I've mentioned it in one of the collabs between Cimo and Rarran, and I'll say it again because it seems to be true even with CGB. The collabs between these guys have evolved into a show and tell of "look how stupid my game is"
That's what makes it so great. I've played lots of Hearthstone and Magic, and I love seeing someone else react with fresh eyes to some of the bullshit I used to deal with.
debateable because I think Academy Manufactor's rule is a bit more funny First the regular rule: If you control two Academy Manufactors and would create some number of Clue, Food, or Treasure tokens, you will instead create three times that many Clue tokens, three times that many Food tokens, and three times that many Treasure tokens. Now the funny one: If you control eighteen Academy Manufactors (I don't know, you figure it out) and would create some number of Clue, Food, or Treasure tokens, you will instead create 129,140,163 times that many Clue tokens, 129,140,163 times that many Food tokens, and 129,140,163 times that many Treasure tokens.
Personally, I adore Lovestruck Beast's ruling. "If Lovestruck Beast's power and toughness are reduced to 1/1, it learns that loving oneself is the first step on the true path to happiness, and it can attack even if you control no other 1/1 creatures."
I have the strong feeling Cimoo didn't understand Elesh Norn and that it turns off ETB Triggers and in Yugioh would stop all on summon effects, like Stratos, and not just cards like black whirlwind
Yeah the way he read it, it seems he thought that it only applies to summons triggering OTHER cards but a card that just has an on summon effect is still a permanent on the field being triggered so it's doubled
he likely made that mistake because he read permanents as spells and not monsters, as ygo has such a distinction, monsters are not spells and vice versa
I think he actually did figure this out on his own, since CGB never really explained it properly even after Cimo made his choice, and yet still Cimo later commented Elesh Norn could "get you two lands with Golos" (which triggers off itself entering).
Just at that section now and I am praying that it gets clarified. I'm just sitting here like "Cimo, no. It doesn't stop black whirlwind, it stops stratos!"
I think the difference beetween Iona and Void Winnower, is that Void is a more broad 'screw you', and Iona is 'Screw you specifically!" which may create the dreaded 'social friction
Void really doesn't do all that much. I played it for years and it was always just mildly annoying. Took it out of my decks a while ago, cause there's just better stuff you can do with a bunch of mana. Funny enough, it's even less effective in casual commander, since that is where people actually play the 3 mana spot removals and 5 mana board wipes. :D
I think the reason that winnower is fine and iona isn't comes down to removabiliy. The vast majority of highly played removal is odd costed. Swords, path, pongify, rapid hybridization, tragic slip, beast within, generous gift, anguished unmaking, stroke of midnight, chaos warp, withering torment, murder, the list goes on and on. Also doesn't turn off declecting swat, fierce guardianship, teferi's, blasphempus act, toxic deluge, X spells, the list goes on and on
@@RaidTheSecond in what world is that anything like that? xD True name is a single meek monster that has protection from one player, it doesn't stop that player from doing anything. Hell that player can still kill it with a mass removal. :D
When it comes to social friction, I think it basically means "hates 1 person out of the game without actually letting them leave". Since they're then relying on other players to get them a chance to play, if they get to at all
@@DerekS-kq3zhyeah, that card sounds awfully toxic, being the one person excluded while watching others laught at you (even in sincere good will) for a full game has to fell lowkey awfull.
@@jasperfuhs4988 the rules committee would say it's because it doesn't win the game. Just stops everyone else from playing. Counter: just concede to the hard lock Counter counter: just play a deck that actually wins the game like a normal person edit: i would rather servant be banned over iona.
@@megapixzel right, but we have dranith magistrate + possibility storm which does the same thing for 7 mana plus so many other combos. Just feels super dated
i will say, id have about 4 nickles if i had a nickle for every time i saw events take place roughly like this: iona player plays iona, calls the color a mono color deck is playing, the mono color player picks up their cards and says "welp, seeya later, have fun playing and fuck you guys" and leaves
Yeah, its one of those cards that only seems whatever on paper. Then when you play with it, ypu realize just hpw bad it is. Canr just play removal when your removal is shut off.
The thing with Iona is yeah, the other players can probably remove her... but they don't really want to. Another player have a big flyer is a small price to pay for one of your opponents no longer being able to play the game. And that just adds to the bad feels.
Maybe I'm the weirdo for running colorless answers to iona like threats regularly, but even when Iona was legal, i never actually got stuck under her that painfully (To be fair, she was the commander, so no entomb shenanigans).
Control players just hate other people playing the game, because it means they (the control player) might lose a life point or two before they drag the game out for hours until everyone gets bored and falls asleep or leaves, leaving them to finally win the game.
Iona vs voidwinnower is more nuanced than you let on. Iona doesnt actually affect everyone equally. It almost always is used to target one player who is winning, while only marginally, if at all, affecting the others. Because the player targetted by iona is usually winning, the other 2 players do not feel inclined to remove iona as that means they now how to contend with that player again. In addition, removing iona means that they may be the new target when it comes back. This creates a situation where 1 player just sits there and watches the other 3 play. That is the reason iona was banned. With voidwinner, it affects all 3 oponents and all 3 are going to aim to remove it.
The thing that makes the commander banlist hard to evaluate is that it’s not about if the card is good or not, it’s about how miserable the card is. The response “we’ll just shuffle up a new game” doesn’t really matter if the game sucked. Bad games are bad games regardless of if you play another one, mono red doesn’t suddenly become fun to play against just because you get to play another game right after. The purpose of the ban list is just to reduce the number of bad games
yeah this precisely. powerful cards can lead to good games, and cards that suck ass can lead to terrible games. that and the arguments of "well this card is banned and THIS ONE ISNT?" feel so stupid to me after the reaction to JL and Mana Crypt, like no shit they were doing as few bans as possible lol
@@Cubicthing More often than not, powerful cards lead to miserable, unpleasant games. Painter's Servant is never getting played unless it's part of an obnoxious lock. knowledge pool/Possibility storm are not seeing play unless you're using them to lock people out. Drannith Magistrate isn't seeing play because he's fun, he's seeing play because he enables degenerate play patterns. The problem is that commander intended the banned list to basically establish a "vibe-check" so that people wouldn't play obnoxious stuff. Unfortunately, that's not actually how the banned list is viewed.
Something not mentioned about the Iona ban: She was banned at the same time Painter's Servant was unbanned. Those two are a hard lock, and Painter's Servant was banned because of Iona, so the Iona ban was a reverse of which half of the combo was less desirable. Ironically, the next card showed is a hard lock with one of the most popular white cards in the format and that one isn't banned 🤪
@@jasperfuhs4988Agreed, except this wasn't a game-ending combo, depending on the board presence of your opponents the game could keep going for a while with nobody able to do much of anything.
@@jasperfuhs4988 I do too, this is just shining light on what the rules committee was thinking, and they were at least partially thinking about Painter's Servant.
Here's my defence of the Iona ban, as someone who frequently played her, ressing her out for cheap. She does shut some decks down completely, and the weird "awful" social part of it is, that the player who gets shut down, has to beg the others at the table to please remove Iona so he can play the game, while they are often just incentivised to not do that, since they have one less opponent. I do get the ban, even tho I sure loved my Iona 😇😈
finally, the actual reasonable and intellectual take on Iona ive been trying to find. I've been trying to explain this to my friends who defend the card.
as someone whose always liked mono decks. why we used to run all that bad 6-7cmc colorless removal. like maybe we didnt die while we had a nongame. but we didnt get to cost cheat our reaction to it. furthering our nongame.
Yeah, I wanted to write something similar. I do love mono-colored decks because of the restriction and identity they give and I have played against an Iona that named my color. I can say it was a very boring and sad experience after that, because my other opponents didn't want to waste a removal spell, just to be kind to me, so I had to basically sit there and do mostly nothing apart from trying to get the Iona player killed, until Iona was gone.
It's still one of the least defensible bans, but I have no problem with it staying banned, as is the case with alot of the cards. Just because stronger or similar effects exist doesn't mean I want more of that annoying effect to be present.
The difference between Iona and Void Winnower is absolutely social friction. Void Winnower, you've stopped everyone from playing roughly 50% of their decks, but they can still play, and they will use that capacity to keep playing to make you regret playing Void Winnower. Iona is basically pointing at one of your supposed friends and saying "you're spectating now" because they chose to bring a monocolor deck, probably one you hate if you're using Iona as the commander against them. That shit hurts friendships. Easy fir yall to say "grow up, life is conflict" when you're thinking about it like a TCG player, but the committee has to think about this like a friend group, because this was a casual format made for playing with friends.
That even applies to stranger-filled game nights, where commander games inherently take hours. Folks go there to hang out after a long week and play their gimmick piles or lore deck. Getting a bad game group cause 1 guy wanted to sweat or be a dick means that entire night is shot in the head, cause scooping means youre spectating regardless until a new group opens. So youre either held hostage or abandon the store. Its far beyond a feels bad moment, it betrays the entire point of the format and the game. While there are a number of unchecked cards that do that too, its better some get hit at minimum.
I'm pretty sure "social friction" refers specifically to the fact that if iona locks you out of playing anything and if you can't use your board to deal with it, you are completely dependent on the other players to get you back into the game by removing iona. Your friends have to choose between their optimal play they were planning or removing iona and getting you back in the game. Or decide if keeping you out of the game is more beneficial, and if they're willing to go against that to get you back in the game. Like I wouldn't say winter orb creates social friction, it just slows the game to a crawl unless you have a lot of mana sources.
"People don't play monocolor commanders". Yes, and punishing those who do doesn't seem cool. As always, "dies to removal" is a poor excuse especially when the card itself can prevnt you from playing your removal spells. And the fact that Iona is "bad" doesn't make it better, it's just worst for everyone involved. I can tolerate some annoying stuff when it's the optimal play, but when a card or strategy is just plain annoying AND bad, it's the worst of both worlds a no one is happy in the end.
I think another aspect that makes me agree with it being banned is the asymmetrical way it shuts down games. If you're playing a monocolored deck and someone plays Iona to lock you out, now you're stuck watching everyone play the game while you just sit there. The players who didn't lock you out also probably don't see a reason to help fix the situation, which can cause resentment. Cimo might have joked about how 'social friction' is just 'life', but the social and emotional aspects of commander are important to the format. I don't play competitive EDH though, so maybe it's less important there compared to casual play.
Iona is an awful card, I've never seen her played and she does effectively nothing. But. I can see hypothetical scenarios where a random dude comes in with a monocolour deck, sits down with a friend-group of 3, one of them drops Iona and the rest of them start teasing the guy. 100% they banned her solely because people suck and this leads to nothing but 1 dude feeling a bit sucky til he leaves. If the card somehow won the game, or was playable I think it'd be fine, but like you said she's just both bad and annoying, so why not elect to just avoid these POTENTIAL cases all together.
Okay so why is Void Winnower legal? It shuts down effectively half (1/2) of all cards in a deck (assuming your pod's decks have equal odd and even mana costs), whereas Iona blocks a single color (1/5). They cost the same amount of mana, and Void Winnower has a second making blocking harder as well. Yet, Iona is banned and VW isn't.
Saying that people don't play mono colour commanders is also simply untrue. I myself have 4 mono coloured commander decks and know of many people at my LGS who also have them. Your mileage may vary, but I'd say enough people play mono colour for a card like Iona to prevent them from playing the game.
To be fair, Iona seems a lot more awful to play against than Drannith Magistrate. While not being able to cast your commander is annoying, you still have your whole 99 to go through. If you have an expensive or situational commander, it might also not even have the chance to go down before Magistrate leaves the board. It's also much easier to kill. I love two-color decks, and Iona shutting down anywhere from 30 to 70% of my spells sounds like a nightmare. And then I have to sit there waiting to draw a castable card and begging the other players to remove her. She might be expensive, but there are a thousand and one ways to cheat creatures out. Not a fan.
Drannith also stops playing from library like Bolas's citadel, playing from grave like underworld breach, all impulse draw etc. It is 10x better than Iona. If someone was playing Iona i would win before it hits the board
@byronstier7438 Oh yeah, Magistrate is a lot better than Iona. What I'm saying is that playing against Iona would be a generally worse experience than playing against Magistrate.
@ender4101 I can't agree with that. One is coming down turn 1 or 2 and the other is coming down much later. Plus if I'm in anything besides mono colour I don't really care about Iona.
@@byronstier7438 Magistrate comes down earlier and is guaranteed to affect everyone (every player has a commander, of course). It's just a better card. My point is that Iona doesn't come down as fast, but faster than it seems. I have an orzhov reanimator deck that could reliably get her down by turn 4, and even earlier on a nuts hand. Also, yeah, the more colors you have, the less problematic she is for you. But not everyone plays 3+colors. As I said, I play 2 color decks the most, and they are usually a 70/30 distribution in color. If Iona were to come down and choose my most prominent color, I would absolutely not be able to get out alone. I'd have to beg the other players to set me free, but they'd likely have no incentive to. In those cases, yeah, Iona would absolutely be more miserable than a Magistrate coming down a few turns earlier.
Iona is banned because it shuts down one player at the table and the only way for them to get back into the game is for their opponents to remove it which they don't have incentive to so it basically hard locks one player into draw go for an hour till the games done, when its played against you all you can do is scoop which is looked down on, iona can single handedly destroy play groups with sheer sodium one of the few bans that are totally reasonable.
Blue has Otawara, White has Touch the Spirit Realm. Simic also has Colossal Skyturtle. Every deck has Talon Gates of Madara. There's plenty of ways in current Commander to break out of an Iona lock.
@@a.velderrain8849 Otawara is good. Touch the Spirit Realm is a blink that removes her for 1 turn, then she comes back and continues to floodgate you for the rest of the game. Talon Gates is also only for one turn. Yeah, you get to play your cards for a turn, but if you don't kill that player immediately or build an unsurmountable advantage in that time window, you'll just be locked out again. Just keep it banned. It's just one card. There are many high cost, high impact, and much less miserable angels in the card pool.
@@a.velderrain8849 Ah yes, a 1 of removal card. In a 99 card deck. Where you cant use your tutors, or the ones you can use are artifacts that are way more mana. Just because a card has an out, doesnt make it a healthy card.
@@clayxros576 Oh excellent point about the artifacts, I forgot that colorless spells are something every deck can play against Iona. Iona costs 9, there's 7 cost cards like Meteor Golem which would work. Seems like a fair trade.
@@clayxros576 There are something like 20 artifact based board wipes that clear an Iona. And only one of them is worldslayer (which is even more salt inducing than iona). On top of that, there are many damage based artifacts that can nuke it from orbit.
As a 5C Lands Matters player, playing a lot of Online Magic during Golos reign-of-terror, it absolutely was correct to ban it. Every table had Golos decks, sometimes 2 people playing Golos, just because it was so generically good. It was over twice as popular, on EDHRec, as the second place commander, Atraxa (4cmc one), and if you combined the next three commanders, they barely beat out Golos in deck count. Tables had to put “No Golos Please” because it was so ubiquitous. A rare time the RC had a good take on banning a card, tbh.
It's too bad, because playing a Golos deck at a high power level "as-intended" was actually really cool. My friend had a ~$2.5k Golos deck that was designed to actually assemble WUBRG and wheel quickly and often into power cards like the Ultimatums, and - provided it was at a table that wasn't absolutely curb stomped by it - it was a really fun deck to watch. It also wasn't that ubiquitous at our locals, so there's that.
I don’t understand how anyone can enjoy playing Golos. It’s brain dead 5 color good stuff without any kind of necessity to plan or strategize or think.
It doesn't even have to head a 5 colour deck You can just use it to build a 4 card deck with a commander that manafixes you, and can be played regardless of what colours you've gotten so far And then incidentally you can still use the ability sometimes with command tower, signet, treasures, etc
As a commander noob I see no problem with void winnower, no even mana cost is something you can get around even by randomly building a deck... On the other hand the angel is just someone pointing at you and saying "screw you dude" which would feel kinda miserable, especially if you can't politic your way out of it
Loved hearing that there's a difference with Iona saying "as" instead of "when" because there is a very similar sort of technicality in yugioh with cards that say "when x" vs "if x"
There's also a different between those two in magic. Since "when" always implies a triggered ability, a card that says "when this attacks, you may choose target creature defending player controls. You may sacrifice this. *If* you do, deal 3 damage to that creature" Is different than a card that says "when this attacks, you may choose target creature defending player controls. You may sacrifice this. *When* you do, deal 3 damage to that creature" Since the second one is actually 2 triggered abilities. For the first one, you can respond to the original ability by protecting the creature that they targeted in some way, but then they can simply choose not to sacrifice their creature. For the second one, you can respond to the initial trigger, but since there is a separate triggered ability after they sacrifice it, you could also wait until they do to protect your creature meaning they need to decide whether to sacrifice it before they know if you're creature will be protected.
There's a lot of terminology overlap between Magic and Yugioh, even on rather weird details you'd think would be unique to one game or another. While Magic does use "as" for some replacement effects, like seen here, more commonly it uses the same "if ... would ... instead" wording as Yugioh. And both games apply replacement effects in (mostly) the same way, in the middle of effects or game actions. The one I find most amusing is Yugioh's distinction between a card getting "sent" to the graveyard (or "put into" for Magic) vs. getting discarded/destroyed. A Magic player might not even notice the same distinction exists in Magic as well, since basically no card effects directly move cards from the hand or battlefield to the graveyard without such a keyword action. There are plenty of ways it happens, at least for permanents going to the graveyard, but they are all hidden within the game rules (e.g., a creature with 0 toughness dies but isn't destroyed, as would a planeswalker with 0 loyalty, or any Aura that isn't enchanting anything). Add that onto the fact that very few cards mention destruction specifically, outside of actual destruction effects, and the distinction just doesn't tend to come up in Magic.
@@Metallicity yeah. It's really only Indestructible, Regenerate, and Shield Counters that care about destruction specifically and those tend to spell it out in their rules.
@@seandun7083 interesting, though, in YGO the distinction would apply more in the sense of cards with specific timings, and depending on the resolution of the chain some effects can not activate, because unlike in MTG the YGO chain cannot be interrupted
MTG is extremely specific about the grammar used and minor differences can have drastic rules effects. I love it, a game having clear rules is fantastic, and they do a good job of matching the differences with the connotations and denotations of the words (usually). That being said I'm not ecstatic about reflexive triggers, they have some very unintuitive rules effects and mainly exist to avoid the "no target = spell/ability fizzles" effect.
The way they talk about 'social friction' and how it applies to some of these cards makes it seem like they dont understand that "all players can't do x" and "x player cant do anything" are two VERY different things
WRT scooping, I think the bigger divide isn't necessarily between competitive/casual, but between two-player games and group games. As a board gamer, scooping is very frowned upon when there are several other players left in the game, because it doesn't just affect you - it makes the rest of the game different for the remaining players in a way that is not part of the mechanics of the game. Basically, your decision to scoop can mean a player slightly in the lead might be cemented as a guaranteed winner, making the mid-position players have a boring game unless they also scoop. But in two player board games, including casual ones, scooping is generally fine, as is scooping in a group game where only two players remain, because the game is over at that point.
Staying in the game could also mean playing kingmaker if you otherwise have no way of winning the game. I think it’s pretty much context dependent, like you shouldn’t scoop if you have an O-Ring effect on the board.
@@lequinow Weirdly enough, for literal O-ring if you scoop the exiled card is just gone forever because the return to the battlefield effect does not go on the stack, whereas Banishing Light does return the card. In either case our playgroup just created a "no spite scooping" rule. As in, no scooping in response to a board state for the purposes of helping or hindering anyone. Like, don't scoop in response to a lethal attack to prevent beneficial damage triggers.
@@lequinow I definitely agree it's context dependant, but while kingmaking can of course also be detrimental to the game and won't make you popular, it is usually using the mechanics of the game itself, whereas with few exceptions, scooping is something external to the game system. In my experience (and of course that doesn't speak for everyone's experience), scooping in a multiplayer game is much more universally frowned upon regardless of how you do it, whereas with kingmaking it's generally only seen as an issue when done in a very overt and obnoxious way (and/or for motives beyond the game itself).
104.3a: A player can concede the game at any time and for any reason. If your social group adds more restrictions to that that's their problem. It's irritating when a player concedes when they're already about to die to shut down things like lifelink or damage player triggers, but other than that, go for it.
I think it's fine and healthy for the meta because ultimately, the star of the content is the history lesson and getting to learn about different card games and their mechanics.
@@SpecterVonBaren As someone who recently gained interest in magic (havent played since i was a little kid barely understanding English let alone magic) I love these videos for general context.
They're really interesting videos because of the people involved. Cimoooo is much better at evaluating MTG card power level than Rarran but not necessarily as good at identifying the mindset of the ban committee, for example.
Oh Biorhythm, I think what keeps it banned is the "oops I win" factors to the card in lower to mid power level games. The wind just get sucked out of the game if a player wraths the board, and then some one else gets to their turn, looks down at their hand, and plays an elf and a Biorhythm, even if it does not win the game on the spot, some one probably just lost. The non-interactivity of it when face with a table that does not have some holding up countermagic 24/7 leads to anticlimactic games.
Yeah, the problem isn't strategically abusing it, but just getting an opportunistic win or even just knocking one player out, just because, out of nowhere. It's not fun.
Yeah, I hate when people bring it up like "Bruh Finality & Craterhoof are basically the same." They still require some amount of effort. You can just cast a raw biorhythm and the game will likely either end immediately or very soon after, and not in a very satisfying way.
Biorhythm is so bad, so easily countered, and did I mention it is bad... And you lot act as if the blue players in low tier games aren't playing 40 counter spells, you act as if it isn't cEDH no one has heard of Counterspell, or heck even Remand... I've never played a commander game, where, no one doesn't have an out for Biorhythm, even if there are no blue players at the table. You guys act as if in low tier games, every player taps all their mana at the end of turn, just for fun... and you act as if there isn't Flash creatures in EVERY Color. Black even has countermagic for Green spells with Deathgrip. White has Remand, Lapse of Certainty, Mana Tithe... Red has Tibalt's Trickery, or Molten Influence(situational).. and Green... has the ability to just spam the board from nowhere with new stuff, making Biorhythm not even worth it, in the first place. You lot are just salty losers, who'd complain no matter how you lost.
@@livedandletdie No, in low power games people aren't playing 40 counter spells. MAYBE 10 plus other interaction? The idea that people will always have an instant soeed resoibse ti whatever is happening at all times is foreign to me, because that does not happen in my games.
@livedandletdie This just in guys, if it can be countered, it's totally safe to unban. My guy, we know there are other very degenerate and dumb spells people are casting nowadays, but that doesn't change the fact that when this does resolve, which will happen cause even with responsible amounts of interaction you won't always have an answer, it will feel like a boring wet fart end to a game. If you think the card sucks, and we think the card is a boring way to close, then why even discuss unbanning it. If we agree it adds no value then it should stay banned regardless.
Important context: Iona was banned when they unbanned Painter's servant. I'm pretty sure they just didn't want both cards to be legal so they banned a card no one actually played. Also, when I look at Biorhythm I see it as: 8 mana, the game ends in a draw. I don't really see a situation where the card results in a fun experience.
If your a psychopath sure you could wrath the board and draw the game with Bio but I’d prefer that over something like possibility storm and there’s a good amount of answers to bio like a flash creature or a beast within effect If your using bio to actually win the game, imo it’s fine but it looks like a card you’d have to see played/ play before evaluating
I'm pretty sure Biorhythm is in the same category as Coalition victory in that it's banned from the get go because the creators of the format didn't want to deal with it in any way because they thought it's not in the spirit of a game of commander to play a card that just ends this big game in one card. Not because it's to strong or something - just they don't like it. They could delete it from the ban list and probably nobody would care - but why bother? What good could come from it?
@@ToabyToastbrot That’s probably true but there’s two ways to look at a ban list, either to try to make it as small as possible or what you said and just don’t bother. Both of these ways of thinking isn’t wrong and applies to other formats bans list as well. Punishing fire and umezawas jitte are probably fine in modern nowadays but they were cringe cards then so why bother
@@Brntnugget Have you seen the number of people defending Iona using the exact reason it was banned? That being "It dies to removal, just play removal", completely ignoring she inherently shuts removal down. There is absolutely a huge population of pub-stomping psychopaths whod gladly All Is Dust the board into a 4 way draw.
I think Cimmooo has some health issues and is going to need to take some time off soon. So I assume he is trying to push out as many video's as he can now.
I think the issue with Iona is not stopping 1/3 of 3 decks, but stopping 1 deck and nothing of the other 2. The player locked out of the fame can only beg the ones still allowed to play to let them in, but it can not (really) be achieved through game-related incentives and must go through social interaction.
On Conceding in Commander: One of the reasons why I believe there exists a taboo against concession is the effect conceding can have on players who might still be trying to win. It is not uncommon for a payer to have just the right cards to eliminate a player who appears to have the game. Other players conceding increases the chances that they won't make it to their turn to use those cards. Because players can't see each other's hands, no one can ever really know if someone else has a shot and thus scooping can feel like kingmaking.
There are also many cases where you have a mind control effect going on. If I have something of my opponents that I’m using to kill another player, if they just concede it might make me lose the game too.
Biorhythm isn’t banned for the combo, it’s banned because you have a potential combo, then the person to your left simplifies the boardstate, passes to you, and you one card combo “I win unless you counter”
28:00 I would say that's because playing Commander around a table feels a lot more like playing a board game, and part of what a lot of people like about commander is not just building their crazy decks, but seeing them go off, and having those random reversal moments where the person who was winning the whole game gets flipped. I've heard it put in a different way where, in the VERY early days of some RTS games, it was considered BM to leave the game early - your opponent won, so you give them the satisfaction of blowing up all your stuff. As competitive ladders and online play get more popular it makes sense for people to be much more willing to just scoop and go on to the next game. But when you might ONLY be able to play one game, it becomes a much more social environment, where players are there not just to play but also to chat, to have a good time, and to see how their decks work out.
"part of what a lot of people like about commander is not just building their crazy decks, but seeing them go off, and having those random reversal moments where the person who was winning the whole game gets flipped" The same is true for two players magic. For example, there are a lot of videos in which Saffron Olive gets frustrated over his opponent conceding for the same reason. Your point about the change on culture because of competitive ladders does make sense to me.
The problem with conceding in a multiplayer format is two fold: 1) One of your opponents might save you. This is especially pushed due to TH-cam videos where this happens (even if the player being saved doesn’t last much longer). 2) if I concede, then CGB will crush Cimo as they can focus on just them, not on both of us. Whilst I still lose, one extra turn might give Cimo the chance to find the card and win. In 1 on 1 formats neither of these issues arise, and you are just wasting your time by not conceding (unless running out the clock is your only way to win/tie).
@@pillinjerwell, also in person it will still take time until the next round starts, so even in 1v1 people might still rather want to play it out, because they have to wait the full round regardless, as opposed to digital whete you can, immediately queue into the next game
I don't think that competitive ladders and online play are responsible to rise on people scooping At least as a general phenomenon thinking about Yugioh for example the peak of scooping isn't related to the release of master duel but to the notion that on a best of 3 is better to forfeit the game 1 to not show what deck you are playing to your opponent
@@chicabu67not to mention that in a real tournament setting you're againts a timer, so its better to scoop on a game you're 100% losing and go for the last game of the match, instead of banking on your opp missplaying, them not doing that, and have less time for game 3
About scooping, I think it's more to do with the format being not 1v1 in Commander. When you scoop, you're kinda "forcing" the other 2 players who aren't in the lead to also scoop because the game suddenly becomes so much harder for them to solve, almost like disconnecting during a raid battle in an MMO. In Yugioh, scooping is basically my mulligan lmao. Draw a bad hand, set 1 and pass. Opponent has an opener that's just as bad, I'll play it out for 1 or 2 turns. If they have a good opener that none of my interactions can answer, or they could force through it, just scoop and go next.
The MMO comparison is very apt. Though even beyond the balance aspect, there's a "politeness" to it in that, up until your concession, your opponents have been making decisions on the assumption that you would be in the game, using removal, holding back blockers the previous turn when they otherwise could've swung, etc. so you just made their previous assessments moot and put them in a worse position by "robbing" them of those resources they would've otherwise allocated differently and they cannot recoup. I don't think most folks care quite to that degree, though it depends on how competitively minded you are.
@@Tuss36 sure, if you're trying to scoop at least you have to assess the board with the others. As I mentioned in Yugioh there's also a time window where you'd let things play out and see what happens. That window of opportunity is widened in Commander because you're trying to draw an out from 3 separate decks.
I feel like Iona is pretty clear. If one person is playing a mono color deck, Iona locks the out of the game in a way where nobody is insentivised to let them come back. You are just forced to sit there while the rest of the table finishes the game or until the player with Iona loses, at which point youre too far behind.
CGB: haha they banned it because of "social friction", what babies, git gud! Also CGB: I HATE CHAOS DECKS, WHY DON'T THEY LET ME PLAY MY DECK AS I INTENDED TO
Iona literally forces mono color players into, "hey can you let me play" as the other three players ignore them for the next hour till its advantagous for them, hence the social friction
Until you don't have your disc or your tutors because inconsistency is built into the format, and the more you fight against that, the more you belong just playing modern or standard, and you sit there for two hours watching the Iona player laugh at you.
@@Ornithopter470 you have some really bad defenses for Iona. Why are you so deadset on this card being legal? Oh yeah just play your 7 mana removal spell that only gets played because of this one card. Or play a really bad board wipe hoping that maybe you get to use it against Iona. Oh and sure it takes a turn to be ready but its not like the Iona player can't just attack you since you can't defend yourself or use some kind of artifact removal. Congrats you can think of incredibly rare situations that you can play around a card that sucks to play against. "dies to removal" is not an argument to unban something unless you are arguing in bad faith because everything dies to removal. just unban everything and die to a turn one black lotus combo kill every game!! Just play removal and you won't lose obviously!
As someone who has played Erayo at fairly high powered tables it always has been wild to me that it only ever is an early flip people are worried about. Regardless of when it happens it always is good and it is not like the Erayo player who obviously plays blue to some extend might have some counter backup in case some gets through. So the card even in mid to late game states can end up time with multiple players essentially taking turns off. I love how we always have one card were CGB fails to explain what the wording means, all he had to say for Elesh Norn was that the permanent entering can be the same card whose ability triggers and not just different cards.
Yeah erayo is pretty disgusting. Granted they've printed more 'can't be countered' cards over time, however, erayo lock is not that hard to pull off since just having Erayo flipped slows down opponents enough for you to find arcane lab or whatever else. Erayo also gets super frustrating when someone can play 2 spells in a turn, but nothing says the Erayo player can't counterspell the 2nd spell to maintain the chokehold.
Spell and trap floodgates became oppresive because the game more monster centric and the outs are in the ED so if you lock peope out thier extra they can't out shit because nobady is siding spell/trap removal in the current game state
@@lucasalarcon3230 "because nobady is siding spell/trap removal in the current game state" I think that’s what is weird from an MTG perspective. We have glass canon decks in eternal formats (Mana less dredge, Oops all spells, Mind pack, etc.) and those can be good or bad but are rarely the most reliable game plan there is. If they ever become too popular, people make the appropriate meta calls and bring tech cards to hose those decks. The more I’ve watched Cimo’s video, it seems like everybody in YGO has a super glass cannon deck that can’t afford to make meta adjustments at the cost of consistency. The fact that people absolutely hate hosers even though there are good and reliable answers really shows what each fanbase wants out of their game.
@lequinow it not like those floodgates are either cheese way for bad decks to win or side decks option for going first in good decks basically the theory it that is more important to run starter and interaction over spell and trap removal
@@lequinowunsearchable removal isnt realiable AT ALL. Modern YGO is too fast for "draw the out" to be serious. You dont have the answer then and there? You lose.
@@BussiDestroyer Yup. Which is why extra deck has become so important because as long as you can get the bodies on board, the extra deck utility is always available. Which in turn is also why floodgates that lock summoning are stronger than ever 🥲
@@nickchaput219 Opposition Agent is an incredibly rude card but generally you'll have play options that don't trigger it (and I don't know how familiar Cimooooo is with fetchlands). Notion Thief being legal while Hullbreacher isn't is a much weirder situation
@Sheer_Falacy the point is he isn't familiar that's the gimmick. Also Oppo agent is fine, people need to be punished for being greedy and tutoring a lot
A take on conceding as a new player: When I started playing Starcraft against my mate who played the game for a decade and some, I learned that RTS players, especially of higher levels, tend to concede-go-next rather quickly, as they know the point where there is no way out for them anymore. So in one of our matches he asked me if I still had a chance and why I wouldn't concede. I never had a chance in that game, so by that logic I should have conceded the minute we loaded into the game. Going through the motions helps one to familiarize himself with what he's actually doing. I personally don't like conceding when I'm effectively learning something, because that's not how I learn, even if the game may feel a bit sloggy
Chess has a bit of that too, where some players can get very angry when the losing player isn’t conceding. However, trying to defend a lost position can still be fun and can actually be a good learning experience. People who get annoyed at having to play from a clearly winning position will often have problems finding the optimal way to win the game and could learn a thing or two from playing it through.
Amusingly, some of the bans discussed completely spit in the face of that angle. Iona makes it so you straight up cant come back, unless you knew she existed or that player gives mercy. And Biorhytm is a "Game Over" button, taking away any chance at recovery. Not to mention an auto-win against spell slinger decks. It can definitely be fun, as a rookie or a veteran, to play out a lost game. Ladders have kinda ruined that mindset by prioritizing won games over game actions. Though its good for actually skilled players, cause it means most at the top dont actually have as much experience as they should.
Something else Very important to scooping is: Commander is 4 player. 1: If you're at a table with three other people, and someone gets shut down completely, what are they supposed to do? Go home while you keep playing? Sit there for potentially an hour or more waiting for another match? Or is Everyone supposed to end the game because One person is out? And 2: It alters the board for more players. Something that can happen is that one player gains enough of an advantage that alliances are drawn to try and reset the balance of the board. If someone scoops when that happens, it puts the side that was at a disadvantage at MORE of a disadvantage.
@@lequinow Something that is absolutely infuriating in chess is someone not conceding because they want the other player to time out. I spent a lot of my game time on maneuvering my opponent into an essentially lost position, and we both know that I could eventually beat them to death by my huge advantage. But now I have 3 minutes left on the clock and my opponent has 10. So all they need to do is dance one piece back and forth and immediately pass the timer to me; and I simply don't have enough time to adequately respond and use the advantage I have to actually win before I clock out. (Just to be clear, this is of course considered extremely bad manners, and while it might not get you exactly banned from a tournament, it is certainly not earning you any respect for "outsmarting" your opponent.)
@@AbdielKavash That’s a case-by-case situation too. Playing with a clock means that you have a set amount of time to think about your moves. You need to be able to beat your opponent in the aloted time, not be up material with no time on the clock. The fact that you used more time than your opponent can very well be the reason why you have an advantage. If your opponent thinks you managed your time poorly and that you won’t be able to win before the clock runs out, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to put you up to the test. You might not play as accurately under time pressure. There are obviously cases where it’s just pettyness. It can certainly be infuriating and bad-mannered in classical chess or even longer rapid time controls where the position is a theoretical win that you have no chance of losing or stalemating. When it comes to blitz and bullet though, the clock is a weapon and should be used accordingly. (I’m obviously not talking about a player just letting the clock run in a losing position, which is never acceptable.)
Oh I can actually answer on biorhythm at least in a casual environment because we played without knowing there was a ban list. Yes it’s hilariously broken in a casual format. It typically reads 7 mana do 110 damage to opponents then you just attack in with your big green timmy cards and kill 2-3 players who can’t block all the damage. It’s also a great endgame card as the threat of it makes players with wrath’s worry about passing without a board and sometimes it can allow for sneak wins right off the top as long as they have a castle creature in hand.
If there exists a person that wants to defend Iona, I don't want to ever meet them. Imagine if you're the only deck that plays a color at the table and get picked. You can just scoop up your cards and leave, you're not doing anything else in that game unless the rest takes pity on you
Yup. And even if you have a colorless card that could answer her, the other players aren't just incentivized to not deal with her for you, but to actively protect her since she keeps you locked out.
@@seandun7083 And if you do somehow have a colorless card that answers her you usually can't do so without spending 6+ mana so you better hope Iona didnt come down early. You also better hope you naturally draw them because you're not gonna have access to pretty much any of your draw and search effects in most decks. So even if you do have an answer somewhere in your deck youve made your deck significantly worse in every other situation by playing it and its not in your favor that youll even find it.
I love how the "just rule 0, there's no need to ban" group always starts finding all sorts of issues with using rule 0 the second you flip it on them. You are absolutely right that rule 0 works both ways.
@@indigo1296 My play group regularly lets me rule zero the Lutri ban to only be banned as companion and I run him in the 99 for my Niv Mizzet deck. The Companion deck restriction being just part of the Commander deck building rules is what made it ban worthy, not the actual play pattern of the card. The format really does need a tiered ban system with banned from the companion and command zones being options without ripping it out of the 99.
@@indigo1296 Rule Zero doesn't work either way. There are some cards that deserve to be banned, Biorhythm isn't one of them. Trying to rule zero it into play doesn't work for the same reason it wouldn't work to rule zero ban Hullbreacher or Flash.
@@a.velderrain8849 Thank you for demonstrating my point. I will actually discuss with you how rule zeroing a card in is different from rule zeroing a card out though. When a card is banned, but you still want to run it, you know the expectation is that people may not be okay with it, so you would prepare another deck, or an alternative card to switch in incase people decline (if you had common sense, at least). If you're trying to rule zero someone's legal card out they are far less likely to have something prepared and thus will cause much more friction/discomfort. It's also a lot easier for people to accept the contentious cards when you have to declare it upfront before the game, especially for these "non-viable for actual competitive but will affect casual tables" type cards.
1:15:20, I think the reason biorythm is banned (and IMO should stay banned) is because in a lower power deck, it ends up just being weird. Say your player 2, at 1 life, and someone is dominating the board. If Player 1 were to board wipe, you could play a single creature + biorythm, completely ignoring almost everything else about the game. I don't think the card would see ANY high level play, but I think beginners might put it in their decks, and make some games end really sadly due to it...
Honestly, it wouldn't see any high level play because the only kinds of decks that want this effect want a Shaman of the Forgotten ways more ─ cause a body is tutorable in Mono Green and it's a serviceable mana dork before going for the activated ability. It's actually seen cEDH play in the not-so-distant past, but unfortunately better outlets have been printed for the ~2 mono green commanders that want this.
@@Hitzel Thank you for telling me about Shaman of Forgotten Ways, it's interesting that a similar ability has been printed! Although with a restriction eliminating the use-case in commander where the game suddenly ends in a draw after a board wipe / you being basically dead. Thereby avoiding exactly the situtation mentioned in the reason for the ban in the first place. My point was about low power decks, not high level play. We have to remember that the Commander Ban List is built around casual play and not competitive play. And in a casual game Biorythm can simply flip a game upside down. Even if it doesn't instantly win, everyone suddenly being at just a few life means a single attack could wipe someone out, no matter how much life they had previously. Sure, it's insanely unreliable, but beginners might be adding this card, without even realizing just how "weird"/"unbalanced" it's playpattern would be. If we treat the card as nearly unplayable anyways, (in high level play), then the ban preventing it from being used in low level play makes sense to me.
It also feels like biorhythm would negatively effect deck diversity by shutting down any decks that have few or no creatures or use healing. It doesn't even have to be comboed into an OTK. It'd also work to table flip the game and bring at least one player down to burn range by the other players. It says "nothing that happened earlier mattered" and those cards have traditionally been banned. It's not a *good* card, but it is a toxic one.
If I understand the card correctly Iona shuts down every card that has that color in it too, so if your multicolor spells will be unplayable as well meaning even if you play two or three colors, a large portion of your deck will be hosed anyways.
Erayo also counts herself as one of those 4 spells cast... so with cards like lotus petal, mox diamond and some baubles it's very easy to both cast and flip her on turn 1.
I think what they meant by “social friction” is that if one player is locked out by iona, they might ask other players to remove iona for them and then get mad about it when they dont, because opponents are under no obligation to help you
Biorhythm isn't a payoff for a big board, it's retaliation for someone wiping the board. If Cratergoof is the payoff for building a board, Biorhythm is Plan B after your board gets wiped. The most common play pattern is someone wraths the board, then the green player plays Biorhythm with maybe one dork and takes several players out of the game or causes a draw.
Controversial take: Kamigawa flip card design is infinitely better than later double side card design because it doesn't require unsleeving the card (which is a crime at a play table)
Ok but that ignores the issue of clarity when the card is tapped. Which side is active on the tapped card? You can't assume which one is because you can't assume which way they tap something. Clarity of board state is infinitely more important than "i cant be fucked to flip my card every so often"
I think the difference between Iona and Void Winnower is that, like you said, Void Winnower affects ALL of your opponents... a little. But it almost certainly doesn't fully lock anyone out of the game, unless you are playing something like an Obosh deck. Everybody is staxed a little, but anyone can still play ~50% of the cards in their deck, including an answer to Void Winnower. The game is impacted, but nobody is just fully shut out. With Iona, if you have an opponent on a monocolor deck, that opponent might as well just scoop. You basically told them they aren't allowed to play anymore, and all of the possible cards they could have to answer it are being shut down by the very card they need to answer. They can try to beg another player to deal with it for them, but why would anyone unlock one of their opponents and willingly spend a removal spell to get rid of a stax piece that is only hurting one of their enemies? The "social friction" of Iona is that you, as the Iona player, get to look at the board and pick any monocolor decks to completely shut down, or one of the colors of any two-color decks to severely hamper, and their only option is to either ask somebody else to get you to stop bullying them, or sit there and watch everyone else play magic. Meanwhile, Void Winnower just says "everybody has this new weird restriction, try to work around it as best you can". IMO, Void Winnower is 100% fine to leave in the game, but Iona is on the short list of cards that need to absolutely stay out of the format.
For reference, I think the comparison of Void Winnower to Iona is a lot like the comparison of Erayo to a Rule of Law. Rule of Law staxes the table in a way that everybody can still play the game, just under a limitation. Erayo says "no more magic for you". Rule of Law can often be answered, and the game can proceed. Erayo is much much harder to answer, especially when backed up by countermagic. Rule of Law is perfectly fine to leave in the game, Erayo is deservedly banned.
Social tension is real. I’ve seen people legitimately get in week long fights because one didn’t help the other out of a situation. I don’t want to imagine what an iona would’ve done to that friendship
On Scooping. In a 1v1 scooping ends the game. It means you can start another. In a 4FFA scooping means: I do nothing and watch while my friends keep playing for the next hour. Unless you can promise me that everyone else will scoop? I see the 2nd place player scoop plenty in commander, but just imagine how much fun it would be on CGB's commander videos to see one of the guests play 2 turns, quit and watch for the next hour.
9:00 I play mono-color EDH decks all the time, and I got locked down for half of a game by Iona when it was still legal. And people don't use it like you think- they don't pick the most common color, they use it as single target player removal for whomever's commander has the lowest number of colors. Remember, just because you have a 2, 3, 4 color deck, doesn't mean those colors will all be represented evenly and the Iona player can usually sus out which is which pretty easily. Playing against Iona sucks and it's good that they banned it. EDIT: 26:05 NEVER scoop. The lockdown player often has no actual wincon other than annoying the table into scooping, and will also have drawn more cards than you to get to their combo. Refusing to scoop and making them play through their win will result in them decking themself. And if this is a tournament, you call the judge for slow play if they take more than 30 seconds a turn.
Bingo. Scooping generally means you're either too salty to actually officially lose a game and just want another, better chance at winning, or you're spiteful and stubborn and just want to take away the feeling of actually winning from your opponent. It's childish no matter what.
Wow, I agree with neither of these takes and I play a lot of mono color decks. All I have to say about Iona, yeah the play pattern sucks if you are mono, but that's the game. Plenty of play patterns suck. If my opponent gives me necropotence and removes my ability to pay life for things then that means I can no longer draw cards. That sucks. At the end of the day, it's casual, it's a card game. Have a laugh over it. Secondly, scooping is very healthy. I often let my opponent play it out if I don't believe they have a win. If I do believe they have a win there's zero reason to waste my time. Same as chess. Also contrary to the comment above me implying scooping is immature, it is very much mature as it respects your opponent's ability to win.
@@profozpin227 guess it depends on how you play 🤷🏼 I play casual multiplayer, non-formatted magic at the kitchen table at home with friends I've had for decades. I don't play with Timmy and his big brother's 2500$ bitcoin netdeck at the LGS. Maybe scooping in competitive is meaningful. At my table, my friends only scoop when they're salty lmao
As a YGO player that occasionally plays EDH with my fiends. I have one EDH deck and it is double sleeved and going from my 40 card YGO deck to the 100 card double sleeve is ROUGH to shuffle..I'd pay money to see CImooooooooo struggle shuffling a double sleeved commander deck.
The biggest difference between brawl and EDH i find is the fact i have 3 other people on the table and usually one of them has an answer.. also brawl im playing to win... whereas EDH im gonna sit there and chat to people for 3 hours before i realise my creature was exiled last turn
Hearing CGB complain every time a card is banned for social friction, and then babyrage about chaos decks, really doesn't paint him as a fun person to play or hang out with.
When it comes to Biorhythm, I imagine the toxic play pattern that's more common would be playing it immediately after another player board wipes. I could see it easily taking out 1-3 opponents unexpectedly.
I always thought the Iona ban was because she can take one player out of the game completely while at the same time not hindering the others at all making it impossible for the affected player to remove and at the same time undesirable for the rest of the table to do so. (What I mean is for example one opponent plays mono black and the other 2 opponents don't have black in their deck or don't care for their black cards right now) This effectively locks one player out of playing and just having to watch the game unfold which really isn't what Commander is about in their Philosophy.
Thats one of the larger reasons why. It reads "target player no longer gets to play the game" more times than not and in a format where the whole point is hanging out with people and having fun a card that says "you are no longer allowed to participate in this social activity" is just a dick move and unfun.
In defense of Possibility Storm, the card is BONKERS against control. "I cast a counterspell", "no you don't, you cast the next thing in your library", "oh great, I get to Brainstorm instead." "I blow up your thing", "again, no you don't", "oh great, I got a counterspell with nothing on the stack. Woo-hoo." "I'm gonna try to combo off with my Locust God for the win", "what did you actually hit?", "Aaaaaand it's a Blasphemous Act and my Locust God (and all its bugs) are dead."
Talking about concessions around 26:00 - it's a difference in 1v1 and multiplayer dynamics. 1v1 games like Chess or Go, players concede both to save time and as a show of respect to your opponent that you don't think they'll fumble their advantage, and I think that mentality extends to 1v1 competitive magic, but not multiplayer casual.
Unless the win is literally guaranteed with known information, the element of randomness in Magic means that it’s justified to see out the match even if it seems insurmountable.
Sorcery speed concede is important because of some weirdness with multiplayer, if player a stole player b's creature and attacks player c, and b concedes, their creature ceases to exist as they scoop and that can swing games or play kingmaker. if someone concedes against a big attack, they don't get their lifelink healing because the attack doesn't go through and might die next turn.
The fact that reanimate is in precons blows my mind. My friend went turn 1 pass discard 10 mana busted creature. Turn 2 reanimate and no one has a kill spell because we played with precons xD
Eh, there's this view that if a card is a "staple" then it shouldn't be banned. See Sol Ring. That being said, Reanimate is pretty unique at 1 mana but there are loads of effects at 2 mana, and sure many of them sac the creature at end of turn but you can absolutely win the game before that happens.
CGB you're fundamentally misunderstanding why Biorythm and Iona are banned. Your comparison of Biorythm with Craterhoof @1:16:00 ~ exemplifies this perfectly: Craterhoof is a better wincon than Biorythm, yes. But they fundamentally are very different from eachother. Craterhoof rewards you for YOUR creatures. So your choice of deckbuilding/gameplay to play towards; whereas Biorythm rewards you for you playing 1 or more creatures while your opponents have 0 creatures. This wincon isn't only reliant on you playing creatures (and less so than Craterhoof, you need way less creatures) but more reliant on your opponent not playing any creatures. That's the point of the ban: plenty of people just don't run a lot of (early game) creatures in their EDH deck, or sometimes get on the board a little late. Should they be instantly hated off the game for that simple fact? Same goes for Iona: yes, there are way better cards than her. But in a multiplayer pod where a monocolored player gets punished by Iona, others who aren't punished by it have no incentive to deal with Iona, basically hating a monocolored player out of the game just for their choice of playing a monocolored deck...
For reanimate, I think Cimo is right on the money about the yugioh restricted list being pretty much already how it works. It's 1 in a 100, and you still need to hit a target or enabler too, because you can't reanimate your commander. It's already restricted.
Back in the day me and my friends didn't like commander but played in groups of up to 6 or 7 players. We banned biorhythm because everyone played a ton of wraths so it would end a game that had been going for like an hour out of no where. One of the tricks was to just have a indestructible creature that survives other's wraths. Or at least you play it with the attitude, if i cant win neither can you. Ending games out of nowhere.
That and while VW stops everyone from doing half their stuff, Iona can lock one player out of doing all their stuff (including answering her) which is so much less fun.
Everyone is affected equally by VW. Therefore some player will feel incentivised to burn a spell with odd cost to get rid of it. There can be situations where only a single player gets affected by Iona and that player would then have to draw into a colorless answer or beg someone who has no incentive to do so to get rid of her. And now imagine finally drawing into your scour from existence only for an uninvolved third player to counter it for the lols... people haved flipped tables over less.
I think a lot of people are missing a really important thing about Iona: she also shuts out multicolor spells that include the chosen color. Iona player chose Black and you’re running Black/Red? You’re mono-red now, congrats. It’s annoying in almost any circumstance even if it’s not broken OP.
before watching: CGB's last video ranting abount commander ban list, honestly, left me pretty favorable on all the bans that the Rules Committee decided on. I'll update this to see if I still stand by the RC or not at the end of this video (Extra comment activity for free) Edit: With the exception of Biorythym, I kind of see why the RC made the decisions they did, again. I think it's important to realize that If a card is insanely good, that's usually not why it's banned. The Golos ban is a very interesting and honestly a smart choice. I hadn't thought of just crushing too much diversity due to it.
Iona: I can see why it's banned, It's not a great card, it wouldn't take over the format, but in ANY situation where it works, the only outcome (sans some blue shit) is asymetrical lockout. A Card doesn't need to be good to be unhealthy. It's a reasonable decision to just ban the card. Nothing was lost as a result of it's ban.
Possibility storm sounds hella fun, and would create a fun hectic rng time for the whole table. I don't think it should be banned unless there's some degenerate combo... but honestly, I'd say ban the other part of the combo instead, The storm is hilarious. It's not necessarily great, but it's fun.
Erayo is annoying and as a commander especially annoying, Personally, I think it has enough time for interaction to maybe let it be playable. I think it's... maybe banned? but I don't know if it really needs to be without a degenerate combo.
Void Winnower: Innately it's a fine card. But if there's a combo that makes odd mana creatures even, or also locks out odd mana creatures... then yeah I can see it being banned. But if it's banned on it's own... Then No. Hmm... I Guess that if a commander is even this does suck, maybe that might be a reason to ban it. But off rip, no, not needed to be banned. Once again, yes it's good, but the counterplay and play result isn't assymetric, and is a chokehold, not a full blockout. A card's power level isn't usually what gets it banned, it's how the game feels to players after it's played.
Consecrated sphinx: Insanely good card, but doesn't need to be banned. Is it a massively powerful card that pushes blue players to their win conditions, which almost always mean having a buttload of cards in their hand? yes. But cards that contribute to the colors normal win condition aren't really what you need to ban, unless they are either so universally good that it crushes diversity or just so far above the cut that they need to be controlled.
Possibility Storm is so funny in Storm decks because it doubles the storm count AND you still get all the Storm copies from whatever you cast or hit with the Possibility Storm.
As you talk about conceding in commander. In my local playgroups, we generally (with a few outliers) agree scooping is a sourcery action, but the entire table scooping can be agreed on as an instant. So you can't concede to stop a damage trigger, or spite someone's infinite attacks, unless the other 2 non active players also scoop.
Yugioh player here playing along and trying to understand the difference in vocabulary; does that Elesh Norn also turn off ETB effects of the same creature that just got summoned?
Yes. If Elesh Norn was a Yugioh card, it would double your when normal/special summoned effects while negating your opponent's. As another commenter stated, it affects both Black Whirlwind and E-Hero Stratos.
Another big problem with bans in edh is the rc was signpost banning. They ban a card and say we aren't going to ban cards similar to it. Then say don't play cards similar to banned cards.
About scooping in yugioh, and Cimo didn't touch on that In paper, since you play best of 3 most of the times (within a 45 minute window for all 3 games) There's an actual strategic element to it. Scooping in game 1 happens alot. Everything after is contextual on the game and match state, since you also have to consider who was going first (the losing player choosing who goes first in the next game)
While I'm not sure it should be banned, I think Biorhythm is better and more disruptive than people might think. When people wrath the board, the expectation is you've created breathing room as people rebuild, and counterplay is to have cards that help you rebuild. Biorhythm turns that breathing room into "oops, you lose". If it existed, blue decks would also feel the need to hold mana and delay their rebuild speed for this. If the wrath happened right before the biorhythm players turn, the other players don't even have a chance to rebuild and get surprised knocked out in a pretty hard to interact way. If it was legal, it would be a staple in elf decks, and it would also be way BETTER than craterhoof, because it not only helps you finish the players off in the same situations, but also allows you to win when people play the typical counterplay against you.
They were so focused on talking on the matter of how playable biorhythm is that they don't stop to consider the single biggest problem of biorythmn: If it was legal, its the sort of card someone would use to bad manners rage quit in a losing game. Frankly, its ability to be abused for bad manner behavior alone is in my mind justification to have it banned in every single formant. It is the sort of the card that the game has zero actual positive benefit from it existing, only negative.
When I'm playing 1v1 standard/pioneer/modern if I recognize that my situation is completely unwinnable then I'll just scoop to save time and move to game 2. With 4 players even if I'm dead on board and have no outs in hand it's entirely possible that one of my other two opponents will drop a wipe and get me back into the game. The rare instances where I scoop in commander are when the whole table recognizes that 1 player is completely unstoppable and would rather get to the next game than sit and wait out the inevitable.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care when the guesser is wrong. I like to see the guesser be morally outraged when a card that should be banned isn't, or when shown the context that makes something harmless busted. For that reason, I'm glad CGB has largely dropped the price-guessing aspect. It took up a lot of time, and the part I like ("PEOPLE PAY THAT!?! COMMANDER PLAYERS ARE INSANE!") wasn't predicated on the lead-up. Maybe if it were sped up with an over/under, but I think Cimo has too much context for that to work now.
I watch all the CGB-Rarran-Cimo videos, but these past 2 commander ones have not been good. I only get like 10 minutes in before the bad takes are too much. How hard is it to understand that these bans are about play patterns, and not power level? That the goal is to have a game that is enjoyable for 4 strangers with completely different ideas of what "fun" is to be able to play a decent game together? It comes off as that friend that pulls out a fight stick and shit talks when people want to goof off playing drunk Smash Bros at a party.
The reason people scoop early in online games (not that I'm happy with it either) is that you're basically able to queue up another game and immediately move on, whereas on paper format, you have an opponent in front of you and you need to find another one if you want to play against a different deck, so just having someone in front of you means you gotta make the most of it by playing each game until the end. I've started playing MTG on paper, so it never crossed my mind that I should scoop by turn 3 or 4 because the game was already lost at that point, I've just not been taught to play like that.
Honestly, all the comments of "Oh, someone on the RC lost to this card once and got salty and banned it" are kind of annoying and insulting. They make the video hard to watch because not only are they objectively wrong, because the RC had to reach majority vote to ban a card, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how being a 4 player FFA with 40 base life Warps the interactions and social dynamics of the game.
I mean getting a majority vote doesn't mean that's not true. It means someone managed to convince the others to vote their way. So that's not as good of a defense as you are thinking.
I think the crux of the issue with Biorythm is actually something y'all briefly mentioned. What if someone takes out your monster before the card resolves? It's a tie. And cards that promote ties are pretty often banned.
And like I get it if after seeing other crazy cards stuff like Biorhythm & Coalition being on the ban list can be a headscratcher, but unbanning them doesn't offer anything of value unless you're building a Weatherlight 90's only tribute deck.
@@malmasterson3890coalition victory is actually a super cheese Strat nowadays, with the number of cards that allow your creatures/lands to be all colours/types respectively, you can pretty much build a mostly mono green deck that just ramps, and tutor all your pieces like a combo deck except you're just looking for Prismatic Omen and Fallaji Wayfarer, or mulliganing til you get Leyline of the Guildpact, and then just play Coalition Victory and gg on like turn 3 or 4. Super boring, definitely not to be overlooked as a ban imo
I've mentioned it in one of the collabs between Cimo and Rarran, and I'll say it again because it seems to be true even with CGB. The collabs between these guys have evolved into a show and tell of "look how stupid my game is"
And I love it for that
That feels like the evolutionary trajectory of being a fan of a card game in general lol.
And we love it!
That's what makes it so great. I've played lots of Hearthstone and Magic, and I love seeing someone else react with fresh eyes to some of the bullshit I used to deal with.
and as reminder to some as myself who has played all three of those tcgs to never get back into them.
Void Winnower has the best official rules classification of any card: "Your opponents can't even. Yes, we know."
debateable because I think Academy Manufactor's rule is a bit more funny
First the regular rule: If you control two Academy Manufactors and would create some number of Clue, Food, or Treasure tokens, you will instead create three times that many Clue tokens, three times that many Food tokens, and three times that many Treasure tokens.
Now the funny one: If you control eighteen Academy Manufactors (I don't know, you figure it out) and would create some number of Clue, Food, or Treasure tokens, you will instead create 129,140,163 times that many Clue tokens, 129,140,163 times that many Food tokens, and 129,140,163 times that many Treasure tokens.
Personally, I adore Lovestruck Beast's ruling.
"If Lovestruck Beast's power and toughness are reduced to 1/1, it learns that loving oneself is the first step on the true path to happiness, and it can attack even if you control no other 1/1 creatures."
I have the strong feeling Cimoo didn't understand Elesh Norn and that it turns off ETB Triggers and in Yugioh would stop all on summon effects, like Stratos, and not just cards like black whirlwind
Yeah the way he read it, it seems he thought that it only applies to summons triggering OTHER cards but a card that just has an on summon effect is still a permanent on the field being triggered so it's doubled
he likely made that mistake because he read permanents as spells and not monsters, as ygo has such a distinction, monsters are not spells and vice versa
I think he actually did figure this out on his own, since CGB never really explained it properly even after Cimo made his choice, and yet still Cimo later commented Elesh Norn could "get you two lands with Golos" (which triggers off itself entering).
@@BigBuckiesyeah it's a problem that spells in ygo and hs are essentially identical, while in MTG its more similar to just writing "card".
Just at that section now and I am praying that it gets clarified. I'm just sitting here like "Cimo, no. It doesn't stop black whirlwind, it stops stratos!"
I think the difference beetween Iona and Void Winnower, is that Void is a more broad 'screw you', and Iona is 'Screw you specifically!" which may create the dreaded 'social friction
Void really doesn't do all that much. I played it for years and it was always just mildly annoying. Took it out of my decks a while ago, cause there's just better stuff you can do with a bunch of mana. Funny enough, it's even less effective in casual commander, since that is where people actually play the 3 mana spot removals and 5 mana board wipes. :D
I think the reason that winnower is fine and iona isn't comes down to removabiliy. The vast majority of highly played removal is odd costed. Swords, path, pongify, rapid hybridization, tragic slip, beast within, generous gift, anguished unmaking, stroke of midnight, chaos warp, withering torment, murder, the list goes on and on. Also doesn't turn off declecting swat, fierce guardianship, teferi's, blasphempus act, toxic deluge, X spells, the list goes on and on
Also 1 and 3 costs are filled with premium removal across the board
Isn't true name nemesis still legal though? And it's even more that
@@RaidTheSecond in what world is that anything like that? xD
True name is a single meek monster that has protection from one player, it doesn't stop that player from doing anything. Hell that player can still kill it with a mass removal. :D
When it comes to social friction, I think it basically means "hates 1 person out of the game without actually letting them leave". Since they're then relying on other players to get them a chance to play, if they get to at all
100%. I'd much rather us all lose turn 4 than have 1 person lose turn 6 and have to sit there for an hour.
@@DerekS-kq3zhyeah, that card sounds awfully toxic, being the one person excluded while watching others laught at you (even in sincere good will) for a full game has to fell lowkey awfull.
The angel was banned because they wanted to unban painter's servant, which says all spells are now the chosen color.
Yeah this ban announcement was a two-parter. I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually goes back the other way
But is an 11 mana 2 card combo that bad? We have so many cheaper options
@@jasperfuhs4988 the rules committee would say it's because it doesn't win the game. Just stops everyone else from playing.
Counter: just concede to the hard lock
Counter counter: just play a deck that actually wins the game like a normal person
edit: i would rather servant be banned over iona.
@@megapixzel right, but we have dranith magistrate + possibility storm which does the same thing for 7 mana plus so many other combos. Just feels super dated
@@megapixzel counter: there exist cycling abilities that stop said lock
i will say, id have about 4 nickles if i had a nickle for every time i saw events take place roughly like this: iona player plays iona, calls the color a mono color deck is playing, the mono color player picks up their cards and says "welp, seeya later, have fun playing and fuck you guys" and leaves
Yeah with void winnower you at least have a decent chance to draw an odd card
Yeah, its one of those cards that only seems whatever on paper. Then when you play with it, ypu realize just hpw bad it is. Canr just play removal when your removal is shut off.
(it is spelled Nickel)
The thing with Iona is yeah, the other players can probably remove her... but they don't really want to. Another player have a big flyer is a small price to pay for one of your opponents no longer being able to play the game. And that just adds to the bad feels.
Maybe I'm the weirdo for running colorless answers to iona like threats regularly, but even when Iona was legal, i never actually got stuck under her that painfully (To be fair, she was the commander, so no entomb shenanigans).
cgb thinking Iona is fun and awesome but Neera is the worst thing ever says a lot about cgb lol
Seriously. Removing the ability to play the gram from one player is great, but some good ol' honest mana cheating is bad?
Classic blue players hating mana advantage (green)
Control players just hate other people playing the game, because it means they (the control player) might lose a life point or two before they drag the game out for hours until everyone gets bored and falls asleep or leaves, leaving them to finally win the game.
Iona vs voidwinnower is more nuanced than you let on. Iona doesnt actually affect everyone equally. It almost always is used to target one player who is winning, while only marginally, if at all, affecting the others. Because the player targetted by iona is usually winning, the other 2 players do not feel inclined to remove iona as that means they now how to contend with that player again. In addition, removing iona means that they may be the new target when it comes back. This creates a situation where 1 player just sits there and watches the other 3 play. That is the reason iona was banned. With voidwinner, it affects all 3 oponents and all 3 are going to aim to remove it.
The thing that makes the commander banlist hard to evaluate is that it’s not about if the card is good or not, it’s about how miserable the card is. The response “we’ll just shuffle up a new game” doesn’t really matter if the game sucked. Bad games are bad games regardless of if you play another one, mono red doesn’t suddenly become fun to play against just because you get to play another game right after. The purpose of the ban list is just to reduce the number of bad games
yeah this precisely. powerful cards can lead to good games, and cards that suck ass can lead to terrible games.
that and the arguments of "well this card is banned and THIS ONE ISNT?" feel so stupid to me after the reaction to JL and Mana Crypt, like no shit they were doing as few bans as possible lol
@@Cubicthing More often than not, powerful cards lead to miserable, unpleasant games. Painter's Servant is never getting played unless it's part of an obnoxious lock. knowledge pool/Possibility storm are not seeing play unless you're using them to lock people out. Drannith Magistrate isn't seeing play because he's fun, he's seeing play because he enables degenerate play patterns.
The problem is that commander intended the banned list to basically establish a "vibe-check" so that people wouldn't play obnoxious stuff. Unfortunately, that's not actually how the banned list is viewed.
Exactly, not to mention if you do run it back, it's likely to eat up to another 4 hours of your time.
Something not mentioned about the Iona ban: She was banned at the same time Painter's Servant was unbanned. Those two are a hard lock, and Painter's Servant was banned because of Iona, so the Iona ban was a reverse of which half of the combo was less desirable.
Ironically, the next card showed is a hard lock with one of the most popular white cards in the format and that one isn't banned 🤪
I think 11 mana 2 card combos are ok ngl
@@jasperfuhs4988Agreed, except this wasn't a game-ending combo, depending on the board presence of your opponents the game could keep going for a while with nobody able to do much of anything.
@@jasperfuhs4988 I do too, this is just shining light on what the rules committee was thinking, and they were at least partially thinking about Painter's Servant.
@philllllllll see possibility storm + dranith magistrate for 7 mana
meanwhile Karn and mycosynth arent banned...
Here's my defence of the Iona ban, as someone who frequently played her, ressing her out for cheap. She does shut some decks down completely, and the weird "awful" social part of it is, that the player who gets shut down, has to beg the others at the table to please remove Iona so he can play the game, while they are often just incentivised to not do that, since they have one less opponent. I do get the ban, even tho I sure loved my Iona 😇😈
finally, the actual reasonable and intellectual take on Iona ive been trying to find. I've been trying to explain this to my friends who defend the card.
as someone whose always liked mono decks. why we used to run all that bad 6-7cmc colorless removal. like maybe we didnt die while we had a nongame. but we didnt get to cost cheat our reaction to it. furthering our nongame.
Yeah, I wanted to write something similar. I do love mono-colored decks because of the restriction and identity they give and I have played against an Iona that named my color. I can say it was a very boring and sad experience after that, because my other opponents didn't want to waste a removal spell, just to be kind to me, so I had to basically sit there and do mostly nothing apart from trying to get the Iona player killed, until Iona was gone.
It's still one of the least defensible bans, but I have no problem with it staying banned, as is the case with alot of the cards. Just because stronger or similar effects exist doesn't mean I want more of that annoying effect to be present.
Fair enough.
The difference between Iona and Void Winnower is absolutely social friction. Void Winnower, you've stopped everyone from playing roughly 50% of their decks, but they can still play, and they will use that capacity to keep playing to make you regret playing Void Winnower. Iona is basically pointing at one of your supposed friends and saying "you're spectating now" because they chose to bring a monocolor deck, probably one you hate if you're using Iona as the commander against them. That shit hurts friendships. Easy fir yall to say "grow up, life is conflict" when you're thinking about it like a TCG player, but the committee has to think about this like a friend group, because this was a casual format made for playing with friends.
That even applies to stranger-filled game nights, where commander games inherently take hours. Folks go there to hang out after a long week and play their gimmick piles or lore deck.
Getting a bad game group cause 1 guy wanted to sweat or be a dick means that entire night is shot in the head, cause scooping means youre spectating regardless until a new group opens. So youre either held hostage or abandon the store.
Its far beyond a feels bad moment, it betrays the entire point of the format and the game. While there are a number of unchecked cards that do that too, its better some get hit at minimum.
I'm pretty sure "social friction" refers specifically to the fact that if iona locks you out of playing anything and if you can't use your board to deal with it, you are completely dependent on the other players to get you back into the game by removing iona.
Your friends have to choose between their optimal play they were planning or removing iona and getting you back in the game. Or decide if keeping you out of the game is more beneficial, and if they're willing to go against that to get you back in the game.
Like I wouldn't say winter orb creates social friction, it just slows the game to a crawl unless you have a lot of mana sources.
"People don't play monocolor commanders". Yes, and punishing those who do doesn't seem cool. As always, "dies to removal" is a poor excuse especially when the card itself can prevnt you from playing your removal spells. And the fact that Iona is "bad" doesn't make it better, it's just worst for everyone involved. I can tolerate some annoying stuff when it's the optimal play, but when a card or strategy is just plain annoying AND bad, it's the worst of both worlds a no one is happy in the end.
I think another aspect that makes me agree with it being banned is the asymmetrical way it shuts down games. If you're playing a monocolored deck and someone plays Iona to lock you out, now you're stuck watching everyone play the game while you just sit there. The players who didn't lock you out also probably don't see a reason to help fix the situation, which can cause resentment. Cimo might have joked about how 'social friction' is just 'life', but the social and emotional aspects of commander are important to the format. I don't play competitive EDH though, so maybe it's less important there compared to casual play.
Iona is an awful card, I've never seen her played and she does effectively nothing.
But.
I can see hypothetical scenarios where a random dude comes in with a monocolour deck, sits down with a friend-group of 3, one of them drops Iona and the rest of them start teasing the guy. 100% they banned her solely because people suck and this leads to nothing but 1 dude feeling a bit sucky til he leaves. If the card somehow won the game, or was playable I think it'd be fine, but like you said she's just both bad and annoying, so why not elect to just avoid these POTENTIAL cases all together.
Okay so why is Void Winnower legal? It shuts down effectively half (1/2) of all cards in a deck (assuming your pod's decks have equal odd and even mana costs), whereas Iona blocks a single color (1/5). They cost the same amount of mana, and Void Winnower has a second making blocking harder as well. Yet, Iona is banned and VW isn't.
@@LargeCraze ironically, it's because it's better. It's not a hate-this-one-player card, it slows down all of your opponents evenly (heh)
Saying that people don't play mono colour commanders is also simply untrue. I myself have 4 mono coloured commander decks and know of many people at my LGS who also have them. Your mileage may vary, but I'd say enough people play mono colour for a card like Iona to prevent them from playing the game.
To be fair, Iona seems a lot more awful to play against than Drannith Magistrate.
While not being able to cast your commander is annoying, you still have your whole 99 to go through. If you have an expensive or situational commander, it might also not even have the chance to go down before Magistrate leaves the board. It's also much easier to kill.
I love two-color decks, and Iona shutting down anywhere from 30 to 70% of my spells sounds like a nightmare. And then I have to sit there waiting to draw a castable card and begging the other players to remove her. She might be expensive, but there are a thousand and one ways to cheat creatures out. Not a fan.
Drannith also stops playing from library like Bolas's citadel, playing from grave like underworld breach, all impulse draw etc. It is 10x better than Iona. If someone was playing Iona i would win before it hits the board
@byronstier7438 Oh yeah, Magistrate is a lot better than Iona. What I'm saying is that playing against Iona would be a generally worse experience than playing against Magistrate.
@ender4101 I can't agree with that. One is coming down turn 1 or 2 and the other is coming down much later. Plus if I'm in anything besides mono colour I don't really care about Iona.
@@byronstier7438 Magistrate comes down earlier and is guaranteed to affect everyone (every player has a commander, of course). It's just a better card.
My point is that Iona doesn't come down as fast, but faster than it seems. I have an orzhov reanimator deck that could reliably get her down by turn 4, and even earlier on a nuts hand.
Also, yeah, the more colors you have, the less problematic she is for you. But not everyone plays 3+colors. As I said, I play 2 color decks the most, and they are usually a 70/30 distribution in color. If Iona were to come down and choose my most prominent color, I would absolutely not be able to get out alone. I'd have to beg the other players to set me free, but they'd likely have no incentive to. In those cases, yeah, Iona would absolutely be more miserable than a Magistrate coming down a few turns earlier.
Its simple.
Counterplay It.
Iona is banned because it shuts down one player at the table and the only way for them to get back into the game is for their opponents to remove it which they don't have incentive to so it basically hard locks one player into draw go for an hour till the games done, when its played against you all you can do is scoop which is looked down on, iona can single handedly destroy play groups with sheer sodium one of the few bans that are totally reasonable.
Blue has Otawara, White has Touch the Spirit Realm. Simic also has Colossal Skyturtle.
Every deck has Talon Gates of Madara.
There's plenty of ways in current Commander to break out of an Iona lock.
@@a.velderrain8849 Otawara is good.
Touch the Spirit Realm is a blink that removes her for 1 turn, then she comes back and continues to floodgate you for the rest of the game.
Talon Gates is also only for one turn. Yeah, you get to play your cards for a turn, but if you don't kill that player immediately or build an unsurmountable advantage in that time window, you'll just be locked out again.
Just keep it banned. It's just one card. There are many high cost, high impact, and much less miserable angels in the card pool.
@@a.velderrain8849
Ah yes, a 1 of removal card. In a 99 card deck. Where you cant use your tutors, or the ones you can use are artifacts that are way more mana.
Just because a card has an out, doesnt make it a healthy card.
@@clayxros576
Oh excellent point about the artifacts, I forgot that colorless spells are something every deck can play against Iona. Iona costs 9, there's 7 cost cards like Meteor Golem which would work. Seems like a fair trade.
@@clayxros576 There are something like 20 artifact based board wipes that clear an Iona. And only one of them is worldslayer (which is even more salt inducing than iona). On top of that, there are many damage based artifacts that can nuke it from orbit.
As a 5C Lands Matters player, playing a lot of Online Magic during Golos reign-of-terror, it absolutely was correct to ban it. Every table had Golos decks, sometimes 2 people playing Golos, just because it was so generically good.
It was over twice as popular, on EDHRec, as the second place commander, Atraxa (4cmc one), and if you combined the next three commanders, they barely beat out Golos in deck count. Tables had to put “No Golos Please” because it was so ubiquitous. A rare time the RC had a good take on banning a card, tbh.
It's too bad, because playing a Golos deck at a high power level "as-intended" was actually really cool. My friend had a ~$2.5k Golos deck that was designed to actually assemble WUBRG and wheel quickly and often into power cards like the Ultimatums, and - provided it was at a table that wasn't absolutely curb stomped by it - it was a really fun deck to watch.
It also wasn't that ubiquitous at our locals, so there's that.
I don’t understand how anyone can enjoy playing Golos. It’s brain dead 5 color good stuff without any kind of necessity to plan or strategize or think.
It doesn't even have to head a 5 colour deck
You can just use it to build a 4 card deck with a commander that manafixes you, and can be played regardless of what colours you've gotten so far
And then incidentally you can still use the ability sometimes with command tower, signet, treasures, etc
Golos is a weird one in that you need to play with it to understand how good it is.
@@rickroller420 Judging by it's popularity, most edh players prefer good stuff piles to using their brain meats.
As a commander noob I see no problem with void winnower, no even mana cost is something you can get around even by randomly building a deck... On the other hand the angel is just someone pointing at you and saying "screw you dude" which would feel kinda miserable, especially if you can't politic your way out of it
Loved hearing that there's a difference with Iona saying "as" instead of "when" because there is a very similar sort of technicality in yugioh with cards that say "when x" vs "if x"
There's also a different between those two in magic. Since "when" always implies a triggered ability, a card that says
"when this attacks, you may choose target creature defending player controls. You may sacrifice this. *If* you do, deal 3 damage to that creature"
Is different than a card that says
"when this attacks, you may choose target creature defending player controls. You may sacrifice this. *When* you do, deal 3 damage to that creature"
Since the second one is actually 2 triggered abilities.
For the first one, you can respond to the original ability by protecting the creature that they targeted in some way, but then they can simply choose not to sacrifice their creature.
For the second one, you can respond to the initial trigger, but since there is a separate triggered ability after they sacrifice it, you could also wait until they do to protect your creature meaning they need to decide whether to sacrifice it before they know if you're creature will be protected.
There's a lot of terminology overlap between Magic and Yugioh, even on rather weird details you'd think would be unique to one game or another. While Magic does use "as" for some replacement effects, like seen here, more commonly it uses the same "if ... would ... instead" wording as Yugioh. And both games apply replacement effects in (mostly) the same way, in the middle of effects or game actions.
The one I find most amusing is Yugioh's distinction between a card getting "sent" to the graveyard (or "put into" for Magic) vs. getting discarded/destroyed. A Magic player might not even notice the same distinction exists in Magic as well, since basically no card effects directly move cards from the hand or battlefield to the graveyard without such a keyword action. There are plenty of ways it happens, at least for permanents going to the graveyard, but they are all hidden within the game rules (e.g., a creature with 0 toughness dies but isn't destroyed, as would a planeswalker with 0 loyalty, or any Aura that isn't enchanting anything). Add that onto the fact that very few cards mention destruction specifically, outside of actual destruction effects, and the distinction just doesn't tend to come up in Magic.
@@Metallicity yeah. It's really only Indestructible, Regenerate, and Shield Counters that care about destruction specifically and those tend to spell it out in their rules.
@@seandun7083 interesting, though, in YGO the distinction would apply more in the sense of cards with specific timings, and depending on the resolution of the chain some effects can not activate, because unlike in MTG the YGO chain cannot be interrupted
MTG is extremely specific about the grammar used and minor differences can have drastic rules effects. I love it, a game having clear rules is fantastic, and they do a good job of matching the differences with the connotations and denotations of the words (usually).
That being said I'm not ecstatic about reflexive triggers, they have some very unintuitive rules effects and mainly exist to avoid the "no target = spell/ability fizzles" effect.
The way they talk about 'social friction' and how it applies to some of these cards makes it seem like they dont understand that "all players can't do x" and "x player cant do anything" are two VERY different things
WRT scooping, I think the bigger divide isn't necessarily between competitive/casual, but between two-player games and group games. As a board gamer, scooping is very frowned upon when there are several other players left in the game, because it doesn't just affect you - it makes the rest of the game different for the remaining players in a way that is not part of the mechanics of the game. Basically, your decision to scoop can mean a player slightly in the lead might be cemented as a guaranteed winner, making the mid-position players have a boring game unless they also scoop.
But in two player board games, including casual ones, scooping is generally fine, as is scooping in a group game where only two players remain, because the game is over at that point.
And in a social game, there is always a chance for an alliance.
Staying in the game could also mean playing kingmaker if you otherwise have no way of winning the game. I think it’s pretty much context dependent, like you shouldn’t scoop if you have an O-Ring effect on the board.
@@lequinow Weirdly enough, for literal O-ring if you scoop the exiled card is just gone forever because the return to the battlefield effect does not go on the stack, whereas Banishing Light does return the card.
In either case our playgroup just created a "no spite scooping" rule. As in, no scooping in response to a board state for the purposes of helping or hindering anyone. Like, don't scoop in response to a lethal attack to prevent beneficial damage triggers.
@@lequinow I definitely agree it's context dependant, but while kingmaking can of course also be detrimental to the game and won't make you popular, it is usually using the mechanics of the game itself, whereas with few exceptions, scooping is something external to the game system.
In my experience (and of course that doesn't speak for everyone's experience), scooping in a multiplayer game is much more universally frowned upon regardless of how you do it, whereas with kingmaking it's generally only seen as an issue when done in a very overt and obnoxious way (and/or for motives beyond the game itself).
104.3a: A player can concede the game at any time and for any reason.
If your social group adds more restrictions to that that's their problem. It's irritating when a player concedes when they're already about to die to shut down things like lifelink or damage player triggers, but other than that, go for it.
this type of content is being milked to hell and back but I simply can't stop watching.
Yo same lmao
I think it's fine and healthy for the meta because ultimately, the star of the content is the history lesson and getting to learn about different card games and their mechanics.
@@SpecterVonBaren As someone who recently gained interest in magic (havent played since i was a little kid barely understanding English let alone magic) I love these videos for general context.
They're really interesting videos because of the people involved. Cimoooo is much better at evaluating MTG card power level than Rarran but not necessarily as good at identifying the mindset of the ban committee, for example.
Oh Biorhythm, I think what keeps it banned is the "oops I win" factors to the card in lower to mid power level games. The wind just get sucked out of the game if a player wraths the board, and then some one else gets to their turn, looks down at their hand, and plays an elf and a Biorhythm, even if it does not win the game on the spot, some one probably just lost. The non-interactivity of it when face with a table that does not have some holding up countermagic 24/7 leads to anticlimactic games.
Yeah, the problem isn't strategically abusing it, but just getting an opportunistic win or even just knocking one player out, just because, out of nowhere. It's not fun.
Yeah, I hate when people bring it up like "Bruh Finality & Craterhoof are basically the same." They still require some amount of effort. You can just cast a raw biorhythm and the game will likely either end immediately or very soon after, and not in a very satisfying way.
Biorhythm is so bad, so easily countered, and did I mention it is bad...
And you lot act as if the blue players in low tier games aren't playing 40 counter spells, you act as if it isn't cEDH no one has heard of Counterspell, or heck even Remand...
I've never played a commander game, where, no one doesn't have an out for Biorhythm, even if there are no blue players at the table.
You guys act as if in low tier games, every player taps all their mana at the end of turn, just for fun... and you act as if there isn't Flash creatures in EVERY Color. Black even has countermagic for Green spells with Deathgrip. White has Remand, Lapse of Certainty, Mana Tithe... Red has Tibalt's Trickery, or Molten Influence(situational).. and Green... has the ability to just spam the board from nowhere with new stuff, making Biorhythm not even worth it, in the first place.
You lot are just salty losers, who'd complain no matter how you lost.
@@livedandletdie No, in low power games people aren't playing 40 counter spells. MAYBE 10 plus other interaction? The idea that people will always have an instant soeed resoibse ti whatever is happening at all times is foreign to me, because that does not happen in my games.
@livedandletdie This just in guys, if it can be countered, it's totally safe to unban.
My guy, we know there are other very degenerate and dumb spells people are casting nowadays, but that doesn't change the fact that when this does resolve, which will happen cause even with responsible amounts of interaction you won't always have an answer, it will feel like a boring wet fart end to a game.
If you think the card sucks, and we think the card is a boring way to close, then why even discuss unbanning it. If we agree it adds no value then it should stay banned regardless.
18:35 "As wacky as Yu-Gi-Oh is, I don't think we've experienced stuff like this where we...oh..."
😂 The realization of Pendulum.
Oh look, it's Mesa Falcon Guy and Dingus Egg!
Important context: Iona was banned when they unbanned Painter's servant. I'm pretty sure they just didn't want both cards to be legal so they banned a card no one actually played.
Also, when I look at Biorhythm I see it as: 8 mana, the game ends in a draw. I don't really see a situation where the card results in a fun experience.
If your a psychopath sure you could wrath the board and draw the game with Bio but I’d prefer that over something like possibility storm and there’s a good amount of answers to bio like a flash creature or a beast within effect
If your using bio to actually win the game, imo it’s fine but it looks like a card you’d have to see played/ play before evaluating
I'm pretty sure Biorhythm is in the same category as Coalition victory in that it's banned from the get go because the creators of the format didn't want to deal with it in any way because they thought it's not in the spirit of a game of commander to play a card that just ends this big game in one card. Not because it's to strong or something - just they don't like it. They could delete it from the ban list and probably nobody would care - but why bother? What good could come from it?
@@ToabyToastbrot That’s probably true but there’s two ways to look at a ban list, either to try to make it as small as possible or what you said and just don’t bother. Both of these ways of thinking isn’t wrong and applies to other formats bans list as well. Punishing fire and umezawas jitte are probably fine in modern nowadays but they were cringe cards then so why bother
@@Brntnugget I mean, you're probably right, I don't argue those cards have to absolutely be banned - I just tried for an explanation.
@@Brntnugget
Have you seen the number of people defending Iona using the exact reason it was banned? That being "It dies to removal, just play removal", completely ignoring she inherently shuts removal down.
There is absolutely a huge population of pub-stomping psychopaths whod gladly All Is Dust the board into a 4 way draw.
Thinking about it, it would be really fun to see Cimo's reaction to all 15 Preators.
Void Winnower... actually does not die to doomblade.
Didn't expect another one so soon, this is like when Rarran did Magic for a month, we're getting spoiled
I think Cimmooo has some health issues and is going to need to take some time off soon. So I assume he is trying to push out as many video's as he can now.
@@randomd286 these collabs are probably easier to participate in too.
I think the issue with Iona is not stopping 1/3 of 3 decks, but stopping 1 deck and nothing of the other 2. The player locked out of the fame can only beg the ones still allowed to play to let them in, but it can not (really) be achieved through game-related incentives and must go through social interaction.
On Conceding in Commander: One of the reasons why I believe there exists a taboo against concession is the effect conceding can have on players who might still be trying to win. It is not uncommon for a payer to have just the right cards to eliminate a player who appears to have the game. Other players conceding increases the chances that they won't make it to their turn to use those cards. Because players can't see each other's hands, no one can ever really know if someone else has a shot and thus scooping can feel like kingmaking.
There are also many cases where you have a mind control effect going on. If I have something of my opponents that I’m using to kill another player, if they just concede it might make me lose the game too.
Biorhythm isn’t banned for the combo, it’s banned because you have a potential combo, then the person to your left simplifies the boardstate, passes to you, and you one card combo “I win unless you counter”
28:00 I would say that's because playing Commander around a table feels a lot more like playing a board game, and part of what a lot of people like about commander is not just building their crazy decks, but seeing them go off, and having those random reversal moments where the person who was winning the whole game gets flipped. I've heard it put in a different way where, in the VERY early days of some RTS games, it was considered BM to leave the game early - your opponent won, so you give them the satisfaction of blowing up all your stuff.
As competitive ladders and online play get more popular it makes sense for people to be much more willing to just scoop and go on to the next game. But when you might ONLY be able to play one game, it becomes a much more social environment, where players are there not just to play but also to chat, to have a good time, and to see how their decks work out.
"part of what a lot of people like about commander is not just building their crazy decks, but seeing them go off, and having those random reversal moments where the person who was winning the whole game gets flipped"
The same is true for two players magic. For example, there are a lot of videos in which Saffron Olive gets frustrated over his opponent conceding for the same reason.
Your point about the change on culture because of competitive ladders does make sense to me.
The problem with conceding in a multiplayer format is two fold:
1) One of your opponents might save you. This is especially pushed due to TH-cam videos where this happens (even if the player being saved doesn’t last much longer).
2) if I concede, then CGB will crush Cimo as they can focus on just them, not on both of us. Whilst I still lose, one extra turn might give Cimo the chance to find the card and win.
In 1 on 1 formats neither of these issues arise, and you are just wasting your time by not conceding (unless running out the clock is your only way to win/tie).
@@pillinjerwell, also in person it will still take time until the next round starts, so even in 1v1 people might still rather want to play it out, because they have to wait the full round regardless, as opposed to digital whete you can, immediately queue into the next game
I don't think that competitive ladders and online play are responsible to rise on people scooping
At least as a general phenomenon thinking about Yugioh for example the peak of scooping isn't related to the release of master duel but to the notion that on a best of 3 is better to forfeit the game 1 to not show what deck you are playing to your opponent
@@chicabu67not to mention that in a real tournament setting you're againts a timer, so its better to scoop on a game you're 100% losing and go for the last game of the match, instead of banking on your opp missplaying, them not doing that, and have less time for game 3
Cimoo didn't understand Elesh Norn turns off ETB Triggers
People are probably more sensitive towards the commander banlist now probably because of what happened to RC due to the most recent commander bans.
About scooping, I think it's more to do with the format being not 1v1 in Commander. When you scoop, you're kinda "forcing" the other 2 players who aren't in the lead to also scoop because the game suddenly becomes so much harder for them to solve, almost like disconnecting during a raid battle in an MMO.
In Yugioh, scooping is basically my mulligan lmao. Draw a bad hand, set 1 and pass. Opponent has an opener that's just as bad, I'll play it out for 1 or 2 turns. If they have a good opener that none of my interactions can answer, or they could force through it, just scoop and go next.
Yeah. There's also the chance that even if you don't have an answer to the player in the lead, another player might.
That "disconnect during a raid," analogy is chef's kiss; good on you.
The MMO comparison is very apt. Though even beyond the balance aspect, there's a "politeness" to it in that, up until your concession, your opponents have been making decisions on the assumption that you would be in the game, using removal, holding back blockers the previous turn when they otherwise could've swung, etc. so you just made their previous assessments moot and put them in a worse position by "robbing" them of those resources they would've otherwise allocated differently and they cannot recoup. I don't think most folks care quite to that degree, though it depends on how competitively minded you are.
@@Tuss36 sure, if you're trying to scoop at least you have to assess the board with the others. As I mentioned in Yugioh there's also a time window where you'd let things play out and see what happens. That window of opportunity is widened in Commander because you're trying to draw an out from 3 separate decks.
CGB "I never saw this card"
2012 Me: I Vampiric Tutor Iona, attack with Kaalia and shut down at least 1/3rd opponents deck
I feel like Iona is pretty clear. If one person is playing a mono color deck, Iona locks the out of the game in a way where nobody is insentivised to let them come back. You are just forced to sit there while the rest of the table finishes the game or until the player with Iona loses, at which point youre too far behind.
CGB: haha they banned it because of "social friction", what babies, git gud!
Also CGB: I HATE CHAOS DECKS, WHY DON'T THEY LET ME PLAY MY DECK AS I INTENDED TO
i mean the amount of takes CGB has that just contradict each other is absolutely wild tbh
yea, i love MY ways of making YOUR experience miserable, not the other way around!
CGB: "Chaos decks are bad because they don't let me play my cards."
Also CGB: "Blue is my favorite because my opponents don't get to play their cards"
CGB has a lot of weird and contradictary takes. Like playing almost exclusively best of 1 even though he hates aggro decks.
classic blue player (derogatory)
Iona literally forces mono color players into, "hey can you let me play" as the other three players ignore them for the next hour till its advantagous for them, hence the social friction
Me, A mono white player: "Turn three Iona from an opponent naming white? Bet." "Anyways, I'll cast Nev's disk and crack it, play my land for turn."
@@Ornithopter470enters tapped
@@nathanwilkins6107 true. So you have to wait a turn. Or you could cast spine.
Until you don't have your disc or your tutors because inconsistency is built into the format, and the more you fight against that, the more you belong just playing modern or standard, and you sit there for two hours watching the Iona player laugh at you.
@@Ornithopter470 you have some really bad defenses for Iona. Why are you so deadset on this card being legal? Oh yeah just play your 7 mana removal spell that only gets played because of this one card. Or play a really bad board wipe hoping that maybe you get to use it against Iona. Oh and sure it takes a turn to be ready but its not like the Iona player can't just attack you since you can't defend yourself or use some kind of artifact removal. Congrats you can think of incredibly rare situations that you can play around a card that sucks to play against. "dies to removal" is not an argument to unban something unless you are arguing in bad faith because everything dies to removal. just unban everything and die to a turn one black lotus combo kill every game!! Just play removal and you won't lose obviously!
Iona is like the one card I'll always go to bat for staying banned. That card is so miserable to play against.
As someone who has played Erayo at fairly high powered tables it always has been wild to me that it only ever is an early flip people are worried about. Regardless of when it happens it always is good and it is not like the Erayo player who obviously plays blue to some extend might have some counter backup in case some gets through. So the card even in mid to late game states can end up time with multiple players essentially taking turns off.
I love how we always have one card were CGB fails to explain what the wording means, all he had to say for Elesh Norn was that the permanent entering can be the same card whose ability triggers and not just different cards.
Yeah erayo is pretty disgusting. Granted they've printed more 'can't be countered' cards over time, however, erayo lock is not that hard to pull off since just having Erayo flipped slows down opponents enough for you to find arcane lab or whatever else. Erayo also gets super frustrating when someone can play 2 spells in a turn, but nothing says the Erayo player can't counterspell the 2nd spell to maintain the chokehold.
I like how Cimo says "In Yugioh we have removal for this" when every floodgate in Yugioh is either hated, banned or both.
Spell and trap floodgates became oppresive because the game more monster centric and the outs are in the ED so if you lock peope out thier extra they can't out shit because nobady is siding spell/trap removal in the current game state
@@lucasalarcon3230 "because nobady is siding spell/trap removal in the current game state" I think that’s what is weird from an MTG perspective. We have glass canon decks in eternal formats (Mana less dredge, Oops all spells, Mind pack, etc.) and those can be good or bad but are rarely the most reliable game plan there is. If they ever become too popular, people make the appropriate meta calls and bring tech cards to hose those decks.
The more I’ve watched Cimo’s video, it seems like everybody in YGO has a super glass cannon deck that can’t afford to make meta adjustments at the cost of consistency. The fact that people absolutely hate hosers even though there are good and reliable answers really shows what each fanbase wants out of their game.
@lequinow it not like those floodgates are either cheese way for bad decks to win or side decks option for going first in good decks basically the theory it that is more important to run starter and interaction over spell and trap removal
@@lequinowunsearchable removal isnt realiable AT ALL. Modern YGO is too fast for "draw the out" to be serious. You dont have the answer then and there? You lose.
@@BussiDestroyer Yup. Which is why extra deck has become so important because as long as you can get the bodies on board, the extra deck utility is always available. Which in turn is also why floodgates that lock summoning are stronger than ever 🥲
You should show him notion thief, to see if he looses his mind.
Notion thief and opposition agent
@@nickchaput219 Opposition Agent is an incredibly rude card but generally you'll have play options that don't trigger it (and I don't know how familiar Cimooooo is with fetchlands). Notion Thief being legal while Hullbreacher isn't is a much weirder situation
@Sheer_Falacy the point is he isn't familiar that's the gimmick. Also Oppo agent is fine, people need to be punished for being greedy and tutoring a lot
A take on conceding as a new player:
When I started playing Starcraft against my mate who played the game for a decade and some, I learned that RTS players, especially of higher levels, tend to concede-go-next rather quickly, as they know the point where there is no way out for them anymore. So in one of our matches he asked me if I still had a chance and why I wouldn't concede.
I never had a chance in that game, so by that logic I should have conceded the minute we loaded into the game. Going through the motions helps one to familiarize himself with what he's actually doing. I personally don't like conceding when I'm effectively learning something, because that's not how I learn, even if the game may feel a bit sloggy
Chess has a bit of that too, where some players can get very angry when the losing player isn’t conceding. However, trying to defend a lost position can still be fun and can actually be a good learning experience. People who get annoyed at having to play from a clearly winning position will often have problems finding the optimal way to win the game and could learn a thing or two from playing it through.
Amusingly, some of the bans discussed completely spit in the face of that angle. Iona makes it so you straight up cant come back, unless you knew she existed or that player gives mercy. And Biorhytm is a "Game Over" button, taking away any chance at recovery. Not to mention an auto-win against spell slinger decks.
It can definitely be fun, as a rookie or a veteran, to play out a lost game. Ladders have kinda ruined that mindset by prioritizing won games over game actions.
Though its good for actually skilled players, cause it means most at the top dont actually have as much experience as they should.
Something else Very important to scooping is: Commander is 4 player.
1: If you're at a table with three other people, and someone gets shut down completely, what are they supposed to do? Go home while you keep playing? Sit there for potentially an hour or more waiting for another match? Or is Everyone supposed to end the game because One person is out?
And 2: It alters the board for more players. Something that can happen is that one player gains enough of an advantage that alliances are drawn to try and reset the balance of the board. If someone scoops when that happens, it puts the side that was at a disadvantage at MORE of a disadvantage.
@@lequinow Something that is absolutely infuriating in chess is someone not conceding because they want the other player to time out.
I spent a lot of my game time on maneuvering my opponent into an essentially lost position, and we both know that I could eventually beat them to death by my huge advantage. But now I have 3 minutes left on the clock and my opponent has 10. So all they need to do is dance one piece back and forth and immediately pass the timer to me; and I simply don't have enough time to adequately respond and use the advantage I have to actually win before I clock out.
(Just to be clear, this is of course considered extremely bad manners, and while it might not get you exactly banned from a tournament, it is certainly not earning you any respect for "outsmarting" your opponent.)
@@AbdielKavash That’s a case-by-case situation too. Playing with a clock means that you have a set amount of time to think about your moves. You need to be able to beat your opponent in the aloted time, not be up material with no time on the clock.
The fact that you used more time than your opponent can very well be the reason why you have an advantage. If your opponent thinks you managed your time poorly and that you won’t be able to win before the clock runs out, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to put you up to the test. You might not play as accurately under time pressure.
There are obviously cases where it’s just pettyness. It can certainly be infuriating and bad-mannered in classical chess or even longer rapid time controls where the position is a theoretical win that you have no chance of losing or stalemating. When it comes to blitz and bullet though, the clock is a weapon and should be used accordingly.
(I’m obviously not talking about a player just letting the clock run in a losing position, which is never acceptable.)
Oh I can actually answer on biorhythm at least in a casual environment because we played without knowing there was a ban list. Yes it’s hilariously broken in a casual format. It typically reads 7 mana do 110 damage to opponents then you just attack in with your big green timmy cards and kill 2-3 players who can’t block all the damage.
It’s also a great endgame card as the threat of it makes players with wrath’s worry about passing without a board and sometimes it can allow for sneak wins right off the top as long as they have a castle creature in hand.
If there exists a person that wants to defend Iona, I don't want to ever meet them. Imagine if you're the only deck that plays a color at the table and get picked. You can just scoop up your cards and leave, you're not doing anything else in that game unless the rest takes pity on you
Yup. And even if you have a colorless card that could answer her, the other players aren't just incentivized to not deal with her for you, but to actively protect her since she keeps you locked out.
Honestly I personally would find that hilarious both as the target and the one targeting it.
@@seandun7083 And if you do somehow have a colorless card that answers her you usually can't do so without spending 6+ mana so you better hope Iona didnt come down early. You also better hope you naturally draw them because you're not gonna have access to pretty much any of your draw and search effects in most decks. So even if you do have an answer somewhere in your deck youve made your deck significantly worse in every other situation by playing it and its not in your favor that youll even find it.
1:15:20 Here's the really fun thing. Rule zero can work both ways. If you want to play with Biorhythm you can rule zero that ban out of existence.
This only really works when playing against people you know.
Against strangers this doesn't usually work.
I love how the "just rule 0, there's no need to ban" group always starts finding all sorts of issues with using rule 0 the second you flip it on them. You are absolutely right that rule 0 works both ways.
@@indigo1296 My play group regularly lets me rule zero the Lutri ban to only be banned as companion and I run him in the 99 for my Niv Mizzet deck. The Companion deck restriction being just part of the Commander deck building rules is what made it ban worthy, not the actual play pattern of the card.
The format really does need a tiered ban system with banned from the companion and command zones being options without ripping it out of the 99.
@@indigo1296 Rule Zero doesn't work either way. There are some cards that deserve to be banned, Biorhythm isn't one of them. Trying to rule zero it into play doesn't work for the same reason it wouldn't work to rule zero ban Hullbreacher or Flash.
@@a.velderrain8849 Thank you for demonstrating my point.
I will actually discuss with you how rule zeroing a card in is different from rule zeroing a card out though. When a card is banned, but you still want to run it, you know the expectation is that people may not be okay with it, so you would prepare another deck, or an alternative card to switch in incase people decline (if you had common sense, at least). If you're trying to rule zero someone's legal card out they are far less likely to have something prepared and thus will cause much more friction/discomfort.
It's also a lot easier for people to accept the contentious cards when you have to declare it upfront before the game, especially for these "non-viable for actual competitive but will affect casual tables" type cards.
1:15:20, I think the reason biorythm is banned (and IMO should stay banned) is because in a lower power deck, it ends up just being weird.
Say your player 2, at 1 life, and someone is dominating the board. If Player 1 were to board wipe, you could play a single creature + biorythm, completely ignoring almost everything else about the game.
I don't think the card would see ANY high level play, but I think beginners might put it in their decks, and make some games end really sadly due to it...
Honestly, it wouldn't see any high level play because the only kinds of decks that want this effect want a Shaman of the Forgotten ways more ─ cause a body is tutorable in Mono Green and it's a serviceable mana dork before going for the activated ability. It's actually seen cEDH play in the not-so-distant past, but unfortunately better outlets have been printed for the ~2 mono green commanders that want this.
@@Hitzel
Thank you for telling me about Shaman of Forgotten Ways, it's interesting that a similar ability has been printed! Although with a restriction eliminating the use-case in commander where the game suddenly ends in a draw after a board wipe / you being basically dead. Thereby avoiding exactly the situtation mentioned in the reason for the ban in the first place.
My point was about low power decks, not high level play.
We have to remember that the Commander Ban List is built around casual play and not competitive play.
And in a casual game Biorythm can simply flip a game upside down. Even if it doesn't instantly win, everyone suddenly being at just a few life means a single attack could wipe someone out, no matter how much life they had previously. Sure, it's insanely unreliable, but beginners might be adding this card, without even realizing just how "weird"/"unbalanced" it's playpattern would be.
If we treat the card as nearly unplayable anyways, (in high level play), then the ban preventing it from being used in low level play makes sense to me.
It also feels like biorhythm would negatively effect deck diversity by shutting down any decks that have few or no creatures or use healing. It doesn't even have to be comboed into an OTK. It'd also work to table flip the game and bring at least one player down to burn range by the other players. It says "nothing that happened earlier mattered" and those cards have traditionally been banned. It's not a *good* card, but it is a toxic one.
A trillion things can make low power games weird so lets stop caring about that
@@byronstier7438 Guess what buddy, that's what most people play and care about.
If I understand the card correctly Iona shuts down every card that has that color in it too, so if your multicolor spells will be unplayable as well meaning even if you play two or three colors, a large portion of your deck will be hosed anyways.
Yeah. It's worth noting that color is different than color identity, so Golos would be fine, but otherwise yes.
0:36 "I am not complaining" - says Mesa Falcon guy as he proceeds to complain for 1 hour and 28 minutes
All I care about is you analyzing cards and hanging out. It’s awesome.
Erayo also counts herself as one of those 4 spells cast... so with cards like lotus petal, mox diamond and some baubles it's very easy to both cast and flip her on turn 1.
I think what they meant by “social friction” is that if one player is locked out by iona, they might ask other players to remove iona for them and then get mad about it when they dont, because opponents are under no obligation to help you
Yeah. The other players are even incentivized to stop any colorless answers they might have.
Biorhythm isn't a payoff for a big board, it's retaliation for someone wiping the board. If Cratergoof is the payoff for building a board, Biorhythm is Plan B after your board gets wiped.
The most common play pattern is someone wraths the board, then the green player plays Biorhythm with maybe one dork and takes several players out of the game or causes a draw.
I think Cimo was missing that ETB triggers on permanents being cast (ie: When/If this monster is summoned triggers for YGO)
Controversial take: Kamigawa flip card design is infinitely better than later double side card design because it doesn't require unsleeving the card (which is a crime at a play table)
Clear perfect fit sleeve inside of a sleeve with an opaque back, I guess. You'll also be grateful for it if someone spills liquid on your cards.
Ok but that ignores the issue of clarity when the card is tapped. Which side is active on the tapped card? You can't assume which one is because you can't assume which way they tap something. Clarity of board state is infinitely more important than "i cant be fucked to flip my card every so often"
I think the difference between Iona and Void Winnower is that, like you said, Void Winnower affects ALL of your opponents... a little. But it almost certainly doesn't fully lock anyone out of the game, unless you are playing something like an Obosh deck. Everybody is staxed a little, but anyone can still play ~50% of the cards in their deck, including an answer to Void Winnower. The game is impacted, but nobody is just fully shut out.
With Iona, if you have an opponent on a monocolor deck, that opponent might as well just scoop. You basically told them they aren't allowed to play anymore, and all of the possible cards they could have to answer it are being shut down by the very card they need to answer. They can try to beg another player to deal with it for them, but why would anyone unlock one of their opponents and willingly spend a removal spell to get rid of a stax piece that is only hurting one of their enemies? The "social friction" of Iona is that you, as the Iona player, get to look at the board and pick any monocolor decks to completely shut down, or one of the colors of any two-color decks to severely hamper, and their only option is to either ask somebody else to get you to stop bullying them, or sit there and watch everyone else play magic. Meanwhile, Void Winnower just says "everybody has this new weird restriction, try to work around it as best you can".
IMO, Void Winnower is 100% fine to leave in the game, but Iona is on the short list of cards that need to absolutely stay out of the format.
For reference, I think the comparison of Void Winnower to Iona is a lot like the comparison of Erayo to a Rule of Law. Rule of Law staxes the table in a way that everybody can still play the game, just under a limitation. Erayo says "no more magic for you". Rule of Law can often be answered, and the game can proceed. Erayo is much much harder to answer, especially when backed up by countermagic. Rule of Law is perfectly fine to leave in the game, Erayo is deservedly banned.
*Gyruda not Obosh, but yeah.
@@seandun7083 You're right, my bad, always get them mixed up lol
Social tension is real. I’ve seen people legitimately get in week long fights because one didn’t help the other out of a situation. I don’t want to imagine what an iona would’ve done to that friendship
That sounds unbelievably silly and petty. I love it 😂
Sounds like those people need to grow up.
I've literally seen a grown man flip the table because I corrected them about a rules interaction.
@ judges don’t get enough credit
sounds like immaturity to me
On Scooping. In a 1v1 scooping ends the game. It means you can start another. In a 4FFA scooping means: I do nothing and watch while my friends keep playing for the next hour. Unless you can promise me that everyone else will scoop? I see the 2nd place player scoop plenty in commander, but just imagine how much fun it would be on CGB's commander videos to see one of the guests play 2 turns, quit and watch for the next hour.
9:00 I play mono-color EDH decks all the time, and I got locked down for half of a game by Iona when it was still legal. And people don't use it like you think- they don't pick the most common color, they use it as single target player removal for whomever's commander has the lowest number of colors. Remember, just because you have a 2, 3, 4 color deck, doesn't mean those colors will all be represented evenly and the Iona player can usually sus out which is which pretty easily. Playing against Iona sucks and it's good that they banned it.
EDIT: 26:05 NEVER scoop. The lockdown player often has no actual wincon other than annoying the table into scooping, and will also have drawn more cards than you to get to their combo. Refusing to scoop and making them play through their win will result in them decking themself. And if this is a tournament, you call the judge for slow play if they take more than 30 seconds a turn.
Bingo. Scooping generally means you're either too salty to actually officially lose a game and just want another, better chance at winning, or you're spiteful and stubborn and just want to take away the feeling of actually winning from your opponent. It's childish no matter what.
Wow, I agree with neither of these takes and I play a lot of mono color decks.
All I have to say about Iona, yeah the play pattern sucks if you are mono, but that's the game. Plenty of play patterns suck. If my opponent gives me necropotence and removes my ability to pay life for things then that means I can no longer draw cards. That sucks. At the end of the day, it's casual, it's a card game. Have a laugh over it.
Secondly, scooping is very healthy. I often let my opponent play it out if I don't believe they have a win. If I do believe they have a win there's zero reason to waste my time. Same as chess.
Also contrary to the comment above me implying scooping is immature, it is very much mature as it respects your opponent's ability to win.
@@profozpin227 guess it depends on how you play 🤷🏼 I play casual multiplayer, non-formatted magic at the kitchen table at home with friends I've had for decades. I don't play with Timmy and his big brother's 2500$ bitcoin netdeck at the LGS. Maybe scooping in competitive is meaningful. At my table, my friends only scoop when they're salty lmao
The funniest thing about Consecrated Sphynx is when two players have one and they start chain triggering each other lol.
Both of them sweating to try and find a way to break the stack 😂
Yeah. I sort of wish it wasn't a may to punish that, but I get how that would be hard to resolve and a bit of a disappointing end to a game in 1v1.
One has rhystic study other has white card that creates treasures off oponent draw
The interaction with notion thief is more funny.
@@naphackDT it is a may though
As a YGO player that occasionally plays EDH with my fiends. I have one EDH deck and it is double sleeved and going from my 40 card YGO deck to the 100 card double sleeve is ROUGH to shuffle..I'd pay money to see CImooooooooo struggle shuffling a double sleeved commander deck.
The biggest difference between brawl and EDH i find is the fact i have 3 other people on the table and usually one of them has an answer.. also brawl im playing to win... whereas EDH im gonna sit there and chat to people for 3 hours before i realise my creature was exiled last turn
Hearing CGB complain every time a card is banned for social friction, and then babyrage about chaos decks, really doesn't paint him as a fun person to play or hang out with.
I love how Cimo’s voice changed when he turned his head to read the flip card.
CGB please do the vintage restricted list!
its basically yugioh id love to see how well he handles it
When it comes to Biorhythm, I imagine the toxic play pattern that's more common would be playing it immediately after another player board wipes. I could see it easily taking out 1-3 opponents unexpectedly.
Yeah, or just resulting in a draw
Maybe it was just me, but back when Iona was banned, 3 color legends were a lot less common and 1v1 games of EDH were a lot more common.
I always thought the Iona ban was because she can take one player out of the game completely while at the same time not hindering the others at all making it impossible for the affected player to remove and at the same time undesirable for the rest of the table to do so.
(What I mean is for example one opponent plays mono black and the other 2 opponents don't have black in their deck or don't care for their black cards right now)
This effectively locks one player out of playing and just having to watch the game unfold which really isn't what Commander is about in their Philosophy.
Thats one of the larger reasons why. It reads "target player no longer gets to play the game" more times than not and in a format where the whole point is hanging out with people and having fun a card that says "you are no longer allowed to participate in this social activity" is just a dick move and unfun.
i love cimo not understanding possibility storm as a disruption piece and assuming giving your opponents this effect is bad
I'm pretty sure he didn't understand that it kept the spells cast from hand from resolving.
In defense of Possibility Storm, the card is BONKERS against control.
"I cast a counterspell", "no you don't, you cast the next thing in your library", "oh great, I get to Brainstorm instead."
"I blow up your thing", "again, no you don't", "oh great, I got a counterspell with nothing on the stack. Woo-hoo."
"I'm gonna try to combo off with my Locust God for the win", "what did you actually hit?", "Aaaaaand it's a Blasphemous Act and my Locust God (and all its bugs) are dead."
Talking about concessions around 26:00 - it's a difference in 1v1 and multiplayer dynamics. 1v1 games like Chess or Go, players concede both to save time and as a show of respect to your opponent that you don't think they'll fumble their advantage, and I think that mentality extends to 1v1 competitive magic, but not multiplayer casual.
Yeah. It's also relevant that in 4 player, even if you don't have an answer to the player who is ahead, someone else might.
Unless the win is literally guaranteed with known information, the element of randomness in Magic means that it’s justified to see out the match even if it seems insurmountable.
Sorcery speed concede is important because of some weirdness with multiplayer, if player a stole player b's creature and attacks player c, and b concedes, their creature ceases to exist as they scoop and that can swing games or play kingmaker. if someone concedes against a big attack, they don't get their lifelink healing because the attack doesn't go through and might die next turn.
I have played with Biorhythm in Commander before. It's called Shaman of Forgotten Ways and it won me several games back when I had a STAX deck.
Sure. That one at least has the restrictions of having summoning sickness and requiring Formidable.
The fact that reanimate is in precons blows my mind. My friend went turn 1 pass discard 10 mana busted creature. Turn 2 reanimate and no one has a kill spell because we played with precons xD
Eh, there's this view that if a card is a "staple" then it shouldn't be banned. See Sol Ring. That being said, Reanimate is pretty unique at 1 mana but there are loads of effects at 2 mana, and sure many of them sac the creature at end of turn but you can absolutely win the game before that happens.
CGB you're fundamentally misunderstanding why Biorythm and Iona are banned.
Your comparison of Biorythm with Craterhoof @1:16:00 ~ exemplifies this perfectly: Craterhoof is a better wincon than Biorythm, yes. But they fundamentally are very different from eachother.
Craterhoof rewards you for YOUR creatures. So your choice of deckbuilding/gameplay to play towards; whereas Biorythm rewards you for you playing 1 or more creatures while your opponents have 0 creatures. This wincon isn't only reliant on you playing creatures (and less so than Craterhoof, you need way less creatures) but more reliant on your opponent not playing any creatures.
That's the point of the ban: plenty of people just don't run a lot of (early game) creatures in their EDH deck, or sometimes get on the board a little late. Should they be instantly hated off the game for that simple fact?
Same goes for Iona: yes, there are way better cards than her. But in a multiplayer pod where a monocolored player gets punished by Iona, others who aren't punished by it have no incentive to deal with Iona, basically hating a monocolored player out of the game just for their choice of playing a monocolored deck...
For reanimate, I think Cimo is right on the money about the yugioh restricted list being pretty much already how it works. It's 1 in a 100, and you still need to hit a target or enabler too, because you can't reanimate your commander. It's already restricted.
Back in the day me and my friends didn't like commander but played in groups of up to 6 or 7 players. We banned biorhythm because everyone played a ton of wraths so it would end a game that had been going for like an hour out of no where. One of the tricks was to just have a indestructible creature that survives other's wraths. Or at least you play it with the attitude, if i cant win neither can you. Ending games out of nowhere.
I think the difference between Iona and Void Winnower is that Iona is a commander and so you can use that effect more reliably
That and while VW stops everyone from doing half their stuff, Iona can lock one player out of doing all their stuff (including answering her) which is so much less fun.
@@seandun7083 Void winnower is also much more symmetrical. unless you're playing Gyruda companion ya can still play
Everyone is affected equally by VW. Therefore some player will feel incentivised to burn a spell with odd cost to get rid of it.
There can be situations where only a single player gets affected by Iona and that player would then have to draw into a colorless answer or beg someone who has no incentive to do so to get rid of her. And now imagine finally drawing into your scour from existence only for an uninvolved third player to counter it for the lols... people haved flipped tables over less.
@@naphackDT yeah. It's not even for the lols either. Stopping them from getting back into the game is generally the strategically correct choice.
I think a lot of people are missing a really important thing about Iona:
she also shuts out multicolor spells that include the chosen color. Iona player chose Black and you’re running Black/Red? You’re mono-red now, congrats. It’s annoying in almost any circumstance even if it’s not broken OP.
before watching: CGB's last video ranting abount commander ban list, honestly, left me pretty favorable on all the bans that the Rules Committee decided on. I'll update this to see if I still stand by the RC or not at the end of this video (Extra comment activity for free)
Edit: With the exception of Biorythym, I kind of see why the RC made the decisions they did, again. I think it's important to realize that If a card is insanely good, that's usually not why it's banned. The Golos ban is a very interesting and honestly a smart choice. I hadn't thought of just crushing too much diversity due to it.
Iona: I can see why it's banned, It's not a great card, it wouldn't take over the format, but in ANY situation where it works, the only outcome (sans some blue shit) is asymetrical lockout. A Card doesn't need to be good to be unhealthy. It's a reasonable decision to just ban the card. Nothing was lost as a result of it's ban.
Possibility storm sounds hella fun, and would create a fun hectic rng time for the whole table. I don't think it should be banned unless there's some degenerate combo... but honestly, I'd say ban the other part of the combo instead, The storm is hilarious. It's not necessarily great, but it's fun.
Erayo is annoying and as a commander especially annoying, Personally, I think it has enough time for interaction to maybe let it be playable. I think it's... maybe banned? but I don't know if it really needs to be without a degenerate combo.
Void Winnower: Innately it's a fine card. But if there's a combo that makes odd mana creatures even, or also locks out odd mana creatures... then yeah I can see it being banned. But if it's banned on it's own... Then No. Hmm... I Guess that if a commander is even this does suck, maybe that might be a reason to ban it. But off rip, no, not needed to be banned. Once again, yes it's good, but the counterplay and play result isn't assymetric, and is a chokehold, not a full blockout. A card's power level isn't usually what gets it banned, it's how the game feels to players after it's played.
Consecrated sphinx: Insanely good card, but doesn't need to be banned. Is it a massively powerful card that pushes blue players to their win conditions, which almost always mean having a buttload of cards in their hand? yes. But cards that contribute to the colors normal win condition aren't really what you need to ban, unless they are either so universally good that it crushes diversity or just so far above the cut that they need to be controlled.
Possibility Storm is so funny in Storm decks because it doubles the storm count AND you still get all the Storm copies from whatever you cast or hit with the Possibility Storm.
Didn't help that virtually every commander was worse than golos if it wasn't doing a specific niche thing
1:06:05
As you talk about conceding in commander. In my local playgroups, we generally (with a few outliers) agree scooping is a sourcery action, but the entire table scooping can be agreed on as an instant. So you can't concede to stop a damage trigger, or spite someone's infinite attacks, unless the other 2 non active players also scoop.
I love these videos with Cimoo. Both of you have helped me learn how to better analyze cards.
Yugioh player here playing along and trying to understand the difference in vocabulary; does that Elesh Norn also turn off ETB effects of the same creature that just got summoned?
Yes.
If Elesh Norn was a Yugioh card, it would double your when normal/special summoned effects while negating your opponent's.
As another commenter stated, it affects both Black Whirlwind and E-Hero Stratos.
Another big problem with bans in edh is the rc was signpost banning. They ban a card and say we aren't going to ban cards similar to it. Then say don't play cards similar to banned cards.
About scooping in yugioh, and Cimo didn't touch on that
In paper, since you play best of 3 most of the times (within a 45 minute window for all 3 games)
There's an actual strategic element to it. Scooping in game 1 happens alot. Everything after is contextual on the game and match state, since you also have to consider who was going first (the losing player choosing who goes first in the next game)
While I'm not sure it should be banned, I think Biorhythm is better and more disruptive than people might think.
When people wrath the board, the expectation is you've created breathing room as people rebuild, and counterplay is to have cards that help you rebuild. Biorhythm turns that breathing room into "oops, you lose". If it existed, blue decks would also feel the need to hold mana and delay their rebuild speed for this. If the wrath happened right before the biorhythm players turn, the other players don't even have a chance to rebuild and get surprised knocked out in a pretty hard to interact way.
If it was legal, it would be a staple in elf decks, and it would also be way BETTER than craterhoof, because it not only helps you finish the players off in the same situations, but also allows you to win when people play the typical counterplay against you.
One could also just spite-draw the game - without having the mana to creature and biorhythm, you could just biorhythm and set everyone to 0.
They were so focused on talking on the matter of how playable biorhythm is that they don't stop to consider the single biggest problem of biorythmn: If it was legal, its the sort of card someone would use to bad manners rage quit in a losing game. Frankly, its ability to be abused for bad manner behavior alone is in my mind justification to have it banned in every single formant. It is the sort of the card that the game has zero actual positive benefit from it existing, only negative.
When I'm playing 1v1 standard/pioneer/modern if I recognize that my situation is completely unwinnable then I'll just scoop to save time and move to game 2. With 4 players even if I'm dead on board and have no outs in hand it's entirely possible that one of my other two opponents will drop a wipe and get me back into the game. The rare instances where I scoop in commander are when the whole table recognizes that 1 player is completely unstoppable and would rather get to the next game than sit and wait out the inevitable.
CGB I feel you should know Painters Servant was unbanned when Iona was banned.
i can see cimo reanimating a consecrated sphinx in his first commander game with his blue-black deck
Golos mains be like, "most casinos don't understand that while I can only lose 100% of my money, I can theoretically gain INFINITE money!"
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care when the guesser is wrong. I like to see the guesser be morally outraged when a card that should be banned isn't, or when shown the context that makes something harmless busted.
For that reason, I'm glad CGB has largely dropped the price-guessing aspect. It took up a lot of time, and the part I like ("PEOPLE PAY THAT!?! COMMANDER PLAYERS ARE INSANE!") wasn't predicated on the lead-up. Maybe if it were sped up with an over/under, but I think Cimo has too much context for that to work now.
I watch all the CGB-Rarran-Cimo videos, but these past 2 commander ones have not been good. I only get like 10 minutes in before the bad takes are too much.
How hard is it to understand that these bans are about play patterns, and not power level? That the goal is to have a game that is enjoyable for 4 strangers with completely different ideas of what "fun" is to be able to play a decent game together? It comes off as that friend that pulls out a fight stick and shit talks when people want to goof off playing drunk Smash Bros at a party.
The reason people scoop early in online games (not that I'm happy with it either) is that you're basically able to queue up another game and immediately move on, whereas on paper format, you have an opponent in front of you and you need to find another one if you want to play against a different deck, so just having someone in front of you means you gotta make the most of it by playing each game until the end. I've started playing MTG on paper, so it never crossed my mind that I should scoop by turn 3 or 4 because the game was already lost at that point, I've just not been taught to play like that.
Honestly, all the comments of "Oh, someone on the RC lost to this card once and got salty and banned it" are kind of annoying and insulting. They make the video hard to watch because not only are they objectively wrong, because the RC had to reach majority vote to ban a card, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how being a 4 player FFA with 40 base life Warps the interactions and social dynamics of the game.
I mean getting a majority vote doesn't mean that's not true. It means someone managed to convince the others to vote their way. So that's not as good of a defense as you are thinking.
And if you think that the RC Could be convinced of such petty reasons to ban something, you're just wrong.
It is bizarre. CGB usually represent things fairly in these collabs but once it's a banlist video its ad hominem on the RC left and right.
Getting Kaalia'ed into an Iona super early into the game is lame as someone who does play a lot of mono colored decks.
I think the crux of the issue with Biorythm is actually something y'all briefly mentioned. What if someone takes out your monster before the card resolves? It's a tie. And cards that promote ties are pretty often banned.
*Laughs in Divine Intervention*
my Obosh deck almost always ends in a tie lol cuz it kills all of us at the table at once
And like I get it if after seeing other crazy cards stuff like Biorhythm & Coalition being on the ban list can be a headscratcher, but unbanning them doesn't offer anything of value unless you're building a Weatherlight 90's only tribute deck.
@@malmasterson3890coalition victory is actually a super cheese Strat nowadays, with the number of cards that allow your creatures/lands to be all colours/types respectively, you can pretty much build a mostly mono green deck that just ramps, and tutor all your pieces like a combo deck except you're just looking for Prismatic Omen and Fallaji Wayfarer, or mulliganing til you get Leyline of the Guildpact, and then just play Coalition Victory and gg on like turn 3 or 4. Super boring, definitely not to be overlooked as a ban imo
Oh hey, my show is on