Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ral, Storm Conduit and Repeated Reverberation #2011

    MrMikeCanada
    Community Member

    I wish my group was like that, but they’re not.  They enjoy the cards available.  And we creep up in power because we have the means to scale up.  You’re never going to find a format of magic that doesn’t have some sort of power scale issue (see the unbanning of painters servant in commander). What the whole point of my original post was is not  the combo itself, but the access of it being in the command zone.  It can’t be exiled, milled, or taken away.  There are responses to it, yes.  But those responses can be responded to as well.  If it is countered or Ral is removed, it has the potential to come back.  This is the reason why I suggest banning the two cards as signature spells.  It takes the game to a level that requires players to either play a color that they may not want to play, or play an Oathbreaker deck that they might not want to (like Narset/Windfall).

    I don’t believe they will be banned, but I can see it having a negative impact as more people take notice of the format.  Having your infinite combo, which wins you the game, in the command zone can be very negative when a player experiences it.  The fact that their options for removal are reduced due to the cards being in the command zone instead of the deck makes it even more frustrating, especially if your local game store picks up on the format or tries to introduce it to players.  All it takes is that one player.  That can be said for all magic formats, but none of the other formats have infinite combos easily accessible in another zone, that can be accessed again if stopped the first time.

  • in reply to: Ral, Storm Conduit and Repeated Reverberation #2009

    MrMikeCanada
    Community Member

    My playgroup has discussed it.  They believe that they shouldn’t have to make house rules for obvious problems, but instead have to build decks that respond to it.  That means the green player of the group has to specifically design something that is a response to that deck, or build a deck out of a color that they might not want to play, because someone in the group decides they want to bust out an easily accessible infinite combo.  I don’t find it fun to play a specific deck or color just because someone wants to play a specific combo.

    In a perfect world, all playgroups would be able to just talk it out and understand that just because these combos exist, it doesn’t mean that you play it.  However, when that player decides to build tribal elves and are finding that a player in their group runs force of will, force of negation, mana drain and other spells in their tribal merfolk deck, it sets a precedent.  Then they look in their own toolbox to escalate the situation.  Then the playgroup has to discuss their own house ban list.  Then people start not having fun because the cards that they are allowed to run by regular rules are not allowed by house rules, so then they turn to a different format where the problem doesn’t exist.

    I’d love to say “Hey, don’t run easy access infinite combo” but it wouldn’t be fair.  The fair way is to escalate to that level so that people can play the cards they want.  The other side of that double edge sword is that if they do, we all escalate into some form of blue where we’re all spending tons of money on the same group of blue cards in order to stop one player or two players or even three players, which takes away from the fun and potentially restricts a players creativity and potentially pigeon-holes them into colours with answers, just in case a player decides to play the combo.  This doesn’t even take into account what happens when you head down to your local game store and having to deal with the player you don’t know busting it out.

     

    If both of the cards were banned as signature spells, a lot of this grief is prevented.

  • in reply to: Ral, Storm Conduit and Repeated Reverberation #2007

    MrMikeCanada
    Community Member

    While I agree on the combos involved that make Ral gross, there are huge differences between the cards you mentioned and the banning aim talking about.  The main difference between the two posts is the access a player has to Isochron Sceptre vs Repeated Reverberation.  Isochron Sceptre isn’t in the command zone, while Repeated Reverberation is.  Also, I’m not saying ban the card completely.  I was stating that the card should be banned as a signature spell.  The same will now go for Reverberation.  Infinite combos that are in your command zone shouldn’t be there.  I believe that it takes away from the spirit of the format.  I’m not saying ban them completely from a players deck, but take away the players ability to have automatic access to it.  Spot removal is one thing to stop it, but that’s forcing two other players to, basically, build specific answers to another friends deck.  I don’t know if that is the intention.  If it is, then ignore this post and I’m going to shove Reverberation into my Ral deck and show players the joys of Oathbreaker.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)