The problem with the "You can combo out faster with this combo, therefore card X is fair". is that people don't actually play the format that way. The RC has banned several cards that cost 8+ mana. the idea that any 8 cost cards should be capable of winning the game because you failed to win quicker is an idea that comes from 60-card magic and has no place in EDH discussion. Why would the RC act to ban so many high mana spells if the game is suppose to end on or before turn 8?
I took a quick glance Sheldon's play-by-play articles at and I can't find a single game ending before turn 10. His games regularly go into the high teens turn count and even passing turn 20 is not that rare.
The RC is obviously not playing the "Let's just combo out on turn 5" game.
The problem with the "You can combo out faster with this combo, therefore card X is fair". is that people don't actually play the format that way. The RC has banned several cards that cost 8+ mana. the idea that any 8 cost cards should be capable of winning the game because you failed to win quicker is an idea that comes from 60-card magic and has no place in EDH discussion. Why would the RC act to ban so many high mana spells if the game is suppose to end on or before turn 8?
I took a quick glance Sheldon's play-by-play articles at and I can't find a single game ending before turn 10. His games regularly go into the high teens turn count and even passing turn 20 is not that rare.
The RC is obviously not playing the "Let's just combo out on turn 5" game.
You're right. The RC has said many time that they don't ban cards based on their combo potential, with Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, and Doomsday all remaining legal but usually just end up being "comborific".
So, what makes Craterhoof any different? It falls well below the threshold that those other cards create, which was the point of that particular argument.
Craterhoof does exactly what it says it does, is incredibly dependent on other cards in your deck to be good, and hits next to no ban criteria. If you want it banned, house ban it. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this giant horse to death.
You're right. The RC has said many time that they don't ban cards based on their combo potential, with Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, and Doomsday all remaining legal but usually just end up being "comborific".
So, what makes Craterhoof any different? It falls well below the threshold that those other cards create, which was the point of that particular argument.
Craterhoof does exactly what it says it does, is incredibly dependent on other cards in your deck to be good, and hits next to no ban criteria. If you want it banned, house ban it. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this giant horse to death.
The difference is the disconnect between Wizards who makes cards and the RC who creates the banned list. We have seen several cards that have had to be almost immediately banned put into the format in the past several years.
Because a card is not currently on the banned list does not mean that it is not a problematic offender. Craterhoof was printed as a burst pump effect likely with commander in mind given its high mana cost. Because something is designed for commander does not mean it is healthy or good for the format.
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.
The problem with the "You can combo out faster with this combo, therefore card X is fair". is that people don't actually play the format that way. The RC has banned several cards that cost 8+ mana. the idea that any 8 cost cards should be capable of winning the game because you failed to win quicker is an idea that comes from 60-card magic and has no place in EDH discussion. Why would the RC act to ban so many high mana spells if the game is suppose to end on or before turn 8?
I took a quick glance Sheldon's play-by-play articles at and I can't find a single game ending before turn 10. His games regularly go into the high teens turn count and even passing turn 20 is not that rare.
The RC is obviously not playing the "Let's just combo out on turn 5" game.
You're right. The RC has said many time that they don't ban cards based on their combo potential, with Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, and Doomsday all remaining legal but usually just end up being "comborific".
So, what makes Craterhoof any different? It falls well below the threshold that those other cards create, which was the point of that particular argument.
Craterhoof does exactly what it says it does, is incredibly dependent on other cards in your deck to be good, and hits next to no ban criteria. If you want it banned, house ban it. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this giant horse to death.
Damn right. We've had the discussion, we've had the poll, and the conclusion is that it's a strong card that doesn't meet any ban criteria and that most players regard as not worthy of a ban, but that a significant but vocal minority absolutely hate the card for legitimate reasons.
Look, it isn't at such an absurd power level to merit a ban based on that alone, nor is its ability to immediately close out games if played correctly something that gets cards banned, but it IS at a power level that can be annoying in some meta's and that some players just don't want to deal with, and winning the game suddenly (not out of nowhere, but not requiring several turns of setup or attacks while being obviously telegraphed) is something that many playgroups don't want.
The key takeaway here, I believe, is that Hoof is a card that people should be open to house banning. If you are fine with hoof but members of your playgroup want it gone, you should be open to a house ban because it's a reasonable concession, especially if your group is already anti combo. You won't lose much and it can significantly improve the experience of the player who hates it, who is your friend.
On the flip side, the anti hoof crowd needs to understand that we are not arguing that you need to play with and accept the card. While it's a fair card to house ban, it is not worthy of banning outright because it is fine in many meta's. It is important to letting creature based strategies have a chance in more competitive meta's, and is generally fine in most 75% and many casual meta's. Not liking what the card does is subjective, and it's better to cater to those players at the playgroup level then to ban it for everyone, including the many playgroups who handle it just fine.
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!
Damn right. We've had the discussion, we've had the poll, and the conclusion is that it's a strong card that doesn't meet any ban criteria and that most players regard as not worthy of a ban, but that a significant but vocal minority absolutely hate the card for legitimate reasons.
Look, it isn't at such an absurd power level to merit a ban based on that alone, nor is its ability to immediately close out games if played correctly something that gets cards banned, but it IS at a power level that can be annoying in some meta's and that some players just don't want to deal with, and winning the game suddenly (not out of nowhere, but not requiring several turns of setup or attacks while being obviously telegraphed) is something that many playgroups don't want.
The key takeaway here, I believe, is that Hoof is a card that people should be open to house banning. If you are fine with hoof but members of your playgroup want it gone, you should be open to a house ban because it's a reasonable concession, especially if your group is already anti combo. You won't lose much and it can significantly improve the experience of the player who hates it, who is your friend.
On the flip side, the anti hoof crowd needs to understand that we are not arguing that you need to play with and accept the card. While it's a fair card to house ban, it is not worthy of banning outright because it is fine in many meta's. It is important to letting creature based strategies have a chance in more competitive meta's, and is generally fine in most 75% and many casual meta's. Not liking what the card does is subjective, and it's better to cater to those players at the playgroup level then to ban it for everyone, including the many playgroups who handle it just fine.
Well put.
My only small gripe is that house bans are really a pain in the ass to assemble and approve. There is the question of how to organize a request for a house ban and then there is the issue of how house bans work when it comes to someone new or passing through the meta. I do totally agree that house bans can work but I would also argue that they are hard to come to a consensus on as well as get a meta to approve and enforce.
I appreciate the well thought out comment considering both sides of the coin. I know that being against the use of Craterhoof does in fact put me in the minority of users. I started this thread not because I actually think that it will go anywhere but because I think that its one of the cards that boarders in being a problematic (depending on the meta).
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.
Damn right. We've had the discussion, we've had the poll, and the conclusion is that it's a strong card that doesn't meet any ban criteria and that most players regard as not worthy of a ban, but that a significant but vocal minority absolutely hate the card for legitimate reasons.
Look, it isn't at such an absurd power level to merit a ban based on that alone, nor is its ability to immediately close out games if played correctly something that gets cards banned, but it IS at a power level that can be annoying in some meta's and that some players just don't want to deal with, and winning the game suddenly (not out of nowhere, but not requiring several turns of setup or attacks while being obviously telegraphed) is something that many playgroups don't want.
The key takeaway here, I believe, is that Hoof is a card that people should be open to house banning. If you are fine with hoof but members of your playgroup want it gone, you should be open to a house ban because it's a reasonable concession, especially if your group is already anti combo. You won't lose much and it can significantly improve the experience of the player who hates it, who is your friend.
On the flip side, the anti hoof crowd needs to understand that we are not arguing that you need to play with and accept the card. While it's a fair card to house ban, it is not worthy of banning outright because it is fine in many meta's. It is important to letting creature based strategies have a chance in more competitive meta's, and is generally fine in most 75% and many casual meta's. Not liking what the card does is subjective, and it's better to cater to those players at the playgroup level then to ban it for everyone, including the many playgroups who handle it just fine.
Well put.
My only small gripe is that house bans are really a pain in the ass to assemble and approve. There is the question of how to organize a request for a house ban and then there is the issue of how house bans work when it comes to someone new or passing through the meta. I do totally agree that house bans can work but I would also argue that they are hard to come to a consensus on as well as get a meta to approve and enforce.
I appreciate the well thought out comment considering both sides of the coin. I know that being against the use of Craterhoof does in fact put me in the minority of users. I started this thread not because I actually think that it will go anywhere but because I think that its one of the cards that boarders in being a problematic (depending on the meta).
A lot of problems would be solved if people kept in mind that they are playing with friends and should take their opinions into account.
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!
As someone at my LGS put it; Craterhoof isn't a combo card, but it usually is the last card that's played in a game and that's why it causes feelbads. Seems very fitting on the current discussion.
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.
There's a lot of cards that are usually the last card played in a game, though. I mean I've been playing long enough to remember cards like Insurrection, Rite of Replication, and Time Stretch being brought up for banning. I mean Omniscience is usually the last card even though it doesn't literally win the game itself. Overruns in general are usually the last card in a game. Trench Gorger has actually come down the final turn, the majority of the time I've had it out. At some point, the game does have to end even if you're literally playing Craw Wurm. Assuming we ban all the cards that tend to end the game when cast, what gets the axe next? Something is going to be the most likely to end the game and then it gets banned? There's no way that path stops with Hoof.
Craterhoof Behemoth is an eight mana spell meant to expedite the process of ending the game. Can it be abused? Yes. Can it be used fairly? Yes. Is it usually the last card played before combat starts? Yes. Removing cards that don't instantaneously win the game but expedite the process are not exactly a good idea.
Craterhoof Behemoth is an eight mana spell meant to expedite the process of ending the game. Can it be abused? Yes. Can it be used fairly? Yes. Is it usually the last card played before combat starts? Yes. Removing cards that don't instantaneously win the game but expedite the process are not exactly a good idea.
Honestly, I think it's better to view the card from a casual standpoint, since that is (mostly) how the banned list is managed. Much like Prophet of Kruphix or Primeval Titan or Sylvan Primordial or Sundering Titan, Hoof is a Timmy card that can cause "feelbads." While I don't particularly lament the banning of any of those cards, nor would I care about Hoof, it does affect the game in a massive way similar to the aforementioned banned cards.
Compare it to the next best options:
Jazal Goldmane - Requires haste, additional mana, and/or trample while having no effect if killed before combat. Pathbreaker Ibex - Requires haste, at least one big creature, and no effect if killed before combat. Decimator of the Provinces - Fixed buff, only triggers on cast.
Craterhoof ignores all of the additional requirements on the other cards, so it can "trick" new players into thinking it is a fun card while it can cause some serious issues in a casual table.
Just to reiterate: I don't think hoof needs to be banned, objectively, but it fits the pattern.
Well, they're the next best options for overruns on creatures, but not necessarily overruns in general. It really depends on situation and decklist as to what the best overrun really is.
Craterhoof Behemoth is an eight mana spell meant to expedite the process of ending the game. Can it be abused? Yes. Can it be used fairly? Yes. Is it usually the last card played before combat starts? Yes. Removing cards that don't instantaneously win the game but expedite the process are not exactly a good idea.
Honestly, I think it's better to view the card from a casual standpoint, since that is (mostly) how the banned list is managed. Much like Prophet of Kruphix or Primeval Titan or Sylvan Primordial or Sundering Titan, Hoof is a Timmy card that can cause "feelbads." While I don't particularly lament the banning of any of those cards, nor would I care about Hoof, it does affect the game in a massive way similar to the aforementioned banned cards.
Compare it to the next best options:
Jazal Goldmane - Requires haste, additional mana, and/or trample while having no effect if killed before combat. Pathbreaker Ibex - Requires haste, at least one big creature, and no effect if killed before combat. Decimator of the Provinces - Fixed buff, only triggers on cast.
Craterhoof ignores all of the additional requirements on the other cards, so it can "trick" new players into thinking it is a fun card while it can cause some serious issues in a casual table.
Just to reiterate: I don't think hoof needs to be banned, objectively, but it fits the pattern.
I agree with this assessment, except I'll point out I think the RC expects Casual-playgroup to adapt to it by playing more Wraths in general.
The "Wraths are useless if the swarm comes back every turn" counterpoint doesn't really apply to "Casual-playgroup", because anyone constantly swarming the board so that he or she can immediately overrun the game is pretty much playing competitive combo (or at least, is mentally doing so already, not going to argue whether only "better" combos constitute competitive).
Of course there's a logical standpoint that Casual-playgroup adapts to playing Wraths, then Swarm player adapts to Wraths by playing "Every turn swarm returns (without consciously planning the overrun part)" then starts curbstomping the playgroup because the overrun part was in the deck in the first place, which leads to 3 possible paths...
1) The player realizes it's unfun and removes Craterhoof/Overruns and/or the playgroup agrees to remove it (effectively social contract).
2) The meta evolves and the others start playing competitive combo(s) to simply outrace the swarm rather than (solely) relying on Wraths.
3) The curbstomp continues and people complain and don't do anything themselves.
Okay fine, the third one isn't actually a path (although it's the route someone definitely took for some card at some time), but I raised it to point out it does nothing and isn't a reason for banning (otherwise Sphinx and Navigator would have been long gone).
The first path is pretty universal and honestly cannot be held for or against a card until its severity passes a certain degree.
The only reason that stands against Craterhoof is the 2nd path, but is it deadly enough for the format overall to warrant a card being banned from the format entirely? Note that the 3 paths I stated were tailored for Craterhoof - in Primeval Titan's case it was 2) the meta evolves and everyone starts racing to get mana faster than the PT player, most of which involved just using anyone's PT and well, we know how that went. PT was unique in the way that it was effectively 2) and 3) at the same time - people could not find the actual solution to the problem and everyone ended up doing one big round of nothing while complaining. Prophet was similar in a way (except it warped color-choices instead and was a lot less obvious than PT as such).
Does Craterhoof create a similar image? Is its contribution towards the evolution towards a more competitive meta considered too huge, the same way Prophet's influence on color choices was too huge and the response to PT just outright wrecked games of all metas?
It should be banned. Countless reddit threads, posts here, comments on tapped out, and in general mtg community on the internet always say the same thing when you talk about banning it:
"Maybe you and your table should adapt"
Funny, I heard the same arguments before Emrakul was axed. Everyone loves to talk in a vacuum about this stuff. What does it say about a card if every player has to reserve just a little less mana and an answer or 2, so one card doesn't allow one player to kill them all with an attack step.
In the end though, as long as cards like this get to be played, I have no qualms about dropping Armageddons, Mana Webs, and general nasty and annoying cards
It should be banned. Countless reddit threads, posts here, comments on tapped out, and in general mtg community on the internet always say the same thing when you talk about banning it:
"Maybe you and your table should adapt"
Funny, I heard the same arguments before Emrakul was axed. Everyone loves to talk in a vacuum about this stuff. What does it say about a card if every player has to reserve just a little less mana and an answer or 2, so one card doesn't allow one player to kill them all with an attack step.
In the end though, as long as cards like this get to be played, I have no qualms about dropping Armageddons, Mana Webs, and general nasty and annoying cards
So blowing up lands/grinding games to a halt = Allowing an opponent to assemble a board large enough to obliterate a table, in the combat phase?
Emrakul was also immune to common removal. So there's that. There's also the poll above. It's right there in black and white. However, reading it as "You and your table should adapt" is a little dramatic. Like Lou said, it's usually the last card played, but that applies to so many other degenerate things you can do, specifically at instant speed that can only be interacted with on the stack(counterspells).
At least Craterhoof Behemoth ends the game. I'd play with a 'Hoof fanatic well before I'd sit at a table with you and your slog fest.
It should be banned. Countless reddit threads, posts here, comments on tapped out, and in general mtg community on the internet always say the same thing when you talk about banning it:
"Maybe you and your table should adapt"
Funny, I heard the same arguments before Emrakul was axed. Everyone loves to talk in a vacuum about this stuff. What does it say about a card if every player has to reserve just a little less mana and an answer or 2, so one card doesn't allow one player to kill them all with an attack step.
In the end though, as long as cards like this get to be played, I have no qualms about dropping Armageddons, Mana Webs, and general nasty and annoying cards
Well, those cards are legal and should not be banned, so good for you for killing your own point? Well, I'm assuming you'd run them as part of a cohesive game plan to win, at which point my advice to your table would be to adapt. Those cards are only bad when you dick around with them and drawing out the game with no strategy.
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!
Its been a good bit of time since this topic really had any discussion but I wanted to real quick point to recent card design as to additional reasons why Craterhoof Behemoth is clearly way too far above what these effects should do:
Both of these cards and new design of how much pump they allow really highlights to me how much is wrong with Craterhoof. I literally don't have any issues with any of the other green mass pump effects but the recent design of VERY similar cards just seems to further that Craterhoof Behemoth went so far above and beyond what it should have.
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.
Craterhoof is a really effective card at ending games, but it does so in so anticlimactic and predictable manner that it's pretty boring. I used to play it in several decks, and in some (Gahiji tokens, Rhys elves/tokens)it was too easy to cast it too early, so I ended up taking it out. Currently it's in only two decks (Mayael and Ruric Thar), both based around winning by slamming into opponents with big creatures; it seems appropriate enough there, but I have intentionally taken it out or never put it into other decks. I have thought about taking it out of the two decks where I do run it, replacing it with something else that might be effective in closing out games but potentially more interesting than the 'Hoof.
I don't think Craterhoof Behemoth needs to be banned, because it's not breaking the format. It's just a big, expensive card that, played right, tends to end games in a really boring manner. I wouldn't miss it if it were banned, though. In addition, I think it is a reasonable card to be "house banned" or around which players might have discussions about the kinds of games they want and what cards are and are not consistent with that.
Its been a good bit of time since this topic really had any discussion but I wanted to real quick point to recent card design as to additional reasons why Craterhoof Behemoth is clearly way too far above what these effects should do:
Both of these cards and new design of how much pump they allow really highlights to me how much is wrong with Craterhoof. I literally don't have any issues with any of the other green mass pump effects but the recent design of VERY similar cards just seems to further that Craterhoof Behemoth went so far above and beyond what it should have.
Decimator is a really weird card. Without ramp, you can cast it on turn 5. You cannot compare to hoof very easily.
End-Raze Forerunners is better if it is your only creature. Or even if you have one other creature. It is definitely a 'fixed' hoof and the power is much lower. But in the same way that Plasm Capture was a fixed Mana Drain, it does not help the argument for banning hoof.
Decimator is a really weird card. Without ramp, you can cast it on turn 5. You cannot compare to hoof very easily.
End-Raze Forerunners is better if it is your only creature. Or even if you have one other creature. It is definitely a 'fixed' hoof and the power is much lower. But in the same way that Plasm Capture was a fixed Mana Drain, it does not help the argument for banning hoof.
I feel like this argument is missing the point. You shouldn't judge cards based on suboptimal play. You don't judge a Wrath of God based on what happens when you play it into your own army while your opponent has nothing. Likewise, comparing these nominally 8-ish cost creatures in this manner is very bizzare.
In order to cast Decimator turn 5, you have to first play a 4 drop, then sacrifice it - that loses you a card, an attacker that's getting the buff, as well as mana investment from the turn prior - those are still costs. While you are correct that it can come out turn 5 for an overrun effect, the power level of such a play above overrun is pretty low.
I easily see ISB's point that the 3 cards show a clear delineation in a shift of design philosophy for that effect - They have decidedly realized that Craterhoof's effect vastly outstrips its cost, and later printed iterations of the effect show them scaling back the effect on a comparative cost.
This is also seen in Cyclonic Rift - No other card even approaches the power of rift at the same cost - Either they are sorceries, cost more, or are not one sided, or a combination of all of the above.
Cards being printed above their powercurve is nothing new however, and whether that alone is ban-worthy is a decent question. One of the Commander banning philosophies is to account for cards whose power exceeds their design due to differences in EDH than from regular play. You could make a tenuous argument about the length of a Commander game and mana available - but in the end, Craterhoof's effect is the same in Commander vs non-Commander. As such, it doesn't deserve a ban on those merits. One point of note on this banning criteria - Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant don't qualify, despite the change in starting life total.
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.
I will say however, that I agree with the other posters who say that Craterhoof is an anti-climactic and boring victory. I find infinite combos, Exsanguinate and other such immediate game ending cards in the same category. Some people like those though. Now, in Commander, there is a banning philosophy for cards of poor interaction, and several "win immediately" cards are banned.
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.
While certain cards (Biorhythm, Coalition Victory) qualify under this, others (Felidar Sovereign) don't. Part of that is due to interactivity, time required, or mana investment. On this level, an argument can be made for banning Craterhoof: It's power to cost proportion is considerably low, and its effect so great, that it has a great power to end a game outright and gives little opportunity to respond. You do not have a turn order to deal with it, and single target removals won't work enough.
Both of the cards ISB linked have a much lower power level. They'll probably guarantee a kill on one player, but likely not the table all at once, at least, without significant further investment. Craterhoof's boosting of +10 to a token army allows for easy splits around the table for absurd damage. Even Pathbreaker Ibex is a more fair card, as it would typically take a turn order to deal with, and even if given haste from an external source - can be dealt with Single Target Removal before the trigger goes off.
All that said, the counter argument would be that it does require commitment to the board, and still uses a combat step. Both of which are areas for interaction - after all, cards like Evacuation (although this is just a delay), Settle the Wreckage, and Rout exist. (One reason why Rout is among my favorite wraths). However, my counter to the "requires board state" is that qualification is very vague and broad. If I have to constantly wrath your board just because you have 8+ tokens at any given time, or there's a chance you win (since wrath's are typically sorcery speed) - that's not very healthy. Getting such a minimal board state doesn't take that much effort. The cards to 'counter' this are also very specific, and having a mini game of "Do you have that specific subset of cards in hand or you lose" doesn't sound like great interaction either.
I brought up Exsanguinate (and by inference, most Fireball effects), but to kill a table with these spells (which are also hard to interact with for certain colors) requires a vastly different order of mana - typically at least in the 30's range, if not higher. At Craterhoof's mana cost, Exsanguinate is barely a Kokusho's effect.
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.
Then there's this final criteria - Is Craterhoof an auto include? Not exactly, but it is very prevalent. It's in most type 50 lists of several different sources. EDHREC has Craterhoof in only in 12% of decks, and doesn't make EDHRECs top popular cards of all colors (which ends at around 15% representation), but does easily make it on their top-green page (27th place). However, Carterhoof is far more expensive (mana-wise) and fits a narrower (barely) strategy, and many players also opt to not run it due to its impact. Which leads to the second half of this criteria: Impact.
Cultivate, Farseek, and so on may have higher % representation - but they have a lower cost, and are much broader in use. They also hardly have the same impact on the game in terms of feel. Lots of players here have already brought up that Craterhoof is cut due to not having the type of impact for making the desired game.
==
In the end, Craterhoof doesn't seem to cross the line on any specific banning policy, but I can see arguments raised in three of them.
I do feel it's guilty of being poorly designed, and I feel that recent evidence shows that Wizards is in agreement on that. I do feel that it is definitely above a standard power/cost ratio. I don't know if that alone warrants a ban though. I don't necessarily feel that the card is anti-fun, but I do feel that it is boring, which is probably the harshest point against it.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Decimator is a really weird card. Without ramp, you can cast it on turn 5. You cannot compare to hoof very easily.
End-Raze Forerunners is better if it is your only creature. Or even if you have one other creature. It is definitely a 'fixed' hoof and the power is much lower. But in the same way that Plasm Capture was a fixed Mana Drain, it does not help the argument for banning hoof.
I feel like this argument is missing the point. You shouldn't judge cards based on suboptimal play. You don't judge a Wrath of God based on what happens when you play it into your own army while your opponent has nothing. Likewise, comparing these nominally 8-ish cost creatures in this manner is very bizzare.
In order to cast Decimator turn 5, you have to first play a 4 drop, then sacrifice it - that loses you a card, an attacker that's getting the buff, as well as mana investment from the turn prior - those are still costs. While you are correct that it can come out turn 5 for an overrun effect, the power level of such a play above overrun is pretty low.
I easily see ISB's point that the 3 cards show a clear delineation in a shift of design philosophy for that effect - They have decidedly realized that Craterhoof's effect vastly outstrips its cost, and later printed iterations of the effect show them scaling back the effect on a comparative cost.
This is also seen in Cyclonic Rift - No other card even approaches the power of rift at the same cost - Either they are sorceries, cost more, or are not one sided, or a combination of all of the above.
Cards being printed above their powercurve is nothing new however, and whether that alone is ban-worthy is a decent question. One of the Commander banning philosophies is to account for cards whose power exceeds their design due to differences in EDH than from regular play. You could make a tenuous argument about the length of a Commander game and mana available - but in the end, Craterhoof's effect is the same in Commander vs non-Commander. As such, it doesn't deserve a ban on those merits. One point of note on this banning criteria - Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant don't qualify, despite the change in starting life total.
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.
I will say however, that I agree with the other posters who say that Craterhoof is an anti-climactic and boring victory. I find infinite combos, Exsanguinate and other such immediate game ending cards in the same category. Some people like those though. Now, in Commander, there is a banning philosophy for cards of poor interaction, and several "win immediately" cards are banned.
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.
While certain cards (Biorhythm, Coalition Victory) qualify under this, others (Felidar Sovereign) don't. Part of that is due to interactivity, time required, or mana investment. On this level, an argument can be made for banning Craterhoof: It's power to cost proportion is considerably low, and its effect so great, that it has a great power to end a game outright and gives little opportunity to respond. You do not have a turn order to deal with it, and single target removals won't work enough.
Both of the cards ISB linked have a much lower power level. They'll probably guarantee a kill on one player, but likely not the table all at once, at least, without significant further investment. Craterhoof's boosting of +10 to a token army allows for easy splits around the table for absurd damage. Even Pathbreaker Ibex is a more fair card, as it would typically take a turn order to deal with, and even if given haste from an external source - can be dealt with Single Target Removal before the trigger goes off.
All that said, the counter argument would be that it does require commitment to the board, and still uses a combat step. Both of which are areas for interaction - after all, cards like Evacuation (although this is just a delay), Settle the Wreckage, and Rout exist. (One reason why Rout is among my favorite wraths). However, my counter to the "requires board state" is that qualification is very vague and broad. If I have to constantly wrath your board just because you have 8+ tokens at any given time, or there's a chance you win (since wrath's are typically sorcery speed) - that's not very healthy. Getting such a minimal board state doesn't take that much effort. The cards to 'counter' this are also very specific, and having a mini game of "Do you have that specific subset of cards in hand or you lose" doesn't sound like great interaction either.
I brought up Exsanguinate (and by inference, most Fireball effects), but to kill a table with these spells (which are also hard to interact with for certain colors) requires a vastly different order of mana - typically at least in the 30's range, if not higher. At Craterhoof's mana cost, Exsanguinate is barely a Kokusho's effect.
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.
Then there's this final criteria - Is Craterhoof an auto include? Not exactly, but it is very prevalent. It's in most type 50 lists of several different sources. EDHREC has Craterhoof in only in 12% of decks, and doesn't make EDHRECs top popular cards of all colors (which ends at around 15% representation), but does easily make it on their top-green page (27th place). However, Carterhoof is far more expensive (mana-wise) and fits a narrower (barely) strategy, and many players also opt to not run it due to its impact. Which leads to the second half of this criteria: Impact.
Cultivate, Farseek, and so on may have higher % representation - but they have a lower cost, and are much broader in use. They also hardly have the same impact on the game in terms of feel. Lots of players here have already brought up that Craterhoof is cut due to not having the type of impact for making the desired game.
==
In the end, Craterhoof doesn't seem to cross the line on any specific banning policy, but I can see arguments raised in three of them.
I do feel it's guilty of being poorly designed, and I feel that recent evidence shows that Wizards is in agreement on that. I do feel that it is definitely above a standard power/cost ratio. I don't know if that alone warrants a ban though. I don't necessarily feel that the card is anti-fun, but I do feel that it is boring, which is probably the harshest point against it.
Holy fack, this is an incredible write-up.
Job well done, +10,000 points. Hard to argue any point you covered.
@bob I won't quote all of that because of how long it was and I don't disagree on a lot of what you are saying but does the fact that its overly centralizing as the strongest of the effects combined with being the absolute most tutorable option being a green creature change this? It does overly centralize any sort of swarm style of green deck who might consider any mass pump effect in that its 2-3x stronger than essentially every other mass pump effect out there. Most of the really annoying over centralizing game enders are far less accessible and or need to be run in greater numbers to reliably find.
Most of the options for interaction are extremely reactive as well rather than proactive strategies too which I find extremely unfortunate.
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.
@bob I won't quote all of that because of how long it was and I don't disagree on a lot of what you are saying but does the fact that its overly centralizing as the strongest of the effects combined with being the absolute most tutorable option being a green creature change this? It does overly centralize any sort of swarm style of green deck who might consider any mass pump effect in that its 2-3x stronger than essentially every other mass pump effect out there. Most of the really annoying over centralizing game enders are far less accessible and or need to be run in greater numbers to reliably find.
Most of the options for interaction are extremely reactive as well rather than proactive strategies too which I find extremely unfortunate.
It is the best at this effect, but if it were banned, wouldn't people just flock to the next best? It is overplayed, and boring, and all the things people have said about it... but it is also a legitimate way for green decks to win. It is very different from Overwhelming Stampede or Pathbreaker Ibex or the other high-end overrun effects, but ultimately if Hoof was banned people would use the next best thing.
WOTC has made the last few iterations a lot worse, as you noted, but I do not think that their decision to not make a more powerful hoof is indicative of Hoof being too powerful.
Hoof should be it's own discussion. Just as I wouldn't mention Worn Powerstone if I was promoting the ban of Sol Ring. Hoof is the Sol Ring of overrun effects. It is better than all the rest most of the time.
I personally hate hoof and would never want to put it into one of my decks. I actually just got my first one because the price dipped, but I do not expect to play it unless I make a cEDH deck or put it into a cube. I find it boring. I find Avenger of Zendikar to be a bad creature overplayed because of how powerful it is with Hoof. It annoys me.
As far as banning it goes... I do not see it as much as I used to. People used to T&N for AoZ and Hoof all the time, but now if they are playing T&N they are probably comboing out.
WOTC took the decision a few years ago to make reanimation effects weaker, rather than continuously put anti-reanimation tech onto big creatures like Eldrazi and Progenitus.
If Hoof is a problem in EDH, to me it should be because it is so easily tutorable and so easy to cheat into play. I would rather see T&N banned as a problematic enabler than see Hoof banned and have people just combo off instead.
I could only envision Hoof being banned if it was as centralizing as PoK, but as you mentioned - you usually just die when it hits the table. You aren't keeping removal up to kill it in case it lands because the damage is already done once it enters. You aren't cloning or stealing your opponents Hoof because most decks are not winning with it. Would you rather Bribery Hoof or Vorinclex in a spellslinger deck? Unless Hoof wins me the game, I am getting something else. When a player puts hoof into play, the game is ending... otherwise, they should have gotten something else.
There are so many cards that end the game, that can't be interacted with. Hoof is a pain, it sucks, it is boring.... but I have a much bigger problem with Ad Nauseum being tutored by Commander Sidisi and cast on turn 3 for an instant win. Fortunately, this is not something we encounter often... but honestly, I have seen a lot more Ad Nauseums in the last few years than Craterhoofs.
There are so many fog effects, crawlspaces, etc... I just don't think Hoof is as reliable a win-condition as it used to be. When I see it, I am usually just annoyed that once again someone cast a busted tutor.
I took a quick glance Sheldon's play-by-play articles at and I can't find a single game ending before turn 10. His games regularly go into the high teens turn count and even passing turn 20 is not that rare.
The RC is obviously not playing the "Let's just combo out on turn 5" game.
You're right. The RC has said many time that they don't ban cards based on their combo potential, with Tooth and Nail, Enter the Infinite, and Doomsday all remaining legal but usually just end up being "comborific".
So, what makes Craterhoof any different? It falls well below the threshold that those other cards create, which was the point of that particular argument.
Craterhoof does exactly what it says it does, is incredibly dependent on other cards in your deck to be good, and hits next to no ban criteria. If you want it banned, house ban it. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this giant horse to death.
The difference is the disconnect between Wizards who makes cards and the RC who creates the banned list. We have seen several cards that have had to be almost immediately banned put into the format in the past several years.
Because a card is not currently on the banned list does not mean that it is not a problematic offender. Craterhoof was printed as a burst pump effect likely with commander in mind given its high mana cost. Because something is designed for commander does not mean it is healthy or good for the format.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Damn right. We've had the discussion, we've had the poll, and the conclusion is that it's a strong card that doesn't meet any ban criteria and that most players regard as not worthy of a ban, but that a significant but vocal minority absolutely hate the card for legitimate reasons.
Look, it isn't at such an absurd power level to merit a ban based on that alone, nor is its ability to immediately close out games if played correctly something that gets cards banned, but it IS at a power level that can be annoying in some meta's and that some players just don't want to deal with, and winning the game suddenly (not out of nowhere, but not requiring several turns of setup or attacks while being obviously telegraphed) is something that many playgroups don't want.
The key takeaway here, I believe, is that Hoof is a card that people should be open to house banning. If you are fine with hoof but members of your playgroup want it gone, you should be open to a house ban because it's a reasonable concession, especially if your group is already anti combo. You won't lose much and it can significantly improve the experience of the player who hates it, who is your friend.
On the flip side, the anti hoof crowd needs to understand that we are not arguing that you need to play with and accept the card. While it's a fair card to house ban, it is not worthy of banning outright because it is fine in many meta's. It is important to letting creature based strategies have a chance in more competitive meta's, and is generally fine in most 75% and many casual meta's. Not liking what the card does is subjective, and it's better to cater to those players at the playgroup level then to ban it for everyone, including the many playgroups who handle it just fine.
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!
Well put.
My only small gripe is that house bans are really a pain in the ass to assemble and approve. There is the question of how to organize a request for a house ban and then there is the issue of how house bans work when it comes to someone new or passing through the meta. I do totally agree that house bans can work but I would also argue that they are hard to come to a consensus on as well as get a meta to approve and enforce.
I appreciate the well thought out comment considering both sides of the coin. I know that being against the use of Craterhoof does in fact put me in the minority of users. I started this thread not because I actually think that it will go anywhere but because I think that its one of the cards that boarders in being a problematic (depending on the meta).
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
A lot of problems would be solved if people kept in mind that they are playing with friends and should take their opinions into account.
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 am so stealing that for my signature. Can't believe how 'on' that is.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
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.
Honestly, I think it's better to view the card from a casual standpoint, since that is (mostly) how the banned list is managed. Much like Prophet of Kruphix or Primeval Titan or Sylvan Primordial or Sundering Titan, Hoof is a Timmy card that can cause "feelbads." While I don't particularly lament the banning of any of those cards, nor would I care about Hoof, it does affect the game in a massive way similar to the aforementioned banned cards.
Compare it to the next best options:
Jazal Goldmane - Requires haste, additional mana, and/or trample while having no effect if killed before combat.
Pathbreaker Ibex - Requires haste, at least one big creature, and no effect if killed before combat.
Decimator of the Provinces - Fixed buff, only triggers on cast.
Craterhoof ignores all of the additional requirements on the other cards, so it can "trick" new players into thinking it is a fun card while it can cause some serious issues in a casual table.
Just to reiterate: I don't think hoof needs to be banned, objectively, but it fits the pattern.
I agree with this assessment, except I'll point out I think the RC expects Casual-playgroup to adapt to it by playing more Wraths in general.
The "Wraths are useless if the swarm comes back every turn" counterpoint doesn't really apply to "Casual-playgroup", because anyone constantly swarming the board so that he or she can immediately overrun the game is pretty much playing competitive combo (or at least, is mentally doing so already, not going to argue whether only "better" combos constitute competitive).
Of course there's a logical standpoint that Casual-playgroup adapts to playing Wraths, then Swarm player adapts to Wraths by playing "Every turn swarm returns (without consciously planning the overrun part)" then starts curbstomping the playgroup because the overrun part was in the deck in the first place, which leads to 3 possible paths...
1) The player realizes it's unfun and removes Craterhoof/Overruns and/or the playgroup agrees to remove it (effectively social contract).
2) The meta evolves and the others start playing competitive combo(s) to simply outrace the swarm rather than (solely) relying on Wraths.
3) The curbstomp continues and people complain and don't do anything themselves.
Okay fine, the third one isn't actually a path (although it's the route someone definitely took for some card at some time), but I raised it to point out it does nothing and isn't a reason for banning (otherwise Sphinx and Navigator would have been long gone).
The first path is pretty universal and honestly cannot be held for or against a card until its severity passes a certain degree.
The only reason that stands against Craterhoof is the 2nd path, but is it deadly enough for the format overall to warrant a card being banned from the format entirely? Note that the 3 paths I stated were tailored for Craterhoof - in Primeval Titan's case it was 2) the meta evolves and everyone starts racing to get mana faster than the PT player, most of which involved just using anyone's PT and well, we know how that went. PT was unique in the way that it was effectively 2) and 3) at the same time - people could not find the actual solution to the problem and everyone ended up doing one big round of nothing while complaining. Prophet was similar in a way (except it warped color-choices instead and was a lot less obvious than PT as such).
Does Craterhoof create a similar image? Is its contribution towards the evolution towards a more competitive meta considered too huge, the same way Prophet's influence on color choices was too huge and the response to PT just outright wrecked games of all metas?
"Maybe you and your table should adapt"
Funny, I heard the same arguments before Emrakul was axed. Everyone loves to talk in a vacuum about this stuff. What does it say about a card if every player has to reserve just a little less mana and an answer or 2, so one card doesn't allow one player to kill them all with an attack step.
In the end though, as long as cards like this get to be played, I have no qualms about dropping Armageddons, Mana Webs, and general nasty and annoying cards
So blowing up lands/grinding games to a halt = Allowing an opponent to assemble a board large enough to obliterate a table, in the combat phase?
Emrakul was also immune to common removal. So there's that. There's also the poll above. It's right there in black and white. However, reading it as "You and your table should adapt" is a little dramatic. Like Lou said, it's usually the last card played, but that applies to so many other degenerate things you can do, specifically at instant speed that can only be interacted with on the stack(counterspells).
At least Craterhoof Behemoth ends the game. I'd play with a 'Hoof fanatic well before I'd sit at a table with you and your slog fest.
Well, those cards are legal and should not be banned, so good for you for killing your own point? Well, I'm assuming you'd run them as part of a cohesive game plan to win, at which point my advice to your table would be to adapt. Those cards are only bad when you dick around with them and drawing out the game with no strategy.
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!
End-Raze Forerunners
Decimator of the Provinces
Both of these cards and new design of how much pump they allow really highlights to me how much is wrong with Craterhoof. I literally don't have any issues with any of the other green mass pump effects but the recent design of VERY similar cards just seems to further that Craterhoof Behemoth went so far above and beyond what it should have.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
The power of those cards does not change what Hoof is positive or negative in relation to Commander
I don't think Craterhoof Behemoth needs to be banned, because it's not breaking the format. It's just a big, expensive card that, played right, tends to end games in a really boring manner. I wouldn't miss it if it were banned, though. In addition, I think it is a reasonable card to be "house banned" or around which players might have discussions about the kinds of games they want and what cards are and are not consistent with that.
Decimator is a really weird card. Without ramp, you can cast it on turn 5. You cannot compare to hoof very easily.
End-Raze Forerunners is better if it is your only creature. Or even if you have one other creature. It is definitely a 'fixed' hoof and the power is much lower. But in the same way that Plasm Capture was a fixed Mana Drain, it does not help the argument for banning hoof.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I feel like this argument is missing the point. You shouldn't judge cards based on suboptimal play. You don't judge a Wrath of God based on what happens when you play it into your own army while your opponent has nothing. Likewise, comparing these nominally 8-ish cost creatures in this manner is very bizzare.
In order to cast Decimator turn 5, you have to first play a 4 drop, then sacrifice it - that loses you a card, an attacker that's getting the buff, as well as mana investment from the turn prior - those are still costs. While you are correct that it can come out turn 5 for an overrun effect, the power level of such a play above overrun is pretty low.
I easily see ISB's point that the 3 cards show a clear delineation in a shift of design philosophy for that effect - They have decidedly realized that Craterhoof's effect vastly outstrips its cost, and later printed iterations of the effect show them scaling back the effect on a comparative cost.
This is also seen in Cyclonic Rift - No other card even approaches the power of rift at the same cost - Either they are sorceries, cost more, or are not one sided, or a combination of all of the above.
Cards being printed above their powercurve is nothing new however, and whether that alone is ban-worthy is a decent question. One of the Commander banning philosophies is to account for cards whose power exceeds their design due to differences in EDH than from regular play. You could make a tenuous argument about the length of a Commander game and mana available - but in the end, Craterhoof's effect is the same in Commander vs non-Commander. As such, it doesn't deserve a ban on those merits. One point of note on this banning criteria - Felidar Sovereign and Serra Ascendant don't qualify, despite the change in starting life total.
I will say however, that I agree with the other posters who say that Craterhoof is an anti-climactic and boring victory. I find infinite combos, Exsanguinate and other such immediate game ending cards in the same category. Some people like those though. Now, in Commander, there is a banning philosophy for cards of poor interaction, and several "win immediately" cards are banned.
While certain cards (Biorhythm, Coalition Victory) qualify under this, others (Felidar Sovereign) don't. Part of that is due to interactivity, time required, or mana investment. On this level, an argument can be made for banning Craterhoof: It's power to cost proportion is considerably low, and its effect so great, that it has a great power to end a game outright and gives little opportunity to respond. You do not have a turn order to deal with it, and single target removals won't work enough.
Both of the cards ISB linked have a much lower power level. They'll probably guarantee a kill on one player, but likely not the table all at once, at least, without significant further investment. Craterhoof's boosting of +10 to a token army allows for easy splits around the table for absurd damage. Even Pathbreaker Ibex is a more fair card, as it would typically take a turn order to deal with, and even if given haste from an external source - can be dealt with Single Target Removal before the trigger goes off.
All that said, the counter argument would be that it does require commitment to the board, and still uses a combat step. Both of which are areas for interaction - after all, cards like Evacuation (although this is just a delay), Settle the Wreckage, and Rout exist. (One reason why Rout is among my favorite wraths). However, my counter to the "requires board state" is that qualification is very vague and broad. If I have to constantly wrath your board just because you have 8+ tokens at any given time, or there's a chance you win (since wrath's are typically sorcery speed) - that's not very healthy. Getting such a minimal board state doesn't take that much effort. The cards to 'counter' this are also very specific, and having a mini game of "Do you have that specific subset of cards in hand or you lose" doesn't sound like great interaction either.
I brought up Exsanguinate (and by inference, most Fireball effects), but to kill a table with these spells (which are also hard to interact with for certain colors) requires a vastly different order of mana - typically at least in the 30's range, if not higher. At Craterhoof's mana cost, Exsanguinate is barely a Kokusho's effect.
Then there's this final criteria - Is Craterhoof an auto include? Not exactly, but it is very prevalent. It's in most type 50 lists of several different sources. EDHREC has Craterhoof in only in 12% of decks, and doesn't make EDHRECs top popular cards of all colors (which ends at around 15% representation), but does easily make it on their top-green page (27th place). However, Carterhoof is far more expensive (mana-wise) and fits a narrower (barely) strategy, and many players also opt to not run it due to its impact. Which leads to the second half of this criteria: Impact.
Cultivate, Farseek, and so on may have higher % representation - but they have a lower cost, and are much broader in use. They also hardly have the same impact on the game in terms of feel. Lots of players here have already brought up that Craterhoof is cut due to not having the type of impact for making the desired game.
==
In the end, Craterhoof doesn't seem to cross the line on any specific banning policy, but I can see arguments raised in three of them.
I do feel it's guilty of being poorly designed, and I feel that recent evidence shows that Wizards is in agreement on that. I do feel that it is definitely above a standard power/cost ratio. I don't know if that alone warrants a ban though. I don't necessarily feel that the card is anti-fun, but I do feel that it is boring, which is probably the harshest point against it.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
It is a groan-er when the table dies to it, yes.
Holy fack, this is an incredible write-up.
Job well done, +10,000 points. Hard to argue any point you covered.
Most of the options for interaction are extremely reactive as well rather than proactive strategies too which I find extremely unfortunate.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
It is the best at this effect, but if it were banned, wouldn't people just flock to the next best? It is overplayed, and boring, and all the things people have said about it... but it is also a legitimate way for green decks to win. It is very different from Overwhelming Stampede or Pathbreaker Ibex or the other high-end overrun effects, but ultimately if Hoof was banned people would use the next best thing.
WOTC has made the last few iterations a lot worse, as you noted, but I do not think that their decision to not make a more powerful hoof is indicative of Hoof being too powerful.
Hoof should be it's own discussion. Just as I wouldn't mention Worn Powerstone if I was promoting the ban of Sol Ring. Hoof is the Sol Ring of overrun effects. It is better than all the rest most of the time.
I personally hate hoof and would never want to put it into one of my decks. I actually just got my first one because the price dipped, but I do not expect to play it unless I make a cEDH deck or put it into a cube. I find it boring. I find Avenger of Zendikar to be a bad creature overplayed because of how powerful it is with Hoof. It annoys me.
As far as banning it goes... I do not see it as much as I used to. People used to T&N for AoZ and Hoof all the time, but now if they are playing T&N they are probably comboing out.
WOTC took the decision a few years ago to make reanimation effects weaker, rather than continuously put anti-reanimation tech onto big creatures like Eldrazi and Progenitus.
If Hoof is a problem in EDH, to me it should be because it is so easily tutorable and so easy to cheat into play. I would rather see T&N banned as a problematic enabler than see Hoof banned and have people just combo off instead.
I could only envision Hoof being banned if it was as centralizing as PoK, but as you mentioned - you usually just die when it hits the table. You aren't keeping removal up to kill it in case it lands because the damage is already done once it enters. You aren't cloning or stealing your opponents Hoof because most decks are not winning with it. Would you rather Bribery Hoof or Vorinclex in a spellslinger deck? Unless Hoof wins me the game, I am getting something else. When a player puts hoof into play, the game is ending... otherwise, they should have gotten something else.
There are so many cards that end the game, that can't be interacted with. Hoof is a pain, it sucks, it is boring.... but I have a much bigger problem with Ad Nauseum being tutored by Commander Sidisi and cast on turn 3 for an instant win. Fortunately, this is not something we encounter often... but honestly, I have seen a lot more Ad Nauseums in the last few years than Craterhoofs.
There are so many fog effects, crawlspaces, etc... I just don't think Hoof is as reliable a win-condition as it used to be. When I see it, I am usually just annoyed that once again someone cast a busted tutor.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers