[Discussion] Cards You're Tired Of Playing With [Archive]

socialite

02-05-2012, 09:36 AM

Fucking this. People bitching about mass LD/combo in EDH seem to forget just how boring it can be when every game turns into "ramp into herp derp bombs." Congrats, you've realized that Tooth and Nail for some Eldrazi is good. Please learn to do other tricks.

+1

I play Karn, Silver Golem almost exclusively and people usually raise an eyebrow when I bring him out because the list is jam packed with as much broken shit as I can find.

The majority of EDH play groups I encounter are filled with hypocritical morons. Casual does not mean bad, just because you're playing in a casual format does not mean you do not have to run outs and win conditions that realistically function during a normal game state.

A perfect example of this would be a four person pod I played in a few days ago. It included me on Karn, Azusa, Memnarch, and Mimeoplasm, all of the lists were fairly competitive.

As some Karn hands can be a little slow especially when compared to a ramp monster like Azusa, I got greedy and ran out a Bottled Cloister on turn two. It was removed on my end step by the sniveling Mimeoplasm player. Mind you this is a perfectly reasonable play and a smart move on his part. So I'm stuck with two Lands a Sol Ring and no hand. I draw straight Strip Mine, Wasteland, and Petrified Field. I proceeded to use all three effects to strip his lands. He then proceeds to bitch the entire time that I knocked him off of any mana forgetting that he literally mind twisted me for five on turn two. Eventually I follow up with a Smokestack attempting to keep the Azusa player fair. It works but I proceed to not draw much else in terms of gas. I get bitched at for running the Smokestack and eventually have to sack it to stop the incessant bitching. Fast forward four turns later where the Azusa player powers out a Avenger of Zendikar and takes the game. Just plain stupid, the Mimeoplasm player was fucked anyway, Azusa was kept fair and staying even on permanents and the Memnarch player was still able to develop his mana base. Anyway I digress, point is I agree with derp derp ramp bullshit being boring and overplayed and people have terrible threat assessment (go figure).

Worst part is now I have no regular group to play with because the only store (which sucks) with a EDH group within reasonable distance of me plays a modified French list for heads up and four person pods that pretty much bans half of my list while enabling the five Eldric players to derp derp their way through every event run at the store, Zzz. Isn't it obvious something's wrong when the top eight is made up of four Eldric lists?

GGoober

02-05-2012, 10:54 AM

Necropotence, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, Top, Crucible of Worlds, Mana Drain.

Been crying for years that these cards should be off the legal-list for years but since the EDH rules committee don't understand what cards should be on/off the banned list, I'm just going to keep playing with famous broken-cards :) But it gets boring/old when every game in a competitive field I play wins because one of the above cards resolves.

socialite

02-05-2012, 12:08 PM

Kuma

02-05-2012, 02:48 PM

I think people put far too much value on Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. They are very good but I'm rather tired of seeing the same argument for their banning. In a four person pod I do not believe they are the end all people make them out to be. I've run out a Sol Ring and had people check out when they had legitimate options to actually win the game. I relate EDH ban list bitching to Type 1 restricted list bitching and tend to ignore it. I'm pretty tired of people using small sample sizes, personal experience, and "absolute statements" to try and dictate format balance.

I actually keep a spreadsheet of the results from my playgroup. Having a turn one Mana Crypt moves your chances of winning from ~33% to ~61%. Having a Mana Crypt at any point in the game increases your win percentage to 52%. This is in a three-person group, not four, but it suggests that the card is absolutely ridiculously powerful.

This is based on a sample of 71 games that grows by the week.

socialite

02-05-2012, 02:59 PM

I actually keep a spreadsheet of the results from my playgroup. Having a turn one Mana Crypt moves your chances of winning from ~33% to ~61%. Having a Mana Crypt at any point in the game increases your win percentage to 52%. This is in a three-person group, not four, but it suggests that the card is absolutely ridiculously powerful.

This is based on a sample of 71 games that grows by the week.

Not to discredit your findings in any way, shape, or form but...
small sample sizes, personal experience, and "absolute statements"Also I would very much like to see and understand the math behind your percentages.

One of my big issues with the Mana Crypt Sol Ring argument is that neither card is restricted to a particular archetype so no specific list or deck type is dominant. Thus the argument should be Mana Crypt and Sol Ring create swingy game states to which I ask why are you playing an eternal singleton format? I believe there is a disconnect between expectations and format actuality that is expressed through individuals views towards particular cards. It's a lot easier for one to say they lost to an early Sol Ring because others on the internet say it's ban bait as opposed to taking the time to perform a retrospective review of play mistakes and general understanding of their particular meta game and match ups.

Koby

02-05-2012, 03:03 PM

EDH isn't Magic. It's CasualChristmasLand.

People take the format as casual too seriously. (that is, they are really adament about it staying casual)

Aggro_zombies

02-05-2012, 03:27 PM

EDH isn't Magic. It's CasualChristmasLand.

People take the format as casual too seriously. (that is, they are really adament about it staying casual)
Playing EDH competitively is like playing a retarded little kid version of Vintage, though. All the really cool things are either banned or rendered bad by the one-card-copy limit.

I can appreciate wanting to keep the format casual in spirit in the sense that it's nice to get away from a competitive environment and relax every now and then, and EDH is an interesting, structured way to do that. What I don't like is all of the bullshit that amounts to the One True Way to play EDH, which is fucking garbage. Why is casting an entwined Tooth and Nail on turn five any more interesting and fun for your opponents than storming them out or casting unlimited Armageddons? The game is just as done for everyone else, but I guess the Tooth and Nail player gets to feel clever because he "only" got Eldrazi instead of Kiki-Pestermite.

Amon Amarth

02-05-2012, 03:53 PM

I keep a couple "casual" EDH decks on me to switch it up if I'm playing with people that are likely to bitch and moan. I think it's also fun to build decks without using excessive amounts of staples so casual decks fulfill both of those needs. There really is no reasoning with people that shit their pants if you aren't running 100 trash cards.

Purgatory

02-05-2012, 05:11 PM

I don't want to play counterspells at all, I'm tired of running Hinder, Cryptic, Desertion etc., but when people play ramp decks that are so ridiculous with creatures that have ETB effects that are extremely powerful (Sundering Titan, Terastodon, Prime Time et al), it renders even wrathing every turn ineffective. I have to counter that entwined Tooth, I have no other options.

kombatkiwi

02-05-2012, 05:35 PM

Not to discredit your findings in any way, shape, or form but... Also I would very much like to see and understand the math behind your percentages.

One of my big issues with the Mana Crypt Sol Ring argument is that neither card is restricted to a particular archetype so no specific list or deck type is dominant. Thus the argument should be Mana Crypt and Sol Ring create swingy game states to which I ask why are you playing an eternal singleton format? I believe there is a disconnect between expectations and format actuality that is expressed through individuals views towards particular cards. It's a lot easier for one to say they lost to an early Sol Ring because others on the internet say it's ban bait as opposed to taking the time to perform a retrospective review of play mistakes and general understanding of their particular meta game and match ups.

Not sure if serious

Some people use a house rule at my store that if you're playing 1v1 whenever you draw your crypt or sol ring you just tuck it to the bottom of the deck and draw another card. They are EASILY the best cards in the format. If your opponent drops turn 1 sol ring you can play perfectly and still lose because it just puts them so far ahead that recovery is basically impossible.

If you think that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are fair then you must have a bunch of ways to get rid of them for mana parity - for Mana Crypt this is basically impossible and you would still be running a bunch of fairly narrow cards like Nature's Claim, Shattering Spree, Oxidize and Gorilla Shaman, which against many decks have a very limited range of usefulness outside of eliminating these 2 problem cards.

And Acidic Sliming a Sol Ring on turn 4 is simply not a legitimate answer if your opponent has built their deck properly.

Admittedly, it's fair to say that "Well, it's an eternal singleton format, obviously some games are going to be very swingy, get over it" but you're blind if you can't see the ridiculous power level of these 2 cards.

I don't see how you can question Kuma's math unless you're arguing semantics
The simplest way of doing it would be to record at the end of each game whether each player won or lost and whether they had crypt turn 1 or not. Then you can find the percentage of crypt wins and non-crypt wins for each player, and then average them out over the whole group.

71 games is easily a big enough sample size considering you discover the strength of a crypt through playing only one game against a competent opponent.

Sure, a mana crypt or a sol ring is not a GUARANTEED win at any time - nothing is - but it pushes the odds unbelievably far in your favour.
By the same reason that you feel the need to discredit "small sample sizes, personal experience, and absolute statements" I seriously question your refusal to accept the case study done by Kuma which seems a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate how strong these cards are.

TheArchitect

02-05-2012, 06:43 PM

Here's the thing with sol ring and crypt. In a multiplayer format, you should be focusing your efforts on dealing with the most threatening player. If the ring/crypt have as powerful an effect as you claim, the 3 other players should immediately focus their efforts on the player that cast it. I don't think can argue that having one of those cards allows you to singlehandedly fend of 3 other players. All your data really shows is that your group is bad at threat assessment (or dealing with threats).

With my usual group. People will often hold off on casting a turn one sol ring until they have a way to defend themselves from early beats or removal of their lands/ring. I would even argue that casting an early sol ring or crypt DECREASES your chance of winning because the other players should target you.

It's the same if someone plays azusa and can produce 10 mana on turn 4. Its your own mistake if your not focusing on dealing with them, not azusa's being too good for the format.

Also a side note, my group all has pretty optimized lists. However, there my be a 50$+ card here or there we dont have, like mana crypts. Maybe everyone in your playgroup has them, but I think in many cases it may not even be the crypt that is increasing a decks win chance, but the amount of expensive (and good) cards in ones deck.

1v1 EDH is a weird and almost different format entirely, I don't think cards should be banned in EDH just because they are too good 1v1. If that was the case, clique would have been long since banned.

Also, I am guessing there is a very high win chance for players if they resolve any of the following cards: tooth and nail, necropotence, insurrection, iona, etc. Except all of those cards are a bit less subtle that a little ramping artifact. The probably isnt that sol ring/mana crypt are too strong (I'd argue necropotence, iona, etc are "stronger"), or swing the game too much, it is that people need to learn how to better identify and deal with threats in a multiplayer format.

socialite

02-05-2012, 07:12 PM

Not sure if serious

Some people use a house rule at my store that if you're playing 1v1 whenever you draw your crypt or sol ring you just tuck it to the bottom of the deck and draw another card. They are EASILY the best cards in the format. If your opponent drops turn 1 sol ring you can play perfectly and still lose because it just puts them so far ahead that recovery is basically impossible.

If you think that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are fair then you must have a bunch of ways to get rid of them for mana parity - for Mana Crypt this is basically impossible and you would still be running a bunch of fairly narrow cards like Nature's Claim, Shattering Spree, Oxidize and Gorilla Shaman, which against many decks have a very limited range of usefulness outside of eliminating these 2 problem cards.

And Acidic Sliming a Sol Ring on turn 4 is simply not a legitimate answer if your opponent has built their deck properly.

Admittedly, it's fair to say that "Well, it's an eternal singleton format, obviously some games are going to be very swingy, get over it" but you're blind if you can't see the ridiculous power level of these 2 cards.

I don't see how you can question Kuma's math unless you're arguing semantics
The simplest way of doing it would be to record at the end of each game whether each player won or lost and whether they had crypt turn 1 or not. Then you can find the percentage of crypt wins and non-crypt wins for each player, and then average them out over the whole group.

71 games is easily a big enough sample size considering you discover the strength of a crypt through playing only one game against a competent opponent.

Sure, a mana crypt or a sol ring is not a GUARANTEED win at any time - nothing is - but it pushes the odds unbelievably far in your favour.
By the same reason that you feel the need to discredit "small sample sizes, personal experience, and absolute statements" I seriously question your refusal to accept the case study done by Kuma which seems a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate how strong these cards are.

Is it that unreasonable to ask for the information he gathered? It would be interesting to see the break down of % per General etc.

I understand both cards are very good.

Are cards like Ancient Grudge, Nature's Claim, and Shattering Spree actually narrow in EDH?

kombatkiwi

02-05-2012, 07:34 PM

Is it that unreasonable to ask for the information he gathered? It would be interesting to see the break down of % per General etc.

I understand both cards are very good.

Are cards like Ancient Grudge, Nature's Claim, and Shattering Spree actually narrow in EDH?

In multiplayer I would say claim is
The other 2 aren't
But still nobody plays them
Most people prefer to have more synergy with their survival, genesis wave etc and play cards that are too slow eg Acidic Slime and Woodfall primus as artifact removal.

I'd like to try a tempo-oriented damia deck that plays a bunch of cheap answers to things
There's probably a good article in this somewhere.

Malchar

02-05-2012, 07:39 PM

Here's the thing with sol ring and crypt. In a multiplayer format, you should be focusing your efforts on dealing with the most threatening player. If the ring/crypt have as powerful an effect as you claim, the 3 other players should immediately focus their efforts on the player that cast it. I don't think can argue that having one of those cards allows you to singlehandedly fend of 3 other players. All your data really shows is that your group is bad at threat assessment (or dealing with threats).

With this logic, why have a ban list at all? Is black lotus fair since everyone can just team up against whoever plays it? Tinker would be fair as well, since everyone will just preemptively team up against him whenever he plays his tinker deck.

In fact, starting with ring/crypt potentially gives you 3x as much mana as any other player at any given time, so I wouldn't be surprised they can fend off 3 others. At least with black lotus it gets sacrificed.

I would even argue that casting an early sol ring or crypt DECREASES your chance of winning because the other players should target you.

Well there is data which suggests that it increases your chances.

It's the same if someone plays azusa and can produce 10 mana on turn 4. Its your own mistake if your not focusing on dealing with them, not azusa's being too good for the format.

Consider the mana/card advantage of ring/crypt. Azusa doesn't even add any mana. You just get to play extra land, which only provide 1 mana each. That's 1 mana per card, and -1 for the azusa, compared to 2 mana per card with ring/crypt.

Are cards like Ancient Grudge, Nature's Claim, and Shattering Spree actually narrow in EDH?

If they play a sol ring and then use it, they gain 1 mana. If you immediately destroy it with a shattering spree, you pay 1 mana and both players lose a card. The net result is that the opponent gained 2 mana.

If they get to use the sol ring more than once, they net 2 extra mana each time until you destroy it. Also, packing your deck full of shatters to ensure that you get it as early as possible seems bad, especially since even in the best case scenario, you still end up behind.

kombatkiwi

02-05-2012, 08:15 PM

That post sums up a lot of what I was trying to say in a very concise way.

On topic though, I love opening with sol ring and crypt, and I would never ever get tired of playing them :P

TheArchitect

02-05-2012, 08:44 PM

With this logic, why have a ban list at all? Is black lotus fair since everyone can just team up against whoever plays it? Tinker would be fair as well, since everyone will just preemptively team up against him whenever he plays his tinker deck.

To be honest, for the vast majority of decks, sol ring is probably better than black lotus. As far as power level goes, unbanning black lotus wouldn't be too detrimental (would make more combo decks better, but I'm fine with that). It would however, turn a "casual" format in a very very expensive format and so I would argue for keeping it banned for that reason.

Things like tinker, balance, time vault, etc. should also make you a number one target, but unlike sol ring or mana crypt, they will let you deal with 3 other players and still come out on top.

Well there is data which suggests that it increases your chances.
Well I question the validity of that data. What I see from that data, is that the players have poor threat assessment or no cheap removal for artifacts (which they should have if Ring/crypt are such game breakers).

Like I said earlier, I am sure if you looked at the data for win % of players who resolve necropotence, tooth and nail, insurrection, iona, etc. it is just as high if not higher. Just those cards are easily identified as threats and we answer them. I am not saying ring/crypt are bad cards; no, they are incredibly powerful and can swing the game, but so are other cards that are even harder to play around/remove and we arent complaining about them.

On topic though, I love opening with sol ring and crypt, and I would never ever get tired of playing them :P
Also this ^ and I don't mind if that means my opponents have an equal chance to draw them some games too.

cuthbertthecat

02-05-2012, 09:20 PM

I've been having problems with boring cards too, and I've been thinking about how cool block EDH would be, namely Ravnica block.

boneclub24

02-05-2012, 09:55 PM

I've been having problems with boring cards too, and I've been thinking about how cool block EDH would be, namely Ravnica block.

Standard EDH is discussed rather frequently. Might work a little better than block.

kombatkiwi

02-05-2012, 10:42 PM

Like I said earlier, I am sure if you looked at the data for win % of players who resolve necropotence, tooth and nail, insurrection, iona, etc. it is just as high if not higher. Just those cards are easily identified as threats and we answer them. I am not saying ring/crypt are bad cards; no, they are incredibly powerful and can swing the game, but so are other cards that are even harder to play around/remove and we arent complaining about them.

Your argument here is basically "Blightsteel colossus is just as good as sol ring or better because it's indestructible and can 1-shot people whereas sol ring is not indestructible and only taps for mana"

I think you're failing to see the wood for the trees.

TheArchitect

02-05-2012, 10:57 PM

Your argument here is basically "Blightsteel colossus is just as good as sol ring or better because it's indestructible and can 1-shot people whereas sol ring is not indestructible and only taps for mana"

I think you're failing to see the wood for the trees.

I am just saying resolving some powerful cards like blightsteel, necropotence, time stretch, probably correlate very highly with winning that game. Saying resolving sol ring's or mana crypt's high correlation with winning the game is grounds for banning it doesn't seem like valid reasoning. Especially, when it is easy enough to just adapt your play style or deck (access threats and put in cheap artifact removal).

Kuma

02-06-2012, 12:10 AM

Not to discredit your findings in any way, shape, or form but...

71 is not a small sample size unless you're trying to detect the tiniest of differences between two groups. It's plenty big enough to show the dominance of Mana Crypt. I did a statistical test, and yes, the difference in proportion of games won with and without Mana Crypt is statistically significant. Look up 2-proportion Z test if you want to see the math behind my claim.

Also, why is personal experience invalid? Until we have large, weekly tournaments with cash prizes big enough to get the best and brightest breaking the format, it's all we have to go on. It's not ideal, but it's certainly not invalid.

Also I would very much like to see and understand the math behind your percentages.

It's simple. I keep track of what decks were involved in the game, which deck and player won, who had a Mana Crypt or Sol Ring, and whether they cast that artifact on turn one, two, or turn three or later. I take the number of games in which one of the players who won had a Mana Crypt and divide by the total number of games in which a player had a Mana Crypt.

One of my big issues with the Mana Crypt Sol Ring argument is that neither card is restricted to a particular archetype so no specific list or deck type is dominant.

I would argue that tier-one decks like Sharuum the Hegemon and Arcum Dagsson are tier-one in part because of their ability to abuse fast artifact mana. However, I can't prove that yet.

My problem with the cards is that every good deck in EDH starts out with Mana Crypt and Sol Ring. There is literally no reason not to run these cards, and that seems like a good enough reason for a ban.

Thus the argument should be Mana Crypt and Sol Ring create swingy game states to which I ask why are you playing an eternal singleton format?

EDH is swingy largely because of Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, and perhaps a few other cards. It's not hard to build a fairly consistent deck, and in a world without those cards the rewards would be greater for doing so.

Here's the thing with sol ring and crypt. In a multiplayer format, you should be focusing your efforts on dealing with the most threatening player. If the ring/crypt have as powerful an effect as you claim, the 3 other players should immediately focus their efforts on the player that cast it. I don't think can argue that having one of those cards allows you to singlehandedly fend of 3 other players. All your data really shows is that your group is bad at threat assessment (or dealing with threats).

Wow, just wow. You're just going to dismiss my data and my argument because "my group is bad at threat assessment."

We're all aware of how powerful Mana Crypt and Sol Ring are. We do go after the player who goes crazy with mana artifacts. Guess what? Even with the knowledge that Mana Crypt is insane, the player in our group who casts it wins twice as often as those who don't.

Those numbers may not hold for a four-man group. My group only has three people.

I've tried to deal with turn-one mana artifacts. Fuck, I even built my Riku of Two Reflections deck to specifically beat tier-one artifact decks. It wins just 21.4% of the time in a three man group (expected win percent = 33% assuming all decks have an equal chance of winning).

I would even argue that casting an early sol ring or crypt DECREASES your chance of winning because the other players should target you.

Based on what? I have hard data, you're theorycrafting and relying on fallible human memory.

Also a side note, my group all has pretty optimized lists. However, there my be a 50$+ card here or there we dont have, like mana crypts. Maybe everyone in your playgroup has them, but I think in many cases it may not even be the crypt that is increasing a decks win chance, but the amount of expensive (and good) cards in ones deck.

Wait, your group doesn't even have Mana Crypts and you're commenting on whether or not they should be banned? It's also funny that you think your lists are optimized without Mana Crypts.

My group is full-proxy, so we don't have any card availability problems. Also, we're running fully optimized tier-one generals like Sharuum the Hegemon, Oona, Queen of the Fae, Arcum Dagsson, and The Mimeoplasm.

Also, I am guessing there is a very high win chance for players if they resolve any of the following cards: tooth and nail, necropotence, insurrection, iona, etc. Except all of those cards are a bit less subtle that a little ramping artifact. The probably isnt that sol ring/mana crypt are too strong (I'd argue necropotence, iona, etc are "stronger"), or swing the game too much, it is that people need to learn how to better identify and deal with threats in a multiplayer format.

Cards like Iona, Shield of Emeria, Necropotence, and Tooth and Nail might lead to higher chances of winning, but they cost more mana and they can't go in every deck. Not even every deck in those colors wants to run those cards. That's the difference.

Well I question the validity of that data. What I see from that data, is that the players have poor threat assessment or no cheap removal for artifacts (which they should have if Ring/crypt are such game breakers).

Look at my Riku of Two Reflections list here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22314-Broken-Riku-of-Two-Reflections). With a straight face, tell me it doesn't run enough answers.

Oiolosse

02-06-2012, 12:59 AM

I am just saying resolving some powerful cards like blightsteel, necropotence, time stretch, probably correlate very highly with winning that game. Saying resolving sol ring's or mana crypt's high correlation with winning the game is grounds for banning it doesn't seem like valid reasoning. Especially, when it is easy enough to just adapt your play style or deck (access threats and put in cheap artifact removal).

ONCE: 1 black for 3 black << MANY: 1 generic for 2. It is the ultimate enabler and I will never ever tire of dropping it first turn.

majikal

02-06-2012, 01:31 AM

You can't run hard numbers to make a case for overpowered cards in EDH. There are too many confounding factors like politics, personal grudges, and extreme variance to take into account. What you can do is make a case that the majority of games devolve into x vs anti-x and whether or not social pressure can alleviate that problem, and as it turns out, Sol Ring vs. anti-Sol Ring is not an issue that most players run into.

When it comes down to it, Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are fun cards that allow some decks to win sometimes that might not be able to compete fast enough with some other decks, and that's a good thing. Yes, it's true that they are better in "Tier 1" decks, but you have to ask yourself whether or not it is worth it to alienate your playgroup and play the absolute best deck in the format instead of play for fun and enjoy the chaos.

I can understand not wanting these cards in competitive pods, but at the same time, that is not how the format is intended to be played, so the point is moot.

Offler

02-06-2012, 03:46 AM

I am getting tired only of Sol ring. The reasons are not that the card is good or something. It has been included in each Commander packs. Althought the casual meta even competetive meta here is quite healthy this cards is still in most of decks.

Mana crypt is very rare card among players here. People dont like to flip the coins.

STD - not a broken card. Pretty reasonable one but another autoincluded artifact.
Aether vial - same.

I play Senseis top. It has its reason in my deck. But too many people play it as a filler without any interaction or combo within the deck. I also play Aether Vial. Putting creatures into play is nice, but in later games i realized how few cards wer put into play with it.

People just play them and I feel ashamed that I am also supporting some legends of increasing victory sucess of those cards. Obviously - being a single card without any interaction in deck cannot do so.

Davran

02-06-2012, 09:58 AM

I'm getting tired of Avenger of Zendikar and Primeval Titan. It's been my go-to "win condition" for over a year in my Glissa deck, and it's getting pretty old. The problem is there's no other solid finisher that isn't something like Sundering Titan (I really don't want to be "that guy" when I'm just messing around with friends) or one of the Eldrazi (see Sundering Titan).

I'm just having such a terrible time coming up with a new deck that isn't base green, because no matter what it's extremely hard to not reach for the dynamic duo as the first pair of cards.

socialite

02-06-2012, 11:51 AM

71 is not a small sample size unless you're trying to detect the tiniest of differences between two groups. It's plenty big enough to show the dominance of Mana Crypt. I did a statistical test, and yes, the difference in proportion of games won with and without Mana Crypt is statistically significant. Look up 2-proportion Z test if you want to see the math behind my claim.

Also, why is personal experience invalid? Until we have large, weekly tournaments with cash prizes big enough to get the best and brightest breaking the format, it's all we have to go on. It's not ideal, but it's certainly not invalid.

Your sample size is small and not heads up or a four person pod. Some extrapolation can be taken since you are playing the same format with multiple players.

Personal experience has a funny way of shifting perception.

It's simple. I keep track of what decks were involved in the game, which deck and player won, who had a Mana Crypt or Sol Ring, and whether they cast that artifact on turn one, two, or turn three or later. I take the number of games in which one of the players who won had a Mana Crypt and divide by the total number of games in which a player had a Mana Crypt.

There are far too many factors that your small sample size fails to take into account. That being said I'm not even sure if it would be possible to quantify particular motivating factors in EDH game states. I find it interesting that after turn three is even considered since the argument is based around the speed advantage Sol Ring and Mana Crypt provide in the early game. I sincerely doubt a turn nine Mana Crypt has serious repercussions on the outcome of a game.

I would argue that tier-one decks like Sharuum the Hegemon and Arcum Dagsson are tier-one in part because of their ability to abuse fast artifact mana. However, I can't prove that yet.

Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are only broken in context? Go figure.

My problem with the cards is that every good deck in EDH starts out with Mana Crypt and Sol Ring. There is literally no reason not to run these cards, and that seems like a good enough reason for a ban.

So the real issue is staples? I think there's a lot to be said about Sol Ring and Mana Crypt not being relegated to a single archetype or list.

EDH is swingy largely because of Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, and perhaps a few other cards. It's not hard to build a fairly consistent deck, and in a world without those cards the rewards would be greater for doing so.

Absolute statement. I'd argue EDH is swingy because of the way the format is designed not because of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.

We can go in circles for hours about this. Spouting off a bunch of random percentages based on findings from one group of people using a small sample size and questionable analysis isn't the best way to prove your point.

All I really see here is hyped up banned list whining with a bunch of people chiming in with no sustenance other than "omg Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are so good" - yea obviously they are good so is Survial of the Fittest, Necropotence, Mana Vault, Grim Monolith, and Winter Orb. While your group play data analysis is interesting I'd be hard pressed to call it concrete reasoning on why either card should be banned.

I apologize for derailing this thread.

TheArchitect

02-06-2012, 12:26 PM

Cards like Iona, Shield of Emeria, Necropotence, and Tooth and Nail might lead to higher chances of winning, but they cost more mana and they can't go in every deck. Not even every deck in those colors wants to run those cards. That's the difference.

So the real issue is staples? I think there's a lot to be said about Sol Ring and Mana Crypt not being relegated to a single archetype or list.

The hard data doesn't really say anything in this context, however I think it is a valid point that there is literally no reason not to run those artifacts. That should be your argument, not that they make the game swingy (I dont think that there is anything wrong with it even if they do). However, if were banning auto-includes, what about land tax, vamp/demonic tutor, primeval titan, top, etc?

While I do find it very frustrating that every EDH deck basically has 10 to as many as 30 "auto-includes", I think that the current state would still be more enjoyable than a state where all, or even just a few, of those staples were banned.

Look at my Riku of Two Reflections list here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22314-Broken-Riku-of-Two-Reflections). With a straight face, tell me it doesn't run enough answers.

I have seen your Riku list, and I actually have an almost identical list and have never felt like sol ring or mana crypt have been that much of a game changer. I think a big issue here is that your constantly playing against Sharuum and arcum which make better use of those artifact ramp than any other decks.

I'm getting tired of Avenger of Zendikar and Primeval Titan. It's been my go-to "win condition" for over a year in my Glissa deck, and it's getting pretty old. The problem is there's no other solid finisher that isn't something like Sundering Titan (I really don't want to be "that guy" when I'm just messing around with friends) or one of the Eldrazi (see Sundering Titan).

I'm just having such a terrible time coming up with a new deck that isn't base green, because no matter what it's extremely hard to not reach for the dynamic duo as the first pair of cards.

Im pretty sick of them too. 4 out of 4 of my EDH have access to green and those two are the most common win con in 3 of them (Uril doesnt really need them). Basically any deck with green has them as a win con, with few exceptions (uril).

Kuma

02-06-2012, 12:40 PM

Your sample size is small and not heads up or a four person pod. Some extrapolation can be taken since you are playing the same format with multiple players.

According to the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), my sample size is not small. But I don't suppose you'll let a little thing like facts get in your way.

There are far too many factors that your small sample size fails to take into account.

Such as? Also, since you, not me, the guy with a BS in Statistics who's three months away from his masters, are the expert on sample size, what would be a sufficient sample size be to test my claim?

I find it interesting that after turn three is even considered since the argument is based around the speed advantage Sol Ring and Mana Crypt provide in the early game. I sincerely doubt a turn nine Mana Crypt has serious repercussions on the outcome of a game.

I suspected that after a point Mana Crypt wouldn't help nearly as much. True enough, the later it gets in the game, the less Mana Crypt helps you win. Still, having a Mana Crypt on turn three or later improves your chances of winning by ~10%. Even if Mana Crypt does absolutely nothing to affect your chances of winning after turn five or so, that doesn't change the fact that it fucks up games by being ridiculously good on turns one through four.

Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are only broken in context? Go figure.

No, they're broken in every meaningful context. They're more broken in some contexts, but there isn't a good EDH deck that is better without Mana Crypt and Sol Ring than with them.

So the real issue is staples? I think there's a lot to be said about Sol Ring and Mana Crypt not being relegated to a single archetype or list.

The issue is "staples" that can and should be in every good EDH deck that immediately double your chances of winning if you should be lucky enough to hit it in your opening seven.

Absolute statement. I'd argue EDH is swingy because of the way the format is designed not because of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt.

Oh yeah? Your statement about absolute statements is an absolute statement about format balance. You contradict yourself.

We can go in circles for hours about this. Spouting off a bunch of random percentages based on findings from one group of people using a small sample size and questionable analysis isn't the best way to prove your point.

Since you, not me, the guy with a BS in Statistics who's three months away from his masters, are the expert on statistical analysis, what would be an appropriate analysis to test my claim?

EDIT: replying to TheArchitect

I think it is a valid point that there is literally no reason not to run those artifacts. That should be your argument, not that they make the game swingy (I dont think that there is anything wrong with it even if they do).

I don't understand why people suddenly become okay with swingy, bomb-dependent opening hands because it's EDH. Was Standard fun when it came down to who drew their Umezawa's Jitte, Stoneforge Mystic, or Jace, the Mind Sculptor first? Was Legacy fun when it came down to who could resolve Flash or Survival of the Fittest first?

So why is it okay when EDH becomes about who gets their Mana Crypt or Sol Ring and who doesn't?

However, if were banning auto-includes, what about land tax, vamp/demonic tutor, primeval titan, top, etc?

Those cards are not auto-includes in the same way that Mana Crypt and Sol Ring are. I wouldn't want to run Land Tax in a three-color white deck. I can't run Vampiric and Demonic Tutor in my Riku of Two Reflections list. I can, and do want to run Mana Crypt and Sol Ring in every good EDH deck.

Sensei's Divining Top is hardly an auto-include. It's probably the most overrated card in EDH, but that's another argument.

While I do find it very frustrating that every EDH deck basically has 10 to as many as 30 "auto-includes", I think that the current state would still be more enjoyable than a state where all, or even just a few, of those staples were banned.

I'm talking about banning Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, and maybe a few other cards that are ridiculous in Vintage. I don't want to ban cards just because decks of their color almost always run them. I want to ban cards that are run in every deck because they are vastly overpowered, fast, and colorless.

I have seen your Riku list, and I actually have an almost identical list and have never felt like sol ring or mana crypt have been that much of a game changer. I think a big issue here is that your constantly playing against Sharuum and arcum which make better use of those artifact ramp than any other decks.

You don't think the fact that my Riku list, which is metagamed to beat the biggest Mana Crypt and Sol Ring offenders, can't even put up an average winning percentage is evidence that maybe Mana Crypt and Sol Ring should be banned?

apistat_commander

02-06-2012, 12:53 PM

Mana Crypt and Sol Ring are certainly problems in any competitive playgroup and those claiming that they aren't simply don't play with or against competitive decks. They are certainly format warping cards. On the other hand, I love them and I think it is great to have a format outside of Vintage where they are playable, but they skew deck construction and give any strategy relying artifacts a ridiculous advantage. They also illustrate exactly how misguided the rules committee is when Emrakul and Kokusho are banned but Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and Necropotence(in a 40 life format!) are legal.

Aggro_zombies

02-06-2012, 01:10 PM

According to the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), my sample size is not small. But I don't suppose you'll let a little thing like facts get in your way.
Your sample size of EDH players is small relative to the total number of EDH players in the world, or even the U.S.. The fact that everyone - or nearly everyone - in your playgroup even owns a Mana Crypt marks you out as atypical. Even with judge foil versions existing, there are not many people with a Mana Crypt where I play, for example.

This is why, no matter how many iterations you play within your play group, your sample can still be dismissed as being too small. It's also not representative, either, which means the data holds less weight due to sampling bias.

socialite

02-06-2012, 01:22 PM

According to the Central Limit Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), my sample size is not small. But I don't suppose you'll let a little thing like facts get in your way.

Three person pod in a format typically played with four people or one versus one at your kitchen table with you running the date mining and evaluation is an extremely narrow and small sample size. This is not how real studies are performed.

Such as? Also, since you, not me, the guy with a BS in Statistics who's three months away from his masters, are the expert on sample size, what would be a sufficient sample size be to test my claim?

Attack the idea not the person. This is rather useless e-peen dribble and no offense but a BS is nothing.

I suspected that after a point Mana Crypt wouldn't help nearly as much. True enough, the later it gets in the game, the less Mana Crypt helps you win. Still, having a Mana Crypt on turn three or later improves your chances of winning by ~10%. Even if Mana Crypt does absolutely nothing to affect your chances of winning after turn five or so, that doesn't change the fact that it fucks up games by being ridiculously good on turns one through four.

Then make that point clear instead of vague statements like:

Having a Mana Crypt at any point in the game increases your win percentage to 52%.

No, they're broken in every meaningful context. They're more broken in some contexts, but there isn't a good EDH deck that is better without Mana Crypt and Sol Ring than with them.

Eternal Singleton Format.

The issue is "staples" that can and should be in every good EDH deck that immediately double your chances of winning if you should be lucky enough to hit it in your opening seven.

More absolute statements, pretty easy huh?

Oh yeah? Your statement about absolute statements is an absolute statement about format balance. You contradict yourself.

That was the point. Now you're catching on to how ridiculous your argument is.

Since you, not me, the guy with a BS in Statistics who's three months away from his masters, are the expert on statistical analysis, what would be an appropriate analysis to test my claim?

I'm just going to move along as it's apparent you are not taking criticism lightly and are rather blind to the holes in your argument.

Your sample size of EDH players is small relative to the total number of EDH players in the world, or even the U.S.. The fact that everyone - or nearly everyone - in your playgroup even owns a Mana Crypt marks you out as atypical. Even with judge foil versions existing, there are not many people with a Mana Crypt where I play, for example.

This is why, no matter how many iterations you play within your play group, your sample can still be dismissed as being too small. It's also not representative, either, which means the data holds less weight due to sampling bias.

Yup.

Kuma

02-06-2012, 01:56 PM

Your sample size of EDH players is small relative to the total number of EDH players in the world, or even the U.S..

That doesn't matter. The sample size is big enough to draw the conclusions I'm drawing.

Let me explain the Central Limit Theorem. If your sample size is greater than 45 (the most conservative number used), then your sample average (or in this case proportion) comes from a normal distribution (bell curve). Because the sample average comes from a normal distribution, you can use it in statistical tests that rely on a normal distribution, i.e. the 2-proportion Z test I mentioned earlier.

Ideally my sample size would be larger, but to say it's not large enough is to be ignorant of how statistics works.

The fact that everyone - or nearly everyone - in your playgroup even owns a Mana Crypt marks you out as atypical. Even with judge foil versions existing, there are not many people with a Mana Crypt where I play, for example.

Ban lists exist to help ensure competitive players have a good environment to play in. Players who are using Sol Ring and Mana Crypt to cast Grey Ogres and bulk rares don't need to have Sol Ring and Mana Crypt banned. They don't even need a ban list.

My playgroup may be atypical of EDH as a whole, but it's typical of a competitive environment. We ban cards because competitive players break them.

I agree that my playgroup being three people instead of four is not ideal, but you can't invalidate a study by saying it wasn't done under ideal conditions. Studies rarely perfectly mimic reality. Until someone comes up with better data with a four-man playgroup, my data is the best we have.

Three person pod in a format typically played with four people or one versus one at your kitchen table with you running the date mining and evaluation is an extremely narrow and small sample size. This is not how real studies are performed.

Real studies are often performed in ways that do not perfectly mimic reality. When someone comes up with data on a four-man group, we can see how inadequate my three-man group is. Until then, mine is the best we have even if it isn't perfect.

Attack the idea not the person. This is rather useless e-peen dribble and no offense but a BS is nothing.

I didn't attack you, I merely stated my qualifications and asked you a question. You still haven't answered my question.

I suppose my masters is nothing too. Should I be addressing you as Dr. Ertai's Familiar?

Eternal Singleton Format.

Why does being an "Eternal Singleton Format" mean we have to have a sub-par game experience?

That was the point. Now you're catching on to how ridiculous your argument is.

No, you've missed my point. You can't dismiss something just because it's an absolute statement. In order to do that, you must believe that there are no absolute truths. If that were true, the statement that there are no absolute truths would be absolutely true.

The statement contradicts itself. You contradict yourself.

Aggro_zombies

02-06-2012, 02:16 PM

That doesn't matter. The sample size is big enough to draw the conclusions I'm drawing.

Let me explain the Central Limit Theorem. If your sample size is greater than 45 (the most conservative number used), then your sample average (or in this case proportion) comes from a normal distribution (bell curve). Because the sample average comes from a normal distribution, you can use it in statistical tests that rely on a normal distribution, i.e. the 2-proportion Z test I mentioned earlier.

Ideally my sample size would be larger, but to say it's not large enough is to be ignorant of how statistics works.

Ban lists exist to help ensure competitive players have a good environment to play in. Players who are using Sol Ring and Mana Crypt to cast Grey Ogres and bulk rares don't need to have Sol Ring and Mana Crypt banned. They don't even need a ban list.

My playgroup may be atypical of EDH as a whole, but it's typical of a competitive environment. We ban cards because competitive players break them.

I agree that my playgroup being three people instead of four is not ideal, but you can't invalidate a study by saying it wasn't done under ideal conditions. Studies rarely perfectly mimic reality. Until someone comes up with better data with a four-man playgroup, my data is the best we have.
Sigh.

Let's suppose a politician needs to make a law on a controversial topic. He returns to his district of 50,000 people and selects five of them at random. These five people all happen to be activists for one side or the other of the issue. He then gives each of them a survey asking them for their opinions on it.

The next day, he returns to his district, selects the same five people, gives them a different survey on the same topic, and collects the results. He repeats this procedure for one month, using a different survey on the same issue each time.

What does this tell him about the opinions of all the people in his district on the issue at hand?

Jack shit.

Look, Central Limit Theorem has nothing to do with it here. What is says is that your playgroup has an issue with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt and therefore suggests that your playgroup may wish to take action if they become oppressive. It tells you absolutely nothing about my playgroup, or Ertai's Familiar's playgroup, or anyone else's playgroup, because three people is not a representative sample of all the EDH players in your state, or your country, or the world. No matter how many iterations of games you play, you will learn only that your playgroup has an issue with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. Whether or not these cards should be banned requires a bigger sample size of EDH players to determine since things like play skill, card availability, deck construction preferences, and social dynamics are confounding variables that will skew your results.

The smaller the group sampled relative to the total population size, the greater the potential error when estimating the parameter. This is basic statistics here.

EDIT: Also, you can invalidate a study by saying it wasn't done under ideal conditions. Obvious bias is a perfect way to invalidate studies. I see this all the time in the scientific literature.

Malchar

02-06-2012, 04:10 PM

Does anyone have links or information about block constructed EDH? Are core sets allowed? It sounds like a great idea.

andrewlb

02-06-2012, 06:26 PM

I'm not going to get into the nit-picks of the arguments here but I'll drop in my two cents:

Since this is a source, a thread about competitive legacy, it would seem like the conversation should trend towards competitive edh. If you don't have the money to support some of the cards in competitive edh formats use proxies and tell everyone to get the fuck over it, don't let money limit your experience.

Some musings -

In games that I played with Animar against my friend's Thraximundar control deck, if he had a mana crypt or sol ring within the first three turns the games were maybe 50/50, in games where he didn't I crushed him.

Having Sol Ring or Mana Crypt in your opener does significantly change the course of the game and having a playgroup where everyone has answers doesn't necessarily fix things.

Historically I have played General based strategies that are proactive rather than reactive, mostly under the pretense that in a 4 player game if I advance my board state then I hurt 3 opponents but if I nature's claim my opponent then I only set him back and help my other two opponents. The threat arrow issue is sort of relevant but with Animar either I can combo off on turn 3 or 4 on the play while people are still developing their boards or late game since you are so threat-dense it is easy to topdeck your way to victory

As a few people have noted I don't think the French Banlist is necessarily the way to go (Edric is very good and I suspect that Animar would also be at the top of tier 1) because then the meta just adjusts to different broken decks (although maybe it would be less draw dependent).

Personally I dislike the staples of EDH which is why my favorite decks have been Animar and Reaper King (although reaper king was a lot jankier).

So.... yea...

Kuma

02-06-2012, 11:23 PM

What does this tell him about the opinions of all the people in his district on the issue at hand?

Jack shit.

The analogy is flawed. If you ask someone's opinion the next day, it almost certainly won't have changed. If you get the same people together to play multiple games of Magic, the results will almost certainly differ from game to game. Everyone in my group has both won and lost with a turn one Mana Crypt.

What I am doing is more akin to a researcher running a random-number-dependent simulation. Sure, no simulation is a perfect recreation of reality, but until someone else comes up with a better one, it's pointless and unhelpful to ignore the best attempt to date.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out where there's room for improvement, and I've certainly acknowledged that my statistics are less than ideal. I just don't understand the hostility towards the best attempt to date. Analyzing competitive EDH is largely uncharted territory. I would love to analyze the results of some competitive four-man pods, but the data isn't there. It's like I'm a caveman holding a burning stick saying, "Hey, I think I've got something here" and you're a caveman criticizing me for not inventing an internal combustion engine.

Look, Central Limit Theorem has nothing to do with it here. What is says is that your playgroup has an issue with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt and therefore suggests that your playgroup may wish to take action if they become oppressive. It tells you absolutely nothing about my playgroup, or Ertai's Familiar's playgroup, or anyone else's playgroup, because three people is not a representative sample of all the EDH players in your state, or your country, or the world. No matter how many iterations of games you play, you will learn only that your playgroup has an issue with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt. Whether or not these cards should be banned requires a bigger sample size of EDH players to determine since things like play skill, card availability, deck construction preferences, and social dynamics are confounding variables that will skew your results.

I get it. There are lots of playgroups out there who due to any number of factors may have different experiences with Mana Crypt and Sol Ring. It doesn't sound like your playgroup needs to ban Mana Crypt and Sol Ring. Hell, your playgroup probably doesn't even need a ban list. You're not running optimized tier-one lists.

But there are many groups just like mine, not to mention all the side events, that could use a meaningful ban list to improve the experience and focus on play skill and deckbuilding instead of who drew their bomb first. If I suggested there be no formal Legacy banned list and that each store decide through experience what cards shouldn't be allowed at that store, I'd get laughed off The Source. Why do people think this is an acceptable approach to EDH?

As to your specific concerns, play skill and card availability have nothing to do with how strong Mana Crypt and Sol Ring are. Rarity is not a balancing factor, and I can't point to the guy who 0-2 dropped with Flash and say that Flash is weak because the player sucked. It's widely accepted that Sharuum the Hegemon, Arcum Dagsson, and Oona, Queen of the Fae, at least, are tier-one generals. It's not like I'm basing this off of obscure generals with odd card choices. As for social dynamics, we try to play as smart as possible and avoid grudges and biases so as not to skew the data.

If Mana Crypt and Sol Ring are doing ridiculous things in my playgroup, it's likely that they're doing ridiculous things in other playgroups too. The groups just don't have the data to prove it.

I know the current banned list is pretty much a list of cards that Sheldon Menery and friends don't like as opposed to an attempt at bringing order to competitive play. Sheldon and company insist that it's not a formal banned list at all, but he fact is that almost every playgroup treats it like one. Whether they like it or not, they have a responsibility to maintain a formal ban list.

The smaller the group sampled relative to the total population size, the greater the potential error when estimating the parameter. This is basic statistics here.

It's really all about getting a representative sample. It doesn't matter if I'm using a sample of 100 people to draw conclusions about 300,000,000 Americans, so long as the sample is representative of Americans as a whole. The exception is if I want to be able to detect really small differences. More is better provided your sample remains representative, but studies like that come out all the time and Statisticians don't dismiss them for the reasons you've outlined. I think my playgroup is representative of a competitive environment requiring a ban list, and I think the results are applicable to other such groups. You're welcome to disagree with me, but it's asinine to say that somehow my group is relatively alone in what Mana Crypt and Sol Ring does to it.

EDIT: Also, you can invalidate a study by saying it wasn't done under ideal conditions. Obvious bias is a perfect way to invalidate studies. I see this all the time in the scientific literature.

Assuming you can point to other studies that have done it better, or if it would have been an easy thing to correct the problems, yes you can. Sometimes we have to draw conclusions based on what we have. Getting data from tons of playgroups or tournaments just isn't feasible right now.

How do you propose we get a representative sample of all playgroups playing optimized tier-one lists? We can't. So what are we to do? Do we decide that we can't know or do we look at the best evidence we have, however imperfect, and go with that until something better comes along.

When someone has a data set either based on multiple groups or on four-man playgroups that contradicts my findings, I'll go with what they find.

As an aside, if anyone running tier-one, fairly optimized EDH lists would like to keep data to help answer this question, send me a PM. I'd love to talk to you.

boneclub24

02-07-2012, 12:22 AM

Does anyone have links or information about block constructed EDH? Are core sets allowed? It sounds like a great idea.

It certainly sounds like fun. There are quite a few blocks out there that seem like they would be fun to play EDH decks in (Innistrad being a recent one, and it's not completely spoiled yet)

phonics

02-08-2012, 04:27 PM

It certainly sounds like fun. There are quite a few blocks out there that seem like they would be fun to play EDH decks in (Innistrad being a recent one, and it's not completely spoiled yet)
I would love to play with a smaller card pool where people are forced to do more than just jam as many broken cards and combos together as possible. Not saying I dont like that stuff but I think that it would allow for more varied gameplay.

Malchar

02-09-2012, 12:44 AM

I would love to play with a smaller card pool where people are forced to do more than just jam as many broken cards and combos together as possible. Not saying I dont like that stuff but I think that it would allow for more varied gameplay.

I'm currently trying it where you can pick any one block and then you can only use cards from that block, including your commander. I don't know about requiring each player to be in the same block; I think you would end up with a lot of repeated cards. It's already pretty hard to make a unique deck with this restriction, but I like how it's a less powerful format.

Zlatzman

02-09-2012, 04:21 PM

I'm currently trying it where you can pick any one block and then you can only use cards from that block, including your commander. I don't know about requiring each player to be in the same block; I think you would end up with a lot of repeated cards. It's already pretty hard to make a unique deck with this restriction, but I like how it's a less powerful format.
Personally I'd be more interested in picking a commander from any block, and then building a deck using a single block. This allows for more variations on colours.

Unless of course your aim is to "enforce" more single colour decks, in which it's perfectly fine as is.

Malchar

02-09-2012, 05:15 PM

Personally I'd be more interested in picking a commander from any block, and then building a deck using a single block. This allows for more variations on colours.

Unless of course your aim is to "enforce" more single colour decks, in which it's perfectly fine as is.

This seems like a pretty good idea. I tried making a Sharuum deck (in alara block), and there's very little decision-making. Under my rules, it would be pretty hard to come up with two radically different Sharuum decks if you're required to pick cards from alara block. Allowing the general to be from a different block seems cool, because then you could make all kinds of different Sharuum decks using either alara, mirrodin, urza's, etc.

Offler

02-10-2012, 02:24 AM

I was trying to build up an edh deck based on zendikar block vampires.

There are two main reasons.
1, Vampires in this block are great
2, There are some legendary vampires

But it has at least one problem. There is nobody who will build up such a weak deck ... Monoblack block constructed against eternal multicolors...

Also I believe that EDH is a form how to play more cards than in Type 2 and thats also reason why people are playing it.

Aggro_zombies

02-10-2012, 01:49 PM

Also I believe that EDH is a form how to play more cards than in Type 2 and thats also reason why people are playing it.
This is true. EDH is the only format where I can realistically play some of these cards.

That said, if you want some more diversity without having to institute a lengthy in-house banned list, there are a couple of options:

1) CYOS EDH. Most generals are mono-colored, which means your card pool is not going to be very deep if you stick to Block EDH - you'll have to run a lot of limited chaff just to get to 100 cards. CYOS doesn't seem like it would be too powerful. Obviously, your general would need to come from one of the sets in your imaginary Standard format.

2) Peasant EDH. You allow any general but can only use commons and uncommons in your deck. I'm not sure how broken this would be because there might not be sufficient answers to some generals in these rarities, but it's worth a shot.

3) Theme EDH. Build your deck to a strict theme. I tend to do this and a lot of staples end up not making the cut because, while powerful, they don't fit the deck's theme and there's not enough room left over. Some very powerful cards like Sol Ring usually make it in, but if everyone agrees to a somewhat silly theme ahead of time you can get some very wacky decks.

Sims

02-10-2012, 02:10 PM

3) Theme EDH. Build your deck to a strict theme. I tend to do this and a lot of staples end up not making the cut because, while powerful, they don't fit the deck's theme and there's not enough room left over. Some very powerful cards like Sol Ring usually make it in, but if everyone agrees to a somewhat silly theme ahead of time you can get some very wacky decks.

So many times this. I've done this recently for a few decks and got to play cards that i'd never have gotten to play even in EDH.

My most recent incarnation of a theme deck is Seton. Not totally tribal druid, but a heavy amount of druids and made to be a "Druids and the guardians fo the forest" kind of deck. So it runs a few enchantments (Survival of the Fittest for instance, no escaping it) but no artifacts at all. As of right now there are some "staple" cards that fit the theme in the deck that I'm thinking of cutting or trying to... I mean, Tooth and Nail screams flavor for this kind of deck, as does prime time and avenger... but that leads to a linear line where almost every time you're casting TNN it's getting those two. Genesis wave, same thing... Fits the theme and its crazy good.

But I do run shit like Thorn Elemental, Khalni Hydra and Primalcrux, etc... things Druids would call upon to crush those who would harm the forest, etc..

Doing theme decks can be underwhelming for those who are all about winning, but for those who are looking to have fun? Please give it a try. You're playgroup would have a lot of fun with it.

AngryTroll

02-10-2012, 02:21 PM

Zlatzman

02-11-2012, 06:42 AM

Slightly on topic again:

I'm sick of playing 5c manabase with fetches and duals. Shuffling gets really tiresome after a while. Doesn't help that this is in my Scion-deck.

Malchar

02-11-2012, 01:24 PM

But it has at least one problem. There is nobody who will build up such a weak deck ... Monoblack block constructed against eternal multicolors...

Everyone in my group already has a number of normal EDH decks, so the new restriction is just to give some variety.

Maybe the best solution is just to have a banlist that's actually good instead of just using the official one, but getting different playgroups to agree on it might be hard. I don't even like using sol ring anymore since I know it's broken. I'm willing to simply never use it even if other people do.

Offler

02-12-2012, 06:48 PM

Maybe the best solution is just to have a banlist that's actually good instead of just using the official one, but getting different playgroups to agree on it might be hard.

Not bad idea, but i have seen people misusing it for banning specific cards which they dont like. Especially local MTG gurus with some authority. Also people created few specific rules like "when you are playing spell with X in its cost you cannot pay more as is on a permanent in play". To me they ruined the format... If they want to play such rules just change the name of the format to distinguish it.

But our group is not playing some cards, but its not a banlist, just a gentlemen agreement, since we have build up decks legal for both EDH and german highlander. In german HL the sol ring is banned.

3) Theme EDH. Build your deck to a strict theme. I tend to do this and a lot of staples end up not making the cut because, while powerful, they don't fit the deck's theme and there's not enough room left over. Some very powerful cards like Sol Ring usually make it in, but if everyone agrees to a somewhat silly theme ahead of time you can get some very wacky decks.

I agree with this. Its a lot of fun building a deck around some theme. Just not build it plain competetive. My Teferi deck tries to follow this philosophy - Wizard Tribal, which spins around Tolaria. However to keep it at least decently powerful I had to play some cards which are not as groundbreaking such as Sol Ring.

Torpor Orb for example. Phyrexian theme is something i would keep out of the deck.

majikal

02-13-2012, 06:35 PM

Those of us who work to keep EDH coherent and playable work by consensus, but we have a few guidelines that we use when it comes to banning cards. Someone pointed out that the three criteria against which cards have come to be judged for banning aren't clearly published anywhere, so I'll post and sticky this for reference. This is primarily my opinion, but reflects a reasonable description of the commonly applied thought process.

For a card to be considered for banning (or kept banned), it should be causing problems in EDH games due to one of three things:
Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]

it's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8].

it belogs to a class of cards which can't be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards, dexterity cards]

The first criteria is the most commonly applied and as such a little more complex than the others. The purpose is to ban cards which are made "excessively more powerful" by the format-specific rules of EDH. While some cards are naturally undercosted in every format (Lightning Bolt, Time Spiral), they aren't made _worse_ by EDH. [Lightning bolt is unlikely to actually cause problems anyway, so it wouldn't even make it that far]

An additional principal which is commonly referenced is the ease with which a card can be answered. This is somewhat related to criteria #1, in that the size and singleton nature of the format makes answers harder to come by consistently. Keeping answers onhand, lest the game end suddenly, detracts from the interplay and variety of the format so it's considered a strike against the power level of a card if it's "answer this or lose now". Creatures are something of an exception here, as creature removal is far more prevalent, common, and flexible. The fact that answers exist to be tutored up is not a mitigating factor though... the question is whether those answers are commonly applicable or must be "forced" into an anotherwise healthy metagame.

Note that "very irritating" or "ubiquitous" aren't expressly listed there... they can act as red flags or tipping points, but alone aren't sufficient for a card to be voted down.

At some point in the near future, I'll try to post a list explaining why each of the cards currently banned are on that list.

G

Emphasis added.

In short, stop asking to ban Sol Ring, because it's never gonna happen.

Malchar

02-14-2012, 07:57 PM

Emphasis added.

In short, stop asking to ban Sol Ring, because it's never gonna happen.

We're not asking them to ban sol ring. We're trying to convince enough people to use an entirely different ban list. I have serious problems with all their banning criteria. I definitely wouldn't be playing legacy if those were the criteria that Wizards used.

socialite

02-14-2012, 08:01 PM

Emphasis added.

In short, stop asking to ban Sol Ring, because it's never gonna happen.

Actually I did some in house testing with my friends and it turns out 50% of the time you have 70% arguments filed under "ubiquitous" and 37% under "very irritating".

http://www.westgard.com/images/Westgard/lesson/ls14f7.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Piecharts.svg/300px-Piecharts.svg.png

http://www.valdosta.edu/%7Ebscolquitt/favfruitgraph.jpg

In conclusion I can say with 99% accuracy that Sol Ring should be banned as it typically leads to my favorite fruit winning 68% of the time as long as I draw it within the first 20 turns of the game.

We're not asking them to ban sol ring. We're trying to convince enough people to use an entirely different ban list. I have serious problems with all their banning criteria. I definitely wouldn't be playing legacy if those were the criteria that Wizards used.

The French list is trash too.

majikal

02-15-2012, 01:47 AM

We're not asking them to ban sol ring. We're trying to convince enough people to use an entirely different ban list. I have serious problems with all their banning criteria. I definitely wouldn't be playing legacy if those were the criteria that Wizards used.
Why not just convince your own playgroup to use a different list instead of trying to impose your views onto everyone else?

Kuma

02-15-2012, 12:39 PM

In short, stop asking to ban Sol Ring, because it's never gonna happen.

I understand it's never going to happen barring a paradigm shift from the council. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Their principles are flawed and their banned list is laughably poor. Sway of the Stars, Biorhythm, Kokusho, the Evening Star? Really?

<graphs and such>

:laugh:

Pretty good parody.

The French list is trash too.

What do you think the banned list should look like?

The French list isn't perfect, but at least it's an attempt at a reasonable banned list. I'd much rather it be the official list than the joke we currently have.

Why not just convince your own playgroup to use a different list instead of trying to impose your views onto everyone else?

Because sometimes people play EDH outside of their playgroup. Sometimes they even play it for prizes. In both cases, a reasonable banned list would improve the experience.

Sims

02-15-2012, 04:24 PM

What do you think the banned list should look like?

The French list isn't perfect, but at least it's an attempt at a reasonable banned list. I'd much rather it be the official list than the joke we currently have.

Most of what is on the current "joke" of a banned list is still banned in French 1v1. The French list also has some inexplicable cards on it as well: Bitterblossom? Really? The Edric players not like getting blown out if they can't counter that turn 2 blossom? Serra Ascendant? In 1v1 sure it's a turn 1 blowout, but you sound like you play multiplayer, I see no reason that this guy should be banned. Tabernacle? A land that does nothing but hinder creature strategies and, ironically, Edric.... Hey, don't most of the french rules council play Edric?

When you ban Bitterblossom because it blows out your tier S deck and leave Survival of the Goddamned Fittest legal? Oath of Druid? Hermit Druid? Your banned list is suspect at best.

Oh, and for the record, Biorhythm with counter backup is a game ender since it very potentially kills or at least magister sphinxes almost everyone at the table. That's a pretty friggen swingy card.

socialite

02-15-2012, 04:45 PM

most of what is on the current "joke" of a banned list is still banned in french 1v1. The french list also has some inexplicable cards on it as well: Bitterblossom? Really? The edric players not like getting blown out if they can't counter that turn 2 blossom? Serra ascendant? In 1v1 sure it's a turn 1 blowout, but you sound like you play multiplayer, i see no reason that this guy should be banned. Tabernacle? A land that does nothing but hinder creature strategies and, ironically, edric.... Hey, don't most of the french rules council play edric?

When you ban bitterblossom because it blows out your tier s deck and leave survival of the goddamned fittest legal? Oath of druid? Hermit druid? Your banned list is suspect at best.

Oh, and for the record, biorhythm with counter backup is a game ender since it very potentially kills or at least magister sphinxes almost everyone at the table. That's a pretty friggen swingy card.

holy moly give this guy a prize!

Sims please have my babies.

Amon Amarth

02-15-2012, 06:25 PM

Ace/Homebrew

02-15-2012, 10:12 PM

You are supposed to keep the degeneracy out of your playgroup, social contract and all that jazz.

This is actually real easy... If your playgroup is tried of losing to manarock.deck then you say to that player, "I don't want to play against your manarock deck, what else do you have?" They either pull out something else or you exclude them from that game. You can be as mean or nice as you want while you say it. Eventually they alter their deck or they stop showing up. It's pretty win/win.

A 7 or 8 player casual game had been going on for a while and the overall consensus was that the game was fun and no one was in a hurry for it to end, except for one player who decided to combo out and kill everyone simultaneously. The group decided that winner's "prize" was to leave the table while everyone else finished the game they were enjoying. He sat by himself for 2 hours.

Kuma, I admire the statistical approach you're taking in analyzing the effect of certain cards on the format; 3 player group or not. My only problem is that you 3 make it a point to leave politics and grudges out of it... Multiplayer EDH is all about politics and grudges. Being able to talk a player into doing what you want can be as important to winning a game as landing that turn 1 Sol Ring.

Aggro_zombies

02-15-2012, 11:17 PM

The RC knows the format is degenerate but the banned list is only to try and keep the super unfun cards away from peoples playgroups, not to keep the format "fair". Obviously there are some suspect cards (Black Dragon anyone?) but the point of the format is that the players are supposed to keep those things in check with their playgroup. EDH was envisioned as a 4 player casual format. You are supposed to keep the degeneracy out of your playgroup, social contract and all that jazz.
Koko is actually kind of pushing it. His "normal" use (i.e., dying to anything that doesn't exile him) will usually net you 15 life, which can be pretty steep. Combine that with any kind of recursion (I wonder what color is good at recurring creatures?) and it stacks up. Obviously, with Recurring Nightmare on the list he's not as bad, and he's certainly harder to turn into an insta-win than, say, Mikaeus and Triskelion or Kiki-Mite, but he's kind of pushing it on his own.

With Prime Time being somehow completely kosher, I think Kokoshu can come off, but YYMV.

Malchar

02-15-2012, 11:28 PM

Oh, and for the record, Biorhythm with counter backup is a game ender since it very potentially kills or at least magister sphinxes almost everyone at the table. That's a pretty friggen swingy card.

As it should be. Everyone else on the table is going to try and counter it. Plus, it's a sorcery that costs 8, so how are you going to have enough mana left to protect it from everyone?

Unless you have 40 some tokens out, it's just a big flame rift. It doesn't improve your board position at all, and it's frequently a dead card. If they destroy your creatures in response, you die.

A good starting ban list would be the legacy ban list. I have a hard time believing that cards like biorhythm and upheaval suddenly become so broken that they need to be banned, especially considering that they aren't even used competitively in any formats.

If you get to 8 mana, you deserve to attempt to cast a biorhythm, but getting sol ring or oath of druids at the very beginning of the game is completely broken.

kombatkiwi

02-16-2012, 02:57 AM

Amon Amarth

02-16-2012, 04:04 AM

Koko is actually kind of pushing it. His "normal" use (i.e., dying to anything that doesn't exile him) will usually net you 15 life, which can be pretty steep. Combine that with any kind of recursion (I wonder what color is good at recurring creatures?) and it stacks up. Obviously, with Recurring Nightmare on the list he's not as bad, and he's certainly harder to turn into an insta-win than, say, Mikaeus and Triskelion or Kiki-Mite, but he's kind of pushing it on his own.

With Prime Time being somehow completely kosher, I think Kokoshu can come off, but YYMV.

Life gain is nice but unimpressive. There are too many ways to get past someone with a large life total. If your playgroup has advanced somewhere beyond Spiritmonger and Earthquake you should be fine. With Recurring Nightmare on the list it's going to take significantly more work to abuse him. He's good but the threshold for banning something in this format solely on power level is pretty high i.e. Gifts, Tinker, etc.

On a slightly more on topic note, I really don't like playing with SDT anymore. I've taken it out of most of my decks that can't abuse him e.g. loaded with shuffle effects. It's a boring card and having an upkeep of 1 to see a new card every turn is the definition of unexciting. Great when you're loaded with tutors, meh without. Dito for decks that can actually draw lots of cards like Edric.

Sims

02-16-2012, 05:10 PM

As it should be. Everyone else on the table is going to try and counter it. Plus, it's a sorcery that costs 8, so how are you going to have enough mana left to protect it from everyone?

Unless you have 40 some tokens out, it's just a big flame rift. It doesn't improve your board position at all, and it's frequently a dead card. If they destroy your creatures in response, you die.

A good starting ban list would be the legacy ban list. I have a hard time believing that cards like biorhythm and upheaval suddenly become so broken that they need to be banned, especially considering that they aren't even used competitively in any formats.

If you get to 8 mana, you deserve to attempt to cast a biorhythm, but getting sol ring or oath of druids at the very beginning of the game is completely broken.

While I do appreciate this fact, I can easily see both sides of this issue.

At 8+ mana, most cards you are casting should win the game. Insurrection, Time Stretch, Tooth and Nail are already in the format and I agree that those typically win on the spot. Counters mean little because you can run them yourself and also all decks have access, should they choose, to Bosejiu.

I think the issue that I have with Biorhythm, and likely this is the RC's stance on the card, is that it's very easy to set up a win with it. Say you cast a Bosejiu'd Insurrection... You still have to make it through a combat step and kill as many players as possible while making it through fog effects, flash blockers, homeward path, etc. With Time Stretch you get 2 extra turns but you have to actively set up some way of winning the game or a loop to recurr the Time Stretch, and often times those recursion loops will be preventable. Tooth and Nail requires a creature combo to win (Mikaeus/trike, Kiki/Mite) and are open to disruption on the table, etc..

With Biorhtyhm, all it requires is having 1 creature on the board post-wrath to win the game instantly. If someone wraths and you're able to cast just one hexproof creature before casting Biorhythm it's game. If you have a Sprinjack Pasture you can win the game by making a token before casting the spell. At the very least it's unfun to suddenly have the game reduced to everyone being at 1-5 life, leaving the game up to whomever can cast the first Breath of Malfegor.... Seems too abusable to me, personally. But hell, you can make such arguments for pretty much everything on the banned list.