Sorry for the audio-quality. The repair shop broke my USB-C ports (or smth) when changing the battery on my macbook and now I can't use my Mic/Cam. Had to find a workaround until I can find a permanent solution. ✌
@jcstaff1007
16 күн бұрын
I think the RC are pretty much ignoring both EDH and cEDH. They are scared of backlash and what you’re saying about different house banlists is my biggest gripe already happening to regular EDH. I hate going to an lgs and sitting down with randoms with their own rules, then with my friends with their own, and finally online with every lobby having their own rules. It’s the wildwest of cry babies out there and if the rc cared they’d at least put out any statement or banlist that’s at least relevant to today’s meta instead of one that only reflects the inception and past of the format.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@jcstaff1007 word
@omarua3435
16 күн бұрын
They banned the most popular commander ever when they banned Golos.... the RC is not afraid of backlash
@jcstaff1007
16 күн бұрын
@@omarua3435 i dont think anyone outside of Maze’s End players actually cared. Golos was just an easy 5 color commander to pick for whatever you needed. And the fact he just got halfway through commander tax was just lazy card design.
@loydpena2772
15 күн бұрын
Casual edh is the worst. I started playing Cedh and generally it's way more chill
@deifiedtitan
14 күн бұрын
@@omarua3435The RC’s afraid of actually doing something. Their response to everything is “The community will figure itself out”, which inherently renders whatever they think completely useless. The whole point of a centralised banlist is so there’s an objective benchmark. Their approach is they are simultaneously the arbiters of the format whilst doing nothing about any perceived issue. Tl;dr if my job is to ban cards and I say “You guys figure out what you want banned in your own pods instead”, I am literally functionless
@D0omsday779
16 күн бұрын
My problem with the tournament ban list is that it feels antithetical to CEDH as a whole. CEDH's selling point is that it's the same format the casual players are playing, just with a rule zero of "Your deck is legal by the rules of Commander". Following that same logic, it actually makes sense that the RC should cater the banlist 100% towards CEDH play, as every other power level in existence can filter out cards they don't want to see. The RC's statements on the value of rule zero actually helps the argument that they should make the banlist be CEDH focused as that's the only power bracket that actually gives a shit about it.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@D0omsday779 yeah, ideall the RC would create a banlist for comp play and casual players would just rule 0 whatever they think is too strong for their tables.
@Relinquished001
13 күн бұрын
ok but there are cards on the commander ban list that are there because "expensive for players to buy" when its a proxy friendly format for the most part.
@dan_hahn
16 күн бұрын
A fractured banlist wont work. It will confuse the playerbase, muddy the waters for new players, and frustrate the reps top players are getting in to master specific decks. Just listening to bosh discuss his run to first place with rog si in the topdeck tourney was enough to understand that bans should probably never happen in this format. It is so rich and so difficult to master and manage that years and years of grinding on specific decks are not even enough to learn all there is on a deck. Cedh draws so many people for exactly this reason. The RC knows what it is doing and is making the right choice. In a world where every format is a rotating format, players are sick of it and cedh is growing specifically because the format doesnt rotate
@Gokkigolla
14 күн бұрын
The "It would confuse the player base/ scare away newer players" argument is utter nonsense when it comes to cEDH, who is this theoretical Enlightened Dunce that can pilot a EDH deck to the level that they would even consider playing in a cEDH tournament, but cannot grasp the idea of a separate ban list for competitive play. cEDH(and EDH I'd argue) are not beginner friendly formats, the people who come to play these formats are invested players in the larger game of MtG.
@deifiedtitan
14 күн бұрын
Hard disagree. May as well say that having a banlist in standard and a different one for modern is too confusing because both are 60-card constructed. EDH and CEDH are different formats in all but actual rules enforcement. It’s time to actually make the change real. Everything else you’re saying makes sense and I agree; but the way you maintain the health of CEDH and EDH is by allowing CEDH to be the sweaty nightmare hellscape that it wants to be while absolutely keeping that stuff limited in the format that isn’t focused on winning at any cost. A separate banlist for both is exactly how you enforce it.
@blueplayer2076
13 күн бұрын
Hey Eizenherz, not sure if you remember me but this is TheBluePlayer from a few years ago with that experimental Urza list. I’ve actually left the game since and started playing Flesh and Blood which turned out to be one of the best games designed (Even better than MtG). However, I wanted to return to check out the format again since the last time EDH had a serious banning to potentially start playing in a tournament setting. Having a tournament setting for EDH is inevitable and a need for a relevant curated banlist will eventually be necessary in order for this game mode to grow. What’s happening now is an interpretation of what house ruling a rule zero format in a tournament setting with cash prizing would look like. I always thought the EDH community has been fragmented because of the discrepancy of power level. Though I’ve learned to understand the stance of those looking to keep the current banlist as one despite there being different philosophies of how the game should be played and therefore creating communities with different goals, I’ve come to see that ultimately, there needs to be reform with how the banlists ought to be conceptualized, implemented and designed. 1) We should have one banlist intended to curate the evolving tournament play. Within the same document, there should be a disclaimer note providing a house ruling clause for the non tournament setting in bold. That’s it. Doing this enables us to evolve and properly refine the game mode that is EDH. Tournament play will be more pleasant and could diversify the current meta as it is. Casual players would be happy because they have free rein to create whatever house rules they need. A banlist for casual is not necessary if rule zero exists. Fun vs Unfun bans are too far down the subjective scale that there doesn’t need to be a committee to manage and define fun for an entire community. The RC ultimately only wanted to express what their interpretation of fun is under their rules document and how they like to play the game. They mentioned Rule Zero because they understand that they don’t want to take responsibility for everyone’s gameplay experience and they inferred as such on their philosophy document. I think we as a community have pushed a responsibility they’ve never aimed to hold on to. The ones starting the curated banlist are doing the right thing and we definitely need more iterations till the new generation RC better refines the tournament ban list. This could honestly take a year or two depending on gathered data. Conclusion: We’re headed in the right direction, there doesn’t need to be pointing fingers, and we just need to trust this process.
@WorldlyTutor
16 күн бұрын
Important video. I like the specific suggestions for bans/unbans, especially the unbans. Across every video game with a competitive scene I have ever engaged with it has always been true that environments where devs enforce an active or proactive approach/ frequent bans were healthier than those where a passive/ laissez-faire role was favored. If adjustments overshot they could easily be remedied following that same approach. I wish the rc would be a little more open to this kind of thinking.
@__E__
16 күн бұрын
Tbh I am not against a committee, but that banlist draft was a huge mistake. They needed to show a thoughtful, restrained and data-backed approach. Instead they blatantly put one of the premier cards of the format, beloved by many as the only ban. That specific card may indeed create complicated stacks, but it also creates comebacks, intense counter battles, hope (of finding the answer) etc. Rhystic study is overall one of if not the greatest adrenaline providers of the format. Given their credentials, I think they had a decent chance but now I'm afraid they kinda blew it with that PR disaster. I understand this wasn't supposed to be shared publicly but that does not change the fact that they put that list together which seemed extremely premature and makes their approach quite questionable. I personally think goal #1 should be to avoid dividing the player base and that was definitely not the way. More practically speaking, that means involving the community in the process, creating polls and avoid using 50% as the decision threshold. To me a decision that makes half the player-base unhappy is not good at all. It also means that extra care must be applied to bans as this remains a TCG, even at the highest level. Another thing is that there are several (simpler or at the very least less divisive) issues that the community would rather see addressed first and fall better in their jurisdiction as TOs: draws awarding points and seat order winrate disparity. Adjustment to these don't require people to reinvent the meta or to sideboard their deck depending on which CEDH variant the pod is using. Results would be easy to track as well and a success would set a great precedent for that committee, paving the way for further adjustments. Anyways, this whole ordeal felt a bit inadequate. Please don't rush things, prioritize the issues the community would rather see addressed first, and communicate, communicate, communicate. Share the data you're using for your decisions, be careful with the wording, please avoid the "myself and many others think [...]" because that is a huge red flag and sounds unprofessional. When trying to push an idea to someone, trying to invalidate their opinion by telling them they actually are the minority without data to back it won't help. That said I believe in their good faith, everyone can make mistakes but not everyone can own them and act on them. Let's see how they do.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@__E__ good points. I'm also not convinced by this initial draft and agree that we have additional issues (ie turn order) that need to be adressed 👍
@WrekCreationL
16 күн бұрын
not to mention the buyouts before the announcement
@yugioh1870
16 күн бұрын
@__E__ isnt a card's omnipresence a data driven banning? I'd hit quite a few more cards than rhystic but you're conceding that it's not Data that you're upset by
@yugioh1870
16 күн бұрын
@__E__ also I think the easiest fix to the ID problem has already been implemented. God of commander killed Ids and remains one of the best commander experiences available
@__E__
16 күн бұрын
@@yugioh1870 > Isn't a card omnipresence data-driven banning? No, not at all. It's perfectly normal and unavoidable to have staples. You could argue the same thing with all the free counterspells fast mana etc. At the invitational Rhystic was in 56 decks, remora, fluster, misstep and misstep in 55, dockside, mindbreak in 54, fierce 51, swat, demonic/vamp tutor, force of will, pact of negation 49 etc There's a lot of auto includes in CEDH once your colors are chosen, that's just how the format is. The % playrate that rhystic has over the other aforementioned cards really isn't meaningful, it's just saying that's the most played color.
@MstrCorrin
16 күн бұрын
I just want it to be official - something that will come up on Scryfall or Gatherer when you click to see if a card is legal in the format. I don't want some kid to catch a DQ because he trusted the search function. Alternately, I don't want them not putting a potent card in their deck only to get killed by another player using it only to have the TO turn and say, "oh yeah we don't follow that list". Whatever the card pool ends up being, as long as it is consistently applied.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@MstrCorrin that would be the worst situation ti find yourself in...hope that happens to nobody
@BestRando
16 күн бұрын
i dont feel cedh is in a bad spot. i also have little interest in consuming online cedh content if half the content is using "house rules" that my local scene or other tournaments arent using. the marginal gains with a "better" ban list isnt worth it.
@walterppk1989
16 күн бұрын
Hear hear
@ClexYoshi
16 күн бұрын
I don't see the problem with TEDH splintering off from the format, and I don't think shaming the EDH RC or WotC for a lack of involvement is productive for anybody. Nobody in their right mind is trying to get Nintendo to remove Steve from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate by the company, they just self-regulate, and it's fine. If CEDH players self regulate into this tournament environment, then the support will follow. the point of EDH is that it is hilariously broken and everyone knows it. we are a format of gentleman's agreements. CEDH's gentleman's agreement is just that there is no gentleman's agreement other than playing to win... and if you're sick of winning with the same stuff, then like... try introducing those same gentleman's agreements and create TEDH.
@bradeaton9589
16 күн бұрын
Most of our playgroup is tired of rhystic study. Its been the best card in the format for years
@TiredWings8
13 күн бұрын
I'd kill to be part of a newer and better RC. Having played edh on every level for 10 straight years and seeing how each level has evolved, its been agonizing seeing how dumb the current RC is
@lucasbatalha3081
16 күн бұрын
Great take! If I may give my 2 cents, I find it impossible to not become a new format, because current EDH will still exist, hence current cEDH will also never cease, people will probably play it as is outside of tournaments. But I don't see that as a problem, legacy still exists alongside vintage (in a way) and the difference is the ban list. cEDH can exist alongside tEDH as well. Now to play the role of devils advocate, as much as the RC's tone and messaging could have been better, I get why they are not doing anything. EDH wasn't meant for tournament play. They even admit the current ban list is not a comprehensive ban list, but a signpost ban list, it's basically a mere suggestion of what kind of cards the kitchen table magic folk might find fun or not. (That's not to say the signposts couldn't be updated hehe). And funny enough, cEDH is rule zero done so well, that we know what decks are cEDH, and can separate them well from casual, so the RC has even less incentive, the casual side is kind of fine. Another point I have about cards like rhystic is the comparison with legacy. Wizards has already admitted, brainstorm should be banned by all metrics. But people play legacy to play brainstorm, it's where you can play it and it's like a calling card for the format, they won't ban it. Wouldn't you say that some busted things like rhystic, breach, dockside and thoracle are all calling cards of cEDH, isn't that something to consider as well?
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@lucasbatalha3081 Thanks ans great input as well. I def agree that there are some formst defining cards that draw people towards cEDH that should prob stay untouched like the fast mana (SolRing, Crypt, etc), but for me Study is really problematic (although I like it).
@dimitriid
16 күн бұрын
I think that the problem a lot of people having with calling out the RC is that imho, it's being called out for the wrong reasons: I do not believe that they basically take no action in banning cards because that's what they think the format should be. I say this because otherwise they wouldn't spend any time and effort releasing any articles or updates at all or talking about a system to include un-cards and such. I simply believe based on more than enough admissions from the RC directly, that they probably feel a lot of pressure coming directly from WotC to basically not change anything at all if they can help it: It's no secret that the RC has more than incidental access to WotC and they've talked about going as far as seeing some new cards before they're made public. They even have the Commander Advisory Group with influencers that *we know* work with and are directly sponsored by WotC. So while WotC might not officially have any control over them, do you really think they would spend millions of dollars every year in designing new cards specifically for commander if they had no control over it? Do you think a corporation like Hasbro would be ok with putting the sticker 'Commander Deck' on many of their most popular products period (For the entire corporation mind you, not just WotC) If they could be told 'Oh the RC just decided that it's going to ban like the 5 best cards on your brand new commander decks you still sell on shelves right now and are still part of the marketing budget'? I am more than sure that they've managed to let the RC know their position:"Talk about commander all you want (That helps us sell products ultimately) but don't think too hard about starting to ban cards out of the format otherwise we'll just take it over and we'll see who's last standing on a legal battle after we've build enough years of official commander products to just register the Trademark for it."
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@dimitriid good point, maybe they really cant do as much about it as we might think
@venxerheim1848
13 күн бұрын
This proposed ban and unban cards are sweet in EDH. Just apply this in EDH, no need to set another set of ban list.
@salvocrey
14 күн бұрын
This is one of th few solid takes I've seen. Good job
@briandombroski2118
16 күн бұрын
“No bans” =\= “not managing the format.” And comparing the philosophy of why cards are proposed to be unbanned is completely antithetical to the philosophy of the RC, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the RC doesn’t do it. Either way, I have respect for the folks trying it.
@deifiedtitan
14 күн бұрын
The RC lose the right to hold onto the “just figure it out lol” ethos when they’re consulted on card design and enshrined as the sole arbiter of official rules. If we can all just do whatever then why’s EDH 100 cards? Because the RC say it is? Basically you don’t need the RC to say “Rule Zero is okay!” We all know it is, rule zero applies to whatever WotC says too, I can do whatever I want with my cards. We want actual regulation for when diverging approaches meet. “My rule zero says it’s okay” “well mine says it isn’t” is playground nonsense that gets flattened when the positioned authority just makes a decision rather than abdicating
@DerpyLaron
15 күн бұрын
Ideally wizards would team up with the RC to lay down a frame work for cEDH tournaments. Currently rhe two stores near me run events, but keep them proxy as they are afraid to lose their WPS status. However that means certain decks become unplayable for most people. Gifts being banned while Intuition is unbanned is probably the most obvious case of that issue. If you have around 100€ to spend you can use gifts if not you are out of luck. While I doubt wizard will come out and declare proxies okay, I would hope the RC would stop the "sign post" bann approach. It doesn't work for Casual and it doesn't work for competitive play. I get what they are aiming for, but hoping enough people feel miserable to have a card shadow banned is simply not the way to run any format. Pauper shows us what the gold standard should be.
@vash-masterofmetal9619
15 күн бұрын
Thanks for the awesome content!
@rileypowell5354
16 күн бұрын
I think the proposed list is a great place to start. I think theres definitely more unbans and bans to make but if the idea is to currate the list over time and let the meta adjust slowly it makes sense to keep it small to start with. I also like that theres more unbans than bans, that needs to continue as well. The one shitty part of all of this is that no matter what we do, the rules committee essentially gets to say they were right all along.
@vladislavivanov8040
16 күн бұрын
Democratic banlist sounds really good! I love the idea!
@_z3i
16 күн бұрын
The commander philosophy document does mention that the bans are essentially signposts and that it is meant to be a guideline for playgroups as to what things to not to play, so I believe that local specific banlists are 100% within the spirit of the format and if tournament organisers believe that their tournament could be significantly better by banning/unbanning cards then I definitely agree that testing that is the way to find out. The only really big challenge I could see is that it adds more work to tournament players to keep up with the current tournament's banlist, what that means for their deck (for example: not being able to play Rhystic does make some commanders a much worse choice) and keep more lists active to match each potential banlist. I am a person who mostly plays cEDH "casually" and does very little tournament play so maybe this isn't actually a problem at all for people who are actual regular tournament grinders. Overall though I think it's a bit harsh to call out the Commander RC for not curating a competitive format when they have actively stated that their goal is not to do so. However I emphatically agree that the solution if people want to have a managed competitive format is to DO IT and not just to complain so I definitely support this experiment.
@mk5257
17 күн бұрын
Best comment on the debate right now
@thomaspetrucka9173
15 күн бұрын
I live how no matter what side you're on, we all agree the RC is useless. 😂
@geek593
16 күн бұрын
As someone who comes from Yugioh: You have an incredible chance to force change. Take it. If the people managing the banlist aren't doing anything stop yapping and start splintering.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@geek593 Agree.. it's at least worth a shot.
@lazysunday9867
16 күн бұрын
Almost like yugioh players also tried to do this and those sub formats have gone nowhere.
@edhsenpai
15 күн бұрын
First to note you didn't disappoint. I always look forward to your clam rational thoughts. As a cedh CC and tournament grinder in one of the most cedh populated communities [N.E USA], i don't see real true blue players complaining. Post game discussing about how this was nuts and broken aside. It isn't a turn 1 format by any means. The most games i'd guess average end turn 4-6. For the last few months there is a rise in Rog/si which does push fast attempts very early. But the faster you go the more blown out you can get. Very skilled Rog/si players access the board very well thus it appears they are always winning. The true culprit is greedy keeps and lack of skilled mulligan skills. As with it being a new bloom of growth a lot of newer players funnel into the format weekly. It takes an absurd about of game play to really learn the basic skills of tournament cedh game play.
@edhsenpai
15 күн бұрын
I firmly would like a push to get RC to take some responsibly as otherwise it will fracture cedh. 2 i think it's very noble but having a self declared king for a format is alittle hard to swallow. Since at least 1 could see having a controlling share of a company that would directly make finical gain could be a problem. If you love the format there are other was to do this. 3 CEDH isn't only topdeck and i'd love to see a % of non topdeck run events and leagues. Making a topdeck spec ban but having it being a less then 80% would corn hole players and stores. 4 cedh players aren't afraid of any one single card and honestly don't see any major problems with 0 bans and start rebanning in next few years. Ever building a true format.
@AndrewWoodford
16 күн бұрын
Like some others I think this Proposed List is tailored too much towards tEDH. The goal should be to create a Ban List that Casual and cEDH Players will both want.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@AndrewWoodford yes, ideally that would be the case. I've even thought about a banlist similar to vintage where you have "banned & restricted". EDH could have "banned" cards for tournaments and "not recommended" for casual play. I dont think this necessarily has to divide the format
@darkdragonXD1
16 күн бұрын
As always very good video and opinion on this topic, tbh i don't complain about the state of Cedh but before make any claims about bans or unbans they should do it very carefully and do it right away , not with a draft or " this is not set in stone" but people need to adjust decklist and this things has an effect on the market so its not to be taking lightly. Anyways we stay cool and see what happens
@hellNo116
16 күн бұрын
Personally I like the idea of banlist. Ideally I down the line I would love to have two power level banlist but I know wee are not enough players for this to makes sense for any committee to manage without literally being wotc themselves. However my wish could end up being true just by what it is happening now. The RC banlist being the broken almost vintage level to play the format and the new banlist trying to be a thought out and balanced way to play the format. I have to wonder if they are going to ban commanders or cards for taking too much time equity. For instance ban seedborn muse because thrasios or kinnan with the card takes too much time and allows players to play basically 4 turns per rotation. For those who are new won't remember the grind fest that the table turned into if someone didn't win early.
@AdmiralVortex
15 күн бұрын
Eisenherz is so correct here, it hurts T_T
@WrekCreationL
16 күн бұрын
lmao really just says you have to fix it by adding me?? wow
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@WrekCreationL ofc 🤓
@VictorianoOchoa
16 күн бұрын
He's not some random guy though. He's in the cEDH Decklist Database team
@EisenherzMTG
14 күн бұрын
@@VictorianoOchoaI've been off the DDB team for a while 😅 but I'd still like to actively participate in the "new RC". I think it would be incredibly stressful and hard, but I also think I'm somewhat qualified to add value to that panel. So why not. I obviously like participating in the cEDH community in all kinds of ways
@Mateolp89
11 күн бұрын
Great video and thanks for your input. Idgaf about the proposed unbans and bans, but if you are unbanning/banning 1 card from 1 color, you best do the same for the other colors, too. That unban/ban list looks heavily favoring one side, and unfair to red and white players, quite frankly.
@Mateolp89
11 күн бұрын
Ban Nadu, Rograkh, charismatic conqueror (toxic if cloned imo) and Opposition Agent. Unban rofellos, gifts ungiven, karakas (personal reach choice), Recurring Nightmare and I'm comfortable with red already, relatively recently, getting back worldfire.
@100legodude
14 күн бұрын
Creating a new banlist is creating a new format. CEDH is the same format (rules and banlist) as non-competitive EDH, but played competitively with the sole objective being to win. If you introduce a new banlist it’s not cEDH anymore by definition, it’s tEDH or something. The format is being split by definition. Also the problems with EDH as a competitive format are too deep to be solved by just tweaking the banlist. If you want the experience of playing a version of EDH that’s more suited to competitive play, just adopt the Conquest rule set.
@DrOmnipotent
16 күн бұрын
I usually like your videos. This one, not so much. I would argue calling the RC 'lazy', is in itself quite lazy. It's just demonizing an approach you disagree with, while providing no actual substance to an objectively better alternative. Here is a massive factor that is getting left out here; inaction *is* action. The RC choosing to let WotC solve problems with printings and adding to the card pool is absolutely a viable course of action and conscious choice of the RC. I would much rather have an RC that is slow to enact major changes to this format I love over one who will risk mismanagement just to satisfy the 'something needs to happen crowd'. A lot of these discussions regarding the RC also leave out a major point of context; they're doing a phenomenal job. Cedh and edh are growing at rates that are nothing short of remarkable. It is an extremely small minority of cedh players (itself an area where only a minority of people playing edh even are) I've been playing cedh for over a decade, and I think the format is in a wonderful place. It's better than ever in many ways. I think knee-jerk bans and listening too deeply to only a subsection of the format would lead to a more volatile format. One that is much less healthy and stable. I'm not saying I agree with everything the RC has done; I think Primtime being banned is at best entirely too cautious, for example. But I also acknowledge that just because I don't agree with them on every little thing, the format is undeniably in good hands and has been for years now. Additionally, I think it's worth taking a look at dual commander or Canadian highlander for an idea of how an EDH/cEDH split would go. Currently we have an unprecedented advantage over those two for growth just from being the same format as the most popular version. Giving that up comes at a massive cost for our growth. In disagreement with your statement here, I do *not* think it's a step in the direction. I think quite the opposite, in fact. In my personal opinion, people who are clamoring for RC action just don't have the patience that long time players do. Our format shakes up fairly significantly every couple years. Don't believe me; just look at deck lists from 2021. Or 22 etc. Even if this iteration of the format isn't your favorite, things change, we all know eternal formats basically rotate at this point, and it wont look like this forever. We have had a year of LotR meta and somehow people are this up in arms already. Gamers need to give it time, it's not like wotc isn't aggressively adding new things to old formats every month. This comment wasn't to be aggressive. I wanted to express my disappointment in the uncharacteristically shortsighted arguments presented here. I genuinely think you can - and usually do - create better and more thoughtful content.
@odyseeus
16 күн бұрын
To defend Eisenherz, I would say you are demonizing him if anything because of your love for the game, which is understandable. Rhystic Study has been in lists for well over 2 years now, so you saying “give it time” is actually what we don’t need, we need action. The RC is composed of content creators who are popular with the MTG Community. They mostly are only faces and have no general grasp of what’s healthy for the community, similar to how our politicians are voted in, but that’s not going well is it?
@themaddhadder4826
16 күн бұрын
them not doing anything isnt them doing a good job. content creators is what is pushing edh . cringe take piss pant
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@DrOmnipotent fair critizism and all good. Other videos are coming. This one was specifically meant to be a breakdown and my opinion on the community reaction. I refrained from presenting my own ideas on how to fix the format, because I already made a video on that and it would take way too long to lresent my ideas in detail. Appreciate ykur engagement though. Stay tuned for upcoming videos ✌️
@pippofelipe6901
16 күн бұрын
Better a total fragmentation of the format than reading those lazy appointments of the RC on twitter every year. Shake this format
@thomaspetrucka9173
15 күн бұрын
As a casual player, it would ABSOLUTELY be better (for casuals and newcomers) to split the formats. No more rolling up at a table with the lying tryhard, and then the banlists can be tailored to the goals of two formats with different needs. We already call them different names. Commander. CEDH.
@thomaspetrucka9173
15 күн бұрын
I guess I don't honestly know what would be the best for the format overall, but splitting would theoretically solve a lot of the frustrations I hear from casual players and competitive players alike. Perhaps the convolution would be bad for overall popularity, but that's the only downside I see. Sorry. Finished typing and realized I hadn't justified my hot take. 😅
@bobdestroyer4053
15 күн бұрын
I agree. It's been two different formats for a while now
@dave7592
13 күн бұрын
You would still get people breaking the new format created with the bans that would be made. There are plenty of combos available.
@crazydeadperson
9 күн бұрын
I dont play cEDH. I only have one deck that's "too good" for casual play, but I have been hating on the rc for years. I completely support others trying to make a better system
@petrichor1017
16 күн бұрын
Ban RL cowards
@rwed13
15 күн бұрын
2 commander fnm games later: 7 turns total to lose 2 games and 3 hours at the lgs. It took as long to mulligan first game as to play it.
@shkdn191
16 күн бұрын
DO IT DOOO IT
@Imawesomedude20
16 күн бұрын
Ngl I usually enjoy your videos but you honestly lost me when you said that you wanted to be part of the new panel. Makes me feel like there is a motive behind supporting them.
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@Imawesomedude20 well, the motive behind the video was to explain what happened and give my two cents. I support them because I think this whole approach could lead to a positive development of the format and why wouldnt I want to be a part of smth I think has lots of potential. From my community engagenent it should be more than clear that I genuinly care about the format and the players and although I was kinda joking with the proposal to add me (see picture) I wouldnt mind at all having a say in this. Anyway, more / other videos coming. Next up: cEDH Masterclass 4 ✌️
@FatstaxMTG
13 күн бұрын
Ngl making another conquest sounds kinda dumb plus let’s be honest it seems like a money grab. Just have normal tournaments that maybe have unique rules on the occasion.
@joekellermannrees6978
16 күн бұрын
I think the play to win guys have a really interesting take on the rhystic ban in their last or second to last podcast
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@joekellermannrees6978 i'll check it out 👍
@davidreeves4165
14 күн бұрын
@@EisenherzMTGplease do. They are way more sensible than the banned-wagon you and others are now jumping on. If you and other content creators have your way, all you will do is create an extended banned list COMMANDER tournament and hopefully the cedh players whom came over from casual for the sake of playing wide open/no rule zero commander (myself and many many others) will avoid your new format like the plague until it dies.
@yugioh1870
16 күн бұрын
Perplexing chimera is genuinely perplexing as a consideration can someone explain rhia tk me
@connor206
16 күн бұрын
Clones, it gets cloned like 5 times and makes the game impossible to win in a reasonable amount of time. This has happened in several top 16+ games now and the games have gone on for over 4 hours each. Even just 1 of them is usually enough to force a game into a draw which is a problem from an event timeline standpoint.
@yugioh1870
16 күн бұрын
@connor206 that seems like a problem that would be solved with chess clocks
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@yugioh1870 i made a video on chimera specifically. Go check it out. And clocks are already used in swiss rounds, but not in semi finals and finals. Chimera creates boardstates and stacks that are almost impossible to keep proper track of and kead to games end jn draws too often. (Clocks in semifinals are actually being discussed by some TOs, but have yet to be implemented)
@WeirdPhilosophy
16 күн бұрын
Honestly, I don't blame the RC at all because in the casual EDH scene Rule 0 does work really well and i disagree with on that point that its not just a lazy excuse. We have to acknowledge that were just a tiny part of the edh-community and banning cards in EDH should be rare instance. My first reaction to a tournament banlist is negative, but honstly because its more the fear of the unknown. It might split the community. Some playgroups and/or Spelltable-Lobby might include or exclude the tournament banlist, but is that really a bad thing? Some cards might be specifcly bad for tournaments and the swiss rounds and in desperate need of ban and I get that. I don't play tournaments but I get that there is a desperate need for a banlist. It might influence my games aswell of most of the cEDH community outside of the tournament scene might adopt the banlist but I say give it a shot...
@EisenherzMTG
16 күн бұрын
@@WeirdPhilosophy love that you are open to at least try things despite the fear it might have bad results 👍
@dimitriid
16 күн бұрын
Saying Rule Zero works for casual commander is anecdotal at best: You probably have seen a handful of casual pods that operate well with rule zero conversations but the simple fact is that we wouldn't need such a large amount of content *everywhere* about casual commander and rule zero conversations if that was working: Everywhere I look there's always advice on how to talk to people before playing and set up expectations and well, it just never works: all of those videos are still fool of videos of 'This guy came to our table saying he didn't have a cedh deck and then played X card!' Sorry but I just disagree: even if cedh wasn't a factor, **A casual format still needs to be curated, especially because you're trying to build a casual format with cards belonging to an inherently competitive game** like magic the gathering. I think truly casual, low friction casual edh games are possible but the way it works right now it's wrong: the method shouldn't be 'Get a bad experience on your FLGS, go to youtube and watch hours of videos about dos and dont's of commander and rule zero commander' to kinda make things work for a really tiny group of people on a subgroup of an already tiny group on a FLGS. RC should just be actually banning the things they claim are not conductive to casual gaming. If they do not is because there's larger interests at play: they know if they ban too many cards and specially too quickly, they risk WotC just calling the Hasbro legal team on them to take over commander as a format or just curating an official separate game where their aim isn't community building and casual gaming but just selling as much product as possible, just like what we see today.
@Ent229
16 күн бұрын
As a casual EDH player, I think it would be best for CEDH to tailor its own ban list. EDH does not really have a ban list, it has an example ban list that bans a bunch of signpost cards with a focus on casual EDH (and has not really be updated). That management model (example signpost bans with a focus on rule 0) is a bad model for a competitive format. Check how 3 card blind is managed as a competitive community format in contrast to how EDH is managed as a casual community format. The main question is whether a CEDH banlist would be successfully sold as as official ban list for CEDH, or whether players hear it as a houserule. If a ban list is adopted by a critical mass, then there would be a split between CEDH and EDH but not a split between TEDH and CEDH. There would just be 2 example ban lists with the CEDH one as the default for CEDH. I wish you luck.
@omarua3435
16 күн бұрын
Leovold!?? So it's definitely meant to split the format then. Considering that card got banned for being absolutely miserable in casual
@TTXFLR6
16 күн бұрын
It's also miserable for many off meta/fringe decks that use the "draw" keyword as a wincon. That's my only gripe about the suggested banlist honestly, if Leovold becomes meta you effectively introduce one new deck and kill dozens of off meta decks. If going for unban they should start strictly with proactive cards and not a powerful stax piece in the command zone that effectively reduce the amount of playable decks unless they have a clear vision about what their tournament meta should look like.
@keller3225
16 күн бұрын
I agree with a lot of your points, but I think coming at the RC personally was a bit much and discredited your valid points. I know you said it’s emotionally charged but like, you still said all those words and posted them publicly. I think giving specific steps to improve the RC (more communication, an explicit stance on cEDH, etc) is better than calling them lazy cowards. Understand why you’re upset though. I’m happy that cEDH is big enough that we can even consider fragmenting. Wish u the best
@VictorianoOchoa
16 күн бұрын
I disagree because it's not really "going after them personally" when he has valid points to back himself up. Calling people afraid of backlash WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE of them being afraid of this does not make it a personal affront! And this is the definition of cowardice, is it not the case?
@WorldlyTutor
16 күн бұрын
In today's environment where conformism is the norm I prefer honest opinions over newspeak even if it's stark
@SolvableMattB
16 күн бұрын
as a casual edh player, i think cedh should have its own ban list, i dont care for the rc and think they do a terrible job, but i also dont want a banlist of cards that just arent relevant to most tables. edh is meant to be a casual format, playing it competitively was going to cause problems anyway.
@raedien
15 күн бұрын
If they aren't relevant to a casual table then banning them in casual wouldn't change casual.
@SolvableMattB
13 күн бұрын
@@raedien cards can be played differently at different power levels. banning a silly casual card because its too good in cedh would be annoying, and at that point, cedh players should just make their own format, like what the rules committee suggest.
@davidebalconi5423
16 күн бұрын
This format do not need bans, especially rhystic study (and i dont even play blue lol). Just the idea of bannig rhystic sets the mood of this tournament banlist thing imho. Rhystic has to be respected when on the field and possibily removed...not banned because ppl wanna go turbo no matter what The best thing is unbanning cards that are banned for basically no reason Bans from players, no matter who the player is, are always full of personal feelings So, for me personally, if cards gets unbanned im ok, but if other cards gets banned i personally wont play in that environment Its better to implement stuffs like the first player do not draw a card etc
@VictorianoOchoa
16 күн бұрын
sure, intuition might suggest that rhystic should not be banned, but what if the data analysis suggests otherwise? We can't always rely on our intuition because the right answer is often not intuitive.
@davidebalconi5423
16 күн бұрын
@@VictorianoOchoa i have respect for the job some ppl are doing to collect and analyze data. But this is not how data analysis is done. You cant just check % winrate with XY card inside the deck or not etc. You are just ignoring a ton of variabiles just to say a random number and make a YT video. If you do not lock some variabiles you will just have a fake impression of an objective data. Like pod composition? Turn order? Turn rhystic come out? Player skill? Etc Just looking at how many decks with rhystic wins says nothing, maybe in 25% of the games that card do not even touch the Battlefield. Run a test with the same 4 players, same seats Drop rhystic turn 1 -> run 1000 games Drop it turn 2 -> run 1000 games Drop it turn 3 -> same Change seat order -> repeat Change opponents deck -> repeat Check and study how many cards rhystic draw on average per game and if there is a break point where after X cards your win goes up by XX% Now check %wins And maybe you have a better answer Imho, and i repeat, i really respect the effort, but with how the data its analyzed atm its just a random ban based on nothing. Seems more a skill issue because ppl do not respect the card
@VictorianoOchoa
15 күн бұрын
@@davidebalconi5423 I agree that win rates alone should not determine banning a card. It is true that more variables are required for a thorough assessment. We may never get a proper analysis: I made a calculator to determine odds of an opponent having at least X counter / removal spells, and not even top cEDH players use such a calculator for their strategies (I'm the only one who tries to us it?). As a whole, EDH is lacking in strong analytical backing. Game theory can enter the fray, and I hope that it would for decisions like banning rhystic. My comment is more along the lines of "let's not hastily jump to conclusions." Perhaps the same intention holds for your comment?
@Obstacle17
15 күн бұрын
Can’t see the point of Ban Rhystic. Because there’s a huge stack? Are we cedh players right? If you want to play to a high level of a game, you should know and understand the rules. To me it doesn’t make sense to complain about how difficult could be the stack at some point… plus on a 100 card deck format there’s nothing better than draw cards. I really don’t understand this Ban. Also, unban golos please ❤
@gabes.1882
16 күн бұрын
Cedh just needs to branch out and be recognizing as its own format with its own banlist.
@azotdedioz
17 күн бұрын
Can you give your opinion about the cards selected to unban and the ban of rhystic study or you will wait for a official list. I think baning rhystic is a mistake because turbo is dominating and speaking of the unbans gifts ungiven will become a problem. Ty for the vid.
@EisenherzMTG
17 күн бұрын
@@azotdedioz I'll refrain from making any suggestions atm, because any change can potentially lead lots of different things for different archetypes, but I def have some ideas (just as everyone lol) Overall I'd just like to play more like a T3 format that's not in constant fear of T1/T2 wins and does rely on 1-2 draw engines and can be played in tournaments without having 3h semi-finals with stacks that are impossible to keep track of. ✌️
@davidreeves4165
16 күн бұрын
@EisenherzMTG you're definitely forgetting about the large portion of us that got into cedh for the wide open eternal format. We wanted to play the most op sh*t possible without dragging down the low power tables. Restricting my fully optimized deck from playing a rhystic study while my friend 5 feet away at the high power casual table is running it, is NOT cedh. It is nothing but extended banlist commander
@xternalpunk
16 күн бұрын
Cedh and edh are already different formats.
@kscius
16 күн бұрын
I prefer the actual cEDH banlist, is better that way, a very fast 3v1 format
@TheRadChadDad
16 күн бұрын
Cedh is awesome, and I don’t think anything should be banned. The reality is, I want to play with my old expensive cards and do crazy things, even if it means I lose on turn 1 once in a while. Let the meta sort itself out, like it always does. I would prefer unbanning to banning. Leave dockside, Rhystic, and bowmasters alone.
@themaddhadder4826
16 күн бұрын
cringe take piss pant
@MisterWebb
16 күн бұрын
No bans, just unbans. Coalition Victory, Golos, everything!
@VictorianoOchoa
16 күн бұрын
but metas "sorting themselves out" never happens in MtG! Bannings are essential for any competitive format
@josiahblakely51
16 күн бұрын
cEDH is the antithesis to how the EDH format is meant to be played. I love cEDH, but if I'm being brutally honest here, to expect them to cater to us in any way, shape or form is a ridiculous and entitled idea. If you don't like a format that isn't managed competitively than EDH, including cEDH, just isn't for you. Go play something else
@WorldlyTutor
16 күн бұрын
I agree with your first statement but defaulting to "there's no better way" is the same kind of lazy as saying "go play something else"
@platurt9595
14 күн бұрын
Yeah, if only someone would make a format exactly like current cedh but with a banlist that suits its competitive nature.
@josiahblakely51
14 күн бұрын
@platurt9595 This was commented before what happened today. This comment has nothing to do with that. I am talking about the RC for commander, not whatever we are going to call topdecks format
@Rizso1
16 күн бұрын
Alot of players do enjoy the current meta. tournaments banlist is effectively a rule 0.
@Holden_Prio
16 күн бұрын
Unban Erayo
@TheSpunYarn
16 күн бұрын
It's quite a stretch to say that the RC is "mismanaging the format" or "not doing their jobs" when you're also claiming that cEDH is "the fastest growing competitive format" and Commander continues to be the most successful and played format in MTG. The RC's job is not to cater to cEDH players. They're doing quite well at what is, frankly, the Herculean task of managing the largest format using easily understood and available philosophy. I'm sorry to cEDH players who want change, maybe they're coming from other competitive games/formats where rapid changes and "mix things up" bans are the norm, but Commander is supposed to be stable and that kind of management goes against the philosophy that brought the format so much success. ~~Just play Canadian Highlander instead~~
Пікірлер: 130