Flash is innocent and i can prove it!
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on April 24, 2020, 12:48 p.m. by RambIe
It is a huge mistake using ban as an option to balance the commander format, please save commander before its to late! I know this all sounds dramatic but please hear me out. I have a better solution.
Why Commander Format Is In Danger
In my area commander format has been taking over.
Lgs's have been seeing less standard play and some even struggling to fire off modern and pioneer. i can not speak for a global scale but i will say with confidence that this pattern is not limited to my area based on the number of subscribers and views on any commander based you tube channel.
Why are people quitting other formats and picking up commander in the first place?
its not politics... god i love politics in commander and i would have loved for it to be the number 1 reason, however i have never once heard someone say they stopped playing modern because of the lack of politics.
The reality is people invest hundreds of dollars to play cards and combos just for it to be banned. Then the value of there investment plummets and they can no longer be the all powerful wizard they dreamed to be.
The main reason people are playing commander more is because they can play cards that are banned in all other formats.
That is why as the ban list grows the popularity of the format will decrease
Flash Is Not The Problem.
Flash has been around since 1996, hulk has been around since 2006 this combo is almost as old as commander itself and has never presented a problem.
The reason commander does not require a ban list is simply because of chance and probability. The limit of having 1 in 99 cards makes the probabilities of 2 and 3 card combos appearing in your opening hand so low that it is impossible to be consistent.
The Real Problem
As stated in the flash ban - players have been requesting flash to be banned for almost a year.
Well almost a year ago they introduced the London mulligan rule....
This rule changes the probabilities of getting 2 card / 1 card 1 tutor combos in your opening hand.
Dramatically changing the commander format by giving it the ability of more consistent opening hands.
Flash hulk was the first only because it was the most popular. But because of this change all the combos they didn't want in the other formats just got unlocked to become more consistent in commander.
Because of the the massive set list allowed in commander we can expect the ban list to grow large enough to become hole blocks...
How To Fix The Balance
-
Commander needs to have its own mulligan rule. one that will allow players to avoid unplayable hands, but will also not allow them to increase probabilities of opening hand combos. honestly bringing back the old land mulligan would work if it was upped to two maybe three lands.
-
R&D needs to make sure that the only card that can be consistently played in commander is the commander itself, and never make a commander that makes other cards become more consistent
ideas like London mulligan, companion, partner, side boards, wishing may be appealing.
But anything that can alter the inconstancy is a potential threat to the commander format.
One of the greatest things about commander is the ability to play the same decks and have completely different games.
MagicalHacker says... #3
Or, we could just make tutors less broken. I propose this rule added to Commander, to accomplish the exact same goal as the 100-card deck minimum rule and the singleton rule:
- If a player would search a library, that player searches the top twenty cards of that library instead.
Now, while this rule may appear to cause games to last longer, because it would result in a huge number of players reducing the number of tutors in their deck, it would make games go faster, since searching and shuffling is one of the most time-intensive effects in the game. It does this without affecting ramp all that much (unless the player isn't playing enough basic lands to make multicolored decks be something other than strictly better than monocolored decks, something that reduces decision making regarding deck building). The end result is fewer tutors, more basic lands, and changing cards like Protean Hulk from being game-winning cards on their own to cards that are either mostly used for value or attempted to win, but with a high chance of bricking.
April 24, 2020 1:27 p.m. Edited.
griffstick says... #4
The bans prior to flash and the ban of flash have not affected my playgroup or my friends decks or anyone at my lgs at all. So the rules committee in my opinion is doing a fantastic job
April 24, 2020 1:48 p.m.
Let's talk about the Merfolk in the room. Players have been grumbling about Flash since Hulk was unbanned; but they have been screaming about the need for a ban only since Thassa's Oracle was released with Theros II. Why? Because it took an already strong combo and made it even bigger problem by making it harder to interact with.
That you do forget to discuss Thassa's does a disservice to your entire thread--you either ignored the most important piece of the Flash-Hulk conversation due to a lack of knowledge of the format or you ignored it because it did not fit well with your thesis.
Let's discuss your thesis.
Magic has three archetypes--aggro, control, and combo. Aggro decks seek to win through attacking; control decks seek to win through controlling the board; combo decks seek to win by comboing off and winning the game on the spot. Every single deck is some combination of those three.
In a singleton format, you need tutors in order for combo to be a viable strategy. Otherwise, the entire archetype is at a disadvantage and you have to lean more heavily into a control build to survive until your combo can be assembled.
Now, let's say we go too far and a combo becomes oppressive--as Flash-Hulk-Oracle became.
We have two options: (1) Ban the single card that is a problem; or (b) change the entire way the format works to mitigate the threat of Combo as a whole.
The first option is always going to be the better choice--you remove something that creates a homogeneous, toxic meta, while not interfering with players' ability to play the archetype they enjoy.
That is why Flash was banned--it was the least intrusive way to shut down a single problematic line of play. No need for an amputation when a small incision will do.
April 24, 2020 2:05 p.m.
Caerwyn Thassa's Oracle is one of many fetch wins as a result of hulk.
However the points that i think you missed in my "rant" and why Flash is considered the problem and not Thassa's Oracle.
-
The turn 2 consistency of the win con. post ban you can still expect your fish combo to show up turn 3 and above.
-
There are much worse combos that have not hit mainstream yet.
-
I am not saying "change the entire way the format works to mitigate the threat of Combo as a whole."
I am saying they already change the entire way the format works which is what created these problems. they simply need to put it back.
April 24, 2020 2:41 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #7
There is a reason flash is banned/restricted in every format. As Caerwyn said though, even though it was grumbled about before thassa's oracle it was so much worse after. The combo needed broken up in some form for the health of the competitive side of the format. This left 3 viable options to hit. Flash, Protean Hulk, and Thassa's Oracle.
First off, if thor gets banned it bothers many many more people than either of the others because it is a new fun card for people to play with. People are still popping packs of it's set. It also doesn't stop the grumbling about flash.
Hulk also has 2 reasons not to hit it, but it was more likely. Hulk was unbanned by the rc and generally those in charge of something don't like looking like they were wrong. Along with that it is played in a lot of fair decks to just get value, so again it would bother a lot of people. It would however stop the combo.
Flash ban very nearly only hits competitive players, and successfully slows the combo as well as makes it clunkier causing a higher number of cards needed to make it work.
A different mulligan rule rather than a ban changes nothing for those asking for the ban other than to potentially make the combo more consistent.
April 24, 2020 2:43 p.m.
MagicalHacker The idea of Protean Hulk whiffing made me laugh so hard that i had tears running down my face. I think your idea is unique and brilliant but i could never support it.
April 24, 2020 2:53 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #9
rubix215 Aven Mindcensor is one of my favorite things to cast in response to a hulk. Fizzling a hulk is a great feeling
April 24, 2020 3:03 p.m.
They did not change the way the format works--Commander does not have a specific mulligan rule; it simply follows the same mulligan rule as the rest of the game. When Wizards changed the default mulligan rule to London, Commander's rules stayed static.
Changing the rules to make Commander use a different rules would constitute a fundamental rules change to the format specifically designed to harm the consistency combo players rely upon.
Plus, you create additional confusion and ambiguity when different formats use different mulligan rules. The advantages a consistent rule-set brings far outweighs any advantages a format-by-format system would bring.
Also, you do know turn 2 wins and consistency wasn't the only problem with Flash hulk? The big problem was a turn 2 win, with consistency, that could be cast at instant speed. Basically, you could wait until everyone else got into a counter war and burned their counters, then cast Flash on top of that so no one could interact with you.
So, sure, you can still Hulk-Oracle or do other Oracle combos... but the loss of Flash takes something degenerate and instantaneous down to more manageable degenerate levels consistent with other cEDH decks.
Flash was indeed a special case, and banning a single card was the best way to solve this problem. Simply changing the Mulligan rule might make the turn 1-2 wins of Fish Hulk less common, but it would not solve all problems with the combo.
April 24, 2020 3:07 p.m. Edited.
GhostChieftain Brilliant!!! and IMO that is the true spirit. No matter how powerful a deck or combo first appears there is some card in some set that will shut it all down and as a edh player we have access to it.
April 24, 2020 4:17 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #12
Even with things like mindcensor and Containment Priest flash was a problem though. People run both of those and many more answers in a competitive setting, but flash made hulk too easy, and both too fast and too grindy for it to matter most of the time. Flash needed gone.
April 24, 2020 4:32 p.m.
Caerwyn I respect your opinion and admire your passion.
But you need to understand shortly after the London mulligan rule many of honorable players in my group have fallen to 3t itus. i confess i have been a victim and victimized others i have even gone as far as ending a pod of 10 on my t4.
Sigh even our newest member brad fell victim to a Immolating Souleater & Tainted Strike before he untap his first land :(
The common occurrences of potential empires falling before ever seeing a 3rd or sometimes 2nd land play has nothing to do with banned cards, flash, hulk, or little blue fish well sometimes little blue fish but not the one your thinking of.
its because of the access to cards we have in commander combined with the ability to start with a 2 card combo in hand.
April 24, 2020 4:47 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #14
rubix215 sorry to make you cry!
No but really. We have a singleton rule and a 100-card deck minimum rule that help make Commander different from other formats... why? Could commander NOT be played as 60-card decks with 4-ofs?
Obviously, the reason it was changed was to decrease how consistent a deck could be. (Some people will say it was to make the requirement for a good card less, as players would only need 1 of those rather than 4, but that is contrary to the other rule, since now you would need almost twice as many cards as regular decks regardless of card price.)
If we are okay with that (and I'd argue, Commander blew up in popularity BECAUSE of that), then why are we okay with 1-drops and 2-drops that let all the other 98 cards have a second copy in there. Of course we have weird cards on our banlist when its ridiculously easy to make sure your deck gets that card EVERY GAME.
In reality, I think most people would like what happens to the format after the change, but most people would not like changes (see the tuck rule change discussions when that rule was changed).
April 24, 2020 6:17 p.m.
MagicalHacker I admit it would fix the problem. But at the risk of being a hypocrite i love to tutor, how ever i normaly dont Tutor to win. I instant tutor to awnsers to stop threats.
And i agree everyone hates change but will adapt. I mean after all im here still complaining about the mulligan change lol
April 24, 2020 6:48 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
rubix215 if you tutor for answers, then you could always just take out the tutors and add in more answers :) Unfortunately, the commander community has supported each other in their fear of change. Is there a phobia for that? googles Yep, it's called Metathesiophobia.
April 24, 2020 7:02 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #17
I tutor to win ngl. Edh is a very unique format and I don't think tutors make it any less unique. The fact that you can tutor for answers or a combo or lock piece make things interesting. I do however think that if a playgroup is looking to have long swingy games with big ol beaters or a board filled with weenies and win via combat and only combat, they should try and stay away from tutors.
I am of the opinion that 100 card singleton doesn't mean that it needs to be inefficient or inconsistant. And I think that one of the most beautiful things about this format is that the game is what you and your playgroup makes it. Plenty of fun stories and times to be had on all power levels
April 24, 2020 7:04 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #18
Reanimating hulk is so much more resource intensive than flashing it in and less effective as a reanimate target than razaketh. Imo hulk is fine now
April 24, 2020 7:32 p.m.
fadelightningmm says... #19
Personally I think that Flash was problematic enough to warrant the ban at higher levels of play in EDH. The competitive community were hurting from flash-hulk combos for awhile now. My play group for the first time since Prophet of Kruphix was banned did not have a complaint about this ban update. I will agree with Caerwyn that oracle has made the issue worse, but the RC has mentioned that they don’t want to ban new cards out of the gate and the beautiful boy Lutri was an anomaly in that respect.
As for tutors in commander I love them. My favorite deck since the spoiler of the card has been Yisan, the Wanderer Bard. A change to tutors like MagicalHacker suggested is awful in my opinion. The reason Lutri can’t exist is the same reason this tutor change shouldn’t exist. Cards in commander should function as they are written. Tutors make decks more consistent, but if you don’t play two card combos it’s not that huge of an issue
April 25, 2020 12:06 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #20
GhostChieftain, it's not that games with consistency can't be fun, it's that games without consistency tend to be more fun. The reason for this is that every game involves you having different cards and figuring out a way to win with what you have available. If the tutor change I proposed were enacted, the banlist could be cut in half.
TypicalTimmy, I agree with you that Hulk is by far the bigger problem card in this scenario, as Flash's effect is actually pretty simple and replacable. Hulk is the unique card (for lack of a better word).
fadelightningmm, here is a full list of cards that don't work as written in commander:
- Cards that get you another card with the same name: search
- Most wishes: search
- Cards that work if you have more than 100 cards in your deck: search
- Cards that care about cards in the graveyard with the same name: search
And the list goes on. What we know is that format design shouldn't be based on whether or not cards play differently in the format (though it should be considered for bans, of course).
In addition, if you really think we should look at cards' text for design, then we really should go a step further and look to see what they do in other formats. In a regular 60-card format, cards are designed around the most needed cards (aka what would be tutored for in most situations) being 1/15 of a deck that is 60 cards having four of those cards. If we wanted tutors to work as designed, the ability above should really let you look through only the top 15 cards instead of 20. However, if we instead assume those cards are 3-ofs (which could be an average between 2-ofs, 3-ofs, and 4-ofs), then 20 makes most sense.
April 25, 2020 12:48 a.m. Edited.
I am not saying the London Mulligan rule does not potentially make combos easier, but, as you point out in your very own post, it also makes it easier to find an opening hand that can address those combos.
Frankly, the London Mulligan rule isn't even too big of a deal in Singleton--your chance of drawing into a 2 card combo and still having the mana ramp to play it and the cards in-hand to protect it is still relatively low. It's not like you're running 4x of each combo piece, as you might in other formats.
Sure, there are situations where someone might get lucky and be able to land a fast combo a bit more reliable than with the older mulligan rule, but that downside is vastly outweighed by (a) a vastly lower chance of mana flood/screw rendering an entire player useless for the early part of the game and (b) ensuring consistency between formats.
To respond to each of your points:
1)
Tutors are necessary for an entire archetype to function. It's all well and good to say "you have to figure out how to win with what you have" but that's just another way of writing off an entire section of the meta by saying "you have to figure out how to win with what you have, and I am not going to let you get what you need to play the way you want to."
Sure, you might find it more fun to win with the lack of consistency, but you should not ascribe that to every player. You also are treating tutors like there is no opportunity cost to using them--you have to burn mana to find your cards, and many of the best tutors put the card on top of your library, meaning you're wasting your next draw or have to use another method to get the card into your hand.
2)
Hulk is still able to combo off, but not as effectively as before. That puts it exactly where a card should be--a powerful build-around that can be an effective finisher, provided you have the right tools.
As has been repeated to death, the problem with Flash-Hulk was that Flash made getting the right tools too easy (it both cheated into play and killed Hulk) AND it could be cast at instant speed, allowing you to win when everyone else was tapped out.
Hulk is still a scary card--don't get me wrong--but it's a scary but fair card whose existence increases diversity at higher levels of play.
Flash was the least-invasive, most effective method of fixing the format. Banning it weakened a devastating combo, without removing that option entirely.
3)
All those cards work exactly as they are written. Cards that get you another with the same name still work... they just "fail to find." Wishes can still be cast--but they have the same effect as one would expect in a format without a sideboard--they have nothing to fetch (remember, in official play, your "outside the game" is your sideboard; if you have no sideboard, you can't wish for anything). Battle of Wits can still be cast and resolve; you just never meet the condition to win with it. Etc. 100% of the cards you link work exactly as written; it's just how their written does not play nicely with the format.
What you propose is to to make a card not work as written--that's a huge problem. In fact, it violates what is literally the first of "Magic's Golden Rules": Rule 101.1.
April 25, 2020 1:44 a.m. Edited.
GhostChieftain says... #22
I disagree 100% with the assessment that tutorless games are more fun MagicalHacker. That is entirely up to personal preference, and I prefer to play combos because it is great fun to win via a crazy combo and being able to rely on it in any given game. A tutorless combo deck just as well not be played in 100 card singleton because naturally drawing into your combo will hardly ever happen
Imo the banlist can be cut in half regardless. If someone wants to win with Coalition Victory or Biorhythm then by all means they should be able to. Primeval Titan is just a solid value engine. And don't even get me started on Paradox Engine... that being said, I understand that some things are on the list because it effects a different portion of the edh player base than me and if they need it out of the format for the health of the format, then so be it as long as it doesn't blatantly poo on an entire playstyle like your proposed tutor change.
April 25, 2020 2:56 a.m.
Hey, preaching to the choir here! The banlist could just go away completely & if players cannot exhibit deck-building control & want to win the same way every time, then that is their problem to deal with. My playgroup knows how to self-regulate. I would be curious as to what constitutes a Crazy combo? from my experience they aren't all that crazy, zany, or interesting. If you have a bunch of win-now plays why not just distill down to the few most efficient ones & the details don't really matter at that point...
- ~"So do you want a turd sandwich or a turd sandwich with mustard? I'd go with the mustard, but still, it's a turd sandwich" ~ Cody Lundin
April 25, 2020 10:44 a.m.
Gleeock I legit clapped my hands while reading your comment.
In my play group we try to go for things we have not seen done yet and absolutely love crazy and zany. After all if someone in the group didn't smile or laugh then you didn't get a real "W". No disrespect to serous competitive players but our play group has gotten together for commander once or twice a week for almost 2 years now and we had to spice it up from the same old. for a while we were even doing 10 player Archvillian lol man talk about pressure.
April 25, 2020 1:05 p.m.
MagicalHackersays... rubix215 if you tutor for answers, then you could always just take out the tutors and add in more answers :)
Sorry I missed this earlier. I do play all 5 colors, but i favoritize gruul / jund so i have to get very creative with my answers most of which are unique combos and one of's so tutors are very helpful. For me its not as easy as just adding a couple more counter spells
April 25, 2020 1:20 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #26
Tutors are necessary for an entire archetype to function.
You didn't mention which archetype that is, but I'm assuming you are referring to combo. I completely disagree! I've built quite a few combos that win without worrying at all about whether or not the deck has access to combos (in fact, some times the decks are playing stuff like Mindlock Orb that restricts my ability to tutor as well). Here are three examples:
The Bloodhall Season 17 - Unesh, Criosphinx Sov...
The Bloodhall Season 25 - Sharuum the Hegemon
The Bloodhall Season 24 - Syr Carah, the Bold
That's on top of the deck I played in my stream last night, Nethroi Apex of Death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mlA0-agBDk
(And this is responding to GhostChieftain as well) Tutors aren't necessary for combos, at all. They are just necessary for the most mana efficient of combos (and having those around is why the higher the powerlevel you go, the more it kicks out the other archetypes). If we are worried about archetypes not being possible, then you would be arguing for nerfing combo since it is much more powerful that control, midrange, and especially aggro are nearly impossible to be viable.
Sure, you might find it more fun to win with the lack of consistency, but you should not ascribe that to every player.
Here's the problem... Knowing about game design gives insight about how fun is accomplished. I'm no expert, but I've made quite a number of games based on a few principles, one of which being "Gameplay experience repeating itself from game to game is one of the biggest killers of fun." In fact, this is exactly why Commander blew up in popularity in the first place: Going from 60-card decks with 4-ofs to 100-card decks with 1-ofs is a HUUUUGE drop in consistency, making games less repeating, and consequently more fun.
You also are treating tutors like there is no opportunity cost to using them--you have to burn mana to find your cards, and many of the best tutors put the card on top of your library, meaning you're wasting your next draw or have to use another method to get the card into your hand.
Well, then let's be honest about it, is the cost to search about 60 unique cards for one mana mechanically similar to searching about 15 unique cards for one mana? (Where did these numbers come from? There are about 60 1-ofs in a commander deck when you don't include lands and there are about 15 2-ofs, 3-ofs, and 4-ofs in a 60-card deck.) I think we can agree that they're not. In that way, tutors fall into the category of "Interact poorly with the format" quality of the banlist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for banning tutors, but that's only because I think there's a better way to fix the issue. Is it unprecedented? In application, yes, but the precedent for the reasoning is as old as the format itself.
What you propose is to to make a card not work as written--that's a huge problem. In fact, it violates what is literally the first of "Magic's Golden Rules": Rule 101.1.
So does the commander replacement rule. Because of that, casting a Murder on a commander doesn't cause it to die in almost all situations.
GhostChieftain In addition, your response to me exemplifies the principle of "loss aversion" in psychology, which can be summarized as "A loss of the same magnitude as a gain is felt by human brains to be much larger in magnitude." You are only looking at the change in terms of how it would affect your decks, but remember, it affects three times as many decks in your games: your opponents. No one complains about one of their opponents' decks being too inconsistent, but people are commonly infuriated playing against decks that can consistently fulfill their gameplan. Personally, I understand it's a part of the game currently, but I can also understand that it's an area of the game that is ripe for improvement.
The banlist could just go away completely & if players cannot exhibit deck-building control & want to win the same way every time, then that is their problem to deal with. My playgroup knows how to self-regulate.
You are missing a huge portion of the playerbase if you are only considering players with playgroups. Many players (myself included) play the game in such a way in that the majority of our games are with people with whom we have never played a game before. In my situation, I play with strangers on MTGO, but I have friends who play mostly on Discord and I have friends who play Commander mostly at side events.
Getting rid of the banlist because playgroups can deal with it means that people with no playgroups gets a huge problem, resulting in their probable exit for the game. Why? Just to make it so that playgroups decide on their own bans INSTEAD OF DECIDING THEIR OWN UNBANS? That's definitely a poor idea, not to mention how many people play with multiple playgroups. Are they just going to have some decks for one playgroup and other decks for the other playgroup? No, they'd just stop playing with one group of people.
rubix215 My favorite answers in Gruul are Force of Vigor, Nature's Claim, Beast Within, Return to Nature, Mogg Salvage, Chaos Warp, Abrade, and Harvest Pyre. If there any of those cards that you aren't playing, I would start of with trying a few of those! :)
Overall, I am really enjoying our discussions! Hopefully, I didn't hijack the thread, but time and time and time again I see problems that people are having issue, and to me it seems obvious that there is a single solution that fixes it all! On top of that, it doesn't actually make cards unplayable at the same time! What I'm suggestion would turn Demonic Tutor into a way better Anticipate, which makes it still hugely playable. It just takes away it's ability to find watchlist cards game after game after game.
April 25, 2020 1:56 p.m.
MagicalHacker The Commander Replacement Effect does not change how any cards function, so your example doesn't actually provide the precedent you think it does. It's no different from any other replacement effect, such as Rest in Peace or Regeneration.
I challenge you to find one example in the entire game where an operation of the rules overwrites what is printed on the card. I can tell you right now you will not be able to--the idea the cards control is so fundamental to the game that, again, it is literally the most preeminent of the game's "Golden Rules" (Golden Rules being a term Wizards uses, not me).
The rest of your post is anecdotal, focused on what you enjoy and looking at the viability of combo at your level of play. The simple fact remains--you neuter tutors and you drastically impact the ability of people to play combo at high levels of competitive play. You can't just change the rules because it suits one particular level of play--you have to consider everybody.
And, again, the argument against tutors is always "it goes against the spirit of the format by effectively allowing multiple copies of a card."
That argument ignores the opportunity cost of tutors--after all, you have to burn resources to get that one copy of your card. It ignores the fact that tutors require an additional level of analysis that can increase fun as you have to make snap decisions about what cards you'll likely need first (ex. do I Mystical Tutor for my Force of Will or my Dramatic Reversal?). It ignores the fact that, even at lower levels of play, tutors enable 3+ card janky combos that might be fun to pull off, but impossible without ways to assemble them.
Now, I do agree there should be better ways to answer tutors, just not through unnecessary, confusing changes to the game's core identity. Specifically, I think White should receive more Aven Mindcensor effects so you can Stax/hatebears away the tutors, including a legendary option so White can have this option in the Command Zone. Better, efficient anti-tutor effects improve the game on two fronts--making tutors more risky to use while also improving one of the worst colors in the format.
April 25, 2020 2:25 p.m.
MagicalHacker - my answer to unbans is: if several playgroups I'm in can figure it out: many doing so as individuals, then other players can be trusted to do so. Bad eggs will be bad eggs & broken will be broken. Those players will always find the arms race pinnacles anyway, those Individuals will always pubstomp & always present a problem for randoms regardless of banlists. Banlists don't stop the issue with randoms either. Pubstompers gonna' stomp! I don't know what is with such a complete Hard-on people have with bans vs no-bans as a solution. We don't decide bans or unbans we use social code, awareness & deckbuilding choices with some common sense (which admittedly, not everyone has). Only the low-hanging fruit should need big-daddy RC to tell them what to do, & this sets an opposing precedent to what the RC says they are going to do...& just banning cards lazily "for the health of the format" does not equate to the RC "doing a good job". It's talking out 2 sides of their mouths.
- rubix215 - You should play 5 player Pentagram some time... So good!!!
April 25, 2020 2:29 p.m.
Caerwyn or strong tutor punishers with upside so they are not just dead-drops or removal bait. Achem! - Looking at you Stranglehold, which would be great with some mild or easy condition upside... but is too often dead-drop, removed, then tutor occurs anyway...after removal
April 25, 2020 2:32 p.m.
MagicalHacker haha omg are your fingers OK after typing all that ? you go right ahead and hiijack away. im just glad to be socializing, and to be honest everyone is so focused on fishhulk that they ether don't care or don't notice that i am trying to warn them that the change in first hand probability has already resulted in much worse decks. turn 0 and turn 1 decks currently exist in commander and when they hit main stream we can expect more banned cards. But im ok with all of it because a banned list is more like a suggested do not use list when your dealing with an unsanctioned format.
As for your suggested cards. all of them are great and i do own them. i just like to do dumber more unexpected plays. like surprise Temur Battle Rage on a chump blocked Sunder Shaman Then after they had a moment to let that settle in Emergence Zone into a Mycosynth Lattice.
(not counting my competitive decks) i build to pull of those 1 in a million trick shot moves with little care of getting an actual "w" don't get me wrong winning is great and all. but post game banter about those amazing combo's being pulled of is just so much better.
April 25, 2020 2:46 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #31
Magical Hacker part of the things you quoted after tagging me have nothing to do with anything I have said. Not only do I play combos, but my opponents do as well. We enjoy the style of play. We don't want to play a 4 of format because we find commander much more interesting. So you are right, in the fact that the change would effect all those at my tables, but they wont want the change either. It would be viewed by the competitive side of the format as the antithesis of improvement.
April 25, 2020 3:04 p.m.
It's a philosophical difference that I've argued before: is overregulation & restriction truly a necessity (have we really tried much else)? Or can people use common-sense to figure these things out? Is authoritative/fascist rule-making "healthy-for-the-format", truly? Or have we simply jumped to banning as an easy de-facto response to perceived issues?... Regardless of what I think: the Rules committee seems content to be the Banning committee, and they will have to sleep in that bed that they've made.
April 25, 2020 3:12 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #33
The Commander Replacement Effect does not change how any cards function, so your example doesn't actually provide the precedent you think it does. It's no different from any other replacement effect, such as Rest in Peace or Regeneration.
Let's take a look:
- I use Murder on your commander to destroy your commander, meaning it gets put into the graveyard. Does it go to the graveyard? No, a replacement effect lets the effect be different.
- I cast Demonic Tutor to search my remaining 90 cards of my deck. Do I get to search? Yes, but not all of it. I only search 20, this time, also do to a replacement effect.
If we follow your line of thought, my proposed rules change actually breaks the golden rules less than the commander replacement rules.
The simple fact remains--you neuter tutors and you drastically impact the ability of people to play combo at high levels of competitive play.
If we don't neuter tutors, combo's increased power drastically impacts the ability of people to play midrange, control, AND aggro at high levels of competitive play. (Yes, there are some random decks that appear there, but calling it balanced is far from reality.)
That argument ignores the opportunity cost of tutors--after all, you have to burn resources to get that one copy of your card.
As I mentioned earlier, the math clearly shows that these cards are way undercosted for the format. Are there costs to tutoring? Yes, but basically no. If we look for the closest card to Demonic Tutor that's playable, we see Mastermind's Acquisition played in Lantern Control last year.
Let me ask you this: Do you think it's enough of a cost for a card to be half the cost (one fourth the cost if you're looking at Vampiric Tutor) for a card that provides four times as much consistency? Is there a cost to playing tutor? Yes, but laughably far away from a fair cost.
Now, I do agree there should be better ways to answer tutors, just not through unnecessary, confusing changes to the game's core identity.
This rule is no more complicated than Aven Mindcensor which you say is good in the very next sentence. On top of that, I've shown exactly why this rule change is completely in line WITH the game's core identity of inconsistent gameplay facilitated by deckbuilding restrictions.
... Huh, that just gave me an idea. What about instead restricting tutors with instead a deckbuilding restriction? "Decks cannot contain more than X number of tutors." Of course, the wording would have to be improved, but with the right wording, would this be a better proposed rule?
Gleeock Without explicit rules, you can never prove to people that they're breaking them. Imagine if driving laws were just "use common sense" rather than explicit rules against speeding, distracted driving, etc.! Having hard and fast rules are always better than having wishy-washy guidelines, BECAUSE of the people who are trying to play the strongest cards within rules. Having unclear boundaries means you have to first convince those individuals that they are doing something wrong in the first place.
GhostChieftain Sorry, I should have connected my response better. Your comment can be summarized as "I don't like this rule change, because I would be losing out on something I like" without mentioning how you felt about the game knowing that other people would be losing something that causes their decks to be the same every game you play against them. Hopefully, that puts a little more context to what I said :)
We don't want to play a 4 of format because we find commander much more interesting.
Imagine making cranking up the interestingness of the format up to 11!
April 25, 2020 3:28 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #34
It already is my dude. The change would upset all of the cEDH players.
April 25, 2020 3:30 p.m.
They're entirely different in terms of the scope of the replacement effect.
The Commander Replacement Effect is (a) necessary for the format to function and (b) limited such that it only does what is necessary. It is necessary as, without it, you would lose access to the most important card in your deck should it get hit with removal. It is limited, insofar as the effect only applies to one specific card in your deck.
Your change would (a) not be necessary--you can argue it might improve the game (an argument which is not ironclad), but there's no way you can say it is necessary--and (b) not limited in the slightest, hitting dozens of cards, including fetch lands and mediocre tutors, in addition to the arguably problematic ones.
Plus, your rule is arbitrary (any number could be used and supported with some kind of math) and creates a worse gameplay situation by slowing down play. After all, you now have to count out 20 cards (Mindcensor's 4 is still managable) whenever you tutor, adding another step to an already arduous process.
As for limiting the number of tutors, I do not think that is necessary for a format-wide rule. It's fine to do in house rules (something the RC actively encourages), but there's really no reason to do it for everyone.
April 25, 2020 3:44 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #36
It already is my dude. The change would upset all of the cEDH players.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what make cEDH fun the fact that it's the challenge of trying to build the strongest deck using the rules of commander? To me, that implies that the changes made in the format at large still provides the challenge for cEDH, even if what cEDH means changes.
Your change would (a) not be necessary--you can argue it might improve the game (an argument which is not ironclad), but there's no way you can say it is necessary--and (b) not limited in the slightest, hitting dozens of cards, including fetch lands and mediocre tutors, in addition to the arguably problematic ones.
Sure, but there are tons of existing rules that ALSO fall under the umbrella of unnecessary. Can commander be 60-card decks? Sure. What about 4-ofs? Totally reasonable. However, why are those rules continued to held in Commander? Because inconsistency improves gameplay. (Let me know if you think there's a better answer to that question.)
Plus, your rule is arbitrary (any number could be used and supported with some kind of math) and creates a worse gameplay situation by slowing down play. After all, you now have to count out 20 cards (Mindcensor's 4 is still managable) whenever you tutor, adding another step to an already arduous process.
You're missing out on what will absolutely be a huge repercussion of such a rule change. Many players will no longer see the top-played tutors as auto-playable, and so they will take them out. By take them out, fewer time in games will be used on tutoring.
Also, the fact that the number is a variable that can be changed is an advantage, not a disadvantage! Having a knob to tweak means we can perfectly balance the right number.
TypicalTimmy, that's a non-issue. "Any effect that can search your library for a nonland card is a tutor. Any effect that can search your library for a land card and puts it on the battlefield is ramp."
April 25, 2020 4:16 p.m.
MagicalHacker You present that like there isn't already an explicit rule framework. The framework (without bannings) is good enough. Overregulation leads to rules such as: "It is illegal to gamble with squirrels in your pants". It is hard to argue necessity when the alternatives have not been tried & knee-jerk bannings continue. I would compare this argument more to firearm regulation than I would traffic control laws.... Which is maybe why that Aussie previously hated my perspective in another similar argument :) ..... Overall, I think the publisher is correct, bannings threaten to strangle a free format. Maybe the bannings make the difference between a T0 standard vs. a T2 standard in the competitive apex of this format, which is still probably its own subformat, but that is its' own issue.
April 25, 2020 4:33 p.m.
People used to want to be unique and strived to be the best.
Nowdays when someone achieves greatness everyone just copies them and instead of inspiring to be greater they just force that person to be less.
April 25, 2020 4:37 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #39
It would still provide a challenge, however it would leave a bad taste in my mouth and I can guarantee I am not the only one. Potentially makes people just quit. To me it reads that the rule is made specifically to stop people from playing the way I and many others like to play. It also makes it so blue is even more solidly the best color because draw is the only way to get to your combo.
April 25, 2020 4:44 p.m.
MagicalHacker I disagree with you on the necessity of bannings to the format. My ultimate perception of "health" for this eternal format is ultimate freedom. However, I am less opinionated on your tutor replacement effect, I kindof like it.
Pervavita says... #2
Hulk was also unbanned just a few years ago and I remember people complaining about the Flash Hulk combo for longer then the new mulligan it has just become more predominant.
I am not a fan of a large ban list but I would much rather have the Mulligan rule reflect the same Mulligan rule as the rest of the game for no reason other then uniformity across formats. Yes EDH has it's own sets of rules but at some point there needs to not be that many differences and the Mulligan seams like one that isn't that large an issue.
April 24, 2020 1:25 p.m.