What Commander Do You Think Will Be Banned Next?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Sept. 15, 2022, 9:40 p.m. by TheOfficialCreator
In short, what legendary creature that is primarily being used currently as a Commander do you see being banned within the format next?
Personally, I think Korvold, Fae-Cursed King will be banned soon. Every set seems to add considerably to his power, especially with Wizard's focus on Treasures. He's exactly the kind of "general value" commander that the RC seems to dislike.
Plus, he has the potential to set up increasingly aggravating turns. I once took a two-hour turn with Korvold on the field where I just sacrificed Treasures and spun my wheel, very slowly gaining an advantage but never quite edging out my opponent.
Another one I could see being banned would be Meria, Scholar of Antiquity. I'm sure there's some really good ways to obscenely break her, and she's a lower mana value as is which makes her more efficient. She's kinda like Gruul Urza in a way, tbh.
What do you guys think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
plakjekaas says... #3
Tergrid, God of Fright Flip has been mentioned by the rules committee to be on the watchlist.
I don't see Meria, Scholar of Antiquity being banned if Urza, Lord High Artificer doesn't even get banned.
September 16, 2022 2:48 a.m.
I don't think it will get banned, but I'd honestly like to see Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief get a ban before too many people build the deck. It just completely dismantles decks like Feather, the Redeemed that are already struggling to have a place in the format, and it does it incidentally. Ivy can run all it's own spells and auras and gain value, but at the same time your 2 mana commander will just shut down some percentage of decks. Things like enchantress, combat tricks, prowess storm like Veyran, Voice of Duality, you basically just can't make a deck on those strategies that can sit across from Ivy.
I think it's just the fact that Ivy doesn't have to do anything other than it's normal gameplan to crush certain types of decks that makes it kind of gross. If it wasn't a "may" ability then I'd love the card. Having to copy and eat removal, but still being two mana that can be replayed, that would be a great game space for a commander.
September 16, 2022 7:49 a.m.
Jodah, the Unifier, for the same reason as Golos, Tireless Pilgrim was. 5c Value with no downsides, all upsides, and homogenizing deck building around the notion of "I don't need to think about what I'm doing with this deck, it just works!"
September 16, 2022 8:01 a.m.
FolkOccult says... #6
Niko9 I agree with your latter-most point in regards to Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief's ability not having 'may' on it. I'd like to see more commanders (and creatures, honestly) that take advantage from interaction, but have specific weaknesses to particular interactions. I do realistically find the banning of legendary creatures that have just been released sounds a touch extreme when still have the likes of Urza running around at tables.
I'm a strong believer that Tegrid, God of Fright will see a ban at some point. For the same reason a card like Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief might, being constructed to create a specific type of interaction, that leaves certain deck strategies unable to respond.
September 16, 2022 8:10 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #7
That's a really good point about Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief. It's one of those decks that just obliterates whole gameplan strategies by simply existing, which isn't really a kind of interaction we've seen idly before. It's a very dark design space.
Tergrid, God of Fright Flip also makes a lot of sense, for roughly the same reason. It shuts down sacrifice and wheel decks, but I think the RC might be holding off on a ban due to its somewhat prohibitive cost. Definitely a good contender though.
Jodah, the Unifier is a few optimized lines away from becoming too powerful to stay in the format, in my opinion. There are just so many cheap legendary creatures now that enable Jodah's ability, and with the vast number of legendary creatures in the format you can literally tailor the deck to whatever sub-strategy you want. Extra combats would be brutal.
September 16, 2022 8:40 a.m.
And yep, you all make a really good point about Tergrid, God of Fright Flip I hadn't played against any Tergrid, but now that you mention it in this context, she really does seem to be not only the best aristocrats commander by far but also the best anti-aristocrats commander, and that's rough because it's a strategy with such a long history and a ton of support.
September 16, 2022 6:45 p.m.
All of them. Ban the Commander format until we get back to one Commander set and fewer than fifty new legendary creatures each year. Ten years ago, in 2012 (Dark Ascension to Return to Ravnica), there were fewer than thirty new legendary creatures. We're well past a hundred so far in 2022, on track to two hundred.
I get that Commander is a popular format, but it's gone from a stream of options to a fire hose to the face. Every five-color legendary creature is a new candidate for "single best option," (see Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, Kenrith, the Returned King, Jodah, the Unifier) and, as mentioned, designs like Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief and Tergrid, God of Fright Flip completely negate entire strategies just by existing. It's having a centralizing effect, and everything new seems to be either specific to the set's gimmick, generally worse than another option, or somehow unfair. I don't believe this is intentional on the part of WotC, but is a symptom of the sheer production volume. If there are more options than ever before, but most of the options are very niche, reduce variety, or are worse than existing options, I don't see how that's an improvement to the gameplay.
I should mention that I fully support flavor and theme decks, and there are some excellent ones out there for those niche and obscure commanders. I'm approaching this from a more mechanical standpoint.
Apologies for the rant, but I don't like the way legendary creatures have been handled recently, and I believe replacing the two-set block model with the Standard + Commander set model was a mistake.
September 16, 2022 6:48 p.m.
legendofa Ha! Just all of them made me laugh : ) It's a good point about the sheer amount of commanders though. The pool of commanders and colors they can play used to feel like a constraint to decks, but not so much anymore. And maybe it's just me, but I like the feeling of, how do I make this work, in the brewing process. It leads to a lot of experimentation and sometimes you find the best things that way : )
September 16, 2022 8:48 p.m.
Niko9 Rereading this a couple hours later, it's a little angrier than I really wanted. Glad you got a laugh out of it, though.
September 16, 2022 9 p.m.
Regarding Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief, I'm not sure that I agree that she: "shuts off a strategy"... unless I'm reading it wrong. She doesn't seem to be staxing at all, she may even want opponents to be casting more spells rather than shutting them down. Am I missing a line of play where she is truly shutting down a strategy... isn't she just copying them, & with the Feather example, aren't most those instant buffs more beneficial for the attacking player (ie protection from creatures, colors, etc). She may get an occasional cantrip in that case, without the ability to recur them. I could see copying aura voltron spells just by existing being somewhat of an issue.. Though she is still not stopping the voltron deck from doing its' thing. Also, it seems like it would be too strategy-dependent to be destructive to the format... She seems a little do nothing in a bunch of metas, she doesn't stop voltron strategies, & she is responsive unlike Tergrid, God of Fright Flip who actively is decked to aggressively shut down everyone
September 16, 2022 9:17 p.m.
To be fair, I haven't played with or against Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief but I have played Feather, the Redeemed for years and what jumps out to me about Ivy is a few things.
She's two mana, so if everything is on curve, she will hit the board two turns before feather can attack and a deck running Ivy as the commander will be very incentivized to play spells it's own spells that can target creatures. Feather might run into a place where Ivy is gaining all Feather's spells plus whatever the Ivy player is playing, and Ivy also has flying, and you have green so your deck should always be casting and recasting Ivy, so how does a Feather deck ever attack into an Ivy deck? Not to mention that most spells in Feather are meant to draw, and Ivy just gets those, no matter who the Feather player is attacking. And on top of it, Ivy gets to choose and copy any other effects from any other players.
Feather is just the example, but it's just a matter of, any deck trying to play combat tricks will always have a big disincentive to attacking Ivy because Ivy will get every resource that goes into the attack plus anything that a deck who is made to have spells that target creatures, whatever that deck might have in hand.
Even protection is helping the Ivy player. If feather plays Shelter not only does the Ivy player get draw, but you get to pick a new color and Ivy can free block any 2nd attacking creature. That's probably the best tool that feather has available in this match up and it still limits attacks to a strategy that's main focus is attacking, for 2 mana, in the command zone.
September 16, 2022 10:06 p.m.
But Shelter isn't going to help Ivy block feather, Gods Willing is again not helping Ivy against the voltron, same with Feat of Resistance, same Balduvian Rage, Emerge Unscathed. That is a good amount of common Feather cards right there that have minimal benefit to Ivy if you are casting them for a Voltron attacking benefit, If you wanted to you could lean more into other cantripy agro only instants that grant something like menace or "cannot be blocked".. & again that is complete poopy for Ivy to copy as a defender... targeted extra combat is again useless as the defender. There is still a whole line of voltron open against her, particularly regarding instants/sorcs that are only beneficial for attackers.
& no I don't like her, I'm not a guy, & is she lazy? Yes, in a non-equipment voltron-rich meta she can swizzle other player's strategies. I just think that is different than truly shutting them down.
September 16, 2022 10:57 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #16
As a cEDH only player, nothing in particular is dominating so heavily I'd expect or want a ban. Kenrith could eventually be a target, but he's not even the top deck atm.
September 16, 2022 11:50 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #17
You guys are approaching Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief all wrong. It was made to copy Mutate spells, and spend all night discussing the nightmare rule interactions that follow.
September 17, 2022 12:07 a.m.
Grubbernaut From a very casual Commander player to a cEDH player, do you have an opinion on Braids, Cabal Minion or Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary as part of the banlist? I personally feel like those two in particular are not overpowered as commanders at this point, nor do they lead to especially prohibitive or overwhelming lines of play. I don't think dominance is the only, or even main, criterion for an EDH ban, but am curious about your opinion as a more competitive player.
September 17, 2022 1:49 a.m.
plakjekaas Oh yep, mutate is a whole other can of worms. I think that's the problem I really have with Ivy, she can do her own strategy and profit from other people's strategy at the same time just by being on the table, and she will always be on the table because of the low cost and being in
And to be clear, I'm not like worked up or something about an Ivy ban : ) I just play Feather from time to time and this seems like a mess. Feather typically wants to attack with multiple creatures at one player at a time to knock them out all at once, and giving Shelter to someone else is really, really bad.
September 17, 2022 7:53 a.m.
Grubbernaut says... #20
legendofa Braids is, I think, less about raw power level and more about quality of life. It PROBABLY still has the typical "winconless/noncommander win stax" issue of someone finally drawing removal and then popping off, but until then the game is just going to suck. That being said, there's other commanders that make for the same play pattern. I don't think it needs banned from a competitive standpoint. Fun fact: I played no ban list cEDH and the guy who was super excited to play Braids got destroyed every game. Lol.
Rofellos also seems like a casual consideration. cEDH is typically wanting to end or basically lockup games by turn 4 or 5, and without a lot of land ramp, Rof isn't giving crazy acceleration in that context.
cEDH isn't missing those cards, really, but if it helps the casual environment I don't think anybody minds that they're banned, basically.
September 17, 2022 12:34 p.m.
I don't think Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief is going to be an oppressive commander that shuts off entire deck strategies, but I do think it'll be powerful. It's an entirely new interaction for the game and its certainly possible that she can be built in a completely broken fashion.
Personally I think Ivy should cost 4 mana or just not be legendary.
As for the number of legendaries, WOTC needs to just stop it. Its really gotten out of hand and it will hurt the format. Honestly I think that design team has done a great job with interesting and innovative commanders, but there are just too many of them and a new set brings another several dozen every 6-8 weeks so none of them get a chance to breathe. And all this volume will eventually start to limit the design space that Wizards has.
September 18, 2022 2:35 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #22
Abaques I don't know that I agree that it will limit the design space at all, really.
As someone who has created her own card game similar to Magic: the Gathering, except centered around a Commander-like format with a very high load of "legendary" creatures (so much so that the tagline "legendary" isn't there and there's instead an ability made to specifically make them not be an individual character), with the card pool quickly reaching over 1000, I don't think that Wizards will run out of design space to venture into.
That being said, the volume of legendary creatures is simply too much because of fatigue. I feel like I can't keep up with new releases anymore, and as someone who's ventured to build a Commander deck for every commander, it's... mildly annoying to see five new commanders released in the time that I've made two decks.
That's just a minor gripe, though, and I can still appreciate the thought that goes into most of Wizard's designs. I still enjoy seeing the new legendary creatures and the ever-so-slightly unique strategies they bring to the table. It's just a bit dizzying because of the number.
September 18, 2022 8:46 a.m.
FolkOccult says... #23
TheOfficialCreator I think you made a rather well-written point in regards to the oversaturation of legendaries.
I feel like MtG is a rather dense game, with beautiful amounts of "stuff" for people to get into it with. Lore, art, mechanics, gamemodes, competitive play, collecting; and all of it is a value to the community. It breathes commerce into the game and that's objectively not bad, or wrong in any way; and here it comes. But. I think the overproduction of company-perceived popularity in a thing, commander in this instance, has lead to suffocating the very attributes of their game.
Instead of story-focused two set blocks that gave of legendaries of the most relevant characters, it feels like any excuse under the sun to promote commander has lead the game into this spiral of overproduction to keep their commander-cash-cow alive. Commander is no longer a gamemode receiving its own support through commander specific decks and anthology sets anymore. Commander is, everything? Legacy and Modern have their places still, but there is a severe lack of "shepherd-ing" for their original gamemodes, at least by comparison.
I miss the likes of Archenemy, Planeschase, and other gamemode "accessory" formats that weren't competitive, but fun, and able to be added to near any combination of decks and modes, with the inclusion of lore, art, and mechanics at the heart and soul of their productions. Now commander seems to be the only thing cared about, with standard and modern only existing to fuel MtGA, pumping out as many legendaries to draw as many eyes as possible, and it feels like its at the expense of making each card as desirable as the next, if not more desirable than the last; and I think it's poisoning the game overall.
I don't believe commander will fade (you can't tell me there wasn't magic in the fact you could make a deck with little to no rules, out of cards from other formats. That being the standard until precons turned into sets, and now every card is no longer by chance fueling your strategy because it just so happened to be printed in a standard set and works really well for your commander, now it feels like every strategy is being catered to and fed to use without letting us discover the wonder that used to be present when the format first arose), I don't foresee MtG getting snuffed out due to their greed, but I do believe that in time there will be a loud cry of exhaustion for the format, and another format will probably come around and change the perspective of players in time. It's how we got the likes of Archenemy, Planeschase, Commander, Battlebond's Teams, and the entire Unseries. I myself don't care too much to blur the lines between these formats, but having standardized card releases for each format would better result in diversity for card mechanics and I believe personally, lower the power creep that has made Commander stronger and stronger.
Sorry for the long rant, I find Magic to be a wonderful topic we all can talk endlessly on and on and on about. We can't improve it individually but over time, I'd like to believe communities can speak up (not loudly enough, but persistent and respectfully enough) and get things like this reigned in. At this moment, I myself hope the new Universes Beyond stuff sees its own support and formatting so that MtG can make reprints lore friendly to Magic for Commander use, so as to keep production in multiple formats, while supporting multiple formats, to provide growth. With infinite IPs to tap into, I foresee we'll get to a renaissance of Universes Beyond printing for different formats beyond just Commander if the money is there for it. I only hope MtG preserve's their player's best interests in mind and not just "more cards, more commanders, more staples, more reserve list cards".
I'm not sure if anything said is new to anyone here, I've for the most part always believed most players to be on the same page, too much is too much, and WotC is just over that cusp and the amount of sets, cards, and format specific "booster-bait" cards being created has inflated the game, it almost feels like yu-gi-oh sometimes, Richard Garfield forgive me. Except that game feels at least consistently supported with their ban lists, which I honestly admire. It keeps the game feeling up to date and managed (well or otherwise) by its company. Thanks for listening to my TED talk, it was a bit of a ramble.
September 20, 2022 9:43 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #24
TheSnuggleLord I agree strongly that the standardization of the Commander format has led to insane power creep, and this is because Commander occupies a unique design space that should not be catered to excessively just by its very nature.
Vintage has the same card pool as Commander, except that cards that warp the entire game, such as Black Lotus and Channel, are legal, so it's not easy to create cards that sway the direction of the format.
Modern, on the other hand, has a more limited card pool, and didn't really suffer from insane power creep until recently, because cards that are designed for Standard aren't necessarily great for Modern. This obviously changed with the introduction of the Modern Horizons sets, each of which caused massive changes in the Modern format. As it turns out, creating intentionally pushed cards for a given format makes that format much more powerful.
Commander sets pushed the power level of the Commander format as a whole further forward each and every time they were released, which isn't necessarily bad until you release a new Commander-tailored set of pushed cards every single set. Then it becomes an issue.
September 20, 2022 11:03 a.m.
FolkOccult says... #25
TheOfficialCreator Exactly! "by it's very nature." You put it quite simply, by its nature. I respected when they released preconstructed materials that encouraged player creativity and the entire format was wholly based around your ability to find what was available in the new releasing sets (which were originally just the base game releasing cards, for modern, standard, collecting, trading) and Commander was more of an MtG extension and not a staple.
By focusing on it, I believe that creativity through exploration or necessity has changed, maybe not for the worst, but objectively it has changed. Seldom is the case that everyone is using the same preconstructed materials like we were when the format started, and you wanted to make your Ghave, Guru of Spores different from your opponent's. That interaction today would just include going onto EDHRec (for your average player I imagine, which may be inconsiderate of me) and min-maxing price to value and advantage, or just selecting the cards with the biggest numbers on them, and call it a day. While prior to that, when Ghave came out, I know the first thing I did was just use the preconstructed deck as it was, because back then new gamemodes really worked with the cards MtG provided.
I'm not sure if I'm the only one to notice, but as time went on and popularity grew, from a decent deck for its format with rules optimizing your deck's customization, it turned into player's purchasing weaker decks (as cards have been released that change the entire pace and flow of the game) that WotC sold to encourage deck building. That's really cool, hands down, my problem with EDH was never its accessibility, or ease of entrance; but we no longer receive 60-card precons, story blocks, fatpacks, format-accessory modes (ala Planeschase, Archenemy, Explorers of Ixalan). WotC seems solely focused on the income and accessibility to it that they'd let the integrity of their format's structure fall to the way side for the sake of pushing those format-specific releases which just feels insulting?
I used to play magic to collect. To collect a set to completion then put it in its own binder, stow it on my shelf with a nifty name for it all. This was my greatest hobby and pleasure in life. I own the majority of Mirrodin, the first set I played as a child, and now have nearly every card in foil, it's probably my proudest achievement. Mirrodin, Dark Steel, Fifth Dawn. I've nearly completed my collection of all of these, the sets from my childhood that have entirely shaped my playstyle and interests. Super neat, but the format focus from Standard (and giving us lore and a story to excuse the releases, themes, and set specific cards and their art styles) to Commander has forced such a high demand on cards from the past, which I do believe deep down is important to the format.
Using what you have around to play (and this is the point I wish to share for no more reason than knowing I'm around members of a community that seem to care enough to respond and it's probably my favorite part of the game, sharing these thoughts and opinions with others) has shot up the value of my collection, which isn't as cool as it was at first. Now due to power creep, old cards become viable, almost as if they've been unlocked, meaning my entire collection is rife with subjects of a format that are essentially required for so many of the commanders coming out because the game has become entirely about speed when you break it down.
That might be harsh to suggest a deck isn't a commander deck if it isn't fast, but how many games go by and someone feels bad because your rule 0 was agreeable but your standard of playstyle translates differently because your opponent didn't realize how far into the power creep they've fed, and now what they think is a 5-6 deck (because they don't run a Mox or infamous infinite combo in this example) is in fact a 7-8 because Commander-specific cards, like with our Horizon-fiasco, are encouraging the game's growth for the sake of speed and efficiency. Before long it will just be Yu-Gi-Oh if a new format isn't built around or the focus doesn't return to Standard and EDH precons just come out again. We'd still chase packs, sets, and focus on EDH but I feel like with the focus on Standard, it'd reign in what feels like a growing tragedy waiting to happen.
I desperately wish to arise at a socially agreeable solution for this physical sensation of being overwhelmed by MtG's set releases, but it grows more difficult to arise at a solution that doesn't just flood us with more cards. I'd proposed at the time over the course of a year/printing release, Two-Set blocks for Standard (For more lore, to feed into Legacy, Modern, Draft, Commander; allowing us to supplement multiple formats off of one printing of cards instead of focusing on one print per format thus introducing specific power creep and instead gradual growth in mechanics because the balance would be focused on what was printed and not what they can print.), Unseries formats (I truly believe adding MtG Universes Beyond to Unseries play or giving it a gamemode in the format would rectify a lot of concerns, can't really complain too much about your Warhammers, Gandalfs, and Ryus when I have a board with,Rules Lawyer, Frankie Peanuts, and Look at Me, I'm the DCI on the stack. Making them Rule 0 cards for Commander instead of legal and licensed "reserve"-like cards that may never see Commander-Specific and legal reprints in Set-Boosters for Commander.) During every Standard release, a 60-card pre-con and a commander pre-con per Standard set release. That's four decks each in a year, each per quarter. Resolving or setting up for more lore/narrative importance, cutting down on excessive releases and focusing the game back in. But it feels unfair to propose changes in the first place when we're all buckled in, voiceless, waiting and hoping our tribe gets support, or our commander sees a "buff" by hoping that a card with whatever ability fits our strategy, as if we expect it, instead of just looking in the cards already released and finding/making exceptions and working with what comes out.
On a separate note, in lieu of all this TCG talk, if anyone is a fan of card games other than MtG of the videogame variety. I highly recommend Inscryption. I wouldn't look anything up beyond a spoiler-free review, it's heavily MtG inspired and gets very philosophical at points, while holding a fairly suspenseful atmosphere. (Not an Ad I swear lol just wanting to share something that reminds me of magic but is in its own way special and similar to this hobby I share with so many beautiful minds).
I could talk on and on, for days over this apologies if the long blocks of text violate any site-specific rules, I don't recall, but do respect and realize it is a bit much to put up on a chat. Thanks to those who did read in the prior post what I had to say, take it easy Planeswalkers. On the upside, whatever is being printed now, can't be worse than what they're gonna print five years from now and cards like Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief with be small beans to the onslaught of game-controlling Tegrid/Hullbreacher-esc effects we may see later, making Ivy a valuable tool to defend yourself. Selfishly colored towards the one combination that I'd argue makes it so accessible and easy to abuse, but I value its place as a future preventative more than a commander.
September 20, 2022 1:29 p.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #26
TheSnuggleLord It doesn't violate any site rules at all I don't believe, and as the OP of the thread I am fully comfortable with these conversations continuing; this is exactly the kind of discussion I love to engage in on the site and throughout my exploits as a custom card creator.
I've always been a fan of the notion that we should ban Sol Ring in Commander, simply because there is no good reason why it should remain legal in the format. We've simply bought too much into the notion that things like Sol Ring, Force of Will, and Fierce Guardianship are okay in a format that was originally built to be more casual, especially when cards like Braids, Cabal Minion are banned.
I actually touch on this in one of my in-progress primers ever so briefly, and I think it's important to recognize these effects where they occur.
Commander decks are getting faster and faster, and without some much-needed restrictions on the number of new products, it's just going to get worse.
September 20, 2022 2:07 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #27
I'll take the opposing view, with the obvious bias of someone that exclusively plays cEDH.
Many perceived problems with commander stem from disparity in how people want to play - and generally speaking, that means you're with randoms, whether online or an LGS, which is inherently not how EDH was intended to be played. With that being said - any game with a winstate is going to have people naturally want to compete to be better at it, and if you're not playing with an established group (and especially if it's with prize support), one must expect that people are going to try and win, in general.
Banning powerful cards to suit a particular power level is inherently antithetical to the original EDH ethos; that's not to say I expect everyone to want to play cEDH, but cEDH as a construct shouldn't lose access to the cards it wants so that casual play can continue at whatever arbitrary power level is chosen (and yes, I find that many of the cards currently banned are silly, fwiw). What about the people that want to play high-power casual? Who determines what level is ultimately "the correct one" for EDH? I think an easier answer to the question is for people to rethink how EDH came to be, rather than try to fit a square peg into a round hole by assuring unknown opponents can't possibly bring a deck with particular cards - and specific to Sol Ring, ones that are enablers rather than payoffs, at least to a degree.
In more specific regard to the current banlist, cEDH's meta is very healthy at the moment. While I generally would be in favor of bans on cards that completely skew the meta, that isn't the case right now.
September 20, 2022 10:24 p.m.
FolkOccult says... #28
TheOfficialCreator Sick, I was just wanting to be cautious, in some Discord Servers and a Reddit forum prior I was asked about reducing post lengths. Just wanting to respect a precedent I suppose.
Grubbernaut The opposing view is just as valid, and more insightful than having mostly the same repeated points towards this subject.
Ideally, I'd imagine, in a game about playing cards and constructing decks with those products; to ban a card is never the company's motive. They want to sell every card they have and for us to buy them. When a card is banned, it's usually for the health of the specific format to preserve as many cards as possible while allowing player's to access the game.
I think it's in this accessibility that cards get banned due to a perceived "power level" of the current "meta" that might have taken advantage of the card, or the effect of the product in question was so ill-received. Opposition Agent was one of the few cards I saw, and was rather excited about. Every player under the sun screamed "ban" and wizards didn't. I found this quite the impressive result because I'm skeptical that WotC tends to listen when their player's cry wolf; just look at the ban list.
It's obvious that certain gameplay strategies are favored. Feather, the Redeemed is obviously loved as shown by this forum, and that's super cool, but it's the player's choice to play that deck against an opponent they might not know and I believe accept the risk that their deck's strategy may be flat out exploited and shut down. I also believe that it is that deck's responsibility to have at least a couple of answers specific or otherwise to answer cards you, the deckbuilder expect to see shut you down.
I'm going to use Korvold, Fae-Cursed King as an example. I know plenty of people want him banned, and I can easily see why. Dude is sick, he's one of my prized commanders, but I enjoy how he plays. Of course I'm biased and don't want him banned, and he probably won't as up to this point they have yet to ban a preconstructed deck's face-card. I'm fairly certain that's by choice, otherwise WotC would have. But, is it unfair of me to ask that they ban Yasharn, Implacable Earth because it shuts down my deck's main strategy (I know not entirely, because you can still sac lands, and that's how I built my deck, but I did that because of this interaction. As a form of fail-safe and deck protection. Because my opponents counterplay every deck I bring because I even made Korvold). Is it fair, to counter a commander deck? I don't know. I'm not here to debate the ethics of playstyle entirely, but more the "legality" of rules as written, because otherwise why else would this discussion stand?
Commander should be casual in this sense, you should be allowed to play what you want, because if you don't, how much fun are you really having? I think this is why we have a rule 0. Excluding professional competitive environments (and there's a debate to how professional those really can be depending on the LGS or players) for the moment. To allow each player what they wish from the game, Rule 0 exists to please all parties with compromise if not mutual agreeable terms. "You want to play Feather, the Redeemed, I'd love to see how you built yours! Just letting you know, I have an Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief as my newest deck, are you alright with me playing this?" literally how every interaction before Casual play should begin, as dictating by the website and thousands of videos on the internet.
For the sake of peace at the table and respect for all players present, I'm entirely for this discussion. Like D&D (and I'll only reference this momentarily because it is also a WotC IP) it shows a sense of social courtesy to fellow players, that you do care about their deck, or cards, experience, or playstyle. That you are considering their participation at the table you joined, or the table they've come to play at. It's a game, and the first rule is "talk". This may be a touch rude, and absolute, but I've experienced a plethora of players too concerned over their commander and not being able to play it that I believe them sometimes at fault for gatekeeping their table from players building decks with the newest cards that have come out. I'm on occasion guilty of this (not wanting to have to switch out decks or else I'd get counterplayed, because my opponent didn't want to change commanders) but it's unfair to presume a player using a controversial commander like Jodah, the Unifier who I think is perfectly fine, would have ill intentions towards you the player, personally (in casual play).
Competitively. I feel like the game sports an entirely different flavor, one that is fast, calculated, and just as rich with players and their own method of interacting with this medium. When a player brings something like Urza, Lord High Artificer to a table to play for a prize. You've signed a social contract in a setting that'll require you to play. To counterplay. To out pace, out think, and like chess, determine your best route to seek victory. cEDH is a wonderful and freeing battlefield to be apart of, I think it's unfair to proceed as if both are the same formatted gamemode when they both interact quite differently. The ramp is different, the mana base is different, most of the spells will either be counterplay picks for decks you'd expect to see, and everyone there (or majority I'd expect) has literally signed up for this. Paid their LGS, and is wanting to win.
Now. Does that mean your neckbearded-odorous-shop-dwelling-compking is going to show up and try to sweep everyone with their 3,000. cEDH deck because they are compelled to win here, because they have short comings in life? And does this hobby support and enable this behavior? Kind of. It happens, sure, but no one wanting to have fun should care, and anyone trying to win now has a baseline to work off of. If it does happen, you literally know what they'll play, use, or at least what to expect. That's the magic to competitive play. To be (and this will be a wild example) Goku standing across from Cell at the Cell Games... is sort of how it feels in cEDH 1v1 shop comps. It's, really fun. I don't know, I'm not too experienced on this side of the format, I've literally lost every shop competition I've attended, but I see the value and joy it has and wish to respect it.
I do believe there is an argument to removing Sol Ring, I think it's a crutch of a card. Though I just count it with my lands at this point. It's the first card in a deck 99% of the time without it being said. Printed in every preconstructed product, the card makes the format what it is, and that's kinda dumb. No one (I'd hope) wants to play the same deck, but here we have staples, and Sol Ring is sort of one of them. It's our Ki-Blast, our standard poke-ball, it's the Ash Blossom & Joyous Spring, it's literally engrained into the game with so many printings and secret lairs. I'm baffled to suggest if we got rid of it, would it be just as "necessary" as any of the other cards on the ban list? I don't think so, most of them could probably see play with that Rule 0 in a casual game, but the ban list, is upheld for competitive players and that's kind of baffling.
That Casual players can scream to High Hrothgar and back about something like Hullbreacher or Opposition Agent and be bummed that both didn't see the same fate. But someone who plays cEDH now has to suffer the consequences of players who want to play competitions at their LGS but don't realize that their preconstructed product might not hold up. Sad to say (and I do realize this is an extreme variable based on literally whoever shows up, it's that random whenever you're new to the game until you notice who plays, what they play, and how they tend to play. Then you learn what to expect, and the fun of cEDH or what I enjoyed personally arises to the surface.) but most preconstructed products now, seem to sell a concept with the intention of being improved by the player and encouraging they buy more cards to do so. (I enjoy this aspect of encouraging the player to deck-build instead of relying on what they purchased, they can rely on creativity or the advice of their closest friend or the player across from them)
I've no rational experience in regards to having specific cards banned that I wished to play, unless Korvold sees the hammer, but even then, I'm not taking him apart. I'm just going to continue with Rule 0 and play him casually. I wish the game wasn't so ambiguous that these sorts of topics had clear and defined answers so that all could just agree on a single experience, but that's so restrictive and against the nature of the format. Perhaps Modern and Legacy see this, Standard certainly does (and I believe that's what makes Standard a rather fascinating format due to the fact that none of their rules are as ambiguous as EDH's Rule 0, which is necessary but rather counter productive when compared to cEDH. You can't argue Rule 0, but you can't abuse it either. More ambiguity.) and Draft as well.
I don't believe by having a ban list, you're helping, solving, or relieving a problem. I'm very much a casual, and believe you should be able to play what you want. "I'll suffer the wrath of Braids?" Cool. I want to see what you built that represents you, how you play, how you have fun. It's going to be my job to do likewise and hope it's a fun game for both sides. Now being mana flooded, mana screwed. It feels like more of a personal issue across all players, sometimes you hit a pocket because you over shuffled and all your lands have ended up together, I feel like not enough people take into account some players face this problem and blame a card, a player, a format and take that personally when mathematically they've added too many lands, not enough, over shuffled, didn't have enough protection, removal, boardwipes. The requirements for a "good" deck, in cEDH sounds excessive, but that's that format. Casually I think you should be able to build what you want and move on.
Also, apologies if it sounds hypocritical by the end, but I'm pro-Sol Ring for the simple fact that it enables some exciting combos with Salvaging Station & Ich-Tekik, Salvage Splicer. But that's just extreme biased, anyone could say the same about Flash, Tolarian Academy, or my favorite Panoptic Mirror. I'm certain they all had really cool interactions, I'm certain with the latter; and I'd understand why WotC could ban Sol Ring or be encouraged to, and I wouldn't be mad. I'd just adapt, it's all we do as players. Communicate, adapt, play/build, repeat.
September 21, 2022 10:38 a.m.
griffstick says... #29
TheSnuggleLord, are you trying to write a book? Lol. If not maybe consider it because you've got alot to say.
September 21, 2022 6:12 p.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #30
griffstick I'd read a book about the way that casual and competitive perspectives of trading card games collide, tbh. It sounds like a blast. If TheSnuggleLord doesn't take it up I would be more than happy to XD
September 21, 2022 6:16 p.m.
FolkOccult says... #32
If enough people wanted me to, I might, maybe with someone's assistance. To properly outline and run my points across them with, give them a co-author & co-editor credit for the sake of honesty and coverage from more than just one point of view (having only the one, to discuss the history, controversies, and evolution of an entire format seems unfair to declare any point made as an absolute fact as anything I write would naturally be biased).
Thinking about it, I'd probably write a book on MtG overall, with the major focus being evolutions made to the format and the philosophical articles we declare as personal enjoyment in our chosen play style. Casual being the marketed and easily accessible landscape where anything goes as long as Rule 0 has been touched upon; and Competitive where rules as written is law, and the engagement in the community is the most invaluable resource you have, to know what's being played, how it's being played, and honestly is probably the best way to understand the best to manage value, advantage, and resources, similar to Pauper (which is an entirely different level of precise)
I think it'd be cool to reach out, if at all it were possible to get the voice of a properly licensed and currently-working judge. Maybe even a content creator, as no doubt in my mind, they have a lot more experience to provide to anyone who'd legitimately want to read something written by just the whisper of a voice on the internet. I'd probably have to make a Discord to get all voices present together like the Council of Elrond to initiate a fair examination and representation of the game.
It's a lot to consider if you're all serious. Of the above "saga" of text, is there anything that was an unfair summarization? Unagreeable or controversial? Did anything necessarily depict an ounce of interest to hear more from me? Super important details to consider. No point in writing a book, 1,700 or so words per chapter; maybe sixteen or so chapters? A good hundred pages, some extra for proper credits and as many needed to clarify points made and opinions had (not including table of contents or your index in the back for specific mentions).
I love this game, a lot, I've lived this most of my life? There was a period in highschool where I was dual enrolled and had to drop magic for the simple fact, I just didn't have time. By the time I graduated, Ixalan had just come out (and I who was trying to go to school for archeology, because paleontology is a slowly dying science) was beyond delighted. That's when I found the format and began playing casually because I didn't have the same friends to play with and those I did have, hadn't played since they were in middle school. So I had to find a new table and relearn a good bit of magic. Who knew a lot can happen in two years.
Let me know, in the meantime, I'm trying to figure out how to format a forum I want to create on this site, but I'm poorly skilled when it comes to writing out things like mana symbols and knowing if what I'm wanting to create will look as I intended (was going to have a card creation-specific topic) in regards to our community, and wanted to sort of introduce myself and get to know people around the site by asking them what they'd be as a planeswalker (the initial flavor and lore of the game being that all players are planeswalkers using their library of spells, from every plane they've visited, to compete. This being why I favor the Shadow Mage and Wayfarer MtG comic books so heavily. This being why I've made about... four Jared Carthalion decks?), but haven't the knowledge of this site to effectively accomplish this and have seen the Q/A forum have questions from days ago without answer. Not to misuse this forum, but might I properly ask someone questions through a form of DM down the road? For nothing more than just MtG related conversation and forum formatting advice/questions to appropriately use the tools this site offers. I want to get back into this game now that I have a job that just lets me build decks and write, all day.
September 22, 2022 10:21 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #33
TheSnuggleLord I mean, I think it would be really cool to get a wide variety of perspectives on the nature of Magic: the Gathering and how card creation, power creep, and building to embrace certain formats intersect and collide. It could be at once a love letter to the game as a whole and a warning about future possibilities of decay.
I'd be down to helping with a project like that if it were to happen. Kind of like an anthology of sorts. I know some people on Twitter and maybe from this forum that might be interested in participating as well.
And to answer your questions.
"Of the above "saga" of text, is there anything that was an unfair summarization? Unagreeable or controversial?"
Unagreeable? No. Controversial? Yes. There will always be a variety of perspectives to consider, but throughout your posts on this thread I have never found myself diametrically opposed to what you were saying. I agreed and disagreed with certain aspects of it, but I never fully put myself in total opposition to your words. And yes, by the very nature of this topic we're going to touch on some controversial things, and I'm actually quite surprised that this normally somewhat abrasive forum has remained entirely civil throughout our conversation.
And as far as unfair, I think all single viewpoints are going to necessarily be unfair to an extent. We all have our own backgrounds and biases that prohibit us from fully understanding and encompassing all perspectives, and that's okay. We should just accept that, and work on expanding our perspectives, mainly by listening to others and by attempting to find common ground with certain vantages. Luckily, that's what conversation is all about.
"Let me know, in the meantime, I'm trying to figure out how to format a forum I want to create on this site, but I'm poorly skilled when it comes to writing out things like mana symbols and knowing if what I'm wanting to create will look as I intended (was going to have a card creation-specific topic) in regards to our community, and wanted to sort of introduce myself and get to know people around the site by asking them what they'd be as a planeswalker (the initial flavor and lore of the game being that all players are planeswalkers using their library of spells, from every plane they've visited, to compete. This being why I favor the Shadow Mage and Wayfarer MtG comic books so heavily. This being why I've made about... four Jared Carthalion decks?), but haven't the knowledge of this site to effectively accomplish this and have seen the Q/A forum have questions from days ago without answer. Not to misuse this forum, but might I properly ask someone questions through a form of DM down the road?"
If you ever need help or have any questions, just like I say in my profile, don't be afraid to reach out to me or anyone else ^_^
As far as rules around DM'ing people on the site and usage of forum threads, I might sound cliche for saying this, but there essentially are no rules. The "comment tutorial" that everyone goes through in the beginning essentially covers it. You can find it, the formatting tips, and the markdown syntax for HTML (if you want to do something fancy) right below the button that says "Preview your comment!". The comment tutorial doesn't really cover DMs, but the same general rule applies; plus, you have to mutually enable chat so as far as I know there haven't been a whole lot of conflicts over the DMs here (of course, I wouldn't really know in any case, but that's the nature of DMs in a way).
Also also, your custom card-self reflection-planeswalker idea is awesome! I don't know that it requires a whole lot of formatting though, so what are you thinking you'll need as far as that?
September 22, 2022 12:59 p.m.
FolkOccult says... #34
TheOfficialCreator These answers are a relief overall. Innately with the topic of touching on something so old and beloved, you'll always step on at least one person's toes so to speak. So I can totally understand that not every biased view, personal, informed, or otherwise will be seen the same. I only hope the points made and viewpoints shared are translated quite well and allow enough room for any receiving party's own thoughts.
I believe it's unfair to give parties less and less room to think when you feed them "fact" after "fact" like your word is law, when my word as much as anyone else's here should only be as valuable as a reading participant wants. Take it or leave it, it's there, present, and full of multiple perspectives of individuals who care (in perspective of any novelization that I and perhaps multiple parties, may write. I'm quite attracted to the concept don't get me wrong. I upgraded my account and enable chat towards you, TheOfficialCreator, and a friend request because this chat has been quite civil and very pleasant. If anyone else would like, they may enable chat towards me, I'm more than happy to communicate personally if this is the case.) enough to patiently let any reader derive what they wish from any text or documentation of thoughts you, I, or anyone else may have compiled together, "hypothetically".
As for the formatting questions, I think I'd like to keep that in a private conversation just for the sake of committing this forum to the topic it supports out of respect for potential future users and not to turn any curious party away. I can't imagine this minute divulsion in topics would make much sense to somebody four to five months from now, just out of respect for forum, topic, and subjects written.
September 22, 2022 3:34 p.m.
TheSnuggleLord Just as a way off topic side note, but I also came back to magic during Ixalan so when you mentioned that it made me smile : ) I feel like most everything I hear about Ixalan is how underpowered it was and all that, but I'm like, yeah but it also made me want to play the game again after like 10 years, so, I think that's a great set. The setting was great, the lore was on point, the writing was some of the best they've done, and everything felt so cohesive even though they did multiple new things all at the same time, which is so impressive. I stay for magic the game, but I play for Ixalan : )
Also, your user name makes me think that you give sunggles +1/+1 and that also makes me smile (kidding, kidding, sorry!)
September 22, 2022 5:35 p.m.
FolkOccult says... #36
Niko9 Legitimately your comment makes me tear up a bit. It's the set that revived my interest entirely. Originally my name on here was going to be PapaPalani due to my love of the set; I nearly went into Paleontology itself when I was dual enrolled way back when, it was the single set that brought magic to an entire new echelon, a higher high than I'd ever experienced, excluding perhaps Mirrodin (and the subsequent sets in their lore which I'm still trying to collect the entirety of. I just completed Ixalan and Rivals during 2020 to fend off the cabin fever. Each set foiled out.)
Their writing and contributions to the lore, including the very informative pamphlets in their fat packs, links on their site, the tribal experiences. If at all you're wanting to take a step back in time, Of the Sun Empire, Of the Brazen Coalition, Of the River Heralds, Of the Dusk Rose Legion, are all lore-specific decks that focus entirely on cards from those sets or the tribes specific to those sets but were printed outside of their set Run Afoul features Atla Palani, Nest Tender dialogue for example, or Vito, Thorn of the Dusk Rose which, well. The name spells it all.
Ixalan, Mirrodin, Dominaria, and Innistrad have been my primary indulgences when it comes to deck building and lore especially, but I've slowly stretched my clutches to the likes of Alara currently and have been constructing decks featuring their commander pre-cons' secondary commanders for the sake of variety for myself.
Don't worry about the name, on occasion I do think about changing it in one form or another. Though I do rather imagine, if "Snuggle" was a keyword, it'd be like "Soulbond" but instead of giving a perpetual effect specific to the card, it'd allow you to give each creature just a simple, but comfortable and quite decent +0/+2, as snuggling is quite a sedentary act that makes one feel comfortable and quite relaxed and adding toughness necessarily doesn't equal to that, but you can't tell me a Llanowar Elves wouldnt feel better with a bit more toughness or some such. Maybe a +0/+1 per creature with "Snuggle" on the battlefield.
September 22, 2022 6:02 p.m.
TheSnuggleLord TheOfficialCreator A book would be neat! I think a couple hundred pages sounds about the right length, so that it's not a wall of (intriguing) text, but there's still room to comprehensively cover multiple aspects and viewpoints.
My two cents on this subtopic is that hard ban lists are unnecessary. As Grubbernaut touched on, a number of bans don't even make sense anymore. Rofellos in EDH is not that great compared to some of the other options, Zirda in legacy due to the companion errata, P-Fire and Blazing Shoal in modern since they're way too slow for post MH2. Arcum's Astrolabe got banned for enabling 5 color strategies to run Blood Moon, which happens to be exactly what Money Pile is doing right now.
I much prefer suspensions, where WotC can remove a card from the pool, examine the format without it (possibly announce they'll revisit it later when new sets have been released), then unban cards when the inevitable creep makes them healthy for the format.
September 22, 2022 8:39 p.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #38
I agree for the most part with suspensions. Cards can become unbanned but it does seem to be rarer and a more tedious process. There are some cards that deserve to be hard banned (like Black Lotus in Legacy or Lutri in Commander) but they're few and far between imo, and those could just be mainstays on the suspension list.
I've always been an adamant supporter of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn being unbanned in Commander, and I will continue to stand by that. I think unbanning it, looking at how it changes the format, then going from there would be perfectly healthy.
Part of the reason why this doesn't happen I assume is to make it so that players don't have to constantly buy or sell cards to keep up with changing suspensions.
So yes, that's a neat idea that I hadn't thought of before.
September 22, 2022 8:53 p.m. Edited.
While suspensions would decrease the effectiveness of trading in decks, people would have the hope of potentially playing their pet decks again someday. "Cashed in on Hogaak? Well, at least you can hold onto the deck and wait for an unsuspension."
The suspension format also lets WotC softban more aggressively, so maybe we see the Pitch Elementals gone from modern for a set, see how the meta works. Or "Maybe Kenrith is a problem in EDH, how about he disappears for a while? Oops, he wasn't the problem! Well, here he is again."
September 22, 2022 11:21 p.m.
Now that I think about it though, a downside of aggressive suspensions it that they would make it slightly confusing to keep track of what's legal
Delphen7 says... #2
I'd say Thrasios, Triton Hero is a contender, but there'd be a revolt if that happened.
September 15, 2022 10:27 p.m.