should Tooth and Nail be banned?

Commander (EDH) forum

Posted on Nov. 3, 2014, 5:10 p.m. by asasinater13

I play a zegana commander deck, and anytime Tooth and Nail resolves it just lets me respond to whatever is happening. My deck probably doesn't use it to its full potential, and I've seen conversations about this before. Is it just broken in commander? every time I've played it seems to be.

lemmingllama says... #2

It's a powerful card, but it also costs 9 mana to be effective. There are other cards that should probably be put onto the ban list before this one.

Also Avenger of Zendikar + Craterhoof Behemoth is always a good way to change the board state

November 3, 2014 5:13 p.m.

JA14732 says... #3

Deadeye Navigator should be banned before Tooth and Nail. The thing about Tooth and Nail is that it costs 9 mana to actually use it, and now that Containment Priest is a thing, it's going to be slightly harder to land it. Ultimately, the point of Tooth and Nail is that it allows to you respond to the situation, to get the 2 best creatures in your deck at that scenario, and it does it well. I don't think it should be banned, but you're right, it is a strong card.

November 3, 2014 5:14 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #4

November 3, 2014 5:18 p.m.

gufymike says... #5

ChiefBell welcome to tapped out?

November 3, 2014 5:22 p.m.

JWiley129 says... #6

Nah, Tooth and Nail isn't that bad. A card being good doesn't make it bannable.

November 3, 2014 5:24 p.m.

CuteSnail says... #7

If they ban Tooth and Nail they might as well ban Magister Sphinx and the swords of x and y. They're all good and I've heard people say they should be banned. Why stop there, why not ban lands? If you don't have them, you can't cast broken shit.

November 3, 2014 5:33 p.m.

Purplemandown says... #8

JA14732: That logic doesn't really hold up. Yes, Containment Priest stops Tooth and Nail, but it stops Deadeye Navigator too, because the creature that's flickered leaves and then reenters without being cast. Personally, I don't think either should be banned, but either way that argument doesn't hold up.

November 3, 2014 5:39 p.m.

DarkHero says... #9

no. just no

November 3, 2014 6:06 p.m.

Unforgivn_II says... #10

I mean, good opponents will Counterspell . Mine would. Its actually really fun playing trying to bait out counterspells from my friends that play blue.

November 3, 2014 6:41 p.m.

JexInfinite says... #11

TwistedMoonlight Oh yeah, original duals are far too powerful. Let's just try to get them banned!

November 3, 2014 7:09 p.m.

CuteSnail says... #12

@JexInfinite I meant all lands.

November 3, 2014 9:01 p.m.

nobu_the_bard says... #13

I don't think it should be banned, but it amuses me the discussion got this far without somebody mentioning any respond-or-I-win plays with Tooth and Nail, such as Mikaeus, the Unhallowed + Triskelion .

November 5, 2014 10:09 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #14

Because they die to 2 mana removal. I mean if you really want to spend 9 on that then that's your perogative. Most people don't like giving their opponents a Time Walk

November 5, 2014 10:16 a.m.

JA14732 says... #15

Purplemandown: I'm saying that Deadeye Navigator is significantly more bannable than Tooth and Nail, which, honestly, it is. Too much infinite mana combo BS. While it is true that Containment Priest shuts down Deadeye Navigator, it's in blue and most likely they'll just counter your Priest before she does anything.

November 5, 2014 11:56 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #16

You don't ban combo initiators you ban the main abused cards that create problematic combos. Ie. Palinchron or whatever.

November 5, 2014 noon

JA14732 says... #17

That makes sense, since I've never seen Palinchron be used without attempting to go infinite. Same with Great Whale.

November 5, 2014 12:09 p.m.

nobu_the_bard says... #18

It was the reasoning behind them banning Sylvan Primordial. The problem wasn't the stuff being used to move him in and out of play, the problem was the Primordial himself.

November 5, 2014 12:16 p.m.

This discussion has been closed