Banlist update, September 2021

[WWolfe]

Why not ban Golos only as the commander? Is it for the sake of semplicity and communication? (Is it not the same case for... Who was it?...Erayo?)

There use to be a "banned as commander" list but they did away with it.

[robort]

I don't normally speak out much on bans and what nots but I have to shake my head again for Sheldon really has to put the crack pipe down.

https://articles.starcitygames.com/select/commentary-on-the-commander-september-2021-quarterly-update/?_ga=2.159140666.1664873696.1631466611-289247199.1582396687&fbclid=IwAR3Ti8Ky0r0rN1KVfmwOI6n3pXDV4NF05f6erZ-spgO4IlbmgNS-LMGcJxI

I am just going to get into the who knows what he was smoking reasoning for the banning of Golos.

Starting here "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture."
Look beyond having fun? I am sorry but am I missing something to actually ask players to look beyond having fun.

Then " In my mind, the most important is that it’s too generically good" Is this included in the bigger picture being all about you Sheldon or doesn't the "Whole" commander community matter to you?

More "Where the first falling boulder leads to the avalanche is that it has a five-color identity, but it doesn’t cost WUBRG to cast.  With a five-color commander, you have no restriction on what you can play in your deck.  You get to pick from all the best spells legal in the format.  The price you generally pay for that is that your commander is more difficult to cast and your manabase can get kind of awkward.

Golos negates both of those issues by having no color requirements in its casting cost, and then helping you smooth out the manabase by virtue of simply casting it and having it enter the battlefield." So there are no other cards in this format that do such things as well? Are you really that blinded by your own selfish rightousness not to realize that there are other cards in this format?

You get to search for any land card, not just basic land.  If there were a five-mana noncreature artifact that did the same thing, it would definitely see play. You really need to look into and know your artifacts. They may not cost 5 mana but they do exactly what you are mentioning.

"Conversations about the danger of five-color commanders that don’t cost WUBRG started in earnest during my time in Studio X in late 2019.  I did my best to impress on my fellow designers the dangers such commanders posed to the format."
Still being selfish and self rightous again but do as I say not as I do correct? Again Quote "Look beyond your own enjoyment and see the bigger picture"

Abilities which cast spells for free are very good.  They’re also the kinds of things that you have to really keep an eye on.
Not if you are doing your thing and aiming to win the game 1st or just don't care because you are having fun just playing your own deck.

Even if you’re only using the ability once per turn cycle (most often on your own turn, since Golos doesn’t change when you can cast the spells), playing three things for seven mana is ridiculous value.  You’d normally pay six to nine mana in activated abilities just to draw those three cards. I don't know how in the life of me he comes up with 6-9 mana to draw 3 cards is absurd.

Its simple presence means that some other commanders don’t have a chance and that’s not a good circumstance. However "Some" other commanders have a chance and it is a great circumstance.

Golos is an easy default, so some of the exploration of unusual themes and deck styles gets lost. So some of the exploration of unusual themes and deck styles don't get lost.

When a commander leads players into just jamming the same cards into decks, we find it intensely problematic. Some commanders are linear you twit and have to have the same cards jammed into the deck.

Everything Bold is what Sheldon said and the rest is responded back to his responses. With all that said he flacid reasoning behind this ban completely shows how selfish, self centered, self rightous of a person he is.

[WizardSpartan]

Starting here "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture."

That alone is enough for me to lose any respect for Sheldon's decision-making process. EDH = casual format = fun is top priority ≠ ignore fun "for the bigger picture."

I never really thought Sheldon was as bad as people said, but I am more and more coming around on the whole "Sheldon bad" thing.

Even worse, where's the reasoning to unban Worldfire? I don't see how it fits into into individual fun (nobody playing against Worldfire is having fun) or "the bigger picture" (I don't even know what the metric is for that, but I don't see how Worldfire fits into it and Golos doesn't). This makes me think most of the process is just anecdotal/personal experience instead of a rubric-style decision-making process, as there seems to be little consistency in terms of goals of the RC.

I'm not personally against the ban/unban, but I am vehemently against the reasoning behind the ban/unban.

[robort]

I am like you Wizardspartan. I am not for or against the ban/unbanning it is just the reasoning behind them. These scream selfish, self centered, self righteous bologna that just makes no sense.

[WWolfe]

I am like you Wizardspartan. I am not for or against the ban/unbanning it is just the reasoning behind them. These scream selfish, self centered, self righteous bologna that just makes no sense.

I agree completely. The ban/unban themselves I'm indifferent on. The reasoning behind them boggles my mind. Once I saw the line "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture.", I quit reading my first time trying to read the article. Sheldon did a great job as a ambassador for the format when it was barely played and the RC as a whole is due credit for it growing into what it has became. However with that said, the more Sheldon speaks anymore the more I shake my head.

[Valmias]

I feel really bad for Golos players. I can totally see an argument for it being a problem, but I don't think Sheldon really made that argument. He just sort of listed things that he doesn't like about it personally. I'm guessing Golos got the ax before Korvold and Chulane not just because it's generically good, but because it speeds up the game too much for Sheldon. He's been pretty clear about not liking lots of ramp and fast mana because he has an idea of how long a commander game should go before things get serious (turns 7-8), and he's also been clear that bans are led by social reasons, not mechanical ones. I mean, he feels that Llanowar Elves is bad for the format, so he must hate Golos.

If he had articulated some of the specific feedback about what it's like to play against Golos (no one in my group plays one so I have no idea how its problematic nature presents), or listed some stats about how often people run into it in LGS games, then he could say, "look, Golos shows up in 30% of all games and is always the same, and we set our 'boring' threshold at 25% so let's mix it up a bit" or whatever. But instead he just explains how good Golos is, and, like, we know. The given reason is basically "You Golos players know what you did. Why don't you think of someone else for once?"

I'm pretty sure the guiding principle behind the banlist is an attempt to prune the format so that it plays as closely as possible to the earlier days of EDH that Sheldon (and, in fairness, a lot of other people) remembers fondly, with Sol Rings and big awkward creatures that could shine in a long-game format. And it's not a bad instinct to try to preserve the flavor that made the format popular. But it does conflict with the reality that new cards are being printed, and power creep is real. I don't envy Sheldon's position, but I do wish he wouldn't try to use his understanding of "what is fun" as though it was some kind of metric that we could all understand. Obviously, a lot of people find Golos fun.

I don't disagree with the ban, but I'll sit in sympathy with the Golos players who got this for a reason. The idea of looking beyond their own enjoyment to the big picture is really weird coming from the person who says that Sol Ring should be banned but it won't be because people like it (and then complains about fast mana ruining the format).

[jlutzxinc]

That last sentence really gets me @Valmias.  This person allegedly speaks for several people who have collective control of the Banlist.  If something should be banned, then they should ban it, ESPECIALLY if it's that ubiquitous.

[Valmias]

If something should be banned, then they should ban it, ESPECIALLY if it's that ubiquitous.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm not totally on the ban-Sol-Ring train, because my playgroup keeps things pretty laissez faire, but in principle if we have these criteria laid out for problem cards then Sol Ring absolutely qualifies. And if the goal actually is to slow down the game and enforce diversity, then banning Sol Ring seems like an obvious first step.

And I think that's the problem most people have with the Golos ban. The reasons given could apply to a large number of non-banned cards, and that sort of reveals the subjective nature of the RC's decision making process. And banning Golos is in furtherance of a goal that they clearly don't take seriously enough to ban the worst offenders, so... yeah. And then it's served with the implication that it's people who play Golos who are, I dunno, breaking the social contract by playing a card that is too generically good, when other cards that are too generically good are fine.

[The Golgari Guy]

Starting here "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture."

That alone is enough for me to lose any respect for Sheldon's decision-making process. EDH = casual format = fun is top priority ≠ ignore fun "for the bigger picture."

The way I interpreted that sentence, personally, is that one has to also look at the enjoyment of the other people in the pod. Which is something I totally agree with.

[WizardSpartan]

Starting here "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture."

That alone is enough for me to lose any respect for Sheldon's decision-making process. EDH = casual format = fun is top priority ≠ ignore fun "for the bigger picture."

The way I interpreted that sentence, personally, is that one has to also look at the enjoyment of the other people in the pod. Which is something I totally agree with.

Then he needed to rephrase if he meant that. I can see that side, but my initial interpretation was look beyond how much fun the card was to play and look at how "good" it is for the format/how it fits into the RC's idea of EDH.

[anjinsan]

While Golos makes sense, so does Tergrid and a few other problematic Commanders. I can't say Golos is the worst of them.

I would usually rather play vs Tergrid than Golos, honestly. Tergrid suggests a sort of staxxy way of playing, with lots of sac and discard, and that can be kind of oppressive and make the game all about her. However she has her own limitations; she's not five-colour like Golos, she doesn't have built-in card advantage (with possible mana cheating), and if you kill her, she doesn't leave land ramp behind.

I'm not sure that Golos is uniquely powerful... honestly I'm slightly surprised, but I think it's a fair point that he's easy value and lets you use all five colours without needing any of them to cast. It's interesting that they said Kenrith is not in the same league, because honestly he seems pretty similar to me, but I guess at least he doesn't tutor and ramp you a land when he enters.

Tatyova, Benthic Druid
Aesi, Tyrant of Gyre Strait
Chulane, Teller of Tales
Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Prosper, Tome-Bound
Tergrid, God of Fright
(insert a dozen other value-train commanders here)

Absurd value for simply playing the game as normal... That's fine.

But Golos is a problem that needs to be banned... ?

No, I don't buy it.  Golos supports dozens of different types of decks, and while strong, the "generic value" it offers doesn't seem especially egregious in the high-speed, hyper-value, UBG-dominated environment that WotC has increasingly pushed.

Absurd value for simply playing the game as normal... so, basically, Simic. And yeah, all of those cards are pretty annoying IMO, but I don't think any of those are worse than Golos. The Simic ones are IMO probably the worst, but at least they're restricted to two colours. Chulane is pretty much just a variation on that theme. Prosper doesn't really give you absurd value for playing as normal, he gives you a bit of value, and if you really want to take advantage of him you build a deck which is very much not normal (and IMO quite fun).

[robort]

Starting here "I’ll ask those players to look beyond their own enjoyment and attempt to see the bigger picture."

That alone is enough for me to lose any respect for Sheldon's decision-making process. EDH = casual format = fun is top priority ≠ ignore fun "for the bigger picture."

The way I interpreted that sentence, personally, is that one has to also look at the enjoyment of the other people in the pod. Which is something I totally agree with.

Rule 0 does exactly this where you can look into the enjoyment of other people in the pod

[robort]

A friend who also plays magic in my LGS made an interesting comment. It was something along the lines about Sheldon of course. He went on to say he would love to hear what the other RC members thoughts were on this banning. He also said something along the lines of it be nice to be a fly on the wall during such conversations. Basically saying it be nice to hear what is being said when they are discussing conversations such as this. Like having a live feed to where we could watch and listen to what is going on. I personally would like to know how the others felt and not just what Sheldon felt. It would give a clearer picture if indeed this is all about Sheldon or it is actually the RC as a whole

[anjinsan]

The way I interpreted that sentence, personally, is that one has to also look at the enjoyment of the other people in the pod. Which is something I totally agree with.

Rule 0 does exactly this where you can look into the enjoyment of other people in the pod

The ban article actually explains this reasoning (whether you agree with it or not) - Golos is fun to play (for a lot of people), but not fun to play against. In asking people to look beyond their own fun he's not saying not to have fun playing the game but that you liking to play Golos doesn't make it a fun card overall.

Rule 0 is rather stupid in competitive game with rules. If I have to introduce extra rules into a game to make it fun, then that game is not fun; my modified version of it may be, but it's still a rather complete failing of the game itself. What is actually fun is rather subjective, but it's up for the people responsible for the rules of that game to decide and if other people don't agree, they can play something else. After all, you are free to play a game with Golos if everyone else agrees - that's Rule 0 for you again.