Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Dec-05 9:04 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 280 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-03 2:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
troacctid wrote:
I am glad you brought up Trinisphere, because now it means I get to quote from the article where Aaron Forsythe explained the reasons for restricting it.
Quote:
I could repeat many of the paragraphs above [about the affinity bannings in Standard] with some of the words changed to cover the Vintage changes, but I think I'd rather summarize instead.

Trinisphere is a nasty card, no bones about it. It does ridiculous things in Vintage, especially combined with Mishra's Workshop. As I've said in a previous column, we almost restricted it before it was even released.

Now that it has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping combo decks in check, it also randomly destroys people on turn one, with little recourse other than Force of Will. And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun. The power level of the card is no jokes either, which is a big reason why I don't feel bad about its restriction.

Vintage, like the other formats with large card pools, always runs the risk of becoming non-interactive, meaning the games are little more than both players “goldfishing” to see who can win first. Trinisphere adds to that problem by literally preventing the opponent from playing spells. We don't want Magic to be about that, especially not that easily. If combo rears its head, we'll worry about it later. But for now, we want to people to play their cards. Really.

This pretty much sums up why I hate playing against people with Armageddon in their decks, especially those that do it "Just cause" or "To slow down that guy". There are a number of cards that while I'm not going to lead the charge for their banning in EDH, I would not be sad AT ALL if they were (Whorinclex and Gin-Gitaxis, Whore Auger are recent examples).

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-05 4:13 am 

Joined: 2011-Jun-30 3:41 pm
Age: Drake
Location: Germany
trevor wrote:
Did someone just ask me if Bone Shredder (or his 187 ilk) as well as Brittle Effigy (or any artifact that says "kill creatures for no color commitment") are better than unneededly fast, color specific 1 for 1s spells in EDH? If your meta REQUIRES you to run 1 cc removal just to keep up, go play vintage or build a better mana base. Your group obviously doesn't understand this format.

Nice strawman. In no way requires my group to play CMC1 removal and I didn't even imply this statement. And I cannot comprehend what spotremoval has to do with my manabase.

But, here's the thing about removal: It should always be cheaper than the threat in order to develop your own gamestate. For instance, I contemplated one of the two slots for spotremoval in Kresh the other day. The requirement was basically just that it had to be unconditional since Black is played in my group and I already had Shriekmaw in there. Also, instant speed would be nice. The two cards I came up with were:
- Terminate
- Wrecking Ball

Both kill the same creatures (I found regenerating to be a non-factor), but Wrecking Ball gives me the option to destroy a land (something which is fairly important in my meta). I still went with the Terminate just because of the difference in CMC. The spotremoval is getting important at around turn 4-7, when Prime Time and other stuff starts rolling around. If i play the Wrecking Ball, my turn at that point is most probably wasted because of CMC4. If I use the Terminate, I can still develop my board and that is the most important thing imo.

In the case of StP / PtE there is another bonus added: exiling is good in this format, that's why they are the premier removal.

TL;DR: Only cheap spotremoval is good spotremoval.



Also, you shouldn't judge the playskill/understanding of people you don't even know. It makes you look like an ass. I will give no comment on your claim that an Emrakul hit is not really bad, I think that statement speaks for itself :)

_________________
My EDH decks:
Rhys the Redeemed -Tokens^^ | Kresh the Bloodbraided -Rockstyle | The Mimeoplasm -straight Reanimator
Brion Stoutarm -Borosblade | Garza Zol -maximum Durdle
benched: Intet the Dreamer (I can't build the deck without going infinite...)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-05 1:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Oct-14 7:43 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
griD wrote:
But, here's the thing about removal: It should always be cheaper than the threat in order to develop your own gamestate.

Oh, I don't know. Phthisis is pretty brutal, and Terastodon and Woodfall Primus are some of the best Disenchant effects around.

Most of the time I'd rather pay the extra mana and get the 2-for-1. Card advantage is pretty important in multiplayer, and in a 40-life format, you can afford to inflate the mana curve a little.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-05 1:50 pm 

Joined: 2011-Jun-30 3:41 pm
Age: Drake
Location: Germany
I somehow knew Phtisis would come up. It's an interesting case because it scales with the opponents creatures and is amazing vs. something like Lord of Extinction or a huge-ass Omnath. Versus those kind of cards it's not even removal, it's an actual finisher so there is an upside to it. Still, you (or at least I) would never play a deck full of CMC7 removal as it is extremely lategame.

The elephant and the primus are hardly comparable because they are not simple 1:1 removal. And they develop your board so they are especially good. You could argue that a Bone Shredder also develops your board, but a 1/1 flyer does not go all the way in this format :)

_________________
My EDH decks:
Rhys the Redeemed -Tokens^^ | Kresh the Bloodbraided -Rockstyle | The Mimeoplasm -straight Reanimator
Brion Stoutarm -Borosblade | Garza Zol -maximum Durdle
benched: Intet the Dreamer (I can't build the deck without going infinite...)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-05 2:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Jan-02 10:45 am
Age: Drake
troacctid wrote:
Terastodon and Woodfall Primus are some of the best Disenchant effects around.


Yeah...... Terastodon takes out multiple threats, some of which probably have CMC's close to/higher than his, and the Primus can do it twice, as well as being a recursable. And they're both pretty decent sized creatures to add to that. Also, if you're gonna compare them to spot removal, then Terry is equivalent to three Beast Withins that can't hit creatures and Woody comes with Bramblecrush.

_________________
Rock is the best color combo. You have the best mana, best removal, double the best creatures, and your decks are usually fun to play and not super annoying to play against.

"The world would not be near the same if people like you and me didn't come up with ideas that seemed stupid at first and then went through with them"- one of my epic friends.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-06 9:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
5Color: First of all, I don't think anyone is calling for an "unban". Calling it a stupid ban to begin with, that's a different story. Not many people miss Em. But not many would miss Stasis if it were banned.

Second, I didn't say playing mana ramp means you don't understand this format. I said the opposite. Given that you're arguing against things I didn't say in the first 2 paragraphs, I'm having a hard time taking YOU seriously.

Sure is nice of your group to let you untap with (presumably) Gauntlet of Power, Caged Sun, or some combination of Mana Vault et al in play. No wonder Em kicked their asses. Sounds like that was Emrakul's fault. Certainly wasn't the fast mana, no sir.

"Man I'm pissed those kids burned my house down. There's nothing I can do now that my house is on fire!"
"Maybe you shouldn't have let them have that book of matches, when you could have easily taken it way from them."

And if you make the argument that, "I'll just counter any removal they throw at it," you will be /facepalm'ed, told to have fun living in a bubble, and ignored.

griD: So you don't understand what the casting cost of spot removal has to do with a mana base, and then in the very next paragraph compare the pros and cons of a 2 CMC and a 4 CMC removal spell? Is that really a hard concept to understand? "You mean, if I would have ramped, I could have had 4 mana instead of 2-3 this turn?" Also, Wrecking Ball is bad, and you should feel bad. At least when you were talking about StP I could understand that your opinions come from not quite getting over the cards that were good in tournament 1v1 formats. But really? Wrecking Ball?

I guess I'll just have to spell this next part out for you: hyper efficient removal isn't bad in this format. It's unnecessary. That's because this isn't a dueling format, and you have 40 life. In almost every case, if you were to spend 1 or 2 more mana, you would get a card that's better in more game states (notice that I said "more" and not "all").

Hinder vs Counterspell.
Wrath of God vs Hallowed Burial.
Armageddon vs Catastrophe.
Naturalize vs Krosan Grip.
Tormod's Crypt vs Nihil Spellbomb.

And when it comes to creature removal, there's any number of options where you could, at least, be drawing a card (if not more) out of the deal. And since, presumably, most EDH games aren't won in the first 4 turns, players can afford to run cards with more throughput. If you still don't get it, I'll stop arguing the point and let you duel it up with your Extended/Vintage deck in whatever bastardization of the format you and yours have decided to make it.

Also, StP and PtE are not "the premier removal" of EDH. Do you know what "tuck" spell is? If so, do you understand how those spells interact with a pretty critical game mechanic in comparison to exile, while still functioning as a form of graveyard control?

So you say I look like an ass immediately following a paragraph preceded by TL;DR? What's wrong with you?

Finally, to both of you, way to dodge the point I made about how one player at the table losing some lands doesn't mean the game is over for a) him, and and especially not for b) everyone else. It's like you people think, "Oh my God! Jimmy lost some of his lands! Well, guess the game's over for all of us."

Simply put, one person being crippled and killed by Em (your poor example 5Color, not mine) is still better than the board getting goldfished by "Cast Mind Over Matter. Dump some of my hand to untap mana. Bring Azami of the bench. You all lose." What I said is also WAY easier to do in the first 5 turns of the game than hard casting Emrakul.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-07 5:31 am 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2007-Jan-05 12:58 am
Age: Elder Dragon
700 words and only one point with any kind of backup, which was contradicted by the paragraph immediately before it. What the hell, trevor? Quit it.

You are far more worked up over the issue than anyone else at the moment. Please take a break from this thread.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-07 12:20 pm 

Joined: 2011-Jun-30 3:41 pm
Age: Drake
Location: Germany
trevor wrote:
griD: So you don't understand what the casting cost of spot removal has to do with a mana base, and then in the very next paragraph compare the pros and cons of a 2 CMC and a 4 CMC removal spell? Is that really a hard concept to understand? "You mean, if I would have ramped, I could have had 4 mana instead of 2-3 this turn?" Also, Wrecking Ball is bad, and you should feel bad. At least when you were talking about StP I could understand that your opinions come from not quite getting over the cards that were good in tournament 1v1 formats. But really? Wrecking Ball?


Clicky
CTRL+F: Wrecking Ball

Also, what Ban Ki-Moon said. It's pointless discussing with you, I'm out.

_________________
My EDH decks:
Rhys the Redeemed -Tokens^^ | Kresh the Bloodbraided -Rockstyle | The Mimeoplasm -straight Reanimator
Brion Stoutarm -Borosblade | Garza Zol -maximum Durdle
benched: Intet the Dreamer (I can't build the deck without going infinite...)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-07 4:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Aug-15 9:31 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
First of all, I'm in no way angry or worked up. I wholly enjoy debating points. But I have no problem at all going tit for tat with people who start slinging smack talk my way. To be clear, I hold no particular animosity towards anyone on these forums.

Ban Ki, the following were the points I made:

1) No one is calling for an unban. I don't feel this needs to be backed up. One can merely reread previous posts.
2) I didn't say playing mana ramp means you don't understand the format. I said the opposite. Again, one could merely reread, but I also backed this up later by pointing out how you can have more mana to cast more expensive spells in that "2 CMC vs 4 CMC" argument.
3) Tuck is better than exile in EDH. I then went on to point out how both serve as graveyard control, but one is better against commanders too.
4) One player losing some of their lands does not mean the game is over for everyone, or even for that player. Do I need to back that up or is it common sense? Ironically it's the point most glanced over by the opposition because there's no counter argument.
5) It's still easier to beat the whole table with via one card combos with one's general than to accelerate out Em and hope it goes the distance. I even cited an example of one of these combos.
6) Hyper efficient removal isn't always the best removal in slow formats. This paragraph was clearly backed up and, I presume, was the paragraph you thought I contradicted myself on.

And as far as contradicting myself is concerned, (this is aimed at griD's poor response) not EVERY card in the game that costs more mana is necessarily better. Paying double for creature kill, just so you can have the option of killing problematic lands, something you can EASILY accomplish by running a few Wasteland effects instead, makes that a bad card. By comparison, Mortify (which was also on Sheldon's list) gives you the option of killing Enchantments. That can't be accomplished with a tweak of your mana base. Do you see why one is better than the other? My solution to problematic lands DIDN'T REQUIRE ME TO DEVOTE A SPELL SLOT TOO IT.

Even if you pull the "5 color decks can't play colorless lands" argument (he runs Kor Haven), I can't even imagine how any 5 color would run Wrecking Ball over something like Acidic Slime. And that's only a few of the bad cards in that decklist you linked griD. You saw that Captured Sunlight was on Sheldon's list right? Kitchen Finks too. I hear Eternal Witness and Demonic Tutor are good cards, and easy to get. Oddly their missing from that list.

"But it was a list made by Sheldon. That means I MUST be right if I play cards off it."

I dare you to try defending that decklist as competitive. It's an example of playing different cards than the established top tier of cards SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S FUN. That's fine, and it's probably the reason he's disassembled so many decks. But it doesn't make the cards he played instead good cards.

If you have a problem with my long posts, feel free to not read them. TL;DR, remember? It's also an excellent way of defeating my arguments when you can't think of a retort: simply ignore the post.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case to BAN Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
AgePosted: 2012-Feb-07 7:49 pm 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2007-Jan-05 12:58 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I understand that you made a lot of points, the problem was that you only made any effort to support one of them. The rest were just assertions injected with sarcasm. In terms of tit for tat, you're responding to his tat with a font size 36 tit in comic sans. Those two things together are the problem, and it's neither entertaining nor helping this discussion.

I really don't mind long posts. I encourage them, because they're typically the most insightful and civil posts on the board. Unfortunately, yours was not! So, please take a break from this thread. Feel free to respond in a couple of days. If you'd like to respond to me directly, send me a pm. I'd like to get a pm from you, because you're a good poster! This thread has been a pretty good one so far, even though it's an 18 month old necro, and I don't want to lock it.

P.S. That decklist belongs to American_Kid, Sheldon just featured it, if it matters.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 280 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: