So, this is probably really controversial mostly in part because we are talking about a red card than for any other reason given that red is often given the stick of weakest color for commander. I happened to have nominated this guy to be on the Dream EDH Bannedlist thread for this year and seeing several other people vote for and start discussing it I figured I would spin up a thread for him.
So, if you ask me the biggest reasons to perhaps consider banning him are:
He has incredible output, probably among the top damage output option cards red has.
Its incredibly hard to interact with the damage he deals. It tends to come down to Torpor Orb effects to stop it or gaining life.
Most of the time he is an indestructible enchantment. He is a brick freaking house when it comes to how robust he is.
His potential in the 99 and in the command zone seem to be somewhat similar. Given that he is technically a creature it makes him particularly annoying in GR decks due to creature tutors. Even black and white have ways to tutor for him though as well so in the 99 he is real trouble in a lot of decks.
The less competitive a meta is, the better he becomes. He gives a constant source of strong damage output and the slower games tend to take to resolve the more he tends to accomplish.
Being that he is a mythic god creature he has a lot of casual appeal. Really most any deck up until you start doing MLD and infinite combos tends to play very well towards how he wants to play the game. So here it is, what are your thoughts on if this guy should be banned?
Yes, he's red. But that shouldn't really matter one way or the other. And IMO, it's not really a strike against him. Mono-red has one of the most diverse suite of generals to build from (i.e. Godo, Krenko, Daretti). However, the strike against most of the mono-red generals is that they pretty much are all glass-cannons.
I just don't see Purphoros ever being built and played in a way other than to just spam tokens and avoid hitting 7 devotion. So the games end up being very archenemy. Even in a highly-tuned, yet not T4-9 environment, it's still going to result in archenemy. Very easy to see why people don't like him.
In a way, he's centralizing like Prophet of Kruphix. Personally, I was never for banning that card either. So maybe that's what it boils down to. Do you think Purphoros centralizes the game too much (@ 4cmc + indestructible)?
At the end of the day, I would want people to play Purphoros if that's what they wanted because that's how I want to be treated as well. I played against a Purphoros player and even though everyone else in the group told him to never bring it again, I told him that I enjoyed the game and to just bring it. Ironically, the Purphoros player ended up telling me to not play my UW enchantment-heavy control deck again.
As a commander, he needs to be built around, obviously, and tokens in mono red without Krenko as the commander is a mediocre strategy that Purphoros only raises to somewhere between pretty good and really good depending on how well built the deck is. In the 99, he can be answered with removal that exiles or lowers toughness. Indestructible is most relevant when he isn't a creature, so to keep him safe you want to focus on keeping your devotion to red below 5, because once he is a creature he eats path and swords and slips all day. As a commander that's not a big deal, but in the 99 that's a real liability, so its best to focus on keeping him asleep. There are multiple cards that completely blank him, and life gain decks can often blunt his output enough to keep him in check. He does get better in more casual metas, because like you said the longer the game goes on the more damage he can produce, but also because more casual metas are less likely to run answers or strategies that simply win before he can go off.
I'm a hard no on banning him. He's strong, but he doesn't meet any of the banlist criteria. He's not omnipresent in casual, let alone problematically so. He doesn't generate undesirable game states (no massive resource imbalance, no locking players out, and he can be interacted with in numerous ways), and clearly does not produce too much mana too quickly or present a perceived barrier to entry. What he does do is a ton of damage, provided you build your deck to take advantage of him, and even then he does not just win out of nowhere. He doesn't even slot into just any deck. If you're running about 25 creatures, his damage output is going to be pretty middling unless you pair him with a strong token generator.
Is he annoying to lose to when you are unprepared for him? Yes. That shouldn't happen often, really only when you are playing with random people. In a playgroup, he's a card that teaches people to run answers.
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, what do you think of Xenogod or Keranos, god of storms? Honest question, because I really think you could make an honest case for those two with the criteria you’ve listed for the ‘ole hammer god.
What really keeps him from being busted is that he needs to take each player to zero, not deal 21. It may not sound like much, but there are ways to prevent it, handle it, or straight up ignore it via a lifegain strategy. Seriously, sit down with Oloro for one game, not tuned and all, and see how long that player wants to play that strategy.
Also, I don’t necessarily think making that player the archenemy is a bad thing is this argument. It’s a bit of an all in strategy, you don’t want to have to cast Purphurous more than 2x? Maybe 3? While his answers are limited, the point of playing purph is to untap with him. If you stop that once, you’ve slowed their strategy considerably. Either way, it really depends on the rest of the table. Slapping down a storm variant looking to combo kill at a table of casuals is going to create a bad impression. Otherwise, just trying to drop as many creatures as possible in no particular fashion just for incidental damage, and the pump(which has won me so many games BTW). Maybe a tribal element of sorts? That stuff is good, but not broken. It’s more or less, well cheesy.
People say they want red to get stronger cards for Commander. Red gets stronger cards, people don't like 'em. I can only imagine the amount of eye-rolling this might cause among card designers.
Purphoros should not be banned. People should play more exile removal or more Torpor Orb effects, or both.
I like the good powerful gods in the format because they are best example of showing people what Indestructible is and what a card type is that you should plan to be able to deal with or plan to try and outrace.
I like Purph because they are the purest form of red deck wins that EDH has and even if it a small sliver I am glad that it is there somewhere.
It's over-centralizing, pretty much every red creature or burn strategy is "purphoros but worse"
It's really annoying in casual games knowing he's going to bypass almost all defenses.
There just flat out aren't enough answers to an indestructible enchantment that you would consider including in your deck
I don't like playing with him because it's a very boring linear strategy, and I don't like playing against him because it's too effective a boring and linear strategy for casual level games.
The format is not better because he exists. It is worse. And most importantly, it is worse in casual games. Therefore, get rid of him.
Problem commanders don't often get banned unless the community raises a big enough stink about it to get the Rules Committee to actually do something. When we got people acting antisocial and passive aggressive towards others because of problem cards that remain unbanned. Those who seek a change to the banlist are instead getting recited the same tired rhetoric and advised to make a house rule even if they only play at sanctioned environments such as at local stores.
Problem commanders don't often get banned unless the community raises a big enough stink about it to get the Rules Committee to actually do something. When we got people acting antisocial and passive aggressive towards others because of problem cards that remain unbanned. Those who seek a change to the banlist are instead getting recited the same tired rhetoric and advised to make a house rule even if they only play at sanctioned environments such as at local stores.
Because banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesnt like them is really stupid and would result in an unwieldy banlist that would ruin the format. Too often these ban arguments break down into "stop liking what I don't like."
Also, and this is not aimed at you I just don't want to make a new post, some people apparently don't know what centralizing means. A commander that causes the table to band together against the pilot is not centralizing. A centralizing card is a card that causes games to revolve around it simply by being in the deck. Games become about searching for it with bribery, reanimating it, stealing it, tutoring it up asap, etc. This doesn't apply to purphoros in the 99. As a commander, stealing it is basically a form of removal because he's not going to be the same kind of threat to the board in a deck not built around him. There are plenty of commanders that will throw the game into archenemy mode in casual metas. Oloro will do it. Nekusar will do it. Jhoira 1.0 will do it. Animar will do it. Wanderer will do it. Ezuri in either form. Omnath 2.0. Gitrog. Many of these are like Purphoros in that they are streamlined strategies that can kill a table quick, just in better colors than mono red. Should we ban those? Many of those are better than Purphoros btw, they win faster. I'd typically rather face big P than Nekusar.
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!
Red is by far my least favorite color, but Purphoros has come close to changing my mind. He's so much fun that I it's one of the few decks I keep together at all times. He doesn't always win, but he does make games shorter - either I kill everyone, or I go out swinging and leave my opponents with small life totals, which significantly shortens the remaining game. ...Unless they're playing Torpor Orb, Hushwing Griff, life gain, counterspells, etc. There are actually quite a few strategies that stonewall him. He's less of a glass cannon than Zada, but he still has several weaknesses, including flopping belly up to flying decks. To optimize a Purphoros deck, you have to run cards that would otherwise be less than ideal.
TLDR: There's no way Purphoros is even close to bannable.
Problem commanders don't often get banned unless the community raises a big enough stink about it to get the Rules Committee to actually do something. When we got people acting antisocial and passive aggressive towards others because of problem cards that remain unbanned. Those who seek a change to the banlist are instead getting recited the same tired rhetoric and advised to make a house rule even if they only play at sanctioned environments such as at local stores.
Because banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesnt like them is really stupid and would result in an unwieldy banlist that would ruin the format. Too often these ban arguments break down into "stop liking what I don't like."
You may want to rephrase that sentence as by that token of a "segment of the player base" can apply to cards that do get banned and can be used for the argument of unbanning as well. (Hypothetical Example: A segment of the player base believes that prophet of kruphix was unfairly banned because of the dislike for it.)
Quote from onering »
Also, and this is not aimed at you I just don't want to make a new post, some people apparently don't know what centralizing means. A commander that causes the table to band together against the pilot is not centralizing. A centralizing card is a card that causes games to revolve around it simply by being in the deck. Games become about searching for it with bribery, reanimating it, stealing it, tutoring it up asap, etc. This doesn't apply to purphoros in the 99. As a commander, stealing it is basically a form of removal because he's not going to be the same kind of threat to the board in a deck not built around him. There are plenty of commanders that will throw the game into archenemy mode in casual metas. Oloro will do it. Nekusar will do it. Jhoira 1.0 will do it. Animar will do it. Wanderer will do it. Ezuri in either form. Omnath 2.0. Gitrog. Many of these are like Purphoros in that they are streamlined strategies that can kill a table quick, just in better colors than mono red. Should we ban those? Many of those are better than Purphoros btw, they win faster. I'd typically rather face big P than Nekusar.
While it is true those commanders are centralizing, people still don't want to play against those commanders because of how they affect the rest of the table, even if one seemingly kills slower(/faster) than another centralizing commander. And its not so much that a group dislikes the card as it is more that a group develops antisocial, usually passive aggressive, tendencies to those who do play those types of commanders. (Example: Continue playing the same game even after losing in order to play for "2nd place" because the group didn't appreciate having to play against a centralizing commander from a new member of the group that ended the game quickly)
That the gentleman's agreement is much like a holy scripture, it has several interpretations on what to socially do and how to deal with players who play unbanned cards that the group doesn't like. For the groups that have developed these tendencies, they use their own interpretation in which they weaponize the gentleman's agreement. Its also not a 100% guarantee that a house rule is created in order to ban a card or a specific group of cards.
Part of this behavior stems from the inaction of the RC who are unwilling to create a competitive variant of the format. Where instead for everyone, both the casual and the competitive, are under one banlist for multiplayer. And since people have different interpretations on what is viewed as casual or competitive, there are these very ideas that are conflicting based on "what to ban" and also "what to unban" in the format.
Purphoros is good, but doesn't exist in every kind of deck. So, not ubiquitous like Primeval Titan.
40 damage, assuming no life gain, requires 20 creatures entering the battlefield. This is not overpowered. 20 creatures win a lot of games. Replace Purphoros with Coat of Arms and tell me if it changes the outcome. WehavealsogottenalotofanswerstoGodsinrecentyears.
I just don't think this is a real discussion. I know some people dislike purphoros as a general, since it is a pretty linear deck, but he is far from banworthy.
It's not even like Braids, Cabal Minion, which is a commander that stops people from playing.
Problem commanders don't often get banned unless the community raises a big enough stink about it to get the Rules Committee to actually do something. When we got people acting antisocial and passive aggressive towards others because of problem cards that remain unbanned. Those who seek a change to the banlist are instead getting recited the same tired rhetoric and advised to make a house rule even if they only play at sanctioned environments such as at local stores.
Because banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesnt like them is really stupid and would result in an unwieldy banlist that would ruin the format. Too often these ban arguments break down into "stop liking what I don't like."
You may want to rephrase that sentence as by that token of a "segment of the player base" can apply to cards that do get banned and can be used for the argument of unbanning as well. (Hypothetical Example: A segment of the player base believes that prophet of kruphix was unfairly banned because of the dislike for it.)
No, I don't want to rephrase that, because Prophet wasn't banned because a segment of the player base didn't like it. That helped get the RC's attention and caused them to focus more on the card, but not ban it. RC members have talked often about how yes, they listen to the community, but no, they don't ban based on it. They have said, and demonstrated by their actions, that when a lot of people complain about a card, they spend more time looking at it, playing with it more often, paying attention to how it plays, and evaluating whether its ban worthy based on their criteria. Prophet falls under several. It was omnipresent in casual, and causing problems. It created a massive resource imbalance in terms of mana. It was highly centralizing, not in the way you misunderstand the term, but ACTUALLY centralizing. It didn't just take over games when it hit, it made games devolve into people trying to get Prophet ASAP and other people trying to get other people's prophets ASAP. It was the Blue deck casting bribery against the UGx player reflexively and tunnel vision searching for Prophet. It was black decks running more reanimation so they could bring opponent's prophets back from the dead onto their side. It was black decks running Praetor's Grasp to search out opponent's prophets, etc.
Quote from onering »
Also, and this is not aimed at you I just don't want to make a new post, some people apparently don't know what centralizing means. A commander that causes the table to band together against the pilot is not centralizing. A centralizing card is a card that causes games to revolve around it simply by being in the deck. Games become about searching for it with bribery, reanimating it, stealing it, tutoring it up asap, etc. This doesn't apply to purphoros in the 99. As a commander, stealing it is basically a form of removal because he's not going to be the same kind of threat to the board in a deck not built around him. There are plenty of commanders that will throw the game into archenemy mode in casual metas. Oloro will do it. Nekusar will do it. Jhoira 1.0 will do it. Animar will do it. Wanderer will do it. Ezuri in either form. Omnath 2.0. Gitrog. Many of these are like Purphoros in that they are streamlined strategies that can kill a table quick, just in better colors than mono red. Should we ban those? Many of those are better than Purphoros btw, they win faster. I'd typically rather face big P than Nekusar.
While it is true those commanders are centralizing
Narrator: But its not
, people still don't want to play against those commanders because of how they affect the rest of the table, even if one seemingly kills slower(/faster) than another centralizing commander. And its not so much that a group dislikes the card as it is more that a group develops antisocial, usually passive aggressive, tendencies to those who do play those types of commanders. (Example: Continue playing the same game even after losing in order to play for "2nd place" because the group didn't appreciate having to play against a centralizing commander from a new member of the group that ended the game quickly)
That the gentleman's agreement is much like a holy scripture, it has several interpretations on what to socially do and how to deal with players who play unbanned cards that the group doesn't like. For the groups that have developed these tendencies, they use their own interpretation in which they weaponize the gentleman's agreement. Its also not a 100% guarantee that a house rule is created in order to ban a card or a specific group of cards.
What you've described here has nothing to do with Purphoros, and everything to do with poor social skills. Banning Purphoros isn't going to fix that, because whatever groups are acting this way will find another card to act like douches about. This is why banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesn't like them is stupid. It doesn't fix anything, it just shifts the underlying problems onto new targets. There is no logical end to that path. Either you keep banning whatever card get unpopular enough (and how is this measured btw? The percentage of players who dislike the card? How loud the people who don't like it complain on the internet?), resulting in an oversized and unwieldy banlist that actively harms to format by putting too many restrictions on what can be played, or you ban cards arbitrarily based on whether the RC feels like listening to the complainers. Neither is a good option.
Part of this behavior stems from the inaction of the RC who are unwilling to create a competitive variant of the format. Where instead for everyone, both the casual and the competitive, are under one banlist for multiplayer. And since people have different interpretations on what is viewed as casual or competitive, there are these very ideas that are conflicting based on "what to ban" and also "what to unban" in the format.
Not at all.
First of all, while the RC doesn't maintain a competitive banlist, and believe that doing so would be futile, they also don't argue that nobody else should try. In fact, two, yes two, competitive versions exist, Dual and Leviathan, though they are 1v1. You could try to make a multiplayer banlist balanced for competitive, but I personally agree that trying would be a futile exercise as multiplayer free for all is pretty much impossible to make competitive and balanced, and because WotC actually tried online and it failed so miserably they walked it back a month later.
Second, there will always be disagreement about what to ban and unban because people will disagree about whether a card meets enough of the ban criteria or does so to a problematic level. There are plenty of reasonable discussions on this board that are based on that. The biggest problem when it comes to people discussing the ban list is when people don't discuss cards based on the format as it exists in reality, but based on their misunderstanding of it or their personal preferences. The format is meant to be casual, as in its designed to be played multiplayer with nothing on the line. The RC explicitly states that they do not consider competitive balance between the top decks in the format when deciding on bans or unbans. Any argument based on competitive balance is therefore invalid on its face. Arguing that there should be a competitive multiplayer variant, as you just did, IS valid, but the extension of that is not arguing about whether to ban or unban cards based on competitive balance, but rather discussing how to make a competitive banlist and what cards should be on it, completely separate from any discussion of the RC's casual oriented banlist. The RC also lists and explains the criteria they take into account when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. I've already discussed that earlier, so I won't any further, but any argument about whether to ban or unban a card that doesn't discuss these criteria is on its face invalid. Now, an argument doesn't have to outright quote the criteria or refer directly to them like I did, but it DOES actually have to at least allude to them or be related to them. ISB's argument in his post doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, for instance, but it DOES address them, as the crux of his argument is that Purphoros is ticking off the problematic casual omnipresence box (seeing lots of play, taking over games, and being hard for most decks to interact with, while also arguing that its a very powerful card). Most posters who disagree with him have argued against these points, pointing out that there are many ways to deal with him and that he is neither omnipresent in casual play nor particularly problematic when he does show up. This is an argument based on the banlist and its criteria as they actually exist, and reasonable people can still disagree. The RC also states explicitly that power level of a card is not on its own a reason to ban the card. It can tip the scales on a card that meets some ban criteria, so a card that meets only one of the criteria but is really really strong is more likely to eat a ban than a card that meets a couple but is weak or just ok (if such a card exists), but a card that is merely really really powerful but which doesn't meet any ban criteria will not be banned.
You seem to disagree fundamentally with the RC in regards to what the format is supposed to be. That's fine, but your arguments for banning Purphoros should be based on why he should be banned according to the established reasons for banning a card, not the reasons you wish existed.
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 is giving me a headache, so I'm not going to get into much detail here. Simply put, that any of you are seriously talking about a ban for Purph speaks to me of the format being in almost TOO good of a place, such that the perpetual rules tinkerers have run out of widely compelling targets to pick at. If we're sincerely discussing banning a card this low in impact on the overall shape and attitude of the format, EDH is in a pretty good place and can probably just chill for now.
This is giving me a headache, so I'm not going to get into much detail here. Simply put, that any of you are seriously talking about a ban for Purph speaks to me of the format being in almost TOO good of a place, such that the perpetual rules tinkerers have run out of widely compelling targets to pick at. If we're sincerely discussing banning a card this low in impact on the overall shape and attitude of the format, EDH is in a pretty good place and can probably just chill for now.
Its not like any of us are on the RC. I am bringing this discussion up knowing that I am going to be in the minority vote here.
Overall, yea I think the banned list is in a fairly good place. If I were to be allowed to make adjustments to the banned list I would say that my thoughts on Purph would be like the 8th - 10th thing that I would maybe consider so I think its far from pressing or something that the format needs to be in a good place.
Lots of people have been making comments though on how easy it is to remove gods though and listing all of these white effects. There are a few colorless 7+ mana effects as well as some green ones that tend to be more fringe and specific that you run to interact with gods though where as the white effects tend to actually be relatively good effects that you would consider running without specifically teching vs gods. I think its valid to realize how narrow removal for gods really is when the answer is "play white".
I also think that a lot of the comments so far have been from the perspective of Purph as the commander where I think he actually probably accomplishes more in the 99. GR and GRW for instance are going to be the more common places where I am going to point as where he really gets big value but there are other broken commanders like say Prossh, Skyraider of Kher that can put him to devastating use as well. I play him in my Edgar Markov list and I can tell you that if I ever stick him for more than a single turn everyone has probably already died. I can't tell you how many times I have played Purph in that deck and done 10 damage in the same turn from him. Commanders like Hazezon Tamar and Marath, Will of the Wild put him to great use as well given their access to green tutors and ability to make tokens. I even used to have Márton Stromgald and Squee, the Immortal decks that would put him to great use.
The truth is, he is hard to interact with. Torpor Orb and being in white tend to be the two things that we keep coming back to. Yes if you play him as the commander you might be playing archenemy commander and lifegain will screw with you but what about in the 99 in good decks that function well with or without him and can make a staggering amount of tokens as that is what the decks are designed to do. Mono red is probably actually the weakest thing you can do with this guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I don’t get how Purph is worse offender in the 99. You don’t have access to it all of the time. There are so many other token interactions that lead to degenerate strategies that his is merely a blip on the radar.
I don’t mean this to come off as rude, but this thread sounds very much so like “well, there really isn’t much to complain about ATM, but let’s try anyways”. Especially after the comment about how you feel he’s more degenerate in the 99. Like in my reply above, have you played with/against the other Gods that head linear strategies or lead to them?
There is banworthy, and then there is groan worthy. Purph definitely falls into the latter, but I find it incredibly hard to fit him into the former.
I don’t get how Purph is worse offender in the 99. You don’t have access to it all of the time. There are so many other token interactions that lead to degenerate strategies that his is merely a blip on the radar.
I don’t mean this to come off as rude, but this thread sounds very much so like “well, there really isn’t much to complain about ATM, but let’s try anyways”. Especially after the comment about how you feel he’s more degenerate in the 99. Like in my reply above, have you played with/against the other Gods that head linear strategies or lead to them?
There is banworthy, and then there is groan worthy. Purph definitely falls into the latter, but I find it incredibly hard to fit him into the former.
Most other degenerate token things can be blocked, fogged, propagandaed or board controlled. The point I am making is that there is almost no room for interaction against him other than having the right removal to exile him or gaining a bunch of life.
I can respond to almost every other token enabler by casting Starstorm. The big thing about purphy is how non interactive he is combined with how robust he is. Its true that he isn't usually a super fast effect but he is very non interactive.
Unfortunately, yes, 90% of the answers to Purphoros are white (and most of the others are green or cost a lot of mana).
But you can still beat Purphoros without having a specific answer to him:
Blue can counter spells, and can bounce enchantments.
Black can gain life, or exile Purphoros if devotion ever hits 5. There is also discard and Sadistic Sacrament effects.
Green has afewanswerstoindestructibleenchantments, and can gain life.
It seems to me that Red is the only colour lacking answers (Chaos Warp et al are the only options).
Do you exclusively play mono red? If yes, then I imagine Purphoros is not the biggest problem you have to deal with. If no, then you can have solutions to Purphoros.
This is not like a combo that can't be interacted with. Purphoros attacks your life total 2 damage at a time. I understand how a non-white deck might be hard-pressed to remove Purph from play, but I would hope that your non-white deck can adopt some strategies that would stop Purphoros from being so powerful.
And even if you aren't playing white, there are other players at the table.
Unfortunately, yes, 90% of the answers to Purphoros are white (and most of the others are green or cost a lot of mana).
But you can still beat Purphoros without having a specific answer to him:
Blue can counter spells, and can bounce enchantments.
Black can gain life, or exile Purphoros if devotion ever hits 5. There is also discard and Sadistic Sacrament effects.
Green has afewanswerstoindestructibleenchantments, and can gain life.
It seems to me that Red is the only colour lacking answers (Chaos Warp et al are the only options).
Do you exclusively play mono red? If yes, then I imagine Purphoros is not the biggest problem you have to deal with. If no, then you can have solutions to Purphoros.
This is not like a combo that can't be interacted with. Purphoros attacks your life total 2 damage at a time. I understand how a non-white deck might be hard-pressed to remove Purph from play, but I would hope that your non-white deck can adopt some strategies that would stop Purphoros from being so powerful.
And even if you aren't playing white, there are other players at the table.
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
Also, how many of those green cards you listed would you call "good" cards? Are any of those cards among cards you naturally include in your green decks you build? Return to Dust is far and above better than all of those green cards listed not to mention most of the white / X spells that were mentioned. I am not saying that green can't access into exile hate for gods, I am saying that they have to specifically pick for that utility rather than those cards being good includes for decks naturally. I get that the top 50 list hasn't been updated recently but I looked at it for kicks and I saw Song of the Dryads from the "answers gods" list and I saw like 8 destroy options with no exile options. Green's destroy effects for artifact / enchantments are good but their exile / tuck / transform effects all have the problem that they are significantly less efficient.
For black, lifegain is a stall measure but its also not something they are particularly great at. Black does have a few good lifegain options but generally other than if you are playing sac aristocrats the number of playable black lifegain options are fairly low. Gary is great for mono black, kokusho is.... ok if you are sac / rez based. Then its Blood Artist (if arristocrats) and from there it falls off quite quickly. I would say black has like.... maybe 5 good lifegain options I can even think of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Unfortunately, yes, 90% of the answers to Purphoros are white (and most of the others are green or cost a lot of mana).
But you can still beat Purphoros without having a specific answer to him:
Blue can counter spells, and can bounce enchantments.
Black can gain life, or exile Purphoros if devotion ever hits 5. There is also discard and Sadistic Sacrament effects.
Green has afewanswerstoindestructibleenchantments, and can gain life.
It seems to me that Red is the only colour lacking answers (Chaos Warp et al are the only options).
Do you exclusively play mono red? If yes, then I imagine Purphoros is not the biggest problem you have to deal with. If no, then you can have solutions to Purphoros.
This is not like a combo that can't be interacted with. Purphoros attacks your life total 2 damage at a time. I understand how a non-white deck might be hard-pressed to remove Purph from play, but I would hope that your non-white deck can adopt some strategies that would stop Purphoros from being so powerful.
And even if you aren't playing white, there are other players at the table.
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
Also, how many of those green cards you listed would you call "good" cards? Are any of those cards among cards you naturally include in your green decks you build? Return to Dust is far and above better than all of those green cards listed not to mention most of the white / X spells that were mentioned. I am not saying that green can't access into exile hate for gods, I am saying that they have to specifically pick for that utility rather than those cards being good includes for decks naturally. I get that the top 50 list hasn't been updated recently but I looked at it for kicks and I saw Song of the Dryads from the "answers gods" list and I saw like 8 destroy options with no exile options. Green's destroy effects for artifact / enchantments are good but their exile / tuck / transform effects all have the problem that they are significantly less efficient.
For black, lifegain is a stall measure but its also not something they are particularly great at. Black does have a few good lifegain options but generally other than if you are playing sac aristocrats the number of playable black lifegain options are fairly low. Gary is great for mono black, kokusho is.... ok if you are sac / rez based. Then its Blood Artist (if arristocrats) and from there it falls off quite quickly. I would say black has like.... maybe 5 good lifegain options I can even think of.
So there are a lot of answers, but not every color has access to great answers? That's a feature, not a bug. Red is supposed to be vulnerable to powerful enchantments. Black too. Green has answers, they just aren't super great. Blue and white don't sweat it. The system is working as intended. There are plenty of powerful cards that some colors just cannot effectively answer, that's the system the game was built on.
Unlike others, I actually agree somewhat with you about Purph in the 99. When he's a commander, you are limited to mono red and everyone sees your linear strategy coming a mile away and can either work to counter it if they can or focus on killing you if they can't. In the 99, he can be paired with better token colors and broken commanders. My counter is that those commanders are typically already broken and groan worthy without Purph, so while he helps them be a bit more consistent, he's not the problem, often he's winmoar. I mean, Prossh is just a bs commander generally, and if you are searching up Purph instead of Food Chain you are being nice.
Also, green decks often run Krosan Grip, a 3 mana instant, because of split second. They could substitute it for a few of the 2 mana green instants that shuffle enchantments into the library. You exchange not being able to be responded to for a better form of removal and lower cmc.
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!
Unfortunately, yes, 90% of the answers to Purphoros are white (and most of the others are green or cost a lot of mana).
But you can still beat Purphoros without having a specific answer to him:
Blue can counter spells, and can bounce enchantments.
Black can gain life, or exile Purphoros if devotion ever hits 5. There is also discard and Sadistic Sacrament effects.
Green has afewanswerstoindestructibleenchantments, and can gain life.
It seems to me that Red is the only colour lacking answers (Chaos Warp et al are the only options).
Do you exclusively play mono red? If yes, then I imagine Purphoros is not the biggest problem you have to deal with. If no, then you can have solutions to Purphoros.
This is not like a combo that can't be interacted with. Purphoros attacks your life total 2 damage at a time. I understand how a non-white deck might be hard-pressed to remove Purph from play, but I would hope that your non-white deck can adopt some strategies that would stop Purphoros from being so powerful.
And even if you aren't playing white, there are other players at the table.
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
Also, how many of those green cards you listed would you call "good" cards? Are any of those cards among cards you naturally include in your green decks you build? Return to Dust is far and above better than all of those green cards listed not to mention most of the white / X spells that were mentioned. I am not saying that green can't access into exile hate for gods, I am saying that they have to specifically pick for that utility rather than those cards being good includes for decks naturally. I get that the top 50 list hasn't been updated recently but I looked at it for kicks and I saw Song of the Dryads from the "answers gods" list and I saw like 8 destroy options with no exile options. Green's destroy effects for artifact / enchantments are good but their exile / tuck / transform effects all have the problem that they are significantly less efficient.
For black, lifegain is a stall measure but its also not something they are particularly great at. Black does have a few good lifegain options but generally other than if you are playing sac aristocrats the number of playable black lifegain options are fairly low. Gary is great for mono black, kokusho is.... ok if you are sac / rez based. Then its Blood Artist (if arristocrats) and from there it falls off quite quickly. I would say black has like.... maybe 5 good lifegain options I can even think of.
I play a mono-black deck, and the truth is that with the huge amounts of mana black makes, Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger, Exquisite blood, Extort, sadistic sacrament (and two other similar effects).... these all become answers to Purphoros. I would not be worried at all.
And again, you don't have to have answers in every deck all the time.. but if everyone has a few answers to an indestructible permanent, then when Purphoros lands someone should be able to deal with him.
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
I would never say this. I am just saying that blue can deal with whatever "degenerate" token makers people use by countering spells, by bouncing Purphoros, etc.
Why should Purphoros be banned and not any other God? I understand he is hard to remove, but he is removable, and you don't even need to remove him to beat a deck playing Purphoros.
The only card I see banned for reasons that are similar to what you are proposing is Recurring Nightmare. Graveyard hate, Angel of Jubilation and countermagic are the only ways to stop this card. It is the definition of hard to interact with. And yet, I think it is the card that can most be argued to be unbannable.
Purphoros wins when you make 20 creatures. I am okay with that.
Don't forget Deglamer, which Unravel the Aether is a functional reprint of. When I built my Wort, the Raidmother deck I put both in, because at the time Theros was new and the gods were very popular commanders.
The vacuum logic from so many hauling out their trusty clubs that they like to use as a catch all for these types of discussions. These clubs like counterspells are so poorly thought out that by the logic of everyone packing counterspells and that there is always a deck with blue that even the power 9 could be unbanned for commander because they obviously aren't problems if everyone is seemingly packing their deck with 50+ answers. As so many talk and talk of how you just need [X] answer like everyone must obviously have that 100% of the time at the ready. Oh and there is plenty to complain about in Commander, but its honestly hard to get an opinion in here without the squashing.
Not one person acknowledges how Purphoros is actually built with cards like Impact Tremors, Panharmonicon, Dictate of the Twin Gods, etc. Mostly because they view Purphoros in a vaccuum and think "oh its only 20 creatures" when actually its more likely to be 10 or 13 creatures to kill a table. As it only takes 1-3 token producer cards to actually kill the table when you got one of those amplifiers out. Then factor that decks that treat their life total as this massive buffer for cards that deal damage to them or cause them to lose life as a cost. If Purphoros only needs 10 or 13 creatures, with one amplifier, then everytime someone does the Shockland to effectively shock themselves and lowered the number of triggers Purphoros needs to kill that player. Which for Purphy, one activation means he just needs 9 or 12 creatures now
The vacuum logic from so many hauling out their trusty clubs that they like to use as a catch all for these types of discussions. These clubs like counterspells are so poorly thought out that by the logic of everyone packing counterspells and that there is always a deck with blue that even the power 9 could be unbanned for commander because they obviously aren't problems if everyone is seemingly packing their deck with 50+ answers. As so many talk and talk of how you just need [X] answer like everyone must obviously have that 100% of the time at the ready. Oh and there is plenty to complain about in Commander, but its honestly hard to get an opinion in here without the squashing.
Not one person acknowledges how Purphoros is actually built with cards like Impact Tremors, Panharmonicon, Dictate of the Twin Gods, etc. Mostly because they view Purphoros in a vaccuum and think "oh its only 20 creatures" when actually its more likely to be 10 or 13 creatures to kill a table. As it only takes 1-3 token producer cards to actually kill the table when you got one of those amplifiers out. Then factor that decks that treat their life total as this massive buffer for cards that deal damage to them or cause them to lose life as a cost. If Purphoros only needs 10 or 13 creatures, with one amplifier, then everytime someone does the Shockland to effectively shock themselves and lowered the number of triggers Purphoros needs to kill that player. Which for Purphy, one activation means he just needs 9 or 12 creatures now
Nobody is arguing its a bad card. Most people are arguing it isn't ban worthy.
I mean, you blather on about the supposed poor logic of other posters for pointing out that there are many answers to the card, but your argument here is that with several support cards, Purphoros can kill the table with a few token generators. Like, how many more cards is that than whatever 2 card combo you could have used instead?
Don't complain about people "squashing" your opinion when your posts are nothing but calling people illogical, hyperbole, and irrelevance.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning issued for trolling and flaming
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, this is probably really controversial mostly in part because we are talking about a red card than for any other reason given that red is often given the stick of weakest color for commander. I happened to have nominated this guy to be on the Dream EDH Bannedlist thread for this year and seeing several other people vote for and start discussing it I figured I would spin up a thread for him.
So, if you ask me the biggest reasons to perhaps consider banning him are:
Being that he is a mythic god creature he has a lot of casual appeal. Really most any deck up until you start doing MLD and infinite combos tends to play very well towards how he wants to play the game. So here it is, what are your thoughts on if this guy should be banned?
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I just don't see Purphoros ever being built and played in a way other than to just spam tokens and avoid hitting 7 devotion. So the games end up being very archenemy. Even in a highly-tuned, yet not T4-9 environment, it's still going to result in archenemy. Very easy to see why people don't like him.
In a way, he's centralizing like Prophet of Kruphix. Personally, I was never for banning that card either. So maybe that's what it boils down to. Do you think Purphoros centralizes the game too much (@ 4cmc + indestructible)?
At the end of the day, I would want people to play Purphoros if that's what they wanted because that's how I want to be treated as well. I played against a Purphoros player and even though everyone else in the group told him to never bring it again, I told him that I enjoyed the game and to just bring it. Ironically, the Purphoros player ended up telling me to not play my UW enchantment-heavy control deck again.
I'm a hard no on banning him. He's strong, but he doesn't meet any of the banlist criteria. He's not omnipresent in casual, let alone problematically so. He doesn't generate undesirable game states (no massive resource imbalance, no locking players out, and he can be interacted with in numerous ways), and clearly does not produce too much mana too quickly or present a perceived barrier to entry. What he does do is a ton of damage, provided you build your deck to take advantage of him, and even then he does not just win out of nowhere. He doesn't even slot into just any deck. If you're running about 25 creatures, his damage output is going to be pretty middling unless you pair him with a strong token generator.
Is he annoying to lose to when you are unprepared for him? Yes. That shouldn't happen often, really only when you are playing with random people. In a playgroup, he's a card that teaches people to run answers.
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!
What really keeps him from being busted is that he needs to take each player to zero, not deal 21. It may not sound like much, but there are ways to prevent it, handle it, or straight up ignore it via a lifegain strategy. Seriously, sit down with Oloro for one game, not tuned and all, and see how long that player wants to play that strategy.
Also, I don’t necessarily think making that player the archenemy is a bad thing is this argument. It’s a bit of an all in strategy, you don’t want to have to cast Purphurous more than 2x? Maybe 3? While his answers are limited, the point of playing purph is to untap with him. If you stop that once, you’ve slowed their strategy considerably. Either way, it really depends on the rest of the table. Slapping down a storm variant looking to combo kill at a table of casuals is going to create a bad impression. Otherwise, just trying to drop as many creatures as possible in no particular fashion just for incidental damage, and the pump(which has won me so many games BTW). Maybe a tribal element of sorts? That stuff is good, but not broken. It’s more or less, well cheesy.
Purphoros should not be banned. People should play more exile removal or more Torpor Orb effects, or both.
I like Purph because they are the purest form of red deck wins that EDH has and even if it a small sliver I am glad that it is there somewhere.
It's over-centralizing, pretty much every red creature or burn strategy is "purphoros but worse"
It's really annoying in casual games knowing he's going to bypass almost all defenses.
There just flat out aren't enough answers to an indestructible enchantment that you would consider including in your deck
I don't like playing with him because it's a very boring linear strategy, and I don't like playing against him because it's too effective a boring and linear strategy for casual level games.
The format is not better because he exists. It is worse. And most importantly, it is worse in casual games. Therefore, get rid of him.
Problem commanders don't often get banned unless the community raises a big enough stink about it to get the Rules Committee to actually do something. When we got people acting antisocial and passive aggressive towards others because of problem cards that remain unbanned. Those who seek a change to the banlist are instead getting recited the same tired rhetoric and advised to make a house rule even if they only play at sanctioned environments such as at local stores.
Because banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesnt like them is really stupid and would result in an unwieldy banlist that would ruin the format. Too often these ban arguments break down into "stop liking what I don't like."
Also, and this is not aimed at you I just don't want to make a new post, some people apparently don't know what centralizing means. A commander that causes the table to band together against the pilot is not centralizing. A centralizing card is a card that causes games to revolve around it simply by being in the deck. Games become about searching for it with bribery, reanimating it, stealing it, tutoring it up asap, etc. This doesn't apply to purphoros in the 99. As a commander, stealing it is basically a form of removal because he's not going to be the same kind of threat to the board in a deck not built around him. There are plenty of commanders that will throw the game into archenemy mode in casual metas. Oloro will do it. Nekusar will do it. Jhoira 1.0 will do it. Animar will do it. Wanderer will do it. Ezuri in either form. Omnath 2.0. Gitrog. Many of these are like Purphoros in that they are streamlined strategies that can kill a table quick, just in better colors than mono red. Should we ban those? Many of those are better than Purphoros btw, they win faster. I'd typically rather face big P than Nekusar.
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!
TLDR: There's no way Purphoros is even close to bannable.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
While it is true those commanders are centralizing, people still don't want to play against those commanders because of how they affect the rest of the table, even if one seemingly kills slower(/faster) than another centralizing commander. And its not so much that a group dislikes the card as it is more that a group develops antisocial, usually passive aggressive, tendencies to those who do play those types of commanders. (Example: Continue playing the same game even after losing in order to play for "2nd place" because the group didn't appreciate having to play against a centralizing commander from a new member of the group that ended the game quickly)
That the gentleman's agreement is much like a holy scripture, it has several interpretations on what to socially do and how to deal with players who play unbanned cards that the group doesn't like. For the groups that have developed these tendencies, they use their own interpretation in which they weaponize the gentleman's agreement. Its also not a 100% guarantee that a house rule is created in order to ban a card or a specific group of cards.
Part of this behavior stems from the inaction of the RC who are unwilling to create a competitive variant of the format. Where instead for everyone, both the casual and the competitive, are under one banlist for multiplayer. And since people have different interpretations on what is viewed as casual or competitive, there are these very ideas that are conflicting based on "what to ban" and also "what to unban" in the format.
40 damage, assuming no life gain, requires 20 creatures entering the battlefield. This is not overpowered. 20 creatures win a lot of games. Replace Purphoros with Coat of Arms and tell me if it changes the outcome.
We have also gotten a lot of answers to Gods in recent years.
I just don't think this is a real discussion. I know some people dislike purphoros as a general, since it is a pretty linear deck, but he is far from banworthy.
It's not even like Braids, Cabal Minion, which is a commander that stops people from playing.
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
No, I don't want to rephrase that, because Prophet wasn't banned because a segment of the player base didn't like it. That helped get the RC's attention and caused them to focus more on the card, but not ban it. RC members have talked often about how yes, they listen to the community, but no, they don't ban based on it. They have said, and demonstrated by their actions, that when a lot of people complain about a card, they spend more time looking at it, playing with it more often, paying attention to how it plays, and evaluating whether its ban worthy based on their criteria. Prophet falls under several. It was omnipresent in casual, and causing problems. It created a massive resource imbalance in terms of mana. It was highly centralizing, not in the way you misunderstand the term, but ACTUALLY centralizing. It didn't just take over games when it hit, it made games devolve into people trying to get Prophet ASAP and other people trying to get other people's prophets ASAP. It was the Blue deck casting bribery against the UGx player reflexively and tunnel vision searching for Prophet. It was black decks running more reanimation so they could bring opponent's prophets back from the dead onto their side. It was black decks running Praetor's Grasp to search out opponent's prophets, etc.
Narrator: But its not
What you've described here has nothing to do with Purphoros, and everything to do with poor social skills. Banning Purphoros isn't going to fix that, because whatever groups are acting this way will find another card to act like douches about. This is why banning cards solely because a segment of the player base doesn't like them is stupid. It doesn't fix anything, it just shifts the underlying problems onto new targets. There is no logical end to that path. Either you keep banning whatever card get unpopular enough (and how is this measured btw? The percentage of players who dislike the card? How loud the people who don't like it complain on the internet?), resulting in an oversized and unwieldy banlist that actively harms to format by putting too many restrictions on what can be played, or you ban cards arbitrarily based on whether the RC feels like listening to the complainers. Neither is a good option.
Not at all.
First of all, while the RC doesn't maintain a competitive banlist, and believe that doing so would be futile, they also don't argue that nobody else should try. In fact, two, yes two, competitive versions exist, Dual and Leviathan, though they are 1v1. You could try to make a multiplayer banlist balanced for competitive, but I personally agree that trying would be a futile exercise as multiplayer free for all is pretty much impossible to make competitive and balanced, and because WotC actually tried online and it failed so miserably they walked it back a month later.
Second, there will always be disagreement about what to ban and unban because people will disagree about whether a card meets enough of the ban criteria or does so to a problematic level. There are plenty of reasonable discussions on this board that are based on that. The biggest problem when it comes to people discussing the ban list is when people don't discuss cards based on the format as it exists in reality, but based on their misunderstanding of it or their personal preferences. The format is meant to be casual, as in its designed to be played multiplayer with nothing on the line. The RC explicitly states that they do not consider competitive balance between the top decks in the format when deciding on bans or unbans. Any argument based on competitive balance is therefore invalid on its face. Arguing that there should be a competitive multiplayer variant, as you just did, IS valid, but the extension of that is not arguing about whether to ban or unban cards based on competitive balance, but rather discussing how to make a competitive banlist and what cards should be on it, completely separate from any discussion of the RC's casual oriented banlist. The RC also lists and explains the criteria they take into account when deciding whether to ban or unban a card. I've already discussed that earlier, so I won't any further, but any argument about whether to ban or unban a card that doesn't discuss these criteria is on its face invalid. Now, an argument doesn't have to outright quote the criteria or refer directly to them like I did, but it DOES actually have to at least allude to them or be related to them. ISB's argument in his post doesn't explicitly mention the criteria, for instance, but it DOES address them, as the crux of his argument is that Purphoros is ticking off the problematic casual omnipresence box (seeing lots of play, taking over games, and being hard for most decks to interact with, while also arguing that its a very powerful card). Most posters who disagree with him have argued against these points, pointing out that there are many ways to deal with him and that he is neither omnipresent in casual play nor particularly problematic when he does show up. This is an argument based on the banlist and its criteria as they actually exist, and reasonable people can still disagree. The RC also states explicitly that power level of a card is not on its own a reason to ban the card. It can tip the scales on a card that meets some ban criteria, so a card that meets only one of the criteria but is really really strong is more likely to eat a ban than a card that meets a couple but is weak or just ok (if such a card exists), but a card that is merely really really powerful but which doesn't meet any ban criteria will not be banned.
You seem to disagree fundamentally with the RC in regards to what the format is supposed to be. That's fine, but your arguments for banning Purphoros should be based on why he should be banned according to the established reasons for banning a card, not the reasons you wish existed.
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!
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Its not like any of us are on the RC. I am bringing this discussion up knowing that I am going to be in the minority vote here.
Overall, yea I think the banned list is in a fairly good place. If I were to be allowed to make adjustments to the banned list I would say that my thoughts on Purph would be like the 8th - 10th thing that I would maybe consider so I think its far from pressing or something that the format needs to be in a good place.
Lots of people have been making comments though on how easy it is to remove gods though and listing all of these white effects. There are a few colorless 7+ mana effects as well as some green ones that tend to be more fringe and specific that you run to interact with gods though where as the white effects tend to actually be relatively good effects that you would consider running without specifically teching vs gods. I think its valid to realize how narrow removal for gods really is when the answer is "play white".
I also think that a lot of the comments so far have been from the perspective of Purph as the commander where I think he actually probably accomplishes more in the 99. GR and GRW for instance are going to be the more common places where I am going to point as where he really gets big value but there are other broken commanders like say Prossh, Skyraider of Kher that can put him to devastating use as well. I play him in my Edgar Markov list and I can tell you that if I ever stick him for more than a single turn everyone has probably already died. I can't tell you how many times I have played Purph in that deck and done 10 damage in the same turn from him. Commanders like Hazezon Tamar and Marath, Will of the Wild put him to great use as well given their access to green tutors and ability to make tokens. I even used to have Márton Stromgald and Squee, the Immortal decks that would put him to great use.
The truth is, he is hard to interact with. Torpor Orb and being in white tend to be the two things that we keep coming back to. Yes if you play him as the commander you might be playing archenemy commander and lifegain will screw with you but what about in the 99 in good decks that function well with or without him and can make a staggering amount of tokens as that is what the decks are designed to do. Mono red is probably actually the weakest thing you can do with this guy.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I don’t mean this to come off as rude, but this thread sounds very much so like “well, there really isn’t much to complain about ATM, but let’s try anyways”. Especially after the comment about how you feel he’s more degenerate in the 99. Like in my reply above, have you played with/against the other Gods that head linear strategies or lead to them?
There is banworthy, and then there is groan worthy. Purph definitely falls into the latter, but I find it incredibly hard to fit him into the former.
Most other degenerate token things can be blocked, fogged, propagandaed or board controlled. The point I am making is that there is almost no room for interaction against him other than having the right removal to exile him or gaining a bunch of life.
I can respond to almost every other token enabler by casting Starstorm. The big thing about purphy is how non interactive he is combined with how robust he is. Its true that he isn't usually a super fast effect but he is very non interactive.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
But you can still beat Purphoros without having a specific answer to him:
Blue can counter spells, and can bounce enchantments.
Black can gain life, or exile Purphoros if devotion ever hits 5. There is also discard and Sadistic Sacrament effects.
Green has a few answers to indestructible enchantments, and can gain life.
It seems to me that Red is the only colour lacking answers (Chaos Warp et al are the only options).
Do you exclusively play mono red? If yes, then I imagine Purphoros is not the biggest problem you have to deal with. If no, then you can have solutions to Purphoros.
This is not like a combo that can't be interacted with. Purphoros attacks your life total 2 damage at a time. I understand how a non-white deck might be hard-pressed to remove Purph from play, but I would hope that your non-white deck can adopt some strategies that would stop Purphoros from being so powerful.
And even if you aren't playing white, there are other players at the table.
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
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
Also, how many of those green cards you listed would you call "good" cards? Are any of those cards among cards you naturally include in your green decks you build? Return to Dust is far and above better than all of those green cards listed not to mention most of the white / X spells that were mentioned. I am not saying that green can't access into exile hate for gods, I am saying that they have to specifically pick for that utility rather than those cards being good includes for decks naturally. I get that the top 50 list hasn't been updated recently but I looked at it for kicks and I saw Song of the Dryads from the "answers gods" list and I saw like 8 destroy options with no exile options. Green's destroy effects for artifact / enchantments are good but their exile / tuck / transform effects all have the problem that they are significantly less efficient.
For black, lifegain is a stall measure but its also not something they are particularly great at. Black does have a few good lifegain options but generally other than if you are playing sac aristocrats the number of playable black lifegain options are fairly low. Gary is great for mono black, kokusho is.... ok if you are sac / rez based. Then its Blood Artist (if arristocrats) and from there it falls off quite quickly. I would say black has like.... maybe 5 good lifegain options I can even think of.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
So there are a lot of answers, but not every color has access to great answers? That's a feature, not a bug. Red is supposed to be vulnerable to powerful enchantments. Black too. Green has answers, they just aren't super great. Blue and white don't sweat it. The system is working as intended. There are plenty of powerful cards that some colors just cannot effectively answer, that's the system the game was built on.
Unlike others, I actually agree somewhat with you about Purph in the 99. When he's a commander, you are limited to mono red and everyone sees your linear strategy coming a mile away and can either work to counter it if they can or focus on killing you if they can't. In the 99, he can be paired with better token colors and broken commanders. My counter is that those commanders are typically already broken and groan worthy without Purph, so while he helps them be a bit more consistent, he's not the problem, often he's winmoar. I mean, Prossh is just a bs commander generally, and if you are searching up Purph instead of Food Chain you are being nice.
Also, green decks often run Krosan Grip, a 3 mana instant, because of split second. They could substitute it for a few of the 2 mana green instants that shuffle enchantments into the library. You exchange not being able to be responded to for a better form of removal and lower cmc.
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 would say that Unravel the Aether and World Breaker both make sense in green decks that don't have blue or white.
I play a mono-black deck, and the truth is that with the huge amounts of mana black makes, Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger, Exquisite blood, Extort, sadistic sacrament (and two other similar effects).... these all become answers to Purphoros. I would not be worried at all.
And again, you don't have to have answers in every deck all the time.. but if everyone has a few answers to an indestructible permanent, then when Purphoros lands someone should be able to deal with him.
Its funny how counterspells answer everything. With that logic nothing should be banned.
I would never say this. I am just saying that blue can deal with whatever "degenerate" token makers people use by countering spells, by bouncing Purphoros, etc.
Why should Purphoros be banned and not any other God? I understand he is hard to remove, but he is removable, and you don't even need to remove him to beat a deck playing Purphoros.
The only card I see banned for reasons that are similar to what you are proposing is Recurring Nightmare. Graveyard hate, Angel of Jubilation and countermagic are the only ways to stop this card. It is the definition of hard to interact with. And yet, I think it is the card that can most be argued to be unbannable.
Purphoros wins when you make 20 creatures. I am okay with that.
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
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Not one person acknowledges how Purphoros is actually built with cards like Impact Tremors, Panharmonicon, Dictate of the Twin Gods, etc. Mostly because they view Purphoros in a vaccuum and think "oh its only 20 creatures" when actually its more likely to be 10 or 13 creatures to kill a table. As it only takes 1-3 token producer cards to actually kill the table when you got one of those amplifiers out. Then factor that decks that treat their life total as this massive buffer for cards that deal damage to them or cause them to lose life as a cost. If Purphoros only needs 10 or 13 creatures, with one amplifier, then everytime someone does the Shockland to effectively shock themselves and lowered the number of triggers Purphoros needs to kill that player. Which for Purphy, one activation means he just needs 9 or 12 creatures now
Nobody is arguing its a bad card. Most people are arguing it isn't ban worthy.
I mean, you blather on about the supposed poor logic of other posters for pointing out that there are many answers to the card, but your argument here is that with several support cards, Purphoros can kill the table with a few token generators. Like, how many more cards is that than whatever 2 card combo you could have used instead?
Don't complain about people "squashing" your opinion when your posts are nothing but calling people illogical, hyperbole, and irrelevance.
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!