MTG Commander/Elder Dragon Highlander

Banning cards only as commander.
Page 7 of 7

Author:  cryogen [ 2018-Aug-04 7:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Banning cards only as commander.

Viperion wrote:
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

I'm not trying to change your position, I'm trying to make sure I understood it. (Side note: the po8nt wasn't whether WotC would print these, so it would have haste anyway). I am truly surprised that you be totally fine with a flying lifelink 6/6 on turn 1, or a multiuse tutor, or any of over 10,000 cards that you could have guaranteed access to the entire game.

Author:  specter404 [ 2018-Aug-05 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Banning cards only as commander.

MMLgamer wrote:
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.

Because I'm a maths teacher, I feel compelled to point out that banning all rectangles would result in the banning of all squares, because all squares are rectangles. Banning all squares would not result in banning all rectangles because not all rectangles are squares. Squares are a narrow subset of rectangles which are a narrow subset of parallelograms which are a subset of quadrilaterals.

Does that change the point you were trying to make? Not slightly, but I have a commitment to teaching geometry :D

It is analogous to the connection between Lands>swamps>UB dual-type lands>underground sea. If you ban all swamps, everything after it is also banned, but if you ban UB duals nothing before it gets banned.

Author:  Mr Degradation [ 2018-Aug-06 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Banning cards only as commander.

At the end of the day- EDH is a group experience. The reason for eliminating the BaaC list was very pronounced and clear- any commander that should be banned is just as bad in the 99 in the types of decks which seek to use them. Almost all Legendary Creature cards do benefit from the additional ability to exist in the command zone- but that itself doesn't determine whether or not a Legendary creature is suitable for EDH. Having a secondary banlist is for each individual playgroup to figure out themselves- but the banlist here is very specifically a hitlist of "things that ruin commander games very easily"- and it is itself a good guideline for the types of cards to avoid going ham on for the sake of the group's shared enjoyment.

Let's take for example, Prophet of Kruphix (cue the groans;)- Similar cards and card combos certainly exist, but it is an exemplar of the types of cards that in excess can ruin games among groups trying to enjoy the game at a more comfortable power level. Seedborn Muse, Murkfiend Liege, Vedalken Orrery, and Leyline of Anticipation are all fairly well known to seasoned commander players for building up a pretty cancerous gamestate that is only really handled well by high power or combo oriented decks- wherein a player tries to assemble a board state that allows them to play their turn on everyone else's turn to exploit the multiplayer nature of the game. The Prophet ban serves to illustrate that a group might not abandon a player over playing Muse, Liege, or Orrery individually- but if enough similar pieces are combined in hopes of creating that boardstate- the group may find it more undesirable to play with that individual than to increase the power level of their decks out of the group's comfort zone to handle it.

Rather, the banlist doesn't exist in the same context it would for a competitive format- but as a simple guideline to understand the myriad of elements which disrupt the spirit of the game (which is also why mtgcommander's banlist is so lax- because the rules of the format permit many exceptionally powerful things to do what they do with sufficient counterplay opportunities.)

Author:  Sid the Chicken [ 2018-Aug-06 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why. Won't. This. Thread. Just. Die.

Evilkritter wrote:
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.

Rofellos is definitely not OK as a commander - the problem isn't "potential" for early-game acceleration, it's the near guarantee of having (at least) 6 mana turn 3. Having him as a commander is the most reliable ramp you could ever hope for. The only question is whether the player has cards to cast with it. In the 99... still problematic, but certainly less so. Of the cards that are banned now because they used to be BaaC, he's the fairest... but I won't miss him.

Evilkritter wrote:
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.

First, off, yes there are people that are big enough jerks that they would play her as a general. Second, Braids can turn 2 off a Sol Ring (or its ilk) and Bitterblossom is a card. "Better commanders" are not relevant to her ability to be douchy.

Erayo... just no. Arcane Laboratory is a card. That is all. (And yes, I know the Erayo player won't always have Arcane Lab handy... but if you're building your deck around Erayo, I'm pretty sure you're gonna have a million ways to get it and protect it until you flip the douche).

Gris, Emrakul and Leovold were never on the BaaC list - they're just so overpowered and/or unfun and/or format-warping that they went straight to the banned list. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Go directly to hell. Also this....

Evilkritter wrote:
*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

Isn't quite accurate, and shows you were lucky enough to not be playing when it was legal - she went in EVERY deck, and more games than I'd like to recall were about how many times you could Bribery other people's copies into play. You're correct that Emmy would be less popular as a commander than as a 99 include. Probably vastly less popular as it's harder to cheat commander costs. For the sake of everyone's sanity, however, it's better that Emrakul remain fully banned.

Page 7 of 7 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group