The point we was making is that banning the best decks in the format is like banning the Aces out of a Poker deck. Something else just rises to the top, and you end up slippery slop banning until the only legal generals are Jasmain Boreal and Ramirez de Pietro, and he looks overpowered because he is U/B.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
So long as there is a metagame, there will be a best deck, or at least a tier one of decks. If you cut out the top tier, something else will rise to the top, and people will complain that those decks needs to get banned, and so on. There is no magical point were we can say "Okay, we banned these X generals, everything that is left is all equally playable."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
Hi, just wanted to spark up some discussion about these two cards, and apparently I should do it here rather than in its own thread.
Reposted:
Hey everyone, just wanted to get some discussion about two cards that are not currently banned on the MTG Salvation 1v1 banlist but probably could be:
Tolarian Academy - Although it hasnt shown up in the latest MTG Sal MWS tournament, this is historically the most abusive land in magic. What are peoples thoughts on this land?
Strip Mine - This one I think should be banned the most. It's omnipresent and overpowered while not fulfilling an important role in the format (aka what keeps Force of Will from being banned in Legacy). Ill address these statements individually:
A) Its Omnipresent - while not a condition to ban by itself, in conjunction with the following it is.
B) Its Overpowered - It hits basics, basics should be rewarded by being immune to Life from the Loam locks by not being greedy with there mana bases.
C) It doesn't fulfill an important role in the format - If it had one, it would be killing the other broken lands (Academy, Cradle etc), however this role is taken care of by a number of replacements, the forerunner of which is wasteland, with a plethora of playable alternatives beyond that.
So whats everyones thoughts?
And to address Fzian's response in my locked thread:
Quote from fzian »
I am not sure you can say that Strip Mine is overpowered and doesn't have an important role in the format on that basis. I mean, counterspell is omnipresent (in most blue decks), overpowered (it hits all spells) and doesn't fill an important role in the format (if it had one, it would be countering other broken spells which is taken care by a number of replacements including Cancel, Negate, Remove Soul, etc.).
By being "overpowered", usually, we are talking about cards that are practically "broken" so to speak with power level threatening to unbalance the format. I doubt we can place Strip Mine to be as broken in the same sense that Sol Ring or even Mindslaver is "broken".
A) Omnipresent means everywhere, meaning present in 99% of played decks. Counterspell can only appear in blue decks, and in the most recent top 8 of the MWS tournament there were only 1 of 8 possible copies of counterspell played, where as I am sure there were 8 for 8 copies of strip mine played.
B) Counterspell being overpowered? Mana Drain is legal and not being discussed for bannings, so I am not sure that this can be held to be a valid point.
C) Evidence for my claim that Strip Mine is broken is that it is banned in Legacy, and for the same reasons it is banned there I believe it should be banned here. (NOTE: I am not saying that it is more or less "broken" than either Sol Ring or Mindslaver)
Strip Mine causes no degeneracy, just a mild amount of control, and therefore will not be banned. Just because a card is playable in every deck doesn't mean that it is teh uber busted. Strip Mine in EDH is more comparable to Wasteland in Legacy, where most decks run 3-4 copies of it main to deal with problematic lands. As Strip Mine has little way to be abused in this format (Life From the Loam being the only legal card in 1v1 that I'm aware of), I see little problem with this card.
And to address Fzian's response in my locked thread:
A) Omnipresent means everywhere, meaning present in 99% of played decks. Counterspell can only appear in blue decks, and in the most recent top 8 of the MWS tournament there were only 1 of 8 possible copies of counterspell played, where as I am sure there were 8 for 8 copies of strip mine played.
Again, I think both of us agree that omnipresence isn't really a good reason to ban a card.
B) Counterspell being overpowered? Mana Drain is legal and not being discussed for bannings, so I am not sure that this can be held to be a valid point.
The reason for bringing up counterspell was simply to use the reductio ad absurdum argument. Clearly I failed to bring the message across. My point is, just because weaker replacements of a card exist, it does not necessarily mean that the stronger version should be banned (you were mentioning that Strip Mine should be banned because Wasteland and Dustbowl already fulfils the role of Strip Mine).
C) Evidence for my claim that Strip Mine is broken is that it is banned in Legacy, and for the same reasons it is banned there I believe it should be banned here. (NOTE: I am not saying that it is more or less "broken" than either Sol Ring or Mindslaver)
EDH is not Legacy; they are two very different formats. One is a format of singletons and another is a format where you are allowed 4 copies of most cards in a deck.
There is no reason why EDH should adhere to the Legacy ban list. Remember, Legacy bans a lot more than just Strip Mine and includes Gush, Frantic Search, Mana Drain, Skullclamp, Vampiric Tutor, et al. I don't see why are we using Legacy standards for a Vintage-based EDH format
I still stand by the fact that I believe Strip Mine and Life from the Loam together is too strong, but accept that people disagree with me and that I may be wrong.
There is a *huge* difference between Crucible + Strip Mine and Life from the Loam + Strip Mine. The lock with Crucible can be run in any deck, regardless of colors. This means at any time, any deck can just randomly assemble the lock and do an "oops I win". Because the lock is universal, it also gives a huge advantage to black especially because of its multiple tutors where it can aggressively assemble the combo. LtfL limits itself to only decks with green in it. While not the only reason why Strip Mine is unbanned, keeping a universal Stax lock out of every deck's disposal is a big one.
The other reason is that to continuously LtfL + Strip Mine someone, you have to sacrifice your draw step in addition to milling yourself a tiny bit as well as keep paying 2 mana for LtfL. With Crucible, all you have to do is simply recur the Strip Mine every turn with no actual other hindering aspect involved.
As for Tolarian Academy, it's still a card that is on the edge, because it gives the strongest color in the format the strongest card in the game. Don't get me wrong though, just because Academy is still unbanned doesn't mean it's totally safe from being axed. One thing to keep in mind though is that the loss of both Sol Ring and Mana Crypt do contribute somewhat to keeping Academy from being totally broken. I know I have said this a lot, but no Sol Ring and no Mana Crypt greatly change the dynamics of EDH. It especially hammers blue, because it loses its two best accelerants and the one card that capitalizes off of those said cards (Academy). Sharuum and Arcum Dagsson are quite potent when you use the multiplayer banlist because with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, they can produce explosive starts that very few decks, if any, can keep up with. However, EDH, or Magic in general, should not be about who gets Sol Ring/Mana Crypt in their hand first.
It's also why Strip Mine shouldn't be banned, because it's a card that any deck can use to answer problematic lands, no questions asked.
Agreed. I don't personally like Strip Mine, but it really ought to be safe playing with Crucible of Worlds gone, and one of them had to go. Life-Strip is nowhere near as horrendous as being Cruciblocked.
Hey so this is a bit random, but but I figure here is the best place for the discussion. What is everyone's thoughts regarding our "sister" formats banlist, our sister format being Highlander from Europe. For reference their banlist is as follows:
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Buried Alive
Cephalid Illusionist
Chaos Orb
Dread Return
Enlightened Tutor
Entomb
Falling Star
Fastbond
Flash
Grindstone
Imperial Seal
Library of Alexandrianew!
Life from the Loamnew!
Lion's Eye Diamond
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Protean Hulk new!
Skullclamp
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Survival of the Fittest
Tolarian Academy
Time Vault
Time Walk
Tinker
Trinisphere
Umezawa's Jitte
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Worldgorger Dragon
Yawgmoth's Will
Plus ante and unglued etc. They sure ban alot of stuff. It looks like they did a search of gatherer for the word "search your library" and started mashing the "ban" button. How would you react if you woke up tomorrow and MTG Salvation's 1v1 banlist looked like this? Would it be a more fun format, less fun?
There's a reason why traditional Highlander is a dead format and really only played in Europe today -- it's because the ban list is a mile long. One of the big gravitations towards EDH is the ability to play with a lot more powerful cards than in normal Highlander.
If Highlander continues to ban cards like this, the format is just going to be 5 Color all over again, where the format collapses due to such a massive ban list. When your ban list encompasses the Cephalid Breakfast combo, you have serious problems.
"O Tightened Ascendant, one has here something of indeed very strong turn 1 in a mono aggressive white or GW, the chart were primarily put outside because of its dissension with the rules of the EDH making begun a player exactly at the desired number of points of life. (Badly) fortunately ever a table at the time of a tournament did not touch."
Sounds like a pre-emptive ban. The most powerfull card in magic isn't banned (Yawgs Will) but a one drop white creature is O.o
Also Cliques not banned either, but I can't really make out why:
"Vendilion Clicks: That flies, that makes it possible to see the hand and to correct it, of coordination with bounces that makes it possible to get rid of threats, whose unfavourable general, that has 3 forces of it for same casting cost thus that keep silent in 7 turns and that also makes it possible to kill in a blow with Tunnel Vision, which with the assistance of Mystical tutor like often arrives against a deck stripped of against.
Because of the round of applause of certain generals the prototype improved considerably."
Yeah it's on there. Pretty much the reasoning for it's banning is the same as sol ring and mana crypt. In the early stages of the game its a oops I win card. If I play a turn one sol ring you have a turn to answer it otherwise I have a huge advantage. The same can be argued for serra. Sure most decks run removal, and even tutors for that removal. But the french also ban the elf as well you have to remember. They don't want the format to resolve into who get's luckier and draws a better opening 7. The elf and serra ask do you have removal? No you die. The banning does make sense with what the french do what to accomplish. What still doesn't make sense is the banning of the elf and Serra with clique in the format. Thats my only gripe.
I run Serra Ascendant in my 1v1 white deck and I can say for a fact that it always draws displeasure from my opponent, but at the same time it can be a total flop late game when your health has dipped and I don't think anyone has a problem sending a piece of removal its way.
The night before last I was playing with the same deck. Pulled Ranger of Eos, so I dropped it and tutored for Serra Ascendant and something else. Played out Serra Ascendant and it promptly ate a piece of removal. A few turns after I dropped a Sun Titan returning and playing out my Serra Ascendant again and it was promptly exiled.
Anecdotal evidence aside.. I can understand how it may be worrisome in the early game, but to give it a preemptive ban without every letting it see tournament play is just a bit silly. :/
First of all, I can confirm that Serra Ascendant is banned in France. One of the main reasons is: "This card was not intended to be played in a format where 30 life is your starting life total".
This seems like strange reasoning to me. M11 was obviously designed with 2HG in mind (Blood Tithe and Hunters' Feast, among others), and the Ascendant therefore must have been considered as a potential turn one 6/6.
Banning Sol Ring is dumb ! It's like when they restricted Strip Mine after printing 4 different copies of it ! The advantage it gives is the luck of the draw like any magic game ever played ! Is Black Vise banned ? Back in the day a 1st turn Black Vise usually meant a game win ! and if you're going to ban Sensei's Divining Top why not Sylvan Library ? Just ban all cards then we can use them to heat our homes this winter ! Geesh ! Viva La France !
Can I still use my Sol Ring and Sensei's Divining Top in the U.S.A. ?
Oh, and ban dual lands cuz they are just too powerful and they don't have them in foil !
Double post merged. -viper
I agree somewhat on the reasoning behind the rofello's ban issue, when I 1st saw the Sharuum the Heggemon deck builds I built my version of it, it is/was strong and everyone was building them........so on this reasoning Sharuum should have been banned ! but it wasn't !
First of all, I can confirm that Serra Ascendant is banned in France. One of the main reasons is: "This card was not intended to be played in a format where 30 life is your starting life total". So, there is no comparison to make with Yawgmoth's Will and else, because they do not belong to the same categories. Rune-Tail also belongs to this category, and is not banned: we are currently thinking a bit about this: certain people think (and they are right) it's too bad to bother banning, others (including me) think we should simply apply the "wasn't intended for a 30 life format" rule regardless of the power.
The debate for Rune-Tail is still open, as we are currently writing down an EDH rulebook for France. When released, we will translate it into English, so that if other people want to use it, they can. Banning a card is not decided upon random, it does not happen when a member of EDH committee gets raped by a powerful card in a tournament. It obeys several rules, and a card gets banned when it belongs to one of these categories:
- Cards of spells that, when resolved, lead the game at least to a state of near-victory (Necropotence, Sundering Titan…)
- Cards that allow the player to easily set up a combination of two cards that leads the game at least to a state of near-victory (Gifts Ungiven, Painter's Servant, Time Vault…)
- Cards with an effect highly unbalanced regarding its mana cost (Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Tinker, Mana Crypt, Channel…)
- Cards that were not intended to play with EDH rules' specificities (Karakas, Serra Ascendant…)
- Cards that require manual dexterity (Chaos Orb, Falling Star)
- Cards requiring playing with ante (Amulet of Quoz…)
The goal, in the first time, will be to unify all local rules remaining in France, as well as providing a semi-official support for EDH. It will gather all the rules of the game, each rule shall be explained in "non-judge language" and will be illustrated by an in-game example. Two minor rules changes will appear (maybe three, I don't remember exactly how legends rule applies here), apart from that it just gathers EDH rules in a simple and clear rulebook.
Coming back to the reason why I first wrote this post, I wanted to point out the fact that banning a card doesn't just result of a poll "Hey what about this card ?". It obeys rules that first describe the reasons for banning a card, regardless of its raw power.
At the end of the day though, all Serra Ascendant does is just attack. Giving aggro decks a big creature that they can attack with I see is a GOOD thing for EDH, not necessarily a bad one. You guys would know that in your totally Clique-dominated environment in France that straight-up aggro just sucks in the format -- aggro decks that *are* viable are ones that focus on general damage and/or token armies. Most games in 1v1 EDH are decided by assembling a combo, establishing overwhelming control, and/or getting a prison lock online. It just puzzles me how you guys decided to ban a card that does nothing but attack. It'd be like banning Tarmogoyf in Legacy.
This seems like strange reasoning to me. M11 was obviously designed with 2HG in mind (Blood Tithe and Hunters' Feast, among others), and the Ascendant therefore must have been considered as a potential turn one 6/6.
Just to note, from what I understand of 2HG rules is that life totals are considered for only one person. In other words, for the purpose of Ascendant, your starting life total is 15 (30/2), not 30, and in order to get its bonus you need to gain another 30 life.
Being disappointed and tired of writing long posts in my non-native language just to see that French are just stupid (at least "dumb", thanks goldstandard), I'll stop after that one, and return to my "Clique-dominated environment".
Goodbye.
Well, I can't speak for everybody but I do agree that there has been some poor choices of words and that some of the comments may have been a little untactful to cultural sensitivities. You probably deserve an apology for that. It is unfortunately the nature of the internet that somehow, somewhere along the line, you will receive some unconstructive comments and remark. Do take them with a pinch of salt You have been a helpful addition to the 1v1 forum and it would be a pity if you left because of some bad eggs.
Anyway, on topic, my opinion is as follow. On the matter of Serra Ascendant, at the very least, the French list seems to prioritise "form over substance". Indeed, you yourself mentioned: -
First of all, I can confirm that Serra Ascendant is banned in France. One of the main reasons is: "This card was not intended to be played in a format where 30 life is your starting life total"....
Rune-Tail also belongs to this category, and is not banned: we are currently thinking a bit about this: certain people think (and they are right) it's too bad to bother banning, others (including me) think we should simply apply the "wasn't intended for a 30 life format" rule regardless of the power.
This is not to say that prioritising a set of criteria is necessarily wrong but personally, I think that this may be completely missing the point. The philosophy and the logic behind banning cards lies in the degeneracy of the particular card in the format. If a card is banned just because it somehow matches one of the set criteria, the decision would seem a little too rigid or "bureaucratic", so to speak.
That said, obviously by your account, the system works for the French and I respect that. However, I feel that there is a good case, for the committee to understand the rationality behind banning a card instead of banning a card just because it is "not meant to be played in a format of 30 life".
Mind you, I am not critical of the rigidity of the criterias choosen; I feel that having the 6 criterias is really a good start. Indeed, having a checklist of criteria can be very helpful. I just think that it is problematic to make subjective decisions using an objective framework. However, if you must use an objective framework to evaluate subjective decisions, the French rules committee may want to refine the criterias so that they are more meaningful.
Seems like a little too late to join the discussion on the serra ascendant, but still ill add my impression on it. Every time i have played against it on turn one i have lost to it. And i think that every deck that is not heavy on creature control will have a big problem dealing with it.
The reasons is simply ,like Emether said it, that it was not designed to work on any environment where the starting life is 30 or above.
Turn 1, play it. No combos, no weird stuff. For only one W you get a 6/6 flying lifelink critter. Closest thing i can think that comes close to that is playing B/X, using entomb on any 6/6 flyer lifelink available turn 1 and then reanimate on turn 2. Blue is the only one that can answer at this point (FoW)
Opp. Unless its black or white (white having only 2 viable answers <path, sword>)
Turn 2, attack. Again only black and white (white having now 3 answers <add condemn>) only have answers to it.
Opp. Again only black and white only have answers to it.
Turn 3. Attack, Black, White and Blue(only if blue has some bounce spell that cost 2, and they dont runt that many)
Its the same as with sol ring, true that one may have one of his few arti-removal spell on turn one but the tempo that you win with it on turn two is just broken.
2 swings of the ascendant and suddenly you are on 18 and your opponent on 42.
Basically you're on a 6 turn clock. Most of the decks wont be able to deal with it until turn 3-4 if they have some luck.
Still the life difference by that time is just abysmal. Add to that most of the times life on EDH is a great resource to have since there are a lot of overpowered spells that use life as a resource.
I would really like to see SC reconsider his opinion on not having the ban fall on this .
pros of banning it:
*less swingy cards when your aggro deck has cards on power level with isamaru to serra it makes luck a bigger factor.
*its pretty much uncounterable on turn 1 and a pain for mono blue decks til turn four when they can control magic (aside from random things like force of will)
*this card is still crazy good and you dont get a 3 for 1 unlike most must kill cards (such as ritual turn one hypnotic specter, lets face it youll also lose the game 1v1 if you dont kill a turn one hippy)
cons:
*honestly if you dont run any 1cc removal or even 2cc like smother, edicts etc etc you deserve to lose 1v1 (and you play nothing but 4cc or more mass removal like wrath of god)this card punishes those decks which is a good thing
*it synergizes terribly with fetchlands and pain lands city of brass ( you start at 30 life making it very clunky since i play with 7 fetches and a city of brass in my deck and it requires some luck) or any burn spell on turn 1
*not very many extreme aggro decks out there this is a good reason to go that route
*its no different than turn one goblin lackey in legacy which is a completely reasonable play
overall i think this card should not be banned its good for the format 1v1 aggro decks the control decks should run 1cc 2cc removal and this card will enforce it.
maybe wotc knew you started at 30life in edh and they wanted to give aggro some better creature tools? (a lot of them do play edh)
I'd like to chime in on the topic of Serra Ascendant as well.
I DID face one in a recent tournament match, and it was put into play the turn after I dropped a Hokori, Dust Drinker and my opponent was tapped out. If anything, I was impressed with his play ("Ahaha, nice, way to have the ONE creature in your hand that laughs at Hokori."), and this creature allows aggro decks to be a little more threatening in an environment where early game combos that are easily tutored for will win games far before the slower aggro builds (and unfortunately for him, this tournament had a starting life total of 40, giving me that much more time to assemble my combos). Meanwhile, I was also running Rune-Tail, but neither this nor Ascendant gave either of us an unfair edge. Well.. okay, Rune-Tail hosed his super-aggro Rafiq deck more than Ascendant hurt my toolbox/control deck, but...
As has been noted, good decks run cheap spot removal and early answers to deal with any singular game-swinging creature (or even answers for mana dorks that accel players into early victories). GREAT decks run these things AND early-game "I win" combos. Ascendant is a good card for the format in that it makes Aggrolicious decks more viable in a duel setting, I'd argue. Diversity will keep this format healthy. Banning Ascendant seems like one step closer to making control decks that much more ubiquitous and all-powerful.
I appreciate the guideline efforts, and fully understand the rationale behind restricting cards that clearly weren't intended for a format with such high starting life totals. And despite what I've said earlier, I'd actually lean towards implementing a +10 rule to creatures like Ascendant and Rune-Tail, where (depending on whether your meta is doing 30 or 40 life starts) Ascendant would either activate at 40 or 50.
But currently, I don't see Ascendant as game-breaking. It still will take several turns to win the game and can easily be answered within those turns.
Seriously, why isn't Helm banned? A turn 2 or 3 win that can easily be tutored for is the sort of thing that turns this format into Legacy, where if you're not running a specific counter-color and you don't get a cheap artifact/enchantment removal in your opening hand.. you lose. Has this been discussed before? To me, this seems to be on the same page as Painter Servant/Grindstone. Or I guess this depends on the banned list, which cheap colorless mana producers are banned. I think that in my meta--where the banned list is taken from the EDH website--Void/Helm is a problem, but maybe y'all's banned list has already accounted for how powerful that nonsense is. I should suggest that the tournament hosts here use a different banned list, perhaps!
But perhaps not... in a 12 person tournament, the one guy running that combo went 1-3.
Reposted:
Hey everyone, just wanted to get some discussion about two cards that are not currently banned on the MTG Salvation 1v1 banlist but probably could be:
Tolarian Academy - Although it hasnt shown up in the latest MTG Sal MWS tournament, this is historically the most abusive land in magic. What are peoples thoughts on this land?
Strip Mine - This one I think should be banned the most. It's omnipresent and overpowered while not fulfilling an important role in the format (aka what keeps Force of Will from being banned in Legacy). Ill address these statements individually:
A) Its Omnipresent - while not a condition to ban by itself, in conjunction with the following it is.
B) Its Overpowered - It hits basics, basics should be rewarded by being immune to Life from the Loam locks by not being greedy with there mana bases.
C) It doesn't fulfill an important role in the format - If it had one, it would be killing the other broken lands (Academy, Cradle etc), however this role is taken care of by a number of replacements, the forerunner of which is wasteland, with a plethora of playable alternatives beyond that.
So whats everyones thoughts?
And to address Fzian's response in my locked thread:
A) Omnipresent means everywhere, meaning present in 99% of played decks. Counterspell can only appear in blue decks, and in the most recent top 8 of the MWS tournament there were only 1 of 8 possible copies of counterspell played, where as I am sure there were 8 for 8 copies of strip mine played.
B) Counterspell being overpowered? Mana Drain is legal and not being discussed for bannings, so I am not sure that this can be held to be a valid point.
C) Evidence for my claim that Strip Mine is broken is that it is banned in Legacy, and for the same reasons it is banned there I believe it should be banned here. (NOTE: I am not saying that it is more or less "broken" than either Sol Ring or Mindslaver)
BRRakdos, Lord of RiotsBR
Again, I think both of us agree that omnipresence isn't really a good reason to ban a card.
The reason for bringing up counterspell was simply to use the reductio ad absurdum argument. Clearly I failed to bring the message across. My point is, just because weaker replacements of a card exist, it does not necessarily mean that the stronger version should be banned (you were mentioning that Strip Mine should be banned because Wasteland and Dustbowl already fulfils the role of Strip Mine).
EDH is not Legacy; they are two very different formats. One is a format of singletons and another is a format where you are allowed 4 copies of most cards in a deck.
There is no reason why EDH should adhere to the Legacy ban list. Remember, Legacy bans a lot more than just Strip Mine and includes Gush, Frantic Search, Mana Drain, Skullclamp, Vampiric Tutor, et al. I don't see why are we using Legacy standards for a Vintage-based EDH format
I still stand by the fact that I believe Strip Mine and Life from the Loam together is too strong, but accept that people disagree with me and that I may be wrong.
What are peoples thoughts on Tolarian Academy?
The other reason is that to continuously LtfL + Strip Mine someone, you have to sacrifice your draw step in addition to milling yourself a tiny bit as well as keep paying 2 mana for LtfL. With Crucible, all you have to do is simply recur the Strip Mine every turn with no actual other hindering aspect involved.
As for Tolarian Academy, it's still a card that is on the edge, because it gives the strongest color in the format the strongest card in the game. Don't get me wrong though, just because Academy is still unbanned doesn't mean it's totally safe from being axed. One thing to keep in mind though is that the loss of both Sol Ring and Mana Crypt do contribute somewhat to keeping Academy from being totally broken. I know I have said this a lot, but no Sol Ring and no Mana Crypt greatly change the dynamics of EDH. It especially hammers blue, because it loses its two best accelerants and the one card that capitalizes off of those said cards (Academy). Sharuum and Arcum Dagsson are quite potent when you use the multiplayer banlist because with Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, they can produce explosive starts that very few decks, if any, can keep up with. However, EDH, or Magic in general, should not be about who gets Sol Ring/Mana Crypt in their hand first.
It's also why Strip Mine shouldn't be banned, because it's a card that any deck can use to answer problematic lands, no questions asked.
Discuss.
Amen to that. And after a couple of hours, and I still was reading demonic tutor was banned, I'd get wasted all over again.
If Highlander continues to ban cards like this, the format is just going to be 5 Color all over again, where the format collapses due to such a massive ban list. When your ban list encompasses the Cephalid Breakfast combo, you have serious problems.
EDIT: Did the French seriously ban Serra Ascendant? http://www.mtgfrance.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=21071
If someone from France can confirm this, I'll update your guys' list, but this decision if it were true totally baffles me.
Sounds like a pre-emptive ban. The most powerfull card in magic isn't banned (Yawgs Will) but a one drop white creature is O.o
Also Cliques not banned either, but I can't really make out why:
"Vendilion Clicks: That flies, that makes it possible to see the hand and to correct it, of coordination with bounces that makes it possible to get rid of threats, whose unfavourable general, that has 3 forces of it for same casting cost thus that keep silent in 7 turns and that also makes it possible to kill in a blow with Tunnel Vision, which with the assistance of Mystical tutor like often arrives against a deck stripped of against.
Because of the round of applause of certain generals the prototype improved considerably."
The night before last I was playing with the same deck. Pulled Ranger of Eos, so I dropped it and tutored for Serra Ascendant and something else. Played out Serra Ascendant and it promptly ate a piece of removal. A few turns after I dropped a Sun Titan returning and playing out my Serra Ascendant again and it was promptly exiled.
Anecdotal evidence aside.. I can understand how it may be worrisome in the early game, but to give it a preemptive ban without every letting it see tournament play is just a bit silly. :/
RGW Uril, the Miststalker - Retired
W Darien, King of Kjeldor
UGR Intet, the Dreamer
BG Sapling of Colfenor
This seems like strange reasoning to me. M11 was obviously designed with 2HG in mind (Blood Tithe and Hunters' Feast, among others), and the Ascendant therefore must have been considered as a potential turn one 6/6.
Can I still use my Sol Ring and Sensei's Divining Top in the U.S.A. ?
Oh, and ban dual lands cuz they are just too powerful and they don't have them in foil !
Double post merged. -viper
I agree somewhat on the reasoning behind the rofello's ban issue, when I 1st saw the Sharuum the Heggemon deck builds I built my version of it, it is/was strong and everyone was building them........so on this reasoning Sharuum should have been banned ! but it wasn't !
At the end of the day though, all Serra Ascendant does is just attack. Giving aggro decks a big creature that they can attack with I see is a GOOD thing for EDH, not necessarily a bad one. You guys would know that in your totally Clique-dominated environment in France that straight-up aggro just sucks in the format -- aggro decks that *are* viable are ones that focus on general damage and/or token armies. Most games in 1v1 EDH are decided by assembling a combo, establishing overwhelming control, and/or getting a prison lock online. It just puzzles me how you guys decided to ban a card that does nothing but attack. It'd be like banning Tarmogoyf in Legacy.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
Well, I can't speak for everybody but I do agree that there has been some poor choices of words and that some of the comments may have been a little untactful to cultural sensitivities. You probably deserve an apology for that. It is unfortunately the nature of the internet that somehow, somewhere along the line, you will receive some unconstructive comments and remark. Do take them with a pinch of salt You have been a helpful addition to the 1v1 forum and it would be a pity if you left because of some bad eggs.
Anyway, on topic, my opinion is as follow. On the matter of Serra Ascendant, at the very least, the French list seems to prioritise "form over substance". Indeed, you yourself mentioned: -
This is not to say that prioritising a set of criteria is necessarily wrong but personally, I think that this may be completely missing the point. The philosophy and the logic behind banning cards lies in the degeneracy of the particular card in the format. If a card is banned just because it somehow matches one of the set criteria, the decision would seem a little too rigid or "bureaucratic", so to speak.
That said, obviously by your account, the system works for the French and I respect that. However, I feel that there is a good case, for the committee to understand the rationality behind banning a card instead of banning a card just because it is "not meant to be played in a format of 30 life".
Mind you, I am not critical of the rigidity of the criterias choosen; I feel that having the 6 criterias is really a good start. Indeed, having a checklist of criteria can be very helpful. I just think that it is problematic to make subjective decisions using an objective framework. However, if you must use an objective framework to evaluate subjective decisions, the French rules committee may want to refine the criterias so that they are more meaningful.
Just my €0.02
The reasons is simply ,like Emether said it, that it was not designed to work on any environment where the starting life is 30 or above.
Turn 1, play it. No combos, no weird stuff. For only one W you get a 6/6 flying lifelink critter. Closest thing i can think that comes close to that is playing B/X, using entomb on any 6/6 flyer lifelink available turn 1 and then reanimate on turn 2. Blue is the only one that can answer at this point (FoW)
Opp. Unless its black or white (white having only 2 viable answers <path, sword>)
Turn 2, attack. Again only black and white (white having now 3 answers <add condemn>) only have answers to it.
Opp. Again only black and white only have answers to it.
Turn 3. Attack, Black, White and Blue(only if blue has some bounce spell that cost 2, and they dont runt that many)
Its the same as with sol ring, true that one may have one of his few arti-removal spell on turn one but the tempo that you win with it on turn two is just broken.
2 swings of the ascendant and suddenly you are on 18 and your opponent on 42.
Basically you're on a 6 turn clock. Most of the decks wont be able to deal with it until turn 3-4 if they have some luck.
Still the life difference by that time is just abysmal. Add to that most of the times life on EDH is a great resource to have since there are a lot of overpowered spells that use life as a resource.
I would really like to see SC reconsider his opinion on not having the ban fall on this .
pros of banning it:
*less swingy cards when your aggro deck has cards on power level with isamaru to serra it makes luck a bigger factor.
*its pretty much uncounterable on turn 1 and a pain for mono blue decks til turn four when they can control magic (aside from random things like force of will)
*this card is still crazy good and you dont get a 3 for 1 unlike most must kill cards (such as ritual turn one hypnotic specter, lets face it youll also lose the game 1v1 if you dont kill a turn one hippy)
cons:
*honestly if you dont run any 1cc removal or even 2cc like smother, edicts etc etc you deserve to lose 1v1 (and you play nothing but 4cc or more mass removal like wrath of god)this card punishes those decks which is a good thing
*it synergizes terribly with fetchlands and pain lands city of brass ( you start at 30 life making it very clunky since i play with 7 fetches and a city of brass in my deck and it requires some luck) or any burn spell on turn 1
*not very many extreme aggro decks out there this is a good reason to go that route
*its no different than turn one goblin lackey in legacy which is a completely reasonable play
overall i think this card should not be banned its good for the format 1v1 aggro decks the control decks should run 1cc 2cc removal and this card will enforce it.
maybe wotc knew you started at 30life in edh and they wanted to give aggro some better creature tools? (a lot of them do play edh)
I DID face one in a recent tournament match, and it was put into play the turn after I dropped a Hokori, Dust Drinker and my opponent was tapped out. If anything, I was impressed with his play ("Ahaha, nice, way to have the ONE creature in your hand that laughs at Hokori."), and this creature allows aggro decks to be a little more threatening in an environment where early game combos that are easily tutored for will win games far before the slower aggro builds (and unfortunately for him, this tournament had a starting life total of 40, giving me that much more time to assemble my combos). Meanwhile, I was also running Rune-Tail, but neither this nor Ascendant gave either of us an unfair edge. Well.. okay, Rune-Tail hosed his super-aggro Rafiq deck more than Ascendant hurt my toolbox/control deck, but...
As has been noted, good decks run cheap spot removal and early answers to deal with any singular game-swinging creature (or even answers for mana dorks that accel players into early victories). GREAT decks run these things AND early-game "I win" combos. Ascendant is a good card for the format in that it makes Aggrolicious decks more viable in a duel setting, I'd argue. Diversity will keep this format healthy. Banning Ascendant seems like one step closer to making control decks that much more ubiquitous and all-powerful.
I appreciate the guideline efforts, and fully understand the rationale behind restricting cards that clearly weren't intended for a format with such high starting life totals. And despite what I've said earlier, I'd actually lean towards implementing a +10 rule to creatures like Ascendant and Rune-Tail, where (depending on whether your meta is doing 30 or 40 life starts) Ascendant would either activate at 40 or 50.
But currently, I don't see Ascendant as game-breaking. It still will take several turns to win the game and can easily be answered within those turns.
Leyline of the Void and Helm of Obedience, on the other hand...
Seriously, why isn't Helm banned? A turn 2 or 3 win that can easily be tutored for is the sort of thing that turns this format into Legacy, where if you're not running a specific counter-color and you don't get a cheap artifact/enchantment removal in your opening hand.. you lose. Has this been discussed before? To me, this seems to be on the same page as Painter Servant/Grindstone. Or I guess this depends on the banned list, which cheap colorless mana producers are banned. I think that in my meta--where the banned list is taken from the EDH website--Void/Helm is a problem, but maybe y'all's banned list has already accounted for how powerful that nonsense is. I should suggest that the tournament hosts here use a different banned list, perhaps!
But perhaps not... in a 12 person tournament, the one guy running that combo went 1-3.
Muse muse.
Bottom line: No new bans!
My Captain Sisay Duel Commander Primer
Duel Commander Mega-Thread
Please explain your opinions. If you don't, your post doesn't really contribute anything to the thread. Spam warning issued. -viper
Care to elaborate on why it is bad? You do realise that you get 40 life in normal EDH only because it is used to account for multiplayer?