ITT: OP cards that desperately need to be banned

In what format, you fucking retard?

>Not two but THREE evasion clauses, one of which makes the other two redundant
>That's just the start

Clever but plainly fake. I'm still more than a little mad.

*Fake in the sense that the person that made the card definitely knew what they were doing.

you are retarded, stop playing burn...

People at my store occasionally run no-banlist modern tournaments.

Despite actual money being on the line, people aren't dicks about it. Instead of going all-out on some broken netdeck, people use the banned cards to make lower tier decks and cheaper versions keep up with competetive stuff.

I really think wizards should reset modern and just take everything off the banned list. They've created a format where lots of decks are viable but only if you're attacking as fast as you can and throwing your whole deck creatures attacking you.

I'm of the opinion that printing innocent blood and baleful strix in modern would solve a lot of problems.

That's a terrible idea. There are cards like Blazing Shoal that should stay banned in Modern. Only card to really have an argument for unbanning is Stoneforge Mystic.

top was only banned for logistical reasons.
DTT did nothing wrong
modern is too fast for Jace

I actually do agree with you on DTT. And as for Jace, personally I have no problems with him being in the format. Though I think Jace not being unbanned in the format by WotC is due not so much due to power level but rather wallet level.

what? since when is manamorphose banned?

also why?

>I actually do agree with you on DTT.

its good you agree with facts user. DTT legit did nothing wrong. it got banned because wizards was afraid that it was just going to replace Ruse Cruise

Though I think Jace not being unbanned in the format by WotC is due not so much due to power level but rather wallet level.

He's only going to stay there for the mythos of it all

but it isn't

lmgtfy.com/?q=modern ban list

You are officially retarded. Brainstorm is in no way equal to treasure cruise.

Came here to post this.

>Confirmed for never playing legacy
Fuck, you're an idiot.

Call me when brainstorm gets restricted in vintage dumbass. Ruse Cruise is way stronger than Brainstorm in basically anything that isn't delver or counterbalance, even then it's probably debatable.

>mfw I already had that but just didnt know it was banned
I have Artifact Lands, Sensei's tops, and seething songs, its an artifact burn deck

I've heard this one's pretty bad

Problem with ruse cruise is it can be tough to fire off multiples in a row unless you build you deck with it in mind. Building a deck with brainstorm in mind is as easy as putting in fetches, which you probably want anyway.

not saying it's not ridiculously busted but its not strictly better

Aslong as I can have Glimpse of Nature and Green Sun' Zenith, I don't fucking care what else happens. They can even ban my Dryad Arbors.

I don't get what's so amazing about that card.

>Turn 1
>With this card and one land, you are already at 4 mana, with four color symbols no less
>Assuming this is before proper banlists, you could have multiple of these in your opening hand
>Starting the game with seven or more mana just because you happened to open up with these, being able to cast tremendously powerful spells at the start of the game, zero repercussions whatsoever, and before an opponent even has the capability to counter it unless they have a Force of Will, because a Pact will kill them

I mean, you honestly may just be memeing at me, but there are people who legitimately do not understand why Black Lotus is retarded. Almost as stupid as Ancestral Recall, Channel, or Time Walk.

It's pretty much a one-shot wildcard triple-power land that will fit in any deck without issue.

I don't play magic, that's why I'm asking -- in Netrunner there are tonnes of cards with comparable effects. I guess it comes down to the differences between those games, not that I know them.

I don't play Netrunner, but cards like this essentially do not exist. They are banned in virtually every form of play except for exclusively "vintage", where they are restricted to one per deck. The immediate advantage they give to anybody who uses them is obscene. Compare that Black Lotus to this card here. This one is legal, but it demands you throw your entire hand away to procure a similar effect. There's also Gilded Lotus, which doesn't sacrifice the artifact, but it also costs five mana instead of literally nothing.

I'm sure Netrunner is simply faster than MTG on the whole, or if it isn't, there's probably greater demands for resources. You honestly can kill people with a total of three or four lands in MTG pretty easily, so getting this ridiculous advantage is wholly overpowered.

Sounds like it's just a lot more demanding, resource-wise. If the average is three for nothing, then nine for nothing would be the real equivalent, and that would be banned super fast.

Interesting that the two games have such a different resource curve though.

>the average
LED is an extremely powerful $100 card. Most mana rocks are 1 for 2 or 2(tapped on ETB) for 3.

I'd like to know how it would work in Netrunner, if you don't mind explaining?

The straight-up equivalent to Lotus is Beanstalk Royalties. It's one-time use, costs nothing and gets you three credits (mana; in Netrunner, all mana is colourless). It's considered a decent way of ensuring you can get some credits, because the better ways of making money all require you pay for them (like Hedge Fund, which costs five and gives you nine for a net gain of four, or Celebrity Gift which costs three and gives you two for every card in your hand you reveal).

That's what I meant by average: Netrunner's average. Compared to Magic's average of one, from lands. So if Lotus nets you three...

Thanks for the explanation. I suppose that makes a lot more sense. I can only assume credits remain on your person and don't fizzle after each phase, correct?

Remember also that Beanstalk also gets one of your clicks!

In MtG you can continue chaining spells until you decide you're finished

Correct, and you can force your opponent to discard (or, less commonly, give you) their credits. How do you think the differences affect gameplay?
Oh wow, I didn't realise you could do that in Magic. That would bring click-economy into play, and -- yeah, change the value a lot. in Netrunner you only get 3 actions per turn as a corp, and 4 as a runner.

Magic is a game that operates under the assumption that players draw 1 card a turn and can play 1 land a turn, limiting the power of the cards you can cast in a simple manner.
Black Lotus and Ancestrall Recall "break" the fundamental rule of 1 land, 1 draw a turn. Anything that gives such a ridiculous advantage gives rise to "fair" and "unfair" cards. This is also how people should differentiate between fair and unfair decks in formats, not the typical "I don't like this deck, it is unfair". Tron/eldrazi in modern can be considered unfair for that reason, as they have fast mana.

>activated static ability
didnt even try

Ah, that would explain a lot. You honestly have no spell limitation in Magic beyond whatever pool of resources you have. Assuming you have an open pool of six mana coming from six lands, you can continue casting spells until your turn is over, but the mana fizzling out at the end of each phase means that you need to use it immediately, or it is wasted. Alternatively, you can leave mana sources untapped(unused) and tap them for mana whenever needed on another player's turn.

So for example:

Player A has six basic lands. He chooses to summon an XGG Hydra, for two Green mana symbols as well as four for X. He's now out of mana for spells he can cast that turn.

Player B has six basic lands. He chooses to summon two knights for WW each. He still has two lands he can tap for mana throughout every player's turn, but when a phase ends, that mana depletes. So it's wise to "float" the mana and use it as needed during the necessary phase, rather than tap it for nothing.

Player C has six basic lands. They leave ALL of their mana open. When Player A casts that gigantic Hydra, he can respond to it with a counter spell, a "destroy" spell, a "return to hand" spell, or maybe even temporarily or permanently take control of it. However, again, when you use mana, it's gone. You can use it during a phase, but otherwise you need to wait until your turn starts again before your cards untap and you can pull mana out of your lands again. And by this time, your opponents will be able to play more things you'll have to find a way to either overpower or remove from the field.

Also, you can only play 1 land per turn unless you have other cards which specify otherwise, so you will need to wait six turns for those six lands, or hope you pick up a card which puts more lands in play for you, which themselves cost mana.

> Tron/eldrazi in modern can be considered unfair for that reason, as they have fast mana.

Tron is considered fair now since it folds to aggro.

Eldrazi Winter was bullshit though. Basically, Magic has the idea that 1 mana typically = 1/1, and that adding flying/trample/haste/whatever would push the cost up one, with an additional 1 in power or toughness. Up to a certain point, of course, then you'd have to pay more mana for more p/t. If a creature had a good ability, typically they'd have a higher cost and/or weaker stats. Now Eldrazi shat on that. Eldrazi had Eye of Ugin making their crap cheaper AND Eldrazi Temple giving you . You could effectively play a Thought Knot Seer on turn 2, and disrupt their gameplan AND have a 4/4. A 4/4 for 2 is better than anything Green (the color of big cheap dudes) could put out. And the turn after? You drop a Reality Smasher for 3 mana, and swing for 9. Smasher has an ability that forces your opponent to discard a card whenever they targetted it. Most good removal in Modern targets, further crippling your opponent. AND if they blocked it with a small dude, the damage from smasher would still go through.

There is nothing fair about a deck that can make that damage, have that much board presence and disrupt gameplay.

It doesn't matter if tron folds to aggro, it's a fast mana deck and thus "unfair". I don't use unfair with any negative connotation, just to divide decks that follow the typical 1 land 1 draw rule and decks that don't. It's not whining or anything.
Hell creatures that are far above the curve also follow that kind of differentiation. It's good deckbuilding to include threats that are above the curve like Delver/Goyf/Tasigur/Goblin Guide, etc. Tron does this as well by ideally dropping down a Wurmcoil on t3, where some people cast cards like Kitchen Finks.

I've extensively tested blazing shoal in modern, it's way WAY worse than twin and also worse than UG infect. It only starts being OK if creature removal heavily diminishes.

That's what apostles blessing is for

About half of the banlist is just there for deck diversity and can be unbanned no problem with some answers printed in. The other half is game wrecking bullshit and should stay banned.

>better than dispel
maybe if fliers are a huge concern. I haven't even seen many dispels in most MNBL versions I've seen.

Wut? Dispel?

yeah dispel
u
instant
counter target instant spell

Banning Griseldicks would make Legacy 100x better.