MAY 2023 QUARTERLY UPDATE

[Venedrex]

Also, from a non combo perspective, why do we want casual players having another tool to eliminate the fun singleton nature of the format. All tutors do is make games more stale, whether you grab a combo or just some bleh value engine or more casual win condition. Isn't one of the number one complaints about EDH how tutors are making games worse and people are actively trying to run less of them to make games more fun?

And before you say, it's a fun game, I don't think giving my opponent two of the four best cards in their deck is a fun game.

So why add another one?

I don't personally think this is the sort of card that casual players will even look to turn to, personally. It comes with a bit of a skill test on both sides and involves a level of brewing that most casual players are not really going to commit to; frankly, you don't run it unless you have specific lines you want to play, and by that merit it pretty much is only going to see play at like high power to cedh tables, I'd be very surprised to see it at a lower level, outside of pubstomping and we don't enable that. If casuals want this sort of effect, they already have it. And that's a great card in it's own right.

The thing about fun is it means different things to different people. Personally, I'd love it in the format to enable my Varina build to do more, because there's no way my wallet stretches to Intuition. It's the sort of card that would have a variety of applications, and yes, most of them are probably degenerate, but probably not all. Some people enjoy that, some people don't, as long as those don't mix we're all good, baby.

My personal thoughts are I'd love to see it unbanned for some of the same reasons you'd like it to stay banned. I think you've gotta give people the benefit of the doubt to use it respectfully. By which I mean don't bring a gun to a knife fight. Yes, it's strong, yes it will enable combos, but at this point keeping those out of the format is a fool's errand, and I don't think it's the sort of card that's really going to yuck anyone's yum. I know it's not a direct comparison, but in terms of power level, Protean Hulk has been around the last few years now, and that thing literally only combos. I don't see it at casual tables ever. I think this is a similar card in that you know exactly what you're doing with it, and if you're being irresponsible with it and making people miserable that's on the brewer, not the card.

This is all kind of irrelevant anyway, as far as I know this card isn't even on the radar to enter the format again.

Maybe so, I just suspect that everyone would throw it in. Protean Hulk isn't very useful if you don't combo. Gifts grabbing Black Market Connections and some other powerful casual card is fantastic. So I think every blue deck runs it, even if they don't plan on comboing with it, just like a lot of casual decks might run tutors or animate dead, even if they don't have a worldgorger dragon to go with it. IMHO.

Playing Protean Hulk and not combo is like painting a target on yourself while getting some big creatures. Gifts can be played just for generic value and it's dang good. Compare gifts to Chemister's Insight. Four mana for two cards (1 if you count the card you spent) vs (four mana for 1 card tutored not randomly drawn and whatever 2 cards in your bin is worth) No comparison.

[ISBPathfinder]

Ban Dockside you COWARDS!!

At one point in time I'd have agreed, and that time wasn't that long ago. But the card, in most cases, is actually relatively fairer than it seems at first blush.

At a casual level it's not exactly breaking open the coffers. Predominantly, you'll see some signets and talismans, sure, but there's a ton of dorks and land ramp because green is just a bigger part of that environment. As well as this, there are less avenues you can take to actually win on the spot, or ham up the ETB. There's not none, sure, but the chances of it going right off are fewer.

At the high end of the format people are looking to go off anyway. And @pokken is right, it punishes turbo decks hard for running Crypts, Vaults, Monoliths and Moxen. It's probably the best card in that side of the format, and in a weird way it sort of does a lot of work to keep things fairly balanced there. If it weren't there, we'd probably not have a raft of archetypes that are actually fairly interesting, and we'd almost certainly be in a place where Blue Farm and Grixis turbo decks are just truly dominating. It's not the determining factor, but it keeps fast decks in check by threatening to bust the game open in retaliation.

It's a weird place to be, and there's no doubt that the card is strong, but for all of it's lack of subtlety in design I actually think it balances mostly ok around the meta it gets played in.

I think you are understating the issue of dockside from a competative scene standpoint. There are so many things that involve looping it as well which are a problem. Anything that can clone or flicker once also turn into tempo boosts and there are other effects that can abuse artifacts outside of just using them as their treasure as intended that can further generate value. Things like Underworld Breach on top of all of these clones / flickers / sac outlets as well can then loop all of these problems again.

It isn't just that dockside is mana, he can also be the engine that pushes you through your entire deck. I can't tell you how many times degenerate decks have gone into a situation where they then 10x copy his effect and can win in any way they want from there.

[DirkGently]

Well, I wouldn't say I'm freaking out. Also insidious dreams requires you to discard cards and puts the cards on top of your library, which is far worse than putting them into your hand. Also, both of these cards are instant. Which means you do them on the end step and then win the game on your actual turn. So 11 mana is not really 11 when it is 4 on someone else's end step and seven on yours. Which isn't hard when you play any mana ramp.

If you think Insidious dreams is as good as Gifts Ungiven, I have a divination to trade you for a consecrated sphinx.

None of the differences you listed really matter very much if you're planning to combo out. So if that's your concern, I think it's invalid since cards like insidious dreams already fulfill the same function but isn't really used. If you think there's a different reason to be concerned, then let's talk about that instead.

I think it's really easy to catastrophize when the card isn't actually in the meta. So we look to existing cards that do similar things to determine if it's a problem.

Also, from a non combo perspective, why do we want casual players having another tool to eliminate the fun singleton nature of the format. All tutors do is make games more stale, whether you grab a combo or just some bleh value engine or more casual win condition. Isn't one of the number one complaints about EDH how tutors are making games worse and people are actively trying to run less of them to make games more fun?

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think people are simply wrong on this point. Variance can be fun, sure, but having a commander in the CZ is the polar opposite of variance and it's a huge part of the draw of the format. Some decks are more interesting with some variances reduced. Since you brought it up, Sorrow's Path Golos is a great example. The reason the deck used Golos, and the reason it uses a bunch of tutors without Golos, is because the deck requires SP, and other lands as well, to function. The game would not be more fun if most games I never had SP or never had world tree.

Many decks, having the commander is enough of a stable starting position that the rest of the cards being truly singleton is fun, and that's great. But I think people should be able to make the decision about what they, and their deck, want. Besides that, there are a million tutors in this game. Banning one of them doesn't really make a difference.

And before you say, it's a fun game, I don't think giving my opponent two of the four best cards in their deck is a fun game. And putting the two actual best cards in their deck into their graveyard also doesn't sound fun, because we all know that the graveyard is a second hand for many decks.

This really sounds like a meta problem. If your meta is balanced, one opponent getting the 3rd and 4th best cards in their deck should fall somewhere between a fun challenge and a nothingburger. People naturally draw into 2 of their 4 best cards all the time, without paying 4 or revealing them. If that doesn't sound like "a fun game" to you then it doesn't sound like your meta is fun for you.

So why add another one?

Besides there being basically as many tutors as you like already, gifts is a really interesting design. LSV himself once said it was the highest skill cap card in the game (or at least within whatever eternal format he was talking about).

Also, no offense, but saying meta problems like it is an insult

I wasn't saying it as an insult. Everyone has meta problems from time to time in this format, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But I do think it's clouding your judgment in this matter.

seems weird coming from a dude who has an ongoing storyline about how terrible his meta is. May I offer you a primer in finding playgroups in this trying time?

There are definitely places I can play that are closer to my skill/collection level, they're just further away. I'm on the tail end of a peninsula. But at this point, having played with the same guys for about a year, even if there was another higher skill group I'm not sure I'd want to switch because, y'know, these guys are my friends now.

I'm not telling you to leave your playgroup because I assume there are reasons why you're staying there beyond just the cards they're playing - as is true for me. Phelddagrif is a deck designed, in part, to remedy meta problems by lifting up the weak, and punishing those who crave only power. I offer it because it sounds like it might alleviate your problems.

Tell you what, I'll build your Pheldagriff deck, budget constraints abiding, if you document finding a playgroup that is on an even footing with your skills.

There are no men like me. Only me.
-Jamie Lannister (I would never say something so bold myself of course)

But seriously, I'm not trying to find a new group at this point for the aforementioned reasons. But I did spend a lot of well-documented time trying to find a way to build decks that didn't break the power level of the meta, because I do take meta balance seriously. But I think creative deckbuilding can solve the issue. In my case, I'd say that it has. And I think it can help you as well.

I'll make posts about building and playing it too. Also, I'll issue another challenge, let's house rule unban Gifts Ungiven in all our playgroups of everyone in this thread and report what happens. Let's test it. It only costs a couple quarters, let's give it a shot!

I'm happy for people to do this, but I do think it can create some false perceptions because a lot of people will be aiming to break it, whether to "prove" that it should stay banned, or just to test the limits of the card. If insidious dreams was on the banlist and got unbanned, I suspect people would do the same thing.

I don't think much harm can come from it, and if people want to give it a try I'd encourage them to. But I would caution against using the results as a strong indicator of anything in particular.

Maybe so, I just suspect that everyone would throw it in. Protean Hulk isn't very useful if you don't combo. Gifts grabbing Black Market Connections and some other powerful casual card is fantastic. So I think every blue deck runs it, even if they don't plan on comboing with it, just like a lot of casual decks might run tutors or animate dead, even if they don't have a worldgorger dragon to go with it. IMHO.

Playing Protean Hulk and not combo is like painting a target on yourself while getting some big creatures. Gifts can be played just for generic value and it's dang good. Compare gifts to Chemister's Insight. Four mana for two cards (1 if you count the card you spent) vs (four mana for 1 card tutored not randomly drawn and whatever 2 cards in your bin is worth) No comparison.

Comparing it to a jank draft uncommon (and really a VERY jank draft common when you're ignoring the jump start) is not exactly a relevant comparison. I'm sure it would get played, and probably a decent amount, but 4 mana to draw 2 good cards isn't that wild of a rate imo, especially when you don't have great control over which ones they'll be. Some grave decks can kinda not care, like Muldrotha, but that's a pretty significant setup cost typically.

[3drinks]

Oh look, Dirk is in an argument and this time it doesn't include me! *Grabs popcorn* 🤣🤣

[TheGildedGoose]

words

Lemme stop you right there. Gifts Ungiven is a card I love mind, body, and soul unconditionally. There is no argument you can use to convince me it should remain banned.

[toctheyounger]

Maybe so, I just suspect that everyone would throw it in. Protean Hulk isn't very useful if you don't combo. Gifts grabbing Black Market Connections and some other powerful casual card is fantastic. So I think every blue deck runs it, even if they don't plan on comboing with it, just like a lot of casual decks might run tutors or animate dead, even if they don't have a worldgorger dragon to go with it. IMHO.

I genuinely don't think it's a 'throw it in' sort of card. Not every deck wants 2 of the 4 best cards in the deck in the yard, not every deck wants to reveal game information unnecessarily, and not every deck has the setup to value from another player at the table making choices for you. It's a complex card that takes some skill to benefit from, in both brewing and play lines. Sure, you can totally pick Sevinne's Reclamation, Brain Freeze, Lion's Eye Diamond and Underworld Breach, but there's already Intuition piles that do the same thing, so I don't think we're letting the hounds of hell loose by any stretch. If new combo lines were to come out of it, that's great for the cedh community, that meta is really diversifying quite well, and I'm sure they'd welcome more diversity of lines. At a lower power level, yeah maybe, just maybe we get some gross stuff, but I think if someone whips this card out at a 6 or 7 table I'm probably giving them the stink eye in most cases anyway.

Many decks, having the commander is enough of a stable starting position that the rest of the cards being truly singleton is fun, and that's great. But I think people should be able to make the decision about what they, and their deck, want. Besides that, there are a million tutors in this game. Banning one of them doesn't really make a difference.

Totally agree. I don't think every deck should run tutors by any stretch, but I also think it's a net positive when any old schmuck can pick a random commander, decide what 'the thing' is, and with some level of reliability make it do 'the thing'. That's a delight for a brewer.

Besides there being basically as many tutors as you like already, gifts is a really interesting design. LSV himself once said it was the highest skill cap card in the game (or at least within whatever eternal format he was talking about).

I would probably agree. There aren't many cards that test your piloting skills as well. I really would just love the opportunity to play around with it and find out more about myself as a player.

I think you are understating the issue of dockside from a competative scene standpoint. There are so many things that involve looping it as well which are a problem. Anything that can clone or flicker once also turn into tempo boosts and there are other effects that can abuse artifacts outside of just using them as their treasure as intended that can further generate value. Things like Underworld Breach on top of all of these clones / flickers / sac outlets as well can then loop all of these problems again.

It isn't just that dockside is mana, he can also be the engine that pushes you through your entire deck. I can't tell you how many times degenerate decks have gone into a situation where they then 10x copy his effect and can win in any way they want from there.

Oh I'm well aware. There are lines in any r/x/x/x/x combination that'll loop it for value. But if not dockside, it'll be something else. The cat is out of the bag, and at the competitive level, why should we try to take combos off of players unless they're oppressing variation within the meta? Flash could literally go off turn one for you, turn zero for everyone else if you're on the play, and so people were mulling super aggressively to allow this, and depending on your seat order, to stop this. If you didn't have a Force of Will and a blue card to pitch before your first turn, you lose without playing a card. That is an inbred, stagnant meta and the ban was totally deserved. It just isn't there for Dockside, in fact it's the opposite. It's not just Blue Farm that runs it, it's Rocco, it's Thrasios Bruse, Krarkashima, Mad Farm, Ikra Jeska, Jeska Ishai, Kenrith, Najeela, on and on, from competitive decks to fringe. Not entirely single handedly, but close alongside Breach, it has brought red splashed decks into viability from relative obscurity at the top of the format. Yes, it's a ubiquitous card in that area, but that's been a good thing in my opinion.

At the lower levels, I'm definitely skeptical that it has a place, but you're also less likely to see it anyway. For price reasons partially, but also people are well aware that it does less, so it's not an auto include.

I get that it enables busted stuff, I just think that isn't the end of the world. Combos aren't inherently bad; much like your order at a restaurant, they just need to served at the right table. And as well as enabling busted stuff, that level of value enables people to build weird and wonderful decks that couldn't do 'the thing' otherwise. That's a win for the format to me. My only issue with dockside at present is it's price, I'd like to see that halve and then halve again.

[ISBPathfinder]

Oh I'm well aware. There are lines in any r/x/x/x/x combination that'll loop it for value. But if not dockside, it'll be something else. The cat is out of the bag, and at the competitive level, why should we try to take combos off of players unless they're oppressing variation within the meta? Flash could literally go off turn one for you, turn zero for everyone else if you're on the play, and so people were mulling super aggressively to allow this, and depending on your seat order, to stop this. If you didn't have a Force of Will and a blue card to pitch before your first turn, you lose without playing a card. That is an inbred, stagnant meta and the ban was totally deserved. It just isn't there for Dockside, in fact it's the opposite. It's not just Blue Farm that runs it, it's Rocco, it's Thrasios Bruse, Krarkashima, Mad Farm, Ikra Jeska, Jeska Ishai, Kenrith, Najeela, on and on, from competitive decks to fringe. Not entirely single handedly, but close alongside Breach, it has brought red splashed decks into viability from relative obscurity at the top of the format. Yes, it's a ubiquitous card in that area, but that's been a good thing in my opinion.

At the lower levels, I'm definitely skeptical that it has a place, but you're also less likely to see it anyway. For price reasons partially, but also people are well aware that it does less, so it's not an auto include.

I get that it enables busted stuff, I just think that isn't the end of the world. Combos aren't inherently bad; much like your order at a restaurant, they just need to served at the right table. And as well as enabling busted stuff, that level of value enables people to build weird and wonderful decks that couldn't do 'the thing' otherwise. That's a win for the format to me. My only issue with dockside at present is it's price, I'd like to see that halve and then halve again.

I don't know that I would say the cat is out of the bag. We have the capability to ban cards and while yes there will always be some other Ashnod's Altar level of card that breaks with literally everything I do think its important to look at how complex the interactions are and how good cards are in standalone settings.

I for one never had an issue with Flash, I literally never saw the card played not even once but I can tell you I have lost to Dockside and Thassa's dozens of times from different players and its literally horrible because those cards aren't even 2 card combos they are 1 card combos. For the record I have lost to T2 Thassa's Oracle and while its true that the setup for that is slightly more than a Flash combo I don't think its any different.

I also agree with you that low level Dockside is questionable if its even playable but if a card is essentially not played on the low end and breaks the game in half on the high end I would say that is a card that has no consequence of banning. I don't agree that we need to have wincons that bleed over to every deck that can run them. The problem with Dockside is that it has almost no downside to playing him out at any point. If your opponents aren't playing a competative enough deck then fine you get to win because they don't have the right tier of deck to make Dockside good but the rest of your deck combos off on them anyways. Dockside over performs when he is played against good decks and he doesn't need to be paired with anything to have a completely insane result. He is ramp, wincon, value engine, clone and flicker target. I don't think its remotely healthy how he is being played and the role he fills.

[pokken]

and breaks the game in half on the high end I would say that is a card that has no consequence of banning

I think at the mid-high level, Dockside is actually *good* in some ways since it discourages some of the most toxic play in the format (mana rock spam). I have punished a lot of metas with my mid-powered Feather deck by docksiding.

The going infinite with dockside dies to actual removal so I feel no sympathy for people dying to dockside.

Thassa's Oracle doesn't die to removal except counterspells, so it's different, but thankfully I almost never see that one myself.

[ISBPathfinder]

and breaks the game in half on the high end I would say that is a card that has no consequence of banning

I think at the mid-high level, Dockside is actually *good* in some ways since it discourages some of the most toxic play in the format (mana rock spam). I have punished a lot of metas with my mid-powered Feather deck by docksiding.

The going infinite with dockside dies to actual removal so I feel no sympathy for people dying to dockside.

Thassa's Oracle doesn't die to removal except counterspells, so it's different, but thankfully I almost never see that one myself.

Even when Dockside "dies to removal" it still did an ETB though is my issue and some forms of death don't matter to its combo. Beyond that it makes a ton of free mana so it makes it really degenerate in those combo decks that also pack counterspells themselves as it produces the mana to defend its own combo with.

I got so burned by Dockside I at one point built an Ouphe GW enchantress deck with every form of artifacts don't work effect in it. I just walked into counterspells and spot removal when I would get the relevant card and they combo off anyways. I have been burned a LOT by the high end of this game at this point.

[pokken]

Even when Dockside "dies to removal" it still did an ETB though is my issue and some forms of death don't matter to its combo. Beyond that it makes a ton of free mana so it makes it really degenerate in those combo decks that also pack counterspells themselves as it produces the mana to defend its own combo with.

The nice thing about dockside is it's super vulnerable to removal as it goes on the stack (you kill the Temur Sabertooth) and super vulnerable when its trigger goes on the stack, and so on. So I guess if your problem is you're running against decks that are trying to fast combo with dockside and free/cheap countermagic backup, like...maybe they should tone it down?

I will be fair, the best answer to Dockside Extortionist is often more dockside (clone, etc.) but I don't think it's at Primeval Titan briberying territory personally.

Personally my main answer to Dockside has been to not play so many damn enchantments and mana rocks, and play more global sweepers. Hour of Revelation makes Dockside Extortionist garbage pretty fast.

Also, your meta sounds...foul

[Venedrex]

Well, I wouldn't say I'm freaking out. Also insidious dreams requires you to discard cards and puts the cards on top of your library, which is far worse than putting them into your hand. Also, both of these cards are instant. Which means you do them on the end step and then win the game on your actual turn. So 11 mana is not really 11 when it is 4 on someone else's end step and seven on yours. Which isn't hard when you play any mana ramp.

If you think Insidious dreams is as good as Gifts Ungiven, I have a divination to trade you for a consecrated sphinx.

None of the differences you listed really matter very much if you're planning to combo out. So if that's your concern, I think it's invalid since cards like insidious dreams already fulfill the same function but isn't really used. If you think there's a different reason to be concerned, then let's talk about that instead.


I think it's really easy to catastrophize when the card isn't actually in the meta. So we look to existing cards that do similar things to determine if it's a problem.

Also, from a non combo perspective, why do we want casual players having another tool to eliminate the fun singleton nature of the format. All tutors do is make games more stale, whether you grab a combo or just some bleh value engine or more casual win condition. Isn't one of the number one complaints about EDH how tutors are making games worse and people are actively trying to run less of them to make games more fun?

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I think people are simply wrong on this point. Variance can be fun, sure, but having a commander in the CZ is the polar opposite of variance and it's a huge part of the draw of the format. Some decks are more interesting with some variances reduced. Since you brought it up, Sorrow's Path Golos is a great example. The reason the deck used Golos, and the reason it uses a bunch of tutors without Golos, is because the deck requires SP, and other lands as well, to function. The game would not be more fun if most games I never had SP or never had world tree.
OK, but yet the 10000 other Golos decks weren't making the game better so it got banned.

Many decks, having the commander is enough of a stable starting position that the rest of the cards being truly singleton is fun, and that's great. But I think people should be able to make the decision about what they, and their deck, want. Besides that, there are a million tutors in this game. Banning one of them doesn't really make a difference.

So if banning one doesn't make a difference, why do you want it unbanned so badly?

And before you say, it's a fun game, I don't think giving my opponent two of the four best cards in their deck is a fun game. And putting the two actual best cards in their deck into their graveyard also doesn't sound fun, because we all know that the graveyard is a second hand for many decks.

This really sounds like a meta problem. If your meta is balanced, one opponent getting the 3rd and 4th best cards in their deck should fall somewhere between a fun challenge and a nothingburger. People naturally draw into 2 of their 4 best cards all the time, without paying 4 or revealing them. If that doesn't sound like "a fun game" to you then it doesn't sound like your meta is fun for you.

So why add another one? Besides there being basically as many tutors as you like already, gifts is a really interesting design. LSV himself once said it was the highest skill cap card in the game (or at least within whatever eternal format he was talking about).

I think I'll let you answer this one:

@Venedrex I've listened to limited resources for a long time, since before LSV was the co-host. I've seen LSV play on stream, I've heard him talk about his thought process a lot. And honestly...he may be one of the best magic players, but he's just a guy. Outside of tournaments he's heavily prepped for, I don't think he plays at a level that's so different from what plenty of other people play at. Things like the thoughtseize play might seem totally crazy and unexpected when you're a spectator, but I'd bet that wasn't the first time that came up. Decent chance he got the idea from somewhere else (not that it would be surprising to come up with it himself, coin flip really). If you play a deck enough times those things are going to come up, and you can easily watch other people stream to improve at playing the deck without even playing it. Imo, once you've got a decent play skill, the most important factor is simply the time you put in.

A friend of mine made it to the pro tour a couple times. When we played, we were pretty evenly matched, but I think I beat him more often than not. When we did competitive tournaments together I generally did better than him. The main difference was that he was willing to get on a plane every few weeks to follow GPs. More than anything else, the difference between a good player and a pro player is, imo, simply a matter of time commitment. He cared enough to invest the time - I didn't. So it goes.

So I don't get that much thrill from watching the pros. I see an olympic high jumper catapult themselves into the air and I think "yeah, no way I could ever do that". Same for starcraft pros clicking so quickly I can't even follow what they're doing. I see a magic pro make a good play, I think "if I spent hundreds of hours grinding that deck on arena, I'm sure I could play it roughly as well - but I don't want to, because it's just not very fun." I mean, granted, I've probably spent 10,000 hours (20 years, 50 weeks a year, 10 hours a week sounds about right) playing/building/thinking about magic, whereas I spent one miserable middle school afternoon failing to jump over a pole, but still.

So which one is it? You are appealing to LSV for authority, but you didn't seem to have a particularly high opinion of him here. In fact, you made it out to be that his opinion doesn't matter much more than yours or mine.

Also, no offense, but saying meta problems like it is an insult

I wasn't saying it as an insult. Everyone has meta problems from time to time in this format, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But I do think it's clouding your judgment in this matter.

Isn't wanting this card unbanned so you can run it in Pheldagriff clouding your judgement?

seems weird coming from a dude who has an ongoing storyline about how terrible his meta is. May I offer you a primer in finding playgroups in this trying time?

There are definitely places I can play that are closer to my skill/collection level, they're just further away. I'm on the tail end of a peninsula. But at this point, having played with the same guys for about a year, even if there was another higher skill group I'm not sure I'd want to switch because, y'know, these guys are my friends now.
I'm not telling you to leave your playgroup because I assume there are reasons why you're staying there beyond just the cards they're playing - as is true for me. Phelddagrif is a deck designed, in part, to remedy meta problems by lifting up the weak, and punishing those who crave only power. I offer it because it sounds like it might alleviate your problems.

Great but I don't think this really applies to anything. Still might build the deck.

Tell you what, I'll build your Pheldagriff deck, budget constraints abiding, if you document finding a playgroup that is on an even footing with your skills.

There are no men like me. Only me.
-Jamie Lannister (I would never say something so bold myself of course)

Uh, OK.

But seriously, I'm not trying to find a new group at this point for the aforementioned reasons. But I did spend a lot of well-documented time trying to find a way to build decks that didn't break the power level of the meta, because I do take meta balance seriously. But I think creative deckbuilding can solve the issue. In my case, I'd say that it has. And I think it can help you as well.

I'm sure it could, if I had a bad meta or playgroup. But I don't because I only get to play MTG every once in a while at my lgs playing with randoms.

I'll make posts about building and playing it too. Also, I'll issue another challenge, let's house rule unban Gifts Ungiven in all our playgroups of everyone in this thread and report what happens. Let's test it. It only costs a couple quarters, let's give it a shot!

I'm happy for people to do this, but I do think it can create some false perceptions because a lot of people will be aiming to break it, whether to "prove" that it should stay banned, or just to test the limits of the card. If insidious dreams was on the banlist and got unbanned, I suspect people would do the same thing.

I don't think much harm can come from it, and if people want to give it a try I'd encourage them to. But I would caution against using the results as a strong indicator of anything in particular.

Maybe so, I just suspect that everyone would throw it in. Protean Hulk isn't very useful if you don't combo. Gifts grabbing Black Market Connections and some other powerful casual card is fantastic. So I think every blue deck runs it, even if they don't plan on comboing with it, just like a lot of casual decks might run tutors or animate dead, even if they don't have a worldgorger dragon to go with it. IMHO.

Playing Protean Hulk and not combo is like painting a target on yourself while getting some big creatures. Gifts can be played just for generic value and it's dang good. Compare gifts to Chemister's Insight. Four mana for two cards (1 if you count the card you spent) vs (four mana for 1 card tutored not randomly drawn and whatever 2 cards in your bin is worth) No comparison.

Comparing it to a jank draft uncommon (and really a VERY jank draft common when you're ignoring the jump start) is not exactly a relevant comparison. I'm sure it would get played, and probably a decent amount, but 4 mana to draw 2 good cards isn't that wild of a rate imo, especially when you don't have great control over which ones they'll be. Some grave decks can kinda not care, like Muldrotha, but that's a pretty significant setup cost typically.

OK lemme compare it to Fact or Fiction. It's better than fact or fiction. Are you gonna say FoF is a bad card?

Oh, and btw, Chemisters insight was in several competitive tournaments. But I agree it's not on the level of Gifts Ungiven. Still, not really draft chaff.

As passionate and shiny as your arguments are Dirk, IMHO they lack real substance. If you want to put your money where your mouth is and try out the card, be my guest. You know what's funny? I have a Talrand deck that would LOVE Gifts Ungiven. But I think it's a bad card for the format. Just my opinion. You think it would be good. That's fine. Agree to disagree.

[pokken]

Wanting gifts in ephara and Varina and basically all my blue decks forever is 100% clouding my judgment. I wanna gifts for loam and cabal coffers urborg and tranquil thicket so bad.

[DirkGently]

I can only speak for myself, but I find it much less comfortable to read text where every paragraph has been individually put into quotes.

So if banning one doesn't make a difference, why do you want it unbanned so badly?

Bit of a non-sequitur. Adding one more tutor doesn't make much impact on the overall consistency available in the format, but we're not talking about unbanning demonic tutor (in an alternate reality where it was banned). We're talking about adding another particularly unique tutor that can enable some interesting things that can't be enabled other ways and I do think there's value to that, barring a good reason to think otherwise.

I also value a just and concise banlist. If Giant Growth was on the banlist, would unbanning it change the format? Not really, no. But there's no reason to leave it on, so it should come off to reduce the complexity of the format and to minimize how arbitrary the banlist feels.

So which one is it? You are appealing to LSV for authority, but you didn't seem to have a particularly high opinion of him here. In fact, you made it out to be that his opinion doesn't matter much more than yours or mine.

Also a non-sequitur - that conversation was about the enjoyability of spectating pro magic, which I don't find very interesting, partly because it lacks the seemingly superhuman feats of pro starcraft or pole vaulting or whatever. That doesn't mean those players aren't authorities on competitive magic. Even if I could potentially become pro-caliber if I put in the time, I haven't put in the time. LSV has. Furthermore, he's played a lot with gifts ungiven in a competitive context, whereas I've played with it basically zero in any context. So he's definitely a far greater authority than I on this subject.

And that's just from my perspective - from the perspective of someone else, i.e. yourself, I'm just a dude who talks a lot moderate amount of smack on the internet. Nobody on here has actually sat down a table with me to judge if I'm any good. Whereas LSV is a pro player with a long and verifiable history of competitive wins. So when I'm making an argument for the benefit of demonstrating to someone else that my opinion is backed up by a reputable source, citing someone like LSV is about as good as it gets.

Isn't wanting this card unbanned so you can run it in Pheldagriff clouding your judgement?

Maybe a little, but honestly I rarely play Phelddagrif these days as my meta doesn't really need it. And while I would be happy to put it into there, the deck works fine without it. I haven't spent time arguing about gifts in years iirc. I don't typically get caught up on single cards. Believe me or not, I suppose, but I think my arguments stand up fine on their own.

Great but I don't think this really applies to anything. Still might build the deck. [...] I'm sure it could, if I had a bad meta or playgroup. But I don't because I only get to play MTG every once in a while at my lgs playing with randoms.

An unbalanced LGS is a great place to run Phelddagrif since it's much harder to resolve the situation with words. Let your fists do the talking.

OK lemme compare it to Fact or Fiction. It's better than fact or fiction. Are you gonna say FoF is a bad card?

In commander in 2023 I'd say it's mid. Though it looks like I'm outvoted on EDHrec since it's got a lot of inclusions. Idk how easy they are to compare, though, since gifts gives your opponent final choice whereas fof gives you final choice, plus there's 5 cards instead of 4. Obviously tutoring is much much stronger than just ripping off the top of the deck, and I do think gifts is stronger overall, but I think the comparison is pretty messy.

And I don't think fof, popular though it (apparently) is, is even close to problematic in the format. So even if you mathematically proved that gifts was stronger than fof, shrug?

As passionate and shiny as your arguments are Dirk, IMHO they lack real substance. If you want to put your money where your mouth is and try out the card, be my guest.

If I tried it, it would probably be in the context of Phelddagrif with loam engine. Loam + 2 cool lands + some answer that needs to happen ASAP, and then let someone who isn't about to get answered pick the cards I get. Which would be rad and I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

But, just like I said in the opposite direction, it wouldn't prove anything. Something like Limited Resources, if you put that in essentially any commander context, it's going to make the game horrific. But the power of gifts depends entirely on how you're using it, and it's hard to guess how the format at large would use it, which is the real question.

If Devastation was on the banlist it would be extremely easy to trial run it, and then declare "that card is miserable, obviously it needs to stay on the banlist". But of course the reality is that devastation is barely played by anyone and so, miserable though it may be, there's really no reason to ban it.

Or if Insidious Dreams was banned, it would be easy to declare that it was broken after tutoring up a combo win eot. Or use it to tutor up something boring and fair and declare that the card is totally fine. In the world where it's banned, it would be hard to know what to expect if it was unbanned.

Unfortunately that IS the world we live in for gifts. Personally I doubt it would be an issue, but there's really no way to know without a large-scale unbanning.

You know what's funny? I have a Talrand deck that would LOVE Gifts Ungiven. But I think it's a bad card for the format. Just my opinion. You think it would be good. That's fine. Agree to disagree.

Idk if I'd say "good" so much as "harmless". Which is what the vast majority of cards in the format are. The format is good because the format is good, individual cards don't really make much difference on their own unless they're doing harm to it. You could thanos snap 15,000+ cards from all memory and the format would be basically fine. The reason to unban it isn't because it's going to save the format, but because there's not really a good reason to keep it banned.

[Venedrex]

Bit of a non-sequitur. Adding one more tutor doesn't make much impact on the overall consistency available in the format, but we're not talking about unbanning demonic tutor (in an alternate reality where it was banned). We're talking about adding another particularly unique tutor that can enable some interesting things that can't be enabled other ways and I do think there's value to that, barring a good reason to think otherwise.

This point only works if you think Gifts gets played in a few decks and not a sizable chunk.

I also value a just and concise banlist. If Giant Growth was on the banlist, would unbanning it change the format? Not really, no. But there's no reason to leave it on, so it should come off to reduce the complexity of the format and to minimize how arbitrary the banlist feels.

Bit of a non-sequitur. In fact, not only does it not logically follow, it confuses me why you'd bring up such a card... unless you are just dancing around the issue. Giant Growth? Yes Giant Growth could be unbanned if it was banned. Because it shouldn't have been banned if it was. But Giant Growth is nothing like Gifts Ungiven. So.. what are you trying to say?

Also, why is there no reason to have it on? Because you said so? I don't see how this logically follows.

Also a non-sequitur - that conversation was about the enjoyability of spectating pro magic, which I don't find very interesting, partly because it lacks the seemingly superhuman feats of pro starcraft or pole vaulting or whatever. That doesn't mean those players aren't authorities on competitive magic. Even if I could potentially become pro-caliber if I put in the time, I haven't put in the time. LSV has. Furthermore, he's played a lot with gifts ungiven in a competitive context, whereas I've played with it basically zero in any context. So he's definitely a far greater authority than I on this subject.

I'm sorry sir, but it's your non-sequitur. The only thing that doesn't logically follow is the fact that you have a paragraph cutting LSV down to size and then expect me to value his opinion on a card. Even you can't wiggle out of this one. Also, Dirk, has LSV ever played Commander? He is an expert on 60 card 1v1 Magic, not on 4 player singleton, so his opinion doesn't seem that important here.

And that's just from my perspective - from the perspective of someone else, i.e. yourself, I'm just a dude who talks a lot moderate amount of smack on the internet. Nobody on here has actually sat down a table with me to judge if I'm any good. Whereas LSV is a pro player with a long and verifiable history of competitive wins. So when I'm making an argument for the benefit of demonstrating to someone else that my opinion is backed up by a reputable source, citing someone like LSV is about as good as it gets.

Again, I literally just quoted you saying competitive wins aren't that important and here you are saying they are. Which one is it?

If I tried it, it would probably be in the context of Phelddagrif with loam engine. Loam + 2 cool lands + some answer that needs to happen ASAP, and then let someone who isn't about to get answered pick the cards I get. Which would be rad and I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

But, just like I said in the opposite direction, it wouldn't prove anything. Something like Limited Resources, if you put that in essentially any commander context, it's going to make the game horrific. But the power of gifts depends entirely on how you're using it, and it's hard to guess how the format at large would use it, which is the real question.

Yes, that's a fair point. Neither of us know what would happen.

If Devastation was on the banlist it would be extremely easy to trial run it, and then declare "that card is miserable, obviously it needs to stay on the banlist". But of course the reality is that devastation is barely played by anyone and so, miserable though it may be, there's really no reason to ban it.



Or if Insidious Dreams was banned, it would be easy to declare that it was broken after tutoring up a combo win eot. Or use it to tutor up something boring and fair and declare that the card is totally fine. In the world where it's banned, it would be hard to know what to expect if it was unbanned.

Are you arguing that Gifts is OK because it's so miserable that it should be unbanned because no will play it? Uh, sure?

Unfortunately that IS the world we live in for gifts. Personally I doubt it would be an issue, but there's really no way to know without a large-scale unbanning.

Maybe a little, but honestly I rarely play Phelddagrif these days as my meta doesn't really need it. And while I would be happy to put it into there, the deck works fine without it. I haven't spent time arguing about gifts in years iirc. I don't typically get caught up on single cards. Believe me or not, I suppose, but I think my arguments stand up fine on their own.

An unbalanced LGS is a great place to run Phelddagrif since it's much harder to resolve the situation with words. Let your fists do the talking.

In commander in 2023 I'd say it's mid. Though it looks like I'm outvoted on EDHrec since it's got a lot of inclusions. Idk how easy they are to compare, though, since gifts gives your opponent final choice whereas fof gives you final choice, plus there's 5 cards instead of 4. Obviously tutoring is much much stronger than just ripping off the top of the deck, and I do think gifts is stronger overall, but I think the comparison is pretty messy.

And I don't think fof, popular though it (apparently) is, is even close to problematic in the format. So even if you mathematically proved that gifts was stronger than fof, shrug?

f I tried it, it would probably be in the context of Phelddagrif with loam engine. Loam + 2 cool lands + some answer that needs to happen ASAP, and then let someone who isn't about to get answered pick the cards I get. Which would be rad and I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

But, just like I said in the opposite direction, it wouldn't prove anything. Something like Limited Resources, if you put that in essentially any commander context, it's going to make the game horrific. But the power of gifts depends entirely on how you're using it, and it's hard to guess how the format at large would use it, which is the real question.

If Devastation was on the banlist it would be extremely easy to trial run it, and then declare "that card is miserable, obviously it needs to stay on the banlist". But of course the reality is that devastation is barely played by anyone and so, miserable though it may be, there's really no reason to ban it.

Or if Insidious Dreams was banned, it would be easy to declare that it was broken after tutoring up a combo win eot. Or use it to tutor up something boring and fair and declare that the card is totally fine. In the world where it's banned, it would be hard to know what to expect if it was unbanned.

Unfortunately that IS the world we live in for gifts. Personally I doubt it would be an issue, but there's really no way to know without a large-scale unbanning.

Idk if I'd say "good" so much as "harmless". Which is what the vast majority of cards in the format are. The format is good because the format is good, individual cards don't really make much difference on their own unless they're doing harm to it. You could thanos snap 15,000+ cards from all memory and the format would be basically fine. The reason to unban it isn't because it's going to save the format, but because there's not really a good reason to keep it banned.

And here we have the crux of the issue. I believe (emphasis on believe, it's my opinion, not fact) that Gifts would become a staple of the format in a bad way. You think it wouldn't.

Neither of us has actual proof so, let's leave it at that. Dirk, I appreciate your tenacity, I really do. But while you may consider yourself an unstoppable force, I'm a bloody immovable object. By all means, let's not both wear ourselves out arguing the subjective.

I mean, something, something we can go around and around for weeks if we wanted to. But I don't really want to. Heck I'll give you a burnt emoticon for your trouble. Just please multi quoting drains my soul.

Why don't we put it up for a vote. You can even have final arguments. Since this seems to be a pro-gifts forum, lets just have a poll, and then you can formally declare victory when everyone votes that your stance is the correct one. Just make this endless merry go round stop lol.

I will happily crown you the the champion. Lol so much for immovable object. Ah, I wasn't much of one after all. Why am typing this at midnight. I regret my life choices.

As promised, some actual data via democracy to back things up. Enjoy the win Dirk.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=131678&view=unread#unread

[DirkGently]

This point only works if you think Gifts gets played in a few decks and not a sizable chunk.

Sorry, not sure how you mean. I do think gifts probably gets played in a significant number of decks if unbanned, but I don't think that's a valid criteria to ban it.

Bit of a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't. The point I was illustrating is that a card doesn't need to prove that it impacts the format in a positive way to remove it from the banlist. Most cards are essentially neutral for the format. Many cards are negative for the format but not so much so that they get banned.

Giant growth getting banned would not negatively impact the format outside of making the banlist longer and more confusing - that's reason enough that it shouldn't be banned, or should be removed if it was already banned. The same logic applies to gifts - obviously gifts is more likely to have a negative impact on the format, but I would still say the likelihood is low enough that it should be removed. Giant growth is just an extreme example to prove my broader point.

Also, why is there no reason to have it on? Because you said so? I don't see how this logically follows.

I can't prove that the card will not have a negative impact on the format. That would be impossible.

You could argue that the onus is on me to demonstrate a reason why the format should change, but I think that logic essentially makes it impossible to ever unban a card, especially one that has been on the banlist as long as gifts. I can't prove a negative. Personally I think the onus is to demonstrate why the card needs to remain banned, because in the absence of a good reason to keep a card banned, the default state should be legality. So far the only justification you've made is that it can eot double-tutor for a combo win, but as I illustrated, that's not a unique feature of the card and it's not currently a problem with other cards. Your example also focuses on a cEDH context, which isn't a context that the banlist caters to. So it's doubly irrelevant imo.

Bring me better reasons and we'll see if I can keep shooting them down.

I'm sorry sir, but it's your non-sequitur. The only thing that doesn't logically follow is the fact that you have a paragraph cutting LSV down to size and then expect me to value his opinion on a card.

I still respect his opinion, and nothing I've said contradicts that. I listen to LR for a reason. I just don't think he's a god. More like a big brother-tier authority (sibling, not 1984, to be clear).

I've read the previous post of mine you quoted several times, and I'm not sure how your takeaway from that is "Dirk things LSV's opinions about magic are invalid". My only point was that, if I'm going to spectate something, I'd rather spectate something that's wildly outside my capabilities instead of slightly past them. LSV is certainly a better magic player than I, and a better judge of high-level magic skill. It's just that the gulf between LSV and me vis a vis magic, is a lot less than the gulf between me and Michael Phelps vis a vis swimming. So swimming is more fun for me to watch personally.

Even you can't wiggle out of this one. Also, Dirk, has LSV ever played Commander? He is an expert on 60 card 1v1 Magic, not on 4 player singleton, so his opinion doesn't seem that important here.

I don't see why the format being played would change the skill cap of the card in any significant way. LSV didn't say the card was unproblematic in commander, he said it had a high skill cap. Do you think LSV wouldn't have a valid opinion on that topic just because he (maybe) doesn't play commander?

Again, I literally just quoted you saying competitive wins aren't that important and here you are saying they are. Which one is it?

All I can see is me saying they aren't interesting to me to watch. Give me a more precise quote if you think you've got me, but I don't see anywhere in that post that I say what you're claiming.

(Also LSV plays primarily limited, which is the best biathlon of building and playing in terms of competitive magic, so my disliking of competitive constructed doesn't even really apply to LSV.)

Are you arguing that Gifts is OK because it's so miserable that it should be unbanned because no will play it? Uh, sure?

No, my point is that arguing what a card MIGHT do to the format is a far cry from what it will ACTUALLY do.

It's very easy to fearmonger about what a card can theoretically do to the format, but most problems sort themselves out. Most cards that are miserable don't see much play. Most cards that can be run in a fair way will get used in a fair way. Tryhards will probably play gifts in a way to break it, just like every cEDH combo deck in history already runs a dozen other tutors, but that doesn't mean we should stop everyone from playing it in fair ways.

And here we have the crux of the issue. I believe (emphasis on believe, it's my opinion, not fact) that Gifts would become a staple of the format in a bad way. You think it wouldn't.

Neither of us has actual proof so, let's leave it at that.

That is a very convenient position to take when having your way means not doing anything.

Dirk, I appreciate your tenacity, I really do. But while you may consider yourself an unstoppable force, I'm a bloody immovable object. By all means, let's not both wear ourselves out arguing the subjective.

I mean, something, something we can go around and around for weeks if we wanted to. But I don't really want to. Heck I'll give you a burnt emoticon for your trouble. Just please multi quoting drains my soul.

Why don't we put it up for a vote. You can even have final arguments. Since this seems to be a pro-gifts forum, lets just have a poll, and then you can formally declare victory when everyone votes that your stance is the correct one. Just make this endless merry go round stop lol.

I will happily crown you the the champion. Lol so much for immovable object. Ah, I wasn't much of one after all. Why am typing this at midnight. I regret my life choices.

As promised, some actual data via democracy to back things up. Enjoy the win Dirk.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=131678&view=unread#unread

I don't believe in democracy when it comes to format maintenance. Otherwise I'd have to kowtow to the return of BaaC and I WILL RIP MY BLEEDING HEART FROM MY CHEST BEFORE I EVER - EVER - BACK DOWN ON THAT.

AND ALSO COMPANION

But seriously, I think experts are better than public rule for the minutae of the format, especially as we're increasingly overrun with more competitive players. And afaik we don't have the ear of the RC in any meaningful sense. There was never an ending to this conversation where anything actually changed, and that was never really the point. We can do a poll (I guess we ARE doing a poll) but it doesn't matter to me either way. I think gifts should be unbanned because I don't think there's a good reason for it to be banned. And I'll argue about it because I enjoy arguing. That's pretty much all there is to it. I'm not looking for victory, I'm just having some fun.

[pokken]

And here we have the crux of the issue. I believe (emphasis on believe, it's my opinion, not fact) that Gifts would become a staple of the format in a bad way. You think it wouldn't.

I think Gifts Ungiven would 100% become a format staple; but it would do so in a largely inconsequential way;

1) it's not really strong enough to play in competitive decks that have black, and the best decks in competitive all have black. ergo, it will improve diversity in the competitive format.

2) it's not really stronger than Intuition already is, and Intuition is not really a blight on the format; part of that is its cost, but it wasn't a blight when it cost $15 either.

3) It has a lot of fun casual appeal of giftsing for value engines and reanimator packages. It's a *smart* card that's fun to play. The best deck it ever enabled was UW Tron, which was an absolute gold mine of fun, possibly the most fun control deck ever designed in the game imho. The deck just had so much *tech*.

4) it provides a low cost alternative to Intuition which is super nice (yay)


Here's the bottom line: The game is already insanely busted. It gets more and more busted every FIRE set. Vampiric Tutor is *significantly more problematic* than Gifts Ungiven will ever be and it's not getting banned. There is negative chance that Gifts does anything but let me play more stupid loam decks. Release the kraken!

[3drinks]

Even when Dockside "dies to removal" it still did an ETB though is my issue and some forms of death don't matter to its combo. Beyond that it makes a ton of free mana so it makes it really degenerate in those combo decks that also pack counterspells themselves as it produces the mana to defend its own combo with.

The nice thing about dockside is it's super vulnerable to removal as it goes on the stack (you kill the Temur Sabertooth) and super vulnerable when its trigger goes on the stack, and so on. So I guess if your problem is you're running against decks that are trying to fast combo with dockside and free/cheap countermagic backup, like...maybe they should tone it down?

I will be fair, the best answer to Dockside Extortionist is often more dockside (clone, etc.) but I don't think it's at Primeval Titan briberying territory personally.

Personally my main answer to Dockside has been to not play so many damn enchantments and mana rocks, and play more global sweepers. Hour of Revelation makes Dockside Extortionist garbage pretty fast.

Also, your meta sounds...foul

I envy this. I can't ever get dockside to pop off for more than ~1 1/2 treasures in any given game. Most expensive piece of binder rot I own, dockside is. I hate how this card is just assumed to win on the spot by turning 1r into 10+ when I've never gotten to even sniff let alone see that. In fact I'm usually the one with the artifacts than anyone else

[ISBPathfinder]

The nice thing about dockside is it's super vulnerable to removal as it goes on the stack (you kill the Temur Sabertooth) and super vulnerable when its trigger goes on the stack, and so on. So I guess if your problem is you're running against decks that are trying to fast combo with dockside and free/cheap countermagic backup, like...maybe they should tone it down?

I will be fair, the best answer to Dockside Extortionist is often more dockside (clone, etc.) but I don't think it's at Primeval Titan briberying territory personally.

Personally my main answer to Dockside has been to not play so many damn enchantments and mana rocks, and play more global sweepers. Hour of Revelation makes Dockside Extortionist garbage pretty fast.

Also, your meta sounds...foul

Its true you could answer dockside then but then you aren't even really 1 for 1ing in a trade as they get the ETB and that doesn't rule them out of abusing via rez.

My meta is horrible. Its a mix between super evil cEDH decks and way too casual. It makes it so I am either having a problem with how tuned my decks are or I am not even in the right league to play. I won't lie that the cEDH stuff has gotten to me to the point that I barely play anymore and have considered selling because I don't really have metas left that I enjoy playing in. I had to move about a year ago and haven't found anywhere that necessarily hits where I want on the comp level.

[3drinks]

My meta is horrible. Its a mix between super evil cEDH decks and way too casual. It makes it so I am either having a problem with how tuned my decks are or I am not even in the right league to play. I won't lie that the cEDH stuff has gotten to me to the point that I barely play anymore and have considered selling because I don't really have metas left that I enjoy playing in. I had to move about a year ago and haven't found anywhere that necessarily hits where I want on the comp level.

.......are you me?

[pokken]

My meta is horrible. Its a mix between super evil cEDH decks and way too casual. It makes it so I am either having a problem with how tuned my decks are or I am not even in the right league to play. I won't lie that the cEDH stuff has gotten to me to the point that I barely play anymore and have considered selling because I don't really have metas left that I enjoy playing in. I had to move about a year ago and haven't found anywhere that necessarily hits where I want on the comp level.

oof. Yeah that is hard. I am really tired of the cEDH takeover myself; I'm seeing that ethos creep into people's budget decks too. Ran into a dude with a super cheap budget deck just chock full of combos the other day and I'm like dude why are you Mindcrank'ing I'm playin my $50 oketra deck, settle down.

I am pretty sure that commander ends up CEDH as the primary mode inside of 5 years. Kinda bums me out.

Only real solution I've found over a longer scale is to have a group

[TheAmericanSpirit]

My meta is horrible. Its a mix between super evil cEDH decks and way too casual. It makes it so I am either having a problem with how tuned my decks are or I am not even in the right league to play. I won't lie that the cEDH stuff has gotten to me to the point that I barely play anymore and have considered selling because I don't really have metas left that I enjoy playing in. I had to move about a year ago and haven't found anywhere that necessarily hits where I want on the comp level.

oof. Yeah that is hard. I am really tired of the cEDH takeover myself; I'm seeing that ethos creep into people's budget decks too. Ran into a dude with a super cheap budget deck just chock full of combos the other day and I'm like dude why are you Mindcrank'ing I'm playin my $50 oketra deck, settle down.

I am pretty sure that commander ends up CEDH as the primary mode inside of 5 years. Kinda bums me out.

Only real solution I've found over a longer scale is to have a group

I think it'll balance out in time. cEDH is a pretty crappy competitive format, and while it's hot now, I figure eventually the truly competitive among the playerbase will eventually find it trite and migrate back to actually balanced competitive experiences (an end to which WotC has openly dedicated a huge amount of effort). Sure, they'll leave a lot of damage on their way out by quickening the format and encouraging netdecking to an unprecedented degree, but over time I think things will settle and EDH will by and large return to a much more casual homeostasis as it regains its place as a rejection of the competitive ethos.

[pokken]

I think it'll balance out in time. cEDH is a pretty crappy competitive format, and while it's hot now, I figure eventually the truly competitive among the playerbase will eventually find it trite and migrate back to actually balanced competitive experiences (an end to which WotC has openly dedicated a huge amount of effort). Sure, they'll leave a lot of damage on their way out by quickening the format and encouraging netdecking to an unprecedented degree, but over time I think things will settle and EDH will by and large return to a much more casual homeostasis as it regains its place as a rejection of the competitive ethos.

I hope so, but I think if this happens you'll end up with the "norm" being much more powerfully tuned decks than "casuals" play today; more along the lines of what I'd considered high powered? It seems like WOTC generally builds for the "ramp real hard and drop stupid bombs and win the game on turn 6" crowd.

Hope you're right though, for sure

[RedCheese]

Glad that im not alone on the fact of CEDH been an issue in hurting casual format. Still think both should be seperated with different banlists.

kinda off topic tough. So i still dislike Dockside and Oracle and would love them to bite za dusto. For unbannings i don't know. Maybe recurring Nightmare would actually be fine sicne theres so much graveyard hate these days. Prime Time i think is still too busted to come out.

[duducrash]

Glad that im not alone on the fact of CEDH been an issue in hurting casual format. Still think both should be seperated with different banlists.

Yeah, I feel like recently 1/3 of the pods I find are more causal than they should be, frowing upon removal or any tax effects

1/3 wants to win on t3

And the other 1/3 is composed of pods where this 2 are playing together

[pokken]

And the other 1/3 is composed of pods where this 2 are playing together
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Ships passing in the night problem