If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.
Does the reverse not apply to you and your groups?
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.
I don't think anybody truly believes that this card is not a problem anywhere. The fact that it is as problem in your meta is certainly plausible. There are people (myself included) who believe that it *shouldn't* be a problem in your meta. If it is, the meta should probably evolve or adapt a little to account for it.
However, being a problem in a meta is not enough to start calling for the banning a card. Plenty of cards are problems in *someone's* meta. But, if they are not a problem in the majority (or whatever cutoff the RC uses) then it really cannot be called to be banned. There is no reason the discussion cannot be had of course, but the end result of that discussion may just lead to where this one has led.
Having a thread like this is somewhat helpful to determine the extent of a problem a card may be. However, as this thread as shown, this particular card does not pose enough of a problem to most people (at least, most people who respond to threads on the internet) to warrant its removal from the format. As such, the only real options for people who are having problems with the card are a) house-ban it, b) adapt to handle the possibility of facing it or c) change nothing and just hope you don't play against it.
So, while there can be empathy with players who do find this to be a problem, the Ban List is not built to solve every meta. It cannot handle the rare occurrences when an otherwise acceptable card (no matter the power level) is wreaking havoc in a small subset of groups. It just isn't built for that sort of thing and calling for a format wide ban of a card that the majority find innocuous is narrow sighted.
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.
No, Serra Ascendant is not an issue in any group, and I can say that without reservation. I'm sure there are groups where Serra Ascendant can dominate, but the issue there is not Serra Ascendant, but rather the playgroup not running spot removal.
Serra Ascendant gets killed by outright bad penny cards that come online after its been able to swing once. This doesn't even count the many actually good cards that kill it just as fast, or before it even gets to attack.
Even if a player just started in Dominaria, they have access to 11 spells that deal with Serra Ascendant by turn 4, not counting counters and temporary measures like bounce or chump blocking. Turn 5 unlocks several more. Undoubtedly, this would be a terrible deck, but that's because it would be made with only two sets wort of cards.
But seriously, Dies to Doomblade is a valid argument here, because it does, and does to every Doomblade variant. If Serra Ascendant is tearing up a meta, its a sign that said meta needs to run some GD spot removal.
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!
If a T1 Serra Ascendant is dominating games on a regular basis, the other players must really not be trying.
I have two mono-white decks. SA didn't make the cut for either one of them. I considered it briefly for Sram, but decided it would be an absolutely terrible draw in that deck - vastly worse than drawing another Plains - after around turn 4, which is when it is drawn the vast majority of the time. The two decks I do play it in are both full of ways to gain life, and even there it's not a particularly good draw after the first few turns.
Just because it's not an issue at your table doesn't mean it's not an issue for other groups.
Fair enough, but seriously, it's hard for me to imagine a group in which it is an issue. Do people not play any effective blockers or any significant amount of removal? This past week, I saw someone play a SA on turn 1. Turn 2, they flew it at someone with no blockers, that player responded with Go for the Throat, problem removed before it inflicted a single point of damage or gained the player casting it a single point of life. Will someone always have a response to a turn 1 SA by turn 2? Nope, they won't, but basic statistics tell you that in a multi-player game, the likelihood of someone having a cheap answer is going to be greater than the likelihood of getting a turn 1 SA in the first place, so, again, it's hard to imagine this being a significant problem - like, the SA repeatedly dominating games - unless nobody ever runs spot removal (which would be a problem in the playgroup, not with SA).
Does the reverse not apply to you and your groups?
However, being a problem in a meta is not enough to start calling for the banning a card. Plenty of cards are problems in *someone's* meta. But, if they are not a problem in the majority (or whatever cutoff the RC uses) then it really cannot be called to be banned. There is no reason the discussion cannot be had of course, but the end result of that discussion may just lead to where this one has led.
Having a thread like this is somewhat helpful to determine the extent of a problem a card may be. However, as this thread as shown, this particular card does not pose enough of a problem to most people (at least, most people who respond to threads on the internet) to warrant its removal from the format. As such, the only real options for people who are having problems with the card are a) house-ban it, b) adapt to handle the possibility of facing it or c) change nothing and just hope you don't play against it.
So, while there can be empathy with players who do find this to be a problem, the Ban List is not built to solve every meta. It cannot handle the rare occurrences when an otherwise acceptable card (no matter the power level) is wreaking havoc in a small subset of groups. It just isn't built for that sort of thing and calling for a format wide ban of a card that the majority find innocuous is narrow sighted.
No, Serra Ascendant is not an issue in any group, and I can say that without reservation. I'm sure there are groups where Serra Ascendant can dominate, but the issue there is not Serra Ascendant, but rather the playgroup not running spot removal.
Serra Ascendant gets killed by outright bad penny cards that come online after its been able to swing once. This doesn't even count the many actually good cards that kill it just as fast, or before it even gets to attack.
Even if a player just started in Dominaria, they have access to 11 spells that deal with Serra Ascendant by turn 4, not counting counters and temporary measures like bounce or chump blocking. Turn 5 unlocks several more. Undoubtedly, this would be a terrible deck, but that's because it would be made with only two sets wort of cards.
But seriously, Dies to Doomblade is a valid argument here, because it does, and does to every Doomblade variant. If Serra Ascendant is tearing up a meta, its a sign that said meta needs to run some GD spot removal.
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!
Fair enough, but seriously, it's hard for me to imagine a group in which it is an issue. Do people not play any effective blockers or any significant amount of removal? This past week, I saw someone play a SA on turn 1. Turn 2, they flew it at someone with no blockers, that player responded with Go for the Throat, problem removed before it inflicted a single point of damage or gained the player casting it a single point of life. Will someone always have a response to a turn 1 SA by turn 2? Nope, they won't, but basic statistics tell you that in a multi-player game, the likelihood of someone having a cheap answer is going to be greater than the likelihood of getting a turn 1 SA in the first place, so, again, it's hard to imagine this being a significant problem - like, the SA repeatedly dominating games - unless nobody ever runs spot removal (which would be a problem in the playgroup, not with SA).