How do you go about knowing if something is good or not?

I typically think being in a board state with 5+ mana on board, taking an extra turn, and stealing 3 permanents as very good. The only way I reasonably seeing this not being good is a player who built the rest of his deck very poorly, imaginary niche scenarios, or you are fighting an equally competitive decks.

Even if Expropriate fails, you should have an amazingly good board states.

Though I again want to highlight the issue are the cards that allow turn three get 9 mana or cheat cast it turn three than the spell itself being over powered. It promotes decks that have an incredible variants in starting hands, and decks that attempt to ignore the 4 player politics of pooling resources to stop a player and counter spells become the only resource that matters.

I'm in favor of restricting cards that create these types of board states more than cards that capitalize in this style of play. When you don't restrict these cards, it makes cards like Expropriate feel broken when it's the supporting board state.

You're talking about two different issues here:

Issue #1: Casting a 9-mana sorcery on turn 3 is a problem
100% agree. No arguments whatsoever.

Issue #2: Casting Expropriate on turn 3 is a problem
Here's where I disagree. Unless all your opponents have had similarly explosive first turns, you're gonna get an extra turn, some random dork, and a couple of mana rocks. Of course, that's not bad at all, but it doesn't end the game immediately like an Expropriate on turn 10 usually does, if only because your opponents will have so much more stuff to steal.

Issue #1: Casting a 9-mana sorcery on turn 3 is a problem

I mention issue #1 to make sure that people don't think I think Expropriate is broken, but in a game where issue #1 exists than Expropriate seems unfair.

Issue #2: Casting Expropriate on turn 3 is a problem

This scenario was to highlight why Expropriate seems unfair.

You can disagree, but it seems like the reason you don't see it as a problem is that "it could be worse" or "maybe wait until turn 4 or five to steal better stuff"

I'm not sure what to say, a turn 3 where all you get is an extra turn and steal 3 lands seems good to me.

I can come up with a ton of scenarios that would make this better- like turn 3 with Narset, Enlightened Master and Lightning Greaves where you hit this card or one of other 13 take an extra turn cards- but in terms of a normative set of things people expect at a local game shop or coffee table turn 3 Expropriate seems extremely unfair to me. So unfair that most people most of the time, as a moral actor, would probably choose not to even play that deck because it seems so unfair.



We have a fundamental different view on what "good" is. If you think its better turn 4 cast it turn 4, but turn 3 is still incredibly good. If you were playing something like Narset, Enlightened Master, this is the card you hope to cast turn 3 and will likely win the game. Even if the person were just playing Gosta Dirk the ramp from gaining 3 lands, making each player lose a land, and taking an extra turn seems VERY good.

So, what you're saying is ban high-powered artifact ramp like mana crypt, mana vault, sol ring and co.?

I'm saying the problem being presented with Expropriate is high lighting a deeper issues with other cards in the format. I'm putting forward an argument that Expropriate doesn't need to be banned, but we should probably look into Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, and mana fixing for ways to cheat it out to slow down how quickly decks can do it.

I'm not following this at all. Cards like Tooth and Nail can be a problem when played on turn 3 because they effectively end the game in an unceremonious and barely interactive way. While early castings of powerful spells is annoying, it is not the problem with Expropriate.

Expropriate on T3 is effectively a glorified ramp spell. Powerful, sure, but nowhere near powerful enough to win the game on the spot or even necessarily establish a won position. Furthermore, most of the complaints about Expropriate assume it happens rather late in the game anyway. I would guarantee that if the problem with Expropriate was it stealing a couple signets and a Command Tower nobody would ever complain. You also bring up an example like a hasted Narset, where the problem is pretty obviously not Expropriate but the fact that someone is running extra turn spells in a Narset deck.

Fast mana is arguably a problem. Expropriate is arguably a problem. But they are not problems that intersect.

Sorry to break this up and remove snippets, I'm not doing this to try to increase clarity, but it might hurt my overall messaging.



I agree, turn 3 Tooth and Nail is also a problem because it ends games in an unceremonious way, more reliably than Expropriate. I think EDH should do something to deal with this turn 3 win problem.



The Narset, Enlightened Master deck uses it to win turn 3. I agree, it is a problem with Narset (and other cheat spells out) commanders / cards. These decks rely on mana ramp.

The exact turn it is casted doesn't really matter. The example of the turn 3 ramp was to try to illustrate that people aren't playing nine lands and then casting it, and that it is incredibly easy to cast with even modest ramp. So, intrinsically, they are problems that intersect.

Let me provide evidence of this by browsing EDH reck and seeing what decks Expropriate is played in.

https://edhrec.com/cards/expropriate

#1 Narset, Enlightened Master
#2 Mizzix of the Izmagnus
#3 Jhoira of the Ghitu
#4 Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
#5 Jodah, Archmage Eternal
#6 Thrasios, Triton Hero
#7 Rashmi, Eternities Crafter
#8 Sen Triplets
#9 Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder
#10 Kruphix, God of Horizons

With the exception of Jodah, Archmage Eternal they all play power ramp artifacts.

Fun fact, guess what is often played with Expropriate? Tooth and nail.

Why don't we look at the first youtube video that has a deck tech that includes Expropriate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smXXQ4nY7RA

To quote Jumbo Commander:


It certainly seems that any deck that runs Expropriate runs power ramps artifacts, besides Jodah, Archmage Eternal. Deck lists that run Expropriate seem to run ramp, and the logic path to why can be found directly in deck techs.

I've never, ever, ever, seen or even heard of someone playing nine lands and casting Expropriate. I've never even heard 6 lands, a mana dork and a sol ring or equivalent. When I've seen it, it's typically turn five and you either counter spell it or lose the game. In online dream scenarios I see on youtube they do it turn 3-4 and win the game.


Summary:



The only scenarios I see Expropriate actually being played is with fast mana ramp. The problems are intrinsically intersect. In the current meta, if you removed mana ramp, it would only see play in Jodah, Archmage Eternal decks and niche awful
Intet, the Dreamer style decks.

I really want to high light that a turn 3 steal 3 lands take an extra turn is still out of it's mind imbalanced. No amount of telling me "Well, it could be a turn 3 XYZ which is worse" makes me believe that turn 3 steal 3 lands take an extra turn is fair. It just means their are less fair things in the game and maybe infinity combos using tooth and nail should be looked into as well.

I have only seen Expropriate cast three times, and it was on turn 7+... only once did the guy win. Obviously that is a very small sample size, and it is heavily influenced by how little I have been able to play the past year or so, but it amazing me how much people whine about whatever the win con was when they lose. #StopBanningBlueCards

This sounds more like an overall issue with your playgroup and their use of broken mana rocks. I would even be so bold as to say it's a player problem if someone consistently has nine mana on turn 3. I have only played against this kind of deck when the player goes out of their way to build such a deck - it doesn't happen by accident. And frankly, these types of players should not be the focus of the RC.

1) Playgroup issue

I play at rotating game shops mostly with a small pod of friends. The play group is anyone who can walk into a store. It isn't a play group issue if players are playing legal cards in a format in a legal way. If it's an issue they are playing "broken mana rocks" it's that the same mana rocks you called broken are allowed in the game.

2) Player Issue

It's not a player's fault they built decks that are legal to play. They aren't bad people because they build completely legal decks in the format. If there is an over arching issue with the game having a "broken mana rocks" issue, than it is an issue with the game. It's not fair to create a game, have them make decks around it, and then paint them as bad people because they played the game by the rules. The whole point of a ban list is to address this very issue. You ban Limited Resources, not the player who bothers to put it in his deck because he noticed the obvious advantages of such a card.

3) Broken Mana Rocks

The very fact that you can say "broken mana rocks" highlights that these cards are broken. Why can't these cards be banned and end a lot of the problems with Expropriate (and about 30 other cards) and if you want to play with "broken mana rocks", you discuss it with your play group so that strangers who play EDH have a more interactive game by removing cards that.

"Broken Mana Rocks" promotes deck archtypes that have an incredible variants in starting hands, and decks that attempt to ignore the 4 player politics of pooling resources to stop a player. They quickly make it so only the amount of counterspells matter. Until you remove these types of cards, Expropriate and cards like it will remain seeming like a problem.

I can see where this is going

(hint: it's nowhere)

I can't comment on your specific experiences, only my own. I've been playing edh since 2011 in groups that all had players who could afford the best mana bases. Games didn't go as you described except when someone went out of their way to do precisely that. The situation you describe I can only attribute to player mentality, and the ban list can't fix that (at least not without having significant effect on the format overall).


I'm not trying to paint them as "bad people". What I'm saying is that if a group of people get together to play football and two of them decide they're playing full contact and everyone else is playing flag football, you're going to have a bad time. I don't disagree with any of this though.


Agree completely, which is why I'm in the "ban Sol Ring" camp.

Part of your issue here is that you're in an "Expropriate should be banned" thread but youre using the card to illustrate an issue you're having that has very little to do with the card itself. You could replace ban it and then the exact.same thing would happen with Tooth and Nail, or Narset, or a number of other cards you mentioned and others you didn't. But the issue isn't the actual card that ends the game, it's the other cards that got the player there (on turn 3). So you've left other users the choice of either responding to that, respond to Expropriate, or simply not respond at all.

I'm sorry if this is a mess of unreadable paragraphs I'm trying to make my arguments clear.

1) Playgroup issue



I can only attribute to player mentality, and the ban list can't fix that.

I fundamentally disagree. The player mentality is to win, so if you remove the cards that make it so you win based off of chance god hands and by having 0 social interactions as their deck combos off, then they will make decks that capitalize on their ability to manipulate social interactions. This is exactly why you ban cards to shape a game to be enjoyable. Magic the Gathering bans cards with this philosophy in mind, aiming for "deck diversity". Nexus of Fate was recently banned also, and not for deck diversity- though the reasons for why it was banned are up for debate (I'm implying why here there, it had an unfun interaction).

Look at Me, I'm the DCI implications aside, they have a philosophy for banning cards. EDH has a philosiphy also, and decks that skirt around the philosophy should have the cards that allow them to skirt the philosophy dealt with. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players.

2) Player Issue



When I hear a series of descriptive statements that someone is doing something wrong, I tend to think that the normative statement that the person is bad. That is why I parse you describing the people as being bad, because of a series of descriptive statements.

When you play flag foot ball you create rules against having full contact when you play flag football. You do this by banning actions that make the game full contact in the rules.

I feel it's more like people are playing full contact, but most of the players don't really want to play full contact they just can't change the rules themselves because there is an existing body that defines the rules of the game- the people who shows up to play the game is constantly changing and are hosted at different spots so trying to talk to people locally to get them to change their gear doesn't work because new players show up and only have the gear to go full contact.

The full contact people are having their expectations set by the governing body.



I'm trying to highlight why people think Expropriate should be banned.

You go about making arguments about why a card should be banned by relating it to the philosophy of the game and to the other cards in a game. I've also highlighted a number of times and agreed that Expropriate could be casted turn 4 for better effect, or turn five, but what I'm trying to high light is that it's not the card alone that people mind, it's the situation that it is being casted in. The turn doesn't really matter- the fact that it can be casted turn 3 with relative reliability is the problem, it doesn't really matter if its turn 4, 5, or 6. It turns the game into a game where counter spells are the only resources that matter and player interaction is kept to a minimum.

I tried to avoid looking at specific play groups, and instead highlighted EDHRec and youtube deck techs to demonstrate how the card is being used. I'm not hearing anyone even using the card in any deck that doesn't ramp hard with broken rocks (besides Jodah).

So yes, Ban the rocks, are ban the cards that become explosive because of the rocks. That's the real heart of the argument of whether Expropriate is a banworthy card because it's the only real context it's being used. I'm trying to breakdown the situations that make it feel like it's against the spirit of the EDH.

1)Ban the cards that allow Expropriate to

I don't feel that's true. Most of the arguments before you joined in this thread never said that it was because it was being cast so soon that it was the issue. So I don't see how you can say that the heart of the argument for the card to be banworthy is simply based around mana acceleration.

That may be the argument you are trying to make, but I feel that's hurting the situation by taking away the focus on the card and trying to lay blame on the mana rocks -- when there was already a bunch of arguments against it being legal before talking about how fast it can be cast.

It really really seems you want fast mana banned. Sure. But go make a thread about that and don't try to derail this thread.

Why does all but the Jodah deck on EDHrec use explosive mana rocks in Expropriate decks? Why is there a youtube deck tech describing why you use mana ramp with expropriate?

Cards are only broken in the context they are being used. Almost every example I can look at of people using it online uses mana rocks, and if they don't use mana rocks they are cheating it out.

Even saying it didn't come up in this thread before isn't true.

INFACT other people said things like what I'm driving at in different ways before I mentioned it, I'm just making sure I'm being very clear in what I'm saying.







there was also a long talk about Iona, Shield of Emeria.

That is because what we are really talking about is high cost high impact cards.

I am arguing that high cost high power cards are fine, the problem is the format lets you cast them too quickly and reliably.

Nothing is being hijacked or derailed as long as you understand what we are talking about are cards in context of a game that has complicated interdeck dynamics. We wouldn't ban Tolarian Academy if there were no artifacts that costed less than 4 for example. Cards are broken in context of the other cards. I'm defining broken as being against the spirit of EDH - "That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players".

We should aim for decks (which of made of cards, one of them may be Expropriate that includes a degree of interactivity amongst players. Decks that prevent that should have cards removed from them (some of those might be Expropriate) to force them to have higher levels of interaction.

In before someone offers Loki's Wager response.