Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 22, 2011 12:48:42 GMT -5
I think we wanted some discussion of this.
What cards are frowned upon? Someone said that kokusho was frowned upon. And yet, i think he seems like a really cool guy. That said, ive never played him.
Anyways, please voice your opinion of what you don't find fun to the point where you really just wish you hadn't bothered to shuffle up.
|
|
|
|
Post by vultanphase on Apr 22, 2011 13:00:38 GMT -5
As someone who was present when Kokusho was officially 'frowned upon' by the club, I can say that it was because it wasn't because he wasn't a cool guy - it was because he was too cool a guy. We weren't playing Magic anymore, we were playing The Kokusho Game, where someone would play Kokusho and the game would stop, reaching the point where the have-nots would settle into the only option of exiling it before someone played another (or cloned it). Because it would happen every game.
Possibly some of this was the result of the club being way more into eight-player games back in the day, where two players would suddenly gain something like thirty-five life (or one would gain seventy), and then the process would repeat when someone else would start The Kokusho Game back up. Eventually it became a matter of the people who were playing Kokusho didn't even like what Kokusho was doing to the game, and we, all at once, said 'enough of this' and moved on.
Mileage may vary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2011 13:08:05 GMT -5
Part of the original idea behind this was to split play into casual and non-casual for those people who weren't realizing that their decks really weren't casual. One idea came up for this that I think was quite good, namely having a club-wide rating system. One way this could be done is through a website, another possibility is just a board of collected ratings (each deck would have its own thread) on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 22, 2011 13:25:56 GMT -5
that sounds like a lot of work and would require constant maintenance, because some people like building new decks all the time. what we need to do is talk about this as a club for a long time. and construct a revised frowned apon list that includes the new crap. this will take a while. in the mean time I will just avoid playing with *cough* certain people.
|
|
Kino
Member
Will
OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH
Posts: 1,351
|
Post by Kino on Apr 22, 2011 14:42:12 GMT -5
The problem with a frowned upon list is that not all cards as as dangerous in some decks as others. Take Reaper King. The current incarnation of the deck is a mass re-animator combo, and it's very powerful. Powerful enough that I very rarely play it. But before its current version, it was very different. It was an aura deck, barely even tribal, whose only goal was to pile the shadowmoor/eventide godhats onto Reaper King. The deck was terrible. Both decks were actively built around Reaper King, but they had a huge difference in power level. Kokusho has a unique position in that its power doesn't change very much based on deck type, in a large multiplayer game it will behave at an extremely high power level by itself without help from whatever deck it is in. Most cards don't do that. Even Skullclamp is better in some decks than others. A token deck makes Skullclamp the broken bombtastic monster that it is, but a deck with nothing but large green fatties drops it to a more reasonable level. Strip Mine is a 1-for-1 card, you spend a land to kill a land. It's balanced, and tossed randomly into most decks it's not a problem. Combine it with Crucible of Worlds, though, and you create a problem.
The issue here is usually less about the potential power of a card than the intention. I have a Painters servant in an EDH deck, but people tend not to mind because I have no combos that exploit it. The only synergy it shares with any of the deck is the wingrattle and skulkin cycles of scarecrows, and none of that becomes broken or really even powerful in EDH. If someone does play Iona, then I will actively avoid letting Painter's Servant exist in the game, to the point of exiling it myself if need be. I play a Hallowed Burial in Progenitus deck with the self-imposed rule that I can't cast it if anyone's general is in play.
The answer, as I see it, is to try and make sure that whatever your deck is doing, that it doesn't ruin other players enjoyment of the game. If my opponents are playing weak decks, then I will play a weak deck as well. Several times people have asked me not to use my Reaper King deck in EDH, and I happily oblige. As much as I love it, Reaper King can be a frustrating card to play against, and if someone feels that they won't enjoy playing against it, then I don't play that deck.
This problem ultimately needs to be solved socially. I don't think a list of cards that are banned or frowned upon can suffice. What's more, some people do want to play with and against those powerful cards to test their own skills and to enjoy that high level of play. I think the answer is to just be open about things we don't enjoy in the game, and be socially responsible enough to not do things in game that ruin other people's fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 22, 2011 15:05:02 GMT -5
I'm happy to play against strong cards if there is no problem with me playing equivalently powerful cards. The most annoying thing to me is a double standard where some obviously powerful cards are allowed, but others with similar or lower power levels are frowned upon. Every card with advantages comes with its disadvantages. Just because I have a skithiryx EDH deck that is solely based on the power of the general, I do not seek to ban fateseal cards like hinder, spin into myth, or condemn. It is simply a disadvantage that I have to work around because I get so many advantages from having such a powerful general. I would simply stick with the "official" ban list that already exists.
|
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 22, 2011 16:30:22 GMT -5
In my opinion, removal of any form is never too powerful in its removal aspect (in my opinion). A lock is powerful, but to me it just seems like a different way to create a win condition. The game ends when someone gets a win condition, and so i don't see a lock as any different than a giant dude attacking or a blaze to the face, or a number of lightning bolts slowly sent someones way.
Take crucible + strip mine: in 1v1 this is very good. In multiplayer, it isn't doing anything for you unless you have a way of making multiple land drops. In most multiplayer situations, you are better off doing crucible + fetchland as your card advantage engine of choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 22, 2011 17:06:09 GMT -5
I was in no way shape or form suggesting we ban any of these cards, (except maybe crucible). but some cards when they get banned a large portion of the deck builder community collectively let out a sigh of relief. for instance most people I talked to when emrakul was banned pretty much said "glad I don't have to play that garbage any more". what I think is that there are more cards out there that people have in their decks even though they don't want them there but they have to play with it if they want to stay in the game. those are the card I am suggesting we "frown upon"
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyros Pyralis on Apr 23, 2011 16:22:23 GMT -5
Just to pose a very specific case: Generals put into one's library.
With the advent of many indestructable cards (Spearbreaker Behemoth, Deathless Angel, Blightsteel Colossus, Ulamog, etc) non-destroy wrath effects become much more relevant.
I have, presently abstained from playing Hallowed Burial for the reason of not screwing over people that rely heavily on their generals. However, as this particular topic was a point of contention at the buisiness meeting I would like to bring up the proposal of altering the function of some cards in an EDH environment.
For example:
1.) If a general would be put into your library, you may instead move it to the command zone.
2.) Increase the amount of poison counters required for game loss to 15.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2011 16:36:13 GMT -5
I would only look forward to the latter modification.
Oh, and to go along with Will C's most recent post, if EDH is not a format where you can do random wacky deck ideas that might not necessarily even be that good, but would be amusing and/or fun to play with, such as a Dwarves tribal deck or a blue Braids deck, then it is not succeeding in its role as a casual format.
|
|
Kino
Member
Will
OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH
Posts: 1,351
|
Post by Kino on Apr 23, 2011 18:14:37 GMT -5
1.) If a general would be put into your library, you may instead move it to the command zone. I advocate this approach. |
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 23, 2011 22:14:48 GMT -5
1.) If a general would be put into your library, you may instead move it to the command zone. 2.) Increase the amount of poison counters required for game loss to 15. 1) A rather longer temporary answer to a Generals should exist. Every color has the ability to shuffle their library and then draw cards. Otherwise, you just force people to resort to keeping you off the 8 mana or so you need to play your general another time. 2) Poison is really only a niche thing in edh. If inkwell nexus manages to do all 10 damage-- good for them. If its skittles as general-- he might as well just be a 5 mana 4/4 with super doublestrike. We let generals one-shot people out of the game regardless of life total anyways. As for blightsteel-- is 12 mana really to much to pay for an indestructible phage the untouchable? As for all the other poison cards--- they sort of suck. |
|
Kino
Member
Will
OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH
Posts: 1,351
|
Post by Kino on Apr 24, 2011 10:51:51 GMT -5
1) A rather longer temporary answer to a Generals should exist. Every color has the ability to shuffle their library and then draw cards. Otherwise, you just force people to resort to keeping you off the 8 mana or so you need to play your general another time. Please note that this is an opinion, and one I strongly disagree with. Many edh decks need their general available in order to function properly, and "shuffle you deck then try to draw lots" is not a way to find them again. Decks with tutors have only marginally better chances of finding them again, as the tutors also must be drawn and can't have been used up already. At the high level of play, where mass land d and Sorin markov and the two remaining eldrazi titans live, then maybe there should be such long-term answers. At the casual level, it breaks rule #1, which is don't take away other people's fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyros Pyralis on Apr 25, 2011 1:45:15 GMT -5
1.) If a general would be put into your library, you may instead move it to the command zone. 2.) Increase the amount of poison counters required for game loss to 15. 1) A rather longer temporary answer to a Generals should exist. Every color has the ability to shuffle their library and then draw cards. Otherwise, you just force people to resort to keeping you off the 8 mana or so you need to play your general another time. 2) Poison is really only a niche thing in edh. If inkwell nexus manages to do all 10 damage-- good for them. If its skittles as general-- he might as well just be a 5 mana 4/4 with super doublestrike. We let generals one-shot people out of the game regardless of life total anyways. As for blightsteel-- is 12 mana really to much to pay for an indestructible phage the untouchable? As for all the other poison cards--- they sort of suck. 1.) Unless you're planning on building around LD, you're not going to be able to keep it up. If you have an engine like Strip Mine + Crucible someone in the game will break it and if you're doing it with spells, it's an uphill battle. 2.) It's a niche that is covered by a single card that is playable in any deck with a mana cost that is not prohibitive for the format. The reason I suggest 15 rather than 20 is so that Skithiryx is still a reasonable threat of early death, but a card that can only be eliminated by exile or Kiku-esque tactics won't end someone's game. The point is exactly what you say, 12 mana is not too much to pay for an indestructable Phage. |
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 25, 2011 10:07:45 GMT -5
also every time I've seen blightsteel hit play, lightning grieves hit it immediately as well. leaving your options rather well limited. (by the way this is also a arguing point for hollowed burial to stick around)
|
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 25, 2011 13:41:31 GMT -5
Personally, I would not play Blightsteel colossus in any edh deck unless it is based around a "show-and-tell" strategy. BSC is too easy to bribery/acquire, and even if it is successfully played, it can be locked down by
just to name a few (quote from dragonhighlander.com) or backfire on you by means of backlash/derlirium. Not only this, it can only attack one person at a time (who only needs to block 3 damage to live for the turn), leaving the BSC's owner with a huge target on him. If the BSC's owner is in such a great position that 2-4+ other people can't kill him while BSC is tapped, then the BSC owner is probably already winning.
Also, the concept of eldrazi dominating "high level play" in edh (popular belief among the freshmen) seems to be contradicted by actual tournament reports (french nationals 2010 and MTGS tournament reports) where eldrazi are never or almost never played in top decks unless the deck is played around a "show and tell" strategy.
Triumph of the Hordes might make infect powerful for edh, but currently it is not very strong especially in multiplayer. If only one person is playing infect, other peoples' damage on your opponents makes no difference to that person, and that person playing infect is then at a disadvantage.
Additionally, if Triumph of the Hordes does not flat-out kill a person that turn, all your creatures attacking and the card used to buff them effectively does 0 damage unless you're packing proliferate or more infect creatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 25, 2011 14:09:40 GMT -5
we don't think eldrazi and bsc dominate high level play. actually I don't want anything to do with high level of play other than as an example of what I don't want to do. no eldrazi exetra dominate low level play.
also Ideally by the time someone has 12 mana (unsummon does not counter blightsteel because it does just get cast again) the game has reached equilibrium but often it has not. in which case it's just oh ok blightsteel
|
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 25, 2011 14:21:51 GMT -5
By the time someone untap with 12 mana and a full grip, someone dies very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 25, 2011 14:38:37 GMT -5
we don't think eldrazi and bsc dominate high level play. actually I don't want anything to do with high level of play other than as an example of what I don't want to do. no eldrazi exetra dominate low level play. also Ideally by the time someone has 12 mana (unsummon does not counter blightsteel because it does just get cast again) the game has reached equilibrium but often it has not. in which case it's just oh ok blightsteel If people are just top decking by the time people untap 12 mana for an "uh ok blightsteel" with no one else having an answer, it's probably time to end the game anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 25, 2011 15:37:56 GMT -5
we should unban Biorhythm because if a player untaps with 8 mana and nobody else has any creatures, maybe the game should have ended anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 25, 2011 15:59:41 GMT -5
we should unban Biorhythm because if a player untaps with 8 mana and nobody else has any creatures, maybe the game should have ended anyway. BSC can only kill one person on the turn after it's played if that person has no answers/blockers which are available in every color. Biorhythm instantly kills anyone with no creatures with limited answers. BSC costs 12. biorhythm costs 8. Make naive sweeping statements more? forum.dragonhighlander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5627dragonhighlander.net, just about the most casual forum related to edh online generally agrees that BSC is not a major banworthy card. pretty much my thoughts |
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 25, 2011 16:13:53 GMT -5
I personally do not think blightsteel should be banned either but I do think it deserves to get a nerf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 16:17:16 GMT -5
Having seen "casual" games which people proceeded to ruin by casting certain cards early (turn 2-4) to mid (turn 5-7) game, saying "ideally they wouldn't have 12 mana early enough to make it stupid" means nothing. It is possible to get out Blightsteel turn 1 with a perfect hand. (Tree of Tales, Simian Spirit Guide, Manamorphose, Concordant Crossroads, BoP, Dark Ritual, Tinker)
While this is not at all likely to happen, as you go along the turns, you are more and more likely to be able to get out Blightsteel, until at about turn 4 when it is definitely possible. Seeing Blightsteel in early game should not happen in casual, by any reasonable definition of casual. And yet it can happen.
More to the point, if every deck is supposed to run enough removal to ensure that they can get rid of Blightsteel and other not-really-casual threats, that would define 1/4 of every deck to be exactly the same. This is exactly the problem that this thread is supposed to be trying to address; that "there are [...] cards out there that people have in their decks [that] they [are basically required] to play with," which currently doesn't allow for EDH to be a casual format.
Just for some primary examples(Note: The lists below are not necessarily cards I think should be added to a banned/frowned upon list)....
Should all blue EDH decks really be required to include a Jace, a Boomerang, a Counterspell, and a Force of Will?
Should all white EDH decks really be required to include an Oblivion Ring, a Wrath of God, a Sunblast Angel, and a Sun Titan?
Should all black EDH decks really be required to include both Tutors, a Grave Titan, a Go For the Throat, and a Damnation?
Should all red EDH decks really be required to include a Chain Reaction, an Inferno Titan, a Goblin Guide, and a Comet Storm?
Should all green EDH decks really be required to include a Praetor's Council, a Primeval Titan, a Harmonize, and a Creeping Corrosion?
One proposal for this idea of a banned list was to make a "casual league" in which the cards that people don't like seeing wouldn't be played. In that league, people could play an "Ayesha Tanaka" Banding Deck, a "Balthor the Stout" Dwarves Deck, or a "Karona, False God" Bicycle Deck without having to watch out for decks that would be shutting them down non-stop due to mainly consisting of the listed cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 25, 2011 16:28:19 GMT -5
It's not a matter of decks requiring certain cards. It's a matter of building a good deck that has some sort of answer to some general problems. Building a black deck with no creature removal or building a green deck with no artifact-hate/mana accel is simply bad deck-building. As nice as
40 lands
60 big bombs
seems, playing 60 craw wurm equivalents does not make for interesting games. Deckbuilders toolkits and preconstructed decks come with basic tools such as doom blade/naturalize/lightning bolt/mana leak. These are not necessary to build a deck, but it is a good idea to have at least some answer to problems in your deck besides answering big creatures with even bigger creatures.
As for banning cards for the most casual of casual games: I played against chingali's dwarf deck on saturday, and he found he had only one real answer to any flying creature above 4 toughness: dwarven catapult. Does this mean every flying creature with 4 toughness or higher should be banned to appease every casual deck?
=
"ban air elemental: flying is overpowered and not every deck should have something to stop flying creatures"
|
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 25, 2011 19:52:45 GMT -5
Having seen "casual" games which people proceeded to ruin by casting certain cards early (turn 2-4) to mid (turn 5-7) game, saying "ideally they wouldn't have 12 mana early enough to make it stupid" means nothing. It is possible to get out Blightsteel turn 1 with a perfect hand. (Tree of Tales, Simian Spirit Guide, Manamorphose, Concordant Crossroads, BoP, Dark Ritual, Tinker) While this is not at all likely to happen, as you go along the turns, you are more and more likely to be able to get out Blightsteel, until at about turn 4 when it is definitely possible. Seeing Blightsteel in early game should not happen in casual, by any reasonable definition of casual. And yet it can happen. More to the point, if every deck is supposed to run enough removal to ensure that they can get rid of Blightsteel and other not-really-casual threats, that would define 1/4 of every deck to be exactly the same. This is exactly the problem that this thread is supposed to be trying to address; that "there are [...] cards out there that people have in their decks [that] they [are basically required] to play with," which currently doesn't allow for EDH to be a casual format. Just for some primary examples(Note: The lists below are not necessarily cards I think should be added to a banned/frowned upon list).... Should all blue EDH decks really be required to include a Jace, a Boomerang, a Counterspell, and a Force of Will? Should all white EDH decks really be required to include an Oblivion Ring, a Wrath of God, a Sunblast Angel, and a Sun Titan? Should all black EDH decks really be required to include both Tutors, a Grave Titan, a Go For the Throat, and a Damnation? Should all red EDH decks really be required to include a Chain Reaction, an Inferno Titan, a Goblin Guide, and a Comet Storm? Should all green EDH decks really be required to include a Praetor's Council, a Primeval Titan, a Harmonize, and a Creeping Corrosion? One proposal for this idea of a banned list was to make a "casual league" in which the cards that people don't like seeing wouldn't be played. In that league, people could play an "Ayesha Tanaka" Banding Deck, a "Balthor the Stout" Dwarves Deck, or a "Karona, False God" Bicycle Deck without having to watch out for decks that would be shutting them down non-stop due to mainly consisting of the listed cards. I don't play at least one card listed per color in any deck I own. The cards you listed aren't all staples. And yes, people are welcome to play a banding deck. But if you make a banding deck without creature removal or disenchant effects or lots of speed, then you shouldn't expect to win. And if you enter into a game expecting to lose, why does it matter if you end up losing to a deck that is better in terms of its ability to have fun with its own game plan? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 21:18:08 GMT -5
And if you enter into a game expecting to lose, why does it matter if you end up losing to a deck that is better in terms of its ability to have fun with its own game plan? If you think that a game of magic should be or is only fun when you win, then you should go find some other game to play or at least especially not be playing EDH. |
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 25, 2011 22:51:02 GMT -5
And if you enter into a game expecting to lose, why does it matter if you end up losing to a deck that is better in terms of its ability to have fun with its own game plan? If you think that a game of magic should be or is only fun when you win, then you should go find some other game to play or at least especially not be playing EDH. You misinterpret what I said. I have fun in a game of magic when: I can make choices every turn about how I can interact in a way that influences the game state. Generally this involves an ability to remove a threat. That is what I have fun doing-- blowing stuff up and making relevant decisions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 22:56:15 GMT -5
So if your opponent is not able to do anything significant ever but you are able to shut down every single instance when they could almost play something, that kind of a game would be fun? Most people I know would not find that fun at all, playing from either side.
|
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 25, 2011 23:40:17 GMT -5
So if your opponent is not able to do anything significant ever but you are able to shut down every single instance when they could almost play something, that kind of a game would be fun? Most people I know would not find that fun at all, playing from either side. If I can stop every threat of theirs, then they have denied me the fun of making relevant game play decisions. I'm pretty sure that was in my previous post. |
|
Kino
Member
Will
OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH OMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSHOMIGOSH
Posts: 1,351
|
Post by Kino on Apr 26, 2011 8:20:40 GMT -5
If I can stop every threat of theirs, then they have denied me the fun of making relevant game play decisions. I'm pretty sure that was in my previous post. So if you control the game and stop every threat anyone else plays, then not only are you not having fun, but it's THEIR fault you're not having fun? I think I see the problem here. |
|
