In
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32570.0 we discussed some general things concerning 100 cards Highlander. In the end, it has become a debate (mostly) between me and HighlanderMagic.info concerning banning policies in this format. Because the thread had several topics discussed simultaneausly and to a varying degree of specification, I decided to open a new, less diffuse thread were everyone can discuss, not just people familiar with the format, in order to possibly interest more people in the format [that means you don't have to read the linked thread].
Description of the format:
Highlander is played with 100 cards, each one except basics may not be played more than once [maybe except Relentless Rats ].
Highlander usually employs the same card pool as Eternal does, but with different B/R-lists (see below)
Highlander is
NOT an official format and not to be confused with Singleton, a 60-card online variant officially supported by Wizards. That means that there are no rules besides whose the players accept.
What I would like to achieve is a consens or at least some agreement on the basic rules of the format, because I would really like to play with more people without having to discuss those things again and again, i.e. a standardization of a casual format. I don't know whether this is even possible, because most casual players don't
want their way of playing standardized. But in my opinion, Highlander could be a format with consens on enough basic rules to have a format that everyone who's interested can accept. To achieve this goal, I'd like to focus on one aspect first because it seems to create the most dissens, though it seems very inconspicuous: The Banned list.
The other thread already had a discussion on this going, but I'd like to hear completely unbiased players and I think the discussion on that thread was quite diffuse and very much focussed on one actually existing list rather than starting from scratch, as I would think is easier, more understandable and less biased than the other way. TMD seems appropiate to me to discuss something like that, because unusual formats requiring unusual thinking are what TMD is all about. This is supposed to be a general discussion on how to do somkething like banning-policy for an unofficial format, in order to reach more players. That means this is a search for general principles and concepts in a theoretical way, backed up with some examples from "real-life-magic" respectively "real-magic-life".
Lazy people who can imagine what Highlander is can read from here on:One remarkable position was:
"And as I said: We decided to go the way of keycard banning, not tutor banning."
(from HighlanderMagic.info)
What that means is that HighlanderMagic.info says he would rather ban the combo itself than the tutors finding it, no matter how good the tutors are in comparision with the combo pieces. So, concerning Trix from ten-years-or-so ago, he would have banned Illusions of Grandeur respectively Donate. In the Highlander format he suggests, both Flash and Protein Hulk are banned, but not Entomb/Demonic Tutor. WGD is banned, but Entomb as well as Gifts/Intuition aren't. Some exceptions are made; for example, Crop Rotation was banned while Academy wasn't; this changed some time ago. The reasoning here is that combo decks should be viable, but only be allowed to play "fair" combos.
Would you agree to that statement?
Another statement:
Unbanning Balance didn't have the desired effect of improving control decks in the format.
This is another sample of a certain banning policy. It suggests that cards should be banned/unbanned based on the metagame, without (too much) regards to the card's power level. So, a very good card such as Balance should be allowed to play if Control decks seem to be underpowered in the environment. The idea is to "fix" an unbalanced metagame that favors an archetype too much. An example would be the banning of Tolarian Academy because it got too good in Highlander Stax-variants.
Would you agree to that statement?
A third statement:
Lots of your bannings/unbannings are made to "tweak" archetypes, rather than looking at the sheer card power. For example, unbanning Balance and banning Dust Bowl to give Control better chances. Well, if every card was looked upon only it's power level, such "tweaking" would not be necessary, because without brokeness like Oath/Survival/Demonic, players would simply do what they do in every other format: build the best decks by using creativity/tech, then competing.
This statement contradicts to the second one. Which one seems more plausible?
A fourth one:
Banning/Unbanning of Jitte/LED/Academy/Will/Skullclamp/Balance/Demonic (all were banned/unbanned, then changed their status, then some changed their status back again, like Demonic) in a rather random and incomprehensible way doesn't show much understanding of the format, and makes players like me frown.
How important is consistency in a Banned list of a casual format? Would it unsettle you if the list changed rather often, or would you be happy about the effort and care people invest to constantly check every card in regards to possibly bannings/unbannings?
Another one:
What could those "objective" criteria be in your opinion?
Power-to-cost ratio, brokeness/unfairness, fromat-warping capabilities.Other criteria should not be of primary interest; when a card makes an unplayable archetype/decktype better, but is still unfair/broken, don't unban it.It's better to have mediocre control decks than having control dcks which rely on absurdly random and broken cards like Balance. Also, don't underestimate the players, thinking "unbanning Balance makes it easier for them to build a control deck". Well, deckbuilding shouln't be easy, and players are usually creative enough to find other ways than Balance+Demonic+Muddle the Mixture+other tutors... to build a deck
Do you agree or disagree?
I tried to make this as matter-of-fact as I could, but obviously, I'm quite biased on this topic, so i hope everyone got both perspectives on the banning-policies. What do you think seems plausible, what doesn't? Is it really just a matter of objectiveness, or does the player's will play a bigger role her?
