Most people like to play with a legal deck and follow all the rules of magic not just the ones we like.
Most? Really? Everyone on Cockatrice? Everyone on MWS? Everyone on college campuses who are smart enough to see the game as simply object oriented interaction? Interesting you're the voice of most people. I tend to be a little more humble and just speak mostly for myself. I'm not the Borg. Perhaps you are. If so, please don't assimilate me.
I believe the word you are looking for is some. As in, "some of us like to play with a legal (lol relative word there) deck and follow the rules of sanctioned tournament magic."
I believe that's the sentence you were looking for.
I follow all the rules of unsanctioned functional game play and all the rules of context relative to the format in question. Follow the banlist, color identity. I don't care about "real" cards. Some other people don't either. I play with those people. And I spread the word that this is an option to anyone who wants to explore the whole realm of magic as an object oriented game. Not an overpriced collecting whatever you want to call it. Owning "legal" copies doesn't factor into the functionality of magic. Really simple concept.
It's why I don't get anymore upset when I'm beaten by someone who printed their deck out, or has their cards printed in a factory. I don't care about what cards people own. Other people can speak for themselves. And you can speak for you.
How and with what playgroups do ban playtests occur? Are these groups assigned cards to test?
Does the Rules Committee browse MTGS forums as guests looking at complaints?
Does the Rules Committee look past their own little forum?
How and with what playgroups do ban playtests occur? Are these groups assigned cards to test?
Does the Rules Committee browse MTGS forums as guests looking at complaints?
Does the Rules Committee look past their own little forum?
Bitter, much? You may want to drop the "little" in that last sentence. And I'd bet very large sums of money that a) The answer is yes, b) the mtgcommander forums aren't exactly "little" (smaller than here, yes) and c) it's attitudes exactly like that one that keeps them away.
Hint: At least one of the Rule Committee is an employee of Wizards of the Coast, so at the very least they'd look at that forum.
Bitter, much? You may want to drop the "little" in that last sentence. And I'd bet very large sums of money that a) The answer is yes, b) the mtgcommander forums aren't exactly "little" (smaller than here, yes) and c) it's attitudes exactly like that one that keeps them away.
Hint: At least one of the Rule Committee is an employee of Wizards of the Coast, so at the very least they'd look at that forum.
I'm not so much as bitter as I am appalled actually. The fact that they have blatantly stated that they dislike this forum (and Sheldon's statement that other members of the RC avoid it) makes me distrust the RC.
Even if they dislike the forum, that doesn't mean they cannot ask the moderation staff for help in determining what this community sees as issues, or simply browse it. There are always ways for an individual or a group of individuals to gain information from a large source without direct contact. Viper and ISB actually do a good job of filtering out the flotsam from the jetsam.
Their forum is "little" by simple comparison. The resources that MTGS has for Commander players versus the resources that exist on the mtgcommander forums is quite different. I've browsed through their forums several times, and I feel that the individuals on MTGS offer ideas and viewpoints that are no expressed on the mtgcommander forums.
I'd call my stance...disdain. And for the record, I was one of the people that attempted to be nice to Sheldon while he was here. Any "bitterness" I may have comes from him being unable to give the people willing to work with him here any credit and simply focusing on the negative. Simply put, its a two-way street.
Edit: Most amusingly, I post this, return to the Commander part of the forums, and Sheldon has just posted. Guess that this makes this post mostly irrelevant
When I stopped coming here regularly, it was because the negative so far outweighed the positive, it ceased being worthwhile. That's not to discount any of the positive folks at all, and it wasn't just focusing on the negative. The scales were simply over-tipped.
It seems like the tone here has significantly changed. I imagine there is still going to be some vitriol from time to time, but that's the internets. The occasional "I f@ing hate you" is going to happen, and that doesn't bug me, especially if the rest of the discourse is reasonable and mature. I know that we're not always going to agree on both the direction of things and the implementation of that direction, but if we can agree that we're going to disagree like grown-ups, then I think that disagreement is extremely healthy for the format--which is my primary care.
My question(s) are:
1) Since Wizards now officially supports Commander, has there been any pressure from them for rule changes?
2) Have Wizards contacted you about potential designs for cards to be released in the new Commander products? Or is the extent of the relationship just them officially supporting the format and recognizing your group as the rules committee?
I'm not so much as bitter as I am appalled actually. The fact that they have blatantly stated that they dislike this forum (and Sheldon's statement that other members of the RC avoid it) makes me distrust the RC.
Even if they dislike the forum, that doesn't mean they cannot ask the moderation staff for help in determining what this community sees as issues, or simply browse it. There are always ways for an individual or a group of individuals to gain information from a large source without direct contact.
I read every single non-decklist thread posted to this forum and have for approximately five years. Your disdain is duly noted.
When I stopped coming here regularly, it was because the negative so far outweighed the positive, it ceased being worthwhile. That's not to discount any of the positive folks at all, and it wasn't just focusing on the negative. The scales were simply over-tipped.
It seems like the tone here has significantly changed. I imagine there is still going to be some vitriol from time to time, but that's the internets. The occasional "I f@ing hate you" is going to happen, and that doesn't bug me, especially if the rest of the discourse is reasonable and mature. I know that we're not always going to agree on both the direction of things and the implementation of that direction, but if we can agree that we're going to disagree like grown-ups, then I think that disagreement is extremely healthy for the format--which is my primary care.
I don't really get all of the disdain from other users toward you and the rest of the Rules Committee. Is it an issue with the ban list, or is it something else?
Because if it's the former, then what's stopping the curmudgeon in question from simply house-ruling their own personal ban list? EDH is a casual format, so it's not like they have to adhere to the official ban list unless they're regular members of multiple playgroups or attend EDH leagues.
I guess a lot of the people on MTGS are much more ornery than I thought.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
When I stopped coming here regularly, it was because the negative so far outweighed the positive, it ceased being worthwhile. That's not to discount any of the positive folks at all, and it wasn't just focusing on the negative. The scales were simply over-tipped.
It seems like the tone here has significantly changed. I imagine there is still going to be some vitriol from time to time, but that's the internets. The occasional "I f@ing hate you" is going to happen, and that doesn't bug me, especially if the rest of the discourse is reasonable and mature. I know that we're not always going to agree on both the direction of things and the implementation of that direction, but if we can agree that we're going to disagree like grown-ups, then I think that disagreement is extremely healthy for the format--which is my primary care.
Ya... I wanted to appologize about last time there were some fairly off the wall comments and raging individuals. I appreciate everything that the RC does for this format.
As for my own question: There have been several variations of commander sprouting up and I was just sort of wondering if there was any intention on addressing them in one form or another officially on the main scite for commander:
Horde: I think just sort of a rundown of what it is might be interesting to add to the main commander page as a variant of commander. It has gained some popularity so I think just having it listed on the main page might be helpful and a brief rundown on what it is.
Pauper: It has been sort of on an upswing on the salvation forums. However it is still mostly devided. We have had some groups allowing any legend as a commander and some going off of the any uncommon creature rules. It might be nice to sort of make a decision as to what if any format the RC might back or even just a mention of this as a possibility for some additional fun for those who might not be able to afford full blown / want some new deckbuilding challanges.
Just my thoughts but it would be interesting to hear some opinions on the matter. Thanks again RC!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
...if we can agree that we're going to disagree like grown-ups, then I think that disagreement is extremely healthy for the format--which is my primary care.
I read every single non-decklist thread posted to this forum and have for approximately five years.
Nice to have you both on board. I am pleased to hear that you guys at least keep track of our corner of the Commander community, even if you are periodically (and often rightly) discouraged from posting here about it. There is some level of an inferiority complex with some posters here who think that since you don't post here or something then you guys don't care. I'd say that is a silly stance to take in the face of the quoted replies above.
Looking forward to some productive discussion, and thanks for dropping by.
EDIT: I would LOVE to see some more pauper coverage and discussion in general. I am fascinated by the possibilities there.
Any governing body should be listening to all its constituants, not just the ones that positively reenforce their position. That's the difference between a good leader and a great leader.
As for the RC, by ignoring this site, a divide has formed that wedges the players from this site from wanting to follow the rules of the RC body. I see many comments now about players simple ignoring the banlist or specific rules of the game. Trying to re-apply government of the format to this site now will be much harder now than if the RC had stayed active on this site throughout.
I do however welcome it, as I always have an interest in healthy debate, and consistency of the format will help it grow.
I don't really get all of the disdain from other users toward you and the rest of the Rules Committee. Is it an issue with the ban list, or is it something else?
Because if it's the former, then what's stopping the curmudgeon in question from simply house-ruling their own personal ban list? EDH is a casual format, so it's not like they have to adhere to the official ban list unless they're regular members of multiple playgroups or attend EDH leagues.
I guess a lot of the people on MTGS are much more ornery than I thought.
For most of those players, house ruling is the core issue itself.
There are simply a group of people who can't imagine playing by anything else but the written rule. Often it only takes one person in a playgroup like that to effectively squash any chance of trying something outside of the norm, especially if said person holds a higher level of influence over the group. The notion of 'finding' a new playgroup isn't often possible either. In an ideal world, people would be able to come to adult like compromises to these things, but we don't live in a ideal world.
Then, as you pointed out already, you have the issue of multiple playgroups, online play, and pickups, where it really is admittedly easier to follow the written rule then anything else.
I personally feel the ban list is small enough that I can ignore the few cards on it that I'd want to play. As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist, so I don't stress about them. My playgroup is also sensible enough to try or allow variations on the rules as well, so things like Brothers Yamazaki see play as a General.
It's is harder to ignore other problem cards not on the ban list however. The same people who obsess about the written rule can't draw the parallels required to understand that if a card similar in nature to a banned card is being played, it should be picked and played cautiously as well. You can't pretend the cards don't exist in this scenario, the only solutions is sort it out with the player, and some people avoid or dislike confrontation like the plague.
Basically, the RC's approach to things are definitely and certainly not anywhere close to ideal. They don't even advertise it as such (the 'literals' just see it that way). The alternatives however aren't really any better, and I personally think the current situation is the better of any two evils (if you could even call them evils).
It's is harder to ignore other problem cards not on the ban list however, because the same people who obsess about the written rule can't draw the parallels required to understand that if a card similar in nature to a banned card is being played, it should be picked and played cautiously as well. You can't pretend the cards don't exist in this scenario, the only solutions is sort it out with the player, and some people avoid or dislike confrontation like the plague.
Yeah, this is a space in which we can create a lot of trouble for ourselves. "If X is banned, then Y should be" will eventually lead to a large and unwieldy list--which is what killed 5 Color. I'm hoping there's a class of cards that aren't banned which people for the most part choose to not play (Vicious Shadows comes to mind) unless they're kind of backed into a corner by their groups--but I realize that everyone's mileage will vary. It's like ripping off little kids in trades--there's no actual rule against it, but most of choose to not do it because that's not how we want to be (not that I'm saying playing VShad is as ethically sketchy, but it was the analogy that came to mind).
Toby and I just had a good conversation regarding banned list philosophy and shaping of a narrative. Gavin and Scott will be at the Pro Tour with us, so I hope we'll have some time to continue that very discussion.
And if you didn't already know, I'll be at the PT with BDM, Rich Hagon, and Rashad Miller as part of the on-camera coverage team, so tune in starting Thursday afternoon!
I'm hoping there's a class of cards that aren't banned which people for the most part choose to not play (Vicious Shadows comes to mind) unless they're kind of backed into a corner by their groups-
I'm wondering why you say this about shadows? I don't see it as overpowered or ban-able in the slightest, though it can end games. For 7 mana, it better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
Because if it's the former, then what's stopping the curmudgeon in question from simply house-ruling their own personal ban list? EDH is a casual format, so it's not like they have to adhere to the official ban list unless they're regular members of multiple playgroups or attend EDH leagues.
EDH has become a pretty big thing as the pickup game of choice at pro-play events. For that, any diversion from the written rule must be agreed upon by a group of three other (probable) strangers, who may be understandably apprehensive about it as they're not 100% on what sort of game you'll be playing with it.
That said, none of the people I've played with, including a good number of judges, default to partial paris mulligans. If it's not a SCG pod, you just get the one freebie (+optional scry 2 rule).
I'm wondering why you say this about shadows? I don't see it as overpowered or ban-able in the slightest, though it can end games. For 7 mana, it better.
VShad is an example a of card that you play if all you want to do is win games--at which I'll concede it's horribly effective--but not the kind of card you play in a friendly game. I'm a fan of the fact that it punishes excessive card draw, but it's also deadly if you're holding only one. I'm not saying that it's anywhere near worth banning nor overpowered.
It's is harder to ignore other problem cards not on the ban list however. The same people who obsess about the written rule can't draw the parallels required to understand that if a card similar in nature to a banned card is being played, it should be picked and played cautiously as well.
You posted over on the "little" forum (I checked - there are 16,649 registered users as of this morning) something I thought nicely illustrated the ban list philosophy -
The gun poster analogy I use locally explains this well IMO. The RC are giving you a picture of a gun and saying "don't play with guns". Many purposely interpret that as "well fine, I won't play with that EXACT gun, but I'll play with this different gun over here". It just flat out doesn't work that way.
I'm intrigued at this view of Vicious Shadows. I tried it a few times in my play group and it was woefully ineffective. The main problem is that people play so much mana generation that it's rare people have a fat grip of cards. Hitting people for 0 to 3 damage doesn't really add up, and there are many cards that provide real board position at 7 mana.
Now, I'm certain there are play groups where Vicious Shadows really is good. But I never played it again because it seemed genuinely bad-- it's card that didn't advance my plan for winning the game. I'm wondering what the common denominator is between groups that are hit hard by Vicious Shadows and groups that shrug it off. Maybe it's just a measure of how well tuned the average deck in your metagame is?
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
If people play creatures then Vicious Shadows is incredible. In my experience it's one of the best red cards in EDH.
I've also never thought of it as an unfun card. What I like about Vicious Shadows is that it progresses the game and leads to interesting choices. EDH games can go long and cards that deal damage progress that and keep things exciting. When Shadows is on the board it prevents infinite-sacrifice outlets from going off and sometimes makes people hesitant to block or wrath.
If people play creatures then Vicious Shadows is incredible. In my experience it's one of the best red cards in EDH.
I've also never thought of it as an unfun card. What I like about Vicious Shadows is that it progresses the game and leads to interesting choices. EDH games can go long and cards that deal damage progress that and keep things exciting. When Shadows is on the board it prevents infinite-sacrifice outlets from going off and sometimes makes people hesitant to block or wrath.
The age-old Fact or Fiction 5-0 split, maybe take the zero? Vicious Shadows is an excellent EDH card. It is bomby, useful only in this format, can win the game, and isn't oppressive (except to Savra decks)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
I do love the effect it has on people that played Reliquary Tower and are holding grips of 30 cards though. It's nice that there is a potential drawback to those plays.
Some of us are also teetotalers.
Most people like to play with a legal deck and follow all the rules of magic not just the ones we like.
Most? Really? Everyone on Cockatrice? Everyone on MWS? Everyone on college campuses who are smart enough to see the game as simply object oriented interaction? Interesting you're the voice of most people. I tend to be a little more humble and just speak mostly for myself. I'm not the Borg. Perhaps you are. If so, please don't assimilate me.
I believe the word you are looking for is some. As in, "some of us like to play with a legal (lol relative word there) deck and follow the rules of sanctioned tournament magic."
I believe that's the sentence you were looking for.
I follow all the rules of unsanctioned functional game play and all the rules of context relative to the format in question. Follow the banlist, color identity. I don't care about "real" cards. Some other people don't either. I play with those people. And I spread the word that this is an option to anyone who wants to explore the whole realm of magic as an object oriented game. Not an overpriced collecting whatever you want to call it. Owning "legal" copies doesn't factor into the functionality of magic. Really simple concept.
It's why I don't get anymore upset when I'm beaten by someone who printed their deck out, or has their cards printed in a factory. I don't care about what cards people own. Other people can speak for themselves. And you can speak for you.
Does the Rules Committee browse MTGS forums as guests looking at complaints?
Does the Rules Committee look past their own little forum?
EDH:
UBGMimeoplasm (Reanimator Control)
WGBURProgenitus (Dream Halls//Good Stuff)
RNorin, the Wary (Metaddited Gaka List)
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Hint: At least one of the Rule Committee is an employee of Wizards of the Coast, so at the very least they'd look at that forum.
I'm not so much as bitter as I am appalled actually. The fact that they have blatantly stated that they dislike this forum (and Sheldon's statement that other members of the RC avoid it) makes me distrust the RC.
Even if they dislike the forum, that doesn't mean they cannot ask the moderation staff for help in determining what this community sees as issues, or simply browse it. There are always ways for an individual or a group of individuals to gain information from a large source without direct contact. Viper and ISB actually do a good job of filtering out the flotsam from the jetsam.
Their forum is "little" by simple comparison. The resources that MTGS has for Commander players versus the resources that exist on the mtgcommander forums is quite different. I've browsed through their forums several times, and I feel that the individuals on MTGS offer ideas and viewpoints that are no expressed on the mtgcommander forums.
I'd call my stance...disdain. And for the record, I was one of the people that attempted to be nice to Sheldon while he was here. Any "bitterness" I may have comes from him being unable to give the people willing to work with him here any credit and simply focusing on the negative. Simply put, its a two-way street.
Edit: Most amusingly, I post this, return to the Commander part of the forums, and Sheldon has just posted. Guess that this makes this post mostly irrelevant
EDH:
UBGMimeoplasm (Reanimator Control)
WGBURProgenitus (Dream Halls//Good Stuff)
RNorin, the Wary (Metaddited Gaka List)
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
It seems like the tone here has significantly changed. I imagine there is still going to be some vitriol from time to time, but that's the internets. The occasional "I f@ing hate you" is going to happen, and that doesn't bug me, especially if the rest of the discourse is reasonable and mature. I know that we're not always going to agree on both the direction of things and the implementation of that direction, but if we can agree that we're going to disagree like grown-ups, then I think that disagreement is extremely healthy for the format--which is my primary care.
My question(s) are:
1) Since Wizards now officially supports Commander, has there been any pressure from them for rule changes?
2) Have Wizards contacted you about potential designs for cards to be released in the new Commander products? Or is the extent of the relationship just them officially supporting the format and recognizing your group as the rules committee?
I read every single non-decklist thread posted to this forum and have for approximately five years. Your disdain is duly noted.
I don't really get all of the disdain from other users toward you and the rest of the Rules Committee. Is it an issue with the ban list, or is it something else?
Because if it's the former, then what's stopping the curmudgeon in question from simply house-ruling their own personal ban list? EDH is a casual format, so it's not like they have to adhere to the official ban list unless they're regular members of multiple playgroups or attend EDH leagues.
I guess a lot of the people on MTGS are much more ornery than I thought.
Ya... I wanted to appologize about last time there were some fairly off the wall comments and raging individuals. I appreciate everything that the RC does for this format.
As for my own question: There have been several variations of commander sprouting up and I was just sort of wondering if there was any intention on addressing them in one form or another officially on the main scite for commander:
Horde: I think just sort of a rundown of what it is might be interesting to add to the main commander page as a variant of commander. It has gained some popularity so I think just having it listed on the main page might be helpful and a brief rundown on what it is.
Pauper: It has been sort of on an upswing on the salvation forums. However it is still mostly devided. We have had some groups allowing any legend as a commander and some going off of the any uncommon creature rules. It might be nice to sort of make a decision as to what if any format the RC might back or even just a mention of this as a possibility for some additional fun for those who might not be able to afford full blown / want some new deckbuilding challanges.
Just my thoughts but it would be interesting to hear some opinions on the matter. Thanks again RC!
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Nice to have you both on board. I am pleased to hear that you guys at least keep track of our corner of the Commander community, even if you are periodically (and often rightly) discouraged from posting here about it. There is some level of an inferiority complex with some posters here who think that since you don't post here or something then you guys don't care. I'd say that is a silly stance to take in the face of the quoted replies above.
Looking forward to some productive discussion, and thanks for dropping by.
EDIT: I would LOVE to see some more pauper coverage and discussion in general. I am fascinated by the possibilities there.
:symu::symr: Melek WheelStorm
:symw::symg: Trostani Enchantress (updated 6/5)
:symg::symr::symu: Unexpected Results.dec
Thada Adel Stax WIP
As for the RC, by ignoring this site, a divide has formed that wedges the players from this site from wanting to follow the rules of the RC body. I see many comments now about players simple ignoring the banlist or specific rules of the game. Trying to re-apply government of the format to this site now will be much harder now than if the RC had stayed active on this site throughout.
I do however welcome it, as I always have an interest in healthy debate, and consistency of the format will help it grow.
I'm still not playing with general damage though
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
For most of those players, house ruling is the core issue itself.
There are simply a group of people who can't imagine playing by anything else but the written rule. Often it only takes one person in a playgroup like that to effectively squash any chance of trying something outside of the norm, especially if said person holds a higher level of influence over the group. The notion of 'finding' a new playgroup isn't often possible either. In an ideal world, people would be able to come to adult like compromises to these things, but we don't live in a ideal world.
Then, as you pointed out already, you have the issue of multiple playgroups, online play, and pickups, where it really is admittedly easier to follow the written rule then anything else.
I personally feel the ban list is small enough that I can ignore the few cards on it that I'd want to play. As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist, so I don't stress about them. My playgroup is also sensible enough to try or allow variations on the rules as well, so things like Brothers Yamazaki see play as a General.
It's is harder to ignore other problem cards not on the ban list however. The same people who obsess about the written rule can't draw the parallels required to understand that if a card similar in nature to a banned card is being played, it should be picked and played cautiously as well. You can't pretend the cards don't exist in this scenario, the only solutions is sort it out with the player, and some people avoid or dislike confrontation like the plague.
Basically, the RC's approach to things are definitely and certainly not anywhere close to ideal. They don't even advertise it as such (the 'literals' just see it that way). The alternatives however aren't really any better, and I personally think the current situation is the better of any two evils (if you could even call them evils).
RW Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas
Yeah, this is a space in which we can create a lot of trouble for ourselves. "If X is banned, then Y should be" will eventually lead to a large and unwieldy list--which is what killed 5 Color. I'm hoping there's a class of cards that aren't banned which people for the most part choose to not play (Vicious Shadows comes to mind) unless they're kind of backed into a corner by their groups--but I realize that everyone's mileage will vary. It's like ripping off little kids in trades--there's no actual rule against it, but most of choose to not do it because that's not how we want to be (not that I'm saying playing VShad is as ethically sketchy, but it was the analogy that came to mind).
Toby and I just had a good conversation regarding banned list philosophy and shaping of a narrative. Gavin and Scott will be at the Pro Tour with us, so I hope we'll have some time to continue that very discussion.
And if you didn't already know, I'll be at the PT with BDM, Rich Hagon, and Rashad Miller as part of the on-camera coverage team, so tune in starting Thursday afternoon!
EDH:
UBGMimeoplasm (Reanimator Control)
WGBURProgenitus (Dream Halls//Good Stuff)
RNorin, the Wary (Metaddited Gaka List)
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
I'm wondering why you say this about shadows? I don't see it as overpowered or ban-able in the slightest, though it can end games. For 7 mana, it better.
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
EDH has become a pretty big thing as the pickup game of choice at pro-play events. For that, any diversion from the written rule must be agreed upon by a group of three other (probable) strangers, who may be understandably apprehensive about it as they're not 100% on what sort of game you'll be playing with it.
That said, none of the people I've played with, including a good number of judges, default to partial paris mulligans. If it's not a SCG pod, you just get the one freebie (+optional scry 2 rule).
VShad is an example a of card that you play if all you want to do is win games--at which I'll concede it's horribly effective--but not the kind of card you play in a friendly game. I'm a fan of the fact that it punishes excessive card draw, but it's also deadly if you're holding only one. I'm not saying that it's anywhere near worth banning nor overpowered.
Now, I'm certain there are play groups where Vicious Shadows really is good. But I never played it again because it seemed genuinely bad-- it's card that didn't advance my plan for winning the game. I'm wondering what the common denominator is between groups that are hit hard by Vicious Shadows and groups that shrug it off. Maybe it's just a measure of how well tuned the average deck in your metagame is?
I've also never thought of it as an unfun card. What I like about Vicious Shadows is that it progresses the game and leads to interesting choices. EDH games can go long and cards that deal damage progress that and keep things exciting. When Shadows is on the board it prevents infinite-sacrifice outlets from going off and sometimes makes people hesitant to block or wrath.
The age-old Fact or Fiction 5-0 split, maybe take the zero? Vicious Shadows is an excellent EDH card. It is bomby, useful only in this format, can win the game, and isn't oppressive (except to Savra decks)
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
I do love the effect it has on people that played Reliquary Tower and are holding grips of 30 cards though. It's nice that there is a potential drawback to those plays.
edit: 5-0 is the only way to split FoF