cEDH ban speculations

[CleanBelwas]

So currently the RC are handling bans with the view that people should be able to go to a GP or a CommandFest or their LGS, sit down at a table with complete strangers and everyone should be able to have fun. They ban cards that they believe will detract from this scenario. That's why they have a ban list despite the lack of sanctioned competitive play. I agree that rule 0 does undermine this somewhat, I just don't see it as that much of an issue. I can definitely see credit to the argument that rule 0 makes the ban list pointless if you're just going to house rule it anyway.

I'm sure we can all agree that this method of banning based on fun presents its own issues. It is a far from perfect system.

Furthermore, while I do think this is a system that has the potential to work, I also think the RC are doing a poor job of implementing it.

Their biggest issue in my opinion is a lack of willingness to listen to the community as a whole. It seems that their ego regularly gets in the way. They seem to adapt a "We are the Rules Committee and we do what we want" kind of attitude.

cEDH exists, and ignoring it because it goes against there philosophy for the format seems very petulant to me. I get that they want to keep it casual, but I don't see an issue with listening to those who play less casually and assessing their arguments. In their recent ban announcement they stated that there were no cards of interest that they would be looking at (the quote is "In terms of cards, there were no consensus threats to players’ enjoyment and we’re not making any changes at this time"). This to me shows a lack of interaction with the community as a whole.

On the subject of Flash, I think a ban would be fine. It sees very little play in more casual circles and is largely ruining one aspect of the format. Banning it would appease a lot of people and annoy few. Having a combo that is near impossible to interact with and can consistently be played very early in the game takes a lot of the fun out. It violates their own philosophy for the format as much as it does the competitive diversity.

I also agree that a lot of the ban list could comfortably be unbanned.

Ultimately, I think that the way they are handling the ban list currently is a breeding ground for contradiction. There are so many cards on that list that are banned because they allow degenerate combos but so many still exist. The RC needs to go one way or another. There are still many two card, game ending combos that are incredibly easy to put together. Lab Man is still a ludicrously easy win. I think they need to be firmly in one camp or the other.

"What are the criteria for banning cards according to you people?
For me, it has to create a lot of outcry from casual players; it has to make gameplay uniform, boring, uninteresting, lock people out of the game, etc."

Personally I think Lab Man and it's variants fall in to this category and I've heard a small amount of noise around these (though not so much recently). I don't think they are ban worthy, but they do make for boring, repetitive game play.

[Morganator 2.0]

I'm sure we can all agree that this method of banning based on fun presents its own issues. It is a far from perfect system.

Furthermore, while I do think this is a system that has the potential to work, I also think the RC are doing a poor job of implementing it.

Their biggest issue in my opinion is a lack of willingness to listen to the community as a whole. It seems that their ego regularly gets in the way. They seem to adapt a "We are the Rules Committee and we do what we want" kind of attitude.

Perfect summary.

[WWolfe]

Well said CleanBelwas!

There's several cards currently on the banlist that I never heard anyone moan about at the time they were banned and there are cards that do somewhat similar things which are legal.

[Soren841]

They shouldn't be actively trying to "keep the format casual" just ban cards that are ACTUALLY oppressive (rant incoming on THAT) and let people play how THEY find it fun.

Now let's talk about data collection and bannings. How do you know a card is oppressive? When it's A) Dominating the meta by being a must-play (high share of the meta) or B) Has an extremely high winrate relative to the other decks. So obviously due to the nature of casual game -- A) Not optimal, so their card choices aren't really relevant to the discussion and B) you can't really collect data on friends sitting around the kitchen table -- you can ONLY collect relevant data from organized cEDH gameplay. Rant over before I give myself an aneurysm.

[CleanBelwas]

The thing is, they're just a bit lazy about it all.

They want their bans to be for the good of the format.

I see no reason why they can't achieve a balance between the various levels while maintaining their philosophy.

All it would take is an acknowledgement that cEDH exists and a bit of effort and mindfulness on the part of the RC. They don't need to ban exclusively for one end or the other, but consider it as a whole.

If a card is warping the meta at one end and does nothing at the other, consider banning it. Talk to people. Assess the ramifications. Don't just ignore it.

It wouldn't take much to do, and it wouldn't be a break in philosophy. It just takes some actual interaction with the community.

[Soren841]

The only cards I'd consider keeping banned for casual are like Worldfire

[Red_Wyrm]

It seems I am the only person with actual stuff to do during the day.

@Soren841

You're saying there needs to be a strictly enforced ban list for there to be competitive play. I agree with this. However, I think CleanBelwas said it, there is no competition for EDH. Therefore it is not competitive. Every competition I've participated in, even outside of Magic, has had a prize for the winner, and any with a worthwhile prize have an entry fee. This doesnt exist for EDH, and here I am combing cEDH and EDH into EDH.

If you and your playgroup want to play the most optimized and efficient strategies to win the quickest, go for it. Flash fits that description. Quick, well optimized and efficient. If you dont like it, talk to your playgroup. There is no one who is saying you have to abide by this ban list to play in this tournament because the tournaments dont exist except what 3rd parties develop.

TLDR; there has to be a competition for it to be competitive. With rewards and risk, usually entry fee. That doesnt exist for EDH in general.

@GolgariFTW

What makes something ban worthy? I assume we are talking EDH because in something like modern, the requirement is (roughly) it cant win before turn 4.

I want to say that it just needs to be unfun. The ban list shouldn't exist and that people should just self regulate. Dont play if you arent having fun. At the same time though, most people dont like stax. It isnt broken or overpowered. It is sort of like a puzzle to solve, but most people dont like not being able to untap their lands, etc. I also feel that if you hate playing against stax, then dont play against it. Itll make you a better player I think, but dont do it if you arent having fun. There will be people like morganator or myself that encourage every type of strategy, even MLD, and there will be people that wont sit at a table if sundering titan isnt banned. It let's people of similar goals within MTG to play together appropriately I think.

@Spinsane
Why did they HAVE to ban paradox engine? They didn't have to, and the argument you're trying to make can be easily countered by, run paradox engine if your playgroup is cool with it.

[Soren841]

If they didn't have to it shouldn't have been banned (hint: it shouldn't have). And there doesn't have to be a formal sanctioned competition or a prize for it to be competitive. The banlist should be based solely on competitive EDH data. I would strongly encourage all casual playgroups to track their own data. What strategies are oppressive and what card enables them the most?

[CleanBelwas]

So some of you may have already seen it, but Tolarian Community College posted a video with Ryan from Playing with Power discussing cEDH as a format, as well as many of the issues discussed in this thread.

Video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQcGDRlmYE

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the credibility of their arguments and reasoning, especially you guys who are active on the cEDH scene.

Do you think they did the format justice? Have your experiences been similar?

The highlight for me was a point the Prof made (paraphrased below):

"If you can ban Iona because of the unfun state it presents, then you can definitely justify a ban for Flash. Even though cEDH is a small part of the format, it still sees more players than people playing Iona. More players are currently being effected by Flash/Hulk than were ever being effected by Iona".

[Morganator 2.0]

It's an hour long video. I'll pass.

I will however comment on this:

The highlight for me was a point the Prof made (paraphrased below):

"If you can ban Iona because of the unfun state it presents, then you can definitely justify a ban for Flash. Even though cEDH is a small part of the format, it still sees more players than people playing Iona. More players are currently being effected by Flash/Hulk than were ever being effected by Iona".

I've never thought of this before. Most everyone glazed over Iona getting banned because no one really played Iona. But flash does see play in much larger numbers than Iona.

Truth is, there are a lot of cards that don't make sense on the banlist, based on the philosophy. The cards are banned/not banned because of what the rules committee wants, and not for any other justifiable reason.

[Red_Wyrm]

The part everyone cares about, flash hulk talk, starts at 26:00

[ApothecaryGeist]

So some of you may have already seen it, but Tolarian Community College posted a video with Ryan from Playing with Power discussing cEDH as a format, as well as many of the issues discussed in this thread.

Video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQcGDRlmYE

I do have to say, that if the people playing the top tier decks think that any particular card (right now, Flash) is can warp the environment, the RC should probably pay attention to that with respect to ban decisions.


I have a question for the cEDH players out there:


In this video, Ryan Street claims that cEDH decks should never be at the same table as casual decks.  He does state that most cEDH players looking to play their cEDH deck would not want to sit down at a casual table.  He does go on to say that it should never really happen.  Do you all agree with his sentiment?

[Soren841]

Of course we agree. Pub stomping isn't cEDH

[Varatius]

I have found that some cedh decks can sit down with casual decks without being to powerful. However that comes down to the fact that certain cedh decks just can't deal with board refills as well as casual decks being as cedh is more about the stack than the battlefield so there are less wraths.  It also comes down to how many cedh decks are at the table as well.  Obviously you have to factor in tech cards my buddy runs a sidisi self mill that I have teched my casual shitty I win with your stuff teneb deck to and now he rarely wins against it. 

However if you do not know what someone's casual deck is capable of you should never assume you cedh deck is fine to play without the table agreeing to you doing so.

[WWolfe]

I've never thought of this before. Most everyone glazed over Iona getting banned because no one really played Iona. But flash does see play in much larger numbers than Iona.

Truth is, there are a lot of cards that don't make sense on the banlist, based on the philosophy. The cards are banned/not banned because of what the rules committee wants, and not for any other justifiable reason.

This may be the best point of all.