If this was a 20 life one-on-one format, that would be a decent point. But it's not. And in the context of the format, a 1 mana 6/6 with nothing but a couple of keywords is perfectly reasonable.
If you don't see the issue with 1 mana 6/6 creatures with flying and lifelink then I think it's a wise move to end this discussion.
Because that's the entire issue people have: They don't think it's reasonable at all.
Given the context of the format - a 40 life multiplayer game with access to almost every card ever printed - why is it unreasonable?
It kills slow metas and people who were unfortunate enough not to draw removal.
I am generally more afraid of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt starts as those that can get completely out of hand by turn 4.
I mainly dislike how low-effort it is as an aggro option though. Getting turn 7 lethal on someone with zero additional input. It's also at its best against OTHER aggro decks.
Hitting lethal aggro damage on turn 6 takes some amount of effort.
The issue is that its a one mana 6/6 flying lifelink. And I ask why thats not reasonable in a format where it is a) unlikely to get said 6/6 early on and b) . still takes lots of turns to kill one of the players.
It's the 24-36 lifeswing you get in the first couple of turns.
There isn't a single other creature/card that is this powerful at the start.
Even Sol Ring only gives the player advantage, instead of the gigantic disadvantage this gives to the opponent.
And why does this happen? Because the increased life total in EDH messes up with these cards.
Don't ask me though! Just ask Wizards themselves. Ask the new cards that care about starting life total rather than having a fixed number.
Yeah, the new ones. Wizard's could have done a game wide errata since it would have also fixed them for things like two headed giant... but uh... they didn't. The RC didn't take the chance when WotC started doing it to issue their own errata, and they've historically never had an issue with any of those cards, so why would they add more complexity to the rules now when their goal has been to simplify them?
I mostly play Modern, so that is ehow I look at it. Nothing in Modern is fair, everything takes advantage of any rule it can exploit or edge it can get, whatever. Things generally aren't banned unless they are better than the other things. I don't see any reason to ban this card for doing something unfair when it's laughably weak to the format. If SA gets the axe, why should the rest of the unfair cards be spared? Look at your deck, I bet you run a few.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I know they get stronger. The point is that they acknowledge these cards work differently in EDH and normal play, which is why they started to use this wording.
I know they get stronger. The point is that they acknowledge these cards work differently in EDH and normal play, which is why they started to use this wording.
But your position is only about one card from the old days, so your argument isnt about the wording, its about that one card. If there were a bunch of them, maybe that's an issue. If it wasn't multiplayer with politics, maybe its an issue. If it wasn't a dead draw late game, maybe its an issue. But it isnt good enough to even kill a person the VAST majority of the time.
If you think Sol Ring isnt the much scarier T1 play, I just don't think its going to be a fruitful discussion. If you dont see that kinda of early ramp as also 'a gigantic disadvantage to the opponent' its pretty moot.
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.
But your position is only about one card from the old days, so your argument isnt about the wording, its about that one card. If there were a bunch of them, maybe that's an issue. If it wasn't multiplayer with politics, maybe its an issue. If it wasn't a dead draw late game, maybe its an issue. But it isnt good enough to even kill a person the VAST majority of the time.
Setting people at 10 life or having Rune-Tail prevent all damage is problematic too. But Serra Ascendant is the biggest issue so far.
Except it's no issue at all. It's just the most efficient beatstick in EDH in the weakest single colour of EDH in a format where efficient beatsticks usually aren't where you want to be.
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.
Except it's no issue at all. It's just the most efficient beatstick in EDH in the weakest single colour of EDH in a format where efficient beatsticks usually aren't where you want to be.
Well, people clearly disagree. That is why it keeps coming up all the time.
And clearly Wizards disagrees too, seeing as they changed the wording of these type of cards in new sets.
Except it's no issue at all. It's just the most efficient beatstick in EDH in the weakest single colour of EDH in a format where efficient beatsticks usually aren't where you want to be.
Well, people clearly disagree. That is why it keeps coming up all the time.
And clearly Wizards disagrees too, seeing as they changed the wording of these type of cards in new sets.
The spin job here would make even mix master Mike’s head spin.
Good thing wizards doesn’t run the banned list then, considering the people that do, disagree with you.
Serra Ascendant absolutely hits the "interacts problematically with the format" criteria. It is a card that gets a lot better because of the special rules associated with Commander.
That doesn't get it banned, though. It just gets it a lot more scrutiny. Ultimately, the interaction isn't all that problematic. Opponent life totals are also higher, so a 6/6 on turn 1 isn't the end of the world. What usually ends up happening is that it gets in for a couple hits, eats some removal, and the controller is now a target. As a later draw, it's actively bad if you've been dropped under 30 life.
The rules of Commander elevate it to "good card," but there are lots of good cards.
Well, people clearly disagree. That is why it keeps coming up all the time.
Sure people disagree, but people think a hundred different cards should be banned. That does not mean its the right thing to do.
And clearly Wizards disagrees too, seeing as they changed the wording of these type of cards in new sets.
Making it improved for the future does not mean they think the past needs to be changed. They could errata the existing cards, but did not.
Plus thats a pretty obvious Appeal to Authority that fell flat.
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.
Except it's no issue at all. It's just the most efficient beatstick in EDH in the weakest single colour of EDH in a format where efficient beatsticks usually aren't where you want to be.
Well, people clearly disagree. That is why it keeps coming up all the time.
And clearly Wizards disagrees too, seeing as they changed the wording of these type of cards in new sets.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
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.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
What kind of meta do you play in where a T1 Serra Ascendant will always dominate the game? Cause I'd like to play there.
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.
What kind of meta do you play in where a T1 Serra Ascendant will always dominate the game? Cause I'd like to play there.
The kind of meta where most people play in. Don't you ever read posts from the RC?
Well, no, you don’t. It was proven on the page prior. The RC doesn’t agree with your assesment, so you can’t play in a meta like theirs.
Also, banlist update! Unsurprisingly no changes, because the games in a good spot, even with Serra Ascendant. So, again, what kind of meta do you play in?
What kind of meta do you play in where a T1 Serra Ascendant will always dominate the game? Cause I'd like to play there.
The kind of meta where most people play in. Don't you ever read posts from the RC?
"Most" might be a little generous. I can certainly believe you play in a meta where a 6/6 Flying Lifelinker takes over games and is nigh unbeatable. Everyone's meta is different after all.
It is powerful, sure. It can even be part of a game-winning strategy. But the card rarely, or should rarely, get anywhere on its own. It is a creature which means it can be blocked. It can be destroyed. A lot of answers exist for it. Now, the answer to an oppressive creature is not "run better answers" as that rarely deals with truly oppressive creatures, but there is enough evidence from players and the RC alike that the label of "oppressive" or "broken" may be misapplied to this particular card. I can believe it is overpowered, but a lot of things are overpowered. That alone is not a ban criterion.
After all, as has been stated, it takes until turn 8 to kill *1* player on its own and that requires this to be in your opening hand which should happen rarely. Yes, other things are happening in the game that could reduce that number, but this card does not win the game when it enters and it does not warp the game around itself (maybe it makes players get to a wrath or spot removal for it early, but it is not warping).
So, it is certainly worthwhile to see what others thoughts are on the card and recognize that this particular card is problematic in *your* meta. The main issue I think you are coming across is your meta is not really the same as the metas the RC is thinking of. After all, papa_funk already responded saying this card is fine for the types of games they are trying to promote.
At the end of the day, it may become necessary for your meta to simply adapt if this card is backbreaking. Run more cheap spot removal or flying token creators or something to just slow the game down enough to deal with it. It is not the most ideal solution if the card is truly making games that much worse, but metas tend to adapt and shift and this seems like a prime opportunity for yours to do that. And, luckily, anything you do to handle this creature should also cover you in the event of any other creature becoming problematic so it is unlikely you are going to be running narrow answers to deal with just this card. There are plenty of cards that are effective across a wide range of cards that also answer this card that your deck is unlikely going to be worse for having included them.
What kind of meta do you play in where a T1 Serra Ascendant will always dominate the game? Cause I'd like to play there.
The kind of meta where most people play in. Don't you ever read posts from the RC?
Given that the RC doesn't consider Serra Ascendant to be problematic, and the fact that I've spent plenty of time arguing for cards to be banned precisely because they routinely ruined games in metas the RC points to as their ideal (Oh hello Prophet of Kruphix, how's the sin bin treating you?), I think your argument is rather shot to pieces there.
The typical meta, to me, seems to be perfectly able to keep Serra Ascendant in check. Games might be won by it, sure - it is an efficient and powerful beatstick - but it doesn't consistently win games cause beyond T1/2/3 it becomes very bad very fast. And if your meta has consistent T1 Serra Ascendants, something might be fishy.
But by all means, if you have a deck with Serra Ascendant that gets her out early every game and will always stomp relatively regular metas with it, I'm only 100-150 kilometers away in Utrecht. I'd love to see such a deck.
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.
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.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
Do you play multiplayer or duel? I have to ask, because in multiplayer, it is not a good fit in every white deck (I personally have only ever run it in Karlov). And smacking someone a bit while gaining life might allow you to dominate a duel, but it just makes you a target in multiplayer. I can see how your thinking could be justified in a duel, but no multiplayer table I have ever sat at is going to be dominated by a single aggro creature like Serra Ascendant.
I don't run Serra Ascendant in any of my white decks, and I've got a deck in every single color combination, including two mono-white decks. Hell, I don't even run Serra Ascendant in my life gain deck (Bant). There are so many better cards for me to be using.
And if an opponent pulls out a Serra Ascendant, their life gain is almost never relevant, since the vast, vast majority of games in both of my metas end with either combo or commander damage. Go ahead and gain as much life as you want.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
I have had the same experience. I currently have 4 decks with white in them (and I have had 12 others built in the past). Only one (Gisela, Blade of Goldnight) runs, or has ever run, this card because Gisela is super aggressive. The others would never want this card because it doesn't do nearly enough and just dies in most cases.
I get it is a powerful card. But just running White is not enough to just jam Ascendant into a deck.
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Given the context of the format - a 40 life multiplayer game with access to almost every card ever printed - why is it unreasonable?
I am generally more afraid of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt starts as those that can get completely out of hand by turn 4.
I mainly dislike how low-effort it is as an aggro option though. Getting turn 7 lethal on someone with zero additional input. It's also at its best against OTHER aggro decks.
Hitting lethal aggro damage on turn 6 takes some amount of effort.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
It's the 24-36 lifeswing you get in the first couple of turns.
There isn't a single other creature/card that is this powerful at the start.
Even Sol Ring only gives the player advantage, instead of the gigantic disadvantage this gives to the opponent.
And why does this happen? Because the increased life total in EDH messes up with these cards.
Don't ask me though! Just ask Wizards themselves. Ask the new cards that care about starting life total rather than having a fixed number.
If you think Sol Ring isnt the much scarier T1 play, I just don't think its going to be a fruitful discussion. If you dont see that kinda of early ramp as also 'a gigantic disadvantage to the opponent' its pretty moot.
Setting people at 10 life or having Rune-Tail prevent all damage is problematic too. But Serra Ascendant is the biggest issue so far.
And clearly Wizards disagrees too, seeing as they changed the wording of these type of cards in new sets.
The spin job here would make even mix master Mike’s head spin.
Good thing wizards doesn’t run the banned list then, considering the people that do, disagree with you.
For reference.
Making it improved for the future does not mean they think the past needs to be changed. They could errata the existing cards, but did not.
Plus thats a pretty obvious Appeal to Authority that fell flat.
They changed the wording because they now know Commander is a thing, which they didn't at the time of Ascendant's release.
Also I wager there's more people disagreeing with you than there are with me, judging by the responses. Serra Ascendant just isn't ever going to get banned because it's not that good a card. Beyond lifegain-matters decks like Karlov it's almost extinct.
It's a good fit in every deck that includes white. Just drop this on T1 and you cause enough harm to dominate the game.
What kind of meta do you play in where a T1 Serra Ascendant will always dominate the game? Cause I'd like to play there.
The kind of meta where most people play in. Don't you ever read posts from the RC?
Well, no, you don’t. It was proven on the page prior. The RC doesn’t agree with your assesment, so you can’t play in a meta like theirs.
Also, banlist update! Unsurprisingly no changes, because the games in a good spot, even with Serra Ascendant. So, again, what kind of meta do you play in?
It is powerful, sure. It can even be part of a game-winning strategy. But the card rarely, or should rarely, get anywhere on its own. It is a creature which means it can be blocked. It can be destroyed. A lot of answers exist for it. Now, the answer to an oppressive creature is not "run better answers" as that rarely deals with truly oppressive creatures, but there is enough evidence from players and the RC alike that the label of "oppressive" or "broken" may be misapplied to this particular card. I can believe it is overpowered, but a lot of things are overpowered. That alone is not a ban criterion.
After all, as has been stated, it takes until turn 8 to kill *1* player on its own and that requires this to be in your opening hand which should happen rarely. Yes, other things are happening in the game that could reduce that number, but this card does not win the game when it enters and it does not warp the game around itself (maybe it makes players get to a wrath or spot removal for it early, but it is not warping).
So, it is certainly worthwhile to see what others thoughts are on the card and recognize that this particular card is problematic in *your* meta. The main issue I think you are coming across is your meta is not really the same as the metas the RC is thinking of. After all, papa_funk already responded saying this card is fine for the types of games they are trying to promote.
At the end of the day, it may become necessary for your meta to simply adapt if this card is backbreaking. Run more cheap spot removal or flying token creators or something to just slow the game down enough to deal with it. It is not the most ideal solution if the card is truly making games that much worse, but metas tend to adapt and shift and this seems like a prime opportunity for yours to do that. And, luckily, anything you do to handle this creature should also cover you in the event of any other creature becoming problematic so it is unlikely you are going to be running narrow answers to deal with just this card. There are plenty of cards that are effective across a wide range of cards that also answer this card that your deck is unlikely going to be worse for having included them.
Given that the RC doesn't consider Serra Ascendant to be problematic, and the fact that I've spent plenty of time arguing for cards to be banned precisely because they routinely ruined games in metas the RC points to as their ideal (Oh hello Prophet of Kruphix, how's the sin bin treating you?), I think your argument is rather shot to pieces there.
The typical meta, to me, seems to be perfectly able to keep Serra Ascendant in check. Games might be won by it, sure - it is an efficient and powerful beatstick - but it doesn't consistently win games cause beyond T1/2/3 it becomes very bad very fast. And if your meta has consistent T1 Serra Ascendants, something might be fishy.
But by all means, if you have a deck with Serra Ascendant that gets her out early every game and will always stomp relatively regular metas with it, I'm only 100-150 kilometers away in Utrecht. I'd love to see such a deck.
If that was true, SA would be banned. They have specifically said its 'good but not great'.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
And if an opponent pulls out a Serra Ascendant, their life gain is almost never relevant, since the vast, vast majority of games in both of my metas end with either combo or commander damage. Go ahead and gain as much life as you want.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
I get it is a powerful card. But just running White is not enough to just jam Ascendant into a deck.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.