All B/R update speculation.

[Whitefaces]

All ante cards are on the ban list by definition of them being ante cards. Allowing people to play 56 card decks is a terrible, terrible idea.

[bruizar]

All ante cards are on the ban list by definition of them being ante cards. Allowing people to play 56 card decks is a terrible, terrible idea.

Then why are Git Probe and Street Wraith not banned. The current wording does nothing to prevent it from seeing play in sanctioned decks.

[Dice_Box]

There are subsets of cards on the ban list that are not up for consideration for being removed. The reason is that they add to the game a function that is no longer supported. They are:

• Ante cards
• Dexterity cards
• Sub Game creators
• Cards that exist exclusively in non accessible zones (Conspiracy cards.)

Ante is no longer a part of the game. It was not popular and created issues with gambling laws. (At one point you won events by winning more money off your opponent, not more games.) When ante was removed, the cards that directly involved it where removed.

Dexterity cards where removed to make the game more accessible to individuals with physical handicaps and to stop people spreading out their field all over a table.

There is only one sub game creation card, Sharazzad. Good riddance.

Cards that can not be placed in Libraries of course do not fit in the current rules of any format outside of Draft or Commander.

Then why are Git Probe and Street Wraith not banned. The current wording does nothing to prevent it from seeing play in sanctioned decks.

These have tangible impacts on a game. They cost life or mana to use, can be stifled or countered and interacted with by cards like DRS. Ante cards do none of these things.

Also, please ask ban questions in this thread. Do not start new ones.

[Crimhead]

Probe and SW, like the Baubles, don't quite have you a 56 (or fewer) card deck. If you open with those cards, you have to make your muligan decision before knowing what you'll draw.

[rufus]

IMO Contract from Below does not belong on the banned list.
With the current oracle wording, Contract from Below must be removed before you play if you do not play for ante, so it is not possible to cast Contract from Below in a sanctioned environment. The function Contract from Below would have would be to run a virtual 56 card deck similar to Street Wraith and (to some degree) Gitaxian Probe. ...

As a practical matter, there are nine cards that contain the phrase "Remove [this card] from your deck if not playing for ante." In the rules scheme you're proposing, that would allow people to shrink the effective deck size from 60 to 24, which, in turn, leads to pretty degenerate stuff with 4-of deck building.

[tescrin]

Then why are Git Probe and Street Wraith not banned. The current wording does nothing to prevent it from seeing play in sanctioned decks.

It's well worth noting that there's a reason people aren't running Git Probe Street Wraith Urza's Bauble Mishra's Bauble decks. Despite making a "44 card deck" it often costs you a fireblast or two to your face, and the Baubles slow you a turn on your draws.

Just imagine this hand:
1 Underground Sea
2 Git Probe
1 Street Wraith
1 Mishra's Bauble
1 Dark Ritual/Delver/you get the idea
1 Ponder

Sure. You'll dig 7 cards or so; but you'll be missing 6 life and one of those cards isn't until your next turn; 3-4 of which were because of how good Ponder is.

"Smaller decks" aren't a problem; or else they'd already be a problem. Truly smaller decks; like you'd get from Ante, is a completely different beasts.

[bruizar]

As a practical matter, there are nine cards that contain the phrase "Remove [this card] from your deck if not playing for ante." In the rules scheme you're proposing, that would allow people to shrink the effective deck size from 60 to 24, which, in turn, leads to pretty degenerate stuff with 4-of deck building.

I think this is the best answer. From a rules perspective, the cards would still be playable without enabling ante if they would not be on the banned list. It's probably possible to create a doomsday-less doomsday list with probes, wraiths and ante cards.

There are subsets of cards on the ban list that are not up for consideration for being removed. The reason is that they add to the game a function that is no longer supported. They are:

There is only one sub game creation card, Sharazzad. Good riddance.
Also, please ask ban questions in this thread. Do not start new ones.

Disagree with the Shahrazad ban as well. I played a Shahrazad deck back in the days and never went to time with it. Overlaying a playmat keeps the board in tact. Sub-game is close enough to Karn Liberated's ultimate that I say the ban should have never been enacted, but that's not going to change anything.

[weaselface]

Disagree with the Shahrazad ban as well. I played a Shahrazad deck back in the days and never went to time with it. Overlaying a playmat keeps the board in tact. Sub-game is close enough to Karn Liberated's ultimate that I say the ban should have never been enacted, but that's not going to change anything.

Does subgame of a subgame of a subgame sound agreeable to you? It sure doesn't to me.

Karn ultimate is usually game over so not close to being the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Lemnear]

Shahrazad.dec rarely went to time back in the days, because a smart opponent just scooped the subgame immediately.

Shahrazad reads "WW - Sorcery - Half opponent Lifepoints" therefore, which did not matter if there was a combo deck sitting across

[Fox]

Disagree with the Shahrazad ban as well. I played a Shahrazad deck back in the days and never went to time with it. Overlaying a playmat keeps the board in tact. Sub-game is close enough to Karn Liberated's ultimate that I say the ban should have never been enacted, but that's not going to change anything.

Really? There's already a known ethical issue with miracles players floating Entreat when opponents have no way of ever coming back in a given game as a time-wasting tactic to deprive opponents time to win the next game. Shahrazad is a 2-mana sideboard plan that heavily incentives such behaviour. Take down game 1 and there's really no better way to ensure opponent can't win the next two than this mistake of a card.

[bruizar]

Does subgame of a subgame of a subgame sound agreeable to you? It sure doesn't to me.

Karn ultimate is usually game over so not close to being the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

You can just concede all of the subgames and lose half the life, regardless of how many nested subgames exist.

[bruizar]

Really? There's already a known ethical issue with miracles players floating Entreat when opponents have no way of ever coming back in a given game as a time-wasting tactic to deprive opponents time to win the next game. Shahrazad is a 2-mana sideboard plan that heavily incentives such behaviour. Take down game 1 and there's really no better way to ensure opponent can't win the next two than this mistake of a card.

Shahrazad is a burn spell. WW 10 damage for the first, WW 5 damage for the second.

[Lemnear]

Shahrazad is a burn spell. WW 10 damage for the first, WW 5 damage for the second.

Jup. The moment you are forced to play any of the subgames, you lost the game already. In all other cases its just a burn spell... well, of course as long as the opponent is no idiot and really plays the subgame without need

[Dice_Box]

Regardless of what you think of the card, this is not a digital only game, you can not go back and simply change text. The card as written is a problem. I for one see no issue with its removal.

[non-inflammable]

you can not go back and simply change text.

the original Impulse from visions had text removed from the card... was that different?

say we want to "change" cards in the future, just reprint them in the next supplemental set with new wording and now say it was errata'd?

[Dice_Box]

They try and keep the original concept of the cards intact. They do not tend to change things other than to fix a mistake in the cards design and execution. In the case of Winter Orb they gave it back its original intended effect. In the case of Impulse, as I understand it they fixed a situation made from an oversight in printing. Like Rukh Egg for example. The intention and the execution did not align. Its not an errata of the card, its a fix but the cards intended effect stays intact.

As for Shahrazad, it's on the list. Want the reprint treatment for it? I would argue there are bigger issues at hand with that list then this thing.

[Fox]

say we want to "change" cards in the future, just reprint them in the next supplemental set with new wording and now say it was errata'd?

In many ways this already happens Ancestral Recall -> Brainstorm, Strip Mine -> Wasteland, StP -> Path to Exile, Earthcraft -> Cryptolith Rite, banned card -> Magus of or suspend version of or miracle version of, and many others. Some cards are just too poorly designed to fix (vs. reprint with a new name) as you'd often have to add sentences of new rules/stipulations, instead of clarifying that a card uses 'x' zone now or has a simple deletion.

[thefringthing]

Trying to preserve the original intent of a card can be pretty tricky after major rules changes (the stack, mana burn, etc.) It's not like the original designers are always around to explain how they expected the card to work. It used to be that they would try to leave a card alone if the printed text makes sense in the rules, but this can break down too, with cards like Lion's Eye Diamond and Lotus Vale. These days we get a mix of both strategies.

[Finn]

Shahrazad.dec rarely went to time back in the days, because a smart opponent just scooped the subgame immediately.

Shahrazad reads "WW - Sorcery - Half opponent Lifepoints" therefore, which did not matter if there was a combo deck sitting across

So, , win the game? Sign me up.

[Gheizen64]

Sharazad burn too good?