I'm trying to get Maelstrom Wanderer banned
Commander Deck Help forum
Posted on Sept. 26, 2015, 11:38 a.m. by MagicalHacker
Will this work?
MagicalHacker - Maelstrom Wanderer Playtest
Commander / EDH
SCORE: 12 | 8 COMMENTS | 890 VIEWS
MagicalHacker says... #3
You have a good point. Personally, I think that Tooth and Nail should be the closest to a ban since it is basically is a mono green Coalition Victory. Too easy to just grab two combo pieces and outright win. I can't think of any in mono-green, but if you got black in the deck, Triskelion and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed kills all opponents.
Then again, I honestly don't know if I believe that the EDH committee can make decisions that are based on their own previous decisions. Who knows, maybe they can.
September 26, 2015 1:15 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #4
I mean, they've unbanned things that they've previously banned, e.g. Metalworker, so obviously their prior decisions at least come up in some of their meetings.
On a semi-related note, their stated reasoning why Deadeye Navigator isn't banned is because "it requires other cards to be broken." The same rationale can be applied to Black Lotus, so why is it banned and Deadeye isn't? Same with Recurring Nightmare or hell, pretty much any other card on the ban list.
September 26, 2015 1:21 p.m.
Its not simply because it requires other cards to be broken, its because it rquires other cards with ETB effects, and also it's just a synergy enabler - it's not offesive on its own. Black lotus IS offensive on its own. 3 mana is 3 mana. You can do anything you want with that mana. Whereas if you use deadeye to bounce any random creature.... well, not much happens.
Similarly wth recurring nightmare. It works with anything and can quickly accrue value if you have any two creatures. Again, deadeye only accrues value with some things.
September 26, 2015 1:57 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #6
I think that they don't see how big the list of cards that break DEN. I think that's probably the main issue. Like, an argument can be made that Black Lotus is broken with 100% of cards, Recurring Nightmare with all creatures, but Deadeye Navigator is broken with more cards than just Sylvan Primordial and Primeval Titan.
September 26, 2015 2:04 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #7
Deadeye Navigator is slow and massively dependent, providing exactly zero advantage on its own. It needs the other piece to be on the battlefield. Drawing Deadeye with no ETBs on your board has the zing of glass of room temperature milk sitting in the exact center of an otherwise empty table. Compare to Sylvan Primordial, which drops and provides instant card advantage, ramp, and a substantial threat all on its own.
Pretty much every effect in magic is dependent, cards in EDH are generally banned depending on how common the scenario is that those cards are degenerate or explosively powerful in a casual meta. The rules committee have been explicitly clear that they are gearing towards casual, battlecruiser magic and that if you want competitive rules you should look elsewhere. Namely, Duel Commander, or to produce rules for your playgroup as needed.
In the case of Recurring Nightmare, the odds of you having a creature to sacrifice and a good target in the graveyard, in black, is very good. The graveyard is harder to interact with than the battlefield and easier to set up than your hand, so that effect is often very potent. Primeval Titan depends on you having lands in your library and wanting more resources, those are both very likely. Sylvan Primordial depends on your opponents having at least a single non-creature target you want to destroy and it outright pays you to do it.
Deadeye Navigator is a combo piece. A good one, but just a piece. It needs Palinchron, it needs Peregrine Drake, and it needs a 3rd piece because infinite mana on its own is meaningless. Without an effect like that, of which your deck may be running 2 and a bunch of tutors to find them, it's just a 6 drop that blinks for 2 that you might not be able to hit with spot removal.
Tooth and Nail is not Coalition Victory because the only effect Coalition Victory can have is to win the game. There is no choice, no alternative, no in the middle and no option, you win the game and that's that. Tooth and Nail may be functionally no different in a competitive environment but in many decks for many players it does many different things. The rules committee has also been clear on the point that it wants players to govern themselves and to ban as few cards as possible, if a 9 drop sorcery winning the game is a problem in your meta then sort it out, but in mine the last Tooth and Nail I saw resolve just grabbed Prime Speaker Zegana and Pelakka Wurm.
September 26, 2015 5:07 p.m. Edited.
ComradeJim270 says... #8
Going to agree with FancyTuesday: DEN is irritating sometimes but I don't think there's grounds to ban it. It's actually not even that hard to deal with once you realize you can respond to the soulbond trigger. It's powerful, but they don't ban things based on power level.
I think Prophet of Kruphix is much more ban-worthy simply for what it does to any game where it makes an appearance (e.g. the entire game now revolves around it). So again... that's not a power level concern. It's powerful, but I see it as more banworthy by the criteria the RC seems to use because it warps whole games around itself and is extremely prevalent in any deck capable of running it.
September 27, 2015 3:09 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #9
Okay, since the discussion has become more interesting to everyone here (myself included) than the original discussion, here are two questions I think everyone should answer for themselves:
1) What cards do you think have merit for being banned from your own observations in relation to the current precedents set on the current banlist and why?
2) For each cards that is banned, there should be one unbanned to keep the banlist from growing to infinity. What cards would you unban and why?
September 27, 2015 2:51 p.m.
I don't think they should remove a card just because they banned a new one. Looking at the banlist most of them are immediately identifiable as broken on their own in an EDH format (some specifically if used as general), and they're not going to complicate things by splitting how each card is banned (general or library). As new sets come out of course they're gonna find new cards to ban. Imagine them lifting the ban on Karakas just because they wanted to throw a new card on the list. It would be ridiculous. Most cards aren't quite as broken as that, but you get the idea.
September 27, 2015 3:36 p.m.
And as far as cards they do lift the bans on, I'm not in their heads, but common playstyles and removal options at the time they are banned I would think has a lot to do with it.
September 27, 2015 3:39 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #12
Oh I completely agree, but I also think that the health of a format is also determined by the number of cards on its banlist.
September 27, 2015 4:28 p.m.
That just isn't true. In any way. The quantitative number of cards on a banned list tells you nothing about the format because the format isn't defined by the banlist. In fact the opposite - the format is defined by the cards that aren't on the banlist.
September 27, 2015 4:30 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #14
The EDH RC has said time and time again that they want the list as small as possible, and if they aren't focused on the health of the format, who is?
That said, two examples of cards I think would not make a big impact in commander if unbanned would be Library of Alexandria and Painter's Servant. Would they be definitely okay in the format? Probably not, but they are the closest imo to unbannable out of all the cards on the list.
September 27, 2015 4:58 p.m.
That reasoning does not follow. The RC wants the list as small as possible is one fact. The RC is focused on the health of the format is another fact. Just because those two facts exist does not necessitate that one causes the other.
September 27, 2015 5:16 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
Okay, why else would they want the banlist to be small?
September 27, 2015 5:47 p.m.
Probably because they want to encourage as much variety in deck building as possible, and one way to do that is to make sure individuals have access to lots of cards.
Note that that does not detract from the fact that sometimes bannings are necessary to INCREASE the variety in the format. For example, if there was a card that is colourless, indestructible, costs 1 mana and exiles all cards that would go into a graveyard then naturally it would have a huge knock on effect on the entire format. Reanimator would become difficult. Flashback and control decks would become difficult. Dredge would become difficult. That one card would stifle at least three archetypes. In banning that one card the variety you would see variety increase. Therefore banning a single card would instantly make at least three archetypes at lot more playable.
Therefore I think the notion that a small banlist necessarily creates a healthy format is misguided. Occasionally not banning something is more stifling to creativity than banning it. I believe the RC wants to give players options - and that's fine and reasonable. But it doesn't always mean a banlist has to be small.
Do you kind of see what I am saying?
September 27, 2015 6 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #18
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Do you think that striving to minimize the number of banned cards is worth the work it requires?
September 27, 2015 10:14 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #19
As I said, I think Prophet of Kruphix is public enemy number one. I have never seen a game it had a positive effect on. As soon as someone casts it... as soon as anyone even sees it... the format goes from Commander/EDH to "Prophet of Kruphix hot potato" or "whack-a-Prophet". Even the person who plays it has to struggle to keep it around.
It has a similar effect on player behavior to Primeval Titan. Which is of course banned.
It creates degenerate games, and is in every single deck that can use 
. And most of those decks would probably have to make conscious effort not to abuse the card, considering that it automatically synergizes with many of them. It also owes a lot of this to the multiplayer nature of the format, which makes it far, far more powerful than it normally would be.
September 27, 2015 11:59 p.m.
I'm assuming this is a troll thread, but I'll humor it anyway.
Usually for a card to be banned in commander, it has to meet one of two criteria:
It's so overwhelmingly powerful that it warps the format (Protean Hulk, Ancestral Recall, etc). Maelstrom Wanderer isn't competitive, let alone ban-worthy for its power. At eight converted mana, it rarely hits field before turn three, already making it slower than most combo decks (5 Color Hermit Druid usually wins on turn two, for comparison). It lacks any form of projection, and it rarely wins the same turn it's cast.
It goes against the nature of the format, usually by making games "un-fun" (IE, Braids, Cabal Minion, Karakas). Since Wanderer by himself is just a hasty beater that pulls two spells at random from the deck, he fails to meet this criteria as well. Even with the list you suggested, he's so painfully slow that, unless the deck is played in an extremely casual metal, Maelstrom will almost never be cast. If he does ever manage to hit field once every blue moon, he'll just reset the board. In a format where Cataclysm and Ravages of War are allowed, this effect just doesn't merit banning.
September 28, 2015 2:08 a.m.
Answering the two questions asked later in the thread:
Nothing currently allowed in the format really jumps out as being broken. Granted, certain cards like Hermit Druid, Waste Not, Necropotence, and Ad Nauseam enable some pretty degenerate things and are overall terrifying to play against, but all of them can be dealt with if you know what you're doing.
Cards that O think should be unbanned: Coalition Victory. Wizards is understandably wary of win-on-the-spot effects. However, CV is pitifully slow and horribly clunky to set up for. Playtesting it, even in a vacuum, it's all but impossible to win before turn four. A single well-placed disruption spell can take the deck out of the game. Any deck worth its mettle shouldn't have any problem pulling at the very least a 80-20 ratio against a deck specifically built around it.
Sway of the Stars. Like Coalition Victory, it has a cool effect, but it's too big and clunky to be of any real use. That, and it's typically difficult to manage to hit each opponent for 7 damage after casting / cheating it out. At best, it's a nice sideshow for Omniscience. Definitely not ban-worthy, when other cards that set life totals like Sorin Markov are allowed in the format.
Sundering Titan. Plenty of far superior land destruction effects are allowed in the format. Besides, at worst it punishes one opponent for 2-3 lands. Not a huge setback.
September 28, 2015 2:29 a.m.
Fleetwood-Mat says... #22
I don't think you can succeed in getting Wanderer banned, it's not good enough to be banned.
canterlotguardian says... #2
No. As I have said multiple different times about multiple different cards, if Deadeye Navigator isn't banned, X card won't be.
September 26, 2015 11:50 a.m.