|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 3:10AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
|
So as most of you will know Primeval Titan  was banned in EDH recently. One of the members of our group has asked politely if we can house-rule Primey and allow him to continue running it. I know 1 of our members is directly against house rules in general, as it has caused problems in the past. My thoughts on it though are relatively simple. Our friend runs Riku of two thrones as his general, and it was pretty common to see 2 primeval's on his side of the field at the end of turn 4, sometimes turn 3, putting him in a massive board state lead, and thus he usually ended up winning the majority of our EDH games. Since the banning of Primeval Titan his deck has frankly, not worked anywhere near as efficiently, and he hasn't won a game of EDH since, and it showed that his deck was actually very reliant on Primeval. Because of this, i'm not sure I can house-rule it, he'll have more reason to improve his deck if I don't (as it obviously has some glaring holes that primeval was covering). But I wanted to hear what other people have to say on the matter?
Banned from MTGSalvation for being me. They don't like me. I have opinions. That and I called them all Nazi's.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 4:28AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
I'm against the ban, but if your group has stable membership, they should all come to a consensus. Further, if an entire EDH deck sinks or swims because of one single card, I'd wager your friend is not that great of a deckbuilder to begin with.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 7:09AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2012
|
I'd say no. If nothing else, if you let one guy slide, then when someone else wants to use something banned, you'll hear "but you let him use Primeval Titan". Plus, if he was winning that much, it can't have been much fun to play against.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:27AM
#4
|
|
|
Utter dependency on primEVIL titan is the reason it was banned. Meta games devolved into elder dragon primetime.
I think the ban is bupkiss, but a deck should be able to adapt to the loss of any given non-commander card.
Tell your friend to play more explosive vegetation, journey of discovery, and primal growth. Then, once the deck performs without primeval titan bringing it back wont be as big an issue.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 28, 2007
|
One question for you. Did your playgroup follow the banned list before Primeval was banned? If so, you should continue to follow the list.
 You are Red/Blue!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:58PM
#6
|
|
|
That's a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 10, 2012 - 6:56AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 28, 2007
|
Technically speaking it is an incomplete argument.
However, that isn't the point, I was trying to bring up a point about consistancy. If his group used the banned list before the most recent banning, then someone (or many) may have decided that the banned list was going to be the standard for that group or that location.
Our group decided long ago to follow the banned list and there were some before the most recent banning that wanted to use a card(s) on it to which the group pointed out the restriction. After the most recent banning a person or two asked about it and the majority pointed out that we had followed the list before and planned on continuing to do so. (consistancy)
Most of the group wasn't surprised that the banning happened and had been discussing/speculating it before it happened.
You are Red/Blue!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 10, 2012 - 7:10AM
#8
|
|
|
As is its an appeal to tradition. But consistency itself isn't a reason to follow the banned list. I get what you were trying at, but if a particular banning doesn't sit well with a group it should be evaluated on it's own merits. Some of the cards on the list are questionable, as are some recent
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 10, 2012 - 1:59PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
|
We've always followed the banlist.
I think our friend has conceded the point now and is modifying his deck to work without prime-time. Just about everyone in our group expressed a desire to remain following the banlist.
Banned from MTGSalvation for being me. They don't like me. I have opinions. That and I called them all Nazi's.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 10, 2012 - 5:25PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I play in a group that has multiple meetings at different times during the week and has various members that show up at various times, sometimes at every session, sometimes once a month. All in all, there are between 15-20 members that I know of, and we all follow the banned list. If we wanted to allow a banned card, all the members would have to agree to it, and it might take a month or so before we had all the votes in, and we'd have to have whatever percentage to pass then either way. My group follows the banned list because it is easier, but if we want to change a rule or whatever, all members agree before that change takes effect to make sure that all players understand and are aware of the changes. So far, we haven't deviated from the banne dlist because we can blame an outisde source for any displeasure at the changes. We only look at the rules regarding various formats (two-headed giant, arch enemy, etc) for changes, and it works out well.
All in all, the banned list is a recommendation, not a requirement. If you and the majority of your playgroup feel differently, make a proposition to change your group's rules, and go by it. I think that allowign a single member to change rules for their benefit is a bad idea. All of none; that's how the rules should be applied.
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
|
|
|
