Because starting the game at 22-28 life because I didn't draw my Path or Swords by Turn 3, and the table doesn't care as long as they're not being swung at kinda sucks?
'Kinds sucks' isnt a ban category. Work a deal with any of the other players to end your targeted suffering.
I'm glad you have perfect removal every single game. That doesn't happen to everyone. My main deck runs 28 pieces of removal, including the aforementioned Path and Swords. But it doesn't help if it isn't in my hand when SA is swinging Turn 2 and Turn 3.
Nowhere is anyone claiming perfect removal every game. Hyperbolic arguments like this serve no purpose to a discussion.
And if you are really running 28 pieces of removal, I would target you first too.
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.
Because starting the game at 22-28 life because I didn't draw my Path or Swords by Turn 3, and the table doesn't care as long as they're not being swung at kinda sucks?
I'm glad you have perfect removal every single game. That doesn't happen to everyone. My main deck runs 28 pieces of removal, including the aforementioned Path and Swords. But it doesn't help if it isn't in my hand when SA is swinging Turn 2 and Turn 3.
Emphasis mine, which defeats your own point.
Yeah, I don't have a perfect removal answer in my hand either every game. By the same token, not everyone who runs it is going to have a T1 Serra Ascendant beating everyone's face in either. And you seem to indicate that being at 22-28 life is game over, which we all KNOW isn't true. I'm sure about 70% of the community can talk about comebacks or victories that happened when they were down to 1 life(or less, if one has measures...).
Fact: Serra Ascendant needs to defeat THREE players, of which it can only reliably get one, MAYBE two if the deck-build disparity is wide enough. Cruel as it may sound, I'd take it as a hard lesson; either by adjusting my deck or accepting that sometimes, the cards are just going to dump on you.
Fact: Ascendant is RIDICULOUSLY easy to swat in just about any color. It may not happen in that game that you got focused and knocked out...see my fact above. But again, the next game is likely to be VERY different. However, we only usually remember the games we lose to plays like this(in one of my favorite FB games, we called it 'confirmation bias'). Really count how many games you've played where you lost because of Serra Ascendant...I'll be amazed if it's in the double digits percentage-wise.
Fact: Even if the person who drops a T1 Serra gets boocu life, there are so many ways that they are still hanging on by a thread...which is all it takes to unravel.
Serra Ascendant is not a boogeyman...maybe a yellowjacket at best.
Because starting the game at 22-28 life because I didn't draw my Path or Swords by Turn 3, and the table doesn't care as long as they're not being swung at kinda sucks?
'Kinds sucks' isnt a ban category. Work a deal with any of the other players to end your targeted suffering.
I'm glad you have perfect removal every single game. That doesn't happen to everyone. My main deck runs 28 pieces of removal, including the aforementioned Path and Swords. But it doesn't help if it isn't in my hand when SA is swinging Turn 2 and Turn 3.
Nowhere is anyone claiming perfect removal every game. Hyperbolic arguments like this serve no purpose to a discussion.
And if you are really running 28 pieces of removal, I would target you first too.
May I ask why? I've heard of players getting nuked for not running enough removal, but getting nuked for having enough?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Because starting the game at 22-28 life because I didn't draw my Path or Swords by Turn 3, and the table doesn't care as long as they're not being swung at kinda sucks?
'Kinds sucks' isnt a ban category. Work a deal with any of the other players to end your targeted suffering.
I'm glad you have perfect removal every single game. That doesn't happen to everyone. My main deck runs 28 pieces of removal, including the aforementioned Path and Swords. But it doesn't help if it isn't in my hand when SA is swinging Turn 2 and Turn 3.
Nowhere is anyone claiming perfect removal every game. Hyperbolic arguments like this serve no purpose to a discussion.
And if you are really running 28 pieces of removal, I would target you first too.
May I ask why? I've heard of players getting nuked for not running enough removal, but getting nuked for having enough?
I would assume that the second half of that was'too much'*? and yeah, in my LGS, if you get the reputation of the guy who keeps killing all of the stuff, you're getting targeted. if you don't have enough, it's almost irresponsible not to punish you for it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
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.
May I ask why? I've heard of players getting nuked for not running enough removal, but getting nuked for having enough?
Sure I like to play, and often with creatures. If half your non-land is targeted removal I need you to die to make anything last on the board.
Would you care to address 'kinda sucks inst a ban criteria'?
I run a ton of removal because I was sick of just losing to Consecrated Sphinx, Iona, Prophet of Kruphix (when it was legal), the Praetors, and other extremely powerful creatures. I try not to run very many tutors, since that makes games play out far too similarly in my opinion, so I needed to have options. Serra Ascendant falls on that list as well.
As far as the second part goes, it sucks to be its consistent target isn't banlist criteria, but I still feel it interacts poorly with the rules of the format. Funny enough, I run a ton of removal partially because of Felidar Sovreign, another card that interacts badly with the format. Having the control player flash it in right before their turn is rough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I run a ton of removal partially because of Felidar Sovreign, another card that interacts badly with the format. Having the control player flash it in right before their turn is rough.
Care to guess how many times I've flashed in a Sovereign in my lifegain deck which also runs Leyline of Anticipation, Vedalken Orrery, Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, Alchemist's Refuge, Winding Canyons, and both tutors capable of finding all of the above as well as plenty of card draw?
I'll make it easy for you: the correct answer is zero times. And this past Sunday was the first time I had ever even won using Test of Endurance (flashed in with Alchemist's Refuge).
I run a ton of removal partially because of Felidar Sovreign, another card that interacts badly with the format. Having the control player flash it in right before their turn is rough.
Care to guess how many times I've flashed in a Sovereign in my lifegain deck which also runs Leyline of Anticipation, Vedalken Orrery, Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, Alchemist's Refuge, Winding Canyons, and both tutors capable of finding all of the above as well as plenty of card draw?
I'll make it easy for you: the correct answer is zero times. And this past Sunday was the first time I had ever even won using Test of Endurance (flashed in with Alchemist's Refuge).
Is that by design, or by luck?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Luck. Why the hell do you think I have all those means to flash a creature?
Well, based on your cards, I assume the deck is Bant. You say you're running tutors, so I imagine Worldly Tutor and Tolaria West are within your wheelhouse. Which means getting both pieces in hand isn't a terribly difficult proposal. Yet you've only done so once.
So I'm going to guess that your meta is one of those listed above where players kill the board on Turn 3, 4, or 5, usually with Force of Will backup. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The Sen Triplets player regularly wins with Felidar Sovreign, apparently you don't (or choose not to). It's not really a case of banning the card one way or another. I just hold the opinion that cards like that interact badly with the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
It gets better because of the rules, that's true, but so do many cards that are legal, such as many cards that scale with more opponents, and political cards. Its called "interacts poorly with the format' not 'interacts with the format'. Felidar goes from being meh to playable because of the 40 life start. Ascendant goes from being good to staple. Neither are breaking the format.
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!
The thing about Commander and I think the thing that shuts down this happening is that this format already has cards that are banned precisely for the amount of life Commander begins at.
And obviously the only reason that cards like Fastbond or Channel or Yawgmoth's Bargain or Griselbrand are banned isn't because this format begins at an inflated life total therefore the sting of their use and the shenanigans one can get up to with them is increased, I would have to bet that the Commander life total plays a large part in those considerations.
I feel that level of positive effects are what need to be looked at when trying to figure out a card like Serra.
First turn Serra is a bummer for sure, but it is not the end of the world.
I run Serra Ascendant in two decks - Karlov (life gain = kill opponents) and Azor (flyer tribal, which includes several creatures with lifelink). In both decks it's a strong card, but it has never won me a game, and even when I get it out turn 1 and am targeting someone with a dangerous deck, I don't think I've ever managed to kill anyone with it on its own. I have tried it in other decks, and it never lasts long because in most decks because it doesn't have enough synergy with what the decks are trying to do and it just plain isn't good enough to take up a deck spot on its own merits. Played turn 1-2, it almost always draws removal before turn 5, and drawn after turn 3 or so, most of the time I'd rather have drawn another land. Last time I played Azor and played Ascendant turn 1, I swung with it a couple of times, then strapped a Sword of Fire and Ice on it and swung once or twice more, then it played played guard duty to keep people from swinging my way for a couple turns before a Wrath effect took it out. The most notable thing about Ascendant in that game was that it might have lasted all the way to turn 7 before it died, but it didn't kill anyone in that time because my opponents actually had board states which included blockers and things like that. I remember specifically that one guy never got swung on until the Sword came into play, because his turn 2 play was Baleful Strix.
I would rate Ascendant well below most green ramp spells in terms of the threat it presents to Commander games.
I don't want to ban it, I want additional rules so Ascendant only triggers at 50 life.
Same additional rules that now make Lightning Bolt deal 6 damage if it targets a player? I mean, if we're errataing things to function proportionately to our starting life total... Talk about a slippery slope. Do creatures have to deal twice as much damage to players as to other creatures? So now Serra Ascendant has to deal 12 damage to a player once it's online instead of 6 because the opponents have an additional 20 starting life to chunk through?
Additional rules are unneeded, overly complicated, and would not make sense.
I don't want to ban it, I want additional rules so Ascendant only triggers at 50 life.
Same additional rules that now make Lightning Bolt deal 6 damage if it targets a player? I mean, if we're errataing things to function proportionately to our starting life total... Talk about a slippery slope. Do creatures have to deal twice as much damage to players as to other creatures? So now Serra Ascendant has to deal 12 damage to a player once it's online instead of 6 because the opponents have an additional 20 starting life to chunk through?
Additional rules are unneeded, overly complicated, and would not make sense.
Nope.. The goal of the increased life total was to make sure Commander is a bit slower. Not to make sure people have 1 mana 6/6 creatures.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy.
So either additional rules to deal with this or just outright ban them. I don't really care either way.
...
Nope.. The goal of the increased life total was to make sure Commander is a bit slower. Not to make sure people have 1 mana 6/6 creatures.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy.
So either additional rules to deal with this or just outright ban them. I don't really care either way.
1. The increased life total => slower games was A goal, not THE goal. Being able to make big, splashy plays is another goal. But that's not the singular case either; if that were, infect cards would be one of the first ones banned. Those seem to be noticeably missing from the ban list, yes?
2. It's not a fallacy; if you start adding additional rules to one thing, you will need to continue on with everything else, because of the prevailing, perpetual argument of "Why not this? It's close enough.". Either you lay a line down now and stick with it, or you find your original good intentions paving a road to...well, you know where.
3. Are you backpedaling, or moving the goalposts? Either you want additional rules, or you don't care if it's additional rules or banning. Though I guess it's a moot point, because as has been stated more than enough times, SA is not the majority game-wrecking threat people think it is to really require either.
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.
I don't want to ban it, I want additional rules so Ascendant only triggers at 50 life.
Where does 50 come from? Does that same logic apply to any card that references life total? Does that apply to Poison too?
Because it's a ONE MANA SIX/SIX creature.
How hard is it to understand that?
So?
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.
I don't want to ban it, I want additional rules so Ascendant only triggers at 50 life.
Where does 50 come from? Does that same logic apply to any card that references life total? Does that apply to Poison too?
Because it's a ONE MANA SIX/SIX creature.
How hard is it to understand that?
So?
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 that was the only card I could run 30 of, possibly. But even then probably not. There's far stronger stuff you could be playing in EDH than beatsticks, even decently costed beatsticks.
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.
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.
Kamino_Taka is spot on - you can't just ignore people who disagree with you. A discussion works both ways. Picture this:
If you see an issue with a creature that is unlikely to be cast on turn one and even then takes until turn 22 to kill off three opponents while not protecting itself in any way, then I think it's wise to end this discussion.
Because that's the entire issue people have: they don't think it's all that broken.
You would consider that very one-sided and dismissive, right?
This thread is on its fifth page now because people have differing opinions and have offered arguments both in favor and against banning the card.
Personally, I think it's fine. Sure, it can be strong. But we have literally thousands of answers to it in our format, some of which can deal with it before it ever gets a chance to swing. It does nothing to disrupt your opponents' plans, it doesn't have any native protection, it's usually a bad topdeck late game, and it can make you appear as The Threat at a table, which is not a good thing in a multiplayer format. It rarely kills players, and the format has a lot more broken stuff in it. Strong - yes. Bannable - I don't think so.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nowhere is anyone claiming perfect removal every game. Hyperbolic arguments like this serve no purpose to a discussion.
And if you are really running 28 pieces of removal, I would target you first too.
Emphasis mine, which defeats your own point.
Yeah, I don't have a perfect removal answer in my hand either every game. By the same token, not everyone who runs it is going to have a T1 Serra Ascendant beating everyone's face in either. And you seem to indicate that being at 22-28 life is game over, which we all KNOW isn't true. I'm sure about 70% of the community can talk about comebacks or victories that happened when they were down to 1 life(or less, if one has measures...).
Fact: Serra Ascendant sucks to face off against T1. Same with an Island.
Fact: Serra Ascendant needs to defeat THREE players, of which it can only reliably get one, MAYBE two if the deck-build disparity is wide enough. Cruel as it may sound, I'd take it as a hard lesson; either by adjusting my deck or accepting that sometimes, the cards are just going to dump on you.
Fact: Ascendant is RIDICULOUSLY easy to swat in just about any color. It may not happen in that game that you got focused and knocked out...see my fact above. But again, the next game is likely to be VERY different. However, we only usually remember the games we lose to plays like this(in one of my favorite FB games, we called it 'confirmation bias'). Really count how many games you've played where you lost because of Serra Ascendant...I'll be amazed if it's in the double digits percentage-wise.
Fact: Even if the person who drops a T1 Serra gets boocu life, there are so many ways that they are still hanging on by a thread...which is all it takes to unravel.
Serra Ascendant is not a boogeyman...maybe a yellowjacket at best.
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)
May I ask why? I've heard of players getting nuked for not running enough removal, but getting nuked for having enough?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I would assume that the second half of that was'too much'*? and yeah, in my LGS, if you get the reputation of the guy who keeps killing all of the stuff, you're getting targeted. if you don't have enough, it's almost irresponsible not to punish you for it
Would you care to address 'kinda sucks inst a ban criteria'?
I run a ton of removal because I was sick of just losing to Consecrated Sphinx, Iona, Prophet of Kruphix (when it was legal), the Praetors, and other extremely powerful creatures. I try not to run very many tutors, since that makes games play out far too similarly in my opinion, so I needed to have options. Serra Ascendant falls on that list as well.
As far as the second part goes, it sucks to be its consistent target isn't banlist criteria, but I still feel it interacts poorly with the rules of the format. Funny enough, I run a ton of removal partially because of Felidar Sovreign, another card that interacts badly with the format. Having the control player flash it in right before their turn is rough.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I'll make it easy for you: the correct answer is zero times. And this past Sunday was the first time I had ever even won using Test of Endurance (flashed in with Alchemist's Refuge).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Is that by design, or by luck?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Well, based on your cards, I assume the deck is Bant. You say you're running tutors, so I imagine Worldly Tutor and Tolaria West are within your wheelhouse. Which means getting both pieces in hand isn't a terribly difficult proposal. Yet you've only done so once.
So I'm going to guess that your meta is one of those listed above where players kill the board on Turn 3, 4, or 5, usually with Force of Will backup. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The Sen Triplets player regularly wins with Felidar Sovreign, apparently you don't (or choose not to). It's not really a case of banning the card one way or another. I just hold the opinion that cards like that interact badly with the format.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
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!
And obviously the only reason that cards like Fastbond or Channel or Yawgmoth's Bargain or Griselbrand are banned isn't because this format begins at an inflated life total therefore the sting of their use and the shenanigans one can get up to with them is increased, I would have to bet that the Commander life total plays a large part in those considerations.
I feel that level of positive effects are what need to be looked at when trying to figure out a card like Serra.
First turn Serra is a bummer for sure, but it is not the end of the world.
I would rate Ascendant well below most green ramp spells in terms of the threat it presents to Commander games.
Additional rules are unneeded, overly complicated, and would not make sense.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Nope.. The goal of the increased life total was to make sure Commander is a bit slower. Not to make sure people have 1 mana 6/6 creatures.
Your slippery slope is a fallacy.
So either additional rules to deal with this or just outright ban them. I don't really care either way.
1. The increased life total => slower games was A goal, not THE goal. Being able to make big, splashy plays is another goal. But that's not the singular case either; if that were, infect cards would be one of the first ones banned. Those seem to be noticeably missing from the ban list, yes?
2. It's not a fallacy; if you start adding additional rules to one thing, you will need to continue on with everything else, because of the prevailing, perpetual argument of "Why not this? It's close enough.". Either you lay a line down now and stick with it, or you find your original good intentions paving a road to...well, you know where.
3. Are you backpedaling, or moving the goalposts? Either you want additional rules, or you don't care if it's additional rules or banning. Though I guess it's a moot point, because as has been stated more than enough times, SA is not the majority game-wrecking threat people think it is to really require either.
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)
Because it's a ONE MANA SIX/SIX creature.
How hard is it to understand that?
So?
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.
Except you'd run 30 of them if you could?
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.
This thread is on its fifth page now because people have differing opinions and have offered arguments both in favor and against banning the card.
Personally, I think it's fine. Sure, it can be strong. But we have literally thousands of answers to it in our format, some of which can deal with it before it ever gets a chance to swing. It does nothing to disrupt your opponents' plans, it doesn't have any native protection, it's usually a bad topdeck late game, and it can make you appear as The Threat at a table, which is not a good thing in a multiplayer format. It rarely kills players, and the format has a lot more broken stuff in it. Strong - yes. Bannable - I don't think so.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter