Which card should be banned in EDH?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Sept. 4, 2013, 8:35 p.m. by SharuumNyan
Everyone has that one (or few) cards they hate in an EDH game. Mine is Serra Ascendant . A 6/6 with flying and lifelink on turn 1 is the stupidest thing ever. When I complain about it I always get the same response -"it's not like it's indestructible." Yeah, but who's going to be able to counter it on turn 1? Tinker can be easily countered, and that's banned.
What card/s makes you want to bang your head on the table?
You could argue that Seedborn Muse be banned, but it's more annoying to everyone else at the table than anything. I haven't played EDH enough to be able to say that card X should be banned, but I know some cards/commanders that are downright annoying.
September 4, 2013 8:49 p.m.
I think the ban list need not be any longer, especially since individual groups so freely ban things unofficially.
September 4, 2013 8:55 p.m.
miracleHat says... #5
Serra Ascendant is stupid and should be banned in edh and never should have been printed in the first place! that being said, i love running it against my friends and pissing them off with it!
September 4, 2013 9:11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #6
Honestly, the cards that can shuffle commanders into the deck reward "good stuff" decks, so i think those should be banned.
September 4, 2013 9:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
@SharuumNyan: Serra Ascendant is not really a problem in EDH.
@mstancea: Tuck effects are a legitimate interaction with the Commander rules. There's no real reason to ban them that isn't outweighed by the benefits to having them.
I happen to agree with r3v13w on this one.
September 4, 2013 9:30 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #8
I didn't say my opinion had sufficient reasons for support, but it's just as valid as any extra bans/unbans that casual groups make...
It's just my opinion, and that's all it boils down to... an opinion.
September 4, 2013 9:40 p.m.
My playgroup decided to soft-ban all the primordials, even the shitty one. Though the main offenders is not Sylvan Primordial, not by a long shot, but rather Dilluvian and Sepulcher. It has more to do with our playgroup in particular, but it got to the point where for the next 8 turns while resources got expended, the same exact few plays would be made. Dilluvian would come in, reanimate body double or sepulcher, thanks to reanimate spells, which would in turn reanimate other primordials, to cause a large chain reaction. Next someone would wipe the field and do it over again, so on and so forth. When you have five people playing, it becomes tedious and boring, so we decided as a whole to ban them. Gameplay as been a lot smoother with more variety as a result, as opposed to who can abuse the primordials first/best.
September 4, 2013 9:51 p.m.
smash10101 says... #10
what my playgroup does (started after I played a turn one ascendant) is we erataed cards like Serra Ascendant and Felidar Sovereign and their ilk to say "if you have 20 life more than your starting total" kind of like Chalice of Life Flip . That said, I am the only one who plays any of them (the ascendant got traded away after we made that rule, and the jury is still out on Rune-Tail, Kitsune Ascendant )
personally, I'd like to see Magister Sphinx , Sorin Markov and maybe Master of Cruelties banned. I know I won't play the master in my kaalia deck.
September 4, 2013 9:51 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
I mean, you're welcome to have an opinion, but threads like this benefit from reasoned arguments and general discussion more than "I think X because I do." Not trying to put you down or anything.
September 4, 2013 9:52 p.m.
smash10101 says... #12
also, while I don't think Sylvan Primordial is necessarily ban hammer worthy, he is super abused in my playgroup every now and then. combining him with Deadeye Navigator is just evil.
also mstancea, you could play french edh, where tucking results in the commander going to the command zone. THe rules in regular commander basically say that you can't permanently make it so you can't play the commander with nothing but lots and lots of mana. (Nevermore is ok)
September 4, 2013 9:57 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #14
But Epochalyptik, you just said Serra Ascendant wasn't a big deal without backing it up with any kind of reasoned argument. Just sayin'...
September 4, 2013 10:22 p.m.
Mostly I see a lot of people mentioning cards that they hate for personal reasons rather than cards that actually have a legitimate reason to be banned. I can get just as frustrated when people cast cards like Sylvan Primordial or Serra Ascendant as anyone else but that doesn't mean they deserve an official ban or even official errata (although playgroup preference with house bans/erratas are fine).
Banned cards should break the format not just be irritating.
September 4, 2013 10:26 p.m.
smash10101 says... #16
that's why I only mentioned cards that set life to 10, which I believe is format breaking., as well as Master of Cruelties , because he can be super broken with kaalia, who is a popular commander.
September 4, 2013 10:32 p.m.
killroy726 says... #17
In my play group we generally scale up the requirements for cards like Serra Ascendant for example its activated life total would be double (which would be 60 for ascendant) since we are using 40 life instead of 20
September 4, 2013 10:37 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
@SharuumNyan: Objectively speaking, Serra Ascendant is not a real problem. In a format full of combos, ramp, removal, and general goodstuff, a 6/6 lifelink flier for W is not so broken. I can understand it being hated in some casual circles, but it has a steep dropoff in power once you progress up the chain.
Kirtanian's argument is particularly relevant here. Yes, you can hate a card. No, that doesn't mean it should be banned. The banlist exists to make the format fairer for more people. It is not a tool for eliminating all the threats you don't like facing.
September 4, 2013 10:55 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #19
During the conceptualization of Serra Ascendant they didn't take EDH into account. It isn't just an annoyance in this format. It is broken. The way the card is used in EDH is not the way the card was intended to be used. More so than Tinker , which is an inconvenience card and not, in my opinion, broken in this format at all.
September 4, 2013 11:07 p.m.
smash10101 says... #20
may I remind people of this?
As for the ascendant, sure, it's super good, but only if you can cast it early. It's hard to get it out by turn 4 consistently, and if you can't deal with it by turn 4, then too bad, you should have some sort of removal in your deck. also, some decks can win by turn 4 (Hermit Druid , I'm looking at you)
@killroy726: I think that's a bit unfair. In my group we do linear erata so it would take 50 or more life e.g. 10 more life than your starting total. I think that works well because it's not like you can gain life twice as fast in EDH.
September 4, 2013 11:34 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #21
See, this is what I don't understand. Why is it okay to say "You should just deal with that Serra Ascendant or suck it up" but not "You should just have some kind of counter ready for that Tinker ". Isn't that hypocrisy?
September 4, 2013 11:41 p.m.
Because every color has access to some sort of removal in EDH. Not every color has things to stop Tinker
September 4, 2013 11:43 p.m.
Also, in response to OP, Blightsteel Colossus . While I haven't lost to it yet (I once played a kicked Rite of Replication the turn it came down), infect isn't fun in EDH, and he is quite touh to remove.
September 4, 2013 11:50 p.m.
smash10101 says... #24
my group just doesn't play anything with poison counters in edh to avoid the argument of 15 or 20 poison counters to loose (almost no one votes 10). the reason serra ascendant is ok and tinker is not is because, like goody said, every color has some way to easily kill a serra ascendant, as well as blocking the creature, that while strong, still takes 7 hits to kill rather than a tinker, which pretty much only blue can counter (yes, I know there are counterspells in other colors, not they're all really soft counters) puts an indestructible one hit kill into play
September 4, 2013 11:55 p.m.
CriticalZephyr says... #25
@SharuumNyan The reason that Tinker is so much worse, among other things, is because having a Blightsteel Colossus on turn three is a little scarier than a 6/6 flying lifelink on turn one. 11/11 Indestructible, trample, infect > 6/6 flying, lifelink.
September 5, 2013 12:26 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #26
On the subject of infect...it should be banned from all formats. IMHO infect broke Magic. ALL of Magic. It shouldn't even be a thing.
September 5, 2013 12:45 a.m.
I feel like every time I see Contamination hit the table most people scoop. If I had to pick one, I pick that one.
September 5, 2013 12:54 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
I'm sorry, but I can't take your argument seriously if you tell me Serra Ascendant is a bigger threat than Tinker .
September 5, 2013 1:10 a.m.
smash10101 says... #29
yeah, but i will go away on it's own, and it doesn't always completely neuter everyone. artifact lands still produce colored, and Spine of Ish Sah works. it's not quite like Donate ing a Celestial Dawn to someone who can't produce white, though it is only one card, not a combo.
September 5, 2013 1:12 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #30
The level of the threat doesn't matter if the argument is "you should just do something to remove/counter it"
September 5, 2013 1:13 a.m.
smash10101 says... #31
it does matter though, because with the ascendant, you have 8 turns to do something about it and many, many ways to get rid of it. tinker is a way to play a one hit, indestructible killer from your library.
September 5, 2013 1:18 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
Beyond that, Tinker is an enormous combo enabler. It doesn't just find Blightsteel Colossus all the time.
September 5, 2013 1:21 a.m.
smash10101 says... #33
ok, fine, Krark-Clan Ironworks and Ashnod's Altar are good too
September 5, 2013 1:24 a.m.
Internet_the_Explorer says... #34
I agree with Epoch and Kirtanian with that just because you dislike a card because it killed you once doesnt mean it should be banned. I feel that the cards that break the format have already been banned.
SharuumNyan, Its not hypocracy, Tinker is broken and Serra Ascendant is not. So the latter is a card that is good and may do damage but it the large scheme of things, isnt that good relevant to ramp and pump and combos. the former breaks games
September 5, 2013 1:32 a.m.
Serra Ascendant
, Consecrated Sphinx
, and most of the cards that you win if you life total is a certain number of higher should be banned.
Locally we ban Magister Sphinx
and whatever else makes life totals 10 and other things that Eggs the game and stall it out, like, Warp World
.
September 5, 2013 1:44 a.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #36
Surprised Felidar Sovereign hasn't come into this conversation. Even a little lifegain to maintain your life (Extort, anyone?) and you win.
September 5, 2013 3:59 a.m.
I've only been playing recently, but I've found that in EDH the sooner you get your bombs on the field the better. If you take Blightsteel Colossus
, in order to remove him you need some sort of bounce or exile effect in your deck. If you don't, you're screwed. But that doesn't make him ban-able (my local play group doesn't use any cards with Infect, so this isn't a problem for us). I understand that Serra Ascendant
is a problematic card for a turn 1 play, but so is Path to Exile
or Swords to Plowshares
. There are probably 50+ cards that can effectively deal with Serra Ascendant
while Tinker
can only effectively be dealt with by counterspells. Also don't forget that you're playing with a 100 card deck, and you'll need to get Serra Ascendant
in your opening hand in order for her to wreck the game. The odds aren't in your favor there. Just my 2-cents on the current debate.
September 5, 2013 4:20 a.m.
killroy726 says... #38
@smash10101 i was just generalizing its not the exact number I just forget off the top of my head
September 5, 2013 7:20 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #39
Epochalyptik, (firstly, sorry for the late reply) I was just making the argument that what we "think" should be banned is an offensive question to me, since my playgroup would be pretty keen to banning everything I like. My opinion is that wanting this card to be banned or that card to be banned is a form of bad sportsmanship, and a good sport would build in response to threat instead of responding with a complaint.
Albeit, my method wasn't the best... but "live and learn".
September 5, 2013 12:31 p.m.
I think someone should start a Survivor: EDH challenge. In this challenge, the actual rules of EDH won't be that important - just like actually having physical survival skills kinda doesn't matter in "Survivor". Everyone can bring a deck and just for flavor they can all engage in a few rounds of EDH. Rather than awarding points based on cards played or damage dealt or combos achieved (or stopped), people will be elliminated by popular vote. Then another round of games can be "played" followed by another vote. In the end, the last 3 decks can face each other off with the winner being determined by the votes of those who lost already.
The real action important for determining winners will be an intense and contrived social drama where people form alliances and gang up on each other and talk about each other in secret. This will all happen in an office cubical complex where each "player" will be assigned their own cubicle, allowed access to the internet, and will have to make sure to secure their cards and decks against theft. A player whose deck is stolen will automatically lose and be kicked off the show. The most important event determining the fate of the "players" during every episode will actually be, "Who goes to lunch with who and what do they talk about at lunch?"
September 5, 2013 6:13 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #41
r3v13w - it's not far off from some of the actual EDH games I've played. lol!
September 5, 2013 8 p.m.
I have seen Felidar Sovereign played at least a dozen times (one person in my playgroup tossed it into her deck...well, just because, I guess). I have never seen it win a game.
By the time it comes into play pretty much every opponent has a way to kill it. There are a lot of turns before "your next upkeep".
Either way, my group doesn't do local bans. If you play a Magister Sphinx , you can expect to lose, and you can probably expect to lose the next game too (even if you're playing a different deck). In EDH, some cards have such huge effects that they guarantee you'll lose, and that's different than any other form of Magic. I like that way of managing problem cards much more than saying "you can't play that!"
September 6, 2013 10:14 a.m.
Bobgalarneau says... #43
@Barandis i realy like this way of regulating those huge cards when they are played. "You sure you wanna play land destruction? You know there will be consequences if you do right?" I realy think that is the best way to deal with troublesome cards and stuborn players. In my group there is generaly a booster to win for every game, and sure you can make an easy win with some abusive combo cards... But be aware that it will probably be your only win of the night as the group will team up on you.
I realy don't think there should be more ban. Maybe Avacyn, Angel of Hope because i have never seen a game been lost after it's resolved, but it does not break the format as other cards on the ban list did...
September 6, 2013 10:30 a.m.
the3rdH0kage says... #44
Avacyn, Angel of Hope is a great card, there is no doubting that. and in Standard you get an Avacyn out, with the new Legend Rule you will probably win the game. But in EDH, there are waaaay more ways to hit her with -1/-1 counters. So Avacyn really isn't that big of problem, she just requires a answer soon. BTW I run a Kaalia deck and it's awesome tossing down a Master of Cruelties or some other baddie.
September 6, 2013 11:50 a.m.
smash10101 says... #45
@the3rdH0kage: I agree that Avacyn, Angel of Hope is great, but killable in EDH. Most people run some sort of exile, tuck/bounce, or -x/-x effect so they can deal with indestructible creatures. Last time someone played her we were all worried about how to deal with it because no one had a response and the guy with her had a huge token army and tons of life (Trostani, Selesnya's Voice deck). My response was to play Clone with a Palisade Giant on the field. Needless to say, I did eventually win, but not until after loosing my clone (can't remember how). Also, I personally think Master of Cruelties is cheating and refuse to play him in my kaalia deck. If I played against someone who refused to take it out of their deck I would take a leaf out of Barandis's book and kill you first every time. Half of my decks don't bother with playing blockers.
September 6, 2013 3:43 p.m.
I think that cheating is defined by the official EDH rulings and if I had Master of Cruelties played on me I would add blockers to my deck (oh wait - I already have blockers in most of them).
I think it is on me to respond to other peoples' decks and to build for the meta I play in. I don't see myself as having a position appropriate for enforcing an opinion I have about a certain card, combo, or archetype and I would consider continuous singling out of another player to be rude and unsportsmanlike. However, building to respond to a specific card, combo, or archetype - and playing aggressively / focusing removal and answer towards certain cards, combos, or archetypes just seem like good MTG moves to me.
September 6, 2013 7:48 p.m.
the3rdH0kage says... #47
smash10101 - I would agree with you about Master of Cruelties, but when you cheat him out with Kaalia, his affect doesn't trigger. So it really isn't that bad.
September 7, 2013 2:24 a.m.
My group tends to deal with cards like that the same way Barandis mentioned his group does. If you play cards that irritate people you will get hated off the table very quickly. Sometimes it doesn't work right then or even save that particular game but people who land Felidar Sovereign one game won't find their life total over 40 in subsequent games.
Once I had player focusing his land destruction on me one game when I was already pretty mana screwed. I lost that game handily but the next game I pulled out my Reaper King deck for fun. How many lands do you think he saw after turn 5? Not many because I was destroying them far faster than he could play them.
Also, if you ever try to play an Arcum Dagsson deck in my playgroup, you can pretty much bet your commander, artifact lands, Ornithopter and Lightning Greaves won't survive a single hand if they even make it to the table.
I don't personally use any in-house bans with my playgroup and, in fact, we often allow people to play with cards that have been banned as long as they don't violate the spirit of the game. For example: We will allow you to have a Primeval Titan in your deck if you search for basic lands with it or Kokusho in your Kaalia deck if you aren't running it as a reanimator deck.
That was all to say: If your playgroup insists on using douche-baggery to win, find some new people to play with that you can enjoy playing against or take it as a challenge, step up your game and work on composing decks that can handle more situations. I promise it will be more fun either way.
September 7, 2013 11:45 a.m.
smash10101 says... #49
@the3rdH0kage: That's not true. His effect triggers when he is declared as no blockers, and the can only attack alone thing is ignored.
@r3v13w: Board wipes are common enough in EDH that I often see one played and then Kaalia swings before I can play anything. It's almost as bad as the Wrath of God -Biorhythm combo
September 7, 2013 1:22 p.m.
the3rdH0kage says... #50
Are you sure about that, we had that problem today and a level 1 judge said that because he isn't declared as an attacker he is put out attacking that it doesn't drain the life total.
CardMinnow says... #2
One of the groups I play with has banned Sylvan Primordial , but they also are thinking about un-banning Primeval Titan , because it is not AS bad. Serra Ascendant is a decent choice, but he is really only that good if you find him before turn 6 or 7, and even before that, he can be killed by anybody playing black. On the other hand the primordial is just BRUTAL all the time.
September 4, 2013 8:42 p.m.