|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Masters Edition IV||Rare|
|International Collector's Edition||Rare|
|Limited Edition Beta||Rare|
|Limited Edition Alpha||Rare|
Combos Browse all
Players skip their untap steps.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Stasis unless you pay .
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
1 week ago
Grim Monolith and Transmute Artifact both seem like strong includes if you're not concerned about their price tag. Dramatic Reversal seems good with more mana rocks. Teferi, Temporal Archmage works alongside Tezzeret to help you play even with stax effects out, and it enables you to play Stasis as well.
2 weeks ago
nvc73, this deck doesn't make that much sense without Stasis. Winter Orb isn't that difficult to play against, because it allows the opponent to untap one land per turn and save their lands up for spells. Sure, Iron Maiden isn't bad because it's a variation of Black Vise, but this deck could be so much better. Winter Orb is just a terrible version of Stasis, so why not use Stasis? Then, replace your Iron Maidens with Black Vise. If you make these changes I feel like you'll have a much better deck that can slowly squeeze the life out of your opponent over time.
2 weeks ago
I would like to remind you that such a banlist would also unban quite a few cards. Unbanning these cards would mean that now players could do new things that were unavailable to players because, with the prevalence of hyper efficient tutors and ramp, those were considered oppressive cards by the RC.
The following is a list of those cards:
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Leovold, Emissary of Trest
Prophet of Kruphix
Sway of the Stars
If you think any of these fall into one of my mentioned categories, or if you think I should create a new category in my proposed banlist because of any of these cards, let me know.
robbnoble, you say that taking away the best ramp makes the big, clunky creatures no longer viable. But should they remain unbanned and be abused for other purposes that can quickly lock out a game? In fact, there are many, many other cards that ramp. So it's not even true that banning the best ramp makes them no longer viable.
You say that playing against similar-strength decks is easy. If you go to a convention or some gathering and want to sit down to play a game of commander with 3 strangers, how exactly would you plan to ensure that everyone is playing a similar strength of deck as you? To me, that seems like a logistical nightmare. Since 99% of people want to win with their deck, everyone would play down their deck, no?
I believe a banlist is like a speed limit on the road. Yes, for many people, it sucks. But for everyone, it is a safety measure that the world would be a worse place without.
enpc and robbnoble, I agree that there are many different ideas of what commander should be like. So between the divide between the cEDH players and the more casual players, one group is going to have to adopt the "change the banlist to fit your playgroup" model. Which group would have an easier doing that? I believe it is much easier to take cards off a banlist in a group than it is to add them. Allow me to explain:
If a player is doing something undesirable to a playgroup with a card, they will feel singled out if the group motions to ban that card. Why is it that I can't do X, but that guy can do Y. Banning cards based on experience will only lead to banning players.
If a playgroup thinks a particular banned card could be alright, then they can unban it. In fact, they can adopt a position that its only unbanned for a certain amount of time, after which it will be banned again. This allows them to see if they want to permanently unban it in their group.
Not only is 2 more effective and more possible, it's also better for a playgroup's growth. As if that were not good enough, it also means that players won't be surprised with an encounter with stronger decks unless they have agreed to it beforehand.
enpc, You believe that without fast mana and hyper-efficient tutors, that the best decks will be sultai/bant control/goodstuff decks, but I just can't see that being the case. Currently, aggro decks cannot compete with the control/combo decks in general, and losing fast mana and tutors would hurt aggro less than control/combo. What I see happening is that aggro decks become more viable in the format, probably close to a balance with control and combo decks.
robbnoble, you ask why anyone should ruin a format for someone else when it's not necessary. That is exactly my point! What ruins a format more: a player building a deck only to have it get consistently beaten by strangers who spent lots of money to beat them with strategies that contradict the inherent design restrictions or a player who is in a group of players who all wish to play at a stronger level but for some reason don't actually motion to do so? I think the choice is obvious.
Chandrian, more than believing a banlist can facilitate a high occurence of fun games, I believe that a lack of a banlist (or a poor one) can ensure a higher percentage of unfun games for the majority of players.
You say that people have different perspectives on commander, and because of that, no banlist will ensure games will always be fun for everyone. Take a look at the games that were unbalanced that you've played, and tell me what you think the reasons for the lack of fun were. Were they not a combination of deck value discrepancies, hyper-consistency due to efficient tutoring, destroying each opponent's ability to produce mana, and/or the production of obscene amounts very early on in the games?
I agree that politics matter, but not when there's a Stasis lock out on turn 2. That's why I believe my proposed banlist would empower politics to matter in more games.
Epochalyptik, I completely agree with your first point. However, what would be stopping you from discussing with your playgroup to remove the cards from the banlist that your group would like to play with? According to my experience in multiple LGS stores over years, I have found that people wanting to have a highly competitive experience to be a minority. Should the majority of players be subjected to a banlist that doesn't represent their views? Also, for those that would then be unrepresented in the banlist choices, would it not be easier for them to unbanned cards than it would be for a playgroup to ban cards?
I would argue that saying the solution of resolving power differences with individuals is best in such a situation is a symptom of poor banlist management. If the banlist were better, those discussions would not be necessary.
Well, I did also include cheap ramp in the banlist, but I can respond to your final statement with regards to efficient removal. Nothing about the design of the format deals with removal. However, the format does have aspects of its design related to consistency. These aspects are exactly why tutoring is unique in its effect compared to cheap ramp and efficient removal; tutoring becomes much more powerful in a format where it can easily circumvent the only/biggest design restriction.
2 weeks ago
In light of the recent MTGO Commander Banlist announcement, I thought to ask everyone what the banlist would look like if they made it.
The following proposed banlist is my opinion of what the banlist should look like. You will see 3 criteria for what makes a card unfit for the format, and a list of what cards could be banned based on them:
Proposed banlist Show
First off, the easiest thing to tackle is the fact that simple bans can be made to ensure the format is not a pay-to-win game, in order to make the format more inviting AND ensure that the winner isn't always the one with the most money:
- The ABUR Duals (Tundra, Underground Sea, Badlands , Taiga, Savannah, Scrubland, Volcanic Island, Bayou, Plateau, and Tropical Island)
- The Power 10 (Black Lotus, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall, Mox Sapphire, Mox Jet, Mox Ruby, Mox Pearl, Mox Emerald, Timetwister, and Library of Alexandria)
- Candelabra of Tawnos
- Capture of Jingzhou
- Gaea's Cradle
- Gauntlet of Might
- Grim Tutor
- Imperial Recruiter
- Imperial Seal
- Mana Drain
- Mishra's Workshop
- Ravages of War
- The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
- Time Vault
Next, what's the point of having the format be 100-card singleton if we can just jam the best tutors and obscene card drawing engines into every deck? I'd ban those cards to ensure the game can't become stale through consistency:
- Altar of Bone
- Arcum Dagsson
- Birthing Pod
- Captain Sisay
- Defense of the Heart
- Demonic Tutor
- Diabolic Intent
- Edric, Spymaster of Trest
- Eladamri's Call
- Enlightened Tutor
- Fauna Shaman
- Gifts Ungiven
- Green Sun's Zenith
- Hermit Druid
- Merchant Scroll
- Mystical Tutor
- Oath of Druids
- Personal Tutor
- Sterling Grove
- Survival of the Fittest
- Sylvan Tutor
- Trade Secrets
- Traverse the Ulvenwald
- Vampiric Tutor
- Worldly Tutor
- Yawgmoth's Bargain
- Yisan, the Wanderer Bard
- Zur the Enchanter
Lastly, the elephant in the room. According to a survey conducted by MaRo, people said that the most unfun event for them in a game of magic is mana denial. Being denied mana production or being unfairly out-ramped is a core part of games that are the opposite of fun:
- Braids, Cabal Minion
- Limited Resources
- Mana Crypt
- Mana Vault
- Mana Vortex
- Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
- Sol Ring
- Static Orb
- Tangle Wire
- Tolarian Academy
- Winter Orb
And that's it!
I'm anticipating a few arguments to this proposed banlist.
Firstly, I'm sure that many would argue that such a banlist would allow many combos to run rampant through commander, to which I would say, with what tutors? Combos that previously didn't exist truly now exist, but without tutors to back them up, it will be difficult to assemble combos.
Some will say that Stax decks are no longer viable, to which I respond with the question: If stax and MLD are objectively the most effective way to ensure opponents don't enjoy the game, what argument could there possibly be for their inclusion?
Lastly, many opponents of this proposed banlist will probably argue that such a banlist is far too long to be healthy. I agree that a shorter banlist would be better, so I am interested to hear which specific examples aren't as bad of violators of the problems I mentioned for each section.
2 weeks ago
TheRealClyde If Derevi makes you cry you should play aginast Teferi, Temporal Archmage stax, GAAIV stax, or Brago, King Eternal stax these are all much more oppressive. Deveri is harder to cast and his ability breaks parity worse than the higher tier stax decks.
Brago abuses ETB effects like Rishadan Brigand in addition to the usual stax pieces this will lock opponents out.
3 weeks ago
Ah, the memories I have with my own Stasis deck. Yours is a thing a beauty. makes me want to rebuild mine.
Anyways, on to the projected cuts. Definitely 1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor. He's the end game, but not a combo piece. Hell, maybe 2 Jaces, but that might not be ideal.
Now that we have 3 - 4 slots open, I firmly believe the last 4 slots depend on whether you value digging for combo pieces more, or having answers more. This is a bit harder.
Or you can do a combination or both. it's really up to your play style. Sorry my feedback was kind of long-ish. Hopefully I helped though! Best of luck to you. You make me want to build mine again :D
3 weeks ago
As Foretold is amazing in my deck Tipping the scale! It allows me to play my spells even tho im all tapped out to Stasis. Possible to drop turn 2 with Ancient Tomb. It lets me lock down with Forsaken City without worrying about saving up mana.
Playtesting shows that its a strategy that stays. Now im gonna update my original deck, and thought i would gather suggestions on what to take out for the 8 new cards before i publish, to see if i oversaw something..
Suggest away, 8 cards should go.
SCORE: 289 | 342 COMMENTS | 41961 VIEWS | IN 61 FOLDERS
3 weeks ago
ugh sorry to double comment but just found this gem- Stasis. Might be good for stalling those first few turns.