MTG Salvation

So you're saying we should just build a wall and make Sol Ring pay for it?

In all seriousness though, I've changed my opinion on Sol Ring, largely in part of this thread. I personally have hardly even seen it ruin a game, but I agree with the sentiment that the format won't lose much if it were banned. That said, I understand stand where the RC is coming from on the card since I in fact had a Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor among the cards I found from when I used to play as a kid.

My concern with the approach of banning competitive cards that most casual decks won't run is that this will enforce the wrong viewpoint that EDH is trying to balance for competitive play, which it isn't. And beyond that, asking the RC to approach the ban list from a competitive aspect is asking them to play the format in which they don't want to play.

Quote from DigitalFire »

It feels exactly like talking to Trump supporters, just less memes. Unfortunately there's no better way to be heard, so just be diligent. Change has to start somewhere.

If you want more memes, I can start adding some.

Quote from MRHblue »

Things I am for changing now : Sol Ring (but it wont happen so I stopped participating in that). Iona - just a model for what should be banned. HUlk - for the same reason as Staff.

You may be newer, so right now I am mostly good with the ban list. But to call me like that is way off base.

You're my boy, Blue. You're my boy.

Quote from cryogen »

So you're saying we should just build a wall and make Sol Ring pay for it?

In all seriousness though, I've changed my opinion on Sol Ring, largely in part of this thread. I personally have hardly even seen it ruin a game, but I agree with the sentiment that the format won't lose much if it were banned. That said, I understand stand where the RC is coming from on the card since I in fact had a Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor among the cards I found from when I used to play as a kid.

My concern with the approach of banning competitive cards that most casual decks won't run is that this will enforce the wrong viewpoint that EDH is trying to balance for competitive play, which it isn't. And beyond that, asking the RC to approach the ban list from a competitive aspect is asking them to play the format in which they don't want to play.

I played with Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor a lot also as a kid, so maybe I'm a bit jaded on thinking it's the most broken thing ever. Yeah, it's good, and can give someone a great head start, but those dream hands aren't every hand, and you're never going to just mulligan down until you find your Ring. Plus, with how many times it's been reprinted, it's not an inaccessible card, like Mana Crypt.

Quote from DigitalFire »

MRHBlue I'm half convinced is a member of the RC going rogue. He's a consistent RC apologist, and I advise you to take everything he has to say with a grain of salt as it's usually just verbatim banlist announcements or attack of character.

This is absolutely untrue. I disagree with the RC on multiple points, and have posted as such. Care to post something backing that second line up?

Quote from DigitalFire »

Hah! You've noticed too? Nah I'm just playing, Cryo always has insightful things to say. He's a casual spike, so he generally agrees that things like Necro and Sol Ring are a problem and wouldn't mind if they were banned, but doesn't think they need to be. Which is fine, we all want different things out of this game. MRHBlue I'm half convinced is a member of the RC going rogue. He's a consistent RC apologist, and I advise you to take everything he has to say with a grain of salt as it's usually just verbatim banlist announcements or attack of character.
Very apt. Even if the banlist is GOOD, that doesn't mean it can't be better. ITT: Many people make logical arguments for why things should be one way or the other. One person points out small mistake in one post, Sheldon comes in with a one liner about that thing, everyone moves on without logical point ever being addressed. It feels exactly like talking to Trump supporters, just less memes. Unfortunately there's no better way to be heard, so just be diligent. Change has to start somewhere.

This reads like a personal attack on MRHBlue. I don't know if you intended to be that critical of him, but as written it is pretty borderline for acceptable ways to talk about other users.

Quote from Jivanmukta »

We were starting to actually discuss some good stuff. Necro vs Bargain and the inconsistency of the banlist from a philosophical perspective. Can we not devolve back into Sol Ring.....please?

In my opinion it's not so much that Sol Ring and/or Mana Crypt needs to be banned, it's just that Mana Crypt needs to be reprinted. Like as a Launch Party promo for Eternal Masters. Where the TO just makes it rain free Mana Crypts.

Then once it becomes accessible and everyone is running it in their commander decks, we can go back to devolving into why these two cards should/shouldn't be banned

Quote from cryogen »

So you're saying we should just build a wall and make Sol Ring pay for it?

You made me spit out my water, well done sir.

That said, I understand stand where the RC is coming from on the card since I in fact had a Sol Ring and Demonic Tutor among the cards I found from when I used to play as a kid.

This is a good reason for the game the RC wants to play. There's no harm in agreeing to disagree on these reasons, since ultimately it's the RC's vision that guides how this format is intended to be played.

My concern with the approach of banning competitive cards that most casual decks won't run is that this will enforce the wrong viewpoint that EDH is trying to balance for competitive play, which it isn't. And beyond that, asking the RC to approach the ban list from a competitive aspect is asking them to play the format in which they don't want to play.

Meh, I think newcomers aren't gonna get that message. They'll see such-and-such banned and probably not think anything of it since it's banned in all other formats. Not banning them so you can use the lonely cards in your binder is a valid reason, but I think people will ultimately decide the way the format is supposed to be played by watching and playing with experienced players, which is how it already is.

Quote from Jivanmukta »

We were starting to actually discuss some good stuff. Necro vs Bargain and the inconsistency of the banlist from a philosophical perspective. Can we not devolve back into Sol Ring.....please?

Personally, I find it difficult to participate in this thread. The first reason being that this thread tends to just keep resetting itself. Rather than having an extended discussion on one element of the banned list (which users seem perfectly capable of doing due to how emotionally charged the topic appears to be), all of the discussion occurs within the confines of this one thread. Whenever a user wishes to discuss an element of the banned list that currently isn't being discussed, the previous element goes into hibernation. By the time it reawakens, much of what has already been discussed is likely forgotten and the cycle repeats anew.

The second reason I find it difficult to participate in this thread is that I feel as though I do not need a banned list. I'm not upset that one exists; I just feel as though a banned list has very little significance to me. I believe that Commander (and Magic in general) is not an inherently fun game to play. Wizards does their best to make Magic fun through intelligent card and set design, but they could just as easily design unfun cards and unfun sets if they wanted to. Commander, as an alternative format with which many Magic cards were originally never designed to be played in, unfortunately does not have that same luxury. The only power the Rules Committee has to create a more fun game is by eliminating the most troublesome elements from itself that already exist within it. I could argue that there are too many troublesome elements to begin within and that the entire process is futile, but I digress. I just wanted to mention these things because, while I feel as though the banned list has a negligible impact on the amount of fun I'm going to have on a game of Commander, that doesn't mean it isn't making a difference for other folks. These feelings just make me feel biased and ideologically excluded from participating.

With that preface finished, I do not understand why Necropotence isn't banned while Yawgmoth's Bargain is. Possessing abject power and only abject power is seemingly acceptable terms for banning a card in my eyes. If such is the case, Necropotence should take a seat next to its brother on the banned list. Now, I understand that a line for how acceptable a card can be in terms of power has to be drawn somewhere; I just don't believe that such a line should come between the differences of Necropotence and Yawgmoth's Bargain. I don't buy into the argument that just because Necro isn't immediate makes it permissible. At the end of the day, Necropotence draws half a million other cards for a paltry mana cost; what difference does it make if the cards drawn don't immediately enter your hand? If you're concerned about losing the game because your life total is too low, the solution is simple: don't draw as many cards with Necropotence. Players have that option. I fail to see under what criteria Necropotence is acceptable, but Yawgmoth's Bargain isn't unless the Rules Committee believes that the line discussed previously measuring acceptable power level in Commander should fall between the two, with which I respectfully disagree.

You made a complaint about how this thread resets itself, then repeated exactly what everyone else said about Necro VS Bargain. That's exactly why that happens, because everyone wants to get in their '2 cents' when a topic comes up. None of this is new, all the debates about cards have been had, all we can do is rehash, hope a new sliver comes out, and the RC rules our way.

Quote from arrogantAxolotl »

Personally, I find it difficult to participate in this thread. The first reason being that this thread tends to just keep resetting itself. Rather than having an extended discussion on one element of the banned list (which users seem perfectly capable of doing due to how emotionally charged the topic appears to be), all of the discussion occurs within the confines of this one thread. Whenever a user wishes to discuss an element of the banned list that currently isn't being discussed, the previous element goes into hibernation. By the time it reawakens, much of what has already been discussed is likely forgotten and the cycle repeats anew.

This is a valid point, and one that several people have brought up inside and outside of this thread in the past. It's a point that merits further discussion outside of this thread, and possibly some form of action to change the situation.

Quote from arrogantAxolotl »

The second reason I find it difficult to participate in this thread is that I feel as though I do not need a banned list. I'm not upset that one exists; I just feel as though a banned list has very little significance to me. I believe that Commander (and Magic in general) is not an inherently fun game to play. Wizards does their best to make Magic fun through intelligent card and set design, but they could just as easily design unfun cards and unfun sets if they wanted to. Commander, as an alternative format with which many Magic cards were originally never designed to be played in, unfortunately does not have that same luxury. The only power the Rules Committee has to create a more fun game is by eliminating the most troublesome elements from itself that already exist within it. I could argue that there are too many troublesome elements to begin within and that the entire process is futile, but I digress. I just wanted to mention these things because, while I feel as though the banned list has a negligible impact on the amount of fun I'm going to have on a game of Commander, that doesn't mean it isn't making a difference for other folks. These feelings just make me feel biased and ideologically excluded from participating.

I'm confused here. You are on a Magic: the Gathering forum, a Commander subforum, a Banned List thread. What is your purpose in posting if you don't find the game or the format fun, and you don't find the Banned List significant?


Anyways, it does feel that the ubiquity argument works two ways, though less so with Necropotence than with Sol Ring due to lesser notoriety. There are some cards that are banned in part for ubiquity reasons, such as Primeval Titan and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. But two major argument why Sol Ring can't be banned are its presence in a Commander product and its ubiquity as, according to many, a pleasant staple of the format. Similarly, Necropotence is ubiquitously played in many decks, and is considered by many to be a pleasant staple of the format. With that kind of thinking, a lot of the banned list inconsistency issues start to make more sense...

Note that "it was in a precon" doesn't actually work because of Trade Secrets. Of course, that was one card in one deck and not one card in 15 decks.

Quote from MRHblue »

You made a complaint about how this thread resets itself, then repeated exactly what everyone else said about Necro VS Bargain. That's exactly why that happens, because everyone wants to get in their '2 cents' when a topic comes up. None of this is new, all the debates about cards have been had, all we can do is rehash, hope a new sliver comes out, and the RC rules our way.

I wouldn't call my post a complaint. I'd call it more of an observation.

Quote from osieorb18 »

I'm confused here. You are on a Magic: the Gathering forum, a Commander subforum, a Banned List thread. What is your purpose in posting if you don't find the game or the format fun, and you don't find the Banned List significant?

My feelings regarding Commander are a bit difficult to convey, so I apologize if I previously wrote them in such a way as to make them misunderstood. I love Magic and I love Commander; that's why I'm here taking the time to write about them. I'm both financially and emotionally invested in the game. With that said, I do not believe Commander to be an implicitly fun game to play. The translation from two-player 60 card Magic to multiplayer 100 card singleton is rife with flaws, flaws that can never be corrected because most Magic cards were never designed to be played in such a fashion. To make an analogy, I enjoy watching paint dry. While I do not believe there is anything implicitly fun about watching paint dry, it is an activity that I find pleasant and revel in nonetheless.

There are elements that I find fun in Commander and elements that I find unfun in Commander. Because I have acknowledged (to myself) which elements I find unfun in the game, but also understand that everyone is powerless to remove these elements, I have made peace with myself and no longer allow the decisions other players make to negatively affect my enjoyment of the game.

Quote from Jivanmukta »

We were starting to actually discuss some good stuff. Necro vs Bargain and the inconsistency of the banlist from a philosophical perspective. Can we not devolve back into Sol Ring.....please?

There's a reason I stopped bothering to try discussing anything in this thread a while ago. Every few months when I check in to see what people are talking about, it's the same few suspects aggressively segueing every discussion back to the same couple of tired talking points. It's just not worth it, and I'm kind of amazed anyone else is still trying.

Quote from AzureShadow »

There's a reason I stopped bothering to try discussing anything in this thread a while ago. Every few months when I check in to see what people are talking about, it's the same few suspects aggressively segueing every discussion back to the same couple of tired talking points. It's just not worth it, and I'm kind of amazed anyone else is still trying.

At the same time though, we continually get new users in here, some times with new outlooks. So while the cards being discussed might stay the same, the discussion is sometimes fresh.

As said earlier, the reason why some of us are displeased with the ban list is because it's inconsistent. Cards like Painter's servant and panoptic mirror are banned because they are degenerate when used in a certain way and not degenerate when used in another way, but cards like survival of the fittest and hermit druid are not banned despite having the same traits. The other main point is that the "spirit of the format" argument is ridiculously vague and unclear and it is more like a crutch people use to say "well that's not what we mean" when they don't like someone's argument or don't want to make a move.

I'm a bit bored now.

Here:
survival of the fittest is one of the most broken cards in magic and should be put on the ban list. It ruins the inconsistent nature of the format, it is expensive, and is too strong at what it does. The difference between a deck with and without survival in play is similar to how it feels playing against someone who got a sol ring opener: You aren't winning that game. Every spare green mana means that every creature you face down is the best card in the opponent's deck for the present situation, whether it's a combo, engine, answer, or value creature.

We tried Griselbrand (not Bargain, but they are almost the same). As general, he won turn or 2 after he was casted, so other players focused the player down before he could cast him. Not fun to play. AS one of the 99 he was inconsistent, but still often tutored, bribered, etc. Still no fun at all.
Few friends have Necropotence in their decks, it is strong, I admit that, but it is not the "I won" card.

As for Iona, Shield of Emeria, I play commander for 4 or 5 years and I have seen her twice. Both times the caster lost the game. She is strong, yes. But unless 3 enemies are playing the same monocolor (which is highly unlikely and they still have bunch of artifact killing or colorless exile in those decks), Iona isn't as bad as everybody claims. Is it funny? No, it is boring. But not completely breaking. Some people could argue that Gaddock Teeg is breaking the game, because he forbids to cast ANY spell with CMC 4 or higher or X in mana cost. Or Void Winnower, which prohibits me to cast half of my deck. I know I can't compare these two to Iona, but I feel they create similar situations.

About fast mana, I would ban Mana Crypt anytime before Sol Ring. Its price is around $200, 3 damage 50% of time doesn't matter and having general on T1 too much. Experienced T1 Jalira, Master Polymorphist thanks to Mana Crypt and Sol Ring, T2 continued with Lightning Greaves, Blinkmoth Nexus which transformed, sacced to Jalira into Blightsteel Colossus and killed first player, while me and second were still on 1 land. Yes, there was epic luck with that hand and even more into getting Blightsteel. I agree that if you draw Crypt or Ring on turn 4 or later, it is not that broken, but too many times it happens that enemy has general out and starting some combo, dmg, something, while I am sitting at 1 or 2 lands. Is it ban-able? I think that Mana Crypt should be banned. Sol Ring is on the edge, but I would probably let him be for now.

Out of all the cards on banlist, I would unban Coalition Victory, Protean Hulk and Recurring Nightmare.

For Victory, you need 5 colored deck, all land types in game, all-colored creature in game and cast 8 CMC spell, which is Sorcery to win. How is it more broken than lets say Felidar Sovereign? Yes, you don't need to wait whole turn, but I think it is not that broken. Maybe I am wrong, I never tested it. But there are more easier ways how to win that fulfilling conditions for this spell.

Protean is strong, but not so breaking. In singleton format, you can't just win with him the second you cast him. You need to have some sacrifice, specific cards to tutor up and so on. So you need to build deck around Protean. What is the difference then between him and Hermit Druid combo or Survival of the Fittest? Both can be abused, both are legal and probably as strong as Protean.

As for RN, I was testing it in one my deck. Is it strong? Hell yes, it is. Is it game breaking? Don't think so. Only negative think is, that enemy can't respond to the sacrifice effect. But he can respond to the target in GY. Enemies always had some way how to cancel my RN. GY exile, discard from hand, Krosan Grip, Counterspell and so on. True is, that I didn't try to break RN. Maybe it would look different if I tried something gamebreaking with it.

I would allow Braids, Cabal Minion and Rofellos, LLanowar Emissary as one of the 99, but still banned as generals. We tested Braids, as one of the 99 she is not broken as if she would be a general. Same goes for Rofellos. If they are not at the helm, they are not strong or game-breaking in any way. Also, I would allow Emrakul, the Aeons Torn as general, but not as one of 99. Getting 15 mana in colorless is quite a achievement on its own, people will see it comming and I think many would still prefer Kozilek with his card draw. Emrakul is game centralizing and broken if he is one of the 99. But as general, he is not that broken or strong.

Maybe best way to view the Bargain vs Necro ban is not by comparing their power levels, because both are through the roof. What if you look at Bargain as a sort of Biorhythm or Coalition Victory, usually ending the game on the spot when it resolves, and Necropotence as Felidar Sovreign, giving people a window to interact before they lose? Maybe that helps make sense of why one is banned and the other isn't.

But yeah, in practice that only works if people recognize Necro as the game-ending threat that it is.

Quote from Ph03niX »

As for Iona, Shield of Emeria, I play commander for 4 or 5 years and I have seen her twice. Both times the caster lost the game. She is strong, yes. But unless 3 enemies are playing the same monocolor (which is highly unlikely and they still have bunch of artifact killing or colorless exile in those decks), Iona isn't as bad as everybody claims. Is it funny? No, it is boring. But not completely breaking. Some people could argue that Gaddock Teeg is breaking the game, because he forbids to cast ANY spell with CMC 4 or higher or X in mana cost. Or Void Winnower, which prohibits me to cast half of my deck. I know I can't compare these two to Iona, but I feel they create similar situations.

You have played against Iona, Shield of Emeria twice, likely with a multicolor deck. Your assessment is rather poor, particularly considering that you do not seem to understand why Iona is a problem.
Iona is severely and negatively warping to deck construction and the overall metagame in any environment she is expected in, and in a way that interacts poorly with the format specific rules of Commander - color identity restrictions. Notably, the 'self policing' commonly advocated by those opposed to an Iona ban does not work a significant amount of time. This will usually work if you play with a closed group, but even then not all groups in my experience are willing to use house rules. For many people, they do not have that environment, regularly playing with random people at a local game store. Banning the card locally is very often simply not an option.
The problems with Iona have never been about card strength. Honestly, she is not that strong of a card under most circumstances.

Quote from Ph03niX »

About fast mana, I would ban Mana Crypt anytime before Sol Ring. Its price is around $200, 3 damage 50% of time doesn't matter and having general on T1 too much. Experienced T1 Jalira, Master Polymorphist thanks to Mana Crypt and Sol Ring, T2 continued with Lightning Greaves, Blinkmoth Nexus which transformed, sacced to Jalira into Blightsteel Colossus and killed first player, while me and second were still on 1 land. Yes, there was epic luck with that hand and even more into getting Blightsteel. I agree that if you draw Crypt or Ring on turn 4 or later, it is not that broken, but too many times it happens that enemy has general out and starting some combo, dmg, something, while I am sitting at 1 or 2 lands. Is it ban-able? I think that Mana Crypt should be banned. Sol Ring is on the edge, but I would probably let him be for now.

Having played with both Mana Crypt and Sol Ring for years, and having multiple other people I play with regularly that run both, I assure you Sol Ring is by far the stronger of the two in the vast majority of games. More, there is the problem of consistency. These two cards are close enough together that they can largely be considered identical for most purposes; if one is banned, the other needs to be banned as well.
The secondary market price of a card should never be a factor in if it becomes banned or not, particularly for cards that are not on the reserved list - it is to variable. Price barrier to entry is an outdated banning criteria that was elusively used for a few, very specific cards in conjunction with their iconic status in the games history, and only one of several factors of why those cards are banned. Every one of them is justifiably banned for power level. $200 is both a very high estimate (even StarCityGames lists them significantly cheaper), and relatively mild in comparison to many other legal cards.

Quote from Ph03niX »

Out of all the cards on banlist, I would unban Coalition Victory, Protean Hulk and Recurring Nightmare.

For Victory, you need 5 colored deck, all land types in game, all-colored creature in game and cast 8 CMC spell, which is Sorcery to win. How is it more broken than lets say Felidar Sovereign? Yes, you don't need to wait whole turn, but I think it is not that broken. Maybe I am wrong, I never tested it. But there are more easier ways how to win that fulfilling conditions for this spell.

Protean is strong, but not so breaking. In singleton format, you can't just win with him the second you cast him. You need to have some sacrifice, specific cards to tutor up and so on. So you need to build deck around Protean. What is the difference then between him and Hermit Druid combo or Survival of the Fittest? Both can be abused, both are legal and probably as strong as Protean.

As for RN, I was testing it in one my deck. Is it strong? Hell yes, it is. Is it game breaking? Don't think so. Only negative think is, that enemy can't respond to the sacrifice effect. But he can respond to the target in GY. Enemies always had some way how to cancel my RN. GY exile, discard from hand, Krosan Grip, Counterspell and so on. True is, that I didn't try to break RN. Maybe it would look different if I tried something gamebreaking with it.

Coalition Victory is a problem because it ends the game on resolution, largely regardless of what has happened prior to that point in the game (yes, it does have some requirements, but the lands aspect is met by natural progression of the game and incredibly easy to meet, while the creature aspect is met by your commander alone). More, the card does nothing but end the game, and is far better at it than the various 'you win the game' variants currently legal.
Tooth and Nail is more problematic than Coalition Victory for this, but the answer here is to ban T&N, not unban CV. The only reason Tooth and Nail is not banned is that it can be played sub optimally, a position I regard as inane & argue against frequently.

I do not have any personal experience with Protean Hulk in Commander, but you are misunderstanding its impact. You do not need to build around it - the cards it wins with are all worth including, regardless of if you have Hulk or not. More importantly, Hulk has in the past become a centralizing object for opponents to steal & reanimate because of the value it lends to most decks when it dies.
Of my two currently active decks, without any other changes one wins the moment Hulk dies, while the other wins either the moment a stolen Hulk dies, or the following upkeep, depending on how it was taken. For both decks, Hulk (if available) immediately becomes one of the best targets in most circumstances, and this is not an uncommon occurrence.

I have play tested with Recurring Nightmare in Commander, and managed to get a few friends to try playing with it as well, and it is nowhere near as problematic as it once was. The card really does not need to be banned.

Quote from Ph03niX »

I would allow Braids, Cabal Minion and Rofellos, LLanowar Emissary as one of the 99, but still banned as generals. We tested Braids, as one of the 99 she is not broken as if she would be a general. Same goes for Rofellos. If they are not at the helm, they are not strong or game-breaking in any way. Also, I would allow Emrakul, the Aeons Torn as general, but not as one of 99. Getting 15 mana in colorless is quite a achievement on its own, people will see it coming and I think many would still prefer Kozilek with his card draw. Emrakul is game centralizing and broken if he is one of the 99. But as general, he is not that broken or strong.

Braids, Cabal Minion does not need to be banned at all. She is banned as an 'example banning', something at least one member of the Rules Committee has acknowledged in the past does not work.
Braids will never 'accidentally' ruin a game - it is very clear what her effect is. She is only truly broken as a Commander when entering off of an early Mana Crypt or Sol Ring, cards which should be banned on their own. Although she can be very strong on turn two off of the various ritual effects, she is remarkably easy to deal with when not also supported by those artifacts. In more competitive environments where she is likely to be played, she is honestly not particularly strong when compared to other options.

Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary can stay banned. Though he is more restricted in what decks he is truly effective in (and admittedly a bit easier to deal with), he is frequently as strong in this format as Sol Ring, and scales as the game progresses. I have never played against Rofellos as a commander, but when simply included in the deck, he is consistently either immediately removed, or dominates the rest of the game. The card is both far to centralizing, and far to strong. At least Braids needs other components to dominate a game, and as an attrition piece, works very slowly.

Also, I strongly oppose returning to the 'banned as a commander' structure.

Necro is a great card but there would be better candidates to ban first IMO. I think the format is in a great shape right now since the PoK ban (f that thing).

Muspellsheimr, any carx can warp a game if you expect to see it. This is not limited to Iona. If I expect to see Ruination I'm going to alter my mana base and play in a different style than I might otherwise, perhaps to the point of not playing certain decks. This is the same thing as Iona.

And count me in the camp of seeing her in a hand full of times in over five years. I agree that she interacts poorly with the format and creates undesirable game states, but I question just how many and what types of groups regularly have their games ruined by her.

Quote from RivenVII »

If you're bored, I'd appreciate if you didn't troll the thread with intentionally awful arguments. I'm not going to address it directly, Carthage, because that would be a waste of my time.

The reason most any tutor is fine in EDH is that what is being searched for by the tutor is generally matched to the type of player who is using it. A competitive player may be aggressively digging for their combo, but a casual player is just searching up a piece of removal or a big splashy creature to play, or, generally, an answer to what their opponents are playing rather than just playing solitaire with tutors to end the game. Just because the things you would do with Tooth and Nail or Demonic Tutor would end the game quickly does not mean that I or another, more casual player, would do the same. The very fun uses of those cards for casual players are exactly why they will remain legal.

Each time you think a card should be banned for some reason that amounts more or less to purely "too powerful," I recommend that you take an introspective look at yourself to see if it is you that are a problem in the format and not the card.

Cards have already been banned for being too powerful. Not buying it. See the last few pages for plenty of examples. It's not like tolarian academy is banned for unintentionally ruining casual games, it's got about as much negative press as a card can get.

Might as well make the ban list consistent.

Also survival dominates with casual players MORE than with competitive players, because competitive players have less green mana to spare to improve their creature quality.

A casual player needs to have an answer to surivival almost immediately, because it can easily tutor up its own protection or recursion and casual players don't build decks to end the game on the spot in response to powerful but slower engines.

Quote from RivenVII »

The reason most any tutor is fine in EDH is that what is being searched for by the tutor is generally matched to the type of player who is using it. A competitive player may be aggressively digging for their combo, but a casual player is just searching up a piece of removal or a big splashy creature to play, or, generally, an answer to what their opponents are playing rather than just playing solitaire with tutors to end the game. Just because the things you would do with Tooth and Nail or Demonic Tutor would end the game quickly does not mean that I or another, more casual player, would do the same. The very fun uses of those cards for casual players are exactly why they will remain legal.

And now I get to steal an argument for my own nefarious purposes, tacking on nicely to the mention of a card in a couple other posts recently!

Why doesn't this argument apply to Braids? The people who are going to Dark Ritual or Sol Ring into Braids t2 know exactly what horrifically oppressive thing they're doing in a casual context and how it would affect the game, and they aren't nearly the only people who would run Braids. The only deck I've run Braids in while she was legal juggled all kinds of things into and out of graveyards for sweet LtB/EtB effects and value, it didn't just drop her as soon as possible to crush people's early board states into oblivion. And oh my, does it ever miss her. She was a great, easily recurrable engine to feed creatures into to reuse, and in combination with other cards, she managed opponents' board states fairly well. I have met one person, in almost eight years of playing this format, who tried to break Braids, and it honestly wasn't any worse than your typical competitive Zur build. And even if it were particularly oppressive to play her as a commander in a competitive context... so what? Doesn't the argument that casual players aren't going to be doing anything close to what competitive players would do apply here too?