When this card first came out I was somewhat excited for it. I think it took me like 2 games to decide that its kind of over the top stupid. Decks that build to use this card are very troublesome and while its more of a mid tier level of play it really is challenging to interact with.
Its a green creature so its easy to tutor.
The only real responses to it are counterspells, fogs, and instant speed wraths.
It is a scaling buff rather than a hard number buff.
Flash / Mass Haste make it even more awkward to play around.
So, yes there are answers to it, for a lot of decks though if you are not playing blue you dont really have good responses without specifically building to try to stop it. Because it is a green creature there are so many ways to tutor for it so it sort of feels like its always in hand. When you want to start killing a table you are usually looking for around 10 creatures but you can start easily picking up a single kill with around 5 creatures. Playing to wrath a person who is building tokens before they can get to 5+ tokens is a very difficult thing that would be challanging to contest every time.
Craterhoof is almost like combo in how explosive it is as well as the fact that the other piece of its combo (having board presence) is very hard to stop at all times in a game. The combination of its consistency, growing power buff, and difficulty to interact with it lead me to question how healthy it is to have in the format. The problem in my mind is that many will not see issue with this card but will build with social norms like not playing combo / LD / stasis effects. It is also difficult to convince those who play it as to why they should not given it does not technically fall into the norms that the social norms normally weed out.
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 agree with your points and in some cases it is easier to execute than combo. It doesn't ruin my games in practice, though. I don't come away from games where I loose to it feeling poorly. For that reason I voted no.
Of course, the best option is still to wrath the board before they get hoof into play.
I don't really think it is a candidate for banning, though I can see how it comes close. The distinguishing features, to me, are:
- It is terrible by itself
- It relies on combat damage
As far as game-ending cards, this one doesn't have the inherent feature of too much value by itself or a lack of ways on how to interact with it. The fact that it relies on combat damage really affects this. Combat is where there is the most interaction with creatures in Magic.
If "boring" was a ban criteria I'd be all over axing this card. However, as it stand all this card does is let strategies that go wide finish off the game in a time where Overrun is sadly outclassed. Remember when you could play elves in legacy and hardcast Overrun with your Priest of Titania? I did.
Also I feel like the art shows what happens when you cast Giant Growth on a dismembered *****. Bleugh.
Also I feel like the art shows what happens when you cast Giant Growth on a dismembered *****. Bleugh.
This made me laugh WAY too hard lol... But seconding your point Professor, the card is a boring wincon for creature decks and is more of a 'problem' in areas where people play non-interactive, battle-cruiser, Commander. I'd be happy to see it leave, but not at the forefront trying to push for it to go.
Lol no. This card is only ever a problem when tutored out by something like T&N alongside a mass token generator like Avenger of Zendikar, but even then you need a mass haste outlet or enough board presence to attack for lethal. It's a fat creature that relies on you having established a large board presence to win. If you can drop an army and protect it long enough to throw down an eight drop, that's enough work and enough opportunities for disruption and enough resources invested that you've earned the win.
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!
I'm not a fan of hoof. I've been playing Ensnaring Bridge in my deck for years to deal with big fatties like him, and it doesn't even do a good job at stopping Hoof. I try to avoid building green decks, because I feel they always just jam good staple cards; Hoof is an excellent example of that. Eveygreen deck I've made in thsi format, excpet for the one Voltron one has played Hoof and it's almost always the best play is to Hoof for the win. Unless you're playing a creatureless green deck, you should play him and he will just end the game for you when you play him, unless somebody has a specific answer.
I do want to adress two of the counterarguments that DunHarrow mentioned.
The first is onboard-answers aren't really great at answering Hoof. Ghostly Prism is a fine card, but the green player gets to decide when they cast Hoof. They can just hold off and wait for a Krosan Grip or something else to sweep your defenses, then deploy their Hoof to kill you. Onboard answers are just delaying their game plan not thwarting it.
It does nothing by itself is just not an argument. Many cards do nothing by themselves. Mind over Matter is terible if you're hellbent. Ad Nauseam is useless if you have no cards library. Heck, Painter's Servant is banned and all it can do by itself is attack and block. When discussing cards, we need to assume they are being used in a normal, resonable way. That means Hoof is being played when it's controller already has some board presence with creatures. It doesn't have to be 50 1/1 tokens, even a rather modest board can be enough for Hoof to starting killing players.
Yeah, the amount of times someone dropped hoof and killed just me far outweigh the amount of times people dropped a hoof to kill the entire table. There's not much needed for Hoof to do the first and it's even more annoying as I get to sit and watch while the others keep playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I'm not a fan of hoof. I've been playing Ensnaring Bridge in my deck for years to deal with big fatties like him, and it doesn't even do a good job at stopping Hoof. I try to avoid building green decks, because I feel they always just jam good staple cards; Hoof is an excellent example of that. Eveygreen deck I've made in thsi format, excpet for the one Voltron one has played Hoof and it's almost always the best play is to Hoof for the win. Unless you're playing a creatureless green deck, you should play him and he will just end the game for you when you play him, unless somebody has a specific answer.
I do want to adress two of the counterarguments that DunHarrow mentioned.
The first is onboard-answers aren't really great at answering Hoof. Ghostly Prism is a fine card, but the green player gets to decide when they cast Hoof. They can just hold off and wait for a Krosan Grip or something else to sweep your defenses, then deploy their Hoof to kill you. Onboard answers are just delaying their game plan not thwarting it.
It does nothing by itself is just not an argument. Many cards do nothing by themselves. Mind over Matter is terible if you're hellbent. Ad Nauseam is useless if you have no cards library. Heck, Painter's Servant is banned and all it can do by itself is attack and block. When discussing cards, we need to assume they are being used in a normal, resonable way. That means Hoof is being played when it's controller already has some board presence with creatures. It doesn't have to be 50 1/1 tokens, even a rather modest board can be enough for Hoof to starting killing players.
Mind over matter isn't banned.
Ad Nauseum isn't banned.
Painter's Servant changes the way the game is played, and can't really be compared to other cards. It is not banned solely because of combos.
Now, Sylvan Primordial, Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan... these are cards that are too good by themselves. They are even better with flickering or recursion, but it's not needed. They are banned.
It seems to me that being too good by themselves is the main criteria for banning.
Ghostly Prison can be answered, sure, but unless the player is trying to kill the entire table, they can attack someone else with their trample damage. Ghostly Prison is one of those cards that is easy to answer, but not necessarily worth killing. Having mana is all you need to nullify the card, you don't really need to destroy it, unless you are trying to win on the spot.
I have lost many games to hoof, but those games were games I was losing anyway. 60 mana into Genesis Wave is going to win the game. Infinite tokens is going to win the game, whether or not Hoof comes down.
How many creatures constitute a modest board? Maybe... 3 creatures? Hoof is still powerful, but you can easily block well enough to survive if you have the same modest board.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like hoof, I've never played it. I don't like losing to it, largely because I don't think it's that great. In the right deck it's a fantastic win condition, but the right deck is not every deck. I prefer Pathbreaker Ibex.
I'm not a fan of hoof. I've been playing Ensnaring Bridge in my deck for years to deal with big fatties like him, and it doesn't even do a good job at stopping Hoof. I try to avoid building green decks, because I feel they always just jam good staple cards; Hoof is an excellent example of that. Eveygreen deck I've made in thsi format, excpet for the one Voltron one has played Hoof and it's almost always the best play is to Hoof for the win. Unless you're playing a creatureless green deck, you should play him and he will just end the game for you when you play him, unless somebody has a specific answer.
I do want to adress two of the counterarguments that DunHarrow mentioned.
The first is onboard-answers aren't really great at answering Hoof. Ghostly Prism is a fine card, but the green player gets to decide when they cast Hoof. They can just hold off and wait for a Krosan Grip or something else to sweep your defenses, then deploy their Hoof to kill you. Onboard answers are just delaying their game plan not thwarting it.
It does nothing by itself is just not an argument. Many cards do nothing by themselves. Mind over Matter is terible if you're hellbent. Ad Nauseam is useless if you have no cards library. Heck, Painter's Servant is banned and all it can do by itself is attack and block. When discussing cards, we need to assume they are being used in a normal, resonable way. That means Hoof is being played when it's controller already has some board presence with creatures. It doesn't have to be 50 1/1 tokens, even a rather modest board can be enough for Hoof to starting killing players.
Mind over matter isn't banned.
Ad Nauseum isn't banned.
Painter's Servant changes the way the game is played, and can't really be compared to other cards. It is not banned solely because of combos.
Now, Sylvan Primordial, Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan... these are cards that are too good by themselves. They are even better with flickering or recursion, but it's not needed. They are banned.
It seems to me that being too good by themselves is the main criteria for banning.
Ghostly Prison can be answered, sure, but unless the player is trying to kill the entire table, they can attack someone else with their trample damage. Ghostly Prison is one of those cards that is easy to answer, but not necessarily worth killing. Having mana is all you need to nullify the card, you don't really need to destroy it, unless you are trying to win on the spot.
I have lost many games to hoof, but those games were games I was losing anyway. 60 mana into Genesis Wave is going to win the game. Infinite tokens is going to win the game, whether or not Hoof comes down.
How many creatures constitute a modest board? Maybe... 3 creatures? Hoof is still powerful, but you can easily block well enough to survive if you have the same modest board.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like hoof, I've never played it. I don't like losing to it, largely because I don't think it's that great. In the right deck it's a fantastic win condition, but the right deck is not every deck. I prefer Pathbreaker Ibex.
5-6 creatures is usually enough. If Hoof makes up the 7th, that means there's a sudden 49 trampling power headed your way - on top of what comes with the creatures themselves. Plenty of decks that simply curve into the Hoof and kill a player, drop a few tokens or something. It doesn't even need to look all that threatening. Last time I got hoofed the hoofer had a field of Restoration Angel, Roon of the Hidden Realms, Coiling Oracle, Reclamation Sage, Solemn Simulacrum and Wood Elves. An overrun wouldn't have been scary there. Nor would Pathbreaker Ibex have been. Craterhoof? "Lol you're dead I'll keep playing with the two weaker opponents."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I say "no" because sometimes games just need to end and this is a great way of doing that. Sure, it gets boring that it is one of the most popular ways of doing that, but it is so popular for a reason. It was like when they banned twin in modern hoping other UR decks would pop up and diversify but all the other options were so much worse that people just stopped playing UR instead of changing it up.
Also the card is far from a competitive house so I see it as an odd ban target, albeit boring as hell I admit. If you are tired of it in your friend group you could always just bring it up and hopefully get some variation. I have always thought that the best way to handle a format like EDH.
Lol no. This card is only ever a problem when tutored out by something like T&N alongside a mass token generator like Avenger of Zendikar, but even then you need a mass haste outlet or enough board presence to attack for lethal. It's a fat creature that relies on you having established a large board presence to win. If you can drop an army and protect it long enough to throw down an eight drop, that's enough work and enough opportunities for disruption and enough resources invested that you've earned the win.
You don't need a large board to kill a player with craterhoof
if you have 4 random creatures out, craterhoof represents at least 30 damage if those 4 creatures have 0 base power.
It turns a board of random nothings into a lethal threat. Do you look at a mana elf and 3 zombie tokens and think "lethal"?
I'm not a fan of hoof. I've been playing Ensnaring Bridge in my deck for years to deal with big fatties like him, and it doesn't even do a good job at stopping Hoof. I try to avoid building green decks, because I feel they always just jam good staple cards; Hoof is an excellent example of that. Eveygreen deck I've made in thsi format, excpet for the one Voltron one has played Hoof and it's almost always the best play is to Hoof for the win. Unless you're playing a creatureless green deck, you should play him and he will just end the game for you when you play him, unless somebody has a specific answer.
I do want to adress two of the counterarguments that DunHarrow mentioned.
The first is onboard-answers aren't really great at answering Hoof. Ghostly Prism is a fine card, but the green player gets to decide when they cast Hoof. They can just hold off and wait for a Krosan Grip or something else to sweep your defenses, then deploy their Hoof to kill you. Onboard answers are just delaying their game plan not thwarting it.
It does nothing by itself is just not an argument. Many cards do nothing by themselves. Mind over Matter is terible if you're hellbent. Ad Nauseam is useless if you have no cards library. Heck, Painter's Servant is banned and all it can do by itself is attack and block. When discussing cards, we need to assume they are being used in a normal, resonable way. That means Hoof is being played when it's controller already has some board presence with creatures. It doesn't have to be 50 1/1 tokens, even a rather modest board can be enough for Hoof to starting killing players.
Mind over matter isn't banned.
Ad Nauseum isn't banned.
Painter's Servant changes the way the game is played, and can't really be compared to other cards. It is not banned solely because of combos.
Now, Sylvan Primordial, Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan... these are cards that are too good by themselves. They are even better with flickering or recursion, but it's not needed. They are banned.
It seems to me that being too good by themselves is the main criteria for banning.
Ghostly Prison can be answered, sure, but unless the player is trying to kill the entire table, they can attack someone else with their trample damage. Ghostly Prison is one of those cards that is easy to answer, but not necessarily worth killing. Having mana is all you need to nullify the card, you don't really need to destroy it, unless you are trying to win on the spot.
I have lost many games to hoof, but those games were games I was losing anyway. 60 mana into Genesis Wave is going to win the game. Infinite tokens is going to win the game, whether or not Hoof comes down.
How many creatures constitute a modest board? Maybe... 3 creatures? Hoof is still powerful, but you can easily block well enough to survive if you have the same modest board.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like hoof, I've never played it. I don't like losing to it, largely because I don't think it's that great. In the right deck it's a fantastic win condition, but the right deck is not every deck. I prefer Pathbreaker Ibex.
5-6 creatures is usually enough. If Hoof makes up the 7th, that means there's a sudden 49 trampling power headed your way - on top of what comes with the creatures themselves. Plenty of decks that simply curve into the Hoof and kill a player, drop a few tokens or something. It doesn't even need to look all that threatening. Last time I got hoofed the hoofer had a field of Restoration Angel, Roon of the Hidden Realms, Coiling Oracle, Reclamation Sage, Solemn Simulacrum and Wood Elves. An overrun wouldn't have been scary there. Nor would Pathbreaker Ibex have been. Craterhoof? "Lol you're dead I'll keep playing with the two weaker opponents."
Lou, I definitely get how it can add a ton of power to the board and win the game. Are you saying it is too efficient at 8 mana? I'm not sure I understand your point of view.
When I see an opponent with a board full of creatures and 8 mana, I am on my toes waiting for the hoof. I just think, as far as finishers go, that it is easy to see coming and easy to neuter. I definitely count the available mana and time my wrath accordingly. Or cast Peacekeeper or Spore Frog or any other card that makes combat impossible.
Maybe because I like playing long grindy games my decks are more equipped to deal with any kind of aggro. I don't know. I definitely find it annoying to lose to Craterhoof. Usually, when I lose to it, there was a combo of some kind (in which case the finishing piece doesn't matter to me), or, I wasn't thinking about it and let my guard down.
I don't regard the card as busted or too powerful or anything... It will win the game if you're not ready for it. If you are ready, it is easy to thwart. I can't think of any banned card that is easy to neuter, obviously disregarding Painter's Servant, which has its own criteria.
To me, Tooth and Nail and Iona are the most banworthy cards. They are both hard to interact with and they can both win the game.
I'm against 1-card win conditions. I am not against win conditions that require 1 card and a threshold of other things, especially when this win condition relies on combat damage. Decks that go wide have so many ways of winning. Hoof is the best, but Coat of Arms or extra combat steps or Triumph of the Hordes are often just as good.
I'm saying that the claims of "Needing a big board state" are simply false. That boardstate I just described is far from what I'd call dangerous, the only card that does make it dangerous is Craterhoof. Arguably Triump of the Hordes as well but that one is dependant on me not having blockers.
See the thing about your DEN combo is that they require one specific creature plus one of three specific creatures. Hoof works with literally any non-defender creature in the game, including tokens. This leads to blowouts that just come out of nowhere because "Oh look at that you're dead." and you can't even accuse the player of playing the somewhat boring tutor-tutor-combo game, it's natural progression.
This combined makes Craterhoof a highly annoying card. It's one I wouldn't shed any tears over if it would leave the format. However, at the same time, I also don't believe it's banworthy. It's not abusive enough, it isn't the to-go-to steal/copy card, it doesn't enable ridiculously easy lockouts...it's just a very boring, very stale card that I don't enjoy seeing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I'm saying that the claims of "Needing a big board state" are simply false. That boardstate I just described is far from what I'd call dangerous, the only card that does make it dangerous is Craterhoof. Arguably Triump of the Hordes as well but that one is dependant on me not having blockers.
See the thing about your DEN combo is that they require one specific creature plus one of three specific creatures. Hoof works with literally any non-defender creature in the game, including tokens. This leads to blowouts that just come out of nowhere because "Oh look at that you're dead." and you can't even accuse the player of playing the somewhat boring tutor-tutor-combo game, it's natural progression.
This combined makes Craterhoof a highly annoying card. It's one I wouldn't shed any tears over if it would leave the format. However, at the same time, I also don't believe it's banworthy. It's not abusive enough, it isn't the to-go-to steal/copy card, it doesn't enable ridiculously easy lockouts...it's just a very boring, very stale card that I don't enjoy seeing.
I definitely agree about the boring and stale. I see your point. I was arguing with regards to whether or not I found it banworthy. Annoying, I can agree upon.
I feel like there are other cards that require a threshold of random elements to win the game. Hoof needs a threshold of random creatures.
I don't know what I'm thinking of. Not the ones that need you to survive to your upkeep.
Lol no. This card is only ever a problem when tutored out by something like T&N alongside a mass token generator like Avenger of Zendikar, but even then you need a mass haste outlet or enough board presence to attack for lethal. It's a fat creature that relies on you having established a large board presence to win. If you can drop an army and protect it long enough to throw down an eight drop, that's enough work and enough opportunities for disruption and enough resources invested that you've earned the win.
You don't need a large board to kill a player with craterhoof
if you have 4 random creatures out, craterhoof represents at least 30 damage if those 4 creatures have 0 base power.
It turns a board of random nothings into a lethal threat. Do you look at a mana elf and 3 zombie tokens and think "lethal"?
So being able to turn a board with 4 creatures into about 3-40 damage to one player, assuming he/she has no blockers or removal, for eight mana, is worthy of a ban now?
Look, I'm not arguing its a fun card to play against, or that it can't be cheesy, I'm arguing that calling for it to be banned is simply laughable. Yes, its capable of just randomly killing a single player out of nowhere with some modest support. So is tainted stike. So is Grafted Exoskeleton. So is Berserk. So is any voltron commander.
Is Hoof played extensively? Yes, just like Cyclonic Rift and other staples. It gives Green creature decks a way to break through damage for the win. Using Hoof to take out just one player is usually a bad play and waste of your best win con, unless you are taking out a player that is threatening a winning combo or otherwise amassing an insurmountable position.
Jesus guys, its 8 mana in green. For one less mana you just win with Protean Hulk with about as much set up as it takes to maybe take out a player with Hoof, or for one more mana you just win the game with T&N with NO setup. This doesn't make it a fair card. It doesn't make it a fun card most of the time. It also doesn't make it anywhere close to ban worthy. I could probably name 20 cards that should eat a ban before Hoof, and most wouldn't even deserve a ban.
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!
Lol no. This card is only ever a problem when tutored out by something like T&N alongside a mass token generator like Avenger of Zendikar, but even then you need a mass haste outlet or enough board presence to attack for lethal. It's a fat creature that relies on you having established a large board presence to win. If you can drop an army and protect it long enough to throw down an eight drop, that's enough work and enough opportunities for disruption and enough resources invested that you've earned the win.
You don't need a large board to kill a player with craterhoof
if you have 4 random creatures out, craterhoof represents at least 30 damage if those 4 creatures have 0 base power.
It turns a board of random nothings into a lethal threat. Do you look at a mana elf and 3 zombie tokens and think "lethal"?
So being able to turn a board with 4 creatures into about 3-40 damage to one player, assuming he/she has no blockers or removal, for eight mana, is worthy of a ban now?
Look, I'm not arguing its a fun card to play against, or that it can't be cheesy, I'm arguing that calling for it to be banned is simply laughable. Yes, its capable of just randomly killing a single player out of nowhere with some modest support. So is tainted stike. So is Grafted Exoskeleton. So is Berserk. So is any voltron commander.
Is Hoof played extensively? Yes, just like Cyclonic Rift and other staples. It gives Green creature decks a way to break through damage for the win. Using Hoof to take out just one player is usually a bad play and waste of your best win con, unless you are taking out a player that is threatening a winning combo or otherwise amassing an insurmountable position.
Jesus guys, its 8 mana in green. For one less mana you just win with Protean Hulk with about as much set up as it takes to maybe take out a player with Hoof, or for one more mana you just win the game with T&N with NO setup. This doesn't make it a fair card. It doesn't make it a fun card most of the time. It also doesn't make it anywhere close to ban worthy. I could probably name 20 cards that should eat a ban before Hoof, and most wouldn't even deserve a ban.
So by your own words, it's not a fair or fun card.
So it should be banned. The game is not better because it exists.
Savage Beating is often as good or better than Hoof. 4 2/2 zombie tokens is 32 damage. It plus Army of the Damned is 104. It really depends on what you have on board but there are plenty of cards that can end games like Hoof. Insurrection will kill a single player easily as well and its easier to take down everyone since they have no blockers. Now, Hoof plus Overwhelming Stampede is insane but that's 13 mana.
Regardless of what size board state people want to believe is necessary for Craterhoof to win the game, you still need a board state to win with him. Sweepers are abundant in this format. In almost every case, the creatures he effects have to deal combat damage for him to be effective. There is so much room for response after Craterhoof hits the board that it seems absurd to even consider banning him. It doesn't give Haste by itself or a way to immediately set up and swing in with a surprise attack. Most of the time you see it coming a mile away can remove creatures or find a board wipe to respond with.
So, why is he boring and unexciting compared to any other staple card out there? Are the roots in that because he's a common finisher that feels like he should go in most Green decks? That's not very good reasoning and is a slippery slope. If that's the case then we should ban Ashnod's Altar, Nim Deathmantle, Swords to Plowshares, Blasphemous Act, Karmic Guide, Cyclonic Rift, Dead-eye Navigator, Doubling Season. The list goes on and on and on. Most decks on these forums and thanks to websites like EDHREC find that every color and archetype has a shell where you expect to see certain cards in every deck.
It's a bit ludicrous if reasoning for banning a card comes down to just being tired of seeing it, when there are much more problematic cards that require less of a board state or set up that are being played.
I don't think most argue for a banning of the card itself, just that it isn't the most interesting of cards and they wouldn't shed tears over an eventual banning. The only exception is Carthage who I believe stated not so long ago that he quit Commander so why he is arguing for it I don't know.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Boring but not banworthy. Most of the time it's the tutors that make it dangerous, and that is why it's consistently killing people but wrongfully witch-hunted.
Most of the time people report they got killed by Mike&Trike, Craterhoof or Kiki-Pestermite, but no one gets to the actual root problem.
So many cards are worse than the Craterhoof, its a little oops i win sometimes but certainly no more than so many multitudes of played cards. I vote No.
I 100% have no issue with any of the other overrun effects that exist in the game. If someone wanted to kill me with Triumph of the Hordes, sure no problem. My issue with craterhoof is that the decks that build to use it essentially always have access to it. Craterhoof is unlike many "combo" wins in that many players do not view it as a combo. It in essence is a very strong synergy card but it still feels like kills come from nowhere. I cant even tell you how often I have seen something minor flashed in off of Winding Canyons, flash creatures, instant speed token production into a Craterhoof. I dont have issues with other overrun effects because they are not as explosive in effect, they are harder to tutor, and they feel more situational. When a deck runs Craterhoof, they dont just plan to do a little damage its between killing one player and the table when it hits play. I would say that I have also seen it do exactly that probably 90+% of the time its played.
It really is not as simple as wrath he board as sometimes someone goes from 1-2 creatures to 5-10 creatures without the ability to sorcery speed interact.
I also dont run enough wraths to wrath my opponents every time they play 3 ETB creatures. You are being delusional if you think that a handfull of tokens / ETB creatures can be wrathed every time unless your plan is to play like 10+ wrath.deck.
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between these two scenarios, both assuming you also have no board state and no way to respond:
Someone has a clear board state. At the end of your turn, they cast Artifact Mutation on someone's Mind's Eye and get five saproling tokens. They untap, cast Craterhoof Behemoth, and swing at you for 46 damage. You die.
-OR-
Someone has a clear board state. At the end of your turn, they cast Artifact Mutation on someone's Mind's Eye and get five saproling tokens. They untap, cast Triumph of the Hordes, and swing at you for 10 poison damage. You die.
I mean, there are a couple differences, of course. You can respond to the Triumph with a Swan Song or a Negate, which wouldn't answer the Hoof, but you can't respond to Triumph with a Remove Soul. Hoof is more easily tutorable in mono-green, but creature tutors require you to reveal the tutored card, so it won't be a surprise. It's a bit easier to recur Hoof, but Eternal Witness would fetch either one of them. And, lest we forget, Triumph of the Hordes costs literally HALF the mana that Hoof does.
Also, speaking as a green mage, Craterhoof Behemoth does provide the most "surprise" victories, but I do think that Kamahl, Fist of Krosa is an overall better option at closing games out. He doesn't have the same immediate effect, but he sticks around, is repeatable, and even protects your board from wiping. He'd need a ban, in my opinion, long before we got around to Hoof -- but neither one of them needs a ban.
The only explanation I can fathom for people wanting to get rid of Hoof is that he's overplayed. I understand that. I've regretfully added him to some decks. But if we're going to start banning cards for being played where they can be included, wouldn't we have to include things like Sol Ring, Sun Titan, and Command Tower?
The this scenario with Hoof vs this scenario using some other card doesn't work too well here. Triumph of the Hordes is a card that sees very limited play, because you basically ned the opponent to be fully open with no way to respond to get a kill with it. Attacking them with five 2/2 infects, but having one of them get blocked or killed leaves your opponent at just 8 poison and you'll have a hard time getting that last 2 poison in.
Real magic games are inherently messy; players do have blockers and other interaction. The reason Hoof sees so much play compared to every other card with a similar effect is that it gives an insanely large boost to power/toughness and trample. It doesn't care about messy boards or a single piece of point removal because it's got the power to just ram roughshod over it all.
For the people who are bored of Hoof, but don't want it banned. What makes it not banworthy in your mind?
From my view point there are different tiers of banned; there are clearly cards that are just going to be banned forever because they are disgustingly powerful, the Tinker and Channel tier and then there are the more marginal bans like Gifts Ungiven and Prophet of Kruphix. Obviously, Hoof is not Channel so it would be a more marginal ban.
If anything, the updated philosophy document made by the RC does outline a case where they feel taking action against a card is justified. That being "Problematic Casual Omnipresence". (Check out Sheldons article here.) Hoof (and Cyclonic Rift) is a card that is casually omnipresent. It's in the top 40 most viewed cards on EDHrec. Lots of people play green, green decks usually play creatures, creature decks play Hoof. The argument cannot be about Hoof not being played enough; it can only be about wether it's effect on the game is problematic or not; which is up to the subjective opinion of the player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When this card first came out I was somewhat excited for it. I think it took me like 2 games to decide that its kind of over the top stupid. Decks that build to use this card are very troublesome and while its more of a mid tier level of play it really is challenging to interact with.
So, yes there are answers to it, for a lot of decks though if you are not playing blue you dont really have good responses without specifically building to try to stop it. Because it is a green creature there are so many ways to tutor for it so it sort of feels like its always in hand. When you want to start killing a table you are usually looking for around 10 creatures but you can start easily picking up a single kill with around 5 creatures. Playing to wrath a person who is building tokens before they can get to 5+ tokens is a very difficult thing that would be challanging to contest every time.
Craterhoof is almost like combo in how explosive it is as well as the fact that the other piece of its combo (having board presence) is very hard to stop at all times in a game. The combination of its consistency, growing power buff, and difficulty to interact with it lead me to question how healthy it is to have in the format. The problem in my mind is that many will not see issue with this card but will build with social norms like not playing combo / LD / stasis effects. It is also difficult to convince those who play it as to why they should not given it does not technically fall into the norms that the social norms normally weed out.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
- Ghostly Prison effects
- Crawlspace
- Silent Arbiter
- Cryptic Command (in the event of not being able to counter Hoof, you can still tap)
- Cyclonic Rift / Evacuation
Of course, the best option is still to wrath the board before they get hoof into play.
I don't really think it is a candidate for banning, though I can see how it comes close. The distinguishing features, to me, are:
- It is terrible by itself
- It relies on combat damage
As far as game-ending cards, this one doesn't have the inherent feature of too much value by itself or a lack of ways on how to interact with it. The fact that it relies on combat damage really affects this. Combat is where there is the most interaction with creatures in Magic.
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
Also I feel like the art shows what happens when you cast Giant Growth on a dismembered *****. Bleugh.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
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 do want to adress two of the counterarguments that DunHarrow mentioned.
The first is onboard-answers aren't really great at answering Hoof. Ghostly Prism is a fine card, but the green player gets to decide when they cast Hoof. They can just hold off and wait for a Krosan Grip or something else to sweep your defenses, then deploy their Hoof to kill you. Onboard answers are just delaying their game plan not thwarting it.
It does nothing by itself is just not an argument. Many cards do nothing by themselves. Mind over Matter is terible if you're hellbent. Ad Nauseam is useless if you have no cards library. Heck, Painter's Servant is banned and all it can do by itself is attack and block. When discussing cards, we need to assume they are being used in a normal, resonable way. That means Hoof is being played when it's controller already has some board presence with creatures. It doesn't have to be 50 1/1 tokens, even a rather modest board can be enough for Hoof to starting killing players.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Mind over matter isn't banned.
Ad Nauseum isn't banned.
Painter's Servant changes the way the game is played, and can't really be compared to other cards. It is not banned solely because of combos.
Now, Sylvan Primordial, Primeval Titan, Sundering Titan... these are cards that are too good by themselves. They are even better with flickering or recursion, but it's not needed. They are banned.
It seems to me that being too good by themselves is the main criteria for banning.
Ghostly Prison can be answered, sure, but unless the player is trying to kill the entire table, they can attack someone else with their trample damage. Ghostly Prison is one of those cards that is easy to answer, but not necessarily worth killing. Having mana is all you need to nullify the card, you don't really need to destroy it, unless you are trying to win on the spot.
I have lost many games to hoof, but those games were games I was losing anyway. 60 mana into Genesis Wave is going to win the game. Infinite tokens is going to win the game, whether or not Hoof comes down.
How many creatures constitute a modest board? Maybe... 3 creatures? Hoof is still powerful, but you can easily block well enough to survive if you have the same modest board.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like hoof, I've never played it. I don't like losing to it, largely because I don't think it's that great. In the right deck it's a fantastic win condition, but the right deck is not every deck. I prefer Pathbreaker Ibex.
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
5-6 creatures is usually enough. If Hoof makes up the 7th, that means there's a sudden 49 trampling power headed your way - on top of what comes with the creatures themselves. Plenty of decks that simply curve into the Hoof and kill a player, drop a few tokens or something. It doesn't even need to look all that threatening. Last time I got hoofed the hoofer had a field of Restoration Angel, Roon of the Hidden Realms, Coiling Oracle, Reclamation Sage, Solemn Simulacrum and Wood Elves. An overrun wouldn't have been scary there. Nor would Pathbreaker Ibex have been. Craterhoof? "Lol you're dead I'll keep playing with the two weaker opponents."
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Also the card is far from a competitive house so I see it as an odd ban target, albeit boring as hell I admit. If you are tired of it in your friend group you could always just bring it up and hopefully get some variation. I have always thought that the best way to handle a format like EDH.
You don't need a large board to kill a player with craterhoof
if you have 4 random creatures out, craterhoof represents at least 30 damage if those 4 creatures have 0 base power.
It turns a board of random nothings into a lethal threat. Do you look at a mana elf and 3 zombie tokens and think "lethal"?
Lou, I definitely get how it can add a ton of power to the board and win the game. Are you saying it is too efficient at 8 mana? I'm not sure I understand your point of view.
When I see an opponent with a board full of creatures and 8 mana, I am on my toes waiting for the hoof. I just think, as far as finishers go, that it is easy to see coming and easy to neuter. I definitely count the available mana and time my wrath accordingly. Or cast Peacekeeper or Spore Frog or any other card that makes combat impossible.
Maybe because I like playing long grindy games my decks are more equipped to deal with any kind of aggro. I don't know. I definitely find it annoying to lose to Craterhoof. Usually, when I lose to it, there was a combo of some kind (in which case the finishing piece doesn't matter to me), or, I wasn't thinking about it and let my guard down.
I don't regard the card as busted or too powerful or anything... It will win the game if you're not ready for it. If you are ready, it is easy to thwart. I can't think of any banned card that is easy to neuter, obviously disregarding Painter's Servant, which has its own criteria.
To me, Tooth and Nail and Iona are the most banworthy cards. They are both hard to interact with and they can both win the game.
If playing Deadeye Navigator and Palinchron/Great Whale/Peregrine Drake on consecutive turns is fair game for Commander, then having 6 creatures and casting 8-mana hoof should be okay too.
I'm against 1-card win conditions. I am not against win conditions that require 1 card and a threshold of other things, especially when this win condition relies on combat damage. Decks that go wide have so many ways of winning. Hoof is the best, but Coat of Arms or extra combat steps or Triumph of the Hordes are often just as good.
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
See the thing about your DEN combo is that they require one specific creature plus one of three specific creatures. Hoof works with literally any non-defender creature in the game, including tokens. This leads to blowouts that just come out of nowhere because "Oh look at that you're dead." and you can't even accuse the player of playing the somewhat boring tutor-tutor-combo game, it's natural progression.
This combined makes Craterhoof a highly annoying card. It's one I wouldn't shed any tears over if it would leave the format. However, at the same time, I also don't believe it's banworthy. It's not abusive enough, it isn't the to-go-to steal/copy card, it doesn't enable ridiculously easy lockouts...it's just a very boring, very stale card that I don't enjoy seeing.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I definitely agree about the boring and stale. I see your point. I was arguing with regards to whether or not I found it banworthy. Annoying, I can agree upon.
I feel like there are other cards that require a threshold of random elements to win the game. Hoof needs a threshold of random creatures.
I don't know what I'm thinking of. Not the ones that need you to survive to your upkeep.
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
So being able to turn a board with 4 creatures into about 3-40 damage to one player, assuming he/she has no blockers or removal, for eight mana, is worthy of a ban now?
Look, I'm not arguing its a fun card to play against, or that it can't be cheesy, I'm arguing that calling for it to be banned is simply laughable. Yes, its capable of just randomly killing a single player out of nowhere with some modest support. So is tainted stike. So is Grafted Exoskeleton. So is Berserk. So is any voltron commander.
Is Hoof played extensively? Yes, just like Cyclonic Rift and other staples. It gives Green creature decks a way to break through damage for the win. Using Hoof to take out just one player is usually a bad play and waste of your best win con, unless you are taking out a player that is threatening a winning combo or otherwise amassing an insurmountable position.
Jesus guys, its 8 mana in green. For one less mana you just win with Protean Hulk with about as much set up as it takes to maybe take out a player with Hoof, or for one more mana you just win the game with T&N with NO setup. This doesn't make it a fair card. It doesn't make it a fun card most of the time. It also doesn't make it anywhere close to ban worthy. I could probably name 20 cards that should eat a ban before Hoof, and most wouldn't even deserve a ban.
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!
So by your own words, it's not a fair or fun card.
So it should be banned. The game is not better because it exists.
So, why is he boring and unexciting compared to any other staple card out there? Are the roots in that because he's a common finisher that feels like he should go in most Green decks? That's not very good reasoning and is a slippery slope. If that's the case then we should ban Ashnod's Altar, Nim Deathmantle, Swords to Plowshares, Blasphemous Act, Karmic Guide, Cyclonic Rift, Dead-eye Navigator, Doubling Season. The list goes on and on and on. Most decks on these forums and thanks to websites like EDHREC find that every color and archetype has a shell where you expect to see certain cards in every deck.
It's a bit ludicrous if reasoning for banning a card comes down to just being tired of seeing it, when there are much more problematic cards that require less of a board state or set up that are being played.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Most of the time people report they got killed by Mike&Trike, Craterhoof or Kiki-Pestermite, but no one gets to the actual root problem.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
It really is not as simple as wrath he board as sometimes someone goes from 1-2 creatures to 5-10 creatures without the ability to sorcery speed interact.
I also dont run enough wraths to wrath my opponents every time they play 3 ETB creatures. You are being delusional if you think that a handfull of tokens / ETB creatures can be wrathed every time unless your plan is to play like 10+ wrath.deck.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Someone has a clear board state. At the end of your turn, they cast Artifact Mutation on someone's Mind's Eye and get five saproling tokens. They untap, cast Craterhoof Behemoth, and swing at you for 46 damage. You die.
-OR-
Someone has a clear board state. At the end of your turn, they cast Artifact Mutation on someone's Mind's Eye and get five saproling tokens. They untap, cast Triumph of the Hordes, and swing at you for 10 poison damage. You die.
I mean, there are a couple differences, of course. You can respond to the Triumph with a Swan Song or a Negate, which wouldn't answer the Hoof, but you can't respond to Triumph with a Remove Soul. Hoof is more easily tutorable in mono-green, but creature tutors require you to reveal the tutored card, so it won't be a surprise. It's a bit easier to recur Hoof, but Eternal Witness would fetch either one of them. And, lest we forget, Triumph of the Hordes costs literally HALF the mana that Hoof does.
Also, speaking as a green mage, Craterhoof Behemoth does provide the most "surprise" victories, but I do think that Kamahl, Fist of Krosa is an overall better option at closing games out. He doesn't have the same immediate effect, but he sticks around, is repeatable, and even protects your board from wiping. He'd need a ban, in my opinion, long before we got around to Hoof -- but neither one of them needs a ban.
The only explanation I can fathom for people wanting to get rid of Hoof is that he's overplayed. I understand that. I've regretfully added him to some decks. But if we're going to start banning cards for being played where they can be included, wouldn't we have to include things like Sol Ring, Sun Titan, and Command Tower?
Real magic games are inherently messy; players do have blockers and other interaction. The reason Hoof sees so much play compared to every other card with a similar effect is that it gives an insanely large boost to power/toughness and trample. It doesn't care about messy boards or a single piece of point removal because it's got the power to just ram roughshod over it all.
For the people who are bored of Hoof, but don't want it banned. What makes it not banworthy in your mind?
From my view point there are different tiers of banned; there are clearly cards that are just going to be banned forever because they are disgustingly powerful, the Tinker and Channel tier and then there are the more marginal bans like Gifts Ungiven and Prophet of Kruphix. Obviously, Hoof is not Channel so it would be a more marginal ban.
If anything, the updated philosophy document made by the RC does outline a case where they feel taking action against a card is justified. That being "Problematic Casual Omnipresence". (Check out Sheldons article here.) Hoof (and Cyclonic Rift) is a card that is casually omnipresent. It's in the top 40 most viewed cards on EDHrec. Lots of people play green, green decks usually play creatures, creature decks play Hoof. The argument cannot be about Hoof not being played enough; it can only be about wether it's effect on the game is problematic or not; which is up to the subjective opinion of the player.