If you kill 2 - 5 player in one go, isn't it combo enough? The way I see it, it's definitely in the combo region.
You look at cards like Ad Nauseum and Mind's Desire, don't they represent potential, the same as Craterhoof is? Its potential ranges from 0 to a range of hundreds of life (possibly more).
But back to my stance. Reducing the tutors would be a better solution than banning cards with "potential". The less consistent decks become, the less reports of people's demise from a wrecking train.
I was more pointing to the inconsistency that Sundering Titan is. The things it does could be a problem but you could do more or less the same things with Armageddon or any other land disruption effect. I don't know why it was picked out as a problem but the rest of land disruption effects all left alone. Ruination / Back to Back to basics for example can be just as one sided.
I don't want to digress too much, but my issue with Sundering Titan wasn't with the land destruction part, it was with the choosing part. I think we can take the Armageddon comparison out easily with "Titan can be more easily one-sided", but I've always thought the real reason Titan was banned was because "It is easily one-sided due to color choice" (Ruination is more of "due to deck-construction choice"). Since the format's rules restrict color due to Color Identity while non-basic land base construction is largely flexible. Yes, I know Boil exists, but there's a whole level of difference when a card allows you to choose, since it gives the card effectively a "sideboard advantage in mainboard" and since the format doesn't usually have sideboards...
That being said, because I feel like this was the defining point that got Sundering Titan banned, I still find it inconsistent that Iona, Shield of Emeria isn't banned on the same basis. Not going to go into details whether stax is worse than land destruction (everyone has differing opinions), but as far as I'm concerned, both passed the threshold when it comes to cards that have a "sideboard advantage" and punish heavily due to Color Choice.
Back to Craterhoof Behemoth, as far as "combos" go, Craterhoof is pretty low on the ladder - anyone relying on the typical tutor-to-Hoof-win mostly likely could do it with an array of other combos in the same deck as well. I don't see Hoof any different from any other instant-win combo out there. In fact, board presence would probably given a loud blaring siren of its arrival sooner or later, so it seems more like a failure of the table to deal with the board-state before.
What I think could be the closest argument for Craterhoof being "unhealthy" (not that I think it's enough to get it banned, but it's the closest thing) is that it discourages battlecruiser games. Like I said, Craterhoof comes with many warning sirens and its usually the failure to answer the board state that lets it through. But why? People don't like to board-wipe if they themselves have a sizable board presence, so in battlecruiser-metas, Craterhoof is more unhealthy than usual, since people were expecting several combat steps chipping lives down and Craterhoof doesn't do that (yes you could use it, but let's face it, even battlecruiser players will strategically save it for a winning swing since the buff is temporary.)
Like-wise, in "more-competitive" (debatable definition here, just take it lightly) metas that involve a lot more spellslinging and outright combos with not much creature-presence, there are plenty of board-wipes and more willingness to use it, which makes Craterhoof not only "not unhealthy", but outright "less than exciting" (or even "less than usable" if it's that savage).
Craterhoof is a card whose use is heavily influenced and shaped by the meta but at the same time, also possibly shapes the meta. It can be a cause of people eventually moving from battlecruiser to combo EDH, but at the same time, it's definitely not the only cause (and whether it's the most major one is debatable as well) and it's not a definitive direction either, if people were more willing to sacrifice board-states, there might be some battlecruiser metas that don't actually have problems with Craterhoof (not many I suppose, but my main point was that it's possible).
I was more pointing to the inconsistency that Sundering Titan is. The things it does could be a problem but you could do more or less the same things with Armageddon or any other land disruption effect. I don't know why it was picked out as a problem but the rest of land disruption effects all left alone. Ruination / Back to Back to basics for example can be just as one sided.
I don't want to digress too much, but my issue with Sundering Titan wasn't with the land destruction part, it was with the choosing part. I think we can take the Armageddon comparison out easily with "Titan can be more easily one-sided", but I've always thought the real reason Titan was banned was because "It is easily one-sided due to color choice" (Ruination is more of "due to deck-construction choice"). Since the format's rules restrict color due to Color Identity while non-basic land base construction is largely flexible. Yes, I know Boil exists, but there's a whole level of difference when a card allows you to choose, since it gives the card effectively a "sideboard advantage in mainboard" and since the format doesn't usually have sideboards...
That being said, because I feel like this was the defining point that got Sundering Titan banned, I still find it inconsistent that Iona, Shield of Emeria isn't banned on the same basis. Not going to go into details whether stax is worse than land destruction (everyone has differing opinions), but as far as I'm concerned, both passed the threshold when it comes to cards that have a "sideboard advantage" and punish heavily due to Color Choice.
Back to Craterhoof Behemoth, as far as "combos" go, Craterhoof is pretty low on the ladder - anyone relying on the typical tutor-to-Hoof-win mostly likely could do it with an array of other combos in the same deck as well. I don't see Hoof any different from any other instant-win combo out there. In fact, board presence would probably given a loud blaring siren of its arrival sooner or later, so it seems more like a failure of the table to deal with the board-state before.
What I think could be the closest argument for Craterhoof being "unhealthy" (not that I think it's enough to get it banned, but it's the closest thing) is that it discourages battlecruiser games. Like I said, Craterhoof comes with many warning sirens and its usually the failure to answer the board state that lets it through. But why? People don't like to board-wipe if they themselves have a sizable board presence, so in battlecruiser-metas, Craterhoof is more unhealthy than usual, since people were expecting several combat steps chipping lives down and Craterhoof doesn't do that (yes you could use it, but let's face it, even battlecruiser players will strategically save it for a winning swing since the buff is temporary.)
Like-wise, in "more-competitive" (debatable definition here, just take it lightly) metas that involve a lot more spellslinging and outright combos with not much creature-presence, there are plenty of board-wipes and more willingness to use it, which makes Craterhoof not only "not unhealthy", but outright "less than exciting" (or even "less than usable" if it's that savage).
Craterhoof is a card whose use is heavily influenced and shaped by the meta but at the same time, also possibly shapes the meta. It can be a cause of people eventually moving from battlecruiser to combo EDH, but at the same time, it's definitely not the only cause (and whether it's the most major one is debatable as well) and it's not a definitive direction either, if people were more willing to sacrifice board-states, there might be some battlecruiser metas that don't actually have problems with Craterhoof (not many I suppose, but my main point was that it's possible).
I always thought that sundering titan was banned because of the recursion/blinking potential. Triggering on ETB and LTB makes it especially difficult to deal with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Ruination/Back to Basics/Armageddon also require more building around. It's also way better for lobbing targeted hate at someone than a lot of other options especially since it gets to trigger twice and it hits people with collateral damage. When they were banning for combos, they banned Crucible of Worlds because it's stupid with Strip Mine. That kinds of thing is heavily frowned upon but Primordial and Sundering gave people enough wiggle room to actually sneak into more casual decks and actually wreck lots of games as a result. Primordial was actually really fun the way I usually saw it played though. Hoof is nothing like that. Overruns encourage creature combat and creatures the gathering is very popular with most Magic players.
craterhoof encourages killing everyone all at once. That's not combat, that's combo.
That's like saying Burn is Aggro...
If you've amassed a boardstate that allows you to kill 3 players off a single CHoof, well, good for you, your opponents must suck.
not every playgroup is competitive enough that they want the game to end at or before the 8+ mana stage of the game. In those games cards at 6+ mana that cause instant table wipes are absolutely an issue, just because your group is more competitive doesn't mean be a jerk about it.
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.
Ruination/Back to Basics/Armageddon also require more building around. It's also way better for lobbing targeted hate at someone than a lot of other options especially since it gets to trigger twice and it hits people with collateral damage. When they were banning for combos, they banned Crucible of Worlds because it's stupid with Strip Mine. That kinds of thing is heavily frowned upon but Primordial and Sundering gave people enough wiggle room to actually sneak into more casual decks and actually wreck lots of games as a result. Primordial was actually really fun the way I usually saw it played though. Hoof is nothing like that. Overruns encourage creature combat and creatures the gathering is very popular with most Magic players.
craterhoof encourages killing everyone all at once. That's not combat, that's combo.
That's like saying Burn is Aggro...
If you've amassed a boardstate that allows you to kill 3 players off a single CHoof, well, good for you, your opponents must suck.
not every playgroup is competitive enough that they want the game to end at or before the 8+ mana stage of the game. In those games cards at 6+ mana that cause instant table wipes are absolutely an issue, just because your group is more competitive doesn't mean be a jerk about it.
You need a board of 10+ 1/1's, attack ready, unimpeded, to eliminate a table in one go. Even at the most causal tables I wouldn't ever expect that to fly, considering at that point, any anthem or mass pump will eliminate at least 1 player, so that means you will complain about any overrun effect.
I would also expect the other players to be doing their thing with the same amount of mana, because you don't acquire a critical mass of creatures at the same time as ramping into oblivion. So you are either allowed to drop creature after creature while hitting land drops and suddenly top-decking 'Hoof, or, you're ramping hard and have nothing to pump. It's not both, it can't be both, especially in a "casual meta". I swear, this type of argument pops up on thread. Since we jump to conclusions, I'd assume the Crater Hoof player is the only one who does anything, because by the sounds of it, all the other players just draw cards and play lands...
Not sure how you picked up the competitiveness of the folks I play with off of 2 lines of text.
Lol I love threads like these... 'Bawl... [insert cardname here] is too oppressive'. I actually had someone complain tonight after I played Corpsejack Menace then went all in sacrificing all my other guys to Mycoloth for 16 +1+1 counters. 3 opponents turns and no answers to Mycoloth later I play Craterhoof and Concordant Crossroads for the win and whiners complain about Craterhoof.
As many many others have stated, Craterhoof requires a LOT of set up to be this 'oppressive' card people make it out to be. Learn threat assessment and run answers, problem solved.
What I find funny with this is, that Craterhoof is a problem, but there are other cards that can do similar things and those aren't even mentioned, I mean we had a game a week ago where my GF was playing her Captain Sisay deck, wich also has Jazal Goldmane, wich is easy searchable... no Craterhoof was needed, enough mana and tokens + Jazal can swing in for the kill almost as easily... But apparently Hoof is an issue, but many more problematic creatures aren't??
I would vote for Iona, shield of emeria getting a ban over anything that is green at this point... it's one of the most oppressive and unfun cards in Commander... specially against people that are unprepared for it..
My GF and I have never even thought of adding it to her Captain Sisay deck, not cause we don't want to make her deck as powerfull as possible, but it's just not a fun card for anyone to play against...
I have voted No, cause in all honesty if you lose to a Hoof as a group, then it's more than likely your own fault... A combo going off out of nowhere is less see-through than any Hoof kill.. might as wel ban every card ever that makes you win out of nowhere right... make it the most stale and boring format ever....
Jazal can be stopped by chump blocking because it doesn't give trample, and single target removal because it is sorcery speed and you need creatures to be attacking. This is in addition to counterspells and other effects that stop craterhoof.
Craterhoof tends to invalidate your removal AND your blockers. Getting hit by a big craterhoof turn feels more like the opponent just played a game winning combo. Having swords to plowshares in hand with mana to cast it, and then losing to the opponent playing a creature, feels awful.
I find the addition of two card combos has created the most stale and boring format ever. Now instead of exploring a huge card pool I just include the most efficient support cards for the small number of most efficient win conditions that fit in my colors.
What I find funny with this is, that Craterhoof is a problem, but there are other cards that can do similar things and those aren't even mentioned, I mean we had a game a week ago where my GF was playing her Captain Sisay deck, wich also has Jazal Goldmane, wich is easy searchable... no Craterhoof was needed, enough mana and tokens + Jazal can swing in for the kill almost as easily... But apparently Hoof is an issue, but many more problematic creatures aren't??
I would vote for Iona, shield of emeria getting a ban over anything that is green at this point... it's one of the most oppressive and unfun cards in Commander... specially against people that are unprepared for it..
My GF and I have never even thought of adding it to her Captain Sisay deck, not cause we don't want to make her deck as powerfull as possible, but it's just not a fun card for anyone to play against...
I have voted No, cause in all honesty if you lose to a Hoof as a group, then it's more than likely your own fault... A combo going off out of nowhere is less see-through than any Hoof kill.. might as wel ban every card ever that makes you win out of nowhere right... make it the most stale and boring format ever....
Jazal can be stopped by chump blocking because it doesn't give trample, and single target removal because it is sorcery speed and you need creatures to be attacking. This is in addition to counterspells and other effects that stop craterhoof.
Craterhoof tends to invalidate your removal AND your blockers. Getting hit by a big craterhoof turn feels more like the opponent just played a game winning combo. Having swords to plowshares in hand with mana to cast it, and then losing to the opponent playing a creature, feels awful.
I find the addition of two card combos has created the most stale and boring format ever. Now instead of exploring a huge card pool I just include the most efficient support cards for the small number of most efficient win conditions that fit in my colors.
Why are we still talking about this as a "combo"? It's not.
Like I said above, you need a critical mass of creatures on the field, attack ready, to make 'Hoof this unstoppable monster everybody is painting him as. I have never experienced a scenario where somebody has accumulated this board-presence "under the radar". Have I lost to it? Yes. But I'd also say that I would have probably lost to that player casting Overrun or Overwhelming Stampede because that's the type of board that's required for Hoof to eliminate players on the spot.
Honestly, I have more of a problem with, and have lost more to, Ezuri, Renegade Leader and his pump. However, I'll never advocate for his banning, and the same goes for Hoof.
You need a board of 10+ 1/1's, attack ready, unimpeded, to eliminate a table in one go.
But only 5 1/1s to kill one player out of nowhere, and 8 to kill 2 players. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of a board of 5-10 1/1s and nothing else. Are you really saying you would windmill slam a wrath as soon as you see a green player with 5 creatures in play?
This is also assuming the Craterhoof player isn't playing any other big creatures, and that everyone is still at 40 life.
Further, even if the Craterhoof swing doesn't outright kill you, knocking you down to the single digits after blocking with as many creatures as you can most likely means you're dead on the next turn.
You need a board of 10+ 1/1's, attack ready, unimpeded, to eliminate a table in one go.
But only 5 1/1s to kill one player out of nowhere, and 8 to kill 2 players. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of a board of 5-10 1/1s and nothing else. Are you really saying you would windmill slam a wrath as soon as you see a green player with 5 creatures in play?
This is also assuming the Craterhoof player isn't playing any other big creatures, and that everyone is still at 40 life.
Further, even if the Craterhoof swing doesn't outright kill you, knocking you down to the single digits after blocking with as many creatures as you can most likely means you're dead on the next turn.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
Slight correction, it takes 7, attack ready, 1/1's to suddenly make Beastmaster Ascension be a threat. But I will agree, I would also strongly be considering a windmill slam of a wrath if I saw a board loaded with creatures simply because I know several spells, all of them previously discussed here, that could make those dudes lethal.
The issue I have with Hoof in general is the interaction of him + Avenger of Zendikar off an entwined Tooth and Nail. Now, a lot of the severity of that play is depending on land count and initial creatures, but I can say without a doubt that resolving T&N for those two creatures is the #1 method people are killed (or tables are wiped) in the semi-casual games I play. I know all groups are not made equal, but I feel like Hoof plays are probably a regular thing many people experience. Back to the example though, I personally say T&N is the problem card but knowing that the RC has unbanned Protean Hulk, I doubt this card will ever be 'addressed' down the road. This is why Hoof will always fall into the area of a card I would love to see gone, but won't be shocked if it is never touched.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
Slight correction, it takes 7, attack ready, 1/1's to suddenly make Beastmaster Ascension be a threat. But I will agree, I would also strongly be considering a windmill slam of a wrath if I saw a board loaded with creatures simply because I know several spells, all of them previously discussed here, that could make those dudes lethal.
The issue I have with Hoof in general is the interaction of him + Avenger of Zendikar off an entwined Tooth and Nail. Now, a lot of the severity of that play is depending on land count and initial creatures, but I can say without a doubt that resolving T&N for those two creatures is the #1 method people are killed (or tables are wiped) in the semi-casual games I play. I know all groups are not made equal, but I feel like Hoof plays are probably a regular thing many people experience. Back to the example though, I personally say T&N is the problem card but knowing that the RC has unbanned Protean Hulk, I doubt this card will ever be 'addressed' down the road. This is why Hoof will always fall into the area of a card I would love to see gone, but won't be shocked if it is never touched.
There has to be a 3rd card, a haste enabler involved, otherwise your attacking with a large Hoof, which is unspectacular at best. I mean, to entwine T&N with 9 lands, your attacking with a 15/15 Trampler. For 11, you get a permanent 15/15 with upside to boot in Worldspine Wurm... To further that point, I routinely attack with a 10+ power creature in my Xenogod deck, and I spend a heck of a lot less mana than 9 to do so.
I just don't see how he's an issue, obviously. There are answers. There are strategies that neuter him. There are strategies that make him totally useless. The only time I could see him being an issue is if the rest of the table does nothing to impact their board at all, which is hard to imagine, even for a "casual" table.
There has to be a 3rd card, a haste enabler involved, otherwise your attacking with a large Hoof, which is unspectacular at best. I mean, to entwine T&N with 9 lands, your attacking with a 15/15 Trampler. For 11, you get a permanent 15/15 with upside to boot in Worldspine Wurm... To further that point, I routinely attack with a 10+ power creature in my Xenogod deck, and I spend a heck of a lot less mana than 9 to do so.
I just don't see how he's an issue, obviously. There are answers. There are strategies that neuter him. There are strategies that make him totally useless. The only time I could see him being an issue is if the rest of the table does nothing to impact their board at all, which is hard to imagine, even for a "casual" table.
My point was a board with maybe 1-3 small creatures suddenly becomes an issue right away with the T&N resolution for those targets. Assuming you have 7 lands and a Sol ring, including the Hulk as an attacker you go, in order of # of available attacking creatures, from 14 power (Hoof alone), to 26 (Hoof + a 1/1), then to 37 (Hoof + 2 1/1's), and finally to 56 power (Hoof + 3 1/1's).
I get you're adding cards to get lethal and it's silly to say a card needs to be banned in those situations (when lethal takes a decent board state), but again the problem to me is that a stale, 3 1/1's in play board state (an arbitrary example) immediately became 56 power to fire at people. To me, that isn't something normally accomplished by other cards and is something that could need to be addressed - either the card itself or the tutor mechanic to suddenly cause that change.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
I cast my commander: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. How would you like to respond? Do you have a wrath for every time I cast this?
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.
There has to be a 3rd card, a haste enabler involved, otherwise your attacking with a large Hoof, which is unspectacular at best. I mean, to entwine T&N with 9 lands, your attacking with a 15/15 Trampler. For 11, you get a permanent 15/15 with upside to boot in Worldspine Wurm... To further that point, I routinely attack with a 10+ power creature in my Xenogod deck, and I spend a heck of a lot less mana than 9 to do so.
I just don't see how he's an issue, obviously. There are answers. There are strategies that neuter him. There are strategies that make him totally useless. The only time I could see him being an issue is if the rest of the table does nothing to impact their board at all, which is hard to imagine, even for a "casual" table.
My point was a board with maybe 1-3 small creatures suddenly becomes an issue right away with the T&N resolution for those targets. Assuming you have 7 lands and a Sol ring, including the Hulk as an attacker you go, in order of # of available attacking creatures, from 14 power (Hoof alone), to 26 (Hoof + a 1/1), then to 37 (Hoof + 2 1/1's), and finally to 56 power (Hoof + 3 1/1's).
I get you're adding cards to get lethal and it's silly to say a card needs to be banned in those situations (when lethal takes a decent board state), but again the problem to me is that a stale, 3 1/1's in play board state (an arbitrary example) immediately became 56 power to fire at people. To me, that isn't something normally accomplished by other cards.
True, but then you're back to your root problem, T&N.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
I cast my commander: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. How would you like to respond? Do you have a wrath for every time I cast this?
I don't follow. I can literally use this as an argument for banning/unbanning any card in existence. I read "but did you die?", I'd expect a little more from you ISB.
So cards synergizing well with 1 Legend out of the thousands in existence means it's a toxic card and should be banned?
I don't follow. I can literally use this as an argument for banning/unbanning any card in existence. I read "but did you die?", I'd expect a little more from you ISB.
So cards synergizing well with 1 Legend out of the thousands in existence means it's a toxic card and should be banned?
Your argument is that your opponent should never get to a board state that craterhoof can kill you because you run answers. If you play a commander that forcibly creates a burst of tokens it is very hard to use control and non counterspell answers to stop craterhoof because the resource expenditure to get to a lethal board state is so little and so regularly accessible that your agument that the amount of resources it takes to get to lethal craterhoof is not a very good one. Its true that for some decks and commanders it can take a lot of resources to get to a lethal craterhoof. For other decks its literally I cast my commander and unless I am wrathed off the board you all may die next turn.
What I am saying is that the argument that you can keep your opponents from being at a board state that they could kill you off of craterhoof is not a good one given the explosive board presence of some commanders. I can come up with more commanders if you would like Prossh is just the most ludicrious of the bunch. You could also do the same thing with Hazezon Tamar, Marath, Will of the Wild, and I am sure I could dig up more that the commander alone provides a significant board presence by itself.
Craterhoof is generally speaking at its most brutal when you play a commander that on its own and or with very little assistance swarms the board full of tokens. If every time I cast my commander you need to wrath again I will get through at some point.
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
I cast my commander: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. How would you like to respond? Do you have a wrath for every time I cast this?
Lol Prossh is more broken than Hoof on its own. Like, that is literally the situation whenever someone casts Prossh, regardless of whether they even have Hoof in their deck let alone able to cast it next turn. Its more like, I cast my Commander, Prossh, do you counter it or do I combo out with Ashnod's Alter?
Seriously dude, thanks for bringing up a card that is more problematic than Hoof to try to argue that Hoof should be banned, thumbs up.
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 could insert any of those, Craterhoof just hits harder and is more accessible than the rest. You are correct that this argument is 100% in where you want to draw the line in the sand of what is too much. In almost every situation Craterhoof is the strongest of all of these effects. Its also generally the most accessible of them.
Is being the strongest and most accessible of these effects enough to be banned.... Its worth talking about at least.
Lol Prossh is more broken than Hoof on its own. Like, that is literally the situation whenever someone casts Prossh, regardless of whether they even have Hoof in their deck let alone able to cast it next turn. Its more like, I cast my Commander, Prossh, do you counter it or do I combo out with Ashnod's Alter?
Seriously dude, thanks for bringing up a card that is more problematic than Hoof to try to argue that Hoof should be banned, thumbs up.
I dont disagree about Prossh being the absolute most ludicrous token generating legend out there. I only mentioned it because from a standpoint of trying to answer the board state before craterhoof can be used its the most brutal example of a robust board state that bounces back incredibly quickly.
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 don't follow. I can literally use this as an argument for banning/unbanning any card in existence. I read "but did you die?", I'd expect a little more from you ISB.
So cards synergizing well with 1 Legend out of the thousands in existence means it's a toxic card and should be banned?
Your argument is that your opponent should never get to a board state that craterhoof can kill you because you run answers. If you play a commander that forcibly creates a burst of tokens it is very hard to use control and non counterspell answers to stop craterhoof because the resource expenditure to get to a lethal board state is so little and so regularly accessible that your agument that the amount of resources it takes to get to lethal craterhoof is not a very good one. Its true that for some decks and commanders it can take a lot of resources to get to a lethal craterhoof. For other decks its literally I cast my commander and unless I am wrathed off the board you all may die next turn.
What I am saying is that the argument that you can keep your opponents from being at a board state that they could kill you off of craterhoof is not a good one given the explosive board presence of some commanders. I can come up with more commanders if you would like Prossh is just the most ludicrious of the bunch. You could also do the same thing with Hazezon Tamar, Marath, Will of the Wild, and I am sure I could dig up more that the commander alone provides a significant board presence by itself.
Craterhoof is generally speaking at its most brutal when you play a commander that on its own and or with very little assistance swarms the board full of tokens. If every time I cast my commander you need to wrath again I will get through at some point.
TL;DR: Ask your playgroup to not play it. This is what the social contract is for.
As said above, it is a poor example using a Commander that is notoriously busted.
You need a board of 10+ 1/1's, attack ready, unimpeded, to eliminate a table in one go.
But only 5 1/1s to kill one player out of nowhere, and 8 to kill 2 players. ...This is also assuming the Craterhoof player isn't playing any other big creatures, and that everyone is still at 40 life.
Further, even if the Craterhoof swing doesn't outright kill you, knocking you down to the single digits after blocking with as many creatures as you can most likely means you're dead on the next turn.
It's also assuming no one at the table has any answers or blockers that matter. Doesn't anyone other than the Craterhoof player run good cards? Counters, fogs, Ghostly Prison, removal, bounce, deathtouch, indestructible? Five 1/1s and a craterhoof will kill someone with an empty board. And yes, if you have an empty board and let someone get six creatures out, at least one of which costs as much as Craterhoof, you're probably going to lose regardless.
I cast my commander: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. How would you like to respond? Do you have a wrath for every time I cast this?
Honestly, yeah, Prossh needs to die every time he hits the field. He's far worse than Craterhoof, as he can just come right back from the command zone. Whenever we have a Prossh player at the table, we generally have to gang up on them and essentially pool our removal to keep him down.
if you have an empty board and let someone get six creatures out, at least one of which costs as much as Craterhoof, you're probably going to lose regardless.
With 5 1/1s and an 8-drop green creature, it'll take 4 combat phases to kill one person. (Excluding Craterhoof, creatures that are necessarily going to make more creatures to attack with during that period, and Gigantomancer, the average power for an 8-drop green creature is 7.36.)
Replace the 8-drop with Craterhoof, and it takes 1 combat phase.
if you have an empty board and let someone get six creatures out, at least one of which costs as much as Craterhoof, you're probably going to lose regardless.
With 5 1/1s and an 8-drop green creature, it'll take 4 combat phases to kill one person. (Excluding Craterhoof, creatures that are necessarily going to make more creatures to attack with during that period, and Gigantomancer, the average power for an 8-drop green creature is 7.36.)
Replace the 8-drop with Craterhoof, and it takes 1 combat phase.
Only if you have an empty board and no responses in hand. Again, if they have six creatures, why don't you have anything?
I get that Craterhoof can be a wincon. What I don't get is why people act like there's no way to answer it and why the defending player apparently forgot to pack his own wincon.
I get that Craterhoof can be a wincon. What I don't get is why people act like there's no way to answer it and why the defending player apparently forgot to pack his own wincon.
This is the equivalent to the "dies to Doom Blade" argument. Answers exist for literally everything in the game. Just because they exist, doesn't mean they're available when they need to be, or even necessarily commonly played/played in large quantites. (I am speaking generally here, not specifically about counters to Craterhoof.)
I get that Craterhoof can be a wincon. What I don't get is why people act like there's no way to answer it and why the defending player apparently forgot to pack his own wincon.
This is the equivalent to the "dies to Doom Blade" argument. Answers exist for literally everything in the game. Just because they exist, doesn't mean they're available when they need to be, or even necessarily commonly played/played in large quantites. (I am speaking generally here, not specifically about counters to Craterhoof.)
Ok, but why is that a problem? That's the thing nobody seems to be able to answer here. Its a good card that wins games when played at an opportune time, which is true for dozens of cards. It should usually end the game because if you have a hoof in hand the correct play is usually to wait until it will win you the game to cast it, with a few exceptions (needing to kill someone that's about to win if they don't die, casting it because it will be wheeled/puzzle boxed away) because otherwise you are wasting a win con (just like if you plan to win with kiki-mite, you don't randomly cast pestermite just because its in your hand). It can be answered by specific answer cards, yes, but it also gets answered simply by building your board and increasing the threshold that the hoof player needs to cross before hoof can be lethal. Yes, of course this only delays the hoof player from dropping hoof, but unless you are playing locks this game isn't about preventing people from winning forever, its about delaying them long enough so that you can win. Simply having up enough blockers to prevent them from dropping hoof for lethal damage for a few turns or killing off a few creatures so they have to spend turns and mana rebuilding their board can be enough to prevent hoof from ever coming down, either because someone else wins first or because someone draws an answer in the meantime or because something sets their board back even further.
Here's the thing people need to realize: Hoof gets drawn in a lot more games than it gets played in, and unless its tutored or luck sacked it sits in hand for several turns before it is actually played, and I'm talking about when you have it in hand and the mana to cast it, not just when your waiting on mana number 8. Cards that get banned for reasons other than playing badly with the format (like Coalition Victory) are typically cards that you will play as soon as you can play them. Prime Time, Primordial, Prophet, and Sundering Titan should usually be played as soon as you have the mana because they generate advantage immediately regardless of your board. No setup required, no waiting for the moment when they will be maximally effective, just draw and cast. Hoof isn't.
If you let your opponent get six dudes and you don't have any answers, not just wipes but even creatures of your own or bounce or even spot removal to screw up their math, you are probably either losing anyway or trying to play solitaire. Sorry, but games end, and good cards tend to be the things that end them. Is Hoof the best Overrun effect? Yes, but not strictly so. So what? Should we ban the best card for every effect? That just means we'll have to ban the second best, then the third best, until we sink into a pool of mediocrity where a bunch of janky cards are about equal because they have different strengths and weaknesses. That could be fun, go make a variant format and see if it is (spoiler alert: it'll be a blast, garbage cube is and garbage commander probably would be also), but that's not the point of Commander. Cyclonic Rift is the best bounce spell, Necropotence the best draw spell, Austere Command the premier flexible sweeper, Demonic Tutor the best tutor, we could go on. Should we ban them all? No. So being the best at the effect is not in itself a good argument for banning a card, all it establishes is that if we are going to ban cards with the effect then this should be the starting point.
This card is not warping the format around it. It is not coming down so early that its creating non games. Its effectiveness is heavily impacted by what has happened in the preceding turns (remember, if people are choosing not to play it because the current board or game state mean that it won't be a winning play, then it cares about what happens in the game before its cast. You don't say Exsanguinate for 20 doesn't care about the preceding turns, why say a card that requires a board presence doesn't?). It doesn't make every game its involved in revolve around it: if it wins, its a finisher, just like a combo, burning someone out, or building and overwhelming board, while if it doesn't win on the spot it becomes a vanilla 5/5 moving forward, not a centralizing piece that is fought over like Prime Time or Prophet. It doesn't contribute to repetitive play like Panoptic Mirror (relying on a wincon isn't repetitive play, doing the same thing over and over through the course of the game is), it doesn't create undesirable game states (the RC specifically says that losing the game does not qualify), it does not accidentally interact poorly with other players decks, it does not carry the ability to surprise the deck builder (you put it in because you want to cast it as a huge overrun effect, you don't stick it in and accidentally discover that). It simply does not meet the criteria for banning a card. The most we have on it is that it is strong and that it is widely played, and if that was all that was needed you'd have to ban about half of the top 50 list.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You look at cards like Ad Nauseum and Mind's Desire, don't they represent potential, the same as Craterhoof is? Its potential ranges from 0 to a range of hundreds of life (possibly more).
But back to my stance. Reducing the tutors would be a better solution than banning cards with "potential". The less consistent decks become, the less reports of people's demise from a wrecking train.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I don't want to digress too much, but my issue with Sundering Titan wasn't with the land destruction part, it was with the choosing part. I think we can take the Armageddon comparison out easily with "Titan can be more easily one-sided", but I've always thought the real reason Titan was banned was because "It is easily one-sided due to color choice" (Ruination is more of "due to deck-construction choice"). Since the format's rules restrict color due to Color Identity while non-basic land base construction is largely flexible. Yes, I know Boil exists, but there's a whole level of difference when a card allows you to choose, since it gives the card effectively a "sideboard advantage in mainboard" and since the format doesn't usually have sideboards...
That being said, because I feel like this was the defining point that got Sundering Titan banned, I still find it inconsistent that Iona, Shield of Emeria isn't banned on the same basis. Not going to go into details whether stax is worse than land destruction (everyone has differing opinions), but as far as I'm concerned, both passed the threshold when it comes to cards that have a "sideboard advantage" and punish heavily due to Color Choice.
Back to Craterhoof Behemoth, as far as "combos" go, Craterhoof is pretty low on the ladder - anyone relying on the typical tutor-to-Hoof-win mostly likely could do it with an array of other combos in the same deck as well. I don't see Hoof any different from any other instant-win combo out there. In fact, board presence would probably given a loud blaring siren of its arrival sooner or later, so it seems more like a failure of the table to deal with the board-state before.
What I think could be the closest argument for Craterhoof being "unhealthy" (not that I think it's enough to get it banned, but it's the closest thing) is that it discourages battlecruiser games. Like I said, Craterhoof comes with many warning sirens and its usually the failure to answer the board state that lets it through. But why? People don't like to board-wipe if they themselves have a sizable board presence, so in battlecruiser-metas, Craterhoof is more unhealthy than usual, since people were expecting several combat steps chipping lives down and Craterhoof doesn't do that (yes you could use it, but let's face it, even battlecruiser players will strategically save it for a winning swing since the buff is temporary.)
Like-wise, in "more-competitive" (debatable definition here, just take it lightly) metas that involve a lot more spellslinging and outright combos with not much creature-presence, there are plenty of board-wipes and more willingness to use it, which makes Craterhoof not only "not unhealthy", but outright "less than exciting" (or even "less than usable" if it's that savage).
Craterhoof is a card whose use is heavily influenced and shaped by the meta but at the same time, also possibly shapes the meta. It can be a cause of people eventually moving from battlecruiser to combo EDH, but at the same time, it's definitely not the only cause (and whether it's the most major one is debatable as well) and it's not a definitive direction either, if people were more willing to sacrifice board-states, there might be some battlecruiser metas that don't actually have problems with Craterhoof (not many I suppose, but my main point was that it's possible).
I always thought that sundering titan was banned because of the recursion/blinking potential. Triggering on ETB and LTB makes it especially difficult to deal with.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
not every playgroup is competitive enough that they want the game to end at or before the 8+ mana stage of the game. In those games cards at 6+ mana that cause instant table wipes are absolutely an issue, just because your group is more competitive doesn't mean be a jerk about it.
You need a board of 10+ 1/1's, attack ready, unimpeded, to eliminate a table in one go. Even at the most causal tables I wouldn't ever expect that to fly, considering at that point, any anthem or mass pump will eliminate at least 1 player, so that means you will complain about any overrun effect.
I would also expect the other players to be doing their thing with the same amount of mana, because you don't acquire a critical mass of creatures at the same time as ramping into oblivion. So you are either allowed to drop creature after creature while hitting land drops and suddenly top-decking 'Hoof, or, you're ramping hard and have nothing to pump. It's not both, it can't be both, especially in a "casual meta". I swear, this type of argument pops up on thread. Since we jump to conclusions, I'd assume the Crater Hoof player is the only one who does anything, because by the sounds of it, all the other players just draw cards and play lands...
Not sure how you picked up the competitiveness of the folks I play with off of 2 lines of text.
As many many others have stated, Craterhoof requires a LOT of set up to be this 'oppressive' card people make it out to be. Learn threat assessment and run answers, problem solved.
Jazal can be stopped by chump blocking because it doesn't give trample, and single target removal because it is sorcery speed and you need creatures to be attacking. This is in addition to counterspells and other effects that stop craterhoof.
Craterhoof tends to invalidate your removal AND your blockers. Getting hit by a big craterhoof turn feels more like the opponent just played a game winning combo. Having swords to plowshares in hand with mana to cast it, and then losing to the opponent playing a creature, feels awful.
I find the addition of two card combos has created the most stale and boring format ever. Now instead of exploring a huge card pool I just include the most efficient support cards for the small number of most efficient win conditions that fit in my colors.
Why are we still talking about this as a "combo"? It's not.
Like I said above, you need a critical mass of creatures on the field, attack ready, to make 'Hoof this unstoppable monster everybody is painting him as. I have never experienced a scenario where somebody has accumulated this board-presence "under the radar". Have I lost to it? Yes. But I'd also say that I would have probably lost to that player casting Overrun or Overwhelming Stampede because that's the type of board that's required for Hoof to eliminate players on the spot.
Honestly, I have more of a problem with, and have lost more to, Ezuri, Renegade Leader and his pump. However, I'll never advocate for his banning, and the same goes for Hoof.
This is also assuming the Craterhoof player isn't playing any other big creatures, and that everyone is still at 40 life.
Further, even if the Craterhoof swing doesn't outright kill you, knocking you down to the single digits after blocking with as many creatures as you can most likely means you're dead on the next turn.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Ok, you dissected, so where is the problem with that?
Honestly, yeah I probably would "windmill slam" a wrath at that point. Because this is multi-player, I'm sure I'd catch a few other "problems" with it as well. Considering that 5 creatures enables Beastmaster Ascesion, creates a swarm of 4/4 tramplers with Overrun, etc., I'd be doing myself a disservice by allowing that player to proceed with his game plan.
Also, for this to be a problem, it has to kill you. I could list pages worth of interactions that "almost" get the job done.
Just take a step back and think of how many resources are going into a Craterhoof board kill. Being a proactive opponent, it should never get to that point, and if it does, you were probably going to be dead soon anyways.
The issue I have with Hoof in general is the interaction of him + Avenger of Zendikar off an entwined Tooth and Nail. Now, a lot of the severity of that play is depending on land count and initial creatures, but I can say without a doubt that resolving T&N for those two creatures is the #1 method people are killed (or tables are wiped) in the semi-casual games I play. I know all groups are not made equal, but I feel like Hoof plays are probably a regular thing many people experience. Back to the example though, I personally say T&N is the problem card but knowing that the RC has unbanned Protean Hulk, I doubt this card will ever be 'addressed' down the road. This is why Hoof will always fall into the area of a card I would love to see gone, but won't be shocked if it is never touched.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
There has to be a 3rd card, a haste enabler involved, otherwise your attacking with a large Hoof, which is unspectacular at best. I mean, to entwine T&N with 9 lands, your attacking with a 15/15 Trampler. For 11, you get a permanent 15/15 with upside to boot in Worldspine Wurm... To further that point, I routinely attack with a 10+ power creature in my Xenogod deck, and I spend a heck of a lot less mana than 9 to do so.
I just don't see how he's an issue, obviously. There are answers. There are strategies that neuter him. There are strategies that make him totally useless. The only time I could see him being an issue is if the rest of the table does nothing to impact their board at all, which is hard to imagine, even for a "casual" table.
I get you're adding cards to get lethal and it's silly to say a card needs to be banned in those situations (when lethal takes a decent board state), but again the problem to me is that a stale, 3 1/1's in play board state (an arbitrary example) immediately became 56 power to fire at people. To me, that isn't something normally accomplished by other cards and is something that could need to be addressed - either the card itself or the tutor mechanic to suddenly cause that change.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
I cast my commander: Prossh, Skyraider of Kher. How would you like to respond? Do you have a wrath for every time I cast this?
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
True, but then you're back to your root problem, T&N.
I don't follow. I can literally use this as an argument for banning/unbanning any card in existence. I read "but did you die?", I'd expect a little more from you ISB.
So cards synergizing well with 1 Legend out of the thousands in existence means it's a toxic card and should be banned?
Edit: You realize that casting Prossh and then casting any of Triumph of the Hordes, Overrun, Overwheming Stampede, Beastmaster Ascesion accomplishes a similar beat down. Back to the previous point of where to draw the line.
Your argument is that your opponent should never get to a board state that craterhoof can kill you because you run answers. If you play a commander that forcibly creates a burst of tokens it is very hard to use control and non counterspell answers to stop craterhoof because the resource expenditure to get to a lethal board state is so little and so regularly accessible that your agument that the amount of resources it takes to get to lethal craterhoof is not a very good one. Its true that for some decks and commanders it can take a lot of resources to get to a lethal craterhoof. For other decks its literally I cast my commander and unless I am wrathed off the board you all may die next turn.
What I am saying is that the argument that you can keep your opponents from being at a board state that they could kill you off of craterhoof is not a good one given the explosive board presence of some commanders. I can come up with more commanders if you would like Prossh is just the most ludicrious of the bunch. You could also do the same thing with Hazezon Tamar, Marath, Will of the Wild, and I am sure I could dig up more that the commander alone provides a significant board presence by itself.
Craterhoof is generally speaking at its most brutal when you play a commander that on its own and or with very little assistance swarms the board full of tokens. If every time I cast my commander you need to wrath again I will get through at some point.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Lol Prossh is more broken than Hoof on its own. Like, that is literally the situation whenever someone casts Prossh, regardless of whether they even have Hoof in their deck let alone able to cast it next turn. Its more like, I cast my Commander, Prossh, do you counter it or do I combo out with Ashnod's Alter?
Seriously dude, thanks for bringing up a card that is more problematic than Hoof to try to argue that Hoof should be banned, thumbs up.
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 could insert any of those, Craterhoof just hits harder and is more accessible than the rest. You are correct that this argument is 100% in where you want to draw the line in the sand of what is too much. In almost every situation Craterhoof is the strongest of all of these effects. Its also generally the most accessible of them.
Is being the strongest and most accessible of these effects enough to be banned.... Its worth talking about at least.
I dont disagree about Prossh being the absolute most ludicrous token generating legend out there. I only mentioned it because from a standpoint of trying to answer the board state before craterhoof can be used its the most brutal example of a robust board state that bounces back incredibly quickly.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
TL;DR: Ask your playgroup to not play it. This is what the social contract is for.
As said above, it is a poor example using a Commander that is notoriously busted.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Replace the 8-drop with Craterhoof, and it takes 1 combat phase.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I get that Craterhoof can be a wincon. What I don't get is why people act like there's no way to answer it and why the defending player apparently forgot to pack his own wincon.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Ok, but why is that a problem? That's the thing nobody seems to be able to answer here. Its a good card that wins games when played at an opportune time, which is true for dozens of cards. It should usually end the game because if you have a hoof in hand the correct play is usually to wait until it will win you the game to cast it, with a few exceptions (needing to kill someone that's about to win if they don't die, casting it because it will be wheeled/puzzle boxed away) because otherwise you are wasting a win con (just like if you plan to win with kiki-mite, you don't randomly cast pestermite just because its in your hand). It can be answered by specific answer cards, yes, but it also gets answered simply by building your board and increasing the threshold that the hoof player needs to cross before hoof can be lethal. Yes, of course this only delays the hoof player from dropping hoof, but unless you are playing locks this game isn't about preventing people from winning forever, its about delaying them long enough so that you can win. Simply having up enough blockers to prevent them from dropping hoof for lethal damage for a few turns or killing off a few creatures so they have to spend turns and mana rebuilding their board can be enough to prevent hoof from ever coming down, either because someone else wins first or because someone draws an answer in the meantime or because something sets their board back even further.
Here's the thing people need to realize: Hoof gets drawn in a lot more games than it gets played in, and unless its tutored or luck sacked it sits in hand for several turns before it is actually played, and I'm talking about when you have it in hand and the mana to cast it, not just when your waiting on mana number 8. Cards that get banned for reasons other than playing badly with the format (like Coalition Victory) are typically cards that you will play as soon as you can play them. Prime Time, Primordial, Prophet, and Sundering Titan should usually be played as soon as you have the mana because they generate advantage immediately regardless of your board. No setup required, no waiting for the moment when they will be maximally effective, just draw and cast. Hoof isn't.
If you let your opponent get six dudes and you don't have any answers, not just wipes but even creatures of your own or bounce or even spot removal to screw up their math, you are probably either losing anyway or trying to play solitaire. Sorry, but games end, and good cards tend to be the things that end them. Is Hoof the best Overrun effect? Yes, but not strictly so. So what? Should we ban the best card for every effect? That just means we'll have to ban the second best, then the third best, until we sink into a pool of mediocrity where a bunch of janky cards are about equal because they have different strengths and weaknesses. That could be fun, go make a variant format and see if it is (spoiler alert: it'll be a blast, garbage cube is and garbage commander probably would be also), but that's not the point of Commander. Cyclonic Rift is the best bounce spell, Necropotence the best draw spell, Austere Command the premier flexible sweeper, Demonic Tutor the best tutor, we could go on. Should we ban them all? No. So being the best at the effect is not in itself a good argument for banning a card, all it establishes is that if we are going to ban cards with the effect then this should be the starting point.
This card is not warping the format around it. It is not coming down so early that its creating non games. Its effectiveness is heavily impacted by what has happened in the preceding turns (remember, if people are choosing not to play it because the current board or game state mean that it won't be a winning play, then it cares about what happens in the game before its cast. You don't say Exsanguinate for 20 doesn't care about the preceding turns, why say a card that requires a board presence doesn't?). It doesn't make every game its involved in revolve around it: if it wins, its a finisher, just like a combo, burning someone out, or building and overwhelming board, while if it doesn't win on the spot it becomes a vanilla 5/5 moving forward, not a centralizing piece that is fought over like Prime Time or Prophet. It doesn't contribute to repetitive play like Panoptic Mirror (relying on a wincon isn't repetitive play, doing the same thing over and over through the course of the game is), it doesn't create undesirable game states (the RC specifically says that losing the game does not qualify), it does not accidentally interact poorly with other players decks, it does not carry the ability to surprise the deck builder (you put it in because you want to cast it as a huge overrun effect, you don't stick it in and accidentally discover that). It simply does not meet the criteria for banning a card. The most we have on it is that it is strong and that it is widely played, and if that was all that was needed you'd have to ban about half of the top 50 list.
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!