules we described for banning a card were never intended to be a formal "calculus" for determining what cards should be banned. They are, rather, a general attempt (and I stress general) to explain and describe our reasons for banning a card.

For lack of a better term, they're necessary but not sufficient. They aren't intended to be either exhaustive or complete and there are many cards which fit one (or more) of the principles described but don't actually cause problems in EDH games. In fact, the banning rules are there as a last step in the process, not the first. They're a check against banning too many cards, and determining whether a card should be banned is far more involved than a few simple rules.

Different people have different perspectives, so hypothetical/theoretical evaluation of a card's potential can only go so far. A card isn't banned until it's been debated (usually by both the player community and rules folks) and it's been demonstrated in real games and real metagames that it's causing real problems. By extentsion, some cards are banned even though similar cards aren't simply because they have cause problems where the others didn't.

So don't get too tied up in thinking that we will (or should) ban every card which might fit those rules... we want to keep the list as short as possible. In the end that list is just there to provide the player community with some insight into the process.

G

_________________
Remember: Most legendary creatures have a gender, and most non-legendary ones don't! Use proper pronouns! ;)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation of the three EDH banning principles
AgePosted: 2008-Mar-07 7:54 pm 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
Genomancer wrote:
we want to keep the list as short as possible. In the end that list is just there to provide the player community with some insight into the process.

G


Hear, hear!

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Apr-06 11:26 am 

Joined: 2008-Apr-05 4:28 pm
Age: Wyvern
I really cant see the point of "that" banning policy, it simply doesnt make any sence.

1) If i want to play "just" for casual Fun i dont need a "official" Banned List at all.

2) If i want to play EDH without everyone playing combo because its the strongest Type you can play, than the List needs to have the important cards banned or the Format cant work.

3) If you want to have a card banned simply because its not Fun AND you play just Casual, than you dont need to ban it on the List, just make sure nobody plays it and its done.

4) A BannedList has only a "logical" use if u want to play Tournaments with it so people "MUST" play with "THAT" banned list and dont play with House Rulez.

EXTRA EXAMPLE:
If you play on the Pro Tour Top 8 and your Opponent plays Dredge you cant say you dont like the Deck and ignore the player, YOU MUST BEAT HIM, if you can, so its incredible stupid to say the "ignore" Rule is possible.


If you just want some "basic" Rulez you dont need a Banned list, just because nobody will play Biorhytmn if the play group says its unfun they wont, if the playgroup doesnt like a combo, they wont play it, but if you want to play something with more players for something to win and find out whos the "Elderest? Dragon" (Or Oldest Dragon whatever, the best player), than you cant play with House Rulez that change every second.

And only for that a banned List "could" be made that determines which combo is "TOO STRONG" and ban the cards, for every other card i dont need a banned list (maybe some Generals like, Rofellos, Erayo and the like which are incredible sick, even in a Tournament they are too strong).

If you see my point, maybe u see what i understand of a "good" BannedList.

_________________
If u take me too serious, you may explode ...


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Apr-15 1:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Feb-29 5:57 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Duvall, WA
The point of a banned list in a casual VARIANT format is to help the players construct decks. If there was no banned list any given player would have to reference each other member of thier playgroup while building thier deck to see what cards that player thinks unfun or broken. And if there are any disagreements aguements will ensue. The banned list is a one-stop-shop for what cards have proven time and agian to be unfun. It is perfectly ok for your playgroup to ignore the ban list if everyone agrees, that is the nature of casual magic, however this is a clear way to keep people in the know about chronically unfun cards.
-Shoe


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Sep-22 3:21 am 

Joined: 2008-Sep-20 1:07 pm
Age: Drake
My understanding is that a good banned list is in place to maintain balance in an otherwise unbalanced format. Biorythem is unbalanced in EDh because it is often a one card wincondition. In a format with tutors, counters and a slow pace it is easy to understand how someone can consistantly play a wrath effect and follow it up with a creature and biorythem all in one turn with counter backup. that may sound crazy but in EDH it isn't.

Yawgmoth's Will is the nuts and I use it. However, unlike Vintage it is hard to just win the very turn you cast it. more often than not you just got Nuts and establish insane bord control after a good old yawg will. Crucible of worlds, however, is overpowered. the ability to reuse cards like stripmine in a singleton format is game breaking. life from the loam is bad enough allowing you to go and get stripmine and two cycle lands but at least it costs mana nad has to resolve. I disagree with banning Kokusho AND recuring nightmare at the same time. I think one or the other should go, and I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.

These were just a few examples of why I like and agree with most of the list and why it is necessary. My favorite part is how short and percice it is.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Sep-27 9:20 am 

Joined: 2008-Sep-27 9:09 am
Age: Hatchling
Drain Life wrote:
=I disagree with banning Kokusho AND recuring nightmare at the same time. I think one or the other should go, and I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.



Recurring nightmare - Is just broken with anything.


Kokusho - In EDH it basically reads.
I'm a 5/5 Flyer for 6 with no draw back.
When Kokusho, the Evening Star is put into a graveyard from play, deal 15-25 damage. You gain 15-25 life.

Seems a bit broken to me ;]



I vote for the ban of Mindslicer! =[


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Oct-28 7:08 pm 

Joined: 2008-Oct-14 9:54 pm
Age: Dragon
Drain Life wrote:
=I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.


not that this is even up for discussion but Recurring Nightmare reads

Sacrifice a creature, Return Recurring Nightmare to its owner's hand: Return target creature card from your graveyard to play. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Nov-28 1:13 pm 

Joined: 2008-Sep-20 1:07 pm
Age: Drake
Frosnuts wrote:
Drain Life wrote:
=I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.


not that this is even up for discussion but Recurring Nightmare reads

Sacrifice a creature, Return Recurring Nightmare to its owner's hand: Return target creature card from your graveyard to play. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery.


You are right, my mistake. However I am still in favor of unbanning Kokusho. He is amazing. I know that. I understand that with Survival he is even better. In multiplayer it can get out of hand if no one deals with him. However, in multiplayer FFA he shouldn't be allowed to go nuts. Also, I don't know about anyone else but I could care less what my opponants life total is most of the time as long as it is not infinite. Even if it is Infinite, you have to choose a stopping point and when I go infinite I will chose to go one more. Kokusho is game changing and can be game breaking but there is a LOT of graveyard hate in MTG and a lot of colorless hate. Honestly, Kokusho is only really broken when you can recur him. A 5/5 for 6 with a great triggered ability is fantastic, but guess what? An 11/11 indestructable Trampler as early as turn 1 is pretty nuts as well. This is the format of broken goodness and Kokusho, in my opinion, isn't ban worthy.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Dec-29 8:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2007-Oct-16 4:18 pm
Age: Dragon
Frosnuts wrote:
Drain Life wrote:
=I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.


not that this is even up for discussion but Recurring Nightmare reads

Sacrifice a creature, Return Recurring Nightmare to its owner's hand: Return target creature card from your graveyard to play. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery.


Yes, but returning it to your hand is part of cost. What you can do is play it and keep priority when it resolves, then use it straight away. If you do, then your opponents either counter it or it resolves, and is than safely back in your hand before they can do anything. It isn't like Seal of Doom where you want to leave it out there. Think of it as Victimize for 1 with buyback of 0.

_________________
Multiplayer Strategy Writer for GatheringMagic.com.
Formerly Graveborn Muse of Muse Vessel.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-Mar-08 2:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Kokusho really hasn't proved overpowered by himself in my experience. But I agree Kokusho is overpowered in a recursion engine. But that sounds like a two card combo to me. And while Kokusho recursion is powerful, there are a variety of 2 card combos that outright win the game, and don't just drain a bunch of life. If the problem was you always had access to him as a general (turning it into a 1 card combo), then he should of hit the same bench that Rofellos did. He also comes down a lot later than a lot of broken cards.

Another argument against his debatable overpowered-ness is Kokusho recursion can be dealt with by lots of different forms of control cards. Examples include:
1) Remove him from the game/put him in owner's deck with creature removal
2) Remove him from the game/put him in owner's deck with graveyard removal
3) Destroy the on board sacrifice outlet (Nantuko Husk, Altar of Dementia, Greater Good, Phyrexian Tower, ect.)
5) Destroy the on board recursion engine (Hell's Caretaker, Lifeline, Debtor's Knell, Volrath's Stronghold, etc.)
6) Counters/Hand Denial

Now Tinker on the other hand can be dealt with in basically only 1 or 2 ways
1) Counters/Hand Denial
2) Find a way to never let the guy holding a Tinker have an artifact on board (unlikely, given it's cheap cost and obvious inclusion of artifact lands and low mana artifacts)

Now granted the two cards cannot be directly compared since they do very different things and lead to very different game states. My question is this: in the experience of people who've played against both cards, has Tinker been leading to more degenerate game states than Kokusho did?

In my experience, yes, it definitely does. And it was harder to deal with afterwards since Tinker usually hit earlier.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-Apr-27 1:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Apr-27 9:44 am
Age: Hatchling
The problem as I understand with not having a formal ban list is because in MTGO or in games on the GP or PT you may not have played with these players before and you may not play again. So social stigma isn't a factor, and you need some guarantee to make sure players with different EDH backgrounds can play harmoniously.

_________________
DCI Level 1 Judge
Magic Rules Advisor


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2009-Apr-29 10:21 am 

Joined: 2009-Jan-23 11:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Anusien wrote:
The problem as I understand with not having a formal ban list is because in MTGO or in games on the GP or PT you may not have played with these players before and you may not play again. So social stigma isn't a factor, and you need some guarantee to make sure players with different EDH backgrounds can play harmoniously.


Read Geno's post about the optional sideboards; it explains a lot:
http://edh.truespace.ca/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1164


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
AgePosted: 2009-Aug-19 6:25 pm 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
Drain Life wrote:
Frosnuts wrote:
Drain Life wrote:
=I am in favor of getting rid of the recuring nightmare as it provides consistantly unfair and un fun card advantage and is nearly impossible to destroy as you can activate it in responce to any destroy effects.


not that this is even up for discussion but Recurring Nightmare reads

Sacrifice a creature, Return Recurring Nightmare to its owner's hand: Return target creature card from your graveyard to play. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery.


You are right, my mistake. However I am still in favor of unbanning Kokusho. He is amazing. I know that. I understand that with Survival he is even better. In multiplayer it can get out of hand if no one deals with him. However, in multiplayer FFA he shouldn't be allowed to go nuts. Also, I don't know about anyone else but I could care less what my opponants life total is most of the time as long as it is not infinite. Even if it is Infinite, you have to choose a stopping point and when I go infinite I will chose to go one more. Kokusho is game changing and can be game breaking but there is a LOT of graveyard hate in MTG and a lot of colorless hate. Honestly, Kokusho is only really broken when you can recur him. A 5/5 for 6 with a great triggered ability is fantastic, but guess what? An 11/11 indestructable Trampler as early as turn 1 is pretty nuts as well. This is the format of broken goodness and Kokusho, in my opinion, isn't ban worthy.


I was upset when Kokusho was banned and was very vocal about it on these boards, but I do think it was a good ban. I played him without Recurring Nightmare because I didn't allow cards to overlap in my 10 decks and Kokusho went in Savra and Rec. N went in Ghost Council, but they were abusive in both.

In Savra, it was silly and unfairly easy to put together a combo of Eternal Witness, Kokusho, Living Death, Grave Pact and Smokestack, Braids, or your general, Savra. Turn after turn you could play it and kill the table. Without Kokusho, there is no way to win on the spot, and you can abuse him in various ways. As for RN, not only is it abusable with Kokusho, but it is bad with the other Kamigawa Legends, but worse, Survival, Entomb, Buried Alive, Sundering Titan, Palinchron and now Magister Sphinx.

Seriously? You want to legalize Recurring Nightmare in a format where Sharuum is availble as well as Mindslaver? Give me a break.

Both are wise bans even now, long after they were made.

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation of the three EDH banning principles
AgePosted: 2009-Aug-24 11:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-May-05 5:03 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Algalord
I know this thread is for the reasons behind the banning of cards, and the decisions made when doing so, and it just so happened that a friend and I where recently talking about such a topic. We agreed completely with all of the bans across the board. But as we neared the end of our conversation there was still one banning that piqued our interest- the banning of Protean Hulk. Can I ask what reasons where behind this banning besides the whole concept of the "Hulk Flash" decks.

Thank You.

End of Line

_________________
The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies, dickheads — they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.

odit wrote:
I normally my techy , controly decks.

This.

DECKS:
Uril's Legendary Tea Party
Jenara: Tell me why I have to be a Powerslave
Karador: Rock out with your cock out
Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed: Cosmic Hearse


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation of the three EDH banning principles
AgePosted: 2009-Aug-24 1:26 pm 

Joined: 2008-Jan-25 8:26 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Calgary
Just out of curiosity, why isn't the Hulk-Flash thing enough of a reason not to ban Protean Hulk? EDH is a format that's supposed to 'go long' and the 'Flash' angle of the combo isn't even needed compared to a format like Vintage. In Vintage you don't get to develop enough resources to play a 7 CMC creature. In EDH you get to play things for 7. And they're supposed to be swingy but they shouldn't just read "I win".

Not even Time Stretch reads "I win" in the same way that Protean Hulk does.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 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: