Or Mortal Combat, the most directly-analogous card to this one?
I mean, in my Iname as One deck, I could cast Iname, Death Aspect and immediately dump 20 spirits in my graveyard to win with Mortal Combat. And I've done it before, too. But nobody is clamoring to ban Mortal Combat.
Mortal combat requires setup and then a full turn cycle, whereas besieged can only be answered by instants.
However Mortal Combat also wins the entire game right away which this...doesn't.
That's probably a point in MC's favor honestly. A full turn cycle to win the game means everyone will have incentive to answer it, and if they don't it wins the game. Mirrodin Besieged knocks someone out right away, but then gives everyone else a full round to answer it with the same incentive as MC, meaning that with MC it either gets answered or the player wins, while with Mirrodin Besieged one player is losing unless someone has an instant speed answer, even if it doesn't live through the round. And its that scenario, where it fires off early and just knocks one person out of the game, that worries me. Hatred is similarly capable of doing this, but is less likely to be used this way, as it comes with a significant cost (you pay enough life to make you an easy target for the rest of the table in order to one hit kill with it) and its best used to either take out someone you cannot deal with otherwise or to finish off the final player, as without spell recursion its a trick you can only do once. Mirridon B lets you go for the early kill with the further payoff of killing off more players if it sticks, so you are encouraged to play it earlier, and more often, than Hatred.
Its not extraordinarily powerful, and it does take set up, but the set up it requires isn't much, and it has a high potential for just ruining people's nights (ending the game quickly with a combo is worse at ruining nights than just taking one guy out quickly, as with the former you can start a new game, while with the latter one just doesn't get to play for a couple hours). Its not as bad an offender as CV (it doesn't combo with your commander, it is easier to interact with, and it requires more setup), but its worse than MC (setup is easier, it has the potential to just grief one player, shorter window of interaction). MC is a card that shouldn't be banned because its niche and requires too much work to make work, while CV is a card that should stay banned because its too easy to pull off and is an easy addition to any 5 color deck that actually has a 5 color commander. Mirrodin Besieged being in the middle means that I don't know yet if it will end up being problematic, just that it has the potential to be. Its certainly an example of things you shouldn't be doing in commander, but perhaps its inconsistent enough that it won't prove to be as bad as its potential. It also has an alternate fair use, which helps its case for staying unbanned. All cards like this should be watchlisted, now that it exists, but being watchlisted obviously doesn't mean its getting banned.
What are these games you are playing where one person dies to an intricate combo but then the game takes two hours to finish beyond that?
For someone who has accused me of being disingenuous on several occasions, it sure is funny how often your responses are disingenuous (the alternative explanation being that you have trouble reading posts).
To answer your trite question that you should be capable of answering for yourself, games in which a combo (or alt win, or semi combo) takes out one player while the rest go on playing for hours:
When the combo specifically kills one person and others can answer, which is exactly what this card can do, and exactly what I was saying was a potential problem with the card, in the post you replied to, which is why it's obvious your question is not intended as a serious attempt at conversation but as a cheap (and poorly chosen) drive by that doesn't address the point being made, which seems to be your go to when replying to me. This category also includes things like RiP Helm when the RiP Helm player takes out someone and then the combo gets taken out before their next turn.
When someone pops a Tainted Strike on an unblocked attacker for a surprise 10 poison, but doesn't have a way to take out the rest of the table. Similarly, Hatred on an unblocked commander.
Combos that can literally only kill one person, like Pariah/Stuffy Doll with self damage, or Mirror Universe combo, or something as simple as Kaalia dropping Master of Cruelties, killing one player and then getting handled.
It's obvious that this isn't far-fetched. MB isn't even an "intricate" combo. It's something that can be achieved by just playing the game, though importantly not as easily as CV. When you actually start trying to combo with it, it goes off much earlier. This doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does mean it should be watch listed to see how it plays out. The biggest thing in favor of it is how busted artifact decks already are (which is also the biggest point in favor of Urza), so while I think that this is something that has a high potential for problematic play I also think it's something that faces an uphill climb to meet that potential, simply because there are less problematic but more effective things you can do in the decks where this would be a problem. But the watchlist is partly for cards that have the potential to be problems even if they currently are not, so the RC and advisory committee can have a better handle on cards that have this potential in order to respond more quickly if they do, indeed, become a problem. It's a much lower threshold than the actual banlist because being watchlisted doesn't actually do anything to the format, it just means that the people who decide bans are keeping an eye on the card and testing with it more.
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!
This thing is really going to be prone to "kill one guy then take a while to win the game" because there's a lot more sorcery speed enchantment removal played in EDH than instant speed, and that's the fundamental difference between this and revel. Also revel costing more and being more demanding to achieve.
I don't know if this is going to be annoying or not but it's more concerning to me than simic ascendancy and stuff like that by virtue of killing one player at instant speed. oddly enough if it said "you win the game" it would be less annoying.
This thing is really going to be prone to "kill one guy then take a while to win the game" because there's a lot more sorcery speed enchantment removal played in EDH than instant speed, and that's the fundamental difference between this and revel. Also revel costing more and being more demanding to achieve.
I don't know if this is going to be annoying or not but it's more concerning to me than simic ascendancy and stuff like that by virtue of killing one player at instant speed. oddly enough if it said "you win the game" it would be less annoying.
not sure about this one.
I have seen a distinct movement away from wider sorcery speed removal to more instant speed and hard to deal with answers, but again this is all anecdotal.
Weird because I'm seeing the opposite. More tapouts, etbs, more sweepers. Most people I see aren't really playing more than one or maybe two instant answers to enchantments. And should they? I dunno. Feels like a lot to ask to me that people pack multiple instant speed answers to everything in every deck.
Some of the best answers to enchantments are sorcery speed, mainly because those are the answers that are repeatable or stapled to other more commonly used effects (like austere). There's still plenty of good instant speed enchantment removal, though mostly relegated to green.
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!
We've gotten so much easy grave yard hate and ways to deal with grave yards the last two years that I don't even know why this would be considered an issue. It might trigger at the end of turn, but 16 artifacts in the grave yard? At worst it shifts the meta towards playing graveyard hate besides expecting a single Bokjuka Bog to cover it, and I'm fine with this. So, you know, we should be good if a very niche card that will only go in very specific Blue Artiact decks who actually expend effort in dumping their Artifacts into their graveyard for some reason - instead of onto the battlefield to combo and just win as they normally do - warps the entire meta. But I might be just a bit skeptical. Just a bit.
[quote from="Taleran »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/810779-mirrodin-besieged?comment=11"]It's more that the vast majority of players are absolutely awful at card evaluation. Even more are bad at understanding the EDH banlist philosophy.
The EDH banlist philosophy is not even internally consistent so of course players don't understand it.
If it was consistent gifts ungiven would have been unbanned years ago.
Also revel in riches is not a fun casual card.
This response is so ironic it could be in Napoleon Dynamite 2. Jivantuna is spot on and the response actually proves his point. I'm dying.
Eggs is an archetype in EDH (see new Jhoira, amongst others)
(though I will say that it's obviously not a casual omnipresence type thing)
Yeah, I think that if we actually went down the ban criteria I think it would get a 9 or 10 for problematic game states (I already gave my reasoning for this), and a 0 on everything else EXCEPT problematic casual omnipresence, which is obviously still an unknown but unlikely to get very high considering the sort of decks that would want it. My primary concern here would be it going in more casually minded artifact decks (because its got a high cool factor), and just randomly take people out of the game. It has a high risk for becoming problematic, but I think a low risk for becoming omnipresent. Its probably going to just be an occasional annoyance, which will keep it from being banned (and it has clear fair uses which also helps its case). I still think that all of these sorts of cards should be monitored just to be safe.
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!
Yeah, I would agree with 9 for problematic game states. Killing one person on your endstep for 3 mana and a fairly modest setup is going to create awful times guaranteed. if I lost to this card after someone dredged a bit or something I would be irked if someone removed it while the ability was on the stack
It's surely 0 for everything else.
Personally though it's just a card I wished didn't exist rather than one I would ban. I have no idea why wizards prints stuff like this. Nobody is ever going to feel good about this and it has no real constructed applications that I can see yet (some kind of elite affinity sideboard tech against shatterstorm decks I guess?:P)
It goes on a long list of stupid nonsense for me like Expropriate. It's not bannable but if it didn't exist I wouldn't be sad.
Hell you could put Simic Ascendancy on that list too. What is that adding to the format? Just give it a real effect please on the gamestate instead of these dumb meta abilities.
Personally though it's just a card I wished didn't exist rather than one I would ban. I have no idea why wizards prints stuff like this. Nobody is ever going to feel good about this and it has no real constructed applications that I can see yet (some kind of elite affinity sideboard tech against shatterstorm decks I guess?:P)
....it's possibly playable in tezzerator in legacy. possibly. works well with thopter sword combo, so it could work as a surprise non-artifact win.
Anyways, i tend to agree with your assessment of it though; it only makes feel-bad situations. I'm not sure why that's being a thing now instead of just win the game. maybe it's just too good otherwise?
But that being said, door to nothingness is also a feel-bad, since it specifically takes a player out of the game instead of just winning.
Personally though it's just a card I wished didn't exist rather than one I would ban. I have no idea why wizards prints stuff like this. Nobody is ever going to feel good about this and it has no real constructed applications that I can see yet (some kind of elite affinity sideboard tech against shatterstorm decks I guess?:P)
....it's possibly playable in tezzerator in legacy. possibly. works well with thopter sword combo, so it could work as a surprise non-artifact win.
Anyways, i tend to agree with your assessment of it though; it only makes feel-bad situations. I'm not sure why that's being a thing now instead of just win the game. maybe it's just too good otherwise?
But that being said, door to nothingness is also a feel-bad, since it specifically takes a player out of the game instead of just winning.
At least Door was printed with 1v1 in mind, and the reason they chose "target player loses" was because it sounded cooler than "you win" and fit the flavor better (don't ask for the source, I read it on the mothership years ago). That doesn't make it better, but it does make it more understandable that they would print something like that during a time when they weren't thinking about multiplayer. Its also something that is heavily telegraphed and requires a double rainbow to work. No cheating it out, no skirting the colors by double counting duals for basic land types like CV, no immediate use. You drop it then wait a turn before firing off a double rainbow at someone's face. That does make it better, because its weak, so getting a kill with it feels a lot less cheap, and there are more opportunities to stop it. Winning with it is downright impressive.
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!
We've gotten so much easy grave yard hate and ways to deal with grave yards the last two years that I don't even know why this would be considered an issue. It might trigger at the end of turn, but 16 artifacts in the grave yard? At worst it shifts the meta towards playing graveyard hate besides expecting a single Bokjuka Bog to cover it, and I'm fine with this. So, you know, we should be good if a very niche card that will only go in very specific Blue Artiact decks who actually expend effort in dumping their Artifacts into their graveyard for some reason - instead of onto the battlefield to combo and just win as they normally do - warps the entire meta. But I might be just a bit skeptical. Just a bit.
[quote from="Taleran »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/810779-mirrodin-besieged?comment=11"]It's more that the vast majority of players are absolutely awful at card evaluation. Even more are bad at understanding the EDH banlist philosophy.
The EDH banlist philosophy is not even internally consistent so of course players don't understand it.
If it was consistent gifts ungiven would have been unbanned years ago.
Also revel in riches is not a fun casual card.
This response is so ironic it could be in Napoleon Dynamite 2. Jivantuna is spot on and the response actually proves his point. I'm dying.
We should clearly unban coalition victory because creatures are even easier to hate out than graveyards. That'll make the format better right?
Thanks for saying graveyard hate answers a graveyard based card. It really contributes.
And revel in riches is not a fun casual card and I would never play with anyone who thinks it is. It's not a competitive card, but it is not fun in casual games.
anyone actually play with it yet? I'm wondering if it's as feel-bad as most people think it will be.
I've put it in an eggsy build that wants to just crap out artifacts to make Akiri big, but those artifacts also tend to draw or can be sacrificed to draw so you can find better artifacts or work with various triggers like Teshar or Myrsmith or Sai etc. The idea is that you threaten with commander damage but MBS can hit as a random "oops you lose" card. I've only been testing the deck at this point, so I don't have much in the way of game reports. The deck isn't ideal for MBS's "you lose" clause because it really wants to poop out artifacts onto the field so Akiri will be big. Both of MBS' modes actually help with that actually, either making 1/1s or letting you loot, but the you lose clause only comes into play after lots of answers have been played. From what I've seen from testing it, I think its unlikely to eventually be banned because the decks that can unlock it at its most obnoxious are narrow. Something like Jhoira eggs should get there with it reliably and quickly while being vulnerable to having it disrupted. Something that I notice is that the decks that can make use of the "you lose" clause most consistently will have fewer slots for permission, and removing the player's graveyard after they hit the magic number will make it highly unlikely they can turn it on again. So situations where they MBS player takes someone out with it and then gets Bogged by a survivor should be considered something that can reasonably happen. With the prevalence of main decked grave hate running around, its not just Krosan Grip that we have to worry about setting up situations where one guy get got early and sits around for awhile because of this card. But again, the decks that will make this happen early often enough to matter are narrower than I initially believed.
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!
ok, so if i understood that right, it feels very niche, and though you didn't really say it, it feels like you're leaning on the "it's probably fine" camp? correct me if i'm wrong.
But does it feel broken? lead to feel-bads? And was it quick enough for those narrow decks to employ that would lead to awkward/feel bad moments? I suspect that it's going to be like simic ascendency; a card that leads to deflating wins, so much so that the owners would just take it out of their deck out of boredom. Is that close?
ok, so if i understood that right, it feels very niche, and though you didn't really say it, it feels like you're leaning on the "it's probably fine" camp? correct me if i'm wrong.
But does it feel broken? lead to feel-bads? And was it quick enough for those narrow decks to employ that would lead to awkward/feel bad moments? I suspect that it's going to be like simic ascendency; a card that leads to deflating wins, so much so that the owners would just take it out of their deck out of boredom. Is that close?
I'm closer to "its fine" than I was before, because the decks that can easily abuse it are a bit more niche than I thought it would be, but it just can out of nowhere cause feel bads. In these decks, it does just work by playing the game as you normally would, but in broader artifact decks it requires a bit more work and isn't as bad. Its still a deflating way to lose, and its worse because unlike Simic A or Mortal Combat it doesn't just win, rather it causes players to lose one by one with time for it to be handled in between. I always consider this worse than just winning, because it is more akin to locking a player out of the game with relatively little effort.
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!
Yea i can see how that can be the case. I'm not sure where a card that elicits 'feel-bads' falls in the banlist chatter though. It interacts badly with the format i suppose, but it certainly doesn't feel like it would break any of the other guidelines of the banning criteria (not that they really seem to mean very much).
I suppose we'll see how it plays out. I guess it's up to individual players to realise that it leads to feel-bads, and therefore would remove the card. But you never know, i suppose.
For someone who has accused me of being disingenuous on several occasions, it sure is funny how often your responses are disingenuous (the alternative explanation being that you have trouble reading posts).
To answer your trite question that you should be capable of answering for yourself, games in which a combo (or alt win, or semi combo) takes out one player while the rest go on playing for hours:
When the combo specifically kills one person and others can answer, which is exactly what this card can do, and exactly what I was saying was a potential problem with the card, in the post you replied to, which is why it's obvious your question is not intended as a serious attempt at conversation but as a cheap (and poorly chosen) drive by that doesn't address the point being made, which seems to be your go to when replying to me. This category also includes things like RiP Helm when the RiP Helm player takes out someone and then the combo gets taken out before their next turn.
When someone pops a Tainted Strike on an unblocked attacker for a surprise 10 poison, but doesn't have a way to take out the rest of the table. Similarly, Hatred on an unblocked commander.
Combos that can literally only kill one person, like Pariah/Stuffy Doll with self damage, or Mirror Universe combo, or something as simple as Kaalia dropping Master of Cruelties, killing one player and then getting handled.
It's obvious that this isn't far-fetched. MB isn't even an "intricate" combo. It's something that can be achieved by just playing the game, though importantly not as easily as CV. When you actually start trying to combo with it, it goes off much earlier. This doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does mean it should be watch listed to see how it plays out. The biggest thing in favor of it is how busted artifact decks already are (which is also the biggest point in favor of Urza), so while I think that this is something that has a high potential for problematic play I also think it's something that faces an uphill climb to meet that potential, simply because there are less problematic but more effective things you can do in the decks where this would be a problem. But the watchlist is partly for cards that have the potential to be problems even if they currently are not, so the RC and advisory committee can have a better handle on cards that have this potential in order to respond more quickly if they do, indeed, become a problem. It's a much lower threshold than the actual banlist because being watchlisted doesn't actually do anything to the format, it just means that the people who decide bans are keeping an eye on the card and testing with it more.
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 don't know if this is going to be annoying or not but it's more concerning to me than simic ascendancy and stuff like that by virtue of killing one player at instant speed. oddly enough if it said "you win the game" it would be less annoying.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
not sure about this one.
I have seen a distinct movement away from wider sorcery speed removal to more instant speed and hard to deal with answers, but again this is all anecdotal.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
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!
This response is so ironic it could be in Napoleon Dynamite 2. Jivantuna is spot on and the response actually proves his point. I'm dying.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Eggs is an archetype in EDH (see new Jhoira, amongst others)
(though I will say that it's obviously not a casual omnipresence type thing)
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Yeah, I think that if we actually went down the ban criteria I think it would get a 9 or 10 for problematic game states (I already gave my reasoning for this), and a 0 on everything else EXCEPT problematic casual omnipresence, which is obviously still an unknown but unlikely to get very high considering the sort of decks that would want it. My primary concern here would be it going in more casually minded artifact decks (because its got a high cool factor), and just randomly take people out of the game. It has a high risk for becoming problematic, but I think a low risk for becoming omnipresent. Its probably going to just be an occasional annoyance, which will keep it from being banned (and it has clear fair uses which also helps its case). I still think that all of these sorts of cards should be monitored just to be safe.
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!
It's surely 0 for everything else.
Personally though it's just a card I wished didn't exist rather than one I would ban. I have no idea why wizards prints stuff like this. Nobody is ever going to feel good about this and it has no real constructed applications that I can see yet (some kind of elite affinity sideboard tech against shatterstorm decks I guess?:P)
It goes on a long list of stupid nonsense for me like Expropriate. It's not bannable but if it didn't exist I wouldn't be sad.
Hell you could put Simic Ascendancy on that list too. What is that adding to the format? Just give it a real effect please on the gamestate instead of these dumb meta abilities.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
....it's possibly playable in tezzerator in legacy. possibly. works well with thopter sword combo, so it could work as a surprise non-artifact win.
Anyways, i tend to agree with your assessment of it though; it only makes feel-bad situations. I'm not sure why that's being a thing now instead of just win the game. maybe it's just too good otherwise?
But that being said, door to nothingness is also a feel-bad, since it specifically takes a player out of the game instead of just winning.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
At least Door was printed with 1v1 in mind, and the reason they chose "target player loses" was because it sounded cooler than "you win" and fit the flavor better (don't ask for the source, I read it on the mothership years ago). That doesn't make it better, but it does make it more understandable that they would print something like that during a time when they weren't thinking about multiplayer. Its also something that is heavily telegraphed and requires a double rainbow to work. No cheating it out, no skirting the colors by double counting duals for basic land types like CV, no immediate use. You drop it then wait a turn before firing off a double rainbow at someone's face. That does make it better, because its weak, so getting a kill with it feels a lot less cheap, and there are more opportunities to stop it. Winning with it is downright impressive.
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!
We should clearly unban coalition victory because creatures are even easier to hate out than graveyards. That'll make the format better right?
Thanks for saying graveyard hate answers a graveyard based card. It really contributes.
And revel in riches is not a fun casual card and I would never play with anyone who thinks it is. It's not a competitive card, but it is not fun in casual games.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I've put it in an eggsy build that wants to just crap out artifacts to make Akiri big, but those artifacts also tend to draw or can be sacrificed to draw so you can find better artifacts or work with various triggers like Teshar or Myrsmith or Sai etc. The idea is that you threaten with commander damage but MBS can hit as a random "oops you lose" card. I've only been testing the deck at this point, so I don't have much in the way of game reports. The deck isn't ideal for MBS's "you lose" clause because it really wants to poop out artifacts onto the field so Akiri will be big. Both of MBS' modes actually help with that actually, either making 1/1s or letting you loot, but the you lose clause only comes into play after lots of answers have been played. From what I've seen from testing it, I think its unlikely to eventually be banned because the decks that can unlock it at its most obnoxious are narrow. Something like Jhoira eggs should get there with it reliably and quickly while being vulnerable to having it disrupted. Something that I notice is that the decks that can make use of the "you lose" clause most consistently will have fewer slots for permission, and removing the player's graveyard after they hit the magic number will make it highly unlikely they can turn it on again. So situations where they MBS player takes someone out with it and then gets Bogged by a survivor should be considered something that can reasonably happen. With the prevalence of main decked grave hate running around, its not just Krosan Grip that we have to worry about setting up situations where one guy get got early and sits around for awhile because of this card. But again, the decks that will make this happen early often enough to matter are narrower than I initially believed.
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!
But does it feel broken? lead to feel-bads? And was it quick enough for those narrow decks to employ that would lead to awkward/feel bad moments? I suspect that it's going to be like simic ascendency; a card that leads to deflating wins, so much so that the owners would just take it out of their deck out of boredom. Is that close?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
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'm closer to "its fine" than I was before, because the decks that can easily abuse it are a bit more niche than I thought it would be, but it just can out of nowhere cause feel bads. In these decks, it does just work by playing the game as you normally would, but in broader artifact decks it requires a bit more work and isn't as bad. Its still a deflating way to lose, and its worse because unlike Simic A or Mortal Combat it doesn't just win, rather it causes players to lose one by one with time for it to be handled in between. I always consider this worse than just winning, because it is more akin to locking a player out of the game with relatively little effort.
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!
Yea i can see how that can be the case. I'm not sure where a card that elicits 'feel-bads' falls in the banlist chatter though. It interacts badly with the format i suppose, but it certainly doesn't feel like it would break any of the other guidelines of the banning criteria (not that they really seem to mean very much).
I suppose we'll see how it plays out. I guess it's up to individual players to realise that it leads to feel-bads, and therefore would remove the card. But you never know, i suppose.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom