![]() Now that we have a definition of what we want out of Commander and what the original goals of the ban list were, how did we go wrong? Inconsistency.įor instance, take the category of efficient tutors. So ultimately, a strong ban list leads to some terms we all can agree on first before we develop other ideas like other terms of agreement such as ‘Let’s not play land destruction spells’. And we’re back to relying only on different definitions of fun. Otherwise, people show up with their Homarid deck and get smashed by the Yidris player that combos off on turn 4. However, the problem with a ‘social contract’ first, banlist second mentality is that you can’t have a playgroup without having some terms to agree upon first. Some would argue that this should be a ‘social contract’ more than a banlist. If everyone has a different definition of fun, then we need to define some other terms that we all can agree on. ![]() Fun is different for everyone, but that is the goal, at least I hope it is, for everyone that sits down to play a game of Commander. Others it might be comboing off and Exsanguinating everyone for 100 in one turn. It may be locking someone out of the game for 20 turns while they chip away at your life total with a Grizzly Bear. Defining fun is a loose term in a multiplayer format. However, I’d argue that the closest you can get to a general statement, which is true for any casual format, is this: for every player at the table to have fun. It’s really up to what you want out of it. However, it’s difficult to sum up in a single paragraph or even in a single article. This is a tough yet important question that needs answering. This is a good thing so long as the banlist evolves with it, keeping the goals and general purpose of the format in mind. ![]() However, as time goes on, with any format, cards rise to the top and a metagame develops. When the ban list was first drafted, the list was small and concise mostly because there weren’t many decks and card choices weren’t obvious yet. Too efficient of card draw, usually in the form of life for cards.Too efficient of mana denial, usually one-sided.Too efficient of tutor, usually directly into play.So I’ll do my best to sum it up from what I can tell from the original ban list. Beyond that though, I tried to find some of the original criteria for the original ban list, but I couldn’t find much in the old EDH forums. Where do we start? Obviously, we can’t include any ante, conspiracy, draft-matters or dexterity cards. So how do we level set a ban list that is so dysfunctional and contradictory? By starting over and getting back to the core of what it was intended to do. Single cards have been banned while similar, more powerful cards were left unbanned for years, sometimes forever. The inequality of arguments towards the ban list has been happening since the inception of the ban list though. The rationale of these bans have been increasingly ludicrous and contradictory. There’s no better evidence than the string of the latest bans (and no-bans). Worse than that it’s been abandoned completely, as of late. The current state of MTG Commander is in peril.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |