Besides, you can always kill them before they can cast it for lethal.
Thank you for this. It's something that I have been trying to champion for a long time. There is really no such thing as a casual format, your deck has to be competitive. This doesn't mean what people probably assume I'm trying to say. You do not have to play Power 9, turn 3 win decks. However, if people playing in your games win on average by turn 15, then your deck better be competitive and also be able to win by then (or sooner). If you show up with a deck that wins on turn 30, everything is going to seem overpowered and unfair because everything will crush you. You do not have to play an uber combo deck, but you have to play a deck that fields well given the opposition. If you don't stand a chance going in, then no single card is going to affect your odds of winning. It's not like because Exsanguinate is gone you suddenly stand a chance
My guide to Black multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/18893722?sdb=1&post_num=1#322195706
My guide to Red multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28999213/?sdb=1&post_num=1#517562879
My guide to White multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29011349/?sdb=1&pg=last#517773211
My guide to Green multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29034323/Tichs_Guide_to_Green_Multiplayer_Cards_and_Strategies
However, if people playing in your games win on average by turn 15, then your deck better be competitive
Here, "competitive" means able to win by turn 15 or sooner. If you've got a 5 player metagame, and 4 of them have decks that win on turn 10, then the last player needs to build a deck that win on turn 10, not 30. In contrast, if you've got a group where 4 have decks that win on turn 20, and one builds decks that win on turn 8, that one player is going to seem overpowered, and there are 3 responses the rest of the group can make: a) ban that player or his cards b) attack that player every chance they get c) make their own decks more consistent.
The OP suggests that A is the proper response. On my own, I practice C. In a group, I advise B.
One of my decks provoked a B response, which forced me to take action C, until one of the players begged for A. Whenever I pull it out, as soon as it's recognized, the other players treat it as B.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
I agree with Cathaldus, my play groups don't ban any cards. If one cards is wrecking your meta game then adjust your decks, that part of the joy of playing a modular game. I see lots of counter magic everywhere I look. I feel that banning cards shows a lack of creativity.
Actually, I should clarify my post a bit. When I say you need a competitive deck, I mean you need a competitive deck. Competition generally means 2+ teams that are more or less evenly matched. There's a reason why top sports teams don't just comprise the best of the best players and everyone gets slaughtered by the one good team. That's incredibly boring to watch and no one has fun seeing a masscre every night. There's no suspense, no thrill, no adrenaline, nothing. So, when I say bring a deck that fields well, I don't mean bring one that wins 20 turns sooner than everyone else. If people think Craw Wurm is strong, don't Tinker out Darksteel Colossus on turn 3. Everyone has a responsibiltiy to not be some sociopath that ruins the metagame by forcing everyone to become pro players. Competiton should mean that everyone has a reasonable chance. Not high, not even, but reasonable. If your deck is unreasonably strong, then that is on you to fix.
My guide to Black multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/18893722?sdb=1&post_num=1#322195706
My guide to Red multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28999213/?sdb=1&post_num=1#517562879
My guide to White multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29011349/?sdb=1&pg=last#517773211
My guide to Green multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29034323/Tichs_Guide_to_Green_Multiplayer_Cards_and_Strategies
So, when I say bring a deck that fields well, I don't mean bring one that wins 20 turns sooner than everyone else.
And if the group has access to the same cards, and you bring one that wins 20 turns sooner than everyone else, does that mean the group should ban that deck?
What's the difference between growing the metagame and ruining the metagame?
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
If your deck is unreasonably strong, then that is on you to fix.
That would be my reason for banning it in our meta. We don't really have a "banlist" but we do have this understanding of not running cards that would be seem overpowered to the rest of the group.
There are only two older players in our group of six. The others have all started with M11 and Zendikar, specifically buying Deckbuilder Toolkits and trying to make competitive decks with those cards. We try to ensure fair teams by splitting the two older players and tweaking our decks down. I replace Dense Foliage with lands in my giant deck. He takes out his Jace TMS. Unless we decide to just go all out and then we don't want to pick on the other two teammates with our "power" cards.
If the group has access to the same cards, and you bring one that wins 20 turns sooner than everyone else, does that mean the group should ban that deck?
What's the difference between growing the metagame and ruining the metagame?
You're asking a pretty impractical question. Just because a group could, in theory, own Power 9 but think Craw Wurm is the best card ever, doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. It we're talking about people with lots of cards who've invested a lot into the game, chances are they know how to build solid, competitive decks. I highly doubt there's going to be a group out there that has players who all have relatively similar card pools where one player has an insurmountable advantage over the others.
Difference between growing and ruining? I think about it like the marketplace. Growing the market probably involves the entry of a new competitor, or in this case a new deck. It should be powerful enough to force its competitors to at least think about reacting to their entry, and how it might affect their performance. The way to ruin the market, or a metagame, would be be for a new competitor to enter and instantly bankrupt all competitors and create a monopoly. Your decks should always peak the interest of other people, and make them think strategically, but it's detrimental if you completely shut them out.
If you think that money is what's keeping people from creating all-star teams, you're dead wrong. One-sided events don't generate revenue, they never have. You detract from your own earnings if you win too much, by too much. Guess how many people watch Olympic hockey to see Canada win 16 to 0 against Sweden or whatever in the early rounds? Pretty much no one. There are tons of rich billionaires out there who would love to own all-star teams if it actually generated revenue. It doesn't. You would never pay to see UFC fighters fight girl scouts. There's no entertainment value when you already know the outcome.
My guide to Black multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/18893722?sdb=1&post_num=1#322195706
My guide to Red multiplayer cards and strategies: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28999213/?sdb=1&post_num=1#517562879
My guide to White multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29011349/?sdb=1&pg=last#517773211
My guide to Green multiplayer cards and strategies http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29034323/Tichs_Guide_to_Green_Multiplayer_Cards_and_Strategies
Great arguments, all. My playgroup can have its rules summed up in four words: "Don't be a d*ick". We have no banned cards, but have a standing rule that if a deck makes people feel like cutting themselves when they face off against it, it gets pulled apart after about three runs. The only cards that people really whinge about are Priest of Titania and Congregate . Cloudpost gets the odd complaint when two people suit up 8/12Post decks at the same time, but that's about it.
Exsanguinate won't be banned outright in our group - we'll just factor it into our gameplay. We'll have the standing rule changed to "Don't be a d*ick. That includes 20-point Exsanguinates on Turn 5" if we have to. But Tich is right - in the end, it's no worse than Hurricane , and my playgroup went through the phase of game-winning Hurricanes a decade ago. But Hurricane did end up warping my meta - we were splashing Fissure in our decks just to get rid of Glacial Chasm . And this is probably what I'm interested in most, personally - is Exsanguinate warping your meta yet? What are you going to splash to deal with it if that's the way you're headed?
Is Exsanguinate warping your meta yet? What are you going to splash to deal with it if that's the way you're headed?
I already have an Exsanguinate deck, and I would have to say that it doesn't always win once people recognize it (I have several decks). If I don't have adequate defenses set up (or those defenses are removed), then it is difficult to gain enough life to cast that game winning Exanguinate.
There is a major difference in "each opponent goes down X" and "everybody goes down X" because we play to win otherwise Divine Intervention would be played heavily. If keeping the X spell player at a lower life total than me protects me from the spell, I am fine with that and I have lost many a game to Earthquake and Squall Line and I am fine with that. Besides that, Exsanguinate generates a healthy life buffer even if you have a low value of X. In 5 player games X = 5 already gives you 20 life. That is the same amount as you start with so n effect people have to try twice as hard to kill you.
I forgot yesterday but counterspelling often doesn't work either because all drain decks should play Boseiju, Who Shelters All .
Killing the drain player before he/she casts the drain is in most cases also very difficult because mass removal costs a lot less mana and direct burn or mill isn't good enough in multiplayer or fast enough generally.
Capitan_Esteban has listed a nice list of cards that would often work against Exsanguinate .dec but this does mean I should play these cards in all my decks if I don't want to have a boring game against the Exsanguinate .dec. The creatures even aren't good enough because any self respecting black deck should be able to handle a creature or two. That stifles creativity and originality and fun of decks.
Genesis Wave for X is 10 doesn't kill 4 players (Exsanguinate for X is 10 doesn't necessarily too but bear with me for a moment). So you cast the wave and have a lot of permanents and Concordant Crossroads and multi-attacks are allowed so you attack and kill 1, maybe 2 players. I can still block against that attack, remove a crucial attacker with an instant, Rout , Holy Day or Evacuate . Destroying the Concordant Crossroads before the attack phase works for a bit of delay too. So lets assume after the X-Wave turn that player hasn't won yet (because I have seen many a wave go of and never seen them win that turn). Then everybody can keep their blockers ready, play a sweeper, do whatever the game normally does. It allows interaction between players instead of have a deck that denies interaction like exsanguinate .dec does. So yes, Genesis Wave demands certain cards in your deck too but these are the same cards every other deck demands: instant removal, sweepers, artifact and enchantment hate, something (creatures, dmg prevention, attack deterants like Dread ) against attacks. Not some nice card that only works in certain matchups. Multiplayer doesn't use sideboards (aside from wishes because all cards you own is very broken) because people generally don't play best of 3 with the same decks each time so you can't tweak your deck like you can in 1 on 1.
That is my biggest quip with Exsanguinate . It doesn't cause interaction between players which attacking and blocking and stuff does. Interaction is what makes games fun otherwise Magic is just a bunch of guys playing with themselves (pun intended). That is exactly what Tich says about meta's. Formula 1 wasn't fun when Schumacher had won the season 4 races before the end. A football match that ends in 12-0 is a lot less fun to watch then one that ends in 3-2 because the 3-2 game must have had a lot more interaction between the players of both teams than the 12-0 game. The limited interaction is because of a difference in power lvl and I think exsanguinate s power lvl in multiplayer is too high. I would place it in first place for the multiplayer power nine.
Kamikazegerbil wrote: Coke Spill Level 1 Encounter Attack Power Trigger: You must be pouring yourself a drink Range: Close Blast 1D10 from Player Target: All creatures and objects within blast Attack: Any vs. Reflex Hit: 1d6 Fizzy damage and target is wet (save ends) Aftereffect: Target is sticky (save ends)
Proliferate w/ 
Elves)
