First part... okay, I agree. Second part... yeah, that's not true at all and makes me think that you've never played with Acedemy before it was banned in 2010. It was so much easier for Ux decks to get "big" mana off Academy than Cradle ever has been. The thing is most of us see Cradles that tap for 10+ and think that's over the top, but there are a lot of cases where it's just 1-2 mana because getting creatures out and letting them stick can be hard in developed meta games. Academy wasn't as good at making 10+ Mana, but it was really good at 3-4... a lot better than Cradle is.
Basically, when Cradle is on fire it's beyond good, but that takes some work. Academy took almost no effort to be back breaking even if it wasn't as OMG! as Cradle.
Obviously you have not played elves...
I do not feel it should be banned though as my meta does not play Cradle (Even the elf decks don't. or at least, i don;t even remember it being a problem if it is played.)
I've played against both and I can definitely say that Academy is way more powerful than Cradle. Artifacts are cheaper than most creatures and not a lot of people run Shatterstorm. Artifact beget more Artifacts, especially when Sol Ring, Basalt Monolith, and Grim Monolith, etc, etc exist. Creatures require haste (usually) to get that kind of speed.
Considering Gaea's Cradle: creatures die to Wrath of God, which is run in lots of decks, especially when you count functionally similar cards. Even spot removal can get in the way. Green also can't protect it's resources as well as blue can in the form of counterspells.
If Academy gave, say, RED mana, then I think it would have been a LOT more fair. Red doesn't counter things and draw obscene amounts of cards. Blue can, will, and does, which is really the issue.
I see this more as a thing of people hating on blue, and people hating land destruction. Generally when I'm playing blue I think I play it differently than other players, focusing mainly on the artifact support and less on the control magic, and land destruction is a definite part of the game. (Which also ties into the whole Sundering Titan discussion).
True, other cards exist. They could be a solution, but they lack speed. Aura Shards needs a creature to come into play. Vandalblast costs 5 to overload. The lands that remove lands are good, but you run into problems there, too. A blue/artifact deck could have a very developed board state while keeping the Wasteland up to deal with Academy leaves player two with no board state very early in the game. You also can't answer Academy before it taps for mana, in which case, damage is sometimes done.
The problem isn't the amount of answers. The problem is the potential for an absurdly explosive start for decks that would pack Academy.
Now that Sylvan Primordial is out of the picture, can Recurring Nightmare be unbanned? I can imagine SP was one of the more annoying ETB creatures to reanimate continuously.
Recurring Nightmare is a great card, no doubt, but it seems fine overall to unban. Graveyard hate really hurts it.
I'm almost positive if you took Sundering Titan and copied it part and parcel with either a "may" clause or an "up to one..." clause it would be allowed to thrive in the format. I think Sylvan and Sundering are excellent data points for the design team to consider when they design big abilities, I doubt they like to see cards banned.
Whether they would print sundering 2.0 given the potential impact on other formats like Modern is another story but I think future abilities might get more "may" logic added. They clearly learned to add a "may" to beneficial abilities like "during your upkeep you may draw a card/gain life/etc" so the natural extension of this movement is to make "attack" abilities optional. It will, to an extent, reward vigilance too.
And if they printed Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded with a +1 ability that more closely lined up with Red's looting ability as in Rummaging Goblin or Mad Prophet, he might actually see play. But I don't see Wizards doing that any more than I see them printing a "fixed" Sundering Titan. Sylvan Primordial was the closest thing we got and it was a flop.
Now that Sylvan Primordial is out of the picture, can Recurring Nightmare be unbanned? I can imagine SP was one of the more annoying ETB creatures to reanimate continuously.
Recurring Nightmare is a great card, no doubt, but it seems fine overall to unban. Graveyard hate really hurts it.
Probably not, considering we would have to look at any creature with a somewhat decent ETB trigger...
Lol, do we even play the same game? Why would anyone build a deck around flickering Sundering Titan? Let's leave the Command Tower, Cradle and Nykthos alone so we can take out the Forest, Swamp, Plain, etc. The card is extremely limited in its targetting. I would much rather blink Brutalizer Exarch or Terastodon. Armageddon is never played symmetrically. Sundering Titan annoys people. Armageddon completely shuts down entire decks, in particular those which do not play mana rocks or mana dorks. Stasis, Armageddon, Cataclysm, the Orbs, each of those attempt to lock players out of the game. Sundering Titan does not lock players out at anywhere close to the same level.
ST can much more easily be built around to lock out players than Geddon, but thats not the point. Its a mandatory trigger that happens when entering OR LEAVING the field. Even if you land it and hit 5 great targets, you don't have the ability to stop from nuking the dude that way behind. Geddon puts everyone at the same amount of land. ST can easily be searched for and recurred as a creature. I think you fall into the classic trap in that ST looks fair, but is inherently not.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Lol, do we even play the same game? Why would anyone build a deck around flickering Sundering Titan? Let's leave the Command Tower, Cradle and Nykthos alone so we can take out the Forest, Swamp, Plain, etc. The card is extremely limited in its targetting. I would much rather blink Brutalizer Exarch or Terastodon. Armageddon is never played symmetrically. Sundering Titan annoys people. Armageddon completely shuts down entire decks, in particular those which do not play mana rocks or mana dorks. Stasis, Armageddon, Cataclysm, the Orbs, each of those attempt to lock players out of the game. Sundering Titan does not lock players out at anywhere close to the same level.
ST can much more easily be built around to lock out players than Geddon, but thats not the point. Its a mandatory trigger that happens when entering OR LEAVING the field. Even if you land it and hit 5 great targets, you don't have the ability to stop from nuking the dude that way behind. Geddon puts everyone at the same amount of land. ST can easily be searched for and recurred as a creature. I think you fall into the classic trap in that ST looks fair, but is inherently not.
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
Now that Sylvan Primordial is out of the picture, can Recurring Nightmare be unbanned? I can imagine SP was one of the more annoying ETB creatures to reanimate continuously.
Recurring Nightmare is a great card, no doubt, but it seems fine overall to unban. Graveyard hate really hurts it.
Probably not, considering we would have to look at any creature with a somewhat decent ETB trigger...
I hope. I would really like to loop Kokusho with Angel of despair.
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
There are also dozens of ways to deal with Stasis or the orbs. There is no stopping ST outside of a counter. Of course the same can be said of Geddon, but its clear creatures are a hundred times more abuseable. And Geddon is not accidental broken like ST is. People think they are going to stop a ramper, and instead cripple the guy whos already behind.
An early Geddon is just a bad play, and there is no blinking. An early SP and its a 6 for 1 ramp that effectively ends the game. Stasis and the orbs all have one mana answers and they do nothing when they land. OF course all this has been rehashed a thousand times, and people just want to complain about bans. Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
The only thing that makes those cards one sided for the caster is that the caster knows they are coming and plans for it, geddon, stasis, and the orbs are all easy to play around if you know they are coming and very answerable.
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
There are also dozens of ways to deal with Stasis or the orbs. There is no stopping ST outside of a counter. Of course the same can be said of Geddon, but its clear creatures are a hundred times more abuseable. And Geddon is not accidental broken like ST is. People think they are going to stop a ramper, and instead cripple the guy whos already behind.
An early Geddon is just a bad play, and there is no blinking. An early SP and its a 6 for 1 ramp that effectively ends the game. Stasis and the orbs all have one mana answers and they do nothing when they land. OF course all this has been rehashed a thousand times, and people just want to complain about bans. Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
An early Geddon is a great play depending on the board state. Stasis and Orbs can time walk opponents, they do something. I can see where the argument extends. You can build around Geddon, Stasis, and Orb.
With that said, ST can do the same nasty stuff as SP. And with the use of flash, that's instantly a double trigger right off the bat. It's the speed of which ST can do it which puts it in the banned creature zone imo. Oh...and that's it's clone-able.
Question for Zeri here.
How is it you are able to play around Armageddon yet not play around ST?
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
There are also dozens of ways to deal with Stasis or the orbs. There is no stopping ST outside of a counter. Of course the same can be said of Geddon, but its clear creatures are a hundred times more abuseable. And Geddon is not accidental broken like ST is. People think they are going to stop a ramper, and instead cripple the guy whos already behind.
An early Geddon is just a bad play, and there is no blinking. An early SP and its a 6 for 1 ramp that effectively ends the game. Stasis and the orbs all have one mana answers and they do nothing when they land. OF course all this has been rehashed a thousand times, and people just want to complain about bans. Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
It's quite obvious you have very few games VS Titan or stax strategies under your belt. The ignorance you display while commenting on this topic is offensive. The power level of a single Armageddon vs an abused/blinked Sundering Titan is night and day. The weakest strategy among mass LD, orbs/stasis, or an abused ST is always the abused Sundering Titan. Leave me half my lands, all my utility lands and the rest of my board. There will be a day of reckoning with the ST caster. Turn 4 or later Geddon puts most opponents in topdeck mode. The Armageddon caster will rarely be inconvenienced to any significant degree. Derevi turns all orb/stasis effects into one-sided affairs which have been brutally effective in paralyzing opponents. I've only once seen Sundering Titan do something at the same level. Arcum brutalized a 5-color Scion deck with multiple copies of ST. It doesn't make sense to ban one of the weaker cards among the cards in a pool which are meant to deny players access to their resources
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
There are also dozens of ways to deal with Stasis or the orbs. There is no stopping ST outside of a counter. Of course the same can be said of Geddon, but its clear creatures are a hundred times more abuseable. And Geddon is not accidental broken like ST is. People think they are going to stop a ramper, and instead cripple the guy whos already behind.
An early Geddon is just a bad play, and there is no blinking. An early SP and its a 6 for 1 ramp that effectively ends the game. Stasis and the orbs all have one mana answers and they do nothing when they land. OF course all this has been rehashed a thousand times, and people just want to complain about bans. Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
It's quite obvious you have very few games VS Titan or stax strategies under your belt. The ignorance you display while commenting on this topic is offensive. The power level of a single Armageddon vs an abused/blinked Sundering Titan is night and day. The weakest strategy among mass LD, orbs/stasis, or an abused ST is always the abused Sundering Titan. Leave me half my lands, all my utility lands and the rest of my board. There will be a day of reckoning with the ST caster. Turn 4 or later Geddon puts most opponents in topdeck mode. The Armageddon caster will rarely be inconvenienced to any significant degree. Derevi turns all orb/stasis effects into one-sided affairs which have been brutally effective in paralyzing opponents. I've only once seen Sundering Titan do something at the same level. Arcum brutalized a 5-color Scion deck with multiple copies of ST. It doesn't make sense to ban one of the weaker cards among the cards in a pool which are meant to deny players access to their resources
But the fact that it's weaker is part of why it was banned. It also had to do with the fact that people thought they were doing the right thing by playing it in order to curb ramp. And as you stated, that was not usually very effective. When someone puts Armageddon in their deck, they're planing on blowing up everyone's lands (and probably built in a way to work around their own lands getting nuked). When someone put Sundering Titan into their deck, they thought they'd be a hero because their deck was built with mostly nonbasics, and hoo-boy, they were going to stick it to Rampy McDerperson with his field of shocklands and ABU duals. So here's the difference: Armageddon does one thing very well, but it's an intentional effect. Sundering Titan did one thing, but it did not do it very well, and it had unintended consequences.
It's quite obvious you have very few games VS Titan or stax strategies under your belt. The ignorance you display while commenting on this topic is offensive. The power level of a single Armageddon vs an abused/blinked Sundering Titan is night and day. The weakest strategy among mass LD, orbs/stasis, or an abused ST is always the abused Sundering Titan. Leave me half my lands, all my utility lands and the rest of my board. There will be a day of reckoning with the ST caster. Turn 4 or later Geddon puts most opponents in topdeck mode. The Armageddon caster will rarely be inconvenienced to any significant degree. Derevi turns all orb/stasis effects into one-sided affairs which have been brutally effective in paralyzing opponents. I've only once seen Sundering Titan do something at the same level. Arcum brutalized a 5-color Scion deck with multiple copies of ST. It doesn't make sense to ban one of the weaker cards among the cards in a pool which are meant to deny players access to their resources
The old 'if you disagree it's because you are dumb and don't have any experience' and personal attacks, oh internet troll how I love thee. I should have known based on your previous posts.
No where did I say ST was more powerful or killed less lands. Of course you argue against what you want, not what was actually said.
Infraction for Flaming. Please do not insult other users. -ISB
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Now that Sylvan Primordial is out of the picture, can Recurring Nightmare be unbanned? I can imagine SP was one of the more annoying ETB creatures to reanimate continuously.
Recurring Nightmare is a great card, no doubt, but it seems fine overall to unban. Graveyard hate really hurts it.
Probably not, considering we would have to look at any creature with a somewhat decent ETB trigger...
There are far, far, far better ways to abuse ETB triggers already in the format (and regularly complained about in this thread). Recurring Nightmare seems like a ban in the same vein as Kokusho was (and still is). The RC thought erroneously that it was too powerful, and banned it.
Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
This isn't possible for a lot of people. People who play on Cockatrice or MTGO, people who play with random people they meet at tourneys (I hear Judges love EDH, but due to the nature of the job, I doubt they're able to have any permanent modifications to the banlist between them). The RC can keep its head buried in the sand about the growing demographic that is unable to change their silly and unjustified bans, but that would not be a wise policy. They control the official list of EDH. It seems to me that with that should come some responsibility to serve all the people who play EDH.
But the fact that it's weaker is part of why it was banned. It also had to do with the fact that people thought they were doing the right thing by playing it in order to curb ramp. And as you stated, that was not usually very effective. When someone puts Armageddon in their deck, they're planing on blowing up everyone's lands (and probably built in a way to work around their own lands getting nuked). When someone put Sundering Titan into their deck, they thought they'd be a hero because their deck was built with mostly nonbasics, and hoo-boy, they were going to stick it to Rampy McDerperson with his field of shocklands and ABU duals. So here's the difference: Armageddon does one thing very well, but it's an intentional effect. Sundering Titan did one thing, but it did not do it very well, and it had unintended consequences.
This does not make sense to me. Nowhere in the philosophy behind EDH have I seen about preventing new or inexperienced players from making mistakes. I wish there were something, I may have won quite a few more games. It's also an impossible justification to be consistent with. Every card in magic can be played poorly, including the popular ones. Banning a popular card that can be played poorly will just make another popular card that can be played poorly replace it.
This isn't possible for a lot of people. People who play on Cockatrice or MTGO, people who play with random people they meet at tourneys (I hear Judges love EDH, but due to the nature of the job, I doubt they're able to have any permanent modifications to the banlist between them). The RC can keep its head buried in the sand about the growing demographic that is unable to change their silly and unjustified bans, but that would not be a wise policy. They control the official list of EDH. It seems to me that with that should come some responsibility to serve all the people who play EDH.
No ban list can cover all the groups, the current list covers the people EDH was designed for and by. Why do you think the ban list should change to appease this minority? You call the bans silly and unjustified (both inaccurate BTW), but any list you can come up with would be riddled with holes or be a mile long, most likely both.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
This isn't possible for a lot of people. People who play on Cockatrice or MTGO, people who play with random people they meet at tourneys (I hear Judges love EDH, but due to the nature of the job, I doubt they're able to have any permanent modifications to the banlist between them). The RC can keep its head buried in the sand about the growing demographic that is unable to change their silly and unjustified bans, but that would not be a wise policy. They control the official list of EDH. It seems to me that with that should come some responsibility to serve all the people who play EDH.
No ban list can cover all the groups, the current list covers the people EDH was designed for and by. Why do you think the ban list should change to appease this minority? You call the bans silly and unjustified (both inaccurate BTW), but any list you can come up with would be riddled with holes or be a mile long, most likely both.
Interestingly enough, right after I said that the RC can stick their head in the sand and ignore the various groups, here comes a supporter sticking his head in the sand to ignore the various groups.
The most able to adapt the banlist are the small local groups. The least able to adapt the banlist are online players and players who take their decks on the road. Serving the former instead of the latter serves the least in need of the RC's help at the expense of those most in need of the RC's help.
Basically, local groups would not be harmed by not having the banlist tailored around the fact that they can modify it, because they can actually modify the banlist. So, to serve the most people (including the local groups), the banlist should be tailored around the fact that some people cannot modify it. By not doing this the RC is actively choosing to take the path with the least utility, as well as being willfully ignorant of the changing directions their format is taking.
Yes, the RC may have crafted EDH for super timmies, or small groups over craft brew, or whatever group you feel fits the nebulous "spirit of EDH" moniker the most, but that doesn't matter. EDH is more than what the RC created, and it will continue to grow beyond that as it becomes more popular. First, it's an official wizard's product. I doubt wizards appreciates the fact that cards it prints for the format are being banned for inconsistent reasons. That leaves them no signpost by which to design cards for their official format. And given the number of people who only acknowledge the wizards banlist on the wizards site, it wouldn't be too hard for Wizards to drop the RC. Wizards may very well decide that having the banlist be maintained internally would be better for their design process. Of course, this is the worst case scenario, but it's a scenario that I think becomes increasingly more likely every time the RC bans some new card for inconsistent reasons.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on my opinion of the bans. Arguing with you over particular bans is never productive, so I'm not going to argue with you over particular bans.
I believe the frequency concerning announcements on bans/unbans should be increased at the very least. With Staff of Domination,Trade Secrets, Kokosho, and Grieslbrand being prime examples. And hopefully soon, Metalworker. Veterans could predict or make the case for each of the bannings/unbanning.
This would also allow for more testing. I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there's simply no reason why metalworker deserves a slot on the list. With more frequent announcements we could just test this already without having to wait for the obvious to happen.
At least make this happen. If the banlist has been placed in another's court outside of WotC, what's the problem with this?
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on my opinion of the bans. Arguing with you over particular bans is never productive, so I'm not going to argue with you over particular bans.
True, but arguing over the ban philosophy might actually get you somewhere if you keep listening to me.
I believe the frequency concerning announcements on bans/unbans should be increased at the very least. With Staff of Domination,Trade Secrets, Kokosho, and Grieslbrand being prime examples. And hopefully soon, Metalworker. Veterans could predict or make the case for each of the bannings/unbanning.
This would also allow for more testing. I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there's simply no reason why metalworker deserves a slot on the list. With more frequent announcements we could just test this already without having to wait for the obvious to happen.
I agree about MW, but they just synced up with WotC as part of the branding, they are not going to change it back now. I do think they should take an item off and give it a run, as long as they are ready to put it back if its still broken. Koku was the perfect example, it was a good unban.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I believe the frequency concerning announcements on bans/unbans should be increased at the very least. With Staff of Domination,Trade Secrets, Kokosho, and Grieslbrand being prime examples. And hopefully soon, Metalworker. Veterans could predict or make the case for each of the bannings/unbanning.
This would also allow for more testing. I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there's simply no reason why metalworker deserves a slot on the list. With more frequent announcements we could just test this already without having to wait for the obvious to happen.
At least make this happen. If the banlist has been placed in another's court outside of WotC, what's the problem with this?
More transparency is always nice. The French committee for example does a great job of explaining their opinions, and what sources they used to formulate their opinions. They keep a nice blog about what's going on in their committee, and recent developments in the format that may influence their decisions. As far as I can tell, there is no unified source of the RC's musings. A third of their explanations are on their own forums, another third are on StarCityGames, and the rest may very well be in this thread. To someone completely new to the format, finding out why something is banned is harder than finding good advice on the internet.
True, but arguing over the ban philosophy might actually get you somewhere if you keep listening to me.
No, with you specifically, it's just as much a waste of time as trying to find out what the actual Spirit of EDH is.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
How is it you are able to play around Armageddon yet not play around ST?
Well, I didn't say I couldn't...I never found sundering titan to be problem, I understand why its banned(could care less if it wasn't), but its easy to play around.I suppose I should of included ST in what I was saying but any land removal as it is can be played around by being good at the game and learning to not over extend. Realizing you have 8 mana in play and nothing you want to cast for much more means hold that land back perhaps. And on stasis and the ords, learn to make plays count...don't throw out cards just to get them out of you hand, and of course SPOT REMOVAL.
First off it's an inherently asymmetrical effect that's extremely hard to interact with. You either counter it or eat the ETB. Then you hope to exile it or you eat the LTB. [Edit: Forgot that this doesn't even work. You generally just eat the second effect regardless, outside of something like Turn//Burn.] You also have to hope it doesn't get recurred if you end up just killing it. That's a lot of work.
Secondly, it's game warping. It's extremely powerful to use and since it's so easily abuse (as a colorless creature) that it can easily warp the game around itself. In this regard it isn't as problematic as Sylvan Primordial or Primeval Titan, mainly because it's less utility and is sometimes a complete dud. Still, it has this effect to a degree.
Third, it's colorless and doesn't require any support cards. It can just be plonked in every deck. This makes the other problematic elements of the card a bigger issue.
Finally, it's deceptively strong. Like people mention, this causes problems when people run it to be the nice anti-ramp guy and it ends up making games less fun. Since EDH is such a social format and is based heavily on everyone involved being on the same page and having fun it's useful to consider this element. Cards that deceptively cause groups to have less fun are problematic.
Together this is why I am quite comfortable with Sundering Titan remaining banned. It just doesn't seem that fun to play against and not even all that interesting to play.
On a superficial level both Armageddon and Sundering Titan look similar. They blow up lands. The main difference is that Armageddon requires a large number of support cards. Decks don't just jam in Armageddon as a goodstuff card. It's not playable unless you can specifically abuse the symmetrical effect and make it less impactful on yourself.
To this end, Armageddon sees play in two types of decks: Aggro decks (as a finisher/back-breaker), and stax decks (as a powerful lock enabler.) I hope I don't need to defend the use of MLD in aggressive decks (although I will if people want), but stax can use specific defense.
Stax, for those unaware, is a form of control. The primary strategy of stax is to stop your opponents from being able to cast spells and lock them out of the game, allowing you to win in a number of ways. It seems like a generic super-unfun strategy - after all the goal of a stax deck is literally to stop the other players to be able to do anything.
However, stax can actually be a lot of fun to play against. Stax changes the availability of mana and dramatically shifts priorities. You fight over small spells, have to fight over lock pieces, and really makes you focus heavily on deciding which spells to cast and when. Playing against stax opens up a lot of options and lines of play that aren't really as important or interesting otherwise. With a good deck interaction is still possible.
Like strong combo strategies, stax is certainly a strong playstyle that requires good game knowledge. It tends to hit fast and is also extremely fragile. As much as stax likes to limit your ability to play spells, it can also be said that it relies on your inability to cast spells. I've personally played a lot of games where a resolved Austere Command, Vandalblast, or similar large-scale artifact destruction would completely demolish my ability to ever be relevant.
Additionally, stax isn't an accidentally strong strategy. It's quite obvious how powerful it is and how proactive the counterplay must be. While Sundering Titan is often run in groups not prepared for that type of strategy, stax is pretty clear. It can ruin maybe one game before people understand exactly how strong it is and decide to build against it or ask for a different deck. To that end, it works like strong combo decks - people who like that power level can play with it, while people who don't won't accidentally step too far into the deep waters.
Overall, stax is a legitimate and potentially fun strategy. While it limits counterplay, it does so by radically shifting the priorities of the game and creating a different type of counterplay. So instead of just being annoying, it can also be a different and interesting challenge to play against. At the same time, it's fragile enough that it isn't braindead easy nor is it overpoweringly strong. And of course, it's pretty obvious and up front about all of this; newbs won't accidentally decide to continually try stax and then get frustrated.
PS: I still think balance needs to stay banned. I also still hate Blood Moon and Ruination Those cards (and very strong non-basic hate in general) are my biggest pet peeve.
First off it's an inherently asymmetrical effect that's extremely hard to interact with. You either counter it or eat the ETB. Then you hope to exile it or you eat the LTB. You also have to hope it doesn't get recurred if you end up just killing it. That's a lot of work.
This may be part of why people don't think ST is that powerful: Even if you exile it from the battlefield the second trigger IS happening. Leaves the battlefield does not care where it goes.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
First off it's an inherently asymmetrical effect that's extremely hard to interact with. You either counter it or eat the ETB. Then you hope to exile it or you eat the LTB. You also have to hope it doesn't get recurred if you end up just killing it. That's a lot of work.
Secondly, it's game warping. It's extremely powerful to use and since it's so easily abuse (as a colorless creature) that it can easily warp the game around itself. In this regard it isn't as problematic as Sylvan Primordial or Primeval Titan, mainly because it's less utility and is sometimes a complete dud. Still, it has this effect to a degree.
Third, it's colorless and doesn't require any support cards. It can just be plonked in every deck. This makes the other problematic elements of the card a bigger issue.
Finally, it's deceptively strong. Like people mention, this causes problems when people run it to be the nice anti-ramp guy and it ends up making games less fun. Since EDH is such a social format and is based heavily on everyone involved being on the same page and having fun it's useful to consider this element. Cards that deceptively cause groups to have less fun are problematic.
Together this is why I am quite comfortable with Sundering Titan remaining banned. It just doesn't seem that fun to play against and not even all that interesting to play.
I don't think its fair or reasonable to argue it is unfun to play against Sundering Titan while it is fun to play against stax/MLD strategies because that view is highly subjective. From my personal experience I've seen many more negative reactions to stax/mld than I ever saw with Sundering Titan. As to why Sundering Titan is problematic I think you've argued poorly. The asymmetrical effect is directly comparable to stax/mld. They are supposed to be fair but as you say in practice never are. Sundering Titan is less problematic than the board state those strategies create. I've never seen anyone rage quit to ST. Mass LD/stax plenty of times. Game warping can be used to describe quite a few cards in the game. Sundering Titan is an annoyance not a gamebreaker in the vein of Emrakul or Griselbrand and can be dealt with (the easiest of which is to include lands which aren't vulnerable to ST). The argument which is always repeated is how the mana screwed player gets slammed as a side effect. It's not accidental in my view. The caster has decided to cripple the mana screwed player. Whatever reason the caster may give, it does not change that game decision. That's no reason to ban a card.
Obviously you have not played elves...
I do not feel it should be banned though as my meta does not play Cradle (Even the elf decks don't. or at least, i don;t even remember it being a problem if it is played.)
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
True, other cards exist. They could be a solution, but they lack speed. Aura Shards needs a creature to come into play. Vandalblast costs 5 to overload. The lands that remove lands are good, but you run into problems there, too. A blue/artifact deck could have a very developed board state while keeping the Wasteland up to deal with Academy leaves player two with no board state very early in the game. You also can't answer Academy before it taps for mana, in which case, damage is sometimes done.
The problem isn't the amount of answers. The problem is the potential for an absurdly explosive start for decks that would pack Academy.
Recurring Nightmare is a great card, no doubt, but it seems fine overall to unban. Graveyard hate really hurts it.
Modern: G/R Tron + RUG Scapeshift
Legacy: Reanimator
Standard: G/b Devotion
And if they printed Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded with a +1 ability that more closely lined up with Red's looting ability as in Rummaging Goblin or Mad Prophet, he might actually see play. But I don't see Wizards doing that any more than I see them printing a "fixed" Sundering Titan. Sylvan Primordial was the closest thing we got and it was a flop.
Probably not, considering we would have to look at any creature with a somewhat decent ETB trigger...
The GJ way path to no lynching:
And is there some kind of reason you cannot extend your argument towards Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs? They look fair, but are blatantly one-sided in favor of the caster. Sundering Titan can be easily neutralized by replacing your basic-land type carrying lands with checklands, filterlands, fastlands, scrylands, or not cracking your fetches until you absolutely need to use the mana. The same cannot be said of Armageddon, Stasis, or the Orbs.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
I hope. I would really like to loop Kokusho with Angel of despair.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
An early Geddon is just a bad play, and there is no blinking. An early SP and its a 6 for 1 ramp that effectively ends the game. Stasis and the orbs all have one mana answers and they do nothing when they land. OF course all this has been rehashed a thousand times, and people just want to complain about bans. Man up and make a custom list for your group if you don't like the official list.
The only thing that makes those cards one sided for the caster is that the caster knows they are coming and plans for it, geddon, stasis, and the orbs are all easy to play around if you know they are coming and very answerable.
An early Geddon is a great play depending on the board state. Stasis and Orbs can time walk opponents, they do something. I can see where the argument extends. You can build around Geddon, Stasis, and Orb.
With that said, ST can do the same nasty stuff as SP. And with the use of flash, that's instantly a double trigger right off the bat. It's the speed of which ST can do it which puts it in the banned creature zone imo. Oh...and that's it's clone-able.
Question for Zeri here.
How is it you are able to play around Armageddon yet not play around ST?
It's quite obvious you have very few games VS Titan or stax strategies under your belt. The ignorance you display while commenting on this topic is offensive. The power level of a single Armageddon vs an abused/blinked Sundering Titan is night and day. The weakest strategy among mass LD, orbs/stasis, or an abused ST is always the abused Sundering Titan. Leave me half my lands, all my utility lands and the rest of my board. There will be a day of reckoning with the ST caster. Turn 4 or later Geddon puts most opponents in topdeck mode. The Armageddon caster will rarely be inconvenienced to any significant degree. Derevi turns all orb/stasis effects into one-sided affairs which have been brutally effective in paralyzing opponents. I've only once seen Sundering Titan do something at the same level. Arcum brutalized a 5-color Scion deck with multiple copies of ST. It doesn't make sense to ban one of the weaker cards among the cards in a pool which are meant to deny players access to their resources
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
But the fact that it's weaker is part of why it was banned. It also had to do with the fact that people thought they were doing the right thing by playing it in order to curb ramp. And as you stated, that was not usually very effective. When someone puts Armageddon in their deck, they're planing on blowing up everyone's lands (and probably built in a way to work around their own lands getting nuked). When someone put Sundering Titan into their deck, they thought they'd be a hero because their deck was built with mostly nonbasics, and hoo-boy, they were going to stick it to Rampy McDerperson with his field of shocklands and ABU duals. So here's the difference: Armageddon does one thing very well, but it's an intentional effect. Sundering Titan did one thing, but it did not do it very well, and it had unintended consequences.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
No where did I say ST was more powerful or killed less lands. Of course you argue against what you want, not what was actually said.
Infraction for Flaming. Please do not insult other users. -ISB
There are far, far, far better ways to abuse ETB triggers already in the format (and regularly complained about in this thread). Recurring Nightmare seems like a ban in the same vein as Kokusho was (and still is). The RC thought erroneously that it was too powerful, and banned it.
This isn't possible for a lot of people. People who play on Cockatrice or MTGO, people who play with random people they meet at tourneys (I hear Judges love EDH, but due to the nature of the job, I doubt they're able to have any permanent modifications to the banlist between them). The RC can keep its head buried in the sand about the growing demographic that is unable to change their silly and unjustified bans, but that would not be a wise policy. They control the official list of EDH. It seems to me that with that should come some responsibility to serve all the people who play EDH.
This does not make sense to me. Nowhere in the philosophy behind EDH have I seen about preventing new or inexperienced players from making mistakes. I wish there were something, I may have won quite a few more games. It's also an impossible justification to be consistent with. Every card in magic can be played poorly, including the popular ones. Banning a popular card that can be played poorly will just make another popular card that can be played poorly replace it.
No ban list can cover all the groups, the current list covers the people EDH was designed for and by. Why do you think the ban list should change to appease this minority? You call the bans silly and unjustified (both inaccurate BTW), but any list you can come up with would be riddled with holes or be a mile long, most likely both.
Interestingly enough, right after I said that the RC can stick their head in the sand and ignore the various groups, here comes a supporter sticking his head in the sand to ignore the various groups.
The most able to adapt the banlist are the small local groups. The least able to adapt the banlist are online players and players who take their decks on the road. Serving the former instead of the latter serves the least in need of the RC's help at the expense of those most in need of the RC's help.
Basically, local groups would not be harmed by not having the banlist tailored around the fact that they can modify it, because they can actually modify the banlist. So, to serve the most people (including the local groups), the banlist should be tailored around the fact that some people cannot modify it. By not doing this the RC is actively choosing to take the path with the least utility, as well as being willfully ignorant of the changing directions their format is taking.
Yes, the RC may have crafted EDH for super timmies, or small groups over craft brew, or whatever group you feel fits the nebulous "spirit of EDH" moniker the most, but that doesn't matter. EDH is more than what the RC created, and it will continue to grow beyond that as it becomes more popular. First, it's an official wizard's product. I doubt wizards appreciates the fact that cards it prints for the format are being banned for inconsistent reasons. That leaves them no signpost by which to design cards for their official format. And given the number of people who only acknowledge the wizards banlist on the wizards site, it wouldn't be too hard for Wizards to drop the RC. Wizards may very well decide that having the banlist be maintained internally would be better for their design process. Of course, this is the worst case scenario, but it's a scenario that I think becomes increasingly more likely every time the RC bans some new card for inconsistent reasons.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on my opinion of the bans. Arguing with you over particular bans is never productive, so I'm not going to argue with you over particular bans.
This would also allow for more testing. I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there's simply no reason why metalworker deserves a slot on the list. With more frequent announcements we could just test this already without having to wait for the obvious to happen.
At least make this happen. If the banlist has been placed in another's court outside of WotC, what's the problem with this?
I agree about MW, but they just synced up with WotC as part of the branding, they are not going to change it back now. I do think they should take an item off and give it a run, as long as they are ready to put it back if its still broken. Koku was the perfect example, it was a good unban.
More transparency is always nice. The French committee for example does a great job of explaining their opinions, and what sources they used to formulate their opinions. They keep a nice blog about what's going on in their committee, and recent developments in the format that may influence their decisions. As far as I can tell, there is no unified source of the RC's musings. A third of their explanations are on their own forums, another third are on StarCityGames, and the rest may very well be in this thread. To someone completely new to the format, finding out why something is banned is harder than finding good advice on the internet.
No, with you specifically, it's just as much a waste of time as trying to find out what the actual Spirit of EDH is.
Well, I didn't say I couldn't...I never found sundering titan to be problem, I understand why its banned(could care less if it wasn't), but its easy to play around.I suppose I should of included ST in what I was saying but any land removal as it is can be played around by being good at the game and learning to not over extend. Realizing you have 8 mana in play and nothing you want to cast for much more means hold that land back perhaps. And on stasis and the ords, learn to make plays count...don't throw out cards just to get them out of you hand, and of course SPOT REMOVAL.
First off it's an inherently asymmetrical effect that's extremely hard to interact with. You either counter it or eat the ETB. Then you hope to exile it or you eat the LTB. [Edit: Forgot that this doesn't even work. You generally just eat the second effect regardless, outside of something like Turn//Burn.] You also have to hope it doesn't get recurred if you end up just killing it. That's a lot of work.
Secondly, it's game warping. It's extremely powerful to use and since it's so easily abuse (as a colorless creature) that it can easily warp the game around itself. In this regard it isn't as problematic as Sylvan Primordial or Primeval Titan, mainly because it's less utility and is sometimes a complete dud. Still, it has this effect to a degree.
Third, it's colorless and doesn't require any support cards. It can just be plonked in every deck. This makes the other problematic elements of the card a bigger issue.
Finally, it's deceptively strong. Like people mention, this causes problems when people run it to be the nice anti-ramp guy and it ends up making games less fun. Since EDH is such a social format and is based heavily on everyone involved being on the same page and having fun it's useful to consider this element. Cards that deceptively cause groups to have less fun are problematic.
Together this is why I am quite comfortable with Sundering Titan remaining banned. It just doesn't seem that fun to play against and not even all that interesting to play.
____
I would also like to defend Armageddon (and it's lesser known cousin, Ravages of War.)
On a superficial level both Armageddon and Sundering Titan look similar. They blow up lands. The main difference is that Armageddon requires a large number of support cards. Decks don't just jam in Armageddon as a goodstuff card. It's not playable unless you can specifically abuse the symmetrical effect and make it less impactful on yourself.
To this end, Armageddon sees play in two types of decks: Aggro decks (as a finisher/back-breaker), and stax decks (as a powerful lock enabler.) I hope I don't need to defend the use of MLD in aggressive decks (although I will if people want), but stax can use specific defense.
Stax, for those unaware, is a form of control. The primary strategy of stax is to stop your opponents from being able to cast spells and lock them out of the game, allowing you to win in a number of ways. It seems like a generic super-unfun strategy - after all the goal of a stax deck is literally to stop the other players to be able to do anything.
However, stax can actually be a lot of fun to play against. Stax changes the availability of mana and dramatically shifts priorities. You fight over small spells, have to fight over lock pieces, and really makes you focus heavily on deciding which spells to cast and when. Playing against stax opens up a lot of options and lines of play that aren't really as important or interesting otherwise. With a good deck interaction is still possible.
Like strong combo strategies, stax is certainly a strong playstyle that requires good game knowledge. It tends to hit fast and is also extremely fragile. As much as stax likes to limit your ability to play spells, it can also be said that it relies on your inability to cast spells. I've personally played a lot of games where a resolved Austere Command, Vandalblast, or similar large-scale artifact destruction would completely demolish my ability to ever be relevant.
Additionally, stax isn't an accidentally strong strategy. It's quite obvious how powerful it is and how proactive the counterplay must be. While Sundering Titan is often run in groups not prepared for that type of strategy, stax is pretty clear. It can ruin maybe one game before people understand exactly how strong it is and decide to build against it or ask for a different deck. To that end, it works like strong combo decks - people who like that power level can play with it, while people who don't won't accidentally step too far into the deep waters.
Overall, stax is a legitimate and potentially fun strategy. While it limits counterplay, it does so by radically shifting the priorities of the game and creating a different type of counterplay. So instead of just being annoying, it can also be a different and interesting challenge to play against. At the same time, it's fragile enough that it isn't braindead easy nor is it overpoweringly strong. And of course, it's pretty obvious and up front about all of this; newbs won't accidentally decide to continually try stax and then get frustrated.
PS: I still think balance needs to stay banned. I also still hate Blood Moon and Ruination Those cards (and very strong non-basic hate in general) are my biggest pet peeve.
I don't think its fair or reasonable to argue it is unfun to play against Sundering Titan while it is fun to play against stax/MLD strategies because that view is highly subjective. From my personal experience I've seen many more negative reactions to stax/mld than I ever saw with Sundering Titan. As to why Sundering Titan is problematic I think you've argued poorly. The asymmetrical effect is directly comparable to stax/mld. They are supposed to be fair but as you say in practice never are. Sundering Titan is less problematic than the board state those strategies create. I've never seen anyone rage quit to ST. Mass LD/stax plenty of times. Game warping can be used to describe quite a few cards in the game. Sundering Titan is an annoyance not a gamebreaker in the vein of Emrakul or Griselbrand and can be dealt with (the easiest of which is to include lands which aren't vulnerable to ST). The argument which is always repeated is how the mana screwed player gets slammed as a side effect. It's not accidental in my view. The caster has decided to cripple the mana screwed player. Whatever reason the caster may give, it does not change that game decision. That's no reason to ban a card.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL