You dont need to ban primeval titan because it is already banned in the RC's rules http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php

As I said, your own playgroup should be able to self policy itself without the need for house rules bans, and if you are having trouble in others peoples tables, then again, you should know wich kind of games they are playing and then choose if you want to participate or not.

Let me tell you a story of sel policy

I had a Kaalia of the vast deck (no combos, no MLD, just big OP creatures)

My playgroup dislike her so much that I got focused every single time I play her, I tried to adapt her having Pillowfort, didnt worked, having discard, didnt work, having MLD didnt work, I only won 2 games in my playgroup when i played some combos with her, and I won because of the combos and not because of what I was trying to do (beating faces), so I ended up tearing her apart, I never played her again, so see? no need to ban Kaalia or Iona for the group, self policy works

I think you should re read all of my post because there seems to be miscommunication of the conversation at hand again.

We banned primeval titan one year before it ever showed up in the ban list. My point is that each group can self govern efficienty without the edh Committee’s input. Not saying that Sheldon or the people on the board for bans are wrong, but that just because a ban list exists does not help every single playgroup or the issues they have because everyone plays differently.

You seem to think it’s good for the social system to work against people who would like nothing more to play astral slide Zur the enchanter or a fun mighty morphing animar deck, but the unfun versions of those decks gets targets all the same. In our group we don’t have to worry about bullying someone off the table through the social contract because it’s already established that infinite’s are not allowed. If someone brings an infinite and wins we continue playing after the fact and let them watch.

This means peoeple can choose to stop playing infinite’s or go off and win on turn 3/4 and then eject themselves from the game. As for self governing we do that based on our discussions on what cards seems to be affecting the format or how people feel about some cards. If I’m not having fun killing my friend with emrakul or winning off it so consistently I won’t play it vs them same for protein hulk.

If I’m playing someone with a cEDH deck I don’t mind resolving an emrakul and killing the board with their combo because if that resolves they were going to lose anyways. The difference between what you use for your playgroup and how I balance for mine is based on how fun the game is overall between those people.

I can tell you right now that some infinite’s are ok, but it’s simply a matter of time before everyone is playing cEDH. Then you are taking about an entirely different format and to keep those two distinguished we’ve just banned infinite’s outright. It keeps the format much more casual without the mess of having to actual create a secondary ban list for all the fast mana, low cost tutors, extra turn loops etc etc.

So while you might not like the idea of sol ring being banned or infinite’s being pushed out by a playgroup you might be more inclined to play with cEDH players. Which is what typically would happen.

If you reread my previous post I actually talk about self regulation based on what cards are popular or overplayed in a meta. By removing 2 or 3 spells in my list I made chancellor of the spirals unplayable when we were considering banning it before that. Please consider reading the discussion this feels reminiscent of someone speaking without listening and just waiting for their turn to talk...

...And now for a little time erasure, with some good ole fashioned clear. concise(-ish). communication.

@alexev- Thrax is describing frustrations with what I like to describe as "terminal power" meta. While I'm certainly guilty of dropping "gitgud" hammers all over this forum, the framing in the initial post is more of an abstraction of things that grind Thrax's gears. There really isn't a combination of solutions that would necessarily alleviate those sort of frustrations. I feel like there's quite a bit of interesting conversation to be had here, but I also don't think that interesting conversation is solution oriented.

@Thrax- I'd say that there's a good chance we've bumped into each other before (I recently moved from Crystal River, up near Ocala.) My background with EDH is pretty similar, but my opinions are radically different. I was taught about, and learned to play EDH in a group who had bought large numbers of powerful old cards in bulk quantity, because at the time they were considerably cheaper (and it was en-vogue to push EDH decks to their most extreme power level if the playgroup had the means to do so.)

For us, EDH was something to do, to build on our understanding and critical decision making within the realm of MtG, so that we could discuss concepts more clearly when brewing and piloting to take down local standard events (I've enjoyed describing that experience as "MTG Weightlifting".) One member of our playgroup enjoyed a hazing ritual with Trade Secrets (I suspect he instigated it being banned,) wherein he would use the card to size-up players who were new to how EDH functions. While this may seem mean spirited, this individual also had me pilot all of his most extreme combo decks, and then spread out the lists to identify combos, synergies, and formulate strategies to play against those while I was working on my first EDH deck.

What became clear about EDH to me in that time, is that "competitive" in EDH is an outlook; at the end of the day your EDH deck is either about establishing a game winning combo, or breaking those game winning combos with removal to force tempo swings violent enough to end the game. This translates in a universal way throughout what Sheldon calls the "Casual/Competitive Spectrum"- or what recent content creators have described as "Power Level" (though, that discussions tends to create more confusion than it resolves.) There really isn't a way around this, because it is a truth of MtG on the whole. EDH's emphasis on Vintage-style gameplay in a more lax environment distills simple principles that are just "Magic True-isms." I feel like the fascination with prison strategies, juicing extreme swings by cards that scale with the number of opponents, "fair magic", and other minutiae obscure the reality of how the game simply flows. It's like Fancy Play Syndrome did a fusion dance with the Dunning Krueger Effect over "MtG deck as art", played out in real time.

Thus, the most constructive challenge I could pose here for you; is to use your skills and experience to imagine what a good game of EDH feels like. Then, imagine what that same game of EDH feels like for the other 3 players (writing down some gameplay experiences, or just observing recorded games helps here.) Do you feel like you contribute too much towards your playgroup's competitive leanings? Are you too invested in pulling out a win (which, to be clear is a very common problem. This isn't a shade thing- but you're the only meat puppet you really get to control.) I feel as though a bit of honest (even critical) reflection here can give you more insight into how to craft those immersive games without the ruminations drawn out on this thread. Commander is just a foundation for each independent metagame built around it, after all.

Cheers my dude

“Thus, the most constructive challenge I could pose here for you; is to use your skills and experience to imagine what a good game of EDH feels like. Then, imagine what that same game of EDH feels like for the other 3 players (writing down some gameplay experiences, or just observing recorded games helps here.) Do you feel like you contribute too much towards your playgroup's competitive leanings? Are you too invested in pulling out a win (which, to be clear is a very common problem. This isn't a shade thing- but you're the only meat puppet you really get to control.)”


>>> more or less that’s what we, or at least that’s what I, try to do. Someone always wants to feel competitive, but at the end of the day(unless you get a drawl) there is only one winner so complainants about what is ‘fair’ is bound to happen. I’ve suggested a number of cards to stop homewardpath + perpelxing chimera and emrakul the promised end. Only one of those is actually unfun and the other doesn’t seem to negatively effect the game. The biggest difference between these two are how they function. One is a choice macanic and can be stopped with abilities that kill enchantments, lands, or creatures without casting even boardwipes can stop perpelxing chimera. The other is emrakul which can only be stopped by removing it from the deck or stifling/trickbind the cast ability. Emrakul is played in many decks and the build usually doesn’t have to match up with the creature. It’s a giant spaghetti monster with protection from spot removal and flying/trample. While perpelxing chimera is an over costed 3/3 for 5 cmc that is an enchantment/creature and isn’t played in most decks. I’ve seeb only one or two other people play it. Most of the time the card is fair and just slows the game down enough for control to establish their game plan.

I agreed with my group to not use emrakul in our games because it usually cost 6-8 mana and I usually just kill one person with it. There are hardly any answers in black or green for it (two of the main colors being played) and I don’t feel forfilled after I beat someone with it. This isn’t true for when I play other tables that are going ham on infinite’s or kill conditions. So when I play with my friends I play word of command instead which fills the role I need for the list.

An example of when someone complained and I still didn’t care is when I won off of word of command using it like an instant speed emrakul. It’s a 4 person table,First turn after mine;mana drained someone’s 7cmc enchantment that was going to double their mana. Second players turn they try to establish a board with creatures. Goes to third players turn with mono black and cable coffers taps for 8. I cast word of command after he drawls a card, he then thinks about his response. Proceeds to tap out and silence the believer all relevant creatures to spend his mana. Looks at hand and sees all the set up I would have had to worry about. Crypt ghast, gauntlet of power, bubbling muck and a tutor for the wincon of his choosing.

He is not happy to get time walked outta his turn. Goes to my turn with 7 extra mana. I cast Aminatou's Augury and copy it with mirror pool. Cast a free 10 spells and everyone basically agrees the game is over.

The person who got word of command’d didn’t like how the game played out and it ended quite abruptly. Both the other players explained that those things had to take place at the right time for me to win the game I used 4 to 5 cards to win and even then nothing was guaranteed because I didn’t have scroll rack. Me and one of the other players even explained how it was no different then his monk black ‘combos’ using multiple mana doubling effects to kill everyone with exsanguinate.

That would be a time I had fun listen to someone’s complaint and totally ignored their issues because not only did the table not agree with them, but they had no really logical argument for it. Also thoses spells dont come up like that often and are used differently every game.

That’s a recent example of how our games work.

That's a cool play in my view as well. It sounds like you can still have very fun games. Do you also have fun losing to something like that?

Sometimes people simply get frustrated with the nature of multiplayer itself, losing a lot more games than they win (statistically, if you usually play 4-person tables with at least fairly close power level in decks, you will lose 3 times as many as you win, assuming all players are trying to win every game). The way many people form emotional responses, some unwanted event (losing) is very likely to feel bad at least as much as the reverse of that event (winning). Emotions are difficult to quantify, but if this math is even a little bit accurate, the end result is that if you view losing as an unwanted event, you usually end up feeling worse the more games you play.

You've mentioned that you see groups growing more and more competitive to the point of being cEDH, like it's the fault of WotC's involvement in the format; I see it as more a logical consequence of the 'emotional math' of multiplayer. If playgroups and individual players aren't taking an active role in self-regulating, they will naturally feel bad about losing to something and revise their deck to beat whatever they just lost to, usually by making themselves faster or more resilient.

The key is starting up each game with the attitude "I will probably lose, but I will do my best not to lose and to enjoy watching the game play out." If you can manage this, it usually doesn't matter too much what part of the casual / competitive spectrum your deck or your opponents' decks is, as long as they are at least somewhat close to each other.

“You've mentioned that you see groups growing more and more competitive to the point of being cEDH, like it's the fault of WotC's involvement in the format; I see it as more a logical consequence of the 'emotional math' of multiplayer. If playgroups and individual players aren't taking an active role in self-regulating, they will naturally feel bad about losing to something and revise their deck to beat whatever they just lost to, usually by making themselves faster or more resilient.”

>>> let me start by saying we don’t play cEDH. It’s as close as one can be without going infinite or playing tons of fast mana IE we banned sol ring. Many people in our group are actually fine with cards like back to basics and blood moon because it helps deal with utility and strong non basic lands. Some land destruction is fine but mass LD is frown apon (like in most groups) because most of the time someone removes the one creature and everyone is in top deck mode or someone cast a Bolgarden hellkite to kingmake themselves while it’s on the stack. Usually those people end up losing, but those games usually end up kingmaking so it’s mediocre at best.

I play at any level because my deck is designed to do so. I do about as well as my opponent or if it’s a cEDH deck a level or level and a half worst. However I don’t think we have an issue going near cEDH because of how our playgroup deals with infinite interaction or unfun play. We all want to have good games and sometimes they last a long time and anyone can pull it out and other times someone just gets lucky with timing, disruption and the right cards coming up as they need to. We want those times to happen rarely or if they come up often they should be able to be out played/disrupted.

As for how someone deals with wining or losing. Well we have some vary competive people, but I feel like for the most part everyone wants a chance or fair shake to win the game. When they don’t feel like they got to ‘play’ is when their fun usually dries up. We had a game this weekend where everyone, but one person was playing the game and they felt way behind. However once their deck is set up it’s usually vary hard to beat being a blue/green Kurpix god deck. The one time they did something that mattered is when they counter my omniscience to prevent me from winning the game. Even if that game didn’t go their way, they still felt like it was a game that they participated in.

Some of my favorite games are the ones I’ve lost because something absolutely crazy happened off of a warp world resolving or possbility storm shenanigans on the stack. What our group is seeking is a fulfilling game which can be hard to come by if people try to play Armageddon and it’s whoever is lucky enough to drop removal or cast creatures on the stack or topdeck lands first wins.

Cards like emrakul end up taking away from the game so when it comes to cards like that I can’t blame WorC or the edh committee. They have their own agendas and it doesn’t have to line up with what I want to play or achieve. That does not mean I cannot point a critical finger in their direction due to how slow the committee or how it puts up bans or how hilarious it is that WotC banned emrakul the promised end in standard so it shows how they miss stepped on the design of the cards in that format.

I don’t understand the rational when someone gets on another persons case for being crtitcal or opinionated of the thing they love. If you don’t have an opinion or can’t see the flaws of something are you truly a fan of that thing?


I want WotC to develop cards inside the shell of standard because they are imperfect but the legendaries they’ve printed inside standard have all been fine with vary few exceptions. Those exceptions are on the banned list. Geiselbrand is powerful but not too much more then consecrated spinx. Still I don’t totally understand the difference in nim death mantle being ‘worst’ then reoccuring nightmare, but how it’s still banned is based people generally being bad at math(taking long turns) and old text being able to keep it from getting removed. That’s another discussion that I’ve brought up with many different players and while most disagree with me on Geiselbrand. Those same players can’t rationalize why nim deathmantle is unbanned and reoccuring isn’t. So it’s a card we are testing out to see if it’s really something that outta be banned in our format of edh.

Not really OT, but a sidebar to answer one question:



Nim Deathmantle and Recurring Nightmare aren't really in the same league, though their effects are superficially similar.

1) NDM returns a creature only right after it has died, and only as a triggered ability. If you can't pay the 4 mana now, you can't use NDM to return that creature. RN can return any creature in your graveyard, is an activated ability and is generally much less restrictive.

2) Resiliency - it is very difficult to destroy RN, usually needing at least two spot removal and/or split second. Otherwise, RN is a mana-free sac-to-activate ability that will be used in response to any removal as long as they have a creature to sac. Returning to your hand is even part of the cost, very difficult to prevent that, since countering the ability doesn't stop the return-to-hand.
NDM is relatively easy to remove with any spot removal (unless the player invests other resources into protecting it).

So while it is correct to say nim deathmantle is far more ‘fair’ it is also harder to deal with in other ways. Being a triggered ability means cards like stony silence or pithing needle can’t stop it. Pithing needle can stop reoccuring nightmare. Also NDM doesn’t target as much as gets a creature when it dies. So cards like silent gravestone and groundseal don’t stop it and both of those stop reoccuring nightmare. Also reoccuring nightmare is at soccery speed so it must be activated during their mainpahse when they have priority and NDM doesn’t have that restriction at all. You can add to the chain of the stack as much as you need to with NDM provided you have the mana for it.

Reoccuring nightmare is an issue because it needs fewer cards to be abused but those cards have to be in different zones. With nim deathmantle you use cards that are good with it to kill everyone or save/use a combo using spare mana.

NDM being an artifact and equipment means it’s easily searched in multiple colors and can be reoccurred. Also you can play it in any deck because it has no color restriction. While I think reoccuring nightmare is busted by itself the deck you design around NDM can be much worst because returning and searching artifacts is so much more prevalent. You also have easy infinite’s with ashnods alter and creature with a return effect like undying or persist effect. It also protects combos and is a combo at the same time.

I agree that both are fundamentally different cards that do similar things. Where my problem lies id when they unbanned protein hulk because gravehate was in record numbers in the format. Wouldn’t reoccuring also be apart of that discussion?

Idk if it can lead to some unfun game, but thats if cEDH is being considered for these bans or not. Maybe they should breakout into their own format even if it’s a small community.

Cards that make casual players sick but are on the edge of being banned are nim deathmantle, omniscience, and emrakul because they all share some of the same power level of being too good for casual play, but they can be stopped and they can be made bad. So they become part of a power kit that isn’t banable.

Isn’t totally off topic being that it’s still an odd thing that the committee has chosen to do. Which is why my group has different opinions on what should or shouldn’t be ban. Being that we don’t allow infinite’s I think griselbrand might even be fine which gives the black decks the kind la necropotance worth playing in an emrakul heavy format.

I think this right here, might be an issue. The game as described sounds perfectly fine to me- there's action, tension, and resolution. However, when a player gets salty about how a game pans out like this, they're likely to take rationalization as some flavor of insult (even if it isn't intended to be.) If I had to put a pin in it, that player is probably significantly less experienced than other members of the group- and they're probably painfully aware of that (or a similar factor.)

Mindslaver effects don't feel good, and like chaining Time Walks, they become significantly less impressive as the focus and strength of EDH decks goes upwards. By house banning more than Sol Ring or other fast rocks, you've opened a weird sort of Pandora's Box. When you don't establish a strong criteria for house bans, your group is likely to suggest them as solutions more than necessary. The playgroups I enjoyed in Florida also group softbanned Ring/Crypt/Grim (we wouldn't turn someone away if they had them, but we had enough copies of Worn Powerstone, Fellwar Stone, and Mind Stone to invite them to try our meta.) I don't get the Emrakul 2.0 thing, though. The card just isn't very strong- and doesn't do enough to justify paying 6-7 mana for it.

Not to rubberneck your discussion with Treamayne, but how are you complaining about Nim Deathmantle (probably in context of Breya or Trostani Combo,) when you're launching the Nuclear Options for combo breaking (Mana Drain, and Word of Command)? I'm not coming for your wig, but it's hard not to see a hilarious contradiction between feeling like combo is obnoxious and then describing a situation in which you win through Mind's Desire combo, after using that caliber of disruption. It's a bit like duck hunting with dynamite- and blaming WotC because it hurts when ducks bite you (hopefully that silly imagery makes my tone here very clear.)

“ The card just isn't very strong- and doesn't do enough to justify paying 6-7 mana for it.



>>> so I’m going to explain how I feel in context to the conversation around NDM and reoccuring nightmare. I don’t mind ether card and I’m sorta trying to point out the hypocrisy I see by asking why one is perfectly legal and the other is a bannable card. I see each way those cards are different and I’ve had to take out NDM because it’s far too powerful to play because it leads into easy infinite mana and infinite creature/damage combos. I play a midrange kind creature ‘combo’ list and I take out protein hulk for the sake of my friends. I want to just point out the reasoning and how Outlandish it is to me even if there are valid points that may tear up my side of the discussion. I was the first one to play nim deathmantle and I think the card is a necessary evil for creature decks to survive in a board wipe and removal heavy format. That being said my deck is underpowered by playing reoccuring nightmare over it and nearly all the deck have some sort of gravehate in their own package in one way or the other.

As for emrakul it has the same issue of having the ability to kill two opponents without doing much work and all that needs to happen is that player setting up a game winning scenario for you. I think emrakul is a fine card when pair against cards like protein hulk and griselbrand even omniscience gets shafted by emrakul so it reaches about the same powerlevel of nearly bannable and 70% of the time it’s going to win/help you win the game.

On a much smaller scale or against much lesser decks the card isn’t all that great. It’s about as good as omniscience without the drawl to keep it protected and throw out meaningful threats. It’s even worst as it can cost 10 or more mana. This issue becomes more problematic because it’s so easy to throw to the top of the deck and cast again and again using volraths stronghold. The only suggestion I can give to decks without trickbind or stifle effects is to get hexproof using witchbane orb or something like it. Dawn charm also counters the creature but you still get mind slavered all the same.

While this group might not like mind slaver effects because they are particularly weak against them. I would also say they don’t like discard even though it’s much more common and less of an unfun strategy. So when I can cast notion theif with time spiral on the stack. I’ll do it regardless of the complaints because it’s a viable combo that comes up every once in awhile. Same for mindslicer or sire of insanity for the Jund deck I play.

Also there is the whole exiling someone’s general because you make all player decisions so you can force their commander into exile between your removal and their removal/gravehate.

Also I’ve never had an issue when someone uses NDM because it seems like a forgotten card for some odd reason. I find it vary undervalued and under utilized because it can go into just about any creature list...

“I think this right here, might be an issue. The game as described sounds perfectly fine to me- there's action, tension, and resolution. However, when a player gets salty about how a game pans out like this, they're likely to take rationalization as some flavor of insult (even if it isn't intended to be.) If I had to put a pin in it, that player is probably significantly less experienced than other members of the group- and they're probably painfully aware of that (or a similar factor.) “

>>> more or less you hit the nail on the head and I forgot to mention this part of your post. Please rubber neck into the conversation that’s why I made the thread is to discuss edh and how we play it vs how others in the community play and view it.

As for lower or higher I think it has to do with how people feel the game should resolve in our group. I had a chat with someone today about how griselbrand and reoccuring nightmare should be unbanned because we don’t abuse it enough for it to be an issue. They explained that insurrection and cards that win the game without thought like it are unfun to them, but that they ultimately know that they can’t be banned and at some point the game should end. Basically they have sour grapes over someone stealing the game when they did nothing at all and just played a card.

We had a discussion about how mindslaver effects are generally better in our pool and that overall worst fears might be the only acceptable versions of a mindslaver effect. Mostly because the it feels unfun to have your turn taken and get pushed back into a losing position with your own cards or worst let someone win the game though your setup.

He described two cards he thinks should be banned in our pool or discourage from being played being purphorse the red god that deals 2 for every creature that enters play and seedborn muse. I basically said that those cards are nearly banable because they are in multiple colors but are fine in the format overall in single or two color list and for the most part he agreed.

Basically we are having an issue with things that are hard to competition with or hard to remove in the colors someone chooses.

On one hand I wish my pool could make some fundamental choices that would improve the pools like accepting low to the ground aggro because many game go on with not much happening before turn 5 and trying to get over the whole kill the entire board effects that people want to try and play out. At some point I get tired of allowing people to play into late game without any real interaction and just swing out with Thraximundar until they die. It might feel bad at first, but sometimes you gotta point out the lame open board play gauntlet of power on black play pass won’t work to win the game if you don’t try to apply pressure or removal to the board.

On the other hand I understand the need for wishing to kill everyone so no one is watching the game play our without them...

Sorry for double post but this was a recent update and eye opener on how our meta is developing. It’s hard to convince someone that mind control effects are a positive to the format when they are so powerful to our particular meta. These effects are also generally unfun because it prevents someone from actually playing the game. Idk how to explain it other then it feels cheap and is not deserved unless the circumstances are dire and the card power is at highest.

The RC has done a great job all these years making EDH/Comander the incredible game it is now and part of their suscess is because after they make the greates format ever they had def ears for whinning

I am glad that the RC have def ears to players complaining, because now you complain and ban sol ring, and then what?mana crypt? other players whine about expropriateother people complains against extra turns, other people wants MLD banned, other people wants any countermagic banned, other people sugests banning every infinite combo, some people says infect should be 20, some people serra ascendant should be banned and a long etcetera.

If the RC bans every single card a players has cryed for then this format would be awfull. You have banned sol ring in you playgroup, is ok, works for you, but what I feel ofensive is people trying to "force" those bans to other people, because If I am ever going to play in a table and they say "no counterspell allowed because we house rule that" is ok, I will just find another table, but if the RC says "no counterspell allowed" then is an enforced rule for all.

So, if you dont want some cards and you playgroup agree with you, well for your house bans, just dont try to enforce that in to other people

EDIT: you have been playing for over a decade and you have only one EDH Deck? a lot of your complaints suggest a very narrow view of the format

>>>Oh great someone who has gotten their jammies rustled over another persons opinion about cardboard. Allow me step by step dismantle the serious flaws in your straw man of me. I want you to know I don’t take this personally and neither should you.



>> Yet you didn’t read the part of how our group determines what cards we feel are fun or playable and how our bans have been close to if not exactly the same as the RC. We were thinking about prophet of kurpix getting banned, but only help off because that would require seedborn muse getting banned and that seemed fairly hypocritical at the time. The cards do nearly the same thing one just needs winding canyons to have flash for creatures. Also you mistake whining for critical questions and concerns about the format and how WotC is developing cards for commander specifically. Even Sheldon had an issue with Derevi because it didn’t have a commander tax and was cheating the format. Rising concerns and testing different methods of play shouldn’t be considered ‘whining’.



>>> the only card I want the RC to actual ban is paradox engine because that card turns fun decks into cEDH decks and has no function for casual play. It generally leads into easy infinite spells, drawl, and mana. Which is hard to answer, save for Krosan grip, and is generally unfun/toxic. This last sentence is the only time I mentioned what RC should or shouldn’t ban and in all the post I’ve made I never mentioned what should be banned. When it comes to the question of NDM and reoccuring nightmare in comparing the two because I want reoccuring nightmare unbanned. When I mention sol ring I’m describing what works best for our group and what has been successful for our games. Never have I mentioned banning something or something that outta be banned for RC. You’ve gone over the deep end with this straw man that I want to ban things and complain about the format...



>>>>Yea I don’t want the RC determining anything more then what edh generally is and how to keep the format alive and health for as long as possible. The way we “force our ban of no infinite’s” is by allowing people to use their infinite’s and watch the game play out anyways. If that’s something you don’t like well I don’t think you understand the social contract of the game when you sit down to play with strangers. We also ask people to cycle sol ring for free so as to no have them replace a card. Some underpowered with sol ring usually gives them the power to compete with our decks so when that’s the case we encourage it’s use. Your example of “no counter spells allowed” shows a lack of experience in the game. Counterspells ate the worst and most versatile form of removal in the game. Most counter only stop one player from playing one spell on that players turn. Therefore you have to hold up mana and have great threat determination to execute a counterspell well. Even when it’s done the amount of abilities and work around for counters in the game is staggering. Since you only deal with one of your 3 other oppoents you’ve timewalked yourself and one player to allow the other two players a way to proceed in the game. The best counterspells usually cost 4 or more mana and then you really feel behind when you know to counter a spell in another players hand and both of you play chicken until as the game proceeds around you. It deals with everything, but works best in single player formats. Otherwise known as the worst removal for 4+ person games.



>>>Who said I enforced anything except the social contract and before this post I’ve only mentioned what my particular playergroup has chooses to ban or unban based on group agreement. I don’t understand why you feel the need to virtue signal and white knight for the RC. I don’t like how slow they are with things that were obviously breaking the game like primeval titan back in the day. I mentioned how my group banned it a year before they did. This is meant to show how my group and the RC have the same taste in mind yet we determined a year in advance to ban a card that was ruined our games at our table. Pointing out how slow the RC can and coming to the same conclusion shows our group being of similar mindset, but able to take advantage of not listening to the complaints of people who worship the RC.




>>>> More baseless assumptions and obviously you have trouble following the conversation so I’ll clear it up for you. I’ve mentioned two decks I’ve built and kept over the years. If you think I have one you obviously want to warp the conversation into what ever strawman suits your needs. I've built many decks and tear them apart when I don't think they perform. I don't like toting around a deck I don't like using and I usually trade cards I don't intend on using because I hate cardboard sitting in my binder. That's just the sorta player I am.
I’ve built 9 list and kept 2 because they’ve been reliable and fun. I’ve changed those two list so much from their original formatting that they can’t even be considered the same list. I’m working on a third list and it will be the 4th time I’ve tired to make boros work. No I’m not playing feather.

A lot of your issues can be handled by actually reading the conversation at hand instead of trying to design a strawman. I’ve never mentioned what the RC needs to ban, never forced people to play different from my group “I’ve asked them to cycle sol ring when deck is comparable, but never mentioned that in the forum”, and I’ve mentioned more then one deck I’ve built in the post which you didn’t seem to fully read. Idk why you think that would give me narrow view of the format, but I assume it’s to wrap up a tidy knot with the this straw man of me having a “narrow view” even if I might have more years then you. Which As I concluded before comes from the silly example you gave of banning counterspells and how you can’t see the other post of me playing with cEDH players..

Try to read the all of my responses or even ask what I’ve played or built next time it can only help address the serious lack of information your argument has.

And then you acuse me of not reading, I never said I dont like counterspells , I play them in all my decks with blue, I say peopole complaining for sil ring is just as asburd of complainign for countermagic, or MLD or any other tpe of card/effect you dont like.


Aside note: for your oppinin on counterspells, in the decks I play counterspells hey are the key for wining, If you play counterspells to deny other people stuff (unless is a combo going off) instead of protecting your own wincons then dont run counters at all because you dont know how to play them


I dont like bans at all, there are just 4-6 cards in the list I actualy think are wel banned, and for the involment of WOTC I already wrote the answer you was asking, i will post it here again and save you the trouble just in case you want to actually read it this time

>>> let me explain to you how counterspells can be played around. Your combo goes to the grave and it’s a creature or artifact. Then all you need to do is activate or trigger an ability to bring that card from your graveyard to play.

You place a counterspell on the stack, they play imp's mischief to have the counterspell fizzle.

You play counterspells, they play mindslicer and use graveyard shenanigans to delete your hand so no more counterspells.

You tap out and have already played pact and fow. They resolve their combo on the stack.

You try to counter their spell, they kill you with goblin bombardment and fizzle the counterspell.

You play counterspells, they activate chaos wand they play your counter spells.

Not to mention the fact that cast triggers are becoming more common so possibility storm, lurking predators, all the titan eldrazi and creature cast effects etc etc. wreak counterspell play.

They feel unfun until you actual understand how the game works around them. I’m assuming you don’t know much about the game stopping to your level of intellect on this conversation just to point out how rude your being. If you don’t like that maybe you should try reading the full post of all the issues I brought up rather then the one line I made where I assumed you didn’t have any experience in the game at all because to me you haven’t proven that assumption otherwise.

Also still waiting to see the retort on Why your response isn’t a huge strawman of the general causal community.