Leovold asymmetrically attacks your opponents' hands from the Command Zone in conjunction with Wheel effects, minimizing their ability to do anything relevant in the game.
While he's powerful in concert with Orbs and allows you to turn them off at will, Urza himself doesn't do that.
Big problem with the bolded bit considering it’s not really true.
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. You acknowledge, and accept, Leo’s banning based on the premise that he interacts poorly with specific card types, but then go on to say that Urza wouldn’t be a problem when he literally does the exact same thing, except with other specific cards.
Couple that with Urza having mana sink, and you are building a just as oppressive deck as Leo’s was. Hard to say otherwise.
As for the “Urza is iconic” bit, I think that’s a slippery slope. Coalition Victory is iconic. That shouldn’t matter one bit, if the card meets the criteria, it deserves to be banned. Full stop.
I should have been more precise; I meant to say that Urza himself is not an Orb effect nor does he actively restrict your opponents from executing certain game actions, such as drawing more than one card per turn like Leovold, Emissary of Trest does.
I'll disagree with your points and elaborate a little more. Sure, Urza works in conjunction with the Orbs to create an oppressive board state but he himself doesn't have the actual card text that reads Winter Orb, Static Orb, or Trinisphere. Leovold was always a problem even if you didn't build him optimally because nearly every Commander deck I know of has some sort of Card Advantage engine that would allow them to draw more than 1 card per turn; Leovold comprehensively, universally, AND proactively shut that off, and he was always cast-able from the Command Zone. By virtue of his card text alone, Leovold ALWAYS disrupted your opponents regardless of whether or not you had Wheel effects in the deck. Leovold himself was the actual lock/stax/unfun piece that made Wheel effects better and as oppressive as they were; Urza is an ENABLER for the Orb effects but doesn't have the same card text that attacks the basic pillars of MTG like Leovold did.
TL;dr Urza does NOT do exactly the same thing that Leovold did because Urza does NOT have the same stax/hate/unfun card text that Leovold does.
I don't disagree that Urza CAN be built oppressively and in a cEDH style of play. But it can also be built as a value and/or Artifact themed Commander too. Because of his card design, there is the possibility of building a list that suits your playgroup whereas I think Leovold was universally shunned. I have a list that I'll be actively testing in preparation of when I receive my copy of Urza in the mail. I had hoped that my argument demonstrated that Urza, while incredibly powerful, just isn't as broken/restrictive/oppressive as the currently banned legendary creatures.
I also agree that the iconic-ness/legendary-ness of Urza can be a slippery slope, but I still think that it's at least worth considering from the RC and CAG standpoint *shrugs*.
EDIT: I cleaned up some grammar to clarify my point.
If Urza Orbs becomes the default build like Leovold wheels was, and is both as consistent and widely played as Leo wheels was, he will be banned. There are however fewer options for orbs than wheels, and mono blue vs sultai reduced the access to tutors. Both of these should drop the consistency of the soft lock dramatically. Being stuck at 1 card, or none if puzzle box is out, can make it harder to find an answer as well. Numerous anti artifact or anti creature answers are less than 3 Mana, so if someone isn't going for a quick combo win but trying for an orb lock it won't take long to be in a position to cast an answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Excellent reasons, Onering. I agree very much with your analysis. I'm betting that Urza Orbs won't be as popular simply because few people like playing the Orbs. The various draw 7 effects that made Leovold oppressive are generally useful and liked because they let you see more of your deck over the course of a game.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I think that the first point you bring up is totally relevant, Jiv. Why bother having a format built around legendary creatures and exclude perhaps the most literally legendary creature of all? There are STILL cards being printed that reference Urza, to demonstrate his Vorthos impact on MTG generally.
2 primary counterpoints here. First, Urza is far less known as "the most literally legendary creature of all" and more known as Urza Planeswalker. He is foremost associated with being a Planeswalker, not a legendary creature. Especially Pre-Mending, when that distinction was far more pronounced. Chandra is a person who can planeswalk. Urza was a Planeswalker.
Second, Apocalypse was released in 2001. Urza's been dead for 18 years now. It's kind of silly to think he should get any special treatment because of name recognition when I'd be willing to bet that a sizable amount of current players have no idea who he is because they were quite literally born after he died.
Does Urza deserve to be banned? Don't know, don't care. But the fact that he's named Urza and not "Billy Bob, Lord High Artificer" should have nothing to do with the decision.
Does Urza deserve to be banned? Don't know, don't care. But the fact that he's named Urza and not "Billy Bob, Lord High Artificer" should have nothing to do with the decision.
I don't believe this is true. Are cards like Library and Moxen really banned because they're too strong or because at the formats inception they created a "perceived barrier to entry" due to the cost if they existed. I view a characters name to be a similar sort of thing.
Weight of a card's legality is not solely based on a cards power in the format. The Spirit of EDH is a thing and banning Urza is like banning Jace, contrary to that spirit of legendary recognition, at least in how I view the format.
I don't believe this is true. Are cards like Library and Moxen really banned because they're too strong or because at the formats inception they created a "perceived barrier to entry" due to the cost if they existed. I view a characters name to be a similar sort of thing.
How are these things in any way related? I don't see the connection.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I have played against players who play Mycosynth Lattice and at least one (maybe more) played Vandalblast with the intent of blowing up everyone's board but their own but I have never seen that person actually do it. What I have seen is a different player win the game because they played Vandalblast and another where a player played Bane of Progress into it. Admittedly, that player was me and the game was going terribly for me but still, I have seen my share of "accidental" interactions with Lattice to the point where I don't see how Servant is any worse. I do agree that they seem similar enough in my experience that having one but not the other seems a bit odd.
With that being said, the RC does say "and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." on their banlist page. Maybe they expect Painter being on the list should encourage people to stay away from things like Lattice.
Yea but Lattice is ran for different things than Servant would. Like, you'd run Servant for fun colour-matters interactions (Provided your intention is to stay fair, mind) whereas you'd run Lattice for artifact synergies. The end result (a ruined game by virtue of someone else casting something that interacts jarringly with the card in question) is the same, but the approach is very different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I have played against players who play Mycosynth Lattice and at least one (maybe more) played Vandalblast with the intent of blowing up everyone's board but their own but I have never seen that person actually do it. What I have seen is a different player win the game because they played Vandalblast and another where a player played Bane of Progress into it. Admittedly, that player was me and the game was going terribly for me but still, I have seen my share of "accidental" interactions with Lattice to the point where I don't see how Servant is any worse. I do agree that they seem similar enough in my experience that having one but not the other seems a bit odd.
With that being said, the RC does say "and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." on their banlist page. Maybe they expect Painter being on the list should encourage people to stay away from things like Lattice.
...that's a pretty poor excuse to keep it banned in my books, but i don't play with 99.9% of all the EDH players in the world.
i'm using painter's servant somewhat regularly, and breaking it isn't hard. But it's not as broken as any other broken interactions in EDH. I think it's still on the ban list because it's always been there, and it's easier to just keep it that way than unban it and then have to go back on it (if it comes down to it). I wouldn't fault the RC for keeping it that way, but i feel bad for those playgroups who follow the 'official' EDH rules to the dot and ignore the 'spirit of EDH'/house rule/casual aspect of the game.
By the way, with the argument further up comparing urza with leovold... so leovold is banned because of the static ability that stops players from drawing cards and is a legendary creature. Urza is probably not going to be banned because it's not oppressing/stopping other players from playing the game. And cards aren't banned because it is powerful, but because it is oppressive. So griselbrand then. Its powerful, sure. Is it oppressive?
Absolutely, Griselbrand is oppressive, but not quite in the same way that Leovold was. Griselbrand took advantage of the large life total available to each player (40 life) and was able to directly convert that over into cards without expending ANY other resources. His ability breaks a fundamental tenet of the game, namely that you have to spend mana and cards in order to get more cards (the basic pillar of Card Advantage, in the MTG game). When you're able to convert a large amount of a resource (your lfie total) to cards in egregious amounts that your opponents CANNOT replicate or easily hinder (Griselbrand's activated ability doesn't require a tap symbol, additional mana, can be activated at instant speed, etc.) you're breaking the game and therefore becoming oppressive, from the perspective of your opponents. More often than not they're going to trade their resources on a 1-1 or 2-1 scale, within a regular Commander game, and can only do these kind of trades a certain number of times dependent on their card advantage engines and hand size. Griselbrand laughs at this restriction and almost uniformly encourages a build that pushes your curve into absurdly low ranges, meaning that you are THEN able to develop your board presence faster than anyone else.
While I'm seriously sad I never got to live the dream with Griselbrand ( was doing religious service when he was printed), I completely support him being banned. He's simply too good of a MTG card for Commander.
hmm.. i get where you're coming from, but i'm also under the impression that the RC's ban criteria doesn't include power level, which is what griselbrand oozes. but yea, i'm not going to argue for griselbrand to be unbanned - I don't see it happening, and I get to loop him with children of korlis in other formats.
On a somewhat similar vein, have you tried treasonous ogre? I think 80-90% of the time i land him with more than 20 life, i combo off/win. not nearly as good as griselbrand, but can be quite close when the deck's built for it. quite underplayed, i think.
I think Griselbrand is relatively unique because his power level is directly proportional in how he truly breaks the game, leading to an "oppressive" board state; the card advantage he accrues is so massive as to create an undesirable game state for everyone else. There are only 3 cards I can think of that let you pay life to draw cards at instant speed: Yawgmoth's Bargain, Griselbrand, and Necropotence. Two of them are banned and Necro has the EOT clause that prevents it from being as abusable as Bargain and Grisel. Two of them defined the Standard decks of their era and Grisel still sees Legacy and Modern play, as an indication of its power level.
Treasonous Ogre is also a very dangerous card that is not as played simply because he only generates R. It's a little harder (not terribly harder, mind you) to take advantage of that free mana, particularly since it's 3 life per activation. There are ways around that of course (gotta love Aetherflux Reservoir), but it's still fairly steep without the correct setup. If he generated mana of any color, you can bet that he would be a premier combo piece for R/X deck.
Cards are a lot different a thing to have flow that freely than mana generally, and even the ratios are different, 1 life 1 card or 3 life for 1 mana is very dumb math.
true, true. I'm not necessarily advocating the unbanning of those cards, but more wanting to figure out whether or not cards can be banned for power level or not (my assumption is that it's not supposed to).
Its not banned for power level. I think its banned for hitting the following three criteria hard:
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
Hits this one because it can be a commander, and because starting at 40 life makes him even better because he can draw more cards. Starting at 20 would make simple combat damage enough of an answer to prevent him from going too nuts, but 40 gives enough of a cushion that he's drawing 14 minimum when he hits, and usually 21+.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
The bolded part.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
He's a story prominent legend that hits all the Timmy sweet spots and begs to be played, and saw a lot of play while he was legal. Whenever he hit, he had a tendency to ruin the game. He also had a centralizing effect of being an auto target for reanimation, bribery, etc. Basically, he had the Prime Time effect.
The thing is, power level is correlated with most of the ban criteria. Massive overall resource imbalance, having a centralizing effect, and interacting poorly with the format all come into play because the card is powerful. The key distinction is that powerful cards exist that don't hit these categories, so power level is not perfectly correlated. Of course, weak cards that hit the banlist criteria are rarely banned because their low power levels keep them from being used, let alone abused.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So here we have a card that sits in the Command Zone, has a ridiculously easy casting cost (and makes it even easier to pay the tax if it goes back to to the Command Zone), is a repeatable tutor if you have a blink outlet (no shortage there), and let's you cast free spells.
Now as far as the ban list philosophy is concerned, there are only two areas this hits, but they are some of the more important ones. The first is Creates a Problematic Game State. As mentioned, you have a repeatable tutor without a whole lot of effort, which gets you the means to activate the second ability. Let's be honest, what was your first thought when you read this? For me it was "oh look I can do Narset things without needing to attack, and I have access to black and green too!" But cryo, you might reply, that's a player problem if you want to chain turns together. You're right it is, and players didn't get the memo since Narset is still an issue.
Secondly, I want to point to Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Most legendary creatures that cause issues in the Command Zone aren't actually problems in the 99, which is why a BaaC is largely unnecessary (again, look at Narset and when was the last time you saw her in the 99?) However, outside of "my deck is tribal and this doesn't make the cut", is there really any reason at all why you wouldn't run a mana fixer free spell caster in any 5 color deck? And yeah, we are talking about 5c decks, which already make up the minority, but Wizards has been doing a very good job of giving us more 5c generals, and Coalition Victory has this as a strike against it as well, so it's applicable here. (Side note, if there were any reason to unban CV, this makes a strong argument against it.)
Anyway, I'm not actually panicking over an emergency ban, and I actually doubt this gets banned (although I wouldn't be surprised in the long run). But indo think there is some interesting discussion to he had because the warning signs are there.
Yea I think this card is just hamfisted as hell. Reminds me of Thousand-Year Storm level of derp.
It's like Maelstrom Wanderer got an ugly robot uncle who's too tired for all this bouncing nonsense, "yea kid I don't do that recasting stuff anymore...just do the cascades that's all the people want."
Big problem with the bolded bit considering it’s not really true.
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. You acknowledge, and accept, Leo’s banning based on the premise that he interacts poorly with specific card types, but then go on to say that Urza wouldn’t be a problem when he literally does the exact same thing, except with other specific cards.
Couple that with Urza having mana sink, and you are building a just as oppressive deck as Leo’s was. Hard to say otherwise.
As for the “Urza is iconic” bit, I think that’s a slippery slope. Coalition Victory is iconic. That shouldn’t matter one bit, if the card meets the criteria, it deserves to be banned. Full stop.
I'll disagree with your points and elaborate a little more. Sure, Urza works in conjunction with the Orbs to create an oppressive board state but he himself doesn't have the actual card text that reads Winter Orb, Static Orb, or Trinisphere. Leovold was always a problem even if you didn't build him optimally because nearly every Commander deck I know of has some sort of Card Advantage engine that would allow them to draw more than 1 card per turn; Leovold comprehensively, universally, AND proactively shut that off, and he was always cast-able from the Command Zone. By virtue of his card text alone, Leovold ALWAYS disrupted your opponents regardless of whether or not you had Wheel effects in the deck. Leovold himself was the actual lock/stax/unfun piece that made Wheel effects better and as oppressive as they were; Urza is an ENABLER for the Orb effects but doesn't have the same card text that attacks the basic pillars of MTG like Leovold did.
TL;dr Urza does NOT do exactly the same thing that Leovold did because Urza does NOT have the same stax/hate/unfun card text that Leovold does.
I don't disagree that Urza CAN be built oppressively and in a cEDH style of play. But it can also be built as a value and/or Artifact themed Commander too. Because of his card design, there is the possibility of building a list that suits your playgroup whereas I think Leovold was universally shunned. I have a list that I'll be actively testing in preparation of when I receive my copy of Urza in the mail. I had hoped that my argument demonstrated that Urza, while incredibly powerful, just isn't as broken/restrictive/oppressive as the currently banned legendary creatures.
I also agree that the iconic-ness/legendary-ness of Urza can be a slippery slope, but I still think that it's at least worth considering from the RC and CAG standpoint *shrugs*.
EDIT: I cleaned up some grammar to clarify my point.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Second, Apocalypse was released in 2001. Urza's been dead for 18 years now. It's kind of silly to think he should get any special treatment because of name recognition when I'd be willing to bet that a sizable amount of current players have no idea who he is because they were quite literally born after he died.
Does Urza deserve to be banned? Don't know, don't care. But the fact that he's named Urza and not "Billy Bob, Lord High Artificer" should have nothing to do with the decision.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI don't believe this is true. Are cards like Library and Moxen really banned because they're too strong or because at the formats inception they created a "perceived barrier to entry" due to the cost if they existed. I view a characters name to be a similar sort of thing.
Weight of a card's legality is not solely based on a cards power in the format. The Spirit of EDH is a thing and banning Urza is like banning Jace, contrary to that spirit of legendary recognition, at least in how I view the format.
For once we agree.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Why is Painter's Servant banned and Mycosynth Lattice, who has a bevy more of "accidental" gamenuking combinations, still legal?
With that being said, the RC does say "and may steer your playgroup to avoid other, similar cards." on their banlist page. Maybe they expect Painter being on the list should encourage people to stay away from things like Lattice.
...that's a pretty poor excuse to keep it banned in my books, but i don't play with 99.9% of all the EDH players in the world.
i'm using painter's servant somewhat regularly, and breaking it isn't hard. But it's not as broken as any other broken interactions in EDH. I think it's still on the ban list because it's always been there, and it's easier to just keep it that way than unban it and then have to go back on it (if it comes down to it). I wouldn't fault the RC for keeping it that way, but i feel bad for those playgroups who follow the 'official' EDH rules to the dot and ignore the 'spirit of EDH'/house rule/casual aspect of the game.
By the way, with the argument further up comparing urza with leovold... so leovold is banned because of the static ability that stops players from drawing cards and is a legendary creature. Urza is probably not going to be banned because it's not oppressing/stopping other players from playing the game. And cards aren't banned because it is powerful, but because it is oppressive. So griselbrand then. Its powerful, sure. Is it oppressive?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
While I'm seriously sad I never got to live the dream with Griselbrand ( was doing religious service when he was printed), I completely support him being banned. He's simply too good of a MTG card for Commander.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
On a somewhat similar vein, have you tried treasonous ogre? I think 80-90% of the time i land him with more than 20 life, i combo off/win. not nearly as good as griselbrand, but can be quite close when the deck's built for it. quite underplayed, i think.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Treasonous Ogre is also a very dangerous card that is not as played simply because he only generates R. It's a little harder (not terribly harder, mind you) to take advantage of that free mana, particularly since it's 3 life per activation. There are ways around that of course (gotta love Aetherflux Reservoir), but it's still fairly steep without the correct setup. If he generated mana of any color, you can bet that he would be a premier combo piece for R/X deck.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
* Interacts Poorly With the Structure of Commander. Commander introduces specific structural differences to the game of Magic (notably singleton decks, color restrictions in deckbuilding, and the existence of a Commander). Magic cards not designed with Commander in mind sometimes interact with those elements in ways that change the effective functionality of the card. Cards that have moved too far (in a potentially problematic direction) from their original intent due to this mismatch are candidates for banning. This criterion also includes legendary creatures that are problematic if always available.
Hits this one because it can be a commander, and because starting at 40 life makes him even better because he can draw more cards. Starting at 20 would make simple combat damage enough of an answer to prevent him from going too nuts, but 40 gives enough of a cushion that he's drawing 14 minimum when he hits, and usually 21+.
* Creates Undesirable Game States. Losing is not an undesirable game state. However, a game in which one or more players, playing comparable casual decks, have minimal participation in the game is something which players should be steered away from. Warning signs include massive overall resource imbalance, early-game cards that lock players out, and cards with limited function other than to win the game out of nowhere.
The bolded part.
* Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Some cards are so powerful that they become must-includes in decks that can run them and have a strongly negative impact on the games in which they appear, even when not built to optimize their effect. This does not include cards which are part of a specifc two-card combination - there are too many of those available in the format to usefully preclude - but may include cards which have numerous combinations with other commonly-played cards.
He's a story prominent legend that hits all the Timmy sweet spots and begs to be played, and saw a lot of play while he was legal. Whenever he hit, he had a tendency to ruin the game. He also had a centralizing effect of being an auto target for reanimation, bribery, etc. Basically, he had the Prime Time effect.
The thing is, power level is correlated with most of the ban criteria. Massive overall resource imbalance, having a centralizing effect, and interacting poorly with the format all come into play because the card is powerful. The key distinction is that powerful cards exist that don't hit these categories, so power level is not perfectly correlated. Of course, weak cards that hit the banlist criteria are rarely banned because their low power levels keep them from being used, let alone abused.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Although I do own a lot of copies of Bribery so I am ready
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim
So here we have a card that sits in the Command Zone, has a ridiculously easy casting cost (and makes it even easier to pay the tax if it goes back to to the Command Zone), is a repeatable tutor if you have a blink outlet (no shortage there), and let's you cast free spells.
Now as far as the ban list philosophy is concerned, there are only two areas this hits, but they are some of the more important ones. The first is Creates a Problematic Game State. As mentioned, you have a repeatable tutor without a whole lot of effort, which gets you the means to activate the second ability. Let's be honest, what was your first thought when you read this? For me it was "oh look I can do Narset things without needing to attack, and I have access to black and green too!" But cryo, you might reply, that's a player problem if you want to chain turns together. You're right it is, and players didn't get the memo since Narset is still an issue.
Secondly, I want to point to Problematic Casual Omnipresence. Most legendary creatures that cause issues in the Command Zone aren't actually problems in the 99, which is why a BaaC is largely unnecessary (again, look at Narset and when was the last time you saw her in the 99?) However, outside of "my deck is tribal and this doesn't make the cut", is there really any reason at all why you wouldn't run a mana fixer free spell caster in any 5 color deck? And yeah, we are talking about 5c decks, which already make up the minority, but Wizards has been doing a very good job of giving us more 5c generals, and Coalition Victory has this as a strike against it as well, so it's applicable here. (Side note, if there were any reason to unban CV, this makes a strong argument against it.)
Anyway, I'm not actually panicking over an emergency ban, and I actually doubt this gets banned (although I wouldn't be surprised in the long run). But indo think there is some interesting discussion to he had because the warning signs are there.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
YAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!
Don't forget the one land that filters 5 into WUBRG
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It's like Maelstrom Wanderer got an ugly robot uncle who's too tired for all this bouncing nonsense, "yea kid I don't do that recasting stuff anymore...just do the cascades that's all the people want."
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall