the main strike against it/comment I anticipate would be length, ~60 cards versus the current list's 36. I don't see any actual problem with the ban list being 60 cards though? Especially not if the format is tremendously healthier and a large majority of players have games they feel are "fun"
The main strike against it is that the vast majority of additions you make are at best a personal dislike for the card.
the main strike against it/comment I anticipate would be length, ~60 cards versus the current list's 36. I don't see any actual problem with the ban list being 60 cards though? Especially not if the format is tremendously healthier and a large majority of players have games they feel are "fun"
The main strike against it is that the vast majority of additions you make are at best a personal dislike for the card.
Vast majority, really? As of now I made these ~30 additions, for easy reference:
I guess a lot of them hinge on how you feel about infinites but I'm pretty sure most of these are widely despised
like the amount of players who would be happy about a given ban is probably several times the number who wouldn't be happy
Honestly a bunch of these contradict my own personal preferences, like I don't really care about time stretch but basically everyone i've ever played with thinks it's the stupidest. I don't care about iona but it comes up in this thread all the time. Etc
And there's all the ones that are just stupid, like why on earth can we play necropotence and stasis, seriously?
That list makes a lot of assumptions about what kind of game players actually want, and the vast majority of players don't have problems with these cards, as evidenced by the fact that most of them aren't ones which commonly one up in this thread.
I guess a lot of them hinge on how you feel about infinites but I'm pretty sure most of these are widely despised
like the amount of players who would be happy about a given ban is probably several times the number who wouldn't be happy
Widely despised (this is also objective and up for debate) is different than being banworthy, however. Otherwise, you're missing a large number of MLD and stax cards on that list. I also think that trying to scourge infinite combos from the format is a rather pointless task, due to the amount of cards you'd need to add. Someone who enjoys combo decks will just find a different combo, and as long as it's not ridiculously complex, it will have an advantage over aggro just due to the way multiplayer works.
At best, you could reduce this to fast tutors and mana to slow infinite combos down while simultaneously shortening the list, but even then you'd have to decide on whether or not you want to focus on problem cards for cutthroat players (Ad Nauseam and friends) or problem cards for more casual groups (Prophet of Kruphex, and friends), because both groups have different needs.
Ancient Tomb, Chains of Mephistopheles, Consecrated Sphinx, Dream Halls, Grim Tutor, Imperial Seal, Iona, Shield of Emeria, Karmic Guide, Moat, Nether Void, Stasis, & Time Stretch are all based on a personal dislike, at best.
The rest are either a misguided attempt to stop combo, or an attempt to stop fast mana.
Of those, there are two problematic fast mana cards that generally agreed are problematic, with a third (Mishra's Workshop) that, although nowhere near as damaging as the first two, is notable.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
Ad Nauseum, Necropotence, & Survival of the Fittest are the only other ones that even come close to worthy of being banned, and none of them are actually a problem. They are even infrequently discussed.
I will reiterate - your list of additions is at best a personal dislike for the vast majority of the cards. Very few are even worth considering. This expands even further when you look at your other sections. Several of those are outright benign.
Call me crazy, but instead of banning cards for violating personal opinions of how EDH games should be... just find playgroups that like similar styles of play. Certain cards that warp the game around itself or completely change the game dynamics to 1v3 consistently are problems. Cards that have the potential to be abused to do certain things is not. It's a player choice that starts at deck building. If a player adds a two card combo and tooth and nail... how the combo is assembled is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. That player already decided they wanted to play a certain style. Banning cards like gifts or tooth and nail doesn't change that. Not playing with people like that does. 99% of the problems in this format start with the player and deck building. Certain cards like palinchron just scream combo piece. It's all they're really good for. And that's fine for some players. I don't see what's so offensive about players choosing how to play their games. Color me confused.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
I think Ad Nauseam is only infrequently discussed because it is not a staple in the color, merely the few decks that combo with it. I feel this is the issue with the ban list bias of why prophet gets banned and not this card. Prophet is in nearly every GU deck and is a power house card. It alone doesn't win games but is a must kill in common scenarios in nearly every deck that uses it. Ad nauseam can only be abused in combo decks and restricts the list quite a bit, you can't just casually throw this card in a deck and have success. The type of deck that uses it is very linear, uninteractive, and arguably extremely unfun to pilot and play against for most...this leads to it being rarely seen. I feel this is why it's not getting the proper ban hammer treatment it deserves.
I love infinites in this format, but there's some qualifiers of what I feel is degenerate and what is simply in the nature of the format. Most combos require 2-4 cards and have multiple ways to stop. Karmic Guide combos? you need a sac loop and a creature. It can be stopped by art/creature removal, counters, graveyard removal, and a few other ways. Every color has reasonable responses and it telegraphs. You're not gonna need to fill your deck with overly specific hate to stop it that is irrelevant in most matchups. These are good for the format and present tense points to fight over. Cards that try to win regardless of board state and have few answers are the issue. If a card wins purely off "what's in the library" and cares very little with board state...you have an issue. It's an overly volatile glass canon that is toxic to diverse builds. There are so many decks that simply can't fight these strategies.
The game shouldn't devolve to a single spell winning if unanswered...especially if we're talking turn 1-4 with any form of consistency...and especially if those answers are not abundantly common. These cards need to be banned regardless of popularity of use, as when they are present...they hurt metas severely and add nothing good to the game play. You can't just tell every person they have to run blue or hate bears/cards to be able to survive these decks.
I think Ad Nauseam is only infrequently discussed because it is not a staple in the color, merely the few decks that combo with it. I feel this is the issue with the ban list bias of why prophet gets banned and not this card. Prophet is in nearly every GU deck and is a power house card. It alone doesn't win games but is a must kill in common scenarios in nearly every deck that uses it. Ad nauseam can only be abused in combo decks and restricts the list quite a bit, you can't just casually throw this card in a deck and have success. The type of deck that uses it is very linear, uninteractive, and arguably extremely unfun to pilot and play against for most...this leads to it being rarely seen. I feel this is why it's not getting the proper ban hammer treatment it deserves.
I love infinites in this format, but there's some qualifiers of what I feel is degenerate and what is simply in the nature of the format. Most combos require 2-4 cards and have multiple ways to stop. Karmic Guide combos? you need a sac loop and a creature. It can be stopped by art/creature removal, counters, graveyard removal, and a few other ways. Every color has reasonable responses and it telegraphs. You're not gonna need to fill your deck with overly specific hate to stop it that is irrelevant in most matchups. These are good for the format and present tense points to fight over. Cards that try to win regardless of board state and have few answers are the issue. If a card wins purely off "what's in the library" and cares very little with board state...you have an issue. It's an overly volatile glass canon that is toxic to diverse builds. There are so many decks that simply can't fight these strategies.
The game shouldn't devolve to a single spell winning if unanswered...especially if we're talking turn 1-4 with any form of consistency...and especially if those answers are not abundantly common. These cards need to be banned regardless of popularity of use, as when they are present...they hurt metas severely and add nothing good to the game play. You can't just tell every person they have to run blue or hate bears/cards to be able to survive these decks.
Except, these decks aren't prevalent. You admit that Ad Nauseam is rarely seen, and when it is seen, that it is usually in a cutthroat competitive T1-4 win deck. That simply isn't the intent of the format, nor is it representative of the average game you're likely to encounter. If you are continually seeing ANT combos, HD combos, moxnix-esque storm decks, etc, then this speaks volumes about the type of players you surround yourself with.
Prophet of Kruphix, on the other hand, was seen in nearly every playgroup, and every UG player could be counted on having her in the deck, meaning you absolutely had to pack removal for her in every deck you built.
Its 109 cards and you want to unban Sway, Eyaro, and Braids? That sounds a lot like 'balance does not matter, these are cards I don't like'. And to call that ban list "tremendously healthier" just seems like it would be for you, but not so much everyone else.
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.
That list has plenty of cards that I could disagree with the stature you place them at, that being said you are entitled to your thoughts. I am a player that believes sol ring is just fine. Demonic tutor is fine. Don't misunderstand me I do believe that some bannings are required for the format, and I do believe that several cards could likely be added and some removed but we get to this nasty problem of what constitutes a banning requirement? is it power level? is it price? is it combo potential? is it to centralizing? or does it have to be 3 or 4 of the above? that being said, while I don't agree with some of the bannings, cards like sol ring and demonic tutor don't break a format unless you are the one who wants to do it. That is no one's fault except the guilty party. House rules work great in theory, practice however, makes it much harder. You may talk to the LGS or members of the edh group you are at that day and see if they can set up the framework in advance to assist with correcting issues. for example my LGS, if the player wants to play infect and we tell them we play with 21 infect, as long as we are not past the players first turn we have no issues allowing a deck change or if the player was willing even card swaps (kinda like a side deck). I have seen more games lost to the player who thought it was funny to allow a reaper king deck to cast a rite of replication than get blown out to the speed of sol ring which at my meta is commonly dead the turn or 2 after its played
tldr; format isnt broken, Banning isnt a perfect science, the sky is not falling.
I'm not speaking purely on the behalf of comp though, I'm speaking for casuals (I hint at this in my posts constantly). These are cards that present rare opportunities of fun and creative play style in casual play and often chase casuals away. While I do play competitive, I'm constantly keeping an eye on making sure the casuals have fun and a major issue I see with these types of cards, no matter what turn they go off or how optimized the deck is...it leads to major feel bads. I have NEVER seen Ad Nauseam go off and leave a table feeling happy they played or respected the creativity of the deck that won. It is a bane to casuals and competitive players.
I go over how I hate telling casual players Mana Crypt is an inevitable card if you have the funds. It's a card that leads to some very unfair wins when dropped early and I hate the look it puts on casual faces who feel they can't compete with those plays. So yeah...please don't assume things. Your post is wildly off base from my intentions and I don't appreciate the back hand of it. I can be a comp player that sees the importance of all types of players.
You are speaking on behalf of competitive players though. Your entire perspective is you as a competitive player and trying this weird situation where you bring in casual players and go easy on them or try to make it so they have fun with your cutthroat deck. You mentally rationalize that your Derevi stax list is the purest form of competitive EDH and advocate for the banning of critical cards in archetypes that you don't play and are occasionally unable to answer. When you ask for things like Doomsday or Ad Nauseam to be banned because you, as a competitive player, sometimes are unable to answer them, but then say that "it creates the feel bads" for the casual players, you are both advocating for self-interested bans through a competitive lens for the majority of the format and attempting to get me to buy that these casual players that are playing in your competitive games are not having a good time because of the ban list and not because they are a casual player in a game with highly tuned and expensive decks.
You're not wrong when you say that one can be a competitive player and see the importance of all types of players, but that is not what you are doing. You're using the fact that you have casual players join your competitive games as ammunition for the banning the cards you're advocating for because YOU don't like facing them in your competitive setting. The ban list isn't for competitive players or games. Period. Mana Crypt isn't a necessity for anything except the most competitive decks in EDH. Anything that is at its worst in a competitive list and is generally a non-factor everywhere else will never be considered for a ban.
The problem that these casual players you're talking about really have is the opponents they're facing who have competitive lists that they stand no chance against. Aside from the fact that a ban list probably wouldn't help them, just make them feel less bad when they get their ass beat,the disservice here isn't the casual players getting stomped by competitive/highly tuned lists, it is you having them come and sit at your table to begin with while giving them the impression it will be a "fun time" then pointing the finger at the RC when your playgroup is the one that ruined their day. It's not the job of the RC or the ban list to protect you from yourselves. That is why this is a SOCIAL FORMAT.
I think people are still missing the point, that being that T&N is the only card in the game that can end the game while you have NO setup at all (Other than having two specific cards in your hand/deck) right on the spot. I already stated that yes, for 9 mana I expect game-winning plays or hugely impacting plays, but I do not expect cards that read "9 mana: You win the game unless an opponent holds a counterspell/spot removal card". Especially when cards that are much harder to do the same with and much easier to actually pull fun stuff off with are banned.
I did a quick count in my Rasputin, and it's got quite a few cards that can stop T&N. And yet, it still sometimes slips through. Why? Well, maybe I needed that PtE on a Blightsteel Collossus earlier in the game. Or perhaps my counters were exhausted trying to stop an Omniscience from happening before. Rarely T&N is the first big threat to hit the table. Often it's the last.
Ad Nauseam can also just instawin with no setup (no setup here meaning just tapout for AN), as you just play a zillion 0 mana artifacts and mana sources and win on the spot. AN should probably be banned too, but it's only used in degenerate combos so you don't see it that often.
I don't really want to see Gifts Unbanned at all. We had it in our group for a while and all that happened was a stupid graveyard win setup or a stupid Life from the Loam/Strip/Wasteland/Crucible (or Witness) combo or something like that. The game ended within a turn or a player lost real fast once that card resolved, so we stopped playing it.
Hilariously though, we've started playing UN cards for fun. Common Courtesy has been great and so has Checks and Balances. We don't play with the obviously stupid broken cards but we see an occasional Chaos Orb as well (I like to have it ruled as a self-exiling Vindicate) and so on.
AN also requires that you build your deck in an extremely specific way. At that point, you're not playing EDH, you're playing 100-card Legacy singleton. Same for Hermit Druid. T&N just requires you have two creatures in your hand or deck that are good on their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
That list makes a lot of assumptions about what kind of game players actually want, and the vast majority of players don't have problems with these cards, as evidenced by the fact that most of them aren't ones which commonly one up in this thread.
That's a massive logical fallacy there. The overwhelming percentage of EDH players don't use MTG Salvation for anything other than spoiler season. In this case, the silent majority is a real thing. The card ruins every game it is played in, has almost no casual value, and is dangerously powerful in more cutthroat circles. No one is casting Ad Nauseum as an improved Sign in Blood. There is zero reason I can think of to keep the card unbanned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I believe speaking on behalf of anyone else, unless elected to do so by them, is a bit conceited. I wouldn't consider my playgroup to be very competitive, but we have seen and are seeing currently many of the cards that are being called "overpowered" here played with what appears to be minimal effect on the fun of the table (everyone seems to laugh and have a good time).
Maybe it is more about how people play and less with what they play with? Being humble in victory and gracious in defeat? I think that just because some others and myself enjoy playing with powerful cards, within the theme and flavor of EDH, we shouldn't be punished for it. If someone brings a far more casual deck to my local store only to get crushed by me and have a bad time then we can discuss the problem there. Either I can use/build a more lenient strategy, they can perhaps dip their toes into playing a more competitive one, or we can meet somewhere in the middle. If all else fails we inevitably have to make the decision to be adults and move on.
Even though this point has been beat to death I'll reiterate - our format is unique. It is specifically designed and played with multiplayer dynamics and social structure in mind. The 4-6 I play with in each game can hardly agree on a perfect system when playing, let alone everyone in the world that plays the format. Collaborate, cooperate, or agree to disagree. That's the only way I see people getting through this whole debate.
I think that just because some others and myself enjoy playing with powerful cards, within the theme and flavor of EDH, we shouldn't be punished for it.
I think that's true, and I think the rules committee does a good job not hating out competitive play groups, but it must be said that banning Sol Ring and Mana Crypt would not be a punishment, it would be a gift.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
You keep bringing this up..but in the case you cite it honestly sounds like the player who named black is a jerk and so in my eyes,it's more of a player issue than the card itself.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
You keep bringing this up..but in the case you cite it honestly sounds like the player who named black is a jerk and so in my eyes,it's more of a player issue than the card itself.
Actually, that was me originally mentioning it. The issue in that situation is that Iona allowed that to happen. Combined with the format being based around color identity, and the rise of the mono-colored starter decks, it is exceedingly easy for Iona to ruin casual games and competitive games alike.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
The overwhelming percentage of EDH players don't use MTG Salvation for anything other than spoiler season. In this case, the silent majority is a real thing.
We agree here, there is for sure.
The card ruins every game it is played in, has almost no casual value, and is dangerously powerful in more cutthroat circles. No one is casting Ad Nauseum as an improved Sign in Blood. There is zero reason I can think of to keep the card unbanned.
Why do you think your opinion on the card is the silent majorities opinion? Since they are silent, wouldn't that be fairly tough to know what they think? People do cast it to draw a few cards in exchange for life, as you said, an improved SiB. Sign gets played, why wouldn't an improved version?
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.
As an improved Sign, I'd prefer my baby Moonlight Bargain. You'll probably have to draw quite a few cards to make Ad Nauseam better than 3 cards for 3B and 3 life or 5 cards for 2BBB and 5 life. Now, if you have a bunch of life and want a bunch of cards now, Ad Nauseam is a decent instant. It's not really a top choice, though, for black draw.
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.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
You keep bringing this up..but in the case you cite it honestly sounds like the player who named black is a jerk and so in my eyes,it's more of a player issue than the card itself.
Actually, that was me originally mentioning it. The issue in that situation is that Iona allowed that to happen. Combined with the format being based around color identity, and the rise of the mono-colored starter decks, it is exceedingly easy for Iona to ruin casual games and competitive games alike.
Still more of a player issue, one of my first decks was a Relentless Ratsdeck,and so one player put in Leyline of Singularity this was back before the rule change and so it killed my deck, which mind you mine was the only deck due at the table that it totally hosed. Everyone at the table not counting the player who played it all agreed that it was a dick move, so it was quickly removed and the player removed it from his deck after the game.
The issue is the player CHOSE to call mono black knowing full well he was going to hard lock the mono player out on purpose.
That's a massive logical fallacy there. The overwhelming percentage of EDH players don't use MTG Salvation for anything other than spoiler season. In this case, the silent majority is a real thing. The card ruins every game it is played in, has almost no casual value, and is dangerously powerful in more cutthroat circles. No one is casting Ad Nauseum as an improved Sign in Blood. There is zero reason I can think of to keep the card unbanned.
Look at a random decklist on this forum and ask yourself how it would be improved by adding Ad Nauseam. Instant speed EoT card draw should not be overlooked, and decks that consciously run a tighter curve and afford to loose a few life in order to draw some card can use it, as can any Orzov lifegain deck. I have run the card in a fair number of lists, and the most competitive I ever ran the card was as part of a BUG storm deck which I used strictly in a tournament. So I respectfully disagree with your statement that it ruins every game and has no casual value.
The "zero reason to keep it unbanned" is because the list is not catering towards cutthroat players, and casual players don't get games ruined by the card.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
You keep bringing this up..but in the case you cite it honestly sounds like the player who named black is a jerk and so in my eyes,it's more of a player issue than the card itself.
I think this is partly true. Yes, people who cast Iona and name the color of the only mono colored deck in the group for funsies is a dick move. However, think about how you play Iona. Generally, if you're aiming for a particular deck, you name the color that you think has the highest removal density in their deck. In a multiplayer game, if you're aiming for one deck, then you will incidentally hit other people in the game, most likely. For instance, a hypothetical with the mono black deck. Say it's a game with a b/g deck, a mono b deck, a w/u deck. The b/g deck is doing things you don't appreciate, clearly gunning for you, while the other two are mostly just trying to hang on and cast spells. Do you cast Iona, name green and watch it get doom bladed before the b/g player's turn(or they tutor for it with all those black cards they can still cast)? Do you go after the idle w/u deck? Or do you name black and turn off most of the b/g deck's removal/deck as well accidentally screwing the black deck? Or do you just not cast it and lose?
To me, if you're playing Iona, you're probably looking to close people out of the game, and while playing it in flavor, you rub a great risk of closing players out that you don't mean to. Sylvan Primordial was banned because it didn't allow you the choice to not hit the player that wad land screwed, and Iona encourages you to do the same by being bad if you don't. It's different, sure, but not by a whole lot.
As an improved Sign, I'd prefer my baby Moonlight Bargain. You'll probably have to draw quite a few cards to make Ad Nauseam better than 3 cards for 3B and 3 life or 5 cards for 2BBB and 5 life. Now, if you have a bunch of life and want a bunch of cards now, Ad Nauseam is a decent instant. It's not really a top choice, though, for black draw.
Are you saying that Ad Nauseam isn't a particularly good card or that it's just not great in any old deck? If the later, I completely agree; if you're saying it's not particularly good I suggest you take a look at some lists built around it.
Oh, I know all about using Ad Nauseam. I've used it in Ad Nauseam Tendrils in legacy. It's only ok in pretty much all commander decks not designed to quick kill a table, though, which we don't care about. I've actually looked it over and haven't added it to a commander deck yet, but I might at some point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The main strike against it is that the vast majority of additions you make are at best a personal dislike for the card.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Vast majority, really? As of now I made these ~30 additions, for easy reference:
I guess a lot of them hinge on how you feel about infinites but I'm pretty sure most of these are widely despised
like the amount of players who would be happy about a given ban is probably several times the number who wouldn't be happy
Honestly a bunch of these contradict my own personal preferences, like I don't really care about time stretch but basically everyone i've ever played with thinks it's the stupidest. I don't care about iona but it comes up in this thread all the time. Etc
And there's all the ones that are just stupid, like why on earth can we play necropotence and stasis, seriously?
Knowledge is power, money is power, time is money, you are actually gaining time by reading my posts
check out my EDH and Pauper EDH decks here
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
At best, you could reduce this to fast tutors and mana to slow infinite combos down while simultaneously shortening the list, but even then you'd have to decide on whether or not you want to focus on problem cards for cutthroat players (Ad Nauseam and friends) or problem cards for more casual groups (Prophet of Kruphex, and friends), because both groups have different needs.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
The rest are either a misguided attempt to stop combo, or an attempt to stop fast mana.
Of those, there are two problematic fast mana cards that generally agreed are problematic, with a third (Mishra's Workshop) that, although nowhere near as damaging as the first two, is notable.
Iona, Shield of Emeria is arguably in need of a ban because of the severe negative effect it has on the metagame anywhere it is present, as best described by someone relatively recently in that a player named Black to teach the preconstructed player to 'not play monocolor'.
Ad Nauseum, Necropotence, & Survival of the Fittest are the only other ones that even come close to worthy of being banned, and none of them are actually a problem. They are even infrequently discussed.
I will reiterate - your list of additions is at best a personal dislike for the vast majority of the cards. Very few are even worth considering. This expands even further when you look at your other sections. Several of those are outright benign.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
I love infinites in this format, but there's some qualifiers of what I feel is degenerate and what is simply in the nature of the format. Most combos require 2-4 cards and have multiple ways to stop. Karmic Guide combos? you need a sac loop and a creature. It can be stopped by art/creature removal, counters, graveyard removal, and a few other ways. Every color has reasonable responses and it telegraphs. You're not gonna need to fill your deck with overly specific hate to stop it that is irrelevant in most matchups. These are good for the format and present tense points to fight over. Cards that try to win regardless of board state and have few answers are the issue. If a card wins purely off "what's in the library" and cares very little with board state...you have an issue. It's an overly volatile glass canon that is toxic to diverse builds. There are so many decks that simply can't fight these strategies.
The game shouldn't devolve to a single spell winning if unanswered...especially if we're talking turn 1-4 with any form of consistency...and especially if those answers are not abundantly common. These cards need to be banned regardless of popularity of use, as when they are present...they hurt metas severely and add nothing good to the game play. You can't just tell every person they have to run blue or hate bears/cards to be able to survive these decks.
Except, these decks aren't prevalent. You admit that Ad Nauseam is rarely seen, and when it is seen, that it is usually in a cutthroat competitive T1-4 win deck. That simply isn't the intent of the format, nor is it representative of the average game you're likely to encounter. If you are continually seeing ANT combos, HD combos, moxnix-esque storm decks, etc, then this speaks volumes about the type of players you surround yourself with.
Prophet of Kruphix, on the other hand, was seen in nearly every playgroup, and every UG player could be counted on having her in the deck, meaning you absolutely had to pack removal for her in every deck you built.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Because some people enjoy them? Of course you can break them, you don't HAVE to.
tldr; format isnt broken, Banning isnt a perfect science, the sky is not falling.
You are speaking on behalf of competitive players though. Your entire perspective is you as a competitive player and trying this weird situation where you bring in casual players and go easy on them or try to make it so they have fun with your cutthroat deck. You mentally rationalize that your Derevi stax list is the purest form of competitive EDH and advocate for the banning of critical cards in archetypes that you don't play and are occasionally unable to answer. When you ask for things like Doomsday or Ad Nauseam to be banned because you, as a competitive player, sometimes are unable to answer them, but then say that "it creates the feel bads" for the casual players, you are both advocating for self-interested bans through a competitive lens for the majority of the format and attempting to get me to buy that these casual players that are playing in your competitive games are not having a good time because of the ban list and not because they are a casual player in a game with highly tuned and expensive decks.
You're not wrong when you say that one can be a competitive player and see the importance of all types of players, but that is not what you are doing. You're using the fact that you have casual players join your competitive games as ammunition for the banning the cards you're advocating for because YOU don't like facing them in your competitive setting. The ban list isn't for competitive players or games. Period. Mana Crypt isn't a necessity for anything except the most competitive decks in EDH. Anything that is at its worst in a competitive list and is generally a non-factor everywhere else will never be considered for a ban.
The problem that these casual players you're talking about really have is the opponents they're facing who have competitive lists that they stand no chance against. Aside from the fact that a ban list probably wouldn't help them, just make them feel less bad when they get their ass beat,the disservice here isn't the casual players getting stomped by competitive/highly tuned lists, it is you having them come and sit at your table to begin with while giving them the impression it will be a "fun time" then pointing the finger at the RC when your playgroup is the one that ruined their day. It's not the job of the RC or the ban list to protect you from yourselves. That is why this is a SOCIAL FORMAT.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
AN also requires that you build your deck in an extremely specific way. At that point, you're not playing EDH, you're playing 100-card Legacy singleton. Same for Hermit Druid. T&N just requires you have two creatures in your hand or deck that are good on their own.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
That's a massive logical fallacy there. The overwhelming percentage of EDH players don't use MTG Salvation for anything other than spoiler season. In this case, the silent majority is a real thing. The card ruins every game it is played in, has almost no casual value, and is dangerously powerful in more cutthroat circles. No one is casting Ad Nauseum as an improved Sign in Blood. There is zero reason I can think of to keep the card unbanned.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Maybe it is more about how people play and less with what they play with? Being humble in victory and gracious in defeat? I think that just because some others and myself enjoy playing with powerful cards, within the theme and flavor of EDH, we shouldn't be punished for it. If someone brings a far more casual deck to my local store only to get crushed by me and have a bad time then we can discuss the problem there. Either I can use/build a more lenient strategy, they can perhaps dip their toes into playing a more competitive one, or we can meet somewhere in the middle. If all else fails we inevitably have to make the decision to be adults and move on.
Even though this point has been beat to death I'll reiterate - our format is unique. It is specifically designed and played with multiplayer dynamics and social structure in mind. The 4-6 I play with in each game can hardly agree on a perfect system when playing, let alone everyone in the world that plays the format. Collaborate, cooperate, or agree to disagree. That's the only way I see people getting through this whole debate.
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls - Knowledge is Power U [Primer]
R Heartless Hidetsugu - The Art of Ending Games R
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - The Cluster HungersBG
I think that's true, and I think the rules committee does a good job not hating out competitive play groups, but it must be said that banning Sol Ring and Mana Crypt would not be a punishment, it would be a gift.
You keep bringing this up..but in the case you cite it honestly sounds like the player who named black is a jerk and so in my eyes,it's more of a player issue than the card itself.
Actually, that was me originally mentioning it. The issue in that situation is that Iona allowed that to happen. Combined with the format being based around color identity, and the rise of the mono-colored starter decks, it is exceedingly easy for Iona to ruin casual games and competitive games alike.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Still more of a player issue, one of my first decks was a Relentless Ratsdeck,and so one player put in Leyline of Singularity this was back before the rule change and so it killed my deck, which mind you mine was the only deck due at the table that it totally hosed. Everyone at the table not counting the player who played it all agreed that it was a dick move, so it was quickly removed and the player removed it from his deck after the game.
The issue is the player CHOSE to call mono black knowing full well he was going to hard lock the mono player out on purpose.
Look at a random decklist on this forum and ask yourself how it would be improved by adding Ad Nauseam. Instant speed EoT card draw should not be overlooked, and decks that consciously run a tighter curve and afford to loose a few life in order to draw some card can use it, as can any Orzov lifegain deck. I have run the card in a fair number of lists, and the most competitive I ever ran the card was as part of a BUG storm deck which I used strictly in a tournament. So I respectfully disagree with your statement that it ruins every game and has no casual value.
The "zero reason to keep it unbanned" is because the list is not catering towards cutthroat players, and casual players don't get games ruined by the card.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think this is partly true. Yes, people who cast Iona and name the color of the only mono colored deck in the group for funsies is a dick move. However, think about how you play Iona. Generally, if you're aiming for a particular deck, you name the color that you think has the highest removal density in their deck. In a multiplayer game, if you're aiming for one deck, then you will incidentally hit other people in the game, most likely. For instance, a hypothetical with the mono black deck. Say it's a game with a b/g deck, a mono b deck, a w/u deck. The b/g deck is doing things you don't appreciate, clearly gunning for you, while the other two are mostly just trying to hang on and cast spells. Do you cast Iona, name green and watch it get doom bladed before the b/g player's turn(or they tutor for it with all those black cards they can still cast)? Do you go after the idle w/u deck? Or do you name black and turn off most of the b/g deck's removal/deck as well accidentally screwing the black deck? Or do you just not cast it and lose?
To me, if you're playing Iona, you're probably looking to close people out of the game, and while playing it in flavor, you rub a great risk of closing players out that you don't mean to. Sylvan Primordial was banned because it didn't allow you the choice to not hit the player that wad land screwed, and Iona encourages you to do the same by being bad if you don't. It's different, sure, but not by a whole lot.