Finnish Highlander? Again?

[Dreamer]

The discussion on us Finns establishing our own Highlander format has surfaced again at vaihdetaan.net. The discussion so far has been both intelligent on some people's part and outright stupid on some others'. There's been discussion about ditching the special mulligan for an EDH-style free mulligan rule and other stuff (like allowing CE cards), but in the end we're mostly happy with just about everything. The one issue that's been consistently raised up, unsurprisingly, has been the banned list, and especially the way it's maintained.

Many people here feel that the way you maintain the list is odd, and at least unpredictable. They don't generally see a problem with the format having a most-played deck unless it starts warping the format into DtB + hate decks, like happened with Affinity and several others. In their opinion, cards should be banned strictly on power level concerns, or if their banning can deliver a blow to a format-warping deck. Cards shouldn't be pre-emptively banned unless they're clearly bonkers (P9, Library of Alexandria, etc.): If they cause problems, fine.

Another more common criticism is your harshness towards combo. The format's nature itself already harshly limits strategies based on specific cards, and especially ones intending to use those cards quickly enough to race aggro. Many casual players LIKE combo decks a lot, and many of the more experienced ones feel that a good combo presence in a format helps keep it healthy. As an avid combo and control player, I can personally say that I'd support loosing the reins on combo a bit.

Third, people just can't see the sense in things like the Painter/Grindstone situation: Right now, we have an utterly useless (not to mention expensive) card in the format that nobody wants to play because it's only use is a broken combo that's been banned. Painter without Grindstone, on the other hand, has interesting but hardly broken interactions with cards like Persecute, Iona and Oona. As far as I can remember, the Painter issue is a prime example of the policy of pre-emptive banning - it could be a problem, so might as well kill it anyway. This is not liked.


With those general sentiments expressed, my own thoughts:
I'm a bit ambivalent on the issue, but would lean towards the side of Finnish criticism. Your goal of format diversity is admirable, and it's certainly true that a sufficiently diverse format helps foster interest in it. However, I feel that the "ban if it proves to be a problem/is just plain obviously broken" mentality to banning would lead to a more sensible, coherent and predictable ban list than the current philosophy of balancing archetypes does. This doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to keep format diversity in mind: A diverse format should be more fun for more people.

Many people are irritated about Gifts, especially it's splashability. I wouldn't mind fixing the Tarmogoyf problem, but the problem is that in addition to "(blue controls)decks running Gifts" there are "Gifts (combo) decks", the latter being based around the broken piece of cardboard instead of just putting it in because it's, well, broken. Some are also annoyed at Survival and Demonic Tutor, but I haven't personally seen quite as much loathing for them. The parentheses above give away another problem: Banning Gifts would severely hurt combo, which would probably be a bad thing. How can we limit blue control without weakening combo further, while perhaps applying the new "if it's a problem" policy?

This is just one relative newcomer's suggestion, but I'd suggest the following changes to the banned list:
- = Ban
+ = Unban

- Grindstone (broken combo)
- Gifts Ungiven (very splashable and extremely powerful tutor, greatly powers up blue control)
- Library of Alexandria (breaks control mirrors in half)
- Mind Twist (very splashable, often wins the game against control on the spot.)

+ Painter's Servant (useful, but likely won't be broken without Grindstone)
+ Buried Alive (strengthens Reanimator while providing a less versatile Gifts replacement for Survival decks. If Kiki-Guide-Mite proves broken, Pestermite and Sky Hussar could perhaps get the boot: Kiki and Guide have more widespread and interesting uses.)
+ Protean Hulk (Shouldn't be so fast as to be a problem when Flash is banned, graveyard-based versions are more vulnerable to hate and require setup)

These changes have a distinct slant of pushing black graveyard strategies and weakening blue control - the latter's loss in strength should give rise to alternative board control decks to keep aggro in check (and be kept in check themselves by the strengthened combo decks). Additionally, Worldwake will bring us a land version of Tormod's Crypt, so more quality graveyard hate would be available as well.

Comments?

[pyyhttu]

I've prepared a translation for Sturmgott and others in the council to see of that whole thread Dreamer linked to. The translation will be ready momentarily.

I did this because I feel there's a dire need to communicate and level with others before making any hasty decisions. I urge everyone to read it before making up their mind.

I'll notify this thread as well once the translation is ready. It boils down pretty well into the reasons why pro forking of highlander in Finland has grown popular.

[Dreamer]

One addition on the subject of Portal goodies and other ridiculously expensive and hard-to-get cards.
In my opinion this boils into a single question: Do we maintain the ban list strictly for tournaments, or as general guidelines for casual fun? If strictly tournaments, price shouldn't be a consideration, but if we steer more towards a casual-focused mindset, I wouldn't mind having a lower ban threshold for really expensive cards, especially if they're splashable and usable across multiple decks (Like Library, for example). Archetype-specific cards obviously wouldn't need as much attention IMHO.

The above is strictly my opinion and not a general sentiment expressed by a large portion of the Finnish Highlander community, as the first paragraphs of my opener were.

[Vazdru]

I don't think we are a long way away from each other...at least some of the points mentioned here reflecting my personal point of view. I will discuss your approach with Sturmgott. I'm pretty sure he will give ya a feedback of the German HL council soon.

[coldcrow]

I think one point wasn't mentioned on the forum yet. Regarding the "Library is bad vs. fast Aggro" :

Library is very good in blue-based control versus other control strategies. Blue based control has a very good matchup vs. let's say WB-WG-BG board control which in turn are natural predators for Aggro decks. So if you weaken the Anti-Aggro decks it is quite natural that they will die out. Of course this is all somewhat mitigated by the inherent randomness of our format. In my opinion buffing the Anti-Aggro decks by weakening blue-based control should be the way to go. This would also give Combo a bit more breathing room.

[Nastaboi]

I think one point wasn't mentioned on the forum yet.

http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=355.msg3288#msg3288

[coldcrow]

Oops! I am sorry, Nastaboi. Didn't see that post at all.

[Sturmgott]

One small point here:

We introduced pre-emptive banning as a result of two Highlander Grand Prix being dominated by combo decks, one by TPS, the other by Flash-Hulk. It takes alot of time and effort to prepare a GP, it takes people alot of time and effort to prepare and attend a GP. We owe them and the tournament organizers to prevent experiences like those!

Plus, I do absolutely NOT agree that "many casual players like COMBO alot" - I'm quite sure around 80% of casual players HATE combo.

[Mythrandir]

I feel more and more than instead of creating 2 distinct formats we should have one unique format, that's why i suggested in another topic that the council should be an international council instead of just german players. This way our format would be stronger, more spread and could eventually make the leap to becoming an official format.

As for Dreamers/finnish highlander, i do agree with some points, one being our current mulligan and the other being P9 bannings (and probably library...) and i'm also for combo in our meta.

However

How can we limit blue control without weakening combo further, while perhaps applying the new "if it's a problem" policy?

this for me doesn't make any sense. Is control (or blue control) dominating the meta in finnland? Because i only see an archtype or card(s) being problematic if they dominate or warp the format. Yes we see a lot of decks running gifts on the tops, but we also see a lot (if not more) of aggro decks (not running gifts). And this diversity on the top, IMO, is what makes the meta healthy.
yes, gifts can be unfun, mindtwist can ben unfun, but, specially, the later, since it was unbanned i haven't seen "problematic" decks abusing them.

Sometimes those pre-emptives bannings aren't really understood like Sturmgott said: i bet the council test a lot of decks before/after bannings/unbannings and they eventually reach a consensus. Who here would like to go to a GP just to be dominated by a single deck (like flash/hulk)?

[Sturmgott]

Do we maintain the ban list strictly for tournaments, or as general guidelines for casual fun?

There is a simple answer to this. You simply cannot create a banned list that fits casual players. I've played in many different casual rounds and the definition of "casual" is so foggy that you can never embrace that specific group. It was only yesterday that I played in a group where "Magus of the Jar" is banned. Another group I regularly played in in the past has banned Karakas, but doesn't have that much of a problem with combo decks, whereas the other group has not banned single combo pieces (they don't even know most combos because they live on their isolated island), but simply banned ANY combo (whatsoever would turn up as a gamewinning combo, you wouldn't even be allowed to play 10-card-combos).

We don't make rules for any specific player group, but for a healthy, diversified and balanced format that sees every possible archetype. Having pure combodecks in the format that can win on turn 3,5 on average (as TPS could) or even on turn 3 on average (Flash/Hulk) is definitely not healthy! That's why we're adressing pure combo. Pure combo is the opposite of what the format should be like imho - it is not at all interactive and it forces the few remaining control decks to bend too far.

[Tiggupiru]

One small point here:

We introduced pre-emptive banning as a result of two Highlander Grand Prix being dominated by combo decks, one by TPS, the other by Flash-Hulk. It takes alot of time and effort to prepare a GP, it takes people alot of time and effort to prepare and attend a GP. We owe them and the tournament organizers to prevent experiences like those!

This is a very reasonable point, but it only applies to combo decks that are hugely overpowered, like the two you mentioned. Most likely, overpowered combo decks are established archetypes from other formats, giving players an ample time to prepare for them. Most combo decks lose a huge chunk of their power once they are widely known.

Besides, it is not the duty of the banned list to prevent unprepared players losing to a combo deck. Good example of this is the dreaded buried alive - combo which can't go off against any kind of graveyard hate. If a player is not worried about graveyard as a resource, and doesn't prepare for it, he/she deserves to lose against anyone who thinks outside the box. I wasn't even aware of the buried alive - combo before Kiki-Jiki got banned. I would have gladly lost to a player who figured this out and took it to a tournament. Right after the tournament I would have added some good graveyard hate to my deck. If somebody figures a good combo out, builds the best possible build and pilots it to a tourney win, the said somebody will obviously deserve to win it.

Now, somebody could argue and say it is not optimal to force people to play cards that are not a very good fit to their deck just so they have a chance to beat an established combo deck, but it is like saying "we don't want people to play cards like Relic of Progenitus just because recursion is a viable strategy, so we banned all cards that reference graveyard".

Also if you are not aiming to produce a banned list for the casual players, a statement which I completely agree with, then why are you concerned about 80% of casual players hating the combo decks in general?

Even though it might seem that I am completely unhappy with the current state of affairs, in my opinion about 90 percent of the current banned list is correct and the format is great fun. I just think this format hasn't reached its full potential.

[Sturmgott]

We've solely banned those combos that can win the game "out of nowhere" and that costs too few mana. Buried Alive + Reanimate costs 4 mana, Buried Alive + Shallow Grave costs 5 mana. This is simply too cheap and can be resolved on an otherwise empty board! The only setup it requires is finding those two cards (of which the second part is redundantly accessible). Graveyard Removal doesn't help if your're tapped out. We don't want players to have to expect to lose in a single turn, being on almost full life, when this can happen on turn 3 or 4 and have to play accordingly. Plus, how much graveyard removal do you want to run in a Naya Zoo to be able to rely on it? Or in a White Weenie?

It is correct, we're not making a banned list specifically for casual players. Nonetheless I believe more than 50% of our player base count themselves to that group. While we're not optimizing the banned list specifically for them (which as I said is impossible anyway), we still keep in mind them having fun in our format as well. Nobody likes to watch a combo player do his 20+ spells in one turn and take 20 minutes for that. This contradicts interaction, which is what HL is all about!

One word for our mulligan: It enhances interaction alot because both players are much more able to interact from the very beginning rather than be stuck on 4 and 5 mana cards. I understand that some people say that rules changes shouldn't affect fundamental parts of the game and I do almost 100% agree, but in this case the benefits are so huge and obvious, the game becomes so much more fun to play and games where only one player could do things have become so rare that it is 110% worth deviating from that position. Besides, we're not affecting how the game is PLAYED, like for example EDH does. We're just making so it can be played to its full potential.

Sure, it enables new deck types. It allows Skies to run 23 lands. It allows Big Red to run 20+ 6cc-cards. But isn't that solely positive? Alot of cards wouldn't see the light of day otherwise. And more deck types means more variety, which can only be good!

[Mythrandir]

As for the mulligan rule (although this is slipping a bit from the original topic) the fact that skies runs 23 isnt' really a positive thing IMO. RDW using different cards and the rule enabling new decks yes. However my main problem isn't that, it's the powerful/hoser cards. Things like Gifts, demonic, mind twist, LoA, BTB, survival, etc, etc, appearing in, otherwise, crappy hands, but now totaly playable hands. But i'll leave this matter to be discussed on anotehr topic..

The problem isn't 1 player not expecting a combo, the problem is 1 combo breaking and completaly dominating all other decks in 3/4 turns whithout the opponent being able to to anything bout it.

[Tiggupiru]

We've solely banned those combos that can win the game "out of nowhere" and that costs too few mana. Buried Alive + Reanimate costs 4 mana, Buried Alive + Shallow Grave costs 5 mana. This is simply too cheap and can be resolved on an otherwise empty board! The only setup it requires is finding those two cards (of which the second part is redundantly accessible). Graveyard Removal doesn't help if your're tapped out. We don't want players to have to expect to lose in a single turn, being on almost full life, when this can happen on turn 3 or 4 and have to play accordingly. Plus, how much graveyard removal do you want to run in a Naya Zoo to be able to rely on it? Or in a White Weenie?

I understand the reasoning, and I agree that if it consistently delivers turn 4 or 5 wins, it should get a ban. Unless it is very fragile.

This said example is not fragile only to graveyard hate, which have gotten better and better in recent years, but also any instant removal will fizzle this combo right on the spot. This gives Naya several outs in addition of any GY hate they are packing. Even WW can steal games with well-timed path to exile of Swords to Plowshares. Also if you are not packing any GY hate, you are asking for trouble, not only because of combo decks like these, but several decks will have subtheme that revolves around graveyard tricks. And even if it turns out that WW has very few outs to the situation, decks have bad matchups and this is a bad MU to either one of those.

In game one Buried Alive most likely will win once the opponent taps out, but games two and three are much harder as your opponent knows what you have and will play accordingly. And if they don't, I don't think it is because of warped format but because of a bad player.

Again, I have no real experience of playing this combo, but on paper this looks like it can be disrupted very easily. And if that is the case, there probably will not be many players who try to exploit this combo once players are aware of it. I mean, it is a risk going off against one untapped mana and you can't at all if your opponent has like tormod's crypt in play. If this combo still proves to be too good after people prepare for it, I say ban it.

The problem isn't 1 player not expecting a combo, the problem is 1 combo breaking and completaly dominating all other decks in 3/4 turns whithout the opponent being able to to anything bout it.

This is exactly my point. Those kind of combos should be banned, no questions asked. But if combo is slower and easily disrupted, metagame will evolve. And if it does not, banhammer it.

It is correct, we're not making a banned list specifically for casual players. Nonetheless I believe more than 50% of our player base count themselves to that group. While we're not optimizing the banned list specifically for them (which as I said is impossible anyway), we still keep in mind them having fun in our format as well. Nobody likes to watch a combo player do his 20+ spells in one turn and take 20 minutes for that. This contradicts interaction, which is what HL is all about!

I kinda agree you with this one, but what comes to the discussion at hand, the cards that we would like to see unbanned are not part of combos like these.

And about the mulligan: Almost all who commented on it in the vaihdetaan.net, were in favor of it. I don't think it was ever in danger of being left out. I find it to be one of the many reasons to play this format.

[Payron]

Well just wanted to mention that the Ghoul Deck which won 1 GP was also played around 1 combo piece and was a straight lose to Graveyard removel and pointremovel, but anyways this deck won a GP and rushed trough the top 8 and I also played on this GP and would of say in the top 8 were no bad players. I was thinkin galso about the points to solve the problems of some combo decks by there own ... but all this 2 card combos or can jut mass solutions and counters and outplay every aggro Deck with it. just makes no sense with aggro to play 5+ graveyard hate cards because it just makes the deck alot worse about any anti aggro deck.
I like all the combo bans and I trust the concil with it. Anyways I am not sure about LoA because on the GP for example I would never play my Survival-deck just because I doesn t own a LoA and my aggro deck is nearly perfect, because there is no dought that LoA as starting land wins mirrors!