Hello and welcome back to In General. This is the broad topics segment where your old Grandpa Growth discusses just about anything relating to the game of Magic. Being that this is a blog primarily about Commander, it would be appropriate for me to spend at least 10% of my time discussing Commander.
Some interesting news relating to the format came out this week; the EDH rules committee has announced a change to the "Official Commander Banned List". This exclusionary list explicitly defines the cards which are not to be included in Commander decks and provides recommendations for standards of community play.
You can find the announcement HERE. The forum post is succinct, but it does give some limited justifications for the decisions. I will discuss each of the cards individually below, but the short list is as follows: Braids, Cabal Minion; Erayo, Soratami Ascendant; and Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary have been banned from use completely. Kokusho, the Evening Star and Metal Worker have been un-banned and are now legal for use.
Banned:
The three cards banned under this announcement were all cards that had previously been legal for use in decks, but had been banned for use as a commander. The EDHRC decided that the list should be streamlined and no longer include exceptions for certain cards that should only be used in 'the other 99'. As a general rule, I support their goal of simplifying any ordinance down to its most essential elements. However, I have misgivings about their choices relating to these individual cards.
Frankly, I don't want to play with anyone who looks like that.
Braids has been on the community's watch list for many years. It is annoying to play against and not really in the spirit of having a good time. The aggressive disruption it provides in combination with early mana acceleration can lock multiple opponents out of the game starting as early as turn two.
I agree that Commander games should not be won or lost solely on the contents of your opening hand. However, if you are playing against someone whom you know has access to Braids early on, you MUST take that knowledge into account when evaluating your mulligan decisions or risk losing because you didn't.
As a Commander, I don't think that Braids provides a substantial competitive advantage in terms of raw win percentage over the other available mono Black Commanders. As a card it is extremely powerful, cheap, and universal disruption that scales easily to multiplayer. Thus it should be regulated by the community. I would like to point out though: Smokestack is easier to cast and no one is calling for that to be banned. Where is the objectivity?
One of the silliest portrayals of a male figure in Magic art. Very gay, in the olde English sense.
Now from mono Black to mono Green. All three of the 'banned as a commander' cards featured in this update are extremely powerful enablers that made their particular decks into pillars of the format. In my article "Seven Deadly Sins" link HERE, I detail why these cards are so well suited to play in Commander and why they are a what I refer to as "Tier 1 Decks".
In the case of Green, Rofellos was the only thing holding that pillar up. There is no other potential commander that I would even consider close to being Tier 1. Not Omnath. Don't even say it. It is unfortunate that things have to be this way but, if Rofellos is legal, Green is awesome. If he is banned, Green is not scaring anyone. I don't necessarily support the ban of this card by itself, but for consistency's sake, if you banned Braids you must also ban Rofellos.
When flipped, Erayo resembles a spell cast by Genie from Disney's 'Aladdin'.
Erayo is something of a strange exception to this rule. Rofellos and Braids are still pretty awesome, even if they aren't your commander. Erayo is indomitable as a Commander, by far the best deck in the format. If she isn't your Commander though...well, she just isn't worth playing. It is that simple. Blue is still awesome, but it has to take a much different form. Non-Erayo decks are much slower and much less likely to 'auto-win'. For the health of the format I completely agreed with the banning of Erayo for use as a Commander. With such policy riders no longer used to save cards from the banned list chopping block, I wholeheartedly agree: Erayo must go.
Well, that wasn't so bad. Two conditional yes's and an outright no? Grandpa, you must be going soft. I am an outspoken critic of the EDHRC and their bannings, but I agree with the reasons they made these changes, which in some ways is more important than agreeing with the change itself. The EDHRC is trying to improve the format and simplify its systems. Quite frankly, that is God's work friends.
There is still more to talk about though. The committee saw fit to reintroduce two caged animals into the wild:
Un-banned:
Note the gas vents along the underside of the Dragon. His dingy smog-farts literally take on a life of their own.
Kokusho, was banned at a time when the graveyard, nay the format, was more like the wild west. Recurring Nightmare gave a steady string of recursion which, when combined with Kokusho, meant consistent life swings. As an engine, it was difficult to race and required specific, targeted removal to disrupt. Several years ago, they were banned as a pair, but now it seems one is being release for good behavior.
Things have changed. Everyone is aware that the graveyard is the place to be. In recent years, many new tools have come out to help players counter graveyard-based strategies. I foresee no problems with un-banning Kokusho and fully agree with the committee's decision. I expect this card to contribute positively to a well-rounded format.
Finally, we arrive at the last card to change status: Metal worker. It has long been a premium accelerator for broken artifact-heavy decks in eternal formats. It is capable of producing a dozen mana. Unlike Grim Monolith it untaps every turn, but it can also be hit with Creature removal.
This is a confusing and edgy move by the rules committee. On the surface, Metalworker is everything that they stand up against. It promotes 'Mono Brown', which they have never been a fan of. Allows for game ending plays in the early turns, which they have explicitly stated: "does not conform to the spirit of the format." And, it is going to INCREASE the already staggeringly high percentage of Commander games that end in Eldrazi.
On the one hand, Metalworker isn't as broken in practice as it is in theory. Comparing its Commander uses to the role it played in Legacy is simply not fair. On the other hand, there are probably 15 cards that are generally weaker and less likely to disturb the format that are STILL BANNED.
I don't necessarily have qualms with the un-banning of Metalworker, but I do have questions and I was not satisfied with the reasoning presented in the announcement. Why Metalworker...and why now?
What are your feelings on the banned list changes? Are you upset that you just ordered a Rofellos and now it is worth less than you paid? Are you dying to play Kokusho again? Are you still wondering why Coalition Victory is banned? Shout at us in the comments or take your inconsolable internet rage to the official forums on Wizards website or Commander.net.
-GG
Well, it's just GG and UL here on this Saturday's somewhat controversial Stack.
Last week, we talked about the cards we wanted to get banned. So naturally, we decided to pick a couple cards we thought we'd like to see unbanned.
So let's get to it! This is THE STACK!
UNCLE LANDDROPS' PICK
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS UP
I do my best to support and uphold the banlist. It's the best way to ensure consistent game play where the group isn't some small clique of kids playing in a basement or apartment. That said, I've also played with a lot of the banned cards in this latter setting with GG, so been there, done that.
Academy, I suppose, used to be less baffling than it is now. I know Artifacts are more important than Enchantments, which is why this is here and Serra's Sanctum isn't, but I don't see the big deal now. Nykthos is a thing. Cabal Coffers is still a thing. Gaea's Cradle is a thing. We already play hate for it in the metagame. I agree with Gifts and Karakas and Recurring Nightmate and most of this suggested list. Academy could definitely be revisited, in my opinion.
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS UP
I don't like the idea of imposing outside restrictions on my possibility space and typically I won't accept it. There are some standards I will accept however, but the EDHRC's official banned list doesn't seem to follow them. Chief among these standards is consistency. I see no profit in drawing arbitrary lines to decide what is 'good enough' and 'too good'. I have no doubt that Academy is more powerful than Nykthos, Cradle, Sanctum, and Coffers. That said, I don't agree with just drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Academy is too good. Anything as good or better should be banned." If fast mana is a problem, limit all fast mana. This card is not much better than Sol Ring, and would only show up in a fraction of the decks, but you don't see people crying out for the banning of Sol Ring.
GRANDPA GROWTH'S PICK
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS UP (for unbanning)
I think that it's worth stating that I don't support any card being banned in Commander. Limiting myself to talking about just a few cards feels like it is sending the wrong message. This card shouldn't be banned, but neither should any other. So bear in mind that this discussion does not have any bearing on what I think it the 'most deserving' of ban list amnesty.
If your stars sway low, let them wobble to and fro'. I think this card is silly and not a real threat to anyone. I don't think people would play it with sufficient regularity for it to become a 'problem'. That problem wouldn't even be a issue of card strength either. There is simply no in-game reason to limit the play of Sway because there simply isn't any strategic reason to play it at all. This card doesn't create a degenerate board state, doesn't instantly grant a player an easy victory, and is more difficult to take advantage of than other similar cards. Its cost is already prohibitive. At best it is worse than Upheaval. What the EDHRC doesn't like about this card is that it is mass disruption. Mass feel-bads for people who have over-spent their resources setting up "impressive", but fragile, board states. Upheaval should be legal. Sway should be legal. And if you had the first you would never even hear about the second.
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS DOWN
I wrote Thumbs Down, but it's more of a leaning thing than a pure "No." I have the same relationship with this card as GG mentioned last week in talking about Top. Whereas Top is a card that can be used for skill and value, it is often a card Bad Magic Players use thinking they can be better at Magic. I feel the same way about Sway because I too was bad at Commander once, and did in fact buy this card with the intentions of playing it. Honestly, I think that reason is decent enough grounds for banning, and I don't mind being told what to do in this regard, simply because my experience and knowledge about this card and the way it impacts the game isn't necessarily so much a "spirit of the format" argument as much as it is a preventative measure for bad magic players and Kitchen Table Trolls who enjoy chaos decks where they blow up the board without intentions. Most cards of this caliber have a purpose, which isn't to blow stuff up for the sake of itself.
Unbanning wouldn't be so much a big deal- I just don't see how giving bad Magic players another card to play enhances the game. If Top is annoying, this would be a lot worse. Thank goodness most people prefer not to play Goblin Game.
UNCLE LANDDROPS' PICK
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS UP
I know all about the boring 'ol infinite turns combo and that's surely enough to explain why Mirror is on this list. However, if a conversation ever arose in my group about someone who wanted to play this without Time Walking everyone, or Infini-Wrathing the board, I'd love to see the kinds of weird stuff that could be put on this card.
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS UP
I concur. There is a wealth of interesting interactions that can be created with this card and two-card instant-win combos are still available in every color combination. Why single out this card? Because it was popular? Because it is more versatile? Because it could actually be used as a value engine when a higher powered alternative wasn't available? That last explanation seems plausible at least, but this is still substantially worse than a good deal of combo cards that are still legal, which erodes the evidenciary argument for why this shouldn't be played.
GRANDPA GROWTH'S PICK
Grandpa Growth- THUMBS UP (for unbanning)
Using the same thought process as above, I see no real strategic reason for banning this because it simply isn't strong enough to play. The EDHRC seems to be afraid of cards that declare instant victory, as the prospect of several players experiencing disappointment simultaneously is apparently not an event they want to be seen to condone. The unfortunate truth (at least for the potential players of Coalition Victory, is that it is so unrealistic that you will hardly ever achieve it. This renders the idea of it being a problem to the format irrelevant. Additionally, this is a "win-more" card. If you have access to perfect mana and a board full of choice permanents...why aren't you winning already? In your five color deck you couldn't just assemble a handful of cards that were good enough to just win outright? I find that hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe that Coalition Victory would grant even a slight increase to the odds of five color decks winning more often were it made legal. Even though the printing of Nylea's Presence makes achieving the first half of the conditional clause the easiest it has ever been, this card is still abysmal and a waste of time for players who are serious about winning. In that light, it just seems like we are banning cards BECAUSE they are gimmicky and that is akin to having no reason at all.
Uncle Landdrops- THUMBS DOWN
Sometimes I don't read cards. It's only recently that I realized this card is not an Enchantment with an upkeep trigger, but a Sorcery that says "Win Target Game," should you hit its double rainbow of conditions. Were it an enchantment, I'd be more likely to say yes.
I guess I feel like there's zero sum in unbanning this card. I know GG, and he wasn't going to play this janky piece of chaff, and I think it'd be the general consensus among the more serious Commander players. I don't disagree with his point about saying "No" in an inconsistent way and limiting deckbuilding. But this is a rare case where I don't think we should care about this card, and we shouldn't have to consider it in the metagame either.
Do you agree or disagree with us? Would you have picked something else? Be sure to tell us in the comments below.
Well hey there neighbor! Welcome back to the final segment of my long awaited discussion of the ban list. Throughout the parts of this series I have been taking a comprehensive look at the "Official" Commander banned list. In part 1, we took a look a the function the Rules Committee serves, the necessity of a banned list, and how your playgroup can make these decisions for themselves. In part 2, we took a look at the cards on the banned list, the reasons they were banned, and I weighed in on whether or not I thought a ban was justified. Today in the ultimate segment I will discuss the few reasons that I think are acceptable for banning cards in Commander and what cards I think need to be removed from the format.
Reason Number 1: Precedent from the DCI
As I mentioned in the previous parts, the DCI and Wizards' Organized Play collect and analyze a ton of information about event attendance, product sales, and top 8 results. Combine that with Wizards internal marketing research and now you have a lot of information to make predictions and decisions about the health of a format and the pros/cons of a ban. I will take this opportunity to reiterate that the Commander RC does not even come close to this level of analysis.
With that in mind, it makes some sense to trust the DCI's decisions about what cards can create an unhealthy format. At the very least it is a logical alternative to simply trusting the RC. The DCI's process is more scientific and they are much more capable of making decisions on an evidentiary basis.
This is all to say: if it is banned in Legacy, there is a legitimate argument for banning it in Commander. As I have previously discussed, I hate drawing lines in the sand. I will avoid doing it whenever possible because opinions differ so greatly between people. If a line must get drawn, do it in the most logical place and don't get bogged down in the details. So I would recommend banning ALL the cards on the Legacy banned list, even if some of them don't seem like much of a problem in Commander.
The Legacy Banned List is a bit extensive and can be viewed here: Check it out
Reason Number 2: Interacting Strangely Deck Construction
Because of the specific restrictions of a highlander format, the requirements of having Legendary creatures be included and constantly available, and the non-standard beginning life total some cards vary in function in Commander. Note: this is not an argument based on power level. I don't think any of these cards should be banned on that basis. We are attempting to set a precedent here. Do not allow cards whose functionality is changed by the rules of the format, whether that change is positive or negative.
This list of cards includes: Serra Ascendent, Felidar Sovereign, Test of Endurance, Tsabo Tavoc, Empress Galina, Karakas, Battle of Wits, and if not playing with sideboards: all of the Wish cards and Spawnsire of Ulamog. (There could be other things like these, I am only human, and only one human at that so I beg forgiveness if I have left anything important out)
An important point to be made here is that I categorically do not condone the idea of psuedo-errata-ing cards just so that they work in EDH. E.g. Serra Ascendent 'turns on' at your initial life total plus ten or Phage, the Untouchable doesn't make you lose if it is your general.
Aaaaaand that is really it. I don't think anything is too powerful or too little fun. Those are too subjective, too personal of criteria to make 'official' decisions about.
If you stuck with me through all three parts of this diatribe then you are a true Zoner, you have my thanks, and you deserve a medal. Next week I will be back to my old grind. Who knows, I may even put up a Super Secret Sunday.
Quid custodiet ipsos custodes? Today it's me, your old Grandpa Growth, except it is really a bit more like judging the judges, but you get the idea.
Welcome back to part two of my long awaited ban list article. In the first segment, I shared my feelings on what the function of the Rules Committee is as compared to to the function that the DCI and Wizard's Organized Play program serve and I gave you my thoughts on the necessity of a ban list.
In today's segment I will be looking at the cards on the banned list and the reasons they are banned (from what I can piece together from posts on the official site, forums, interviews with members of the RC, and my own speculation where necessary).
Note that I will not be addressing any of the cards on the Commander banned list that are ALSO on the Legacy banned list. Those cards, for various reasons, have an established precedent from the DCI as being bad for formats. Therefore, I am willing to concede that there is an argument for banning them.
I will revisit this issue in a future article and give you my thoughts on how Legacy and Commander differ and what implications it has for those specific cards because I think that is an interesting topic that deserves some discussion.
Due to the size of the Commander banned list, this article will be substantially longer than the previous segment so I ask that you bear with me. Without further ado, let's talk about some cards.
Biorhythm - This is banned because, and I am paraphrasing here: 'instant wins do not conform to the spirit of the format'. There are really two assertions that the RC are making here:
1. Biorhythm is consistent enough and powerful enough as a win condition that it has warped the format, leading to repetitive or abusive gameplay situations.
2. Cards that allow a player to win on the spot, even in multiplayer, such as Biorhythm, are not in keeping with the spirit of the format and should be banned in the interest of format health.
First, I do not feel that Biorhythm fits the definition of a card that has an abusive level of power or consistency. Can you win the game? Sure. I find it a bit unlikely, as you also need some set up; like a board sweeper or a bunch of creatures of your own. It is not like you just cast the card and proceed to the win phase. Also, Green has no way of tutoring a Sorcery, so they are most likely going to have to raw dog the wrath and the Biorhythm. In multicolor decks, tutors can provide access to the different parts of the Biorhythm puzzle and even add disruption to help insure that it resolves, but even in this dream case where you manage to 'have it all' there are still a dozen instant win combos that are easier to pull off. Most don't even require you to resolve a GIGANTIC sorcery, which trust me, is a task against a group of seasoned Commander vets.
This segues well into my next point. If shenanigans like instant win combos are indeed against the spirit of the format, why are the other offenders in this category not banned? This is a glaring inconsistency. Tooth and Nail is just as lethal than Biorhythm, but it is cheaper and also actually does something relevant when you can't insta-win. Felidar Sovereign is in a similar spot and heck, it can even attack. Note: I don't personall believe either of those cards, nor any other sort of instant-win nonsense should be banned.
The banned list page spells out what cards should not be played, but also tacks on a rider that you also shouldn't play "others like them". I won't abide this at all. Such a nebulous statement is simply too soft for an 'official ruling' by an 'official body'. A banned list should not require interpretation. A general guideline of what Sheldon Mennery thinks is un-fun is not sufficient material for the banning of a single card and certainly not an entire family of similar cards.
Verdict: Let my people dance! Unban Bro-rhythm.
Coalition Victory - I can only guess at why this is banned. It is a very similar instant win card, but it is restricted to only 5cc decks, which are admittedly pretty good in Commander, but Coalition Victory is approximately 10 times harder to win with than Biorhythm and I didn't even think that card was good at all. So what do you think I am going to say about this card?
Verdict: The Coalition isn't winning anything. Unban Coalition Victory, unless you agree to ban The Cheese Stands Alone.
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn - This card is certainly very powerful. It can lead to repetitive and abusive gameplay. It is easy to put in play on the cheap. It is tough to answer. The only things I will say in defense of Emmy are that it isn't a sure thing in multiplayer, it is colorless so anybody can fight fire with fire, and lastly there are plenty of other abominable threats that immediately dominate the board (I recommend Ulamog).
Sheldon Mennery mentioned in an interview at a pro tour that this card was banned largely due to the Eldrazis ubiquity in the format. So many people play them that every game had a good shot of ending with an Annihilator trigger regardless of which player, or Commander, was victorious when it was all said and done.
I cannot, CANNOT condone a ban based on ubiquity alone. Everyone is playing it because it is among the best cards in the format. That doesn't make it inherently unhealthy. I also do not condone drawing lines in the sand about an unhealthy power level. Especially without quantitative data proving that the format is suffering due to the influence of one card or strategy (data like the DCI collects constantly). If there must be a power ceiling and you have to make a cut off, then starting at the top seems logical. I'm not going to be happy about it either way, but Emrakul was Commander's big bad, not by much, but maybe that is enough.
Verdict: This is complex. I wouldn't ban Emrakul, but, if it is already banned, AND if there must be a power ceiling, then I recommend leaving Emrakul banned. Put the squid on ice. No sushi today. Keep Emra Watson banned.
Gifts Ungiven - I don't have precise information about why this was banned. If you told me it was banned on the basis of its power level I would grudgingly agree. It is extremely powerful. It is tough to lose after resolving a gifts and, as an instant, it is pretty easy to sneak past people's defenses. If you told me this was banned because of how it interacted with the deck construction rules, I would be inclined to argue the following point: Gifts isn't anymore powerful in a highlander format than it is in Legacy. Playing a deck with Gifts Ungiven carries the price of having a large package of 1-of's to begin with. That is simply how you have to play in order to maximize the effectiveness of the card. In my mind, this is a non-issue. Gifts does interact differently with the rules of Commander (a school of ban logic that I will address at a later date), but not in a significant way.
So, if I wouldn't ban it on the basis of its deck building interactions, I must assume it is banned because it is too powerful. Take a moment to think back to what I said about power level in regards to Biorhythm. Gifts doesn't dominate the format. It doesn't squash fun, limit the variety of viable decks in the format, or prevent creativity in deck building. My final thoughts are again about not wanting to draw arbitrary lines about what is 'too good'. Intuition is legal in Commander and Legacy. It sees only limited play in both formats and is very similar in power level.
Verdict: Take the gifts...and give them back to the people. Unban Gifts Ungiven.
Karakas - This is almost certainly banned because of how favorably it interacts with the myriad legendary creatures running around EDH games. Some decks are built with Commander centric strategies...and because people are reluctant to use land destruction, they can't ever beat Karakas. It is somewhat unfair that no other colors have an equivalent broad format hoser card, but that isn't a reason to ban something, even when it is this powerful. I promised further explanation of why I think it is, in fact, alright to ban cards that interact differently with the unique rules of Commander, but now is not the time for fear...that comes later.
Verdict: Big fan of Venezuelan politics. Not a big fan of Karakan politics. Keep Karakas banned.
Limited Resources - I am told that land destruction, especially mass land destruction, is not in the spirit of the format. I am going to put this simply: That is asinine. Disruption is a key piece of the game's strategy. Is it always fun to play against? Maybe not, but I don't get angry and throw my toys around just because I am only having 75% of the fun I wanted to have. Land destruction is one of the few types of disruption that actually works in favor of aggressive decks. In order for aggressive decks to be competitive in Commander they have to rely on back-breaking disruptive plays; usually something like Mind Twist or Armageddon. Speaking of old geddon: It is just as good as Limited Resources, but no one wants to ban it (although 'geddon is appropriately costed). Are you getting the idea about not drawing lines in the sand? Commander needs good land destruction in order to regain balance as a format.
Verdict: Un-limit the disruption. Learn to use it. As you become a better, more well-rounded player, you will see the wisdom of this decision. Unban Limited Resouces.
Sundering Titan - Look back at what I said about Emrakul and LR. The same arguments were made: over-powered, ubiquitous, against the spirit of the format. I make the same rebuttals: Titan does not substantially affect the metagame, it would continue to be healthy and diverse. There are more powerful threats certainly, but I will concede that Sundering Titan is unique in that is a highly disruptive colorless threat, but again, like Emrakul, everyone can play it. Its power scales down dramatically in 1v1. Ubiquity isn't a reason for a ban. The spirit of the format is limiting the diversity of the format...and is also laughable.
Verdict: Sunder the banlist. Unban Sundering Titan.
Primeval Titan - Sheldon Mennery is on record saying this was banned simply because too many games ended in Titan-vantage. I am flat out unwilling to accept that logic for banning a card. In the same interview, he purported that Sol Ring would never be banned because it is core to the spirit of the format. Sol Ring isn't unfair or ubiquitous at all.
Verdict: If you think this card should be banned you are the primeval one. Unban Primeval Titan.
Painter's Servant - I am grasping at straws trying to think of why this would be banned. It is a second class combo in legacy. It just isn't that good. Colorless or not, this card wouldn't get played. There are dozens of 2-card combos that win the game on the spot and are still legal in Commander. This is hardly worth a ban and I have never heard convincing logic about why this card isn't legal.
Verdict: Unban Painter's Servant. It serves the interest of improving the format.
Panoptic Mirror- I have very similar feelings about this card. A colorless, combo win condition that is barely playable in any other format. This card is significantly more expensive and more difficult to 'go off' with, but it has the added value of generating value in the absence of a combo. Not even close to powerful enough to ban. Do you guys at home seriously lose to this kind of junk? You see it once and you are surprised. The next time you are ready. Gimmick nonsense. This barely qualifies as a strategy. And also, Isochron Scepter is much more difficult to win through.
Protean Hulk - Spoiler: I never observe the official banned list in my normal playgroup. I find the idea patently absurd. I make the rules at my kitchen table and I say anything goes. Whenever I look over the banned list though, usually for the purpose of discussing its patent absurdity, I always laugh at this card. Banning Protean Hulk is like shooting at the Heavy in Team Fortress 2. It is just idiotic. YOU MUST kill the medic first. So I am just going to assume that the RC made a mistake and meant to ban Flash.
Verdict: You wouldn't like the Hulk when he is angry. Ban Flash.
Recurring Nightmare - I assume this was banned because of its power level and favorable interactions with popular threats like Kokusho, and now, the primordial cycle. Much like Emrakul, this feels like an arbitrary ban, but a logical place to draw the line if there must be one. I really don't get it though, isn't everyone packing graveyard hate by now?
Verdict: I don't think the nightmare should ever have ended, but I don't think we should let it recur. Keep Recurring Nightmare banned.
Sway of the Stars / Worldfire - I am just going lump these two together because I don't have anything to say about one that I couldn't say about the other. They are prohibitively expensive sorceries. The literal worst kind of win condition AND they each need additional help to win the game. Most people would think that this is the kind of stereotypical nonsense that Commander is ALL ABOUT! They do immediately warp multiplayer games when they resolve, but if you have 10 lands in play already...well let's just say it is about time things got weird don't you think?
Verdict: I am not starting a fire to ban Warp World or Reverse the Sands. It'd take quite the orator to sway my opinion on this one. Unban these cards.
Verdict: Unban Yawgmoth's Bargain before I start making puns.
Griselbrand - I haven't ever heard a member of the RC give a concise explanation of why this card was banned. Most of the conversation revolves around it being too powerful. It is too powerful, but in Commander that can be just as bad for you as it is for them. Bribery is a card. Desertion is a card. Games do tend to end when Grissly Bear hits the board, but not before things get interesting.
Verdict: I have no real opinion and could go either way, but banning a card without a reason is tough for me to chew.
Trade Secrets - Ahh the new guy. To be the hot topic. The villain du jour. Public Enemy #1. Trade Secrets was banned because it encouraged collusion in multiplayer. You don't say. Politics is the ONLY dynamic that sets multiplayer apart from single player games. Isn't that why people play it? If you don't like crony king-making then you shouldn't be entering into the Mexican standoff of multiplayer Commander. Trade Secrets is one of the rare cards that actually allows you to get ahead in a group game. Usually interacting with an opponent means that you are both going to be behind the table. Strip Mine for example. We each lose a land, but everyone else doesn't. If you can consistently convince your opponents to help you discover their trade secrets then you are awesome and deserve to win. This kind of behavior should be encouraged. If you can't stand your playgroup constantly teaming up and leaving you out in the cold then you have a social problem, not a gameplay problem.
Verdict: The secret is out, but the card is in. Victoria says: Unban Trade Secrets.
A quick note about the banned generals: I don't agree with this practice in general. People should be able to play what they want. In a competitive setting though, things change. I agree to bannig generals in that context. And in that context I believe that all 7 Tier 1 generals should be banned: Erayo, Sharuum, Niv-Mizzet, Rofellos, Azami, Braids, and Jhoira. I would also recommend that Edric, Arcum Dagsson, and Blue Braids be banned. It might even be necessary to ban some of the other overplayed 1v1 generals like Venser or Vendilion Clique, but I would need more intel before I commit to that position. This configuration of bans would, based on my logic, maximize the variety of viable generals in the format, but not necessarily the health of the format or the fun of playing it.
Well, that is all for today youngins'. This was a biggun, but I feel it was worth it. This is a topic that eats up a lot of my time both on the internet and away from the keyboard. I have been itching to pen an article about it for a good bit. Thanks for sticking with me zoners! Make sure to join me next week for the final installment where I will discuss what reasons I think ARE acceptable for banning a card and I will reveal the list of cards that Grandpa thinks should be kept off the kitchen table. Till then, make sure to share your thoughts on the ban list and this article in the comments.
I have strong opinions about the EDH Rules Committee. This is no secret. I don't like that they are self-governed. I don't like that they claim community affiliation. I don't think it is proper that they be allowed to make judgments about what other people should consider fun or acceptable. I don't think that any person should promote their personal ideology as being 'the spirit of the format'...or really anything else. A person's opinion is just that, an opinion. Legitimate and equal only insofar as it respects the opinions of others and doesn't do anything to stifle them.
I agree that the RC did good work in establishing and publicizing a unified set of rules for a developing format. This helped EDH achieve wider appeal and solidify itself as a format across a world of playgroups. I think that is as far as this crusade needed to be taken. I am about to go on the most official record I can: The Banned List is a mistake.
It is a mistake to even think about leveling sanctions in a non-sanctioned format. Makes sense when you say it out loud like that. It is a mistake to allow an unsanctioned authority to make decisions on your behalf. EDH is a casual format. It does not require oversight, authority, or even a guiding principle in order to thrive. People do it because they think it is fun. If it is no longer fun then people SHOULD NOT play it. You don't need to change the rules just to make sure they keep playing the format.
This is in direct opposition to how sanctioned formats are run. Wizards and its affiliates need formats to remain healthy, interesting, and fun in order to keep tournament attendance up, increase product sales, stabilize secondary markets, and to attract and retain a player base. EDH has none of these concerns. Wizards' organized play program and the DCI cooperate extensively: collecting and sharing information about tournament attendance and results, sales, and player feedback with the goal of improving the game. EDH has no such information network. It is administrated by a small group of self-appointed people. Experienced and knowledgeable people, but also biased and jaded people.
If none of the above served to inspire you to take control of your own kitchen table then allow me a final word on that subject. You know your game best. You know your friends and your play group. Communicate with them, engage them, experience them, educate them, and allow them to educate you. You decide you never want to play against another Emrakul, then don't. If your friends agree with your sentiments, then you might just have a community of like minded players growing. This occurs organically and does not need to be imposed by a group of people you don't know and are unlikely to meet.
This diatribe was rather short by my own standards, but fear not. As the title suggested, there will be more parts, for I have yet more to say on this matter. Including and most importantly: What role a banned list can serve, what reasons a card is or should be banned, and my thoughts on the cards that the RC has banned and their logic behind it.
