Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jan-21 3:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 8:08 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
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.

That doesn't make them the same criteria. Just because squares are also rectangles, doesn't mean that banning anything called a rectangle is the same thing as banning anything called a square or, obviously, vice versa.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 9:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sure, look at it through slotted glasses. Looking at the whole picture though -- the ban list essentially bans unfun cards.

Lets go back to what you said earlier:
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.

Now... they believe that encouraging diversity is important and fun. Isn't banning Prophet for this reason just them saying that he is unfun?

They certainly guide the format by what is (to them) fun. The singleton aspect of the format is (for them) more fun than consistency. Aren't they (essentially) banning the easiest form of redundancy in a deck in the name of fun by the singleton rule?

That they have codified what they mean by fun doesn't diminish that they are using the ban list & format rules to sculpt what they feel is fun, and remove the (excessively) unfun cards from the format.

So your original point that they should have more of a reason to ban something, besides it's not their exact version of fun -- I find to be wrong in many ways.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 11:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I mean, look at the standard list of ban list “criteria” and any and all justification for them seems to be on the basis of “fun”:

Creates Perceived Barrier to Entry: A newish Commander probably won’t have fun if they come into a game or two and get the impression that they need Power or similar cards to reasonably compete.

Creates Undesirable Gamestates: This one is almost literally a high-falutin’ way of saying “makes the game not fun”.

Warps the Format Strategically: Games tend to be less fun when games turn out the same over and over.

Interacts Badly With Rules of the Format: Kind of an and/or of the above two, cards in this category tend to be some combination of so powerful they warp the format or by necessity create unfun games. Or both like Karakas.

Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly: Some RC member (I wanna say Sheldon) has been quoted as saying something along the lines of “Big splashy plays are fun, but not on turn 3”.

_________________
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-Aug-02 2:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Getting away from any specific card as an example for a moment.

If there was a "Banned as a Commander" list, there would have to be a criteria for placing a card on that list which made it sufficiently different from just flat out Banned.

There are only two things I can think of that fit such a criteria:
  • The card has some literal interaction with the Command Zone, and that interaction is banworthy
  • The near-constant access to the card somehow makes it banworthy when having access to it as part of the deck doesn't
There are a few cards now (Derevi, Oloro, legendary creatures with Eminence, the new "Commander Ninjutsu" card) which have command zone interactions, but none of those make the cards banworthy. So that criteria, at least for now, is irrelevant.

The second criteria, to me anyway, is just weak. Any card that has an ability or set of abilities which are considered banworthy, is banworthy no matter whether you see it 3 times a game or once a game.

So, that's why I don't think a Banned as a Commander banlist is worth having.

_________________
"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-Aug-02 7:00 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Your second criteria is literally the reason for every BaaC card, at least once they made the change to general damage.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 7:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Your second criteria is literally the reason for every BaaC card, at least once they made the change to general damage.

Potentially then a third bullet point: "The card has some interaction with commander damage that is banworthy." Was more reliably true when commander damage wasn't just combat damage.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 7:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Your second criteria is literally the reason for every BaaC card, at least once they made the change to general damage.

And you're ignoring my comment on that point; any card that has abilities that deserved to be banned FOR ANY REASON (did you catch it this time?) is, in my opinion a good enough reason to ban the card completely. The fact that it's more accessible in the Command Zone doesn't change the decision as to whether it's banworthy or not (for me) - either the ability/combination of abilities deserves to be banned, or it doesn't. That's my position.

_________________
"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-Aug-02 10:01 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
[*]The near-constant access to the card somehow makes it banworthy when having access to it as part of the deck doesn't[/list]

...the second criteria, to me anyway, is just weak. Any card that has an ability or set of abilities which are considered banworthy, is banworthy no matter whether you see it 3 times a game or once a game.


I don't think this is true, though. Sometimes effects are banworthy precisely because they are available consistently from the Command Zone (e.g. Leovold can always come down on turn three every game), and/or because their being legal as Commanders allows them to be recast repeatedly over the course of the game (Black Braids).

If this weren't the case, they wouldn't be banworthy, because it's not their abilities that make them deserve banning. It's their abilities and the frequency with which they show up.

You might just deny this outright, and that's fair, but then you end up in a strange position of suggesting that Leovold and Braids and so on would still be banworthy if they hypothetically weren't legendary (even though their actual impact on the format would be notably different in that case), or that something that's currently legal could never be banworthy even if it were legendary and was ruining games because of it (because it being your Commander and consistently available from the Command Zone supposedly makes no difference to the calculus). Do you see what I mean here?

_________________
Current Commanders:

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant)
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis)
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund)
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-02 10:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Yep and I agree with your conclusion - nonlegendary Braids and Leovold should be banned, and your hypothetical card that is currently legal would remain legal if it were legendary.

_________________
"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-Aug-03 2:12 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
cryogen wrote:
Your second criteria is literally the reason for every BaaC card, at least once they made the change to general damage.

And you're ignoring my comment on that point; any card that has abilities that deserved to be banned FOR ANY REASON (did you catch it this time?) is, in my opinion a good enough reason to ban the card completely. The fact that it's more accessible in the Command Zone doesn't change the decision as to whether it's banworthy or not (for me) - either the ability/combination of abilities deserves to be banned, or it doesn't. That's my position.

I would hate to see what your ban list would look like. So you're saying as a hypothetical that you are ok with legendary creature versions of stuff like Sol Ring, Serra Ascendant, Mana Drain, Demonic Tutor, Treasonous Ogre, Genesis Wave, or just to name a few?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-03 8:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
:facepalm:

_________________
"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-Aug-04 4:08 am 

Joined: 2015-Dec-22 4:41 am
Age: Drake
Carthain wrote:
So your original point that they should have more of a reason to ban something, besides it's not their exact version of fun -- I find to be wrong in many ways.

I'm not sure who's slotting their eyes here, but it seems to me that you're trying to put different criteria under the same umbrella term in order to ignore their differences. "Lack of diversity" and "Lack of personal appeal" certainly are both reasons someone might find something unfun, but that doesn't mean you are free to treat them the same. Rather, it makes "unfun" ambiguous and therefore an insufficient ban qualifier, period.

_________________
.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-04 5:21 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Viperion wrote:
:facepalm:

A quality response. Did I misunderstand that your opinion that if a card is worth banning because of how it would play in the Command Zone OR the 99 then it should be fully banned?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Why. Won't. This. Thread. Just. Die.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-04 6:49 am 

Joined: 2017-Jun-13 4:56 am
Age: Drake
Ima do a sum-up post.

Administrative argument aside (why have a banned-as-commander when it so rarely matters), let's look at the qualification argument (what reason SHOULD a card not be a commander, but still be in the 99).

First, why are the current Legendaries banned?

*My playgroup didn't follow the commander ban list when we first started, we had a Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary deck in our meta. He was later replaced by Omnath, Locus of Mana, and the Selvala, Heart of the Wilds because they were better. Azusa, Lost but Seeking does similar, a sol-ring Signet start is similar.

I suspect Rofellos is a candidate to get unbanned. His current reason to be banned is his potential for early game acceleration. His "problematic" play does still exists if he's in the 99.

*Braids, Cabal Minion would be monoblack sacrifice/stacks. Each player loses permanents at start of turn, her controller can just sac her if the effect his too hard on them. She's just considered unfun. Smokestack and Destructive Flow are the closes equivalents I can find.

Does anybody WANT to play a Braids deck? She's just looks kind of annoying, but I've never played against her. Does anybody remember when she was legal? Before the better commanders were printed she was probably MUCH more effective at locking people out of the game.

She is less problematic now, and less oppressive in the 99, but I don't see how having this card in a game makes a deck more fun or enables a new strategy. As a non-commander I don't think she'd see any play.

*Leovold, Emissary of Trest sees competitive vintage play because he is relentlessly oppressive and casually locks out many decks without having to do anything else. And can combo with another card to empty every opponents' hand. In the 99 he's just as unfun, but not quite so persistent.

*Griselbrand is a tier 1 finisher. He's better than a Consecrated Sphinx in many decks and probably would see more play in the 99 than the command zone if unbanned. So he'd still be banned.

*Emrakul, Aeons Torn a timewalk in the command zone is crazy good, even with the deck building restrictions. In the 99 she'd be insane, and would be an auto include in every big-mana deck. I could see an argument for her being "Banned-as-not-commander" : P

*Erayo, Soratami Ascendant is super oppressive. Sure, you only have to exile it once if it's not a commander but it is still crazy free counterspell that can be flipped by you opponents.
*****
Looking at the Banned Commanders we have now there are none that stand out as "not a problem in the 99". I think this is because the Ban List is made with the thought of encouraging fun games, not "statistically fun" games.

If the best argument for a card being unbanned is "they might not draw it" or "it's not game warping if you keep it removed" then that's not a great reason to unban it.

_________________
I'm like the Emily Litella of forums
Respect ought be given, though 'tis scarcely earned


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banning cards only as commander.
AgePosted: 2018-Aug-04 7:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
A quality response. Did I misunderstand that your opinion (is - Ed.) that if a card is worth banning because of how it would play in the Command Zone OR the 99 then it should be fully banned?
That is exactly my position. I have been very clear. I don't know why you think throwing examples at me would suddenly change my mind, as if I haven't thought about this.

On a related note every single one of your examples are perfectly fine with the possible exception of a legendary Sol Ring on legs and even then:
  • A creature is easier to kill than an artifact
  • +1 mana (costs one, provides 2) is not "too much mana too fast"
  • Creatures have summoning sickness
  • WotC would never print such a creature anyway

_________________
"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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 23 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: