I respect the "it's not so powerful that it warrants a ban" take. In fairness, though, I never wanted it banned because it was powerful. I wanted it banned because it was *irritating*.
I almost felt bad for the monored commanders that REALLY can't interact with this, but then you flashed Zada up on the screen and I didn't feel bad anymore
Double Masters wasn't even the first time Oubliette had the phasing functionality: there was a period where a lot of old cards had quite radical Oracle changes before WotC adopted the policy of sticking as close to the printed wording as possible. The argument that this wording hasn't been printed at common isn't very compelling to me because of this and because Pauper in many ways relies on dozens of "grandfathered" commons that are artifacts of weird and idiosyncratic rarity assignments in early Magic. I think if you split this hair you throw into question all of Arabian Nights wrt Pauper legality.
So I've been the guy who shut someone out for the game and felt good about it... and then I've sat and did nothing because of it. So I get how it's powerful, but it's also kind of like Rhystic/Mystic, in that they are banned because no one else has anything else like it. And for that reason I'd be for banning it.
While the card seems oppressive against decks that rely on the commander, these kinds of decks usually end up derailing the game and generating a ton of value if left unchecked, i think that oubliette is a fine card that "teaches" people to diversify what their decks can do, change the deck so it doesn't get invalid without the commander and demand the use of more answers on their decks, be it enchantment destruction or flicker/sacrifice to make the commander avoid it when targeted.
Pauper EDH is basically Commander with a few slight variations. You can find the rules for it at the PDH Home Base website, if you're interested in checking it out! pdhhomebase.com/rules/
I play pauper decks a lot against regular commander decks. A lot of players even in regular EDH dont have an answer for it. The way I feel about it is if your deck is entirely is nearly entirely built around your commander you need to run a lot of protection spells. If I play it I always suggest to the player they can use instant speed removal on their own commander to save it from being gone. I had one player respond by using removal on my commander. It was very much the wrong play as they were shut out for 6 more turns.
I feel the card is very oppressive against decks that are nearly or entirely reliant on their commander to win the game. This card can often just eliminate another player because they have no answer for it. It limits the viability of many decks just by existing. Not sure if it needs to be banned, but it certainly has an impact on the format.
The keyword is competitive, nothing should be banned, let the meta evolve on it's own. If it's too bad everyone will eventually play stuff that hates out decks that play it.
@@Alkadron In what way?, if it's competitive and your deck doesn't function without your commander its terrible anyways. If anything Oubliette not being banned encourages players to build better decks. The reaction to an Oubliette on your commander is to JUST WIN WITH THE OTHER 99 CARDS. It's not even like its instant or rips it from the command zone, and even colorless can dal with a resolved Oubliette. Oubliette players could just also Vanishing your commander to keep it phased out forever and that card is even harder to interact with since its a creature enchantment and phases itself out with the creature (and can also be used to protect your own commander). So even if you let the creature phase back in and try to destroy the enchantment or your own creature they can just pay another UU to go over the top of that. Like if we really dislike 3 mana enchantmnts why not Freed from the Real, that + Gyre engineer is 1 card + commander infinite, with that and simics 24524 ways to then draw their library and win from their commander + a 3 mana enchantment. "But oubliette is banned for unfun play patterns" It's competitive, competition is for winners not for funners, and banning it because people can't build decks that work without their commander in a competitive environment shouldn't have their opinions on bans taken seriously.
I love 60-card Pauper, and used to play a lot of Modern for a while before it dried up at my LGS. I've never gotten into duel commander, but I know it's a pretty popular format in places in Europe.
I respect the "it's not so powerful that it warrants a ban" take.
In fairness, though, I never wanted it banned because it was powerful. I wanted it banned because it was *irritating*.
I almost felt bad for the monored commanders that REALLY can't interact with this, but then you flashed Zada up on the screen and I didn't feel bad anymore
Double Masters wasn't even the first time Oubliette had the phasing functionality: there was a period where a lot of old cards had quite radical Oracle changes before WotC adopted the policy of sticking as close to the printed wording as possible.
The argument that this wording hasn't been printed at common isn't very compelling to me because of this and because Pauper in many ways relies on dozens of "grandfathered" commons that are artifacts of weird and idiosyncratic rarity assignments in early Magic. I think if you split this hair you throw into question all of Arabian Nights wrt Pauper legality.
So I've been the guy who shut someone out for the game and felt good about it... and then I've sat and did nothing because of it. So I get how it's powerful, but it's also kind of like Rhystic/Mystic, in that they are banned because no one else has anything else like it. And for that reason I'd be for banning it.
While the card seems oppressive against decks that rely on the commander, these kinds of decks usually end up derailing the game and generating a ton of value if left unchecked, i think that oubliette is a fine card that "teaches" people to diversify what their decks can do, change the deck so it doesn't get invalid without the commander and demand the use of more answers on their decks, be it enchantment destruction or flicker/sacrifice to make the commander avoid it when targeted.
Id have liked a short crash course on the rules of cedh pauper as a tourist who was recomended this
Pauper EDH is basically Commander with a few slight variations. You can find the rules for it at the PDH Home Base website, if you're interested in checking it out! pdhhomebase.com/rules/
Fun! Good topic and discussion!
Thank you!
When I began collecting ARN cards in the early 2000s, this became a fast favorite
Gator is having a seizure somewhere and has no idea why
Great video!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
I play pauper decks a lot against regular commander decks. A lot of players even in regular EDH dont have an answer for it. The way I feel about it is if your deck is entirely is nearly entirely built around your commander you need to run a lot of protection spells. If I play it I always suggest to the player they can use instant speed removal on their own commander to save it from being gone. I had one player respond by using removal on my commander. It was very much the wrong play as they were shut out for 6 more turns.
This card reminds me everytime: you should’ve played more removal spells… just put some enchantment removal spells in your deck!
The uniqueness of the effect is balance with the easy access to the 7 big boulder isnt it? 😅
I feel the card is very oppressive against decks that are nearly or entirely reliant on their commander to win the game. This card can often just eliminate another player because they have no answer for it. It limits the viability of many decks just by existing. Not sure if it needs to be banned, but it certainly has an impact on the format.
The keyword is competitive, nothing should be banned, let the meta evolve on it's own. If it's too bad everyone will eventually play stuff that hates out decks that play it.
@@zym6687 this is a terrible take
@@Alkadron In what way?, if it's competitive and your deck doesn't function without your commander its terrible anyways. If anything Oubliette not being banned encourages players to build better decks. The reaction to an Oubliette on your commander is to JUST WIN WITH THE OTHER 99 CARDS. It's not even like its instant or rips it from the command zone, and even colorless can dal with a resolved Oubliette.
Oubliette players could just also Vanishing your commander to keep it phased out forever and that card is even harder to interact with since its a creature enchantment and phases itself out with the creature (and can also be used to protect your own commander). So even if you let the creature phase back in and try to destroy the enchantment or your own creature they can just pay another UU to go over the top of that.
Like if we really dislike 3 mana enchantmnts why not Freed from the Real, that + Gyre engineer is 1 card + commander infinite, with that and simics 24524 ways to then draw their library and win from their commander + a 3 mana enchantment.
"But oubliette is banned for unfun play patterns" It's competitive, competition is for winners not for funners, and banning it because people can't build decks that work without their commander in a competitive environment shouldn't have their opinions on bans taken seriously.
@@zym6687Cards are banned for unfun play patterns in every competitive format. Cry about it.
Bro just dropped a skill issue
I miss the part where an Oblivion ring actually working on commanders would be that busted
"2 player pauper dual commander"
y'all will play anything but established 60 card formats
I love 60-card Pauper, and used to play a lot of Modern for a while before it dried up at my LGS. I've never gotten into duel commander, but I know it's a pretty popular format in places in Europe.
let people play magic how they want.
Why do you care
@@theelectricant98 because these formats have a hard time firing