The game has to end at some point. And saying that Craterhoof Behemoth invalidates everything that has happened earlier strikes me as an especially asinine argument. As I have proven to you (several times now!), without "things happening before", Hoof is a strictly worse Akroma, Angel of Wrath.
Shock is "Strictly Worse" than Lightning Bolt. I cant take you very seriously with this statement. This is a place for debate but this statement is nowhere near accurate. I am not looking for you to agree with me but at least have rebuttal that makes sense please.
I left my quote on here because I think there may have been a comprehension difficulty on your end.
Context is the key here. Carthage said that a Craterhoof Behemoth "invalidated everything that happened before." I responded, pointing out as I had before, that a Craterhoof Behemoth with no prior board presence (ie: it does not invalidate everything that happened before) was a 6/6 trample haste for eight (5 generic+3 colored mana). I then compared it to another 6/6 trample haste for 8 mana (5 generic and 3 colored mana), Akroma, Angel of Wrath, which also has protection from two colors, vigilance, and first strike, and does not become a 5/5 on its next turn.
If you have an example of how casting a Craterhoof Behemoth onto an empty board (ie, a board that invalidates everything that happened before the casting of Craterhoof Behemoth) is better than casting an Akroma, Angel of Wrath would have been, I would love to see it. Otherwise, I would ask that you read my posts more carefully before making disparaging remarks.
The game has to end at some point. And saying that Craterhoof Behemoth invalidates everything that has happened earlier strikes me as an especially asinine argument. As I have proven to you (several times now!), without "things happening before", Hoof is a strictly worse Akroma, Angel of Wrath.
Shock is "Strictly Worse" than Lightning Bolt. I cant take you very seriously with this statement. This is a place for debate but this statement is nowhere near accurate. I am not looking for you to agree with me but at least have rebuttal that makes sense please.
I left my quote on here because I think there may have been a comprehension difficulty on your end.
Context is the key here. Carthage said that a Craterhoof Behemoth "invalidated everything that happened before." I responded, pointing out as I had before, that a Craterhoof Behemoth with no prior board presence (ie: it does not invalidate everything that happened before) was a 6/6 trample haste for eight (5 generic+3 colored mana). I then compared it to another 6/6 trample haste for 8 mana (5 generic and 3 colored mana), Akroma, Angel of Wrath, which also has protection from two colors, vigilance, and first strike, and does not become a 5/5 on its next turn.
If you have an example of how casting a Craterhoof Behemoth onto an empty board (ie, a board that invalidates everything that happened before the casting of Craterhoof Behemoth) is better than casting an Akroma, Angel of Wrath would have been, I would love to see it. Otherwise, I would ask that you read my posts more carefully before making disparaging remarks.
I left my quote on here because I think there may have been a comprehension difficulty on your end.
Context is the key here. Carthage said that a Craterhoof Behemoth "invalidated everything that happened before." I responded, pointing out as I had before, that a Craterhoof Behemoth with no prior board presence (ie: it does not invalidate everything that happened before) was a 6/6 trample haste for eight (5 generic+3 colored mana). I then compared it to another 6/6 trample haste for 8 mana (5 generic and 3 colored mana), Akroma, Angel of Wrath, which also has protection from two colors, vigilance, and first strike, and does not become a 5/5 on its next turn.
If you have an example of how casting a Craterhoof Behemoth onto an empty board (ie, a board that invalidates everything that happened before the casting of Craterhoof Behemoth) is better than casting an Akroma, Angel of Wrath would have been, I would love to see it. Otherwise, I would ask that you read my posts more carefully before making disparaging remarks.
I called it out because casting Craterhoof Behemoth on no board is like casting Omniscience and then not casting anything to follow it up. Yes, its situational but you could call Swords to Plowshares a bad card vs decks that don't cast creatures situationally. What if I cast Black Lotus and never cracked it? It was a really silly and moot argument to even try to make.
When talking about banned list and the cards that go on it you need to consider two things, the worst case situations as well as the average situations. You could argue that no card should be banned if you went from the perspective of lowest impact situations. What if I cast Biorhythm and everyone had 60 creatures (not a problem) what if I cast Coalition Victory without all basic land types (not a problem). You have to look at cards from the perspective of worst case as well as what the average results are. Nobody is casting Craterhoof Behemoth with no creatures in play.
I called it out because casting Craterhoof Behemoth on no board is like casting Omniscience and then not casting anything to follow it up. Yes, its situational but you could call Swords to Plowshares a bad card vs decks that don't cast creatures situationally. What if I cast Black Lotus and never cracked it? It was a really silly and moot argument to even try to make.
When talking about banned list and the cards that go on it you need to consider two things, the worst case situations as well as the average situations. You could argue that no card should be banned if you went from the perspective of lowest impact situations. What if I cast Biorhythm and everyone had 60 creatures (not a problem) what if I cast Coalition Victory without all basic land types (not a problem). You have to look at cards from the perspective of worst case as well as what the average results are. Nobody is casting Craterhoof Behemoth with no creatures in play.
And I completely agree. You are making the same argument here that I am.
An abbreviated transcript of the exchange:
Carthage: "Casting a Craterhoof Behemoth cheapens everything that happened before in the game."
Me: "That's not true. Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing."
You: "That's a silly argument! Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing!"
I called it out because casting Craterhoof Behemoth on no board is like casting Omniscience and then not casting anything to follow it up. Yes, its situational but you could call Swords to Plowshares a bad card vs decks that don't cast creatures situationally. What if I cast Black Lotus and never cracked it? It was a really silly and moot argument to even try to make.
When talking about banned list and the cards that go on it you need to consider two things, the worst case situations as well as the average situations. You could argue that no card should be banned if you went from the perspective of lowest impact situations. What if I cast Biorhythm and everyone had 60 creatures (not a problem) what if I cast Coalition Victory without all basic land types (not a problem). You have to look at cards from the perspective of worst case as well as what the average results are. Nobody is casting Craterhoof Behemoth with no creatures in play.
And I completely agree. You are making the same argument here that I am.
An abbreviated transcript of the exchange:
Carthage: "Casting a Craterhoof Behemoth cheapens everything that happened before in the game."
Me: "That's not true. Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing."
You: "That's a silly argument! Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing!"
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Given a good method, you can sometimes devise a number of ways of killing multiple players in very short order effectively given whatever deck synergies you have.
Hoofie is just a very easy method that doesn't ask for you to apply much synergy to it.
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
See, I just don't understand this reasoning. What were the other plays in the game? What were the other people doing while the Craterhoof Behemoth player set up a winning board position and got up to eight mana? That doesn't happen quickly. The only plays that would be invalidated were plays that were A) Not trying to win for themselves, B) Not interacting with the Craterhoof player's board, or C) Not protecting themselves. If someone is not trying to win, not trying to prevent the other players from winning, or not trying to keep themselves from losing, then what are they doing? Playing Group Hug?
I would hope that, after being killed be a Craterhoof Behemoth, they would look back at the game, realize they had been bad at Magic, and modify their decks/play styles to accommodate the possibility of a Craterhoof Behemoth in their game. As has been pointed out at great length, their are literally dozens of cards spread across all five colors (and colorless) that answer or prevent a Hoof, cards that are routinely played in good decks.
I always think that this style of argument is like someone who watches the last ten seconds of a basketball game, sees a game-winning three pointer, and thinks that means they didn't have to watch the whole game. But there was a ton of other basketball played, all of which contributed to the final moments, and without which the final moments could not have existed.
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Ooh! Can I play this game? I like this idea...
Just because you need a bit of a board for Grindstone to end a player or the game, does not stop Grindstone and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Birds of Paradise to end a player or the game, does not stop Birds of Paradise and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Sorrow's Path to end a player or the game, does not stop Sorrow's Path and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Deathlace to end a player or the game, does not stop Deathlace and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Armageddon to end a player or the game, does not stop Armageddon and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Nicol Bolas to end a player or the game, does not stop Nicol Bolas and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Bond Beetle to end a player or the game, does not stop Bond Beetle and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Forest to end a player or the game, does not stop Forest and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
I hope you get the point. The sentence is meaningless. I could say this about literally any card in Magic. With the proper setup, any card contributes to winning the game.
Banning Hoof is going to be a huge uphill battle especially since it isn't similar to really anything on the banned list and is a lot more similar to a lot of those cards I mentioned that were brought up and never banned. It also doesn't invalidate the game state in any way other than winning the game and doesn't win the game any easier than a lot of the other cards I mentioned. The only case is that the op is really annoyed by it because green by itself can tutor for it easier.
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
See, I just don't understand this reasoning. What were the other plays in the game? What were the other people doing while the Craterhoof Behemoth player set up a winning board position and got up to eight mana? That doesn't happen quickly. The only plays that would be invalidated were plays that were A) Not trying to win for themselves, B) Not interacting with the Craterhoof player's board, or C) Not protecting themselves. If someone is not trying to win, not trying to prevent the other players from winning, or not trying to keep themselves from losing, then what are they doing? Playing Group Hug?
I would hope that, after being killed be a Craterhoof Behemoth, they would look back at the game, realize they had been bad at Magic, and modify their decks/play styles to accommodate the possibility of a Craterhoof Behemoth in their game. As has been pointed out at great length, their are literally dozens of cards spread across all five colors (and colorless) that answer or prevent a Hoof, cards that are routinely played in good decks.
I always think that this style of argument is like someone who watches the last ten seconds of a basketball game, sees a game-winning three pointer, and thinks that means they didn't have to watch the whole game. But there was a ton of other basketball played, all of which contributed to the final moments, and without which the final moments could not have existed.
"Not trying to win themselves"
It is perfectly acceptable to not try and have a gameending play by the time craterhoof comes down. In fact, I would argue that this type of thing is encouraged by the central spirit of edh, trying to have fun. If all plays are designed to kill, deck variety is lessened greatly, deck cost shoots up to ridiculous levels, and my personal enjoyment of the game will be sitting at 0. If something like grave titan is an unacceptably weak play at 6 mana, I don't want to be playing at that deck strength level.
"Not interacting with the Craterhoof player's board"
Are we now supposed to enjoy the fact that craterhoof's mere existence makes any 4+ creature board potentially lethal on you if they cast it and swing?
"Oh, he has mother of runes and 3 spirit tokens, that's a lethal board". Do you want to play the game where that is a must kill board or you die?
"Not protecting themselves"
There is a very limited number of spells that can actually protect against craterhoof. You need hard creature lockdown cards, and those are in short supply.
There is more to edh deckbuilding and balancing than just making a deck that wins. Should everyone be running things like doomsday zur and paradox engine arcum dagsson to win as many games as possible? Are the players building decks that don't win as much bad at magic? Of course not. Magic is like releasing a set of mod tools to a game, and it's up to the players to find the right balance.
A more accurate analogy for craterhoof would be a game of quidditch in harry potter. There's a game going on with people scoring 10 points at a time, but the seeker getting the golden snitch is the craterhoof play.
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Ooh! Can I play this game? I like this idea...
Just because you need a bit of a board for Grindstone to end a player or the game, does not stop Grindstone and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Birds of Paradise to end a player or the game, does not stop Birds of Paradise and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Sorrow's Path to end a player or the game, does not stop Sorrow's Path and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Deathlace to end a player or the game, does not stop Deathlace and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Armageddon to end a player or the game, does not stop Armageddon and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Nicol Bolas to end a player or the game, does not stop Nicol Bolas and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Bond Beetle to end a player or the game, does not stop Bond Beetle and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Forest to end a player or the game, does not stop Forest and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
I hope you get the point. The sentence is meaningless. I could say this about literally any card in Magic. With the proper setup, any card contributes to winning the game.
You are completely ignoring the consistency part of this.
Address the consistency at which craterhoof can end the game with ridiculous damage or kill a player out of no where and ease of setting that board up.
Don't be stupid and say "well I can come up with a 4 card combo that let's any card win the game!". That doesn't advance the discussion at all. It's just being pedantic for no one's benefit.
You are completely ignoring the consistency part of this.
Address the consistency at which craterhoof can end the game with ridiculous damage and ease of setting that board up.
Sure. Craterhoof Behemoth has the potential to win the game on the spot when you play it, with enough of a board. But keep in mind that "robbing the earlier plays of their impact" is a dangerous phrase. I can take that phrase to a logical extreme, as I did, and point out that any win robs earlier plays of their impact. Also, the phrase is rarely true. The only time that would be actually true in the context of EDH, given the forum vision, is if players did next to nothing of impact on the game to begin with before Craterhoof Behemoth happened, in which case either there's an effective not-overly-competitive-for-the-RC's-attention 1-2 card method to get a relevant board in the first few turns (which I have yet to see, but if it exists, let me know! I'd love to see this fantastic set of cards), or it's on the players for doing nothing and letting the Craterhoof Behemoth player win.
I'm going to reemphasize my point about the forum vision in another way so that nobody is confused:
Quote from Papa Funk »
Commander is designed for Tier 2 and 3 decks. If a card is pushing a deck into the high tiers by itself, it's a sign that there's a serious problem, since we'd like that not to happen.
I understand that what you're looking for doesn't match the vision of the format - you want to play Tier 1.5. That's fine, and we give you as many tools as possible to shape it to your own vision. But you have to embrace that flexibility and realize that the bulk of casual players - who you may encounter upon your travels - will have a bad experience playing against your deck (through no fault of your own), because they do not share your vision. Of course, some do, and you should remember where they are so that you can have awesome games together.
This is also a good resource:
Quote from Sheldon »
The Banned List for Commander is designed not to balance competitive play, but to help shape in the minds of its fans the vision held by its founders and Rules Committee. That vision is to create variable, interactive, and epic multiplayer games where memories are made, to foster the social nature of the format, and to underscore that competition is not the format’s primary goal. This is summarized as “Create games that everyone will love to remember, not the ones you'd like to forget.”
A player who wishes to break the format will find many tools available to them, and taking those tools away means they move onto the next tool. Taking sufficient cards away from them to achieve a semblance of balance simply removes many, many cards from the pool that casual players enjoy and diminishes the games the format is intended for. Instead, Commander seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players start building decks, pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. Infusing the deck construction approach with these philosophies is important; we want a social environment where an individual doesn't want to (or, at very least, is discouraged from trying to) break the format.
It is easier to build decks designed to maximize fun than it is to pull punches while playing the game. The Banned List is a part of defining that approach.
The Banned List contains the worst of the offenders for games being played in the spirit described above, those which to us are obvious choices in steering the format towards the general style of games we’d like to promote. While we’ve tried to make it fairly objective, there will always be a measure of subjectivity since different people evaluate cards and their impacts differently. We’d like the Banned List to be as small as possible to make it easily understandable for the players, meaning we’re not going to ban every card that someone finds unpleasant to play against. It is not a problem that some cards are strong.
There are several criteria which carry weight in Rules Committee discussions on individual cards:
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
* Produces Too Much Mana Too Quickly. Commander is a format devoted to splashy spells and epic plays, but they need to happen at appropriate times. Some acceleration is acceptable, but plays which are epic on turn ten are undesirable on turn three, so we rein in cards capable of generating a lot of mana early given the correct circumstances.
* Creates a Perceived High Barrier to Entry. Commander is a socially welcoming format with a vast cardpool. These two traits clash when it comes to certain early Magic cards, even if they would possibly be acceptable in their game play. It's not enough that the card is simply expensive. It must also be something that would be near-universally played if available and contribute to a perception that the format is only for the Vintage audience.
Meeting one (or more) criteria on the banlist is not a guarantee of a ban. Some cards fit the description, but either aren't problematic enough to justify a ban, are largely eschewed by the casual community, or possess other redeeming factors. Cards are evaluated by their general use, not simply their worst-case scenario. Similar cards may have just enough difference to put them on opposite sides of the line.
Additionally, other Commander styles (such as 1v1, Duel Commander, or more competitively-oriented groups) are not taken into consideration when evaluating how problematic a card is. Groups who seek a different experience are encouraged to discuss local changes to optimize their play experience. This Banned List is for players who are looking for the traditional Commander experience when they're not interacting with their local social groups.
The only relevant criteria is MAYBE undesirable game states. But Craterhoof Behemoth does not happen early enough or with enough frequency to be a real problem in that regard.
Address the consistency at which craterhoof can end the game with ridiculous damage or kill a player out of no where and ease of setting that board up.
That sort of thing can be said for a lot of cards. I've lost more times to infinite combos or game locks involving commanders or other easy to play cards than I ever have to a Craterhoof Behemoth derp swing. Even against dedicated token beat sticks such as Ezuri, Claw of Progress I've seen more damage sooner than the Craterhoof Behemoth can provide. It might be because my play experience is drastically different from everyone else's, but as nasty as Craterhoof Behemoth can be, I've never had more of a problem with it compared to some of the other win conditions out there.
Craterhoof fits into the same category as Insurrection, Exsanguinate/Debt to the Deathless, and cards with the text "you win the game" on them somewhere, or any other expensive single bomb card that effectively equates to "if board state is x, win game" which is that of incredibly boring one card win cons. Are they "ban worthy", not really, but a game ending that way is incredibly lame. Craterhoof might be the most engregious one of them though, purely by virtue of being the most cheatable, abusable card type in the game.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
Hey, you know what invalidates all prior plays more effectively than Hoof, and has been pointed out multiple times in this thread yet ignored by the anti hoof crowd? Tooth and Nail. You literally don't need a board state, at all. You tap 9 mana and grab whatever 2 creature combo your deck is running to auto win. Or you can cast Boonweaver or Protean Hulk with a sac outlet, as minor a hurdle as having 5 creatures on the board and often easier. All of these win the game more consistently than Hoof, as in they kill the table not just one player, as Hoof needs more than than that minimal board state to actually win the game.
But no, let's just ignore those examples because they demonstrate how insipid the arguments for banning hoof are. Especially considering that they just unbanned Hulk, a card that's better at winning out of nowhere than Hoof, and a turn earlier to boot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
[[...]Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
You totally exaggerate. Craterhoof may be too good at what it does, but so are many other cards (Cyclonic Rift, Narset, Enlightened Master..) You really need at least 3-5 other creatures on the board to kill ONE player. And this provides that he cannot block or kill an attacker etc... There are so many out-of-nowhere combos that end the game for all people, not only for one player. That is far more annoying than a Craterhoof that maybe kills one player when cast.
How many people would actually be sad to see cylconic rift and narset get banned though?
[[...]Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
You totally exaggerate. Craterhoof may be too good at what it does, but so are many other cards (Cyclonic Rift, Narset, Enlightened Master..) You really need at least 3-5 other creatures on the board to kill ONE player. And this provides that he cannot block or kill an attacker etc... There are so many out-of-nowhere combos that end the game for all people, not only for one player. That is far more annoying than a Craterhoof that maybe kills one player when cast.
How many people would actually be sad to see cylconic rift and narset get banned though?
I'd be. Cyclonic Rift is very much needed for the format to keep a bunch of decktypes in check (Kinda wish we got a cheaper variety which hits all players) and Narset can be built in a more interesting way.
While those arguments of "You need 3-5 other creatures so Hoof isnt crazy" are insane - it's trivially easy to get enough power on board to nuke at least one player all while looking unthreatening - Hoof still doesn't need to be banned. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, but "Not being sad to see it go" does not make for a good ban argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
[[...]Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
You totally exaggerate. Craterhoof may be too good at what it does, but so are many other cards (Cyclonic Rift, Narset, Enlightened Master..) You really need at least 3-5 other creatures on the board to kill ONE player. And this provides that he cannot block or kill an attacker etc... There are so many out-of-nowhere combos that end the game for all people, not only for one player. That is far more annoying than a Craterhoof that maybe kills one player when cast.
How many people would actually be sad to see cylconic rift and narset get banned though?
I'd be. Cyclonic Rift is very much needed for the format to keep a bunch of decktypes in check (Kinda wish we got a cheaper variety which hits all players) and Narset can be built in a more interesting way.
While those arguments of "You need 3-5 other creatures so Hoof isnt crazy" are insane - it's trivially easy to get enough power on board to nuke at least one player all while looking unthreatening - Hoof still doesn't need to be banned. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, but "Not being sad to see it go" does not make for a good ban argument.
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So, I just ended a table with Great Whale into Bribery, Craterhoof, and 2 clones of it. Not really relevant, but it was an amusing way to throw out 50 damage from an empty board. And it only cost me 11 mana.
People keep talking about all of these blue wincons in comparison to Craterhoof Behemoth. Keep in mind that a lot of those blue wincons are good in the right hands. Think about a more casual player where their deck is not as tuned and their plays are not as optimized. Craterhoof Behemoth stays as strong if not getting stronger while a lot of these blue situational strong cards dont have the same follow through.
Craterhoof also has a LOT more ways to be retrieved / played than ANY of these other cards that have been mentioned. Creatures have the most and most playable conditional tutors in the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Wouldn't a card that is strong in the hands of casual players be exactly what is wanted in a self-described casual format? It's not like the people who want to trash newbies are doing it with Hoof -- they're using 5c Hermit Druid, or oppressive stax, or one of the other top-tier combo/control strategies.
On an unrelated note, I had a chance to play with my Yeva deck over the weekend, which does include a Hoof alongside Kamahl, Fist of Krosa as its win conditions. I ended up grabbing a huge early advantage with a series of actual broken cards - Mana Crypt, Gaea's Cradle, Greater Good, and Protean Hulk - and, when it came time to tutor for a win condition, Kamahl was by far the better choice. I could generate enough mana by that point (24, all of it green except the Crypt) that Kamahl was a +12/+12 bonus, whereas Hoof would have been only a +8/+8, which wasn't enough to kill the board. Also, I had four mana left over so if someone had cast a Moment's Peace (or any of the literally dozens of other cards that stop combat) and then a wrath on their turn, I would have been able to use Kamahl to punish their land base.
Anyway, anecdotal evidence with a small sample size, I know. It does support, in its small way, my impression that the people who are mad at Hoof are misdirecting their anger. There are legitimately broken cards in the format, some of them in monogreen (and in my deck), but I cannot believe that Craterhoof Behemoth is one of them. At its absolute best, Craterhoof Behemoth provides a win condition for an otherwise poorly-constructed deck. In second tier decks, like the best mono-green or token rush decks, it is the second most effective win condition. In the truly abusive decks at the top tier, it would be a laughable mistake to include it. There's no way that deserves a ban.
People keep talking about all of these blue wincons in comparison to Craterhoof Behemoth. Keep in mind that a lot of those blue wincons are good in the right hands. Think about a more casual player where their deck is not as tuned and their plays are not as optimized. Craterhoof Behemoth stays as strong if not getting stronger while a lot of these blue situational strong cards dont have the same follow through.
Craterhoof also has a LOT more ways to be retrieved / played than ANY of these other cards that have been mentioned. Creatures have the most and most playable conditional tutors in the game.
Cool. You still haven't even come close to demonstrating that Hoof should be banned, or even how it being banned would fit into the RCs banlist philosophy. Your only attempt at that relied on not understanding what being centralizing meant.
Look, your problem in this thread is that you made it about banning a card but you aren't arguing that. You are making compelling arguments for a number of positions, but not that the card should be banned or that banning it would be consistent with how the banlist is maintained.
You've argued that Hoof is a really strong card. You've argued that it's a first class wincons. You've argued that it's easy to tutor. You've argued that it's commonly played. You've argued that it can kill a player easily when said player's defenses are down. You've argued that it's boring. You've argued that it's hard to stop. You've even argued that it's easy to use. And you've made good points with each argument. But guess what? I, and everyone else in the thread could agree with you on every single one of those arguments and that STILL wouldn't be a sufficient, or even good argument to actually ban it, nor would it be an argument that banning it is consistent with the way the RC has maintained the ban list.
You simply cannot make the argument that Hoof is a bannable card when the RC just unbanned a card that does its job for one less mana, Hulk, and while a card that is significantly better at doing what Hoof does sits at one more mana (T&N). Every other example is just icing on the cake showing that there are many high impact cards close to or at Hood's power level that would also have to get the axe if Hoof did to be consistent given the reasons you've given in favor of banning Hoof. Ignore those though and Hulk and T&N stand as two glaring arguments against banning Hoof.
You need to base your arguments for banning a card on the actual criteria the RC sets out for the banlist. We get that you don't like the card, and we understand that your reasons for doing so are wholly legitimate and compelling. It's the sort of card that is reasonable to bring up for a house ban if you and your playgroup dislike it, just like certain combo pieces, T&N, MLD, or other such cards and strategies. The RC encourages doing so. But they have also explained in detail how they decide to ban or unban cards, and arguments to ban a card that aren't consistent with those reasons are simply pissing into the wind because they aren't based in the reality of how the format is maintained. It would be like asking WotC to ban a card in Standard because it's a groan inducing pain in the butt that nobody likes playing against, but ignoring that the card does not cause an imbalance in the format or present power level problems, the two things wizards actually looks at when considering to ban a card. Is the RC always consistent themselves? Not always, though they are pretty good at it, and that isn't an argument to make the banlist less consistent but to work to make it more so. That's why Hulk being banned and T&N and Boonweaver not was a problem, even if there were some minor arguments in favor, and either banning T&N and Boonweaver or unbanning Hulk was the right move, with the RC deeming unbanning Hulk as preferable, at least as a test.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Cool. You still haven't even come close to demonstrating that Hoof should be banned, or even how it being banned would fit into the RCs banlist philosophy. Your only attempt at that relied on not understanding what being centralizing meant.
Look, your problem in this thread is that you made it about banning a card but you aren't arguing that. You are making compelling arguments for a number of positions, but not that the card should be banned or that banning it would be consistent with how the banlist is maintained.
You've argued that Hoof is a really strong card. You've argued that it's a first class wincons. You've argued that it's easy to tutor. You've argued that it's commonly played. You've argued that it can kill a player easily when said player's defenses are down. You've argued that it's boring. You've argued that it's hard to stop. You've even argued that it's easy to use. And you've made good points with each argument. But guess what? I, and everyone else in the thread could agree with you on every single one of those arguments and that STILL wouldn't be a sufficient, or even good argument to actually ban it, nor would it be an argument that banning it is consistent with the way the RC has maintained the ban list.
You simply cannot make the argument that Hoof is a bannable card when the RC just unbanned a card that does its job for one less mana, Hulk, and while a card that is significantly better at doing what Hoof does sits at one more mana (T&N). Every other example is just icing on the cake showing that there are many high impact cards close to or at Hood's power level that would also have to get the axe if Hoof did to be consistent given the reasons you've given in favor of banning Hoof. Ignore those though and Hulk and T&N stand as two glaring arguments against banning Hoof.
You need to base your arguments for banning a card on the actual criteria the RC sets out for the banlist. We get that you don't like the card, and we understand that your reasons for doing so are wholly legitimate and compelling. It's the sort of card that is reasonable to bring up for a house ban if you and your playgroup dislike it, just like certain combo pieces, T&N, MLD, or other such cards and strategies. The RC encourages doing so. But they have also explained in detail how they decide to ban or unban cards, and arguments to ban a card that aren't consistent with those reasons are simply pissing into the wind because they aren't based in the reality of how the format is maintained. It would be like asking WotC to ban a card in Standard because it's a groan inducing pain in the butt that nobody likes playing against, but ignoring that the card does not cause an imbalance in the format or present power level problems, the two things wizards actually looks at when considering to ban a card. Is the RC always consistent themselves? Not always, though they are pretty good at it, and that isn't an argument to make the banlist less consistent but to work to make it more so. That's why Hulk being banned and T&N and Boonweaver not was a problem, even if there were some minor arguments in favor, and either banning T&N and Boonweaver or unbanning Hulk was the right move, with the RC deeming unbanning Hulk as preferable, at least as a test.
I totally agree that this is not the most important or noticeable card. I am not trying to ban Griselbrand here but in a lot of cases the combination of effects of a card is why it is banned. Most people in this thread have agreed that it is very tutorable as well as being the most efficient all around Overrun effect. Its effect and easy access are the reasons I am stating that it should be banned and in a lot of cases that has been enough.
I am not at the point where I feel that this card is hands down ruining the format (In a lot of cases a lot of things that have been banned didn't feel that way to me though either). I am more pointing out that there are a number of circumstantial things about Craterhoof Behemoth that could make it a possible ban candidate as well as question the userbase as to if its a good card to have in the meta or if a ban would be appropriate.
I have no sense of urgency in this discussion so much as to lay out my feelings on the card. I have done this several times in the past and I just felt that since we have opened up the banned list discussion to allow SCDs it would be interesting to approach it again as I think the last time I pointed it out I think we did like maybe 5 posts at the most before it turned back into a Sol Ring discussion. I think that Craterhoof Behemoth is worth keeping eyes on and at least the discussion of where it should stand should at least be worth a discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Cool. You still haven't even come close to demonstrating that Hoof should be banned, or even how it being banned would fit into the RCs banlist philosophy. Your only attempt at that relied on not understanding what being centralizing meant.
Look, your problem in this thread is that you made it about banning a card but you aren't arguing that. You are making compelling arguments for a number of positions, but not that the card should be banned or that banning it would be consistent with how the banlist is maintained.
You've argued that Hoof is a really strong card. You've argued that it's a first class wincons. You've argued that it's easy to tutor. You've argued that it's commonly played. You've argued that it can kill a player easily when said player's defenses are down. You've argued that it's boring. You've argued that it's hard to stop. You've even argued that it's easy to use. And you've made good points with each argument. But guess what? I, and everyone else in the thread could agree with you on every single one of those arguments and that STILL wouldn't be a sufficient, or even good argument to actually ban it, nor would it be an argument that banning it is consistent with the way the RC has maintained the ban list.
You simply cannot make the argument that Hoof is a bannable card when the RC just unbanned a card that does its job for one less mana, Hulk, and while a card that is significantly better at doing what Hoof does sits at one more mana (T&N). Every other example is just icing on the cake showing that there are many high impact cards close to or at Hood's power level that would also have to get the axe if Hoof did to be consistent given the reasons you've given in favor of banning Hoof. Ignore those though and Hulk and T&N stand as two glaring arguments against banning Hoof.
You need to base your arguments for banning a card on the actual criteria the RC sets out for the banlist. We get that you don't like the card, and we understand that your reasons for doing so are wholly legitimate and compelling. It's the sort of card that is reasonable to bring up for a house ban if you and your playgroup dislike it, just like certain combo pieces, T&N, MLD, or other such cards and strategies. The RC encourages doing so. But they have also explained in detail how they decide to ban or unban cards, and arguments to ban a card that aren't consistent with those reasons are simply pissing into the wind because they aren't based in the reality of how the format is maintained. It would be like asking WotC to ban a card in Standard because it's a groan inducing pain in the butt that nobody likes playing against, but ignoring that the card does not cause an imbalance in the format or present power level problems, the two things wizards actually looks at when considering to ban a card. Is the RC always consistent themselves? Not always, though they are pretty good at it, and that isn't an argument to make the banlist less consistent but to work to make it more so. That's why Hulk being banned and T&N and Boonweaver not was a problem, even if there were some minor arguments in favor, and either banning T&N and Boonweaver or unbanning Hulk was the right move, with the RC deeming unbanning Hulk as preferable, at least as a test.
I totally agree that this is not the most important or noticeable card. I am not trying to ban Griselbrand here but in a lot of cases the combination of effects of a card is why it is banned. Most people in this thread have agreed that it is very tutorable as well as being the most efficient all around Overrun effect. Its effect and easy access are the reasons I am stating that it should be banned and in a lot of cases that has been enough.
I am not at the point where I feel that this card is hands down ruining the format (In a lot of cases a lot of things that have been banned didn't feel that way to me though either). I am more pointing out that there are a number of circumstantial things about Craterhoof Behemoth that could make it a possible ban candidate as well as question the userbase as to if its a good card to have in the meta or if a ban would be appropriate.
I have no sense of urgency in this discussion so much as to lay out my feelings on the card. I have done this several times in the past and I just felt that since we have opened up the banned list discussion to allow SCDs it would be interesting to approach it again as I think the last time I pointed it out I think we did like maybe 5 posts at the most before it turned back into a Sol Ring discussion. I think that Craterhoof Behemoth is worth keeping eyes on and at least the discussion of where it should stand should at least be worth a discussion.
I mostly agree, except that I can't really see the value in discussing any card without comparing it to what's on the ban list and what comparable cards are not. Doing so lets you discuss the issue in a realistic way that takes into account the purpose of the ban list. If Hoof meets the ban list's criteria, and I clearly do not believe that it does, than so do several other cards, including one that the Rules Committee just decided no longer meets the criteria. Hulk is the biggest elephant in the room, as its also a creature, costs less, and doesn't rely on the combat step to win (thus dodging many of the cards that can answer Hoof or delay it from going online). Again, we've already had this discussion, and then moved onto T&N, then moved onto other cards. We've even went over the ways in which it doesn't come close to most of the categories that could render a card bannable, and even in the category where it merits any discussion, casual omnipresence, it falls short. When you can't point to a category for banning that it the card clearly meets, but you can point to cards that are legal that do a better job of meeting those bannable categories, there isn't much left to discuss.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I mostly agree, except that I can't really see the value in discussing any card without comparing it to what's on the ban list and what comparable cards are not. Doing so lets you discuss the issue in a realistic way that takes into account the purpose of the ban list. If Hoof meets the ban list's criteria, and I clearly do not believe that it does, than so do several other cards, including one that the Rules Committee just decided no longer meets the criteria. Hulk is the biggest elephant in the room, as its also a creature, costs less, and doesn't rely on the combat step to win (thus dodging many of the cards that can answer Hoof or delay it from going online). Again, we've already had this discussion, and then moved onto T&N, then moved onto other cards. We've even went over the ways in which it doesn't come close to most of the categories that could render a card bannable, and even in the category where it merits any discussion, casual omnipresence, it falls short. When you can't point to a category for banning that it the card clearly meets, but you can point to cards that are legal that do a better job of meeting those bannable categories, there isn't much left to discuss.
Can you define what are the characteristics that lead to a card being banned? You really cannot because there is no consistency in the banned list otherwise several cards would be either unbanned and or banned that are currently not. The banned list does not live by hard rules but it looks at each card in a vacuum. Since I have started playing there are at least a few cards that I cannot logically come to a consensus as to why they were banned and they do not fit into characteristics of the rest of the banned list.
Sundering Titan for example was a card that got banned in more recent years. I played with this card a bit myself and honestly its totally an elephant on the banned list because no other target or mass LD effect (excluding Sylvan Primordial whom is on there for value purposes) is on the banned list. You could look to cards like Ruination, Back to Basics, Blood Moon, Winter Orb, Stasis, Static Orb and ban so many other cards before or along side Sundering Titan.
My point in bringing up Sundering Titan is not that I really care but to point out that you cannot take the current banned list as an example of what cards should be banned. Sundering Titan is a complete abnormality to the list and does not really make sense in that it by itself is banned. You could put Terastodon into a very similar range of effect as what I expect Sundering Titan to do except that the titan is probably less versatile. I have heard it time and again, the cards on the banned list are not used directly to ban other cards because in the RC's eyes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I left my quote on here because I think there may have been a comprehension difficulty on your end.
Context is the key here. Carthage said that a Craterhoof Behemoth "invalidated everything that happened before." I responded, pointing out as I had before, that a Craterhoof Behemoth with no prior board presence (ie: it does not invalidate everything that happened before) was a 6/6 trample haste for eight (5 generic+3 colored mana). I then compared it to another 6/6 trample haste for 8 mana (5 generic and 3 colored mana), Akroma, Angel of Wrath, which also has protection from two colors, vigilance, and first strike, and does not become a 5/5 on its next turn.
If you have an example of how casting a Craterhoof Behemoth onto an empty board (ie, a board that invalidates everything that happened before the casting of Craterhoof Behemoth) is better than casting an Akroma, Angel of Wrath would have been, I would love to see it. Otherwise, I would ask that you read my posts more carefully before making disparaging remarks.
This is pure pedantry and you know it.
I called it out because casting Craterhoof Behemoth on no board is like casting Omniscience and then not casting anything to follow it up. Yes, its situational but you could call Swords to Plowshares a bad card vs decks that don't cast creatures situationally. What if I cast Black Lotus and never cracked it? It was a really silly and moot argument to even try to make.
When talking about banned list and the cards that go on it you need to consider two things, the worst case situations as well as the average situations. You could argue that no card should be banned if you went from the perspective of lowest impact situations. What if I cast Biorhythm and everyone had 60 creatures (not a problem) what if I cast Coalition Victory without all basic land types (not a problem). You have to look at cards from the perspective of worst case as well as what the average results are. Nobody is casting Craterhoof Behemoth with no creatures in play.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
And I completely agree. You are making the same argument here that I am.
An abbreviated transcript of the exchange:
Carthage: "Casting a Craterhoof Behemoth cheapens everything that happened before in the game."
Me: "That's not true. Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing."
You: "That's a silly argument! Unless you set it up properly, a Craterhoof Behemoth does effectively nothing!"
Just because you need a bit of a board for craterhoof to end a player or the game, does not stop craterhoof and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Hoofie is just a very easy method that doesn't ask for you to apply much synergy to it.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
See, I just don't understand this reasoning. What were the other plays in the game? What were the other people doing while the Craterhoof Behemoth player set up a winning board position and got up to eight mana? That doesn't happen quickly. The only plays that would be invalidated were plays that were A) Not trying to win for themselves, B) Not interacting with the Craterhoof player's board, or C) Not protecting themselves. If someone is not trying to win, not trying to prevent the other players from winning, or not trying to keep themselves from losing, then what are they doing? Playing Group Hug?
I would hope that, after being killed be a Craterhoof Behemoth, they would look back at the game, realize they had been bad at Magic, and modify their decks/play styles to accommodate the possibility of a Craterhoof Behemoth in their game. As has been pointed out at great length, their are literally dozens of cards spread across all five colors (and colorless) that answer or prevent a Hoof, cards that are routinely played in good decks.
I always think that this style of argument is like someone who watches the last ten seconds of a basketball game, sees a game-winning three pointer, and thinks that means they didn't have to watch the whole game. But there was a ton of other basketball played, all of which contributed to the final moments, and without which the final moments could not have existed.
Ooh! Can I play this game? I like this idea...
Just because you need a bit of a board for Grindstone to end a player or the game, does not stop Grindstone and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Birds of Paradise to end a player or the game, does not stop Birds of Paradise and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Sorrow's Path to end a player or the game, does not stop Sorrow's Path and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Deathlace to end a player or the game, does not stop Deathlace and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Armageddon to end a player or the game, does not stop Armageddon and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Nicol Bolas to end a player or the game, does not stop Nicol Bolas and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Bond Beetle to end a player or the game, does not stop Bond Beetle and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
Just because you need a bit of a board for Forest to end a player or the game, does not stop Forest and similar cards from robbing the earlier plays of their impact.
I hope you get the point. The sentence is meaningless. I could say this about literally any card in Magic. With the proper setup, any card contributes to winning the game.
"Not trying to win themselves"
It is perfectly acceptable to not try and have a gameending play by the time craterhoof comes down. In fact, I would argue that this type of thing is encouraged by the central spirit of edh, trying to have fun. If all plays are designed to kill, deck variety is lessened greatly, deck cost shoots up to ridiculous levels, and my personal enjoyment of the game will be sitting at 0. If something like grave titan is an unacceptably weak play at 6 mana, I don't want to be playing at that deck strength level.
"Not interacting with the Craterhoof player's board"
Are we now supposed to enjoy the fact that craterhoof's mere existence makes any 4+ creature board potentially lethal on you if they cast it and swing?
"Oh, he has mother of runes and 3 spirit tokens, that's a lethal board". Do you want to play the game where that is a must kill board or you die?
"Not protecting themselves"
There is a very limited number of spells that can actually protect against craterhoof. You need hard creature lockdown cards, and those are in short supply.
There is more to edh deckbuilding and balancing than just making a deck that wins. Should everyone be running things like doomsday zur and paradox engine arcum dagsson to win as many games as possible? Are the players building decks that don't win as much bad at magic? Of course not. Magic is like releasing a set of mod tools to a game, and it's up to the players to find the right balance.
A more accurate analogy for craterhoof would be a game of quidditch in harry potter. There's a game going on with people scoring 10 points at a time, but the seeker getting the golden snitch is the craterhoof play.
You are completely ignoring the consistency part of this.
Address the consistency at which craterhoof can end the game with ridiculous damage or kill a player out of no where and ease of setting that board up.
Don't be stupid and say "well I can come up with a 4 card combo that let's any card win the game!". That doesn't advance the discussion at all. It's just being pedantic for no one's benefit.
Sure. Craterhoof Behemoth has the potential to win the game on the spot when you play it, with enough of a board. But keep in mind that "robbing the earlier plays of their impact" is a dangerous phrase. I can take that phrase to a logical extreme, as I did, and point out that any win robs earlier plays of their impact. Also, the phrase is rarely true. The only time that would be actually true in the context of EDH, given the forum vision, is if players did next to nothing of impact on the game to begin with before Craterhoof Behemoth happened, in which case either there's an effective not-overly-competitive-for-the-RC's-attention 1-2 card method to get a relevant board in the first few turns (which I have yet to see, but if it exists, let me know! I'd love to see this fantastic set of cards), or it's on the players for doing nothing and letting the Craterhoof Behemoth player win.
I'm going to reemphasize my point about the forum vision in another way so that nobody is confused:
This is also a good resource:
The only relevant criteria is MAYBE undesirable game states. But Craterhoof Behemoth does not happen early enough or with enough frequency to be a real problem in that regard.
That sort of thing can be said for a lot of cards. I've lost more times to infinite combos or game locks involving commanders or other easy to play cards than I ever have to a Craterhoof Behemoth derp swing. Even against dedicated token beat sticks such as Ezuri, Claw of Progress I've seen more damage sooner than the Craterhoof Behemoth can provide. It might be because my play experience is drastically different from everyone else's, but as nasty as Craterhoof Behemoth can be, I've never had more of a problem with it compared to some of the other win conditions out there.
But no, let's just ignore those examples because they demonstrate how insipid the arguments for banning hoof are. Especially considering that they just unbanned Hulk, a card that's better at winning out of nowhere than Hoof, and a turn earlier to boot.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
How many people would actually be sad to see cylconic rift and narset get banned though?
I'd be. Cyclonic Rift is very much needed for the format to keep a bunch of decktypes in check (Kinda wish we got a cheaper variety which hits all players) and Narset can be built in a more interesting way.
While those arguments of "You need 3-5 other creatures so Hoof isnt crazy" are insane - it's trivially easy to get enough power on board to nuke at least one player all while looking unthreatening - Hoof still doesn't need to be banned. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, but "Not being sad to see it go" does not make for a good ban argument.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Craterhoof also has a LOT more ways to be retrieved / played than ANY of these other cards that have been mentioned. Creatures have the most and most playable conditional tutors in the game.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
On an unrelated note, I had a chance to play with my Yeva deck over the weekend, which does include a Hoof alongside Kamahl, Fist of Krosa as its win conditions. I ended up grabbing a huge early advantage with a series of actual broken cards - Mana Crypt, Gaea's Cradle, Greater Good, and Protean Hulk - and, when it came time to tutor for a win condition, Kamahl was by far the better choice. I could generate enough mana by that point (24, all of it green except the Crypt) that Kamahl was a +12/+12 bonus, whereas Hoof would have been only a +8/+8, which wasn't enough to kill the board. Also, I had four mana left over so if someone had cast a Moment's Peace (or any of the literally dozens of other cards that stop combat) and then a wrath on their turn, I would have been able to use Kamahl to punish their land base.
Anyway, anecdotal evidence with a small sample size, I know. It does support, in its small way, my impression that the people who are mad at Hoof are misdirecting their anger. There are legitimately broken cards in the format, some of them in monogreen (and in my deck), but I cannot believe that Craterhoof Behemoth is one of them. At its absolute best, Craterhoof Behemoth provides a win condition for an otherwise poorly-constructed deck. In second tier decks, like the best mono-green or token rush decks, it is the second most effective win condition. In the truly abusive decks at the top tier, it would be a laughable mistake to include it. There's no way that deserves a ban.
Cool. You still haven't even come close to demonstrating that Hoof should be banned, or even how it being banned would fit into the RCs banlist philosophy. Your only attempt at that relied on not understanding what being centralizing meant.
Look, your problem in this thread is that you made it about banning a card but you aren't arguing that. You are making compelling arguments for a number of positions, but not that the card should be banned or that banning it would be consistent with how the banlist is maintained.
You've argued that Hoof is a really strong card. You've argued that it's a first class wincons. You've argued that it's easy to tutor. You've argued that it's commonly played. You've argued that it can kill a player easily when said player's defenses are down. You've argued that it's boring. You've argued that it's hard to stop. You've even argued that it's easy to use. And you've made good points with each argument. But guess what? I, and everyone else in the thread could agree with you on every single one of those arguments and that STILL wouldn't be a sufficient, or even good argument to actually ban it, nor would it be an argument that banning it is consistent with the way the RC has maintained the ban list.
You simply cannot make the argument that Hoof is a bannable card when the RC just unbanned a card that does its job for one less mana, Hulk, and while a card that is significantly better at doing what Hoof does sits at one more mana (T&N). Every other example is just icing on the cake showing that there are many high impact cards close to or at Hood's power level that would also have to get the axe if Hoof did to be consistent given the reasons you've given in favor of banning Hoof. Ignore those though and Hulk and T&N stand as two glaring arguments against banning Hoof.
You need to base your arguments for banning a card on the actual criteria the RC sets out for the banlist. We get that you don't like the card, and we understand that your reasons for doing so are wholly legitimate and compelling. It's the sort of card that is reasonable to bring up for a house ban if you and your playgroup dislike it, just like certain combo pieces, T&N, MLD, or other such cards and strategies. The RC encourages doing so. But they have also explained in detail how they decide to ban or unban cards, and arguments to ban a card that aren't consistent with those reasons are simply pissing into the wind because they aren't based in the reality of how the format is maintained. It would be like asking WotC to ban a card in Standard because it's a groan inducing pain in the butt that nobody likes playing against, but ignoring that the card does not cause an imbalance in the format or present power level problems, the two things wizards actually looks at when considering to ban a card. Is the RC always consistent themselves? Not always, though they are pretty good at it, and that isn't an argument to make the banlist less consistent but to work to make it more so. That's why Hulk being banned and T&N and Boonweaver not was a problem, even if there were some minor arguments in favor, and either banning T&N and Boonweaver or unbanning Hulk was the right move, with the RC deeming unbanning Hulk as preferable, at least as a test.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I totally agree that this is not the most important or noticeable card. I am not trying to ban Griselbrand here but in a lot of cases the combination of effects of a card is why it is banned. Most people in this thread have agreed that it is very tutorable as well as being the most efficient all around Overrun effect. Its effect and easy access are the reasons I am stating that it should be banned and in a lot of cases that has been enough.
I am not at the point where I feel that this card is hands down ruining the format (In a lot of cases a lot of things that have been banned didn't feel that way to me though either). I am more pointing out that there are a number of circumstantial things about Craterhoof Behemoth that could make it a possible ban candidate as well as question the userbase as to if its a good card to have in the meta or if a ban would be appropriate.
I have no sense of urgency in this discussion so much as to lay out my feelings on the card. I have done this several times in the past and I just felt that since we have opened up the banned list discussion to allow SCDs it would be interesting to approach it again as I think the last time I pointed it out I think we did like maybe 5 posts at the most before it turned back into a Sol Ring discussion. I think that Craterhoof Behemoth is worth keeping eyes on and at least the discussion of where it should stand should at least be worth a discussion.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I mostly agree, except that I can't really see the value in discussing any card without comparing it to what's on the ban list and what comparable cards are not. Doing so lets you discuss the issue in a realistic way that takes into account the purpose of the ban list. If Hoof meets the ban list's criteria, and I clearly do not believe that it does, than so do several other cards, including one that the Rules Committee just decided no longer meets the criteria. Hulk is the biggest elephant in the room, as its also a creature, costs less, and doesn't rely on the combat step to win (thus dodging many of the cards that can answer Hoof or delay it from going online). Again, we've already had this discussion, and then moved onto T&N, then moved onto other cards. We've even went over the ways in which it doesn't come close to most of the categories that could render a card bannable, and even in the category where it merits any discussion, casual omnipresence, it falls short. When you can't point to a category for banning that it the card clearly meets, but you can point to cards that are legal that do a better job of meeting those bannable categories, there isn't much left to discuss.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Can you define what are the characteristics that lead to a card being banned? You really cannot because there is no consistency in the banned list otherwise several cards would be either unbanned and or banned that are currently not. The banned list does not live by hard rules but it looks at each card in a vacuum. Since I have started playing there are at least a few cards that I cannot logically come to a consensus as to why they were banned and they do not fit into characteristics of the rest of the banned list.
Sundering Titan for example was a card that got banned in more recent years. I played with this card a bit myself and honestly its totally an elephant on the banned list because no other target or mass LD effect (excluding Sylvan Primordial whom is on there for value purposes) is on the banned list. You could look to cards like Ruination, Back to Basics, Blood Moon, Winter Orb, Stasis, Static Orb and ban so many other cards before or along side Sundering Titan.
My point in bringing up Sundering Titan is not that I really care but to point out that you cannot take the current banned list as an example of what cards should be banned. Sundering Titan is a complete abnormality to the list and does not really make sense in that it by itself is banned. You could put Terastodon into a very similar range of effect as what I expect Sundering Titan to do except that the titan is probably less versatile. I have heard it time and again, the cards on the banned list are not used directly to ban other cards because in the RC's eyes.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies