Let me get to the point... BANNING IS BAD!

I know most of you probably haven't played Magic. Whoever said "there is no
need for this dumb rule changing and twiking just because you want to"
obviously hasn't. But maybe you have but haven't for long, but banning and
restricting cards DOES hurt. If WotC starts doing what they do in Magic,
expect monthly updated lists of what cards you can play with.

But banning is a poor conclusion to arrive at, just because you can't beat a
haymaker. Yes, I understand they're everywhere, and it's nice to see someone
playing something original, but crippling someone else's deck because it wins
is poor sportsmanship.

In one breath, most people are calling for bans to put an end to archtypes so
that new archtypes can rise. Hello? New archtypes will put us in the same
boat, and one STS from now, the same people will be calling for a ban on
Meganium and Feraligatr.

Granted, yeah, banning will bring a balance to the game. You won't have
everyone playing with hay, traps and wigglys, but you will have people playing
Megs and Riptides. And it's a horrible reason to call for a ban in the first
place, just to cripple someone else. Because if it isn't to cripple another
player's deck, then what's wrong with building a deck to counter the
archtypes. Half of the people reading this probably have what they believe to
be a full-out hay-basher or wiggly-stomper. It's not hard to beat any
archtype, but being able to counter multiple archtypes is tough. But then,
nobody can be ready to counter EVERYTHING in one deck.

So again, banning is bad. It's pointless and it's just going to come around
and bite us all again later. Yeah. Trap, Wiggly, and Hay's bad, but banning is
so much more worse.

~Jareth Cade (the_snarf@usa.net)