Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Sep-15 6:58 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-19 3:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Maybe we could unban Karakas and at the same time unban all the Legendary creatures on the banlist. Problem solved!

Image

_________________
"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

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-19 8:50 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
specter404 wrote:
The point being made here is that banning those cards as commanders is functionally the same as banning then outright because no-one would play them in the 99.

They have power as a deck to build around but none when you have to find them naturally. So why bother bringing back BaaC when simply adding these cards to the current ban list would serve the exact same purpose.

In order to justify the BaaC list, to force that specific distinction, there must be cards which would fit sufficient criteria to be put on that list, but also be cards people want to play in their decks.

cryogen wrote:
When Braids was still legal under BaaC she most certainly failed 3 and 4 but that's precisely why she was on that list and not full banned (it was only because the RC didn't want her in the Command Zone which is why she and Erayo remained full banned).

I think you are making a leap here that does not exist. I think braids and erayo continue to be banned because they are bad for the format, both as commanders and in the 99. They are oppressive in the command zone but still a net negative in any deck.

We cannot divine the true intentions of the RC, but I would be of the opinion that even if BaaC returned, that both erayo and braids should remain firmly in the fully banned category.

Well if you look at the September 2014 announcement (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=192759), I think we can divine that at the least, they felt that those two cards were acceptable in the 99, Braids was a hella no in the Command Zone, and Erayo it seems they were on the fence about. (Side note if the RC sees this, has there been any revisit about Erayo?) Now whether the RC still feels the same is a question we can only speculate on, but we can absolutely divine their thoughts in 2014.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-25 2:11 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
What part of that announcement indicates the RC was happy with Braids in the 99? The statement made is "Braids and Rofellos were easy calls". This indicates that they are more on the side of always ban, than the side of probably fine.

More-over, do you think Braids is an example of a card that is good for the format? If you removed the word legendary from her type line, is she a card that you think should be allowed?

_________________
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-25 7:32 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
specter404 wrote:
What part of that announcement indicates the RC was happy with Braids in the 99? The statement made is "Braids and Rofellos were easy calls". This indicates that they are more on the side of always ban, than the side of probably fine.

More-over, do you think Braids is an example of a card that is good for the format? If you removed the word legendary from her type line, is she a card that you think should be allowed?

I didn't say they were happy, only that they found her acceptable. You know, sort of how cards like Stasis and Armageddon are still legal. And the evidence I point to is that up until the RC had to make binary decisions on legendary creatures they had ruled she was a card they didn't want near the command zone but wasn't problematic in the 99. They had every opportunity to fully ban her and yet they didn't. Her being banned now is simply a casualty of that binary mentality and not indicative of their thought process overall (barring them making a statement now).

As for your second question, I don't think she is bad for the format. Which doesn't necessarily mean she is good, but when evaluating a card the burden should be whether a card is "bad", not "good". Otherwise, Fallen Empires and Homelands would like to have a word with you. More directly, I don't think she is bad because she has a unique effect and Stax is a thing which the RC hasn't waged war on.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-25 7:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
...when evaluating a card the burden should be whether a card is "bad", not "good". Otherwise, Fallen Empires and Homelands would like to have a word with you.

Bad for the format and bad in the format are two very different things.

_________________
"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

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-25 10:20 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
cryogen wrote:
...when evaluating a card the burden should be whether a card is "bad", not "good". Otherwise, Fallen Empires and Homelands would like to have a word with you.

Bad for the format and bad in the format are two very different things.

They are. So how are 99% of the cards in those sets good for the format? Because the only thing I can think of is that they generically add more cards to choose from as well as offering some unique effects. Braids does the same thing, which is why I think the distinction should be on proving the bad, not the good.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-25 10:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I can only assume you're asking rhetorical questions here, but in case you're not:

If I play a Homelands themed deck, I'm going to have a pretty miserable game

If I play Braids-based deck, everyone is going to have a pretty miserable game.

One of these things is worth removing from the format, one of them is not.

_________________
"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

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-26 3:24 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
I can only assume you're asking rhetorical questions here, but in case you're not:

If I play a Homelands themed deck, I'm going to have a pretty miserable game

If I play Braids-based deck, everyone is going to have a pretty miserable game.

One of these things is worth removing from the format as a commander, one of them is not.

Fixed that for you.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-26 6:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
No, you added your bias, you didn't fix it. I meant what I said. And yes, that's from experience. You think someone is just going to throw Braids into some random black deck? A deck with Braids in it is a deck that has those sorts of effects in it, Braids merely being one of those effects. It's miserable.

_________________
"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

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-26 7:39 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
No, you added your bias, you didn't fix it. I meant what I said. And yes, that's from experience. You think someone is just going to throw Braids into some random black deck? A deck with Braids in it is a deck that has those sorts of effects in it, Braids merely being one of those effects. It's miserable.

Agree to disagree then, but there are a fair number of black decks which want things to die and might want a card like Braids, Meren for example. And Smokestack is still a card which remains legal.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-26 9:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
If the RC had the power to find a genie and wish that Smokestack was never printed, odds are they probably would.

Braids is the type of card we do not need more of in the format. Smokestack and friends are bad for the format, but it would be a huge mess to try to ban all of them, and none of them have the necessary attributes that make any individual one of them worth singling out. Braids does, that attribute being a potential commander.

We all agree that Braids needs to be banned as a commander. Since that step is already taken, the question then is does Braids being legal as a member of the 99 actually improve the format? My answer is a hard no, so I see no reason not to ban it completely.

_________________


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-28 8:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
The BaaC list also made way more sense back in the day when it had generals like Niv-Mizzet or Kaervek and general damage wasn’t limited to combat damage.

Um... what? I've been playing EDH for a very long time, and I don't remember Niv-Mizzet or Kaerveck being banned as commanders, nor do I remember a time when general damage was any damage. When was any of this a thing?

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-28 11:46 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Um... what? I've been playing EDH for a very long time, and I don't remember Niv-Mizzet or Kaerveck being banned as commanders, nor do I remember a time when general damage was any damage. When was any of this a thing?


I have heard of this before, I'm not going to go to the effort of finding the rules change, but I have been told of a time when heartless Hidetsugu was built to 1-shot kill you from 42 life. I don't think it lasted very long.

You know what, I am going to go looking for it...

Found it, it was the 3rd rules update recorded on the forum:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44

If I'm reading the URL notation correctly, it would have been the 44th topic ever created here.

cryogen wrote:
... when evaluating a card the burden should be whether a card is "bad", not "good". Otherwise, Fallen Empires and Homelands would like to have a word with you. More directly, I don't think she is bad because she has a unique effect and Stax is a thing which the RC hasn't waged war on.

I think bad vs good is too binary, I look for "more bad than good" when evaluating. Homelands cards aren't bad for the format, they are neutral to slightly good. Grizzly bears isn't making any waves, but that's fine.
Braids does bad things, she and the decks she goes into make games less fun for most people. There are some people that enjoy stax, and there are some meta that would accept her, and they may do so in their corner of the world. However, if you weigh her positive impacts against her negative impacts the scales would be tipped to the negative.

_________________
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-29 5:43 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
A couple of things:

1. I agree with the point that the Banned as Commander list would need to be sufficiently large enough to justify its existence. There are six commanders on the banlist today. Griselbrand and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn certainly won't be taken off the normal banlist because they're too powerful and, if I'm not mistaken, were always on the normal banlist. That leaves four, and that's not big enough. Clearly, if a commander is not banned today, it's not gonna make the BaaC list (as far as I know). Gath named a few legends that he thought would be worth BaaC, but most of them were precon commanders, and I'm 100% against banning anything in a precon. "Hey, come spend $30-40 on our product. Oh by the way, we made it useless right out of the box."

2. I'm of the school of thought that banning a card merely because it fits a certain strategy is particularly childish, especially if it's a strategy that was deliberately designed and introduced into MtG. I don't care if you don't think it's fun. I don't care if it doesn't fit your special and highly specific definition of "playing Magic". If that's your only basis for saying it's a "net negative", then you're biased, period.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Jul-29 9:31 am 

Joined: 2015-Sep-02 2:49 am
Age: Drake
Location: Connecticut
Fortunately, Braids is just one of several cards that do similar things, and is in the best color for tutors and second best color for draw, so whether Braids is in or out will have a minimal effect on people who want to play stax strategies. Personally, I think it's good to have stax in your meta, or at least to keep the strategy in mind when deck building. If you need a boatload of resources to operate, and you didn't pack a single thing to get you there through resistance, other players shouldn't have to accommodate that. I would hope by now that folks are packing removal for enchantments, artifacts, and things that aren't 8-drop fatties. My friends aren't so competitive where I plan to lose on turn 3, but they're competitive enough where serious business will be going on by turn three, and I can't sit around like a schmuck. Low cmc answers spread around a multiplayer table will put any oppressive strategy in its place. No need to ban around it.


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: cryogen, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 32 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: