I've been going through Gatherer doing searches for each individual color (I'm currently 3/5ths done), and what I'm noticing is that there are a LOT of interactions with Servant that range from useless to cool to not so cool. But what I'm also finding is that the majority of them are cards that nobody uses. Like, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of them are cards that would never see play unless you were either building a deck to interact with color(s) or intentionally building around Servant. So this idea of unintentional interactions is not quite as worrisome as I once thought. If you just randomly slot Painter into a deck, outside of Iona the only card I'd legitimately be worried about is Ugin, which is basically the same thing as Mycosynth Lattice and Shatterstorm.
Once I get this second list posted we can observe possible and realistic interactions more, but as it stands right now I could totally get behind swapping out Iona and Servant on the list.
"Meh" means it's not broken, but almost too strong. I still feel likes it needs to be banned, but if PS did come back, the amount of funny cards I could use would be nice...
I don't quite follow. Is it mainly because of the "destroy all <color>" cards?
well, things that do bulk actions on permanents in general (so, Wash Out, for example). It turns out that a lot of big-effect cards in Magic are built assuming lands are colorless as a defensive mechanism. Note how little Wizards has touched the colored-lands space.
If Painter's Servant was "nonland", I suspect the other interactions would be acceptable (not necessarily good, mind you, but not cumulatively problematic enough to lead to a ban).
That seems like a strange stance to me, if only because it is exactly one card that can do that on a mass scale.
Like lands becoming Artifacts or Enchaments or Creatures are in a lot of ways more problematic to their survival in the average EDH game yet there is no restriction against those lines of play.
well, things that do bulk actions on permanents in general (so, Wash Out, for example). It turns out that a lot of big-effect cards in Magic are built assuming lands are colorless as a defensive mechanism. Note how little Wizards has touched the colored-lands space.
If Painter's Servant was "nonland", I suspect the other interactions would be acceptable (not necessarily good, mind you, but not cumulatively problematic enough to lead to a ban).
Fair enough, but I guess that leads back to my earlier observation that most of these cards don't see play currently, and I can't see Painters making any sort of meta shift to where people aren't going to suddenly start adding them.
Fair enough, but I guess that leads back to my earlier observation that most of these cards don't see play currently, and I can't see Painters making any sort of meta shift to where people aren't going to suddenly start adding them.
That's hard to say though, considering how long PS has been banned and not available to the community to tinker with. It would be an interesting trial, no doubt, but the potential 'oops' factor discourages it.
I don't quite follow. Is it mainly because of the "destroy all <color>" cards?
well, things that do bulk actions on permanents in general (so, Wash Out, for example). It turns out that a lot of big-effect cards in Magic are built assuming lands are colorless as a defensive mechanism. Note how little Wizards has touched the colored-lands space.
If Painter's Servant was "nonland", I suspect the other interactions would be acceptable (not necessarily good, mind you, but not cumulatively problematic enough to lead to a ban).
Thanks for the response, but I have to say I agree with Cryogen and Taleran. Can you elaborate on why giving lands/permanents a color is considered more problematic or unexplored than giving them another card type?
That seems like a strange stance to me, if only because it is exactly one card that can do that on a mass scale.
Like lands becoming Artifacts or Enchaments or Creatures are in a lot of ways more problematic to their survival in the average EDH game yet there is no restriction against those lines of play.
When building cards, Wizards makes the assumption that lands are colorless. That's how you end up with stuff like Ugin's ability not specifying nonland, or Grindstone's restriction. I think that's why there's only been one card made that does this on a mass scale - they've realized that messing around here is dangerous and don't go there any more. It also means they're likely to ignore Painter's Servant while making future designs.
Making lands into other types is factored into card design, never affects them in the library, and rarely does it on a mass scale (nothing in the last 10 years or so?). So, with Painter's Servant you have a bunch of bad interactions because land have color, a bunch of mildly griefy applications, a few actual fun reasons to run the card, and a likelihood of more Ugins.
When building cards, Wizards makes the assumption that lands are colorless. That's how you end up with stuff like Ugin's ability not specifying nonland, or Grindstone's restriction. I think that's why there's only been one card made that does this on a mass scale - they've realized that messing around here is dangerous and don't go there any more. It also means they're likely to ignore Painter's Servant while making future designs.
Making lands into other types is factored into card design, never affects them in the library, and rarely does it on a mass scale (nothing in the last 10 years or so?). So, with Painter's Servant you have a bunch of bad interactions because land have color, a bunch of mildly griefy applications, a few actual fun reasons to run the card, and a likelihood of more Ugins.
Thanks for spelling it out. Most of the above statements are true except the one I bolded, and do not altogether answer my question. Two things:
1. Given cards like Stony Silence and Back to Nature, I do not think Wizards factors into design things like mass-enchantment-lands, and it seems likely that similar cards will continue to be printed. Do you disagree?
2. Cryogen's list (which you said you generally agreed with) makes it look like there are many more "cool" cards than there are "lame" cards, and the lame cards are generally lame, or altogether unplayed, even without Painter's Servant. Right?
When building cards, Wizards makes the assumption that lands are colorless. That's how you end up with stuff like Ugin's ability not specifying nonland, or Grindstone's restriction. I think that's why there's only been one card made that does this on a mass scale - they've realized that messing around here is dangerous and don't go there any more. It also means they're likely to ignore Painter's Servant while making future designs.
Making lands into other types is factored into card design, never affects them in the library, and rarely does it on a mass scale (nothing in the last 10 years or so?). So, with Painter's Servant you have a bunch of bad interactions because land have color, a bunch of mildly griefy applications, a few actual fun reasons to run the card, and a likelihood of more Ugins.
Have you seen Sphinx's Tutelage? To me it seems like they specifically do think about PS and similar.
1. Given cards like Stony Silence and Back to Nature, I do not think Wizards factors into design things like mass-enchantment-lands, and it seems likely that similar cards will continue to be printed. Do you disagree?
Somewhat. I agree that lands-as-enchantments is also largely ignored, partly because that's also very rare (just Enchanted Evening and a few really convoluted ways?). Lands-into-creatures and lands-into-artifacts they're a lot more careful with. (Mycosynth Lattice aside, and I don't think anyone wants to use Mycosynth Lattice as an argument for anything positive ). Note that this works both ways, both in terms of the scale of change and what you can do on the other end.
2. Cryogen's list (which you said you generally agreed with) makes it look like there are many more "cool" cards than there are "lame" cards, and the lame cards are generally lame, or altogether unplayed, even without Painter's Servant. Right?
I actually think Cryo's been a little conservative here, and some of the "Meh" cards are pretty safe, but it's mostly semantics about what "cool" means. The "cool" list aren't problematic, but I don't know that it makes them all that interesting. Most of them are just small upgrades, and I seriously doubt 90% of them would see any more play than they currently do with a legal Servant. They're just kind of null-ops. So they're cool in the "wouldn't be problematic" sense, but only a few are in the "that interaction would be awesome" camp.
I actually think Cryo's been a little conservative here, and some of the "Meh" cards are pretty safe, but it's mostly semantics about what "cool" means. The "cool" list aren't problematic, but I don't know that it makes them all that interesting. Most of them are just small upgrades, and I seriously doubt 90% of them would see any more play than they currently do with a legal Servant. They're just kind of null-ops. So they're cool in the "wouldn't be problematic" sense, but only a few are in the "that interaction would be awesome" camp.
Not being interesting(subjective) is not a qualifier for something to stay banned though. This card isn't really as cool as you think it is so it should stay on the list is a bad stance I feel. It also looks like from here downplaying the positives for an unbanned PS while overplaying the negatives.
Not being interesting(subjective) is not a qualifier for something to stay banned though.
Agreed. But it is relevant if the argument is about whether the positives engendered by the beneficial uses outweigh the other problems. Essentially the Tooth & Nail question.
Just like T&N, PS has a set of known problematic interactions (and evidence that more are likely to appear, though that Sphinx's Tutelage is a nice find. I guess they do still worry somewhat!) and a bunch of mild-to-medium griefy stuff. What's missing is the frequent awesome plays to tip the balance the other way. The positive interactions just aren't all that great. It also gets points knocked off for interacting with opponent cards, some of which are quite popular, raising the chance of accidental badness outside of planned abuse. Obviously, everyone's ban line for how much it destroys games versus does good things is going to be different (even the rules committee debates it) but assessing positive outcomes is an important consideration sometimes.
Not being interesting(subjective) is not a qualifier for something to stay banned though.
Agreed. But it is relevant if the argument is about whether the positives engendered by the beneficial uses outweigh the other problems. Essentially the Tooth & Nail question.
Just like T&N, PS has a set of known problematic interactions (and evidence that more are likely to appear, though that Sphinx's Tutelage is a nice find. I guess they do still worry somewhat!) and a bunch of mild-to-medium griefy stuff. What's missing is the frequent awesome plays to tip the balance the other way. The positive interactions just aren't all that great. It also gets points knocked off for interacting with opponent cards, some of which are quite popular, raising the chance of accidental badness outside of planned abuse. Obviously, everyone's ban line for how much it destroys games versus does good things is going to be different (even the rules committee debates it) but assessing positive outcomes is an important consideration sometimes.
Okay, thanks. If interacting with opponents' cards is just one piece of the puzzle, then it appears I have misunderstood for a long time the RC's stance on intentional combos. I thought things like Worldgorger Dragon signaled that intentional combos weren't being policed and that "griefers gonna grief", but I guess that is not entirely the case. This opens another can of worms, but at least now I know why Servant is on the list.
EDIT: My tin foil hat theory had some merit after all!
Okay, thanks. If interacting with opponents' cards is just one piece of the puzzle, then it appears I have misunderstood for a long time the RC's stance on intentional combos. I thought things like Worldgorger Dragon signaled that intentional combos weren't being policed and that "griefers gonna grief", but I guess that is not entirely the case.
We don't tend to care about someone choosing to intentionally put two cards in their deck that just win the game in combo. But PS interacts badly with popular cards that a) aren't necessarily obvious when you put them in your deck and b) may be in someone else's deck. The non-intentionality of that is a factor.
Okay, thanks. If interacting with opponents' cards is just one piece of the puzzle, then it appears I have misunderstood for a long time the RC's stance on intentional combos. I thought things like Worldgorger Dragon signaled that intentional combos weren't being policed and that "griefers gonna grief", but I guess that is not entirely the case.
We don't tend to care about someone choosing to intentionally put two cards in their deck that just win the game in combo. But PS interacts badly with popular cards that a) aren't necessarily obvious when you put them in your deck and b) may be in someone else's deck. The non-intentionality of that is a factor.
I think this attitude is a bit patronizing. While I agree it can cause some problems at times, do you really think it will be more than laughed off when something silly like All is Dust wiping everything happens? To me, those types of interactions are exactly what falls within the purview of a social contract.
I think this attitude is a bit patronizing. While I agree it can cause some problems at times, do you really think it will be more than laughed off when something silly like All is Dust wiping everything happens? To me, those types of interactions are exactly what falls within the purview of a social contract.
Agreed. To use a somewhat similar example, I built a landfall deck that runs Natural Affinity with (among other things) the intention of animating lands in response to a board wipe... WHEN I have Faith's Reward in hand. I've had the opportunity to simply nuke the board and won't because I knew that it wouldn't be fun to just stall the game like that. Similarly, if someone has Painter's Servant in play, I'm not going to cast Wash Out even if I ran it in my deck for a minimal tempo disruption card, because all of a sudden it's just a reset.
Okay, thanks. If interacting with opponents' cards is just one piece of the puzzle, then it appears I have misunderstood for a long time the RC's stance on intentional combos. I thought things like Worldgorger Dragon signaled that intentional combos weren't being policed and that "griefers gonna grief", but I guess that is not entirely the case.
We don't tend to care about someone choosing to intentionally put two cards in their deck that just win the game in combo. But PS interacts badly with popular cards that a) aren't necessarily obvious when you put them in your deck and b) may be in someone else's deck. The non-intentionality of that is a factor.
Okay, then maybe I wasn't off base. Let me ask you for more clarification (thanks for being patient with us!):
1. Intentional win-the-game interactions are off the table.
2. How do you feel about intentional unfun interactions that don't necessarily win the game (e.g., I'm playing Painter's Servant now, so I will also add All Is Dust as my sweeper of choice)?
3. What is your opinion of cards that would be unintentionally unfun with Servant, but see virtually no play, or are unfun by themselves (e.g., Lifeforce)? Do these families of cards carry any weight in your discussions, and if so, why?
EDIT: One more, one more:
4. What is your response to the common sentiment that "unintentional" interactions with opponents' cards still require the clear intent of at least one player at the table (e.g., I cast Iona and choose the same color as the PS controller, knowing full well what will happen)?
Once I get this second list posted we can observe possible and realistic interactions more, but as it stands right now I could totally get behind swapping out Iona and Servant on the list.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Continuing where I left off. Single shot effects that give colors access to effects they wouldn't normally have are cool, repeated effects are bad.
Cool
Meh
Lame
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
For me, "meh" cards were ones that I couldn't think where I thought they belonged, or ones that weren't too bad but could see getting annoying quick.
I'm curious to see how these lists line up with the RC's opinion and whether they have any comments.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I mostly agree with your general assessments, but think that (Iona aside) it largely boils down to "giving lands color is a bad idea."
I don't quite follow. Is it mainly because of the "destroy all <color>" cards?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
well, things that do bulk actions on permanents in general (so, Wash Out, for example). It turns out that a lot of big-effect cards in Magic are built assuming lands are colorless as a defensive mechanism. Note how little Wizards has touched the colored-lands space.
If Painter's Servant was "nonland", I suspect the other interactions would be acceptable (not necessarily good, mind you, but not cumulatively problematic enough to lead to a ban).
EDIT: nath'd
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Like lands becoming Artifacts or Enchaments or Creatures are in a lot of ways more problematic to their survival in the average EDH game yet there is no restriction against those lines of play.
Fair enough, but I guess that leads back to my earlier observation that most of these cards don't see play currently, and I can't see Painters making any sort of meta shift to where people aren't going to suddenly start adding them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Making lands into other types is factored into card design, never affects them in the library, and rarely does it on a mass scale (nothing in the last 10 years or so?). So, with Painter's Servant you have a bunch of bad interactions because land have color, a bunch of mildly griefy applications, a few actual fun reasons to run the card, and a likelihood of more Ugins.
1. Given cards like Stony Silence and Back to Nature, I do not think Wizards factors into design things like mass-enchantment-lands, and it seems likely that similar cards will continue to be printed. Do you disagree?
2. Cryogen's list (which you said you generally agreed with) makes it look like there are many more "cool" cards than there are "lame" cards, and the lame cards are generally lame, or altogether unplayed, even without Painter's Servant. Right?
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Have you seen Sphinx's Tutelage? To me it seems like they specifically do think about PS and similar.
Somewhat. I agree that lands-as-enchantments is also largely ignored, partly because that's also very rare (just Enchanted Evening and a few really convoluted ways?). Lands-into-creatures and lands-into-artifacts they're a lot more careful with. (Mycosynth Lattice aside, and I don't think anyone wants to use Mycosynth Lattice as an argument for anything positive ). Note that this works both ways, both in terms of the scale of change and what you can do on the other end.
I actually think Cryo's been a little conservative here, and some of the "Meh" cards are pretty safe, but it's mostly semantics about what "cool" means. The "cool" list aren't problematic, but I don't know that it makes them all that interesting. Most of them are just small upgrades, and I seriously doubt 90% of them would see any more play than they currently do with a legal Servant. They're just kind of null-ops. So they're cool in the "wouldn't be problematic" sense, but only a few are in the "that interaction would be awesome" camp.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Not being interesting(subjective) is not a qualifier for something to stay banned though. This card isn't really as cool as you think it is so it should stay on the list is a bad stance I feel. It also looks like from here downplaying the positives for an unbanned PS while overplaying the negatives.
Agreed. But it is relevant if the argument is about whether the positives engendered by the beneficial uses outweigh the other problems. Essentially the Tooth & Nail question.
Just like T&N, PS has a set of known problematic interactions (and evidence that more are likely to appear, though that Sphinx's Tutelage is a nice find. I guess they do still worry somewhat!) and a bunch of mild-to-medium griefy stuff. What's missing is the frequent awesome plays to tip the balance the other way. The positive interactions just aren't all that great. It also gets points knocked off for interacting with opponent cards, some of which are quite popular, raising the chance of accidental badness outside of planned abuse. Obviously, everyone's ban line for how much it destroys games versus does good things is going to be different (even the rules committee debates it) but assessing positive outcomes is an important consideration sometimes.
EDIT: My tin foil hat theory had some merit after all!
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
We don't tend to care about someone choosing to intentionally put two cards in their deck that just win the game in combo. But PS interacts badly with popular cards that a) aren't necessarily obvious when you put them in your deck and b) may be in someone else's deck. The non-intentionality of that is a factor.
I think this attitude is a bit patronizing. While I agree it can cause some problems at times, do you really think it will be more than laughed off when something silly like All is Dust wiping everything happens? To me, those types of interactions are exactly what falls within the purview of a social contract.
Agreed. To use a somewhat similar example, I built a landfall deck that runs Natural Affinity with (among other things) the intention of animating lands in response to a board wipe... WHEN I have Faith's Reward in hand. I've had the opportunity to simply nuke the board and won't because I knew that it wouldn't be fun to just stall the game like that. Similarly, if someone has Painter's Servant in play, I'm not going to cast Wash Out even if I ran it in my deck for a minimal tempo disruption card, because all of a sudden it's just a reset.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
1. Intentional win-the-game interactions are off the table.
2. How do you feel about intentional unfun interactions that don't necessarily win the game (e.g., I'm playing Painter's Servant now, so I will also add All Is Dust as my sweeper of choice)?
3. What is your opinion of cards that would be unintentionally unfun with Servant, but see virtually no play, or are unfun by themselves (e.g., Lifeforce)? Do these families of cards carry any weight in your discussions, and if so, why?
EDIT: One more, one more:
4. What is your response to the common sentiment that "unintentional" interactions with opponents' cards still require the clear intent of at least one player at the table (e.g., I cast Iona and choose the same color as the PS controller, knowing full well what will happen)?
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com