EDH B&R update for June 20th

[socialite]

I like how you left out the part where I said it would function better in UBx shells whereas that thread was based around people bitching about Griselbrand as the general and me arguing otherwise.

Also "pretty busted" is how I describe almost every card that isn't on the banned list (i.e. Mind Over Matter) that probably should be when taking into consideration the RC's desire for the format to revolve around scrubs.

But yeah, congratulations on your internet dominance.

Well, to be fair, data from my local playgroup* indicates that controlling Griselbrand in the first four turns of the game leads to a 56.312% (+/- 0.005%) increase in win rate by turn nine.

*My playgroup consisted of me testing against myself in local games on Cockatrice. The p-value is 0.76. These statistics are made up to make my arguments sound more scientific but are nevertheless true because Central Limit Theorem.

I'd like to buy you a drink.

[Kuma]

Well, to be fair, data from my local playgroup* indicates that controlling Griselbrand in the first four turns of the game leads to a 56.312% (+/- 0.005%) increase in win rate by turn nine.

*My playgroup consisted of me testing against myself in local games on Cockatrice. The p-value is 0.76. These statistics are made up to make my arguments sound more scientific but are nevertheless true because Central Limit Theorem.

Why don't you tell me how it should be decided if a card is banned in EDH, you know, so I can post unhelpful, smart-ass rebuttals that don't address the issue. Because if your idea is:

make up a house banned list and play as brokenly as you want.

That's fine and dandy if the only EDH you ever play is with a specific group of people in a specific setting. It doesn't help people who want to play with strangers at an event or local shop, nor does that work for any kind of formal event. In the first case, a lot of hand-wringing could be avoided with a formal banned list. A banned list is essential for the latter.

I like how you left out the part where I said it would function better in UBx shells whereas that thread was based around people bitching about Griselbrand as the general and me arguing otherwise.

You said Griselbrand was better in a UBx shell. You didn't say anything to suggest your opinion on banning Griselbrand was significantly different from how you felt about him in a mono-black deck, which implies that you didn't think he was ban-worthy in a UBx shell, just "better" than awful.

Here's what else you had to say about Griselbrand in a UBx shell:

If you are talking about running him not as a general but in another shell (which is not what we have been focusing on) then see Kiwi's post because that's pretty much what I've been trying to say since the start of this thread.

The relevant part of kombatkiwi's post:

Shoehorning griselbrand into a deck and going entomb-reanimate or sneak attacking it or whatever really isnt that much different to decks that exist already, so im not concerned.

So yeah, you were still wrong. I'm just going to copy/paste at this point because you still haven't answered my questions from the last time we had this discussion.

You like to criticize people who say the banned list should be something other than what it currently is. Why don't you tell us what you think the banned list should be? It's easy to criticize other people's opinions without giving your own. What's the matter? Afraid you're going to look stupid?

[Aggro_zombies]

Why don't you tell me how it should be decided if a card is banned in EDH, you know, so I can post unhelpful, smart-ass rebuttals that don't address the issue.

Sorry, but it looked like Put-Down Season was starting, and that's always a fun time of year.

That's fine and dandy if the only EDH you ever play is with a specific group of people in a specific setting. It doesn't help people who want to play with strangers at an event or local shop, nor does that work for any kind of formal event. In the first case, a lot of hand-wringing could be avoided with a formal banned list. A banned list is essential for the latter.

As I said in response to Bryant's article:

I wish the EDH committee would finally get around to recognizing that, at big events, there are going to be people showing up with decks designed to push the envelope on broken. It's annoying that the RC argues, "Well, the format isn't for them" and then lets these people routinely ruin four-man pods with decks that look like the retarded kid brothers of Vintage decks. I don't care if the format was originally conceived as a casual Mecca, that's not the way everyone plays it - and if you want people to play it that way, you need to realize that you have to actively sculpt the format like that. House banned lists and social contracts don't extend to, say, GenCon side events.

I'm aware of the issue - but resolving it is not straightforward.

I wish that the RC would have a separate ban list specifically to tone down competitive play, simply because it would make me more interested in playing at large events. But the RC won't do this because they don't think people should play the format competitively, and I mostly agree with that.

The French banned list is sort of a reasonable stab at a competitive EDH banned list, but the lack of sanctioning for EDH events means you can't hold people to that when playing at big events. I understand that WotC doesn't want to sanction EDH because then it would fall under the purview of the DCI and not the Rules Committee, and making a special management allowance for EDH would be a pain in the ass (not to mention the current RC's stance on competitive EDH).

At the end of the day, arguing about metagame balance and proper banned list management may just be missing the point.

[Amon Amarth]

Cards are banned because they are degenerate/over-centralizing/unfun even when played "fairly". I'm certain this is why Griselbrand was banned. A lot of players are very attracted to jamming giant demons onto the battlefield. He can end up ruining games where people didn't have any intention to ruin them. If he's too good in someone's Vintage-lite EDH deck... I don't really think the Rules Committee cares. I mean we still have Necro, lots of fast mana, tutors galore, Force, Drain, etc. It's pretty obvious they don't balance around that kinda stuff.

[Aggro_zombies]

Cards are banned because they are degenerate/over-centralizing/unfun even when played "fairly". I'm certain this is why Griselbrand was banned. A lot of players are very attracted to jamming giant demons onto the battlefield. He can end up ruining games where people didn't have any intention to ruin them. If he's too good in someone's Vintage-lite EDH deck... I don't really think the Rules Committee cares. I mean we still have Necro, lots of fast mana, tutors galore, Force, Drain, etc. It's pretty obvious they don't balance around that kinda stuff.

Yeah, I almost posted something like this. Cards that should be banned are cards whose "fair" use is still oppressive, since just about everything big in the format can be obnoxious when you're intentionally going for that.

[socialite]

It's easy to criticize other people's opinions without giving your own. What's the matter? Afraid you're going to look stupid?

At the time I gave my opinion to which your response was nerd rage - Griselbrand shouldn't be banned because he is no different from a million other abusive cards that remain unbanned in EDH. I also still believe he can be dealt with by competent meta/pod/players.

I agree with the action the RC has taken because as a regulatory body they seem to be rather relaxed in dealing with actual problem cards at least from a historical standpoint and this is a clear improvement. I suppose one could sum up my general feeling regarding Griselbrand as indifferent. From my perspective it's an plus to the format as a whole to have one less power house card. On the flip side, I continue to have an issue processing all the whine when there are a plethora of similarly powered cards still legal in the format. This regulatory hypocrisy coupled with the hype beast that are EDH players and their constant bitching is why I ultimately stopped playing the format.

I'm pretty liberal with my opinions and if I cared enough I would spend the time creating a banned list for you to start futile arguments over. Unfortunately since you have already established that I'm an idiot for voicing an opinion about a magical card game that is different from your own, it's time to move on.

[TsumiBand]

Holy shit this thread got personal.

I understand the necessity for at least one common ground banned list that EDH can primarily revolve around, otherwise there's no way to play the game with anyone that isn't invited to your kitchen table sessions. There'd be no point in EDH side-events at PTQs, etc etc. Honestly, it seems to me like the combination of a relatively light banned list in concert with the explicit statement that playgroups should feel free to maintain their own house rules is about as good as you can get in regard to keeping the format open to as many players as possible. Your group doesn't like Necropotence coming and ruining all the Johnny goodtimes, well fuck it, ban it yourselves.

I mean at some point the argument just starts sounding like the new guy who can't win by bringing his pet deck to FNM. He might steal some wins at his friends' houses but unfortunately it's never going to work that way in a genuine Standard environment. I'm not a Spike in EDH by any means but I see the need to establish the baseline somewhere and I feel like aside from the occasional oddball like Sundering Titan that the RC has actually done pretty well.

[Tacosnape]

You know, people don't try this shit in Legacy.

At some point, no matter how stupid you think a card being (or not being) on a banned list, you still have to accept that banned lists exist. Otherwise everybody's playing a completely different game. If every little cliqueish playgroup makes up their own rules, then people get excluded who disagree, playgroups shrink, and the format withers away and dies. You cripple the growth of the format by subverting the official rules.

Furthermore? By changing the rules to your liking, you quell the inevitable uproar over unfair and unfun cards. What's the problem with this? Well, look at it this way, and I'm going to randomly pick Necropotence strictly as an example to make my point. Say you're a person who wants Necropotence banned. You hate the card. You hate the card so much that you campaign locally and get it banned in your playgroup, because, hell, most of your buddies agree the card is stupidly strong for Commander. The result? You all quit bitching. And because you're not bitching, nobody responds to your bitching, so they don't actually ban Necropotence. So because you decided not to play by the rules and subvert them instead, the problem didn't get fixed.

[Aggro_zombies]

I fail to see how self-flagellation is going to get a card banned (or not). Sheldon - and probably the entire RC - ban cards based on testing in their local meta at Armada Games (or whatever it's called). The Commander Rules forum is brimming over with threads from people complaining that card X is overpowered and needs to be banned (with counterpoints of "Then ban it locally," "It's not a problem around here," and the ever-popular, "Well, it would be fine if you just adapted your deck/meta to it").

Continuing to make yourself and your playgroup suffer through an unfair, warping experience is not going to do anything other than make your EDH games miserable. The RC itself has said that their banned list is just a common starting point and that local groups are encouraged to play using house rules.

[Offler]

Sheldon - and probably the entire RC - ban cards based on testing in their local meta at Armada Games (or whatever it's called). The Commander Rules forum is brimming over with threads from people complaining that card X is overpowered and needs to be banned (with counterpoints of "Then ban it locally," "It's not a problem around here," and the ever-popular, "Well, it would be fine if you just adapted your deck/meta to it").

Local banlists or maybe local rules are way to hell. It might split the format in the future. When it comes to meta local tour organizers are choosing between 45 or 60 minute rounds forcing people to build up straightforward fast decks without any backup plans and mainly without any unique idea...

If you want let card to be banned develop an infinite combo with it, post it on some forum and cause major changes in format :)

[TsumiBand]

If you want let card to be banned develop an infinite combo with it, post it on some forum and cause major changes in format :)

I believe this is ultimately the correct approach if one's trying to actively alter the banned list, as with any other format where something degenerate exists. While more than a few choices on the EDH banned list are there because they don't foster the "right kind" of interactivity, they react correctly to combos that ruin the game.

Unfortunately, that opens the discussion up to those guys that are just playing 100-card Vintage to say "X isn't broken, assuming you have money and answers", but keeping the format open to all players means that the buck is going to necessarily stop with the guys trying to push the fundamental turn down and see just how broken EDH can actually go. So yeah, if Spikes largely don't have an issue with Necropotence (again, as an example, not a statement of brokenness) then it probably remains legal.

[Aggro_zombies]

I believe this is ultimately the correct approach if one's trying to actively alter the banned list, as with any other format where something degenerate exists. While more than a few choices on the EDH banned list are there because they don't foster the "right kind" of interactivity, they react correctly to combos that ruin the game.

Unfortunately, that opens the discussion up to those guys that are just playing 100-card Vintage to say "X isn't broken, assuming you have money and answers", but keeping the format open to all players means that the buck is going to necessarily stop with the guys trying to push the fundamental turn down and see just how broken EDH can actually go. So yeah, if Spikes largely don't have an issue with Necropotence (again, as an example, not a statement of brokenness) then it probably remains legal.

Necropotence is merely very good if your deck is full of random durdle cards; it doesn't hit "obnoxious" territory until your deck gets good. Because of that, it's unlikely to get banned because its power mostly stems from how stupid your deck is trying to be.

As Amon Amarth said above, a card should be banned in EDH when its fair use is still way too powerful. There are a lot of cards that are obnoxious or oppressive in Spike-y EDH groups but fine in more casual ones: Tooth and Nail comes immediately to mind, as does the aforementioned Necropotence. This is also, I think, one of the main reasons plenty of very powerful cards aren't banned in EDH and why the format ultimately shouldn't be used for cutthroat play.

[Offler]

Griselbrand is very special case. Yawgmoth bargain was banned and it remains banned no matter if it has legs or wings.

But lets think a bit about cards like Sensei's Divining Top. It is being discussed to be banned for years in several singleton formats. Reason? It slows down play?

I never heard that it has to be banned because of Countertop combo (which is ridiculous reason since there is also scroll rack and its almost as strong). Never heard it has to be banned because of its "Future sight+Etherium sculptor" Storm combo. Or Infinite mana + Rings of Brighthearth combo... Because people are shuffling library and checking top 2-3 times per turn? NO.

Why then? Because spike players use it only to fix card order 1x each turn which slows down play. (i have seen more spike players use it every end of turn to check 1 new card, and no other usage)...

The main reason why people want it to ban is because its hard to destroy. and they feel that impact of this card is enormous when used standalone.

STD will become broken only when people learn how to use it effectively.

[Amon Amarth]

Griselbrand is very special case. Yawgmoth bargain was banned and it remains banned no matter if it has legs or wings.

But lets think a bit about cards like Sensei's Divining Top. It is being discussed to be banned for years in several singleton formats. Reason? It slows down play?

I never heard that it has to be banned because of Countertop combo (which is ridiculous reason since there is also scroll rack and its almost as strong). Never heard it has to be banned because of its "Future sight+Etherium sculptor" Storm combo. Or Infinite mana + Rings of Brighthearth combo... Because people are shuffling library and checking top 2-3 times per turn? NO.

Why then? Because spike players use it only to fix card order 1x each turn which slows down play. (i have seen more spike players use it every end of turn to check 1 new card, and no other usage)...

The main reason why people want it to ban is because its hard to destroy. and they feel that impact of this card is enormous when used standalone.

STD will become broken only when people learn how to use it effectively.

Um...what? How is Top even a problem? Most of the time you can Top and just pass the turn and let other people take their turn while you finish resolving your ability. This also works well for fetches, tutors, green ramp, etc. This isn't REL5 bro. Seriously, I've never heard of people even mention SDT for banning, much less because it makes games take long. Games take long for reasons other than repeatable shuffle effects.

[jjjoness']

Top is a problem in multiplayer rounds, imho. We tested it in our local playgroup, but came to the realisation that games without top were way faster. Although that may be a problem caused by certain players who tend to take half a minute to top eot, then draw, fetch, top again for some time, play a tutor, top again. It's not the card per se makes games last longer, but played in controlish decks (or by slow players) that sit around and stack cards, Top can make games incredibly unfun. This gets even worse when several people each have Top...

[Offler]

Thats exactly it.

Mostly those bannings are proposed by players who use to play Type 2 duels - especially players who attend T2 tournament - and are posing as "casual fans", while missing the point why casual players like longer games as they do.

Worst thing i have seen is:
Eot: Top Drills
Untap, upkeep, draw: Top Drills

Players use to check top of library at both beginning and end of each turn while they want to check single new card, or are thinking about possibilities "what if i choose different card" and try to react on every change on the table. This is typical for players who dont have consistent strategy.

However same T2 players are usually at the head of local MTG clubs and they "feel the responsibility for the format". Also reason why I believe than most of our local MTG community is a group of douchebags...

[Dilettante]

Sensei's Divining Top is nowhere near the king of game delay, Shahrazad, which is why that monster's out.

If you're going by the principle of game delay, wouldn't the following be worse due to the very nature of the act of shuffling a thicker EDH deck almost every turn?
Elfhame Sanctuary
Land Tax
Archmage Ascension
Survival of the Fittest
Wild Pair
One With Nature
Fauna Shaman
Weathered Wayfarer

[Amon Amarth]

If the argument is that inexperienced/bad players take too long to Top, that's not very realistic. New players with drag the game down because they are new players. It takes them much longer for them to make decisions due to lack of experience.

[Offler]

Shahrazad is not commonly played and thus most local playgroups are not even aware of existence of such card. Other cards in the list are not that case, few are already banned and some of those cards few people wish to ban for some reasons.

In some formats (such as non-dci german Higlander) is even Shahrazad legal.

In this format there are voices who call for banning SDT because of its basic power level no matter of combos or interactions which it has with other cards, and as a secondary argument there are still people talking about fact how it slows down play...

[Aggro_zombies]

Shahrazad is not commonly played and thus most local playgroups are not even aware of existence of such card. Other cards in the list are not that case, few are already banned and some of those cards few people wish to ban for some reasons.

In some formats (such as non-dci german Higlander) is even Shahrazad legal.

In this format there are voices who call for banning SDT because of its basic power level no matter of combos or interactions which it has with other cards, and as a secondary argument there are still people talking about fact how it slows down play...

I'm not sure why Top is such an issue in a format with effectively untimed rounds. The card is not even that good in many decks and certainly not an auto-include in the decks that could run it. If people are taking too long with it or spinning Top excessively, tell them to hurry up or knock it off, respectively.

It's certainly not a bannable card on power level alone.