Enchanter's Bane

Combos Browse all Suggest

Legality

Format Legality
1v1 Commander Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal
Commander: Rule 0 Legal
Custom Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Highlander Legal
Legacy Legal
Leviathan Legal
Limited Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Tiny Leaders Legal
Vintage Legal

Enchanter's Bane

Enchantment

At the beginning of your end step, target enchantment deals damage equal to its converted mana cost to its controller unless that player sacrifices it.

DemonDragonJ on How is Camaraderie a Bend?

3 months ago

TypicalTimmy, TheOfficialCreator, I enjoy EDH very much, but I do not want one format to warp the entire game, as that would not be fair to every other format. For example, I can accept Enchanter's Bane, as that is a way for red decks to punish enchantments without actually destroying them, but not Feed the Swarm, as I feel that that simply is too different from what black has done, before. I think that Mire in Misery and Extract the Truth are acceptable, however, because they allow a player to choose which enchantment that they lose.

Optimator on You break it you buy it.

3 months ago

Also, consider Chaos Warp and Feed the Swarm. Some of the very few ways a Rakdos deck can reliably remove enchantments, other than running colorless stuff like All Is Dust and Oblivion Stone. Wild Magic Surge seems okay. Definitely not a bad card--it can destroy problem lands too.

Spells like Mire in Misery, Pharika's Libation, and Extract the Truth can be unreliable. Sometimes they're good though.

Enchanter's Bane I think is a bit underrated. Not sure it fits the deck but I just remembered it. It keeps working every turn.

TheoryCrafter on Blood Moon Debate

7 months ago

Personally I see little difference between playing Blood Moon and dropping a board wipe on an opponent whose topdecking. You win a war by depriving your opponent of resources.

Not to mention we're approaching 30,000 cards with different names and we have the ability to purchase online. There's no reason why you can't adapt your deck(s) to turn your opponent's strengths against him. That includes, but not limited to, restricting your nonbasic lands to ones that can produce red mana, adding creatures with Mountainwalk, and playing cards such as Conversion, Enchanter's Bane and Mind Bend.

In Casual there's no reason ANYTHING should be banned.

patmurphy1986 on Lathliss Commander

8 months ago

Ok here is my take on the budget side. TLDR: Land total and Ramp increased. A lot of subpar removal taken out, and better ones put in. Some cheaper dragons/shapeshifters added to smooth out curve and provide cheap dragon drops for commander ability. Most importantly is added some value for getting extra dragons from cards, either by creating tokens or playing them for free from hand/deck. Added in 3 additional wincons similar to Terror of the Peaks to make it easier to win just by populating board and swinging in. Note that the wincons also can serve as creature removal, which is why so many of the outs are instant/sorcery removals

Wuzibo on Questioning the Iona Banning

8 months ago

ZendikariWol

Any removal spell that can give your opponent that same permanent back for free, or an eldrazi titan for free, is not good or efficient. Even if it is successful, it goes back into their library, where they can just draw it again and put it back out, or tutor it out. I have chaos warped leyline of the void only for it to come right back out.

Enchanter's Bane is also not removal, and it at best puts the leyline player on a 10 turn clock. the RIP player will be on a 20 turn clock. That's assuming they don't have any lifegain, which they probably do because they're playing white, and they have plenty of ways to respond to an enchantment like that, so they could kill it before it becomes a problem to them. They start with 40 life. Having to pay 2 per turn cycle to keep me locked down isn't so bad. It's not a bad card, but it doesn't do what red needs, which is get rid of the enchantment. It's not an answer to enchantments. It's a tax on an enchantment. If they can pay the tax, it doesn't really do anything. They can also just get rid of the thing causing the problem for them/taxing them. You can't just Generous Gift a Disenchant. So, really, the options available to red to deal with enchantment based hate pieces are only colorless.

Chaos Warp and Enchanter's Bane are efficient? Compared to what? 2 or 4 extra mana to exile something as opposed to just putting it back in their library and potentially giving them something for free is more efficient. It's commander. There's usually so much mana flying around, you need good effects, not cheap effects. Efficiency is important, but, it actually being a solution to the problem and not just a bandaid is important too. Beast Within, Generous Gift and Anguished Unmaking are more efficient for the same cost as chaos warp. Seal of Cleansing is more efficient in the same card type and for the same cost as Enchanter's Bane. i can't run any of those in mono R, though. Introduction to Annihilation is more efficient since it actually gets rid of it permanently. Destroying something is efficient at about 3 mana. Exiling it is definitely efficient at that level, and is maybe efficient at 5 mana. Shuffling it back into their deck would be efficient at like, 2 or 1 mana, but not at 3. For three mana, it needs to be destroying it. On top of that, it gives them a permanent- and not a generic 3/3 - so it should be cheaper if it was "efficient". Efficiency is effect over cost, not just cost. If it was just cost, Shock would be as efficient as Lightning Bolt.

Snap157

I'm fine with silver bullets. They're good for the format. People should have to build around them. That's why i didn't like the rule change where people couldn't lose access to their commanders by having them shuffled away. That was a silver bullet to people who built a deck overly dependent on the commander. Voltron - the archetype built around commander damage - can build around this by just including some other creatures in the deck and throwing all their voltron equipments on them and winning with regular damage in the event their commander got Condemned or Chaos Warped. Yisan can play around Stranglehold even without removing it by just being a good green deck in the traditional sense, having strong creatures and the ramp to cast them. I build around "everything" to the degree it's possible. My daretti deck could play around graveyard hate by just being a good artifact deck in general. Get some ramp, throw Winter Orb Vedalken Orrery and Unwinding Clock out and just cast stuff on their turns to keep growing your board. Kaalia functioned without Kaalia because i played in a pod with marath who could blow her up in response to me trying to equip her. So I ran enough ramp to just hardcast everything and "Angel, Demon, and Dragon Tribal" is good enough on its own.

Iona is a silver bullet, yes. She's not "insta lose" though. You could still hit her with anything colorless. Her + painter's servant is actually "Insta lose".

fadelightningmm

Yeah that's exactly it. In 2012, this ban would have made sense. Now it just doesn't. There's so much more to do in magic now. There's so many more answers. I know people hate on them, but Scour from Existence and Introduction to Annihilation are two of the most important cards ever released for this format because they now give exile type removal of any permanent to all the colors. It is watering down the color pie a little bit, but, they're expensive enough it doesn't really detract from white. They still get to do it for much cheaper. They're not really better options than most other things, but, to colors that don't have access to those effects, it's huge. It gave every color a way to deal with problematic indestructible stuff, and a way to deal with problematic things that keep coming back.

ZendikariWol on Questioning the Iona Banning

8 months ago

The difference between Iona and other hate pieces is that a monocolor player would need to make major deckbuilding concessions to fuck with Iona- that is, playing colorless removal, which is pretty much always very bad to play.

With other hate pieces, even a monocolor player need only put on-color removal in their deck: conventional, efficient removal. Most people are not going to run colorless removal because it's dreadfully inefficienct, which leaves those players with no way to interact with Iona.

There aren't many mono-red answers to enchantments, except Chaos Warp and Enchanter's Bane, off the top of my head, but they exist and are reasonably efficient cards that will be useful in a normal game, even if your opponent isn't hating you out. Not so for colorless answers to Iona.

Wuzibo on Questioning the Iona Banning

8 months ago

plakjekaas

If chaos warp counts as enchantment removal for red, Scour from Existence and Introduction to Annihilation are colorless creatuere removal, so Iona doesn't need a ban. You and the RC are simply ignoring those cards which apparently aren't worth running to deal with a card that they say Single-handedly shuts down the entire deck.

I ignored the part where she can be a commander because she's trash as a commander. It doesn't matter that she can be your commander. She is a lot less oppressive as a commander because then she has to be hardcast. That's why i was ignoring it. It's ridiculous. There's also plenty of enchantment and just general recurrence to bring leyline back.

On top of that, Mycosynth doesn't go away after you kill her. She can come back and will still have no effect. There's plenty of artifact recurral so you can get nevinnyrals or O-stone back. Or put a counter on your o-stone so o-stone doesnt die. Eventually you will tax iona out of existence. She's very expensive when she's a commander, unlike the potentially free leyline. Blow up their rocks and she can't hit the field. After an o-stone, you say she's coming back, but o stone kills their rocks too, so is she actually?

If "it causes an unfun time" is reason to ban something, then stax, land destruction, Grand arbiter augustin the 4th, and sen triplets should be banned too.

Also, at no point did i say that leyline locked me out from playing the game or winning. The deck was more than capable of winning with leyline out. Just like a mono-colored deck is more than capable of winning with iona out. Leyline just locked me out of playing the deck with its main strategy, in the same way as Iona does.

Your argument seems to be "Mono red has answers to Leyline and RIP, therefore, they aren't a problem." So I am saying "Mono-colored has answers to Iona, therefore, she is not a problem." I ask a question, you answer, I show why that answer is no good. Thats how a socratic dialogue works.

I essentially asked "what is "banworthy" that makes iona banned?" and then, when someone gave me a response, I showed why that was no good pointing out counterexamples which would also be banworthy. This is like when meno gave socrates a definition for virtue that was "rule over human beings", which meant it would be virtuous for slaves to rule over their masters, something which meno knew he couldn't justify. In these situations, you give an answer, I give a counterexample, and then you have to justify the counterexamples in a way which does not also justify the example. If you can't, you have to cede that your response is invalid or the conversation is over because you're not rational.

The whole "like a toddler" thing gets you banned from the thread. This is a game. The rules of games are supposed to be enforced fairly. In boxing, for instance, you can't add weight to your gloves because that lets you hit harder. So one boxer uses weighted handwraps and tapes a small heavy steel plated lead disk to his palms to add weight to his hands. The other boxer sees this, calls it out to the ref, and the ref does nothing because "that's weight in the glove, not a weighted glove". So the guy returns to his corner, dumps sand in his gloves for weight and tapes them up so it doesn't run out, and then gets DQ'd. Then he says "this is bullshit, the rules aren't being applied fairly/evenly." They would be absolutely right. I'm doing that. That's not childish. That is clearly delineating the rules, sticking to them, and expecting others to stick to them. Contrast this with what you and the committee are doing by just saying, "no that's different because 'Reasons'." But not being able to give a good reason. To the child, you could explain "no you got your toy taken away because you misbehaved. Your friend did not misbehave, so he should not have his toy taken away." This is not the situation with Iona and Leyline. A better "child with a toy" analogy would be two children who get into a fight but only one child being punished by having his toy taken away. Leyline can do the same things as iona, so if one gets banned for the things it can do, both should be banned. If the argument is that leyline doesn't need a ban because there are responses to it, well, there are responses to Iona too, so Iona does not need a ban.

The only valid reason is the painter's servant unbanning. Thats it. You're wrong for saying anything else, and so was the rules committee. You're contributing nothing to the discussion. The people parroting "Because painter's servant was unbanned." Are doing more for the conversation than you because at least they can justify their comment.

Fritzn I feel that. I kind of did the same thing in reverse. I started running Jester's Cap with copy effects and just banned RIP and Leyline myself, along with everyone else's wincons until they said they'd stop running RIP and Leyline if I took out cap. I like that idea, but i'd like it more in the opposite direction, where there is a small banlist and players are free to add to it in the form of a "house banlist".

fadelightningmm I've chaos warped a leyline only for the person to topdeck leyline and put it right back out. I haven't run it since they changed the rules around it so it doesn't shuffle commanders away anymore. It burned me too many times to be considered valid, and shuffling commanders away was the only thing it really had going for it after that. That was around the time they released Scour from Existence and thats just better so i slotted that in instead, but I understand what you're saying. There's still the argument that if i can do that, then the mono-colored player can use Scour or Introduction to Annihilation to deal with iona, but i guess that's different because "reasons". Enchanter's Bane also isn't really removal. That's like calling Smokestack removal. It can remove stuff, sure, but it might not be any time soon.

I agree completely with it being because of Painter's Servant. I like that answer, since it's the only one that makes sense. I just wish they would have said that instead something that also justifies banning so many other cards. The effect, the rule change would be no different, but i wouldn't mind it.

Gleeock

Thanks, man! Me too.

fadelightningmm on Questioning the Iona Banning

8 months ago

Chaos Warp and Enchanter's Bane exist for red enchantment removal

However, I do recognize what your real issue is. I personally believe that Iona died for the sins of Painter's Servant. If the banning/unbanning wasn’t the same announcement they were within an announcement of each other. At the time servant Iona combos were widely feared so in an attempt to open up new place space they unbanned servant at the cost of banning iona who in my circles was on the decline in popularity.

In addition, this feels like the type of banning that the RC uses as a play pattern litmus. “We don’t like X play style therefore to encourage others not to do X we will get rid of Y”

Load more
Have (1) metalmagic
Want (1) MarshCasualty