What if you were commander of commander?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Dec. 27, 2016, 10:55 a.m. by MagicalHacker
If overnight, you became the leader of the EDH rules committee, and you could instantly make one and only one rule change, what would it be and why?
If I were put in charge, I believe the healthiest direction for the format is to figure out a way to reduce the amount of highly efficient (regarding in game resources) tutoring that happens in the game. Here are five supporting reasons:
- Tutoring takes up a lot of time in games to search through 90 or so cards.
- Tutoring makes the format very consistent, essentially nullifying the primary reason the format is 100 card singleton.
- Tutoring is already considered a problem for many members of the RC, including Sheldon Menery, the "head" of the committee.
- Excessively efficient tutors create a barrier to entry due to being much more expensive than the average commander card.
- Tutors are most necessary in infinite combo decks, and reducing the amount of tutoring per game will allow infinite combo decks to be more tolerated in very casual playgroups.
Currently, I would do it by replacing many banned cards with the most efficient of tutors (ones with mana investment 2 or less that can find a large variety of cards). That said, there are other ways to accomplish this goal, such as talking to WotC about printing cards with cmc 2 or less that can hose tutoring a la Stranglehold, Aven Mindcensor, or a new design (such as "Whenever a player searches his or her library, that player discards a card at random.").
Ban all .
No, honestly, I think anything that would speed up play. In a 4 player game I've had them last 4 hours plus. Put a timer on turns. If your tutoring, kinda know what your looking for. I know there are 80+ cards to sift through, but you built the deck so you should kinda of know what's in there. I'm not saying race through a game or a T2 win either, because that is no fun. But something so you can fit another game in.
December 27, 2016 11:44 a.m.
Sim_Will_CMcantfindmehopefully says... #5
Not a rules committee problem but I'd want less cards made specifically for commander in commander products, standard makes enough EDH cards, and I like the vetting process they must endure.
The ban list should be smaller than it already is, much smaller. I'd bring back that some cards are simply not allowed to command your deck, since many of those cards are fine in the 99 I know playgroup rules, then it begs the question of having a committee in the first place.
December 27, 2016 1:45 p.m.
I am with MagicalHacker on tutors. To get a little more specific on how I would do that. wouldn't ban basic land tutors or any tutor with cmc > 3.
I would also change the poison counter win condition to 15 for both duel commander and multiplayer.
I would bring many banned cards back and wouldn't add more (besides those efficient non-basic land tutors). Early game >2 mana producers would be banned in duel commander including Sol Ring.
I would also put together an official baseline point system for 4 player pods. I would tweak that system for specific themed events to add new life to the game periodically.
December 27, 2016 2:04 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #7
Podma101, we are pretty similar, although why Deadeye? It definitely sets up a lot of gross interactions and combos, but after learning about the trick about using instant speed removal in response to the soul bound trigger, my playgroup hasn't had any more problems with it being too oppressive.
DasTree, idk that adding a timer to the game would be taken too well, but i do agree that a nice change to the game would be to make games have less dead time. Other than limiting tutoring, what else could be done to bring this about?
greyninja, why would you change that? From what I understand, it was put in place to counteract the effect of lifegain in a format beginning at twice as high a life total as normal.
December 27, 2016 2:06 p.m.
I would start with some point systems that had already been vetted and credit the creators of those systems.
December 27, 2016 2:07 p.m. Edited.
MagicalHacker says... #9
Simon_Williamson, honestly, I think all-reprint pre-constructed commander products would open up room for better/more expensive reprints and consequently be more successful as products. I used to not see what the big deal is, but now I understand how making new cards in a commander product makes the format less interesting.
guessling, yea, Rampant Growth can only find 1 of 11 cards, so its not powerful enough to be banned, whereas Demonic Tutor hits all cards. I think I'm going to make a list of all the tutors I think should be banned and how many cards they can each find.
As for poison counters, I haven't ever seen a dedicated infect deck win as is, so idk that it is that powerful. I will say though that strategies including infect and others that are potent enough to knock a player out of a multiplayer match before they can do anything are annoying since that player isn't coming to the table with the same goal as everybody else, which is to win, but has the goal of wanting to kill someone, which is a bit rude imho.
December 27, 2016 2:48 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #10
Im not a fan of credit systems, because from my experience, they reward decks that do lots of those little things that are otherwise insignificant rather than reward decks that have a goal or strategy and do that very well. Example: let's say a system gives you a point for casting 3 nonpermanent spells in a row, a point for have 5 token creatures at one time, and a point for milling an opponent by 10 cards or more in a turn. Suddenly, a focused mill deck, a focused creatureless deck, and a focused token deck are all beat by a deck that isn't focused and is a mishmash of good stuff. Why would anyone want to encourage that?
December 27, 2016 2:53 p.m.
Sim_Will_CMcantfindmehopefully says... #11
MagicalHacker Exactly what I mean about the pre-cons.
Also, point systems can g designed better, but honestly I just can't play EDH that much anymore, I really love the feel of a deck, if you look at my EDH decks very few can hold their own in their current form, because I had an idea or tone and I ran with it, but no one I know locally plays that way. Like I'd love to play EDH with Jimmy_Chinchila, but I couldn't be in a playgroup with Epochalyptik (not linking him, he's busy enough as it is) because we are basically playing different games.
December 27, 2016 3:03 p.m.
MagicalHacker idk how to speed the game up. Fast tutors should do that. but who really wants to lose early in a game and have to wait around for a couple hours for the rest to finish? I just like to capitalize on my time more since I don't get to play as much EDH as I would like to. but one of my metas has a player that is significantly slower than anyone else. this has been brought to their attention before as well. But some way to speed up play.
I also agree with infect. raise the number in Commander. Even double it since you double life totals.
And if you want to ban cards, ban cards like Felidar Sovereign, Epic Struggle, Laboratory Maniac, and things of that nature. I was more concerned with the life cards since life gain is a thing.
December 27, 2016 3:20 p.m.
Sim_Will_CMcantfindmehopefully says... #13
Infect is not twice as easy to dual out. Infect is already barely viable, it may feel bad to loose to it, but it's not broken.
December 27, 2016 3:28 p.m.
As terrible as I think the RC is, it's threads like this that make me thankful that they exist.
December 27, 2016 3:57 p.m.
I named Deadeye Navigator because there are so many combos that revolve around this single card. I do understand your point about the removal, and the card isn't even present in my meta yet, but I see that as an example of something bannable.
December 27, 2016 4:04 p.m.
Sim_Will_CMcantfindmehopefully says... #16
Saying infect counts should be raised is like a new player saying blue is broken and the worst colour of magic. A card like Felidar Sovereign is so god damned easy to answer, creature removal, damage through attacking, direct damage, a Rain of Gore effect. These aren't vaguely broken cards.
December 27, 2016 4:12 p.m.
Sim_Will_CMcantfindmehopefully says... #17
DasTree I'm sorry, but fucking Epic Struggle? That's like saying Mirror of Fate should be banned. "I don't want people to be able to win differently than me, sure these aren't effective ways to win, but they should only be able to win how I happen to enjoy". Jesus Christ. Banning those cards is like saying you can't play a deck unless it's tier one.
December 27, 2016 4:16 p.m.
I agree with TheDevicer.
I believe that this runs along the same manner of people complaining about balance in competitive games. Unless you actually have been through the development process - Magic, video games, or otherwise - then you have very little knowledge about all the stuff - time, effort, testing, etc - that goes into all the decisions.
Sure, some of you may have brought up decent points, and sure, the people behind the decision making have made mistakes before and probably will continue to do so. That's simple human trial and error. However, and I can't stress this enough, if you think there is an easy fix to anything, ANYTHING in developing a brand of entertainment for a large market, you certainly have quite the skewed perspective.
Apologies if this seemed a little rantish. As a game dev, who worked on a couple games where balance was a constant issue, I easily get infuriated people getting upset at things that are simply a part of the game - Magic or otherwise. I mean, wtf is wrong with tutoring? I love my toolbox edh deck. It is part of the game, and Wizards continues to print even more tutors! If you can't handle the wait, then I recommend finding a quicker format like modern or standard. I've learned that most magic games should last at least an hour and up to 5 (in a non-competitive playgroup).
As per the OP, I would simply scrap EDH. If I could only do one thing to benefit the format, I would simply scrap it and rebuild it back up. It won't be easy, it'll be tedious, and in the end nothing much will change, but at least something unexpected will happen along the way. Who knows what that'll be, but it sure would be interesting.
December 27, 2016 5:40 p.m.
The whole banlist sans the power 9 should be unbanned. Honestly the power 9 could probably be unbanned.
December 27, 2016 6:27 p.m.
I don't hate or complain about infect. I play it. I can take out one person before T6 over half the time. I target the person at the table who has proven that unless they get aggroed off the table ASAP they will combo win. Agreeing to 15 for the infect rule made everyone I play with stop shunning me and hating me off the table. That extra 5 is a small consession.
I think that if the format supports comboing out before turn 6 consistently then it should support aggroing a selected target before turn 6 as well. Similarly, if consistently comboing out before most players even had a chance to play their commander is no longer supported then methods to knock one target out right away are no longer as called for.
Commander has always been a player influenced format because of the politics inherent in the format. I don't think any offence toward devs or any other game officials is intended.
December 27, 2016 6:34 p.m.
I understand that what is being said here is generally driven by emotions and the state of one's meta, so it most certainly should not be acted on. Infinite combos are what people usually target with rule changes either directly or indirectly, and honestly that isn't healthy. That should be handled through either house rules or conditioning your meta/switching groups.
Front the most part, the EDHRC has done a fine job, baring some mistakes. My biggest issue with what they have done was the combining of the ban lists for coamanders only and the regular one. There was no need for this other than to "simplify" the system, and I believe it makes EDH worst. There are a number of cards that could probably be banned as a commander, but are not as aggregious when a card in the 99. Given this, cards that fall into this category will never actually be banned because they can't justify banning a card from the format if it is only toxic when a commander.
December 27, 2016 7:17 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #23
This is entirely biased an opinionated, but I think I sit in camp "remove commander damage". Not because I think it's a bad idea, not because I dislike how it affects the balance of the game, but purely because of how much of a pain in the ass it is to keep track of. In a 5 player pod, each of five players have to keep track of any commander damage they've taken from each of 4 commanders (potentially up to 8 with the Partner commanders) in addition to their life total. This means each player needs a notepad, clearly labeled, with each of these numbers on them. It's just a hassle. Why can't we just sit down and play? It's almost as hard to get together an EDH game as it is to get together a D&D campaign, and that's ridiculous. That's not even to mention the possibility of foul play. There's no way I can expect anybody at the table to be keeping track of all 25+ of these values.
/endrant
December 27, 2016 7:27 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #24
Eiti3, allow me to clarify: I don't think it would be healthy to ban all tutors. In fact, I think many add a lot of interesting gameplay to the game, like Stoneforge Mystic, Captain Sisay, Beseech the Queen, Muddle the Mixture, Entomb, Signal the Clans, and more. However, I think that there are quite a few that lend themselves to causing a level of consistency that was trying to be avoided in this format, namely Demonic Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Gamble, Imperial Seal, Vampiric Tutor, Worldly Tutor, Eladamri's Call, and others.
Podma101, you reminded me of an important facet of my suggested change that I forgot to mention. Most people who get upset with infinite combos are less upset when the infinite combo takes a while to get to, even if it is just a two-card combo. Early tutoring enables early infinite combo wins, and to me it is clearly evident that the majority of those who don't want infinite combos in commander games actually dislike the possibility of someone tutoring for a card to win early in the game because their deck(s) aren't able to deal with such a fast win. By removing the most efficient tutors, infinite combos can't be assembled as easily in the early game.
Now that I look at those tutor examples, another positive effect of this change would be to lower the perceived monetary barrier to making a commander deck, which is explicitly listed as one of the reasons why the rules committee would ban a card.
Tyrant-Thanatos, my playgroup and I have never had any issues with this by only keeping track of commander damage we deal. However, it would probably be even easier to only keep track of commander damage you've been dealt.
December 27, 2016 8:15 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #25
Yeah, MagicalHacker I'm sure it varies by playgroup. We don't exactly play tier-level decks. It's a pretty casual group, which means a lot of creature based strategies and a lot of commander damage to track. I've considered proposing we houserule it out, but I don't want to compromise the integrity of our games. Not that I think any of our players would realistically do this, but I'd hate to have someone complain that they could have won if cmdr damage had been honored.
December 27, 2016 8:28 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #26
My playgroup is al over the place, including some that have commander damage happen a lot, but having that responsibility to keep track of what they're dealing to others on them means that it's less work for people who aren't using that rule.
December 27, 2016 8:48 p.m.
I don't think there's any real changes I'd be interested in that wouldn't essentially make it a new format. A system for Conspiracy usage would be neat, if one could be devised that wasn't needlessly complex.
It would be nice if some reigns could be put on infect, yeah, but the integrity of the mechanic, both in terms of flavor and in terms of player comprehension, namely for those coming into EDH, need to come first. And those no real way to maintain both of those. Infect is by its nature not going to be enthusing to play against. It should remain as such.
But, if a change had to be made, I think I would have to offer a rule or "objective" that promotes more politics. As it stands, the most politicking that occurs in EDH, or the games I've played anyway, are trying to convince the turn player that you're not as threatening as the other guy, or that you are in a position to punish them with extreme prejudice if they mess with you. There's very little else, and I think there should be more communication - and collaboration - mixed in with the deceit. Though, I'm not sure what this "objective" (and I use that term very loosely) would be.
December 27, 2016 10:52 p.m.
Thankfully my meta has no infinite combos (except my Nekusar deck, but they are not the primary win condition, simply the product of good cards that combo together, and I don't own tutors). However, I feel like the banning of the best tutors won'the really solve any issues people have with combos. High level EDH is something that people enjoy (not for me, but that's okay), and tutors are an important part of that. On the flip side though, there are plenty of decks that use tutors to just fetch cards as they need.
In my opinion the best thing to do is force change in the meta. There is a great episode of the Command Zone podcast that explores this topic. Sadly it does require money or an extensive collection to make the right deck
December 27, 2016 11:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
I have to say, I'm not terribly impressed by most of these ideas.
If I had charge, I would consider undoing some of the bans and adopting a firmer position that the RC is meant for very, very high-level format maintenance. In my opinion, the RC should not be in the business of managing the format according to provincial ideas or on the basis of what you do or don't like. Create a welcoming environment where playgroups are better able to choose their own styles and "cultures," if you will. But don't restrict the format beyond what is necessary.
December 27, 2016 11:15 p.m.
I have observed that EDH players that isolate themselves to like minded playgroups become stagnant and grow intolerant of others' play styles. Often arguments or disagreements develop as players politick the house ban lists instead of developing strategies (or using stigma strategies like fast aggro or infect) to deal with a player who dominates the table the same way game after game.
I think that policing the consistency of early wins (but keeping basic land and high cmc tutors), limiting the ability to take someone out before t5 (infect is the most likely non-combo example of how to do this in a 40 life format), and adding extra goals like kanokarob mentioned would help people start "playing the same game together" again.
December 28, 2016 5:58 a.m.
fadelightningmm says... #31
See I like Josh lee Kwai's stance. If I were on the RC I would try and unban more cards to allow the format to diversify. I also stand firm on the belief that a Sol Ring ban should occur not because its overpowered but for the simple reason many believe it should be an auto include in all decks. That's boring by removing it from the format 99% of decks will now have an open spot that can be filled by literally anything which would foster a very diverse culture of decks.
I also understand the tutor idea, but I believe as a general rule of thumb should be to impose a time limit to tutors. I run a lot of tutors in my Yisan and Liliana decks and depending on the deck it takes a varied amount of time to tutor. In Yisan as soon as I tutor I know exactly what I'm getting. However, in Liliana I don't know the deck as well. There are some players in my play group that tutor for the express reason to look at what's in the deck and decide based on this "new" Intel what to grab which makes it a painful game.
December 28, 2016 7:30 a.m.
greyninja: You're right, it's broken, but so is Demonic Tutor, and demonic tutor is legal. The power 9 are nothing to scoff at, but they aren't unbeatable.
December 28, 2016 8:47 a.m.
I have to agree with Epoch. Bans are the most powerful thing the RC can really do to change the format at the moment (that is reasonable. Sure they can just ban all infinite combos but I think that is ludicrous). Unless a new set that releases warrants a rule change (removing rule 4 because of colorless mana being separated from generic), they should focus on banning or unbanning cards.
My one issue though is their only function being aimed at high level play. I'm not saying this because I don't have a group that plays at this level. My problem is what they have to go off of in order to make those decisions. They have said before they have little to no data when making decisions outside of their own playgroup, which honestly means that the only thing that separates them from most of us is that they made the format and have played it longer. Obviously this does matter, but it also means that decisions only really arise when they see a problem from their own experiences. I also don't know how many examples of recorded high level play exist for them to even observe to get an idea if they wanted to. Someone please correct me of anything I've said here is wrong. This is just how I feel given what I know, so if I missed something I'd certainly like to feel otherwise lol.
fadelightningmm I like Josh's stance as well, but not the Sol Ring ban lol. Cards become auto includes because of how good the are, not necessarily because they are broken. Command Tower is the same way, and it's because of the consistency it can provide to a deck. Those cards exist to help with the fact that the decks are 99 cards, and that certain colors lack any and all ramp. Sure, some decks benefit more than others, but that's the nature of the game. If Sol Ring was banned, you'd probably have to ban all the other ridiculous mana rocks that exist too, which would choke out a lot of decks that require the ramp. Yes, you are right in that more diversity would exist, but many could argue that their decks are objectively weaker without those auto includes. Sure, my mono black reanimator deck doesn't need Tower or Ring, but those cards are critical for my Nektar wheel deck for consistency.
December 28, 2016 10:52 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
@guessling: My point is that I don't believe it's the RC's place to make the decision on behalf of all players that a turn five win is unacceptable. One of the points I've raised in the past about this point is that, as a social format, Commander is in an interesting place between top-down and grassroots management. People use the official rules to set expectations when approaching other playgroups or playing in events. It would seem reasonable, then, that the format is designed to be as open as possible and playgroups are encouraged to use the basic framework as a starting point to tailor the format to their liking.
I've long opposed the notion that "competitive" (as though there were a list of qualities that make something definitively competitive or not competitive) cards or tactics should be banned. Commander's identity as a social format does not necessitate that it be viewed as either casual or competitive. Why should tutoring and other consistency-improving mechanics be viewed, as a matter of policy, as unethical or distasteful? Is that not something that is better left to the playgroups and individuals?
I often find that the people who propose such bans are acting out of a personal bias against whatever they want banned. That's not to say that this is true in all cases, but it does make me question whether the format is being regulated, or is being pressured, based on the wants of the "casual" crowd at the expense of the semi-competitive and competitive crowds.
December 28, 2016 12:57 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #35
Epochalyptik, so I guess you hate how WotC has decided standard can't have consistent wins prior to turn 5 either? actually, it makes more sense to credit EDH'S at least partially to the fact that banlist isn't managed in a way that is analyzed by the way its played by competitive groups. After all, if multiplayer commander is the second/third most popular format in spite of not having have any widespread tournaments, how would eliminating something that makes Commander unique make it a better format?
At the end of the day, I think the RC has done the best job at organizing their banlist to make the game most fun.
Lastly, you mention movements being taken at the expense of the competitive crowd. How does making tutoring less available without investing more in-game resources than currently negatively impact balance in competitive games?
December 28, 2016 1:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #36
@MagicalHacker: I was careful to distinguish Commander as a social format explicitly for that reason. Standard and other constructed formats are competitive in nature; they're meant to be played in events. Commander can be played either casually or competitively; it is not necessarily one or the other. (And, while it's possible to play Standard casually, that is not its intended venue.)
Second, I didn't advocate that Commander be managed according to what is good in or good for a competitive environment. A minimalist, laissez faire approach is beneficial to both competitive and casual crowds. This also doesn't result in eliminating something that makes Commander unique (although you should be careful with that argument; being unique doesn't make something good or worthwhile).
In regards to your last point, competitive crowds appear to be more likely to value consistency in decks; deck consistency is a critical factor in win consistency. Banning tutors, or even just banning all efficient tutors, negatively impacts deck consistency and disproportionately affects the competitive crowd (it does also negatively impact the casual crowd; just not as much). It seems to be a trend in community discussions that tutoring and consistency are these ultimate evils that should not be permissible in Commander, period. Maybe that's a function of so many people claiming that Commander is a casual format (it's a social format) and proclaiming a need to outlaw anything that doesn't fit a strictly casual ideal (how exactly such a thing is determined seems to still be a mystery, even to those advocating it).
This is the kind of provincialism I fight in these discussions.
December 28, 2016 2:11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #37
Epochalyptik, you make quite a number of good points, but to clarify, I am not advocating for this change primarily due to its effect on casual playgroups or on competitive playgroups, although in both of those situations it would be an added benefit.
If I had to pick a primary reason for suggesting this change, it would be to remove the current level of consistency that we see in all games that was trying to be avoided when the format was defined to have 100 cards per deck instead of 60 and up to 1 of each card instead of up to 4.
December 28, 2016 3:30 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #38
I think my first thing that I'd do (and really the only thing I can think of at the moment) is to take a singular card off the banlist. I mean, come on. Why did Recurring Nightmare even get banned in the first place?
December 28, 2016 3:41 p.m.
fadelightningmm says... #39
Podma101 I would argue those two cards are completely different. Sol ring can go in any deck and benefit whereas command tower can go in any deck but doesn't scale in power until you add more colors
December 28, 2016 5:17 p.m.
That is true. I name that because it falls into the category of auto include that reduces diversity in decks. As I said in my last post, there are decks that can benefit more or less from each card, but both are included in nearly every deck because of the power and consistency they provide
December 28, 2016 5:57 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
@MagicalHacker: See the last full paragraph of my previous post. It's erroneous to claim that consistency is bad for the format. Commander is already inherently less consistent than 60-card. To argue that some arbitrary standard for consistency/inconsistency not only exists but must be adhered to is nonsensical.
First, you need to establish some reason for believing that consistency is bad for the format. Then, you need to define and justify whatever standard you're using for evaluating consistency.
December 28, 2016 8:41 p.m.
Claiming a Sol Ring ban would create more diversity in the format is ignorant and biased. Literally everyone would fill the slot with a copy of the next best and cheap - financially and magically - mana rock (Worn Powerstone? I dunno) and if they already had that, then the next one. It would not accomplish your goal; it wouldn't make people play different decks, or be any less efficient or consistent, or do anything to promote health. It wouldn't hurt either, but it would be totally irrelevant.
Sol Ring's unfairness is only brought up when it's played turns 1-3, and even then only by bitter children, to be quite honest. It's not overly likely one will have a Sol Ring in that period of time, and if they do, so what? You had just as much opportunity to open with it/draw it early because unless you're a self-righteous moron, you're playing it too. After turns 3-5, it becomes more or less irrelevant. Yeah it's there and it's helpful, but by that point you've got some natural board presence, you're already on the same page as the rest of the table, so you don't need the colorless ramp, it's just convenient.
Sol Ring's ban in Duel Commander is only reasonable because every other magically-inexpensive mana ramp card is too. Ancient Tomb, Mana Vault, even Grim Monolith are all banned. This is acceptable because Duel Commander is a much more competition-oriented, 1v1 environment; it is expected that everyone be able to play in level footing.
But EDH is a casual, multiplayer format. Everyone has access to Sol Ring monetarily if they can afford an EDH deck, and the fact that there are more than two players at the table balances out the temporary advantage gained from opening with it. There is no objective argument for banning Sol Ring from EDH.
December 28, 2016 9:27 p.m.
As things currently stand, I keep over a dozen EDH decks sleeved and ready to play because of differences in playgroups. It truly feels like different groups are nearly to the point of no longer playing the same game. I'm dealing with that and am still enjoying it, but my way of dealing with a supercombo player (aggro) runs up against increasingly stringent social expectations that can get out of hand.
I am aware of how many players advocate for changes that "take care of" problem strategies that they would rather not beat using deck adaptations (or additions). I am also aware that this isn't always the motivation. I am advocating for a nerf to infect and I play it. I would rather be able to just go for it in a new pod than worry about hate.
I don't think winning before t5 should be impossible. I just think it should be less consistent.
December 29, 2016 2:39 p.m.
I wrote the following post a while back in another thread:
I think the fundamental problem with talks of bans is that EDH isn't a format defined exclusively by power level and balance. Banning for balance is hard enough, but when you add in varying design philosophies and player experiences, the feat becomes impossible. Pretty much all common arguments for card placements on and off the list are based on grains of truth.
Besides, as much as we love cEDH, I think it would be foolish for us to claim that the format right now is "healthy" in the common sense given that some colors and archetypes are far superior to others at high-level play. Even so, that's not a convincing enough argument to start warping the format in hopes of achieving something closer to what is traditionally considered to be "healthy."
Balancing EDH is a lose-lose situation most of the time.
Podma101 says... #2
My change would be to rework the banlist to take off some of the cards that don't really make sense (Braids, Cabal Minion for example), and add cards that have been a problem (looking at you Deadeye Navigator). To go with what you said, I would probably look at some of the tutors as well.
December 27, 2016 11:23 a.m.