MTG Salvation

Quote from ISBPathfinder »

Quote from JWK »

Probably the worst thing about Purphoros, in my opinion, is that he sometimes approaches Problematic Casual Omnipresence in many less competitive metagames. That was definitely close to the case for a year or so after Theros was released; pretty much every deck which included red and which ran a moderate to high amount of creatures also ran Purpy, and why not, since he can produce respectable amounts of damage to everyone else at the table just from you doing what you're probably doing anyhow (playing creatures, creating tokens)? He really is so good in an awful lot of red decks (or decks including red) that I have consciously chosen to not run him in several decks where he could be good (Zada, for example) in order to keep play interesting and not rely too much on the obvious staples. As we get further from Theros and his price has crept up a bit, he is less likely to show up in the decks of newer players, but it's almost predictable how as newer Commander players learn more about the card pool and invest more in the game, suddenly Purphoros starts to show up in their decks the way vultures show up around three-day-old roadkill. But just as predictably, as they mature in their deckbuilding, they tend to either recognize Purphoros isn't a particularly optimal card except in certain decks (tokens) or when built around (all the supporting cards the one fellow mentioned several posts back), you see him less and less. The problem almost takes care of itself with time and without having to load up on answers.

Note also that you pretty much never see Purphoros in competitive playgroups, because it is so much easier to kill people with two card tutored combos and fast mana than it is to chip away with Purphoros.

I think that's a good way to state it.

I also agree that in higher competitive groups you stop having people dying to damage / creature strategies and you move more to LD, stasis, and combo. This said though, its a question of how to gear the banned list and what the focus is. If our goal is to take into consideration the high end of comparative then a lot of the current banned list is irrelevant as is this discussion. That said though I think they aim more for the casual to medium levels of play based on what I have heard in the past as well as what is on their list currently.

You are correct, the RC doesn't consider competitive implications only how the card effects casual. A card that's a problem in casual but fine in competitive is a card that could be banned, while a card that's only a problem in competitive but fine in casual would not be. Though I think there is some value in pointing out if a card isn't very good in competitive, but only in situations where there is significant disagreement over whether it's a problem in casual or where the card is most likely not banworthy. It's value, in my opinion, is as a way to point out that the card doesn't pose a risk of dominating, because if it does it can be beaten by better strategies. There is of course always a chance that a card that isn't that good in competitive can nevertheless become dominant in casual, so it's not perfect. The way I look at it is, if the card IS good in competitive, I'd be more wary of it, and could accept that as an argument in favor of banning a borderline card down the road (as it's positioned to become problematic with little help), but I don't just take the fact that a card isn't great in competitive as an argument against banning it, just as the absence of a possible argument FOR banning it (if that makes sense). Panoptic Mirror probably would be fine in cEDH,but casual is better off without it.

Quote from JWK »

Probably the worst thing about Purphoros, in my opinion, is that he sometimes approaches Problematic Casual Omnipresence in many less competitive metagames. That was definitely close to the case for a year or so after Theros was released; pretty much every deck which included red and which ran a moderate to high amount of creatures also ran Purpy, and why not, since he can produce respectable amounts of damage to everyone else at the table just from you doing what you're probably doing anyhow (playing creatures, creating tokens)? He really is so good in an awful lot of red decks (or decks including red) that I have consciously chosen to not run him in several decks where he could be good (Zada, for example) in order to keep play interesting and not rely too much on the obvious staples. As we get further from Theros and his price has crept up a bit, he is less likely to show up in the decks of newer players, but it's almost predictable how as newer Commander players learn more about the card pool and invest more in the game, suddenly Purphoros starts to show up in their decks the way vultures show up around three-day-old roadkill. But just as predictably, as they mature in their deckbuilding, they tend to either recognize Purphoros isn't a particularly optimal card except in certain decks (tokens) or when built around (all the supporting cards the one fellow mentioned several posts back), you see him less and less. The problem almost takes care of itself with time and without having to load up on answers.

Note also that you pretty much never see Purphoros in competitive playgroups, because it is so much easier to kill people with two card tutored combos and fast mana than it is to chip away with Purphoros.

Yeah, right when he was released it was bad. He was one of those commanders that everyone wanted to build when he first came out, because he was strong and did something different but also provided a clear deck building path. We saw the same with Omnath 2.0, Gitrog, even Rashimi to some extent. Playing online, this is my personal pet peeve with the format, as when such a commander is released you end up facing it nearly every game, and since the deck is pretty linear it gets very repetitive very quickly. There isn't really anything that can be done about it, and the effect is much less in paper. I can't even blame anyone for doing it, these are decks people want to build because they are interesting and promise a new experience, and the commanders push so strongly in one direction that 20 players brewing independently will all come up with decks that are 90 percent the same.

Quote from Laughing Loa »

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Quote from Onering »

Nobody is arguing its a bad card. Most people are arguing it isn't ban worthy.

I didn't say people were judging it as bad, I said people were judging it in a vacuum and they were like clockwork as usual.

But your argument here is that with several support cards, Purphoros can kill the table with a few token generators.

Yes most commanders use several support cards to get their job done. From the lowest to the highest tier and even the banned ones are based on their support cards.

I mean, you blather on about the supposed poor logic of other posters for pointing out that there are many answers to the card

Because they are engaging with poor logic.

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.

What is even this irrelevant non-argument you posted? As you want to talk about "don't complain about people squashing your opinion" when you actively engage in it like predictable person I expected to grab on. How about actually getting back to the topic buddy.

I demonstrated some information like math and card combinations and you come at me with nothing. Because what you wrote was in pure haste.

What do you really expect? You begin your argument with an attack on everyone who disagrees with you, basically calling everyone illogical sheep, then expect people to be respectful?

You make a really bad "math" argument. It boils down to a card getting better with support cards, and a card that does damage needing to do less damage if people have already taken damage.

Yes, cards get better with support. If you have something that doubles damage, doubles etb triggers, doubles tokens, Purph kills faster. That's a fine point to bring up (without the toxic tone of your first post), but doesn't actually add anything in favor of the "ban purphoros" argument. Yes, add a damage doubler, and Purph goes from needed 20 creatures to needing 10. That's definitely stronger, but look at it for a second, that's a "combo" that still requires you to land 10 creatures. In mono red (because I'm assuming Purph as a commander, which makes this easier to pull off than treating it like a regular 2 card combo with purph in the 99), that means getting one of red's relatively good token generators, of which there are few that can produce 10 on their own, so probably, as you even noticed, 2 or 3 other cards. Hey, remember this: "Like, how many more cards is that than whatever 2 card combo you could have used instead?" That's a relevant argument. If you are at 5+ cards in your kill the table "combo", and you could have just slapped down a 2 card combo instead, how in hell is that 5 card "combo" supposed to be a strong argument in favor of banning one of the cards? I'm pointing out 2 card combos because it demonstrates the weakness of your argument. Kiki-Jiki isn't banned despite being a combo with Zealous Conscripts. Godo isn't banned despite Helm of the Host. Those are combos which actually do win the game on their own, with no further support, so why would simple synergies? Leovold, Braids, and Erayo are all banned because they can lock the table out of the game at a very early turn, and can do so consistently. Rofellos and Grislebrand are band for generating too much of a resource imbalance on their own. Emrakul is banned because of her centralizing nature and ridiculous impact on her own. Purphoros needing only 10 creatures hitting instead of 20 with a support card is nowhere near that level, which is why none of the "stay unbanned" crowd has felt the need to address it, and probably why none of the "ban purph" crowd has brought it up. Getting even better with multiple support cards is even less meaningul, because at that point you are just saying that playing good cards that have synergy with each other is good. All while attacking people as illogical for not feeling the need to state the obvious.

As for Purphoros needing to deal less damage when people have already been dealt damage: so? The reason people are discussing Purph bringing people down from 40 is because that's the starting life total, and therefore that's what is appropriate to use when discussing whether a card can, in fact, just win out of nowhere, instead of whether it can just pick off people who have already received a decent amount of damage. Some incidental damage, say dropping to 34, doesn't change the math much, 17 creatures instead of 20, while being down to say 14, where Purph can kill you very quickly with very little help, is also a point where many things can kill you very quickly with very little help. If you've taken some chip damage, Purph will kill you marginally more quickly. If you are already on the ropes, its irrelevant how quickly Purph can kill you. If I drop Purph, Panharmonicon, and Devil's Playground (one of red's more efficient token generators) on the same turn (what is that, 15 mana?) I'll do 16 to everyone, knocking out anyone who has been taking damage all game with little room for response and threatening anyone else. A powerful play, but that's something you are supposed to be able to do in EDH. If I drop a few more good token generators, I'll kill the table, but this is a pretty significant deployment of mana and cards at this point. How does that differ significantly from dropping 14 mana into any Black drain spell off of urborg coffers? Dropping Hoof? Smacking someone in the head with a dragon pumped by Xenagod? Casting Boundless Realms with Omnath 2.0 on the table? The reason people didn't address this scenario isn't because we're all sheep who think like robots, like you so patronizingly posted, but because its the way the game is supposed to work. If everyone is at 20, and that means Purphoros now only needs 10 creatures to win, that's not an argument in favor of banning it, that's just stating the obvious. Any point where damage already dealt from other sources effect the math on Purphoros in a significant way is a point where the game has already gone on, things have already happened, and Purphoros is simply adding to the progression of the game. Cards don't get banned for being able to close out games, nor should they. Cards get banned for keeping games from being played, but not for closing them out one they already have been played, and that's what dropping Purphoros at a table where everyone is below 20 does.

And please, try to understand the arguments other people are making. Pointing out the available answers is not poor logic. When people talk about the answers available to a card that's the subject of a ban discussion, they aren't simply pointing out that answers exist, they are arguing that the answers that exist are sufficient to keep the card in check, and that if the card becomes a problem locally adding a couple more of these answers will be enough to handle it. Cry all you want about people "squashing your opinion", but your "opinion" on this was dismissive of everyone who disagrees with you out of the gate and hyperbolic nonsense like "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." Mischaracterizing and belittling the arguments of those who disagree with you in your opening salvo is a great way to get your opinion "squashed", 100% of the time. If you want people to take your arguments seriously, and treat you with respect, then take THEIR arguments seriously and treat THEM with respect. When you lead with crap like what you posted, expect people to write you off as a troll and respond to you like one (especially when you pair it with trolly emojis as your "thing"). You know what the proper counter argument is to people saying the available answers are sufficient? Saying they aren't, and explaining why you feel that way. Like other posters in the thread already did. That was a two way conversation that already existed, debating the merits of the available answers and whether they can keep Purphoros in check (especially relevant given that one argument for banning him is that he is difficult to interact with as an indestructible enchantment). If you had bothered to follow it, you'd have seen that Blue and White can deal with it pretty easily, using the tools available to them, while black and red aren't supposed to be able to deal with enchantments anyway so being indestructible is irrelevant, so the discussion boiled down to whether Green, which is supposed to be able to deal with enchantments, actually has enough viable options at its disposal, and from that whether Green being less able to answer it means that he is overall too difficult to deal with. It wasn't "lol, play blue and counter it scrub", it was "well, blue's answers are unaffected and sufficient, so we don't have to talk about blue further." If the ONLY answer was counters, then that would be problematic, but that's not the case here, as demonstrated by the discussion present in the thread before you jumped in to call everyone who doesn't share your opinion illogical clocks.

Quote from ISBPathfinder »

Quote from Dunharrow »

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 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.

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.

Quote from Knowledge Eater Spirit »

Quote from Onering »

Quote from Knowledge Eater Spirit »

I wanted more powerful red cards in commander for a long time, since its one of the colors that didn't translate well into the format since its inception. Cards like: Brass's Bounty, Neheb, the Eternal, Enchanter's Bane, Stolen Strategy, Treasure Nabber, Feldon of the Third Path, Stranglehold, Vandalblast, and Blood Moon help better the color without making it overly oppressive. But the card in question, Purphoros, God of the Forge, feels like the most ham-fisted attempt to make red relevant in commander that I wouldn't have asked for.

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.

Quote from Knowledge Eater Spirit »

I wanted more powerful red cards in commander for a long time, since its one of the colors that didn't translate well into the format since its inception. Cards like: Brass's Bounty, Neheb, the Eternal, Enchanter's Bane, Stolen Strategy, Treasure Nabber, Feldon of the Third Path, Stranglehold, Vandalblast, and Blood Moon help better the color without making it overly oppressive. But the card in question, Purphoros, God of the Forge, feels like the most ham-fisted attempt to make red relevant in commander that I wouldn't have asked for.

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.

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.