Backed by something like a greaves or a counterspell or both, someone is almost certainly dying from this thing, and if they aren't dead to it, they are probably crippled down to almost no life...
This card does not do good things in edh. It should not be legal. The format is worse having it in the card pool.
Backed by greaves, it still takes until turn eight to kill one player, providing they don't drop a blocker or play a wrath or destroy the greaves and then target the ascendant or combo out or gain any life or prevent damage or do any number of other things that disrupt your guaranteed "someone is almost certainly dying from this thing" - and that's assuming the other player or three don't decide to help destroy it, given that they don't exactly want one player gaining all that life, either.
Backed by a counterspell, it survives through one removal spell before eating the next one.
If anyone dies to a turn one Serra Ascendant, they need to build a more interactive deck. And politic better.
If Commander had only 20 life, then nobody would bat an eye at Serra Ascendant. The only decks that would have run it then are the decks that have a lifegain theme somewhere within it like an Oloro, Ageless Ascetic.
Yet because Commander has 40 life starting, even 30 life would still keep it active, it suddenly is a really efficient creature for its cost. As in Commander its rarely if ever going to be "off", its more likely going to be a 6/6 Flying + Lifelink creature for just W which is frankly monstrous for its value. As the +5/+5 and flying benefit is normally meant to be a reward for reaching that state with a combination of lifegain cards.
Sure it eats some removal, maybe it doesn't though after one turn around the table. There is always the possibility on your next turn equip it with Lightning Greaves or even Swiftfoot Boots (based on your mana production) and now your opponents are scrambling in needing an AoE spell to deal with what amounts to a one-drop like Raging Goblin.
In my personal opinion, in interacts poorly with the life total of the format.
If Commander had only 20 life, then nobody would bat an eye at Serra Ascendant. The only decks that would have run it then are the decks that have a lifegain theme somewhere within it like an Oloro, Ageless Ascetic.
Yet because Commander has 40 life starting, even 30 life would still keep it active, it suddenly is a really efficient creature for its cost. As in Commander its rarely if ever going to be "off", its more likely going to be a 6/6 Flying + Lifelink creature for just W which is frankly monstrous for its value. As the +5/+5 and flying benefit is normally meant to be a reward for reaching that state with a combination of lifegain cards.
Sure it eats some removal, maybe it doesn't though after one turn around the table. There is always the possibility on your next turn equip it with Lightning Greaves or even Swiftfoot Boots (based on your mana production) and now your opponents are scrambling in needing an AoE spell to deal with what amounts to a one-drop like Raging Goblin.
In my personal opinion, in interacts poorly with the life total of the format.
Explain this.
As in Commander its rarely if ever going to be "off", its more likely going to be a 6/6 Flying + Lifelink creature for just W which is frankly monstrous for its value.
Because, honestly, I don’t find this to be true at all. I’ve played it, and played against it. It was a staple of early EDH. Not so much anymore. It’s a bomb in barely a handful of decks, and in others, it wastes a slot. It’s a terrible top-deck, unless you draw it within the first few turns, and even then, you need to drop it, equip it/protect it and then start chipping away at 3+ other players with a giant target on your head.
Again, I see far more terrible things pop up in the first few turns than this. By asking for it’s ban, you also must consider every card that provides advantage under specific circumstances, or cards that benefit from being played early. That would include Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Grim Monolith, LED, legal Moxen, Rituals, tutors, Reanimation spells, cheat spells, I mean, the list is freaking endless.
I find humor in the “Interacts poorly with the format lifetotal” descriptor. You need to maintain 75% of your lifetotal at all times for this to be a relevant threat at all times. I don’t know what games you play, but that isn’t exactly an easy task. I don’t like to use this line often, because it’s mostly not true and is a cop out, but better deckbuilding and threat assesment really goes a long way for situations like the above.
Starting at 40 life means Ascendant is turned on earlier and easier, but it also means she needs to attack twice at much to kill someone. As someone else pointed out if someone is dying on turn 8 to Serra beats that person needs to reevaluate their deck.
The case for banning this is strong. It just doesn't match intent. This is awfully random, and too strong. I would just not include this for how good it is. The weird things this does are similar to what Sol Ring does. It just screws with the entire ecosystem of what could happen. Removal for this is hardly going to happen very much if the decks are good. Combo being too gross is not a good argument against it. It kills the entire design category of saboteur cards or accrual-value creatures that are supposed to hit your opponent a little bit and then do their thing, not just die and gain the opponent some life, or sit back. This is a worthy consideration, if not now, but, "tomorrow". Tomorrow, there should be the entire archetype of delivering smacks, and who exactly you smacked and why, early in the game, and at that point it goes. It does compound interest with other damage cards that truly could just kill the opponent. Too good WITH that idea, and randomly warp-9 beats it and each time you played, the card just decided the game. For one mana, this is too much. Every equipment that as time goes by does silly things, see Helm of the Host.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Warning: Um, warning. This is going to be a game state violation. And a taking extra turns and drawing extra cards violation, pretty much, a whole bunch of violations. Look at me, I'm the DCI."
Because, honestly, I don’t find this to be true at all.
Alright.
I’ve played it, and played against it. It was a staple of early EDH. Not so much anymore.
It still is a staple of the format.
It’s a bomb in barely a handful of decks, and in others, it wastes a slot.
Not a valid argument, same could be said about many many many cards in this format.
It’s a terrible top-deck,
Many cards are bad as top decks but are included within the deck when you would want them as a non-top deck. Using your reason, Sol Ring is a terrible top deck, which it is, but its still included in the main deck. What actually constitutes as a "good" or "bad" top deck is highly variable of the state of the game. The only cards I can think of that tend to be a "good" top deck, is spells that affect multiple, such as Wrath of God.
Unless you draw it within the first few turns...
An evasive 6/6 for W lifelinker can still good in the later stages of the game, however like I said previously, depends on the state of the game as it is highly variable.
and even then, you need to drop it, equip it/protect it and then start chipping away at 3+ other players with a giant target on your head.
Yes, like other cards that do this early. For example if you get a Sol Ring early and start building your board state quickly with cheap mana rocks and good equipment thanks to the ring's mana production, you have a target on your head. If you have ways to protect your artifact(s), you in your deckbuilding, have taken measures to do so.
Are you conveniently also forgetting that their tends to be politicking to lessen the the aggro you draw. For example making a temporary pact with one player not to attack them with your Serra Ascendant in exchange for them not removing it as you proceed to go after the other two players.
Again, I see far more terrible things pop up in the first few turns than this.
Doesn't excuse the threat it has in the first few turns.
By asking for it’s ban, you also must consider every card that provides advantage under specific circumstances, or cards that benefit from being played early. That would include Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Grim Monolith, LED, legal Moxen, Rituals, tutors, Reanimation spells, cheat spells, I mean, the list is freaking endless.
No. It is not endless. You ban the most egregious offenders. You don't ban everything under the sun as that is nonsensical when making balance changes.
I find humor in the “Interacts poorly with the format lifetotal” descriptor. You need to maintain 75% of your lifetotal at all times for this to be a relevant threat at all times.
Conveniently you ignore the fact it has lifelink. If the ascendant hits, you gain 6 life, meaning you have raised the percentage effectively to around 80%. If you continue to keep doing this, you keep raising the effective percentage while not changing the actual value of "30+ life". If you have a moderately good amount of life, say 52 life, your opponents need to go through 23 life to bring you down to 29 Life in order for the ascendant to lose its power instead of your original amount of 40 and them needing to deal you 11 damage.
I don’t know what games you play, but that isn’t exactly an easy task.
Is everyone in your playgroup hyper competitive and/or have packed 25% of their deck with answers? If not, chances are its not as hard as you make it sound.
I don’t like to use this line often, because it’s mostly not true and is a cop out, but better deckbuilding and threat assesment really goes a long way for situations like the above.
Better deckbuilding only gets you so far. If a recurring problem is a Sol Ring pops up for example in the early turns, you need to reliably have the artifact removal in hand. Which puts the burden on the deckbuilder to include more answers to artifacts in general while possibly having weaker answers to other threats.
Threat assessment can also get tricky based on the board state that is developing as its not just the Serra Ascendant on the board, its what every other player is doing in addition. Game states are highly variable, even in the early game. You can have one where the rest of the table could be just putting lands and doing nothing else that turn. On the other extreme you have people ramping, casting mana rocks, playing stax cards, setting up combos, etc. However there are also the games where its a mix of the two as you have some players just tossing a land and saying "go" while you have opponents that are putting a large bullseye on their head as well as they rapid advance their boardstate and/or tutor for specific pieces.
Quote from Geini2 »
Starting at 40 life means Ascendant is turned on earlier and easier, but it also means she needs to attack twice at much to kill someone. As someone else pointed out if someone is dying on turn 8 to Serra beats that person needs to reevaluate their deck.
You say that, but I have seen people lose that way because your deck is not 100% or even 50% likely to give you what you want, unless you are cheating or lucky or are just tutor heavy in which you have a point. As you only have, on average and excluding basic lands and rats and apostles, 1% chance to get what you want.
I have seen people lose because their deck just mana screwed or mana flooded them. I have seen people with answers in their deck draw everything else but the answers. You say "that person needs to reevalute their deck" while I say "You have no idea what you are talking about."
For one mana, this is too much. Every equipment that as time goes by does silly things, see Helm of the Host.
I'm pretty sure I don't need to fear Helm of the Host on Serra Ascendant. If they have enough mana to play a four mana equipment and then pay five mana to actually equip it, surely I have enough mana to board wipe or use spot removal.
Again, no one is denying that Serra Ascendant has a high ceiling - it is a very efficient beater when you are above 29 life. It also has a very low floor. And it is inherently fragile. I find it hilarious that in this same thread there are several people saying they have cut it for not being good enough while others say they would never play it because it is too powerful. I play it in exactly one deck - Karlov of the Ghost Council; in most other decks, it's just not good enough.
Seems you missed their point. They are stating Helm of the Hosts is a silly equipment, and other silly equipments that are released as time goes by will cause previously unheard of possibilities, like Magic 2019 might having a silly equipment for non-legendary creatures.
If they have enough mana to play a four mana equipment and then pay five mana to actually equip it, surely I have enough mana to board wipe or use spot removal.
Schrodinger's removal. The top cards of your opening hand, even every draw, is and isn't simultaneously what you desire. The only way to know for sure is if you have means to check the top card(s) OR to draw the top card(s).
Also you still have the possibility of:
A) Ramping and/or Mana Rocks
B) Mana Screw
C) Mana Flood
Basically: You may say you "should" but the cards don't always give you what you want unless you are either tutor heavy or cheating or even just lucky.
If they have enough mana to play a four mana equipment and then pay five mana to actually equip it, surely I have enough mana to board wipe or use spot removal.
Schrodinger's removal. The top cards of your opening hand, even every draw, is and isn't simultaneously what you desire. The only way to know for sure is if you have means to check the top card(s) OR to draw the top card(s).
Also you still have the possibility of:
A) Ramping and/or Mana Rocks
B) Mana Screw
C) Mana Flood
Basically: You may say you "should" but the cards don't always give you what you want unless you are either tutor heavy or cheating or even just lucky.
Oh, trust me, I know - I got flooded out one game last night while another opponent got stuck at three lands, and we both barely did anything the whole game. But if I died in that game to a Serra Ascendant (which I didn't), would that be the fault of the Ascendant being OP? I think not.
If they have enough mana to play a four mana equipment and then pay five mana to actually equip it, surely I have enough mana to board wipe or use spot removal.
Schrodinger's removal. The top cards of your opening hand, even every draw, is and isn't simultaneously what you desire. The only way to know for sure is if you have means to check the top card(s) OR to draw the top card(s).
Also you still have the possibility of:
A) Ramping and/or Mana Rocks
B) Mana Screw
C) Mana Flood
Basically: You may say you "should" but the cards don't always give you what you want unless you are either tutor heavy or cheating or even just lucky.
Oh, trust me, I know - I got flooded out one game last night while another opponent got stuck at three lands, and we both barely did anything the whole game. But if I died in that game to a Serra Ascendant (which I didn't), would that be the fault of the Ascendant being OP? I think not.
If it wasn't a flying 6/6 for 1, wouldn't you have hypothetically lived longer? Like if it were a 2/2 or even a 3/3 for the same cost? Even if you are manascrewed or manaflooded? As even if it were a 3/3 for 1 with flying, it would take twice as long for it to kill you while also being that much more vulnerable to removal.
I feel like this thread is devolving into a "YOU DON'T KNOW MAGICS" on both sides of the argument (which frankly, it's upsetting when this happens -- people on this site most likely play magic).
I think that Serra Ascendant is a powerful turn 1-4 drop, or a good late game drop for any life gain focused decks, but look at the power level of other cards on the ban list.
All of them have the power to end a multiplayer game, accel a game on your end with resources (mostly being mana or card draw), stall a game out, or have insane etb or turn effects.
I can't see a card on that current list that is less powerful than Serra Ascendant, and I don't see SA anywhere near the power level of those cards. Realistically, I doubt it will ever join the banned ranks, as all it can do is gain you life and deplete one opponent's life. It'll put you at an advantage, but not at the level the other banned cards would.
I feel like this thread is devolving into a "YOU DON'T KNOW MAGICS" on both sides of the argument (which frankly, it's upsetting when this happens -- people on this site most likely play magic).
I think that Serra Ascendant is a powerful turn 1-4 drop, or a good late game drop for any life gain focused decks, but look at the power level of other cards on the ban list.
All of them have the power to end a multiplayer game, accel a game on your end with resources (mostly being mana or card draw), stall a game out, or have insane etb or turn effects.
I can't see a card on that current list that is less powerful than Serra Ascendant, and I don't see SA anywhere near the power level of those cards. Realistically, I doubt it will ever join the banned ranks, as all it can do is gain you life and deplete one opponent's life. It'll put you at an advantage, but not at the level the other banned cards would.
Life is just another resource. Serra Ascendant increases that resource for you and decreases it for an opponent. Pair it up with other cards that care about Life as a resource and problems start to occur.
For example fastbond by itself isn't that dangerous, strong like Burgeoning and even costs you life to force more resources on the board, but not dangerous when it is simply alone. But when paired up with other cards that care about lands as a resource, it gained its spot on the banlist because of its sheer value and power. In fact fastbond was often utilized with lands and lifetotals as resources to gain infinite life, this infinite life could then be spent on other expenditures to further ones position in a game.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
Are you making an argument to ban Zur's Weirding? Because that seems to be the problem card in your example to me.
I feel like this thread is devolving into a "YOU DON'T KNOW MAGICS" on both sides of the argument (which frankly, it's upsetting when this happens -- people on this site most likely play magic).
I think that Serra Ascendant is a powerful turn 1-4 drop, or a good late game drop for any life gain focused decks, but look at the power level of other cards on the ban list.
All of them have the power to end a multiplayer game, accel a game on your end with resources (mostly being mana or card draw), stall a game out, or have insane etb or turn effects.
I can't see a card on that current list that is less powerful than Serra Ascendant, and I don't see SA anywhere near the power level of those cards. Realistically, I doubt it will ever join the banned ranks, as all it can do is gain you life and deplete one opponent's life. It'll put you at an advantage, but not at the level the other banned cards would.
Life is just another resource. Serra Ascendant increases that resource for you and decreases it for an opponent. Pair it up with other cards that care about Life as a resource and problems start to occur.
For example fastbond by itself isn't that dangerous, strong like Burgeoning and even costs you life to force more resources on the board, but not dangerous when it is simply alone. But when paired up with other cards that care about lands as a resource, it gained its spot on the banlist because of its sheer value and power. In fact fastbond was often utilized with lands and lifetotals as resources to gain infinite life, this infinite life could then be spent on other expenditures to further ones position in a game.
You're not suggesting that Fastbond is on the same power level as Serra Ascendant, are you? Or that Serra Ascendant is more powerful than Fastbond? (because I would greatly beg to differ on both issues)
If Serra Ascendant was more powerful than fastbond, then it should probably be on the ban list.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
Are you making an argument to ban Zur's Weirding? Because that seems to be the problem card in your example to me.
No. Just like how we don't ban Zuran Orb or Crucible of Worlds because it was used with Fastbond which enabled both of them. Serra Ascendant in my above example, enables Zur's Weirding because of the lifegain it provides while also being a naturally evasive body.
I feel like this thread is devolving into a "YOU DON'T KNOW MAGICS" on both sides of the argument (which frankly, it's upsetting when this happens -- people on this site most likely play magic).
I think that Serra Ascendant is a powerful turn 1-4 drop, or a good late game drop for any life gain focused decks, but look at the power level of other cards on the ban list.
All of them have the power to end a multiplayer game, accel a game on your end with resources (mostly being mana or card draw), stall a game out, or have insane etb or turn effects.
I can't see a card on that current list that is less powerful than Serra Ascendant, and I don't see SA anywhere near the power level of those cards. Realistically, I doubt it will ever join the banned ranks, as all it can do is gain you life and deplete one opponent's life. It'll put you at an advantage, but not at the level the other banned cards would.
Life is just another resource. Serra Ascendant increases that resource for you and decreases it for an opponent. Pair it up with other cards that care about Life as a resource and problems start to occur.
For example fastbond by itself isn't that dangerous, strong like Burgeoning and even costs you life to force more resources on the board, but not dangerous when it is simply alone. But when paired up with other cards that care about lands as a resource, it gained its spot on the banlist because of its sheer value and power. In fact fastbond was often utilized with lands and lifetotals as resources to gain infinite life, this infinite life could then be spent on other expenditures to further ones position in a game.
You're not suggesting that Fastbond is on the same power level as Serra Ascendant, are you? Or that Serra Ascendant is more powerful than Fastbond? (because I would greatly beg to differ on both issues)
If Serra Ascendant was more powerful than fastbond, then it should probably be on the ban list.
Let me show you and everyone here the banlist (minus silver border, ante and conspriacy cards). But one twist, I will add Serra Ascendant to the list.
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'm unsure every deck can just keep getting answers stuffed into it while the deckbuilder is being told "Well obviously you didn't put enough answers in your deck, you obviously didn't build your deck right."
I'm unsure every deck can just keep getting answers stuffed into it while the deckbuilder is being told "Well obviously you didn't put enough answers in your deck, you obviously didn't build your deck right."
If the person's deck doesn't have answers then it should have threats and Serra Ascendant just gets outclassed very quickly by most threats.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
Are you making an argument to ban Zur's Weirding? Because that seems to be the problem card in your example to me.
No. Just like how we don't ban Zuran Orb or Crucible of Worlds because it was used with Fastbond which enabled both of them. Serra Ascendant in my above example, enables Zur's Weirding because of the lifegain it provides while also being a naturally evasive body.
Serra's Ascendant "enables" Zur's Weirding just like many other lifegain cards do - Oloro, Honden of Cleansing Fire, etc. In fact, one could argue that Zur's Weirding "interacts poorly with the format" because the 40 life starting total more than doubles the amount you can pay into Weirding to lock your opponents out (38 rather than 18) while still staying alive. But that would be lame.
The fact is that the 40 life total affects card value/effectiveness. It makes Serra Ascendant stronger. It makes Sorin Markov stronger. It makes Zur's Weirding and shocklands less self-damaging.
It also makes every red burn spell weaker. It makes combat damage half as effective.
That's the nature of the format.
Another thing that goes along with the format is a minimalist banlist. Rather than getting trigger-happy with the banhammer (hello, Standard), the RC ensures there are as many cards as possible to execute your plan and to answer your opponents' plans. This in turn means that no one card can rise above and dominate every deck. There are answers to everything.
And frankly, Serra Ascendant is a pretty easy creature to answer.
I'm unsure every deck can just keep getting answers stuffed into it while the deckbuilder is being told "Well obviously you didn't put enough answers in your deck, you obviously didn't build your deck right."
If the person's deck doesn't have answers then it should have threats and Serra Ascendant just gets outclassed very quickly by most threats.
Oh really. Which threats again? And how fast do these "outclassing threats" come out again? Cause we are talking about a threat that hits as soon as turn 1 or even turn 0 if its Leyline of Anticipation + Lotus Petal. If a Serra Ascendant gets in 5 hits by the time your "outclassing threat" comes out to stop it, the ascendant has dealt 30 damage by itself.
I love how often people forget that Helm of the host is not a 9 mana card. Turn with a couple of mana rocks, you can not only cast helm but also equip it turn 3 or 4. It is also possible turn 2 with god hand or even turn 1 with a hand of infinity.
Turn 2 you will be swinging with two 6/6 flyers with lifelink. You will be going form 40 life to 52, then three bringing you form 52 (assuming you took no damage) to 70. Bringing a player to 29 life seems a lot further now., 94 life, 124, people are not dead.
Sure you can get a board wipe, but if you are not drawing into them what are you gonna do? Even killing the helm, you still have to deal with the ascendants they already have on field.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
Are you making an argument to ban Zur's Weirding? Because that seems to be the problem card in your example to me.
No. Just like how we don't ban Zuran Orb or Crucible of Worlds because it was used with Fastbond which enabled both of them. Serra Ascendant in my above example, enables Zur's Weirding because of the lifegain it provides while also being a naturally evasive body.
Serra's Ascendant "enables" Zur's Weirding just like many other lifegain cards do - Oloro, Honden of Cleansing Fire, etc. In fact, one could argue that Zur's Weirding "interacts poorly with the format" because the 40 life starting total more than doubles the amount you can pay into Weirding to lock your opponents out (38 rather than 18) while still staying alive. But that would be lame.
The fact is that the 40 life total affects card value/effectiveness. It makes Serra Ascendant stronger. It makes Sorin Markov stronger. It makes Zur's Weirding and shocklands less self-damaging.
It also makes every red burn spell weaker. It makes combat damage half as effective.
That's the nature of the format.
Another thing that goes along with the format is a minimalist banlist. Rather than getting trigger-happy with the banhammer (hello, Standard), the RC ensures there are as many cards as possible to execute your plan and to answer your opponents' plans. This in turn means that no one card can rise above and dominate every deck. There are answers to everything.
And frankly, Serra Ascendant is a pretty easy creature to answer.
Zur's Weirding is balanced out because of the nature of a mutliplayer format having more than one single opponent. Having to expend, at most 3x, life for suppressing 3 opponents is a lot more taxing than suppressing one opponent.
Trigger happy? Ah yeah, I'm sure you would want Smuggler's Copter, Felidar Guardian and Aetherworks Marvel unbanned. They were too strong for the format they were in and created an oppressive meta. R&D isn't infallible.
But if we want to consider the Rules Committee, they are extremely lax. More likely to unban a card than to ban one.
I can make arguments that Worldfire CAN be just as powerful as Yawgmoth's Bargain (in EDH, it can easily win you combo -- same with Biorhythm) and Tinker CAN be just as powerful as Limited Resources depending on your arsenal.
But I'm not comparing banned cards to other banned cards (and yes, some are more banned than others). I am comparing Serra Ascendant to the ranging sphere of the power level of current Banned Cards. And SA just doesn't reach the level of any of those cards.
I can make arguments that Worldfire CAN be just as powerful as Yawgmoth's Bargain (in EDH, it can easily win you combo -- same with Biorhythm) and Tinker CAN be just as powerful as Limited Resources depending on your arsenal.
But I'm not comparing banned cards to other banned cards (and yes, some are more banned than others). I am comparing Serra Ascendant to the ranging sphere of the power level of current Banned Cards. And SA just doesn't reach the level of any of those cards.
I wouldn't say "it doesn't reach the level of any of those cards", it reaches it in a different manner. Just like many of the already banned cards. Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary really isn't the same sort of threat or even level as a Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, but they are on the banlist for different reasons and reach that "level" in different ways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Backed by a counterspell, it survives through one removal spell before eating the next one.
If anyone dies to a turn one Serra Ascendant, they need to build a more interactive deck. And politic better.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Yet because Commander has 40 life starting, even 30 life would still keep it active, it suddenly is a really efficient creature for its cost. As in Commander its rarely if ever going to be "off", its more likely going to be a 6/6 Flying + Lifelink creature for just W which is frankly monstrous for its value. As the +5/+5 and flying benefit is normally meant to be a reward for reaching that state with a combination of lifegain cards.
Sure it eats some removal, maybe it doesn't though after one turn around the table. There is always the possibility on your next turn equip it with Lightning Greaves or even Swiftfoot Boots (based on your mana production) and now your opponents are scrambling in needing an AoE spell to deal with what amounts to a one-drop like Raging Goblin.
In my personal opinion, in interacts poorly with the life total of the format.
Explain this.
Because, honestly, I don’t find this to be true at all. I’ve played it, and played against it. It was a staple of early EDH. Not so much anymore. It’s a bomb in barely a handful of decks, and in others, it wastes a slot. It’s a terrible top-deck, unless you draw it within the first few turns, and even then, you need to drop it, equip it/protect it and then start chipping away at 3+ other players with a giant target on your head.
Again, I see far more terrible things pop up in the first few turns than this. By asking for it’s ban, you also must consider every card that provides advantage under specific circumstances, or cards that benefit from being played early. That would include Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Grim Monolith, LED, legal Moxen, Rituals, tutors, Reanimation spells, cheat spells, I mean, the list is freaking endless.
I find humor in the “Interacts poorly with the format lifetotal” descriptor. You need to maintain 75% of your lifetotal at all times for this to be a relevant threat at all times. I don’t know what games you play, but that isn’t exactly an easy task. I don’t like to use this line often, because it’s mostly not true and is a cop out, but better deckbuilding and threat assesment really goes a long way for situations like the above.
It still is a staple of the format.
Not a valid argument, same could be said about many many many cards in this format.
Many cards are bad as top decks but are included within the deck when you would want them as a non-top deck. Using your reason, Sol Ring is a terrible top deck, which it is, but its still included in the main deck. What actually constitutes as a "good" or "bad" top deck is highly variable of the state of the game. The only cards I can think of that tend to be a "good" top deck, is spells that affect multiple, such as Wrath of God.
An evasive 6/6 for W lifelinker can still good in the later stages of the game, however like I said previously, depends on the state of the game as it is highly variable.
Yes, like other cards that do this early. For example if you get a Sol Ring early and start building your board state quickly with cheap mana rocks and good equipment thanks to the ring's mana production, you have a target on your head. If you have ways to protect your artifact(s), you in your deckbuilding, have taken measures to do so.
Are you conveniently also forgetting that their tends to be politicking to lessen the the aggro you draw. For example making a temporary pact with one player not to attack them with your Serra Ascendant in exchange for them not removing it as you proceed to go after the other two players.
Doesn't excuse the threat it has in the first few turns.
No. It is not endless. You ban the most egregious offenders. You don't ban everything under the sun as that is nonsensical when making balance changes.
Conveniently you ignore the fact it has lifelink. If the ascendant hits, you gain 6 life, meaning you have raised the percentage effectively to around 80%. If you continue to keep doing this, you keep raising the effective percentage while not changing the actual value of "30+ life". If you have a moderately good amount of life, say 52 life, your opponents need to go through 23 life to bring you down to 29 Life in order for the ascendant to lose its power instead of your original amount of 40 and them needing to deal you 11 damage.
Is everyone in your playgroup hyper competitive and/or have packed 25% of their deck with answers? If not, chances are its not as hard as you make it sound.
Better deckbuilding only gets you so far. If a recurring problem is a Sol Ring pops up for example in the early turns, you need to reliably have the artifact removal in hand. Which puts the burden on the deckbuilder to include more answers to artifacts in general while possibly having weaker answers to other threats.
Threat assessment can also get tricky based on the board state that is developing as its not just the Serra Ascendant on the board, its what every other player is doing in addition. Game states are highly variable, even in the early game. You can have one where the rest of the table could be just putting lands and doing nothing else that turn. On the other extreme you have people ramping, casting mana rocks, playing stax cards, setting up combos, etc. However there are also the games where its a mix of the two as you have some players just tossing a land and saying "go" while you have opponents that are putting a large bullseye on their head as well as they rapid advance their boardstate and/or tutor for specific pieces.
You say that, but I have seen people lose that way because your deck is not 100% or even 50% likely to give you what you want, unless you are cheating or lucky or are just tutor heavy in which you have a point. As you only have, on average and excluding basic lands and rats and apostles, 1% chance to get what you want.
I have seen people lose because their deck just mana screwed or mana flooded them. I have seen people with answers in their deck draw everything else but the answers. You say "that person needs to reevalute their deck" while I say "You have no idea what you are talking about."
Again, no one is denying that Serra Ascendant has a high ceiling - it is a very efficient beater when you are above 29 life. It also has a very low floor. And it is inherently fragile. I find it hilarious that in this same thread there are several people saying they have cut it for not being good enough while others say they would never play it because it is too powerful. I play it in exactly one deck - Karlov of the Ghost Council; in most other decks, it's just not good enough.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Schrodinger's removal. The top cards of your opening hand, even every draw, is and isn't simultaneously what you desire. The only way to know for sure is if you have means to check the top card(s) OR to draw the top card(s).
Also you still have the possibility of:
A) Ramping and/or Mana Rocks
B) Mana Screw
C) Mana Flood
Basically: You may say you "should" but the cards don't always give you what you want unless you are either tutor heavy or cheating or even just lucky.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I think that Serra Ascendant is a powerful turn 1-4 drop, or a good late game drop for any life gain focused decks, but look at the power level of other cards on the ban list.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/banned-restricted
All of them have the power to end a multiplayer game, accel a game on your end with resources (mostly being mana or card draw), stall a game out, or have insane etb or turn effects.
I can't see a card on that current list that is less powerful than Serra Ascendant, and I don't see SA anywhere near the power level of those cards. Realistically, I doubt it will ever join the banned ranks, as all it can do is gain you life and deplete one opponent's life. It'll put you at an advantage, but not at the level the other banned cards would.
For example fastbond by itself isn't that dangerous, strong like Burgeoning and even costs you life to force more resources on the board, but not dangerous when it is simply alone. But when paired up with other cards that care about lands as a resource, it gained its spot on the banlist because of its sheer value and power. In fact fastbond was often utilized with lands and lifetotals as resources to gain infinite life, this infinite life could then be spent on other expenditures to further ones position in a game.
EDIT: For example, as what is a fairly basic synergistic combination in a 4-player match, you could do Serra Ascendant + Zur's Weirding to lock your opponents. Once together on the board, you can spend 2 life for each opponent to prevent them from drawing a card. On your turn, you enter combat, you swing into the most vulnerable player and gain 6 life and deal 6 damage to an opponent, 12 point life swing. If the opponent wishes to prevent you from furthering your board state, they have to pay 2 life and reduce their life total more. And then there also comes the whole matter of what is drawn by the opponents. If they are limited to X lands and the card they draw costs X+Y, you can let them have it as it is useless to them unless they can come up with enough mana to cast it for what remains in their hands. Your opponents would need creature removal OR enchantment removal to break-up the lock that they already had in hand, but since players play with their hands revealed because of Zur's Weirding you know exactly what they can do and they know what you can do. Meaning you have more control over what you allow them to draw and what you don't allow them to draw.
And this isn't even the most powerful way to lock opponents out of a game.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
You're not suggesting that Fastbond is on the same power level as Serra Ascendant, are you? Or that Serra Ascendant is more powerful than Fastbond? (because I would greatly beg to differ on both issues)
If Serra Ascendant was more powerful than fastbond, then it should probably be on the ban list.
You may notice something if you pay attention closely to my hypothetical questions, Like:
"is a Worldfire just as powerful as a Yawgmoth's Bargain?"
"Is Tinker just as powerful as a Limited Resources?"
If your answer is "no, but..." then you realize that the banned cards are banned for different reasons.
On phasing:
If the person's deck doesn't have answers then it should have threats and Serra Ascendant just gets outclassed very quickly by most threats.
The fact is that the 40 life total affects card value/effectiveness. It makes Serra Ascendant stronger. It makes Sorin Markov stronger. It makes Zur's Weirding and shocklands less self-damaging.
It also makes every red burn spell weaker. It makes combat damage half as effective.
That's the nature of the format.
Another thing that goes along with the format is a minimalist banlist. Rather than getting trigger-happy with the banhammer (hello, Standard), the RC ensures there are as many cards as possible to execute your plan and to answer your opponents' plans. This in turn means that no one card can rise above and dominate every deck. There are answers to everything.
And frankly, Serra Ascendant is a pretty easy creature to answer.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
turn 2 clcok
Plains, Sol ring, lotus petal, mana crypt Serra ascendant and Helm of the host.
That is 6 cards, you have an extra card in hand and will also draw. Also the lands could be any color really as teh lotus petal could be your white mana if need be.
if you are W/B. Swamp, Lotus Petal, Dark ritual, sol ring, Serra ascendant, helm of the host. Again another 6 cards out of 8, but a different way to get the mana needed.
Turn 2 you will be swinging with two 6/6 flyers with lifelink. You will be going form 40 life to 52, then three bringing you form 52 (assuming you took no damage) to 70. Bringing a player to 29 life seems a lot further now., 94 life, 124, people are not dead.
Sure you can get a board wipe, but if you are not drawing into them what are you gonna do? Even killing the helm, you still have to deal with the ascendants they already have on field.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Trigger happy? Ah yeah, I'm sure you would want Smuggler's Copter, Felidar Guardian and Aetherworks Marvel unbanned. They were too strong for the format they were in and created an oppressive meta. R&D isn't infallible.
But if we want to consider the Rules Committee, they are extremely lax. More likely to unban a card than to ban one.
But I'm not comparing banned cards to other banned cards (and yes, some are more banned than others). I am comparing Serra Ascendant to the ranging sphere of the power level of current Banned Cards. And SA just doesn't reach the level of any of those cards.
I wouldn't say "it doesn't reach the level of any of those cards", it reaches it in a different manner. Just like many of the already banned cards. Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary really isn't the same sort of threat or even level as a Erayo, Soratami Ascendant, but they are on the banlist for different reasons and reach that "level" in different ways.