14

While the banding ability was never actually removed from the game, no cards have been printed that use the ability in any set following sixth edition and it has never appeared on any rules summary I've seen from the past several years. Why is this? I've heard it's because the ability was 'too complicated'. What exactly was so complicated about it that might have encouraged its extinction? What is a good situation/example that demonstrates why it was probably exiled from the game?

List of cards that reference the banding ability

  • 1
    Banding was mostly complicated in terms of attacking and blocking eligibility. The answers already expound on this in depth. If you want the advantage of banding on the defense without the nonsense, try the fixed version of the ability: Defensive Formation (magiccards.info/us/en/9.html) – Zags Jul 18 '16 at 23:42
39

Take it from the horse's mouth:

The short explanation of banding is that if your creatures attack or block in a band, the controller of any creatures that deal combat damage to them doesn’t get to assign that damage -- you do. Pretty cool. Everything else about banding, though, elicits a “huh?” It works differently when attacking and defending. (In an attacking band of X creatures, at least [X-1] of them must have banding. In a defending band, only one creature must have banding.) A lone blocker could block multiple creatures if they were banded together. If an attacker with evasion (flying, swampwalk, whatever) is banded to a creature without evasion, the whole band can be blocked. Then it gets really complex: What if the only defensive creature with banding is destroyed before damage is dealt? What if my band of three attacking creatures, one of which has trample, is blocked by your band of three defending creatures, one of which has first strike?

The only answer I can give you is, “I dunno.”

Banding was an ability that was flavorful and simple enough in the simple cases. But when you left the simple cases and got into more unusual situations, the rules suddenly became very complex, unintuitive, and opaque. You wind up with a mechanic that cannot be understood or accurately applied simply by reading the text on the card and applying your general rules knowledge. Instead, you have to know a whole bunch of banding-specific rulings, and hope you have a copy of the comp rules handy if it ever comes up.

And all of this complexity is maintained for a mechanic that rarely actually mattered. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any card with banding that has ever been a tournament staple. Under these conditions, the best choice is the one that Wizards made, which is to let banding lay fallow and pretend the whole thing never happened.

  • The creatures stay together (e.g. Serra Angel won't fly on but will help her band) and you'd both assign damage of the opposing creatures instead of your own. I don't see what's the problem. – Cees Timmerman May 3 '12 at 20:34
  • 6
    Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is before 6th Edition, so the damage rules aren't as clearly defined, so there may not even be an answer, let alone a modern M10 intuitive one. P.S. Oh look all the fun's fallen out and all we're left with is maths and an argument. Oops. – deworde Nov 5 '13 at 12:58
  • 6
    @CeesTimmerman Well, no. By definition, damage is only dealt simultaneously within its "strike class". Which brings me back to my question. If I kill the actual creature with banding using first strike damage, does the band fall apart before the normal combat damage step, during the intermediate stage? Does a creature with first strike that's in a band even still have first strike? This is the problem. Even if you know the rules, the fact that you have to learn them, that they have to be "tuned" and that these questions are open is the problem that you "don't see". – deworde Nov 5 '13 at 18:05
  • 1
    I know this answer is pretty old, but that article that's linked doesn't appear to be accurate. It says "A creature with 'bands with other Legends' CAN’T BAND WITH A LEGEND." It may be that this has changed over the years, but rule 702.21c says in part "He or she may also declare that one or more attacking [quality] creatures with 'bands with other [quality]' and any number of other attacking [quality] creatures are all in a band," which seems to directly contradict that statement. – murgatroid99 Jul 18 '16 at 23:52
  • 1
    @murgatroid99 From what I can tell, it was changed as part of the big M10 rules changes. The old rules were that a creature with 'bands with other [quality]' could band with other creatures with the same 'bands with other [quality]' but not actually with [quality]. – Michael Snook Jul 19 '16 at 2:56
12

The current official reminder text for Banding is as follows:

Banding (Any creatures with banding, and up to one without, can attack in a band. Bands are blocked as a group. If any creatures with banding you control are blocking or being blocked by a creature, you divide that creature's combat damage, not its controller, among any of the creatures it's being blocked by or is blocking.)

Yes, it's taken them 20 years to distil the "simple explanation" of Banding into that - and I bet you still can't tell what it means without reading it slowly and carefully at least three times.

Wizards has made it a bit of a rule of thumb, for quite a few years now, to remove complexity from the game where it isn't needed. Could the game survive with Banding, Phasing, interrupts and mana burn still in it? Almost certainly. Is it better off without them? Again, almost certainly.

The real nail in Banding's coffin is that you can get a similar flavour out of a much simpler rule. Take for example the en-Kor ability from Stronghold:

0: The next 1 damage that would be dealt to [this en-Kor] this turn is dealt to target creature you control instead.

This does almost everything Banding did - gives the owner some power to control how damage is assigned to his creatures. But with the great advantage of not causing your head to explode while trying to calculate how it works in complicated situations!

  • 2
    Banding allows me to take all damage with an indestructible Pegasus in my Fluttershy deck. – Cees Timmerman May 7 '12 at 16:01
  • banding works differently on defense than on offense! – esoterik Jul 18 '16 at 23:25
2

Wizards could make new cards with banding. But they have no reason to.

From Mark Rosewater's tumblr

pussipiru asked: Do you ever dream of taking old unpopular set like Homelands, Fallen Empires or Mercadian Masques and remaking it to be cool?

No. Designing something to prove that you can is a horrible motivation for design.

Could Wizards create new cards with banding that are fun, interesting, and understandable? Almost certainly. But doing so would require a great deal of effort for very little gain.

Even with the streamlining that came with the M10 combat rules update, banding is a complicated ability - not because the affects themselves are complicated but because of the number of different variables that it has to interact with.

The audience who would appreciate a creature with banding for the sake of being a creature with banding, and is greatly outnumbered by the number of players who would dislike the creature because of previous experience with banding, or because of its reputation. And the mechanical purposes that it serves can be fulfilled by other abilities which are easier to understand.

Magic's 25 year history gives it a lot of mechanics to choose from when making new cards. They have the luxury of being able to choose to reuse only the mechanics which are popular and useful. Banding is neither, and so they don't use it.

-6

I still don't get the difficulty. I don't know if this was just our house rule back in the day or if it was explicitly stated but everyone I knew back in Alpha and Beta days unless all creatures in a band contained a keyword ability then any who had that keyword lost it for the duration of the band.

So in the examples provided, the creatures with trample and first strike lost those abilities the instant they were added to the band. Also once the band is declared it lasts until the end of the turn, so if you take out the only creature with banding in a band the band remains.

The one complexity that existed which could have been completely removed by a rules update was it working differently on attack and defense, just make it so that they are the same requiring all creatures in a band but 1 to have banding regardless of whether you are attacking or defending.

  • 11
    I guess this is sort of an answer to the question, in that you're saying "nothing was complicated", but that's kind of obviously false: in the first paragraph you've essentially stated that either everyone you knew was playing with it wrong or the rules weren't clear enough to tell what was right, so obviously it was too complicated for a lot of players to get right. – Cascabel Oct 20 '14 at 20:02
  • This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post. – My Turn Yet Oct 20 '14 at 21:52
  • 2
    @MyTurnYet As I tried to say in my comment, I think it's just a bad answer, not a not-an-answer. The claim here is that there actually was no complexity (i.e. Wizards was wrong), which does address the question; I just don't think that it's really true. – Cascabel Oct 20 '14 at 22:56
  • 9
    -1: "It's not complicated as long as you play it wrong" is probably the ultimate reason to deprecate a mechanic. – deworde Oct 21 '14 at 8:33

protected by doppelgreener Sep 22 '18 at 13:59

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.