1. Intentional win-the-game interactions are off the table.
Kind of. It's mostly recognition that there's a bunch of broken stuff you can do with this big a card pool, and trying to chase it all down is largely pointless. If you kill the 10 worst combos, people who want that sort of thing will gravitate to the 11th.
So "is part of a two-card combo you can throw in your deck" isn't enough to get a card banned. If other factors kill a card that also does this, we're not going to be sad about it, though!
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)?
That's a broad spectrum of possibilities. If it's a combo that extends the game by setting everyone back to the stone age, that's suboptimal. However, nonland permanents exist to be nuked, as far as I'm concerned.
All is Dust is not a great interaction with Painter's Servant. However, it's the... 5th worst interaction? (Iona, Grindstone, Ugin and Wash Out all come to mind as worse, and that's just off the top of my head). As a bonus, it's a popular card in general, which is relevant to considerations.
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?
Sure. I think encouraging more people to play Lifeforce and Deathgrip is a minor negative. Color hosers in general are bad design, and they made them punitive in the early days when they didn't really know what they were doing. They're not going to get the card banned, but it gets factored into the overall picture.
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)?
I think it's a lot harder for a player to not make a winning play when presented with it than it is to eschew the possibility in the first place. "I could have won here, but I won't" is a crappy experience for everyone at the table. "I'm building a deck to have fun" is a lot easier as a message.
(I will cop to a certain level of hypocrisy here: I'm the kind of player who will quite happily say "I'm not going to make the optimal play here, because this suboptimal one is likely to lead to hilarity." But, even I'd be challenged by ignoring a game winner for non-humorous reasons, and I recognize that not everyone has my attitude towards constructed play!)
Papa Funk, I guess this is one of my confusions. Something like All is Dust or Ugin isn't usually the best line of play in a random situation that just pops up in normal play. Sure, I can make everyone (myself included) sacrifice/exile everything in play, but I'm in just a rough spot as my opponents. Maybe of I planned out my next few turns and spent them accumulating resources, but not "whelp PS just came into play, guess I'll just Obliterate the world and see what happens.
Papa Funk, I guess this is one of my confusions. Something like All is Dust or Ugin isn't usually the best line of play in a random situation that just pops up in normal play. Sure, I can make everyone (myself included) sacrifice/exile everything in play, but I'm in just a rough spot as my opponents. Maybe of I planned out my next few turns and spent them accumulating resources, but not "whelp PS just came into play, guess I'll just Obliterate the world and see what happens.
I think under this situation you described, it is similar to Upheaval (without the returning back to hands) - You can take advantage of the situation that your opponents cannot.
Papa Funk, I guess this is one of my confusions. Something like All is Dust or Ugin isn't usually the best line of play in a random situation that just pops up in normal play. Sure, I can make everyone (myself included) sacrifice/exile everything in play, but I'm in just a rough spot as my opponents. Maybe of I planned out my next few turns and spent them accumulating resources, but not "whelp PS just came into play, guess I'll just Obliterate the world and see what happens.
I think under this situation you described, it is similar to Upheaval (without the returning back to hands) - You can take advantage of the situation that your opponents cannot.
You mean similar to Cataclysm, Obliterate, or any number of cards that in actual play do the same thing?
I think under this situation you described, it is similar to Upheaval (without the returning back to hands) - You can take advantage of the situation that your opponents cannot.
With Wash Out I'd agree with you, but other cards like Jivan mentioned require some fair amount of build-around or preparation to break the synergy. You're simply not going to randomly respond to PS with All is Dust and expect to be any farther ahead than your opponents, and from a social standpoint, you probably ruined the game for them in the process.
Papa Funk, I guess this is one of my confusions. Something like All is Dust or Ugin isn't usually the best line of play in a random situation that just pops up in normal play. Sure, I can make everyone (myself included) sacrifice/exile everything in play, but I'm in just a rough spot as my opponents. Maybe of I planned out my next few turns and spent them accumulating resources, but not "whelp PS just came into play, guess I'll just Obliterate the world and see what happens.
Ugin for 6 usually leaves an empty board except for an Ugin. That's likely to be the correct play unless you're already well ahead.
I agree with you on the Obliterate play (though AID nukes enchantments as well). But, that's kind of the point. It will happen sometimes (especially if someone is behind), and we're down to "well, the fifth worst interaction is just Obliterate+ and might not always happen." It's not like Obliterate is a card that should be encouraged!
You can't evaluate PS card by card. No one card is getting it banned. You have to look at the whole spectrum of interactions, from the Ionas and Grindstones to the All is Dusts to the Lifeforces to the Teysas to the Phyrexian Slayers to the Regal Forces. On balance, that's a lot of detriment and not a lot of counterweight, Even then, it's still a card that's on the border and gets talked about a lot.
Ugin for 6 usually leaves an empty board except for an Ugin. That's likely to be the correct play unless you're already well ahead.
I agree with you on the Obliterate play (though AID nukes enchantments as well). But, that's kind of the point. It will happen sometimes (especially if someone is behind), and we're down to "well, the fifth worst interaction is just Obliterate+ and might not always happen." It's not like Obliterate is a card that should be encouraged!
You can't evaluate PS card by card. No one card is getting it banned. You have to look at the whole spectrum of interactions, from the Ionas and Grindstones to the All is Dusts to the Lifeforces to the Teysas to the Phyrexian Slayers to the Regal Forces. On balance, that's a lot of detriment and not a lot of counterweight, Even then, it's still a card that's on the border and gets talked about a lot.
Just wanted to say that I overall agree with this viewpoint, except that if someone is using PS to buff up a Regal Force, that's a + in my book, not a minus ...
EDIT: (then again, re-reading your post, it sounds like you intended the Regal Force and Phyrexian Slayers as the 'counterweight,' so carry on my good man).
Papa Funk, I guess this is one of my confusions. Something like All is Dust or Ugin isn't usually the best line of play in a random situation that just pops up in normal play. Sure, I can make everyone (myself included) sacrifice/exile everything in play, but I'm in just a rough spot as my opponents. Maybe of I planned out my next few turns and spent them accumulating resources, but not "whelp PS just came into play, guess I'll just Obliterate the world and see what happens.
Ugin for 6 usually leaves an empty board except for an Ugin. That's likely to be the correct play unless you're already well ahead.
I agree with you on the Obliterate play (though AID nukes enchantments as well). But, that's kind of the point. It will happen sometimes (especially if someone is behind), and we're down to "well, the fifth worst interaction is just Obliterate+ and might not always happen." It's not like Obliterate is a card that should be encouraged!
You can't evaluate PS card by card. No one card is getting it banned. You have to look at the whole spectrum of interactions, from the Ionas and Grindstones to the All is Dusts to the Lifeforces to the Teysas to the Phyrexian Slayers to the Regal Forces. On balance, that's a lot of detriment and not a lot of counterweight, Even then, it's still a card that's on the border and gets talked about a lot.
I agree Servant should be measured on a scale. I would not presume to argue for a ban or unban based on a single interaction, but by discussing specific cards, we can tell if those interactions are being placed correctly on the scale, and weighted appropriately.
Grindstone is neither here nor there, for example. As is, the card sees no play whatsoever, so the opportunities for unintentional interactions with Painter's Servant are basically nonexistent, and as you said, trying to regulate intentional combos is pointless. With this in mind, under the RC's published philosophy, Grindstone should not be a strike against Painter's Servant, but removed from the discussion altogether, IMO. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue that that availability of yet another combo is going to push someone into doing something in the deckbuilding phase that goes against their social nature.
The high-level, holistic assessment of Painter's Servant should be an outline for deeper discussion; it shouldn't just end there. I am of the mind that looking closer in this manner will show that Painter's Servant gets pushed back across the edge into legality.
I agree Servant should be measured on a scale. I would not presume to argue for a ban or unban based on a single interaction, but by discussing specific cards, we can tell if those interactions are being placed correctly on the scale, and weighted appropriately.
Grindstone is neither here nor there, for example. As is, the card sees no play whatsoever, so the opportunities for unintentional interactions with Painter's Servant are basically nonexistent, and as you said, trying to regulate intentional combos is pointless. With this in mind, under the RC's published philosophy, Grindstone should not be a strike against Painter's Servant, but removed from the discussion altogether, IMO. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue that that availability of yet another combo is going to push someone into doing something in the deckbuilding phase that goes against their social nature.
The high-level, holistic assessment of Painter's Servant should be an outline for deeper discussion; it shouldn't just end there. I am of the mind that looking closer in this manner will show that Painter's Servant gets pushed back across the edge into legality.
As a counterpoint, and I know I'm all over the place in terms of sides, Grindstone and their ilk don't see play because PS is banned. Maybe when you're running Servant for value you do opt to run Grindstone, or Wash Out.
Side note: Papa Funk, it's pretty obvious that if you were to unban PS you'd have to ban Iona. But are there any other cards you'd strongly consider? Llanwan (sp?) perhaps?
As a counterpoint, and I know I'm all over the place in terms of sides, Grindstone and their ilk don't see play because PS is banned. Maybe when you're running Servant for value you do opt to run Grindstone, or Wash Out.
I agree Servant should be measured on a scale. I would not presume to argue for a ban or unban based on a single interaction, but by discussing specific cards, we can tell if those interactions are being placed correctly on the scale, and weighted appropriately.
Grindstone is neither here nor there, for example. As is, the card sees no play whatsoever, so the opportunities for unintentional interactions with Painter's Servant are basically nonexistent, and as you said, trying to regulate intentional combos is pointless. With this in mind, under the RC's published philosophy, Grindstone should not be a strike against Painter's Servant, but removed from the discussion altogether, IMO. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue that that availability of yet another combo is going to push someone into doing something in the deckbuilding phase that goes against their social nature.
The high-level, holistic assessment of Painter's Servant should be an outline for deeper discussion; it shouldn't just end there. I am of the mind that looking closer in this manner will show that Painter's Servant gets pushed back across the edge into legality.
As a counterpoint, and I know I'm all over the place in terms of sides, Grindstone and their ilk don't see play because PS is banned. Maybe when you're running Servant for value you do opt to run Grindstone, or Wash Out.
Side note: Papa Funk, it's pretty obvious that if you were to unban PS you'd have to ban Iona. But are there any other cards you'd strongly consider? Llanwan (sp?) perhaps?
bobthefunny already addressed this, but I want to expand upon what he said. Maybe a more accurate way to phrase the question is:
Bolded text is mine. And what's more, in order to chalk this up as a negative, you would also have to demonstrate that combos like this are not accepted by the playgroup in question, and that this behavior is not transient/self-correcting on a social level.
How many casual Timmys did you see flock to Worldgorger Dragon loops when it was unbanned, against the wishes of their playgroups, when they would otherwise not play any combo? Zero, basically.
And in any case, papa_funk makes it sound like incidental combo bans are welcomed, but such combo is not the metric. I hope this shows why I find this line of thought not only unconvincing, bus as was mentioned earlier, just a little patronizing.
EDIT:
Re: the Iona ban, I don't think that would quite be necessary, but that setup would seem more generally cohesive than what we have currently. At least then we could move to the Iona thread.
bobthefunny already addressed this, but I want to expand upon what he said. Maybe a more accurate way to phrase the question is:Bolded text is mine. And what's more, in order to chalk this up as a negative, you would also have to demonstrate that combos like this are not accepted by the playgroup in question, and that this behavior is not transient/self-correcting on a social level.
How many casual Timmys did you see flock to Worldgorger Dragon loops when it was unbanned, against the wishes of their playgroups, when they would otherwise not play any combo? Zero, basically.
And in any case, papa_funk makes it sound like incidental combo bans are welcomed, but such combo is not the metric. I hope this shows why I find this line of thought not only unconvincing, bus as was mentioned earlier, just a little patronizing.
EDIT:
Re: the Iona ban, I don't think that would quite be necessary, but that setup would seem more generally cohesive than what we have currently. At least then we could move to the Iona thread.
What I mean is, let's say I'm playing some Timmy McTimmerson deck in which PS is actually a good card and not at all on the "lame" uses for Servant. I normally wouldn't include a card like Grindstone, but since I'm already running PS, what's the harm?
So basically, I guess what I'm saying is could there be some sort of "cascading deck inclusions" similar to Hulk?
bobthefunny already addressed this, but I want to expand upon what he said. Maybe a more accurate way to phrase the question is:Bolded text is mine. And what's more, in order to chalk this up as a negative, you would also have to demonstrate that combos like this are not accepted by the playgroup in question, and that this behavior is not transient/self-correcting on a social level.
How many casual Timmys did you see flock to Worldgorger Dragon loops when it was unbanned, against the wishes of their playgroups, when they would otherwise not play any combo? Zero, basically.
And in any case, papa_funk makes it sound like incidental combo bans are welcomed, but such combo is not the metric. I hope this shows why I find this line of thought not only unconvincing, bus as was mentioned earlier, just a little patronizing.
EDIT:
Re: the Iona ban, I don't think that would quite be necessary, but that setup would seem more generally cohesive than what we have currently. At least then we could move to the Iona thread.
What I mean is, let's say I'm playing some Timmy McTimmerson deck in which PS is actually a good card and not at all on the "lame" uses for Servant. I normally wouldn't include a card like Grindstone, but since I'm already running PS, what's the harm?
So basically, I guess what I'm saying is could there be some sort of "cascading deck inclusions" similar to Hulk?
I mean, I understand what you are saying, but it is literally the point of the social contract to prevent that. Timmy McTimmerson's Roon of the Hidden Realm deck plays Eternal Witness, but that doesn't mean that Timmy therefore chooses to add Mindslaver and Time Stretch if he and his playgroup don't like those effects. Mindslaver and Time Stretch are at least good cards; Grindstone is useless. (EDIT: Another example, Timmy could be playing Palinchron to go with his Caged Sun. Why isn't he?)
And if they do embrace and accept such combos, there is really no harm at all. They would probably already be playing things like them.
These temptations already exist with or without Painter's Servant. That is why Sheldon says the format is "easy to break", and "build casual, play competitive". If you suggest that someone would take and hold this course of action, in spite of the wishes of the playgroup, what you are actually saying is that the social contract doesn't work.
You mean similar to Cataclysm, Obliterate, or any number of cards that in actual play do the same thing?
I was purposely utilizing another card on the BL, not cards that are exact matches. That is why I included a comment in parenthesis...
So what you are saying is, unbanned cards are a more apt comparison?
I mean, any comparison is allowed. I was just trying to indicate in the example someone posted that PS would be providing a similar effect as what Upheaval does - an all sided wipe that, if planned for, can allow one person to come out significantly over the opponents.
My biggest fear is likely the Teysa/Iona/Oona interactions, probably followed by Llawan (which would be halfway cool the first time, then boring every time after that), followed by that Nature's Whatever enchantment, life/deathforce, and other non-interaction combos. Finally, all the All is Dust/Ugin set of interactions.
Individually all those second sets of effects exist alone, but having one card turn on all of that, and especially across players, fundamentally changing how their removal works (ugin/All dust) is quite a lot of impact.
The first category is especially concerning, as all 3 are decently played cards, can be commanders, and would fit the stigma that if you're not running PS in them, that you are doing something "wrong."
My biggest fear is likely the Teysa/Iona/Oona interactions, probably followed by Llawan (which would be halfway cool the first time, then boring every time after that), followed by that Nature's Whatever enchantment, life/deathforce, and other non-interaction combos. Finally, all the All is Dust/Ugin set of interactions.
Individually all those second sets of effects exist alone, but having one card turn on all of that, and especially across players, fundamentally changing how their removal works (ugin/All dust) is quite a lot of impact.
The first category is especially concerning, as all 3 are decently played cards, can be commanders, and would fit the stigma that if you're not running PS in them, that you are doing something "wrong."
Tested Painters in Oona (and we all know I play a lot of Oona.) Never felt tutoring for it was the best move. It's weaker than comboing off or even casting Ashnod's Altar instead.
I rarely see Prossh decks without Food Chain. I don't find cards that are ubiquitous for specific Commanders a problem at all. If anything it's a draw to them.
Somewhat of a thread necro, but with the updated philosophies, is Painter's Servant one issue the 'Create's Undesirable Game States'? I struggle to understand how it applies to the other 4 categories and find that allowing this card out of the box would be fun for creative deck building purposes.
The updated philosophy is both good news and bad news for painter fans.
Bolded the relevant parts:
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specific two-card combination — there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude — but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
I can see why Sheldon always compalisn about the vague words like 'balanced', because I'm also scratching my head as to what this means with regards to painter.
The vast majority of Painter interactions are 2 card combos. They also have huge variance the scale of the effect. Painter+Iona is gameover, whilePainter+Reap may just be cool enough to make it into my Tasigur deck.
If Painter is banned for being part of a two card combo, then the philosophy says it should be unbanned. We must assume that painter is banned for it being a combo piece, since the original update to the banlist that bans painter mentions Iona and Grindstone by name.
However, RC includes that final line, that they can ban cards that have numerous interactions with other commonly played cards. What is the definition of commonly played? Certainly Grindstone is not commonly played. Does All is Dust count as commonly played? What about Iona? Is Painter+All is Dust even a combo?
Is Painter's Servant a card that can even be considered casually omnipresent? The other example cards that fall into this category are Prophet of Kruphix and Prime Time which were the scourge of the format for years before they were axed. Was Painter like that back in the day? I can find no evidence that it was.
Interacts poorly with the structure of commander:
I would say no. I think it actually interacts quite nicely with commander, because you can make spells match your color identity. You can make permanents white for your Eight-and-a-Half-Tails, you could make your artifact spells red for Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh, you could make your Animar, Soul of Elements protection more relevant by making everything black or white. At the same time, you could run it with cards like iona, but I think iona would be the real problem there. Iona is borderline as is.
Creates undesirable gamestates:
Certainly not by itself, and is no worse than cards like mycosynth lattice or enchanted evening which are, for some reason, considered perfectly fine. It's just as likely, or even more likely, that someone runs mycosynth lattice in their artifact deck and then someone agonizes over their vandalblast.
Some card play rate examples to show that cards that interact poorly with painter's servant are at minimum comparable to cards that interact poorly with the above listed two:
Less popular but still very popular cards that interact with servant.
The point of all this comparison? If mycosynth lattice and enchanted evening aren't actually that big of a problem, why would servant be one?
Problematic casual omnipresence:
Not even close. This is a more niche synergy card. You need to have your commander benefit from it or have one or more cards that take advantage of it to bother including it.
Too much mana too quickly:
It doesn't produce any mana.
Creates a perceived barrier to entry:
The card costs $13, definitely not cost prohibitive.
The card barely meets a single criteria in the philosophy for the ban list and should therefore be unbanned.
When painter was banned, a big reason was that Grindstone was being unbanned. Today, however, we have more examples of that combo that are already legal, specifically RiP Helm and Grindclock Ascension, with RiP Helm being exactly as strong as Painter/Grindstone. The only differences between Painter Stone and RiP Helm is that RiP Helm requires white mana, and Painter is a creature and thus easier to disrupt than RiP. Is the colored mana limiting how many decks can include RiP Helm what makes that combo more acceptable to the RC, or is it that RiP has more fair interactions in normal play than Painter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It's been a few months since Hour of Devastation came out and I can't keep but thinking that Painter's Servant and Solemnity are extremely similar cards.
-Both are "hub" cards that enable many possible interactions with some of theim being cool, but some of the possible ones being a potential negative on commander games.
-Both cards #1 boogyman combo prevents your opponents from being able to cast spells, putting them in spectator mode. Iona vs Decree of Silence.
-Both cards have universal effects, meaning that an opponent can use them to unintentionally combo.
There is just one strange thing, Solemnity seems to not be living up to all the doom and gloom predictions of spoiler season. We've had very few decklists aiming to abuse it and almost no stories of it ruining games. Solemnity is a very new card, it should be at the height of it's popularity. It fuels extremely powerful two card combos that can end the game on the spot. Yet for whatever reason Solemnity combo isn't the scourge of the format that it was expected to be.
Now there could be other reasons as to why Solemnity receives very little play, but to me, this looks like the social contract at work. Solemnity can be used to combo out, lock out, and generally abuse the game, but it's being passed over by many commander players. They don't want to build decks that way and so they aren't flocking to the newest combo "hub".
The logic is simple, Solemnity is a combo "hub" that can do unfair things; so is Painter's Servant. Yet, Solemnity is legal and not being abused, probably due to the formats social contract. Painter's Servant is subject to the same social contract so even if made legal it would not be abused.
It's been a few months since Hour of Devastation came out and I can't keep but thinking that Painter's Servant and Solemnity are extremely similar cards.
-Both are "hub" cards that enable many possible interactions with some of theim being cool, but some of the possible ones being a potential negative on commander games.
-Both cards #1 boogyman combo prevents your opponents from being able to cast spells, putting them in spectator mode. Iona vs Decree of Silence.
-Both cards have universal effects, meaning that an opponent can use them to unintentionally combo.
There is just one strange thing, Solemnity seems to not be living up to all the doom and gloom predictions of spoiler season. We've had very few decklists aiming to abuse it and almost no stories of it ruining games. Solemnity is a very new card, it should be at the height of it's popularity. It fuels extremely powerful two card combos that can end the game on the spot. Yet for whatever reason Solemnity combo isn't the scourge of the format that it was expected to be.
Now there could be other reasons as to why Solemnity receives very little play, but to me, this looks like the social contract at work. Solemnity can be used to combo out, lock out, and generally abuse the game, but it's being passed over by many commander players. They don't want to build decks that way and so they aren't flocking to the newest combo "hub".
The logic is simple, Solemnity is a combo "hub" that can do unfair things; so is Painter's Servant. Yet, Solemnity is legal and not being abused, probably due to the formats social contract. Painter's Servant is subject to the same social contract so even if made legal it would not be abused.
I mean, Painter's Servant, while I agree that it shouldn't be banned, is also colorless, unlike Solemnity.
-Both are "hub" cards that enable many possible interactions with some of theim being cool, but some of the possible ones being a potential negative on commander games.
-Both cards #1 boogyman combo prevents your opponents from being able to cast spells, putting them in spectator mode. Iona vs Decree of Silence.
-Both cards have universal effects, meaning that an opponent can use them to unintentionally combo.
1. Painter's Servant is an artifact, so it can go into literally every deck, whereas Solemnity is white.
2. Solemnity really only has one specific interaction that you have to build around. It doesn't really do that well in a deck just as a card to play because you can. The difference is that Painter's Servant can warp the game in far more relevant incidental ways than Solemnity can.
3. I think the key issue is that Painter's Servant has an additive effect, i.e. everything is the chosen colour in addition to its other colours, whereas Solemnity has a subtractive effect, i.e. no counters can be put onto certain permanents. Most cards that use counters typically want you to put more on them, not fewer.
4. There are far fewer effects that can potentially abuse Solemnity than there are Painter's Servant.
I'm not sure how the meta is where you are, but I doubt most savvy players would allow Decree of Silence to resolve with a Solemnity on board, or vice versa... at least, not more than once.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Kind of. It's mostly recognition that there's a bunch of broken stuff you can do with this big a card pool, and trying to chase it all down is largely pointless. If you kill the 10 worst combos, people who want that sort of thing will gravitate to the 11th.
So "is part of a two-card combo you can throw in your deck" isn't enough to get a card banned. If other factors kill a card that also does this, we're not going to be sad about it, though!
That's a broad spectrum of possibilities. If it's a combo that extends the game by setting everyone back to the stone age, that's suboptimal. However, nonland permanents exist to be nuked, as far as I'm concerned.
All is Dust is not a great interaction with Painter's Servant. However, it's the... 5th worst interaction? (Iona, Grindstone, Ugin and Wash Out all come to mind as worse, and that's just off the top of my head). As a bonus, it's a popular card in general, which is relevant to considerations.
Sure. I think encouraging more people to play Lifeforce and Deathgrip is a minor negative. Color hosers in general are bad design, and they made them punitive in the early days when they didn't really know what they were doing. They're not going to get the card banned, but it gets factored into the overall picture.
I think it's a lot harder for a player to not make a winning play when presented with it than it is to eschew the possibility in the first place. "I could have won here, but I won't" is a crappy experience for everyone at the table. "I'm building a deck to have fun" is a lot easier as a message.
(I will cop to a certain level of hypocrisy here: I'm the kind of player who will quite happily say "I'm not going to make the optimal play here, because this suboptimal one is likely to lead to hilarity." But, even I'd be challenged by ignoring a game winner for non-humorous reasons, and I recognize that not everyone has my attitude towards constructed play!)
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
You mean similar to Cataclysm, Obliterate, or any number of cards that in actual play do the same thing?
With Wash Out I'd agree with you, but other cards like Jivan mentioned require some fair amount of build-around or preparation to break the synergy. You're simply not going to randomly respond to PS with All is Dust and expect to be any farther ahead than your opponents, and from a social standpoint, you probably ruined the game for them in the process.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Ugin for 6 usually leaves an empty board except for an Ugin. That's likely to be the correct play unless you're already well ahead.
I agree with you on the Obliterate play (though AID nukes enchantments as well). But, that's kind of the point. It will happen sometimes (especially if someone is behind), and we're down to "well, the fifth worst interaction is just Obliterate+ and might not always happen." It's not like Obliterate is a card that should be encouraged!
You can't evaluate PS card by card. No one card is getting it banned. You have to look at the whole spectrum of interactions, from the Ionas and Grindstones to the All is Dusts to the Lifeforces to the Teysas to the Phyrexian Slayers to the Regal Forces. On balance, that's a lot of detriment and not a lot of counterweight, Even then, it's still a card that's on the border and gets talked about a lot.
EDIT: (then again, re-reading your post, it sounds like you intended the Regal Force and Phyrexian Slayers as the 'counterweight,' so carry on my good man).
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Grindstone is neither here nor there, for example. As is, the card sees no play whatsoever, so the opportunities for unintentional interactions with Painter's Servant are basically nonexistent, and as you said, trying to regulate intentional combos is pointless. With this in mind, under the RC's published philosophy, Grindstone should not be a strike against Painter's Servant, but removed from the discussion altogether, IMO. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue that that availability of yet another combo is going to push someone into doing something in the deckbuilding phase that goes against their social nature.
The high-level, holistic assessment of Painter's Servant should be an outline for deeper discussion; it shouldn't just end there. I am of the mind that looking closer in this manner will show that Painter's Servant gets pushed back across the edge into legality.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
As a counterpoint, and I know I'm all over the place in terms of sides, Grindstone and their ilk don't see play because PS is banned. Maybe when you're running Servant for value you do opt to run Grindstone, or Wash Out.
Side note: Papa Funk, it's pretty obvious that if you were to unban PS you'd have to ban Iona. But are there any other cards you'd strongly consider? Llanwan (sp?) perhaps?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
How many casual Timmys did you see flock to Worldgorger Dragon loops when it was unbanned, against the wishes of their playgroups, when they would otherwise not play any combo? Zero, basically.
And in any case, papa_funk makes it sound like incidental combo bans are welcomed, but such combo is not the metric. I hope this shows why I find this line of thought not only unconvincing, bus as was mentioned earlier, just a little patronizing.
EDIT:
Re: the Iona ban, I don't think that would quite be necessary, but that setup would seem more generally cohesive than what we have currently. At least then we could move to the Iona thread.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
What I mean is, let's say I'm playing some Timmy McTimmerson deck in which PS is actually a good card and not at all on the "lame" uses for Servant. I normally wouldn't include a card like Grindstone, but since I'm already running PS, what's the harm?
So basically, I guess what I'm saying is could there be some sort of "cascading deck inclusions" similar to Hulk?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
And if they do embrace and accept such combos, there is really no harm at all. They would probably already be playing things like them.
These temptations already exist with or without Painter's Servant. That is why Sheldon says the format is "easy to break", and "build casual, play competitive". If you suggest that someone would take and hold this course of action, in spite of the wishes of the playgroup, what you are actually saying is that the social contract doesn't work.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
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
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Individually all those second sets of effects exist alone, but having one card turn on all of that, and especially across players, fundamentally changing how their removal works (ugin/All dust) is quite a lot of impact.
The first category is especially concerning, as all 3 are decently played cards, can be commanders, and would fit the stigma that if you're not running PS in them, that you are doing something "wrong."
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Tested Painters in Oona (and we all know I play a lot of Oona.) Never felt tutoring for it was the best move. It's weaker than comboing off or even casting Ashnod's Altar instead.
I rarely see Prossh decks without Food Chain. I don't find cards that are ubiquitous for specific Commanders a problem at all. If anything it's a draw to them.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Bolded the relevant parts:
I can see why Sheldon always compalisn about the vague words like 'balanced', because I'm also scratching my head as to what this means with regards to painter.
The vast majority of Painter interactions are 2 card combos. They also have huge variance the scale of the effect. Painter+Iona is gameover, whilePainter+Reap may just be cool enough to make it into my Tasigur deck.
If Painter is banned for being part of a two card combo, then the philosophy says it should be unbanned. We must assume that painter is banned for it being a combo piece, since the original update to the banlist that bans painter mentions Iona and Grindstone by name.
However, RC includes that final line, that they can ban cards that have numerous interactions with other commonly played cards. What is the definition of commonly played? Certainly Grindstone is not commonly played. Does All is Dust count as commonly played? What about Iona? Is Painter+All is Dust even a combo?
Is Painter's Servant a card that can even be considered casually omnipresent? The other example cards that fall into this category are Prophet of Kruphix and Prime Time which were the scourge of the format for years before they were axed. Was Painter like that back in the day? I can find no evidence that it was.
I would say no. I think it actually interacts quite nicely with commander, because you can make spells match your color identity. You can make permanents white for your Eight-and-a-Half-Tails, you could make your artifact spells red for Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh, you could make your Animar, Soul of Elements protection more relevant by making everything black or white. At the same time, you could run it with cards like iona, but I think iona would be the real problem there. Iona is borderline as is.
Creates undesirable gamestates:
Certainly not by itself, and is no worse than cards like mycosynth lattice or enchanted evening which are, for some reason, considered perfectly fine. It's just as likely, or even more likely, that someone runs mycosynth lattice in their artifact deck and then someone agonizes over their vandalblast.
Some card play rate examples to show that cards that interact poorly with painter's servant are at minimum comparable to cards that interact poorly with the above listed two:
First, are they even played:
https://edhrec.com/cards/mycosynth-lattice - Played in ~3200 decks
Reasonably popular card. It's in the same range as cards like gamble, memory jar, and oblivion stone.
https://edhrec.com/cards/enchanted-evening - Played in ~800 decks
Not very popular, but somewhat played
Some cards that interact poorly with the above listed cards:
https://edhrec.com/cards/vandalblast - Played in ~11,000 decks
https://edhrec.com/cards/nevinyrrals-disk Played in ~~10,000 decks
https://edhrec.com/cards/bane-of-progress - Played in ~5300 decks
You've got some extremely popular cards that ruin the game if used in conjunction with the above.
Some cards that interact poorly with servant:
https://edhrec.com/cards/all-is-dust - Played in ~5400 decks
https://edhrec.com/cards/ugin-the-spirit-dragon - Played in ~6800 decks
https://edhrec.com/cards/iona-shield-of-emeria - Played in ~3600 decks
Less popular but still very popular cards that interact with servant.
The point of all this comparison? If mycosynth lattice and enchanted evening aren't actually that big of a problem, why would servant be one?
Problematic casual omnipresence:
Not even close. This is a more niche synergy card. You need to have your commander benefit from it or have one or more cards that take advantage of it to bother including it.
Too much mana too quickly:
It doesn't produce any mana.
Creates a perceived barrier to entry:
The card costs $13, definitely not cost prohibitive.
The card barely meets a single criteria in the philosophy for the ban list and should therefore be unbanned.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
-Both are "hub" cards that enable many possible interactions with some of theim being cool, but some of the possible ones being a potential negative on commander games.
-Both cards #1 boogyman combo prevents your opponents from being able to cast spells, putting them in spectator mode. Iona vs Decree of Silence.
-Both cards have universal effects, meaning that an opponent can use them to unintentionally combo.
There is just one strange thing, Solemnity seems to not be living up to all the doom and gloom predictions of spoiler season. We've had very few decklists aiming to abuse it and almost no stories of it ruining games. Solemnity is a very new card, it should be at the height of it's popularity. It fuels extremely powerful two card combos that can end the game on the spot. Yet for whatever reason Solemnity combo isn't the scourge of the format that it was expected to be.
Now there could be other reasons as to why Solemnity receives very little play, but to me, this looks like the social contract at work. Solemnity can be used to combo out, lock out, and generally abuse the game, but it's being passed over by many commander players. They don't want to build decks that way and so they aren't flocking to the newest combo "hub".
The logic is simple, Solemnity is a combo "hub" that can do unfair things; so is Painter's Servant. Yet, Solemnity is legal and not being abused, probably due to the formats social contract. Painter's Servant is subject to the same social contract so even if made legal it would not be abused.
I mean, Painter's Servant, while I agree that it shouldn't be banned, is also colorless, unlike Solemnity.
1. Painter's Servant is an artifact, so it can go into literally every deck, whereas Solemnity is white.
2. Solemnity really only has one specific interaction that you have to build around. It doesn't really do that well in a deck just as a card to play because you can. The difference is that Painter's Servant can warp the game in far more relevant incidental ways than Solemnity can.
3. I think the key issue is that Painter's Servant has an additive effect, i.e. everything is the chosen colour in addition to its other colours, whereas Solemnity has a subtractive effect, i.e. no counters can be put onto certain permanents. Most cards that use counters typically want you to put more on them, not fewer.
4. There are far fewer effects that can potentially abuse Solemnity than there are Painter's Servant.
I'm not sure how the meta is where you are, but I doubt most savvy players would allow Decree of Silence to resolve with a Solemnity on board, or vice versa... at least, not more than once.