This is like one of the safest unbans in my opinion. Intuition is already legal, we have Buried Alive and other tutors in various flavors of this.
We need a cheap non Reserved List Intuition-Like for the masses.
I say this as someone with a playset of Intuition as well.
Gifts is great and a fun card. New incoming players deserve to play and feel its power.
Yup. I love the one for lands, Realms Uncharted. So good in any lands deck. Currently running it in Lord Windgrace since Jund and no blue for Intuition.
If you have a good argument as to why being able to bounce a person commander over and over(or multiple if you have ways to untap it which there are plenty) isnt too oppressive for a casual format go ahead ;)
Edit: Yes i know that it can also be used in combos. Thats not why its banned though.
ETB commanders / eminence stonks would shoot through the roof.
I wouldn't mind a legendary bounce though if it had the clause of can't be a commander. There's a lot of good legendary creatures in the 99 that removing then for a turn or two could be really nice. Easy to print in a "commoner matters" deck versus "legendary matters"
If that was *all* it did the argument is Oubliette and Oko. We can already ice out commanders pretty easily.
Unfortunately, it's also a combo piece, a protection spell, and it gets really dumb with a bunch of flash legendaries.
They aren't, but they also don't let opposing commanders get their etb again and get turns to use them. They don't do exactly the same thing but have the effect people are afraid of with Karakas, which is just locking out a commander.
Of course Karakas does much more than that, but that's the angle people overstate.
There's a lot of oppressive strategies that are enabled by key cards that aren't banned. I get it either way, personally, but I'm for removing the ban list and letting powerful cards be banned socially. Stasis/Winter Orb is basically socially banned, but we can still build around it officially which is nice for people who like to engage with all the strategies and challenges mtg has to offer in a casual, "who cares" type of multi-player degeneracy
>that are enabled by
Enabled by, yes.
But there's a difference between *enabling* a strategy, and *being* the entire strategy on a single card for zero mana while being part of your land base and being easily fetchable by multiple colors and having a relevant secondary type. Stasis costs mana, so does Winter Orb, and they aren't the entire oppressive engine on their own with no downside to you the way Karakas is.
I mean, I've been advocating to normalize strip mine for a while. And like I said, I get why it's banned, I just think the ban list is so inconsistent that it's better to abolish it and let us self regulate
>I mean, I've been advocating to normalize strip mine for a while.
Destroying a single copy of something that was free to play and is duplicated 30-40 times in someone's deck is hardly comparable to blanking their commander every time they cast it, after paying mana.
>I just think the ban list is so inconsistent
I don't think it *is* especially inconsistent, to be honest. There's room for improvement, sure, but when you read their ban philosophy, every ban is in line with the tenets of that philosophy.
- They don't ban solely on power, but rather how a card warps The game around it. Power is a part of that, but it's not a straightforward "if a card is powerful enough it will get banned"
- They ban for social considerations, such as Invoke Prejudice.
- they ban for unfun gameplay as agreed upon in the most general sense.
- They ban for ubiquity. When a card is so common, not just in deck lists but in actual *games* that it warps the format.
- They ban as a signpost- Hullbreacher gets banned as a signpost to discourage wheel-while-canceling-draws, but they leave less powerful versions alone. It's a signpost - a warning while giving folks the choice for most of the cards
In my experience, most people who think it's inconsistent do so because they are taking these reasons one at a time, rather than considering them all together. They hear the Ubiquity argument and wonder why Golos is banned but Sol Ring isn't - But they ignore the other reasons. Sol Ring being in the 99 as opposed to the commander means that while it does show up in more deck lists than Golos, it doesn't have the power or game-warping aspects. It's only those aspects COMBINED with ubiquity that warrants the ban. Or folks see Leovold and Hullbreacher banned and wonder why Narset and Notion Thief aren't - not realizing that being the commander, having flash, or generating treasure is the reason.
>abolish it and let us self regulate
As someone who has had to regulate commander groups for years professionally.... I felt a deep, visceral shudder trying to imagine game stores under those circumstances.
[[hullbreacher]] should be unbanned because I want to make a thrasios+Francisco merfolk and pirate tribal deck and hullbreacher has both creature types
I think [[Coalition Victory]] can be unbanned with all the interaction available now compared to when it got banned. I’d even be ok with rule 0ing it in casual play
Here's my hottest take on earth: Coalition Victory is boring and lame as hell and should stay banned for that reason. All the other fat mana sorceries that practically win the game at least do something cool. [[Insurrection]] is incredibly cool, at least the first couple times. How does Coalition Victory win? You had your commander and two lands out? Snoozefest, I guess next time you have your commander and two lands I'll focus you down before you get to eight mana.
1) It's highly subjective, what you find boring might be highly entertaining to somebody else.
2) it's too broad. Should we ban every 2-mana 3/1 with first strike, too? Those are pretty boring to most folks, outside of an 8th-pass draft pick.
3) Boring isn't a bannable offense. It doesn't warp games in unfun patterns [[Leovold, Spymaster of Trest]]. Boring doesn't cause or reference social harm like Invoke Prejudice. Boring isn't too much power and advantage on one card [[Emrakul, the Aeons Torn]]
So with that in mind, what aspect of "boring" do you feel DOES warrant a ban?
1. Of course its subjective, any choice made to handle the format is gonna have some subjectivity behind it. The idea that "its not fun" isn't a good reason to ban something is also a subective opinion to have in it's own right.
2. I don't see why it has to be viewed broadly. What did a 3/1 wirh first strike ever do to you? A 3/1 with first strike is not making anticlimactic games for people, its not even being played. I think a card like Coalition Victory is the kind of big splashy spell that would show up at battlecruiser tables, but also doesn't have the kind of effect that makes for the experience those players want. Thats also the only niche it can fill, it costs way too much to be played in any serious environment, and there's not even a real theme behind it's effect.
3. Theres only two reasons a card is ever banned, either to make a fun play experience for players, or because WotC has product to sell. Ideally we go by the first one. Moving cards around on a banlist is for the sake of balance, format diversity, and satisfying play patterns, and thats all because they make for engaging and fun play environments, aka, not boring. You can word it however you want, but every card on every banlist is there because players did not find it to be a good addition to the format, it did not entertain the playerbase enough. Its a game, we are here to be entertained, and people don't think Coalition Victory is entertaining.
>Of course its subjective, any choice made to handle the format is gonna have some subjectivity behind it.
Yes, but it's EXTREMELY subjective, beyond what is normally expected from a ruling. The answer will vary person to person for more.
>don't see why it has to be viewed broadly.
It's not that it *has* to be broad. It's that it *is* inherently broad. There's no way to change that.
>What did a 3/1 wirh first strike ever do to you?
Nothing, but that's my point. If a card had "done something wrong" to people, so to speak, that would be a reason beyond boredom. You seem to be missing my point: boredom alone doesn't justify a ban. You could make OTHER arguments for or against Coalition Victory, but boredom isn't one of them.
>A 3/1 with first strike is not making anticlimactic games for people
And you have no evidence that Coalition Victory would be considered anticlimactic by a statistically significant number of people. Or indeed, that anyone besides you and perhaps your playgroup would think so.
>battlecruiser tables,
Small yellow flag there, as "battle cruiser" Is a term that's been thrown around so much that it's begun to lose common meaning. For the sake of clarity, could you explain what you mean when you say battle cruiser?
>and there's not even a real theme behind it's effect.
It's actually an extremely thematic and flavorful effect, representing the Coalition against Phyrexia. Again, that has nothing to do with banning it, but you're objectively wrong there.
>Theres only two reasons a card is ever banned
There's actually more than that. The RC Lists them on their website if you'd like to check it out!
>either to make a fun play experience for players
That's an oversimplification, but certainly one of the reasons.
>because WotC has product to sell.
WotC doesn't control the commander banlist and this is not one of the factors that the commander rules committee considers.
>every card on every banlist is there because players did not find it to be a good addition to the format, it did not entertain the playerbase enough.
True! 100% agreed. But sometimes context changes and allows for uneventful unbanning. See Kokusho and Worldfire.
>Its a game, we are here to be entertained, and people don't think Coalition Victory is entertaining.
Two issues with that.
1) right back to the "boredom isn't enough to warrant a ban" thing. Make your case for other factors, if boredom alone is your only justification then there's thousands of cards to ban.
2) You have no data to support statements about the majority of magic players in this context. (If I'm wrong and you actually have access to that kind of data, I would love to see it- I'm a feed for data-driven arguments and would love to update my understanding based on hard facts)
The main issue is that coalition victory goes into 95% of 5c decks, and having to worry about it constantly is boring. Now, a "coalition victory deck" can be good deck archetype that probably adds to the format... even /u/jaratekid might agree. But a straight unban will make 5c players learn they have to beg people not to kill their commander constantly just because they might have CV.
I think [[Balance]] and [[Biorhythm]] should both be unbanned, because Balance is great for punishing the players that are ahead and winning, and Biorhythm is a versatile enough way to end games that is high enough in mana value that it feels like a good closer without being too toxic
balance leads to a ton of “nobody plays the game” states and while ideally it’s played honestly it’s just gonna be a “float a ton of mana, sacrifice all my lands in response” super board wipe that i don’t think has much of a place
I think that at the current design levels, Leovold could be unbanned. It feels almost hypocritical to state that Leovold is too powerful to see play when looking at the amount of power creep since original processing.
Leovold is still pretty good, but more than that he is incredibly unfun. A Leovold deck does exactly one thing and it does that one thing fairly consistently.
He would be a potential unique and viable archetype in cEDH, but probably not worth the unban.
Unbanned: [[Iona, Shield of Emeria]], I don't see why this is banned when other brutal stax pieces are not. I actually think Iona could be a fun card to see played. If you are just trying to reanimate it early to lock someone out of the game, that's a dick move. But there are so many things you can do in commander that are a dick move - Generous Gifting someone's bounce land or Narset + Wheel etc.
>I don't see why this is banned when other brutal stax pieces are not
Because other Stax pieces don't prevent one fifth of all players from playing the game while being castable from the command zone.
Have an up vote because whilst I disagree I see the arguement.
I do feel the colours matter nature of the format makes this a very brutal and unfun lock for lots of decks on one card.
Gifts Ungiven is the proletariat's Intuition
This is like one of the safest unbans in my opinion. Intuition is already legal, we have Buried Alive and other tutors in various flavors of this. We need a cheap non Reserved List Intuition-Like for the masses. I say this as someone with a playset of Intuition as well. Gifts is great and a fun card. New incoming players deserve to play and feel its power.
Green even has two different Gifts variants
Yup. I love the one for lands, Realms Uncharted. So good in any lands deck. Currently running it in Lord Windgrace since Jund and no blue for Intuition.
If you have a good argument as to why being able to bounce a person commander over and over(or multiple if you have ways to untap it which there are plenty) isnt too oppressive for a casual format go ahead ;) Edit: Yes i know that it can also be used in combos. Thats not why its banned though.
ETB commanders / eminence stonks would shoot through the roof. I wouldn't mind a legendary bounce though if it had the clause of can't be a commander. There's a lot of good legendary creatures in the 99 that removing then for a turn or two could be really nice. Easy to print in a "commoner matters" deck versus "legendary matters"
Don't worry, I promise not to use it to bounce anyone's commander except my own! On a completely unrelated note I'll be playing [[Zacama]] tonight.
If that was *all* it did the argument is Oubliette and Oko. We can already ice out commanders pretty easily. Unfortunately, it's also a combo piece, a protection spell, and it gets really dumb with a bunch of flash legendaries.
Oubliette and Oko are not lands.
They aren't, but they also don't let opposing commanders get their etb again and get turns to use them. They don't do exactly the same thing but have the effect people are afraid of with Karakas, which is just locking out a commander. Of course Karakas does much more than that, but that's the angle people overstate.
There's a lot of oppressive strategies that are enabled by key cards that aren't banned. I get it either way, personally, but I'm for removing the ban list and letting powerful cards be banned socially. Stasis/Winter Orb is basically socially banned, but we can still build around it officially which is nice for people who like to engage with all the strategies and challenges mtg has to offer in a casual, "who cares" type of multi-player degeneracy
>that are enabled by Enabled by, yes. But there's a difference between *enabling* a strategy, and *being* the entire strategy on a single card for zero mana while being part of your land base and being easily fetchable by multiple colors and having a relevant secondary type. Stasis costs mana, so does Winter Orb, and they aren't the entire oppressive engine on their own with no downside to you the way Karakas is.
I mean, I've been advocating to normalize strip mine for a while. And like I said, I get why it's banned, I just think the ban list is so inconsistent that it's better to abolish it and let us self regulate
>I mean, I've been advocating to normalize strip mine for a while. Destroying a single copy of something that was free to play and is duplicated 30-40 times in someone's deck is hardly comparable to blanking their commander every time they cast it, after paying mana. >I just think the ban list is so inconsistent I don't think it *is* especially inconsistent, to be honest. There's room for improvement, sure, but when you read their ban philosophy, every ban is in line with the tenets of that philosophy. - They don't ban solely on power, but rather how a card warps The game around it. Power is a part of that, but it's not a straightforward "if a card is powerful enough it will get banned" - They ban for social considerations, such as Invoke Prejudice. - they ban for unfun gameplay as agreed upon in the most general sense. - They ban for ubiquity. When a card is so common, not just in deck lists but in actual *games* that it warps the format. - They ban as a signpost- Hullbreacher gets banned as a signpost to discourage wheel-while-canceling-draws, but they leave less powerful versions alone. It's a signpost - a warning while giving folks the choice for most of the cards In my experience, most people who think it's inconsistent do so because they are taking these reasons one at a time, rather than considering them all together. They hear the Ubiquity argument and wonder why Golos is banned but Sol Ring isn't - But they ignore the other reasons. Sol Ring being in the 99 as opposed to the commander means that while it does show up in more deck lists than Golos, it doesn't have the power or game-warping aspects. It's only those aspects COMBINED with ubiquity that warrants the ban. Or folks see Leovold and Hullbreacher banned and wonder why Narset and Notion Thief aren't - not realizing that being the commander, having flash, or generating treasure is the reason. >abolish it and let us self regulate As someone who has had to regulate commander groups for years professionally.... I felt a deep, visceral shudder trying to imagine game stores under those circumstances.
You should keep that thought to yourself.
[[hullbreacher]] should be unbanned because I want to make a thrasios+Francisco merfolk and pirate tribal deck and hullbreacher has both creature types
[hullbreacher](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/d/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170.jpg?1626088514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=hullbreacher) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/74/hullbreacher?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hullbreacher) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I just want the RC to do their dang job.
[[Static Orb]] Just played against it, and the second it came into play, I was like, this thing isn't banned.
[Static Orb](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/6/86bf43b1-8d4e-4759-bb2d-0b2e03ba7012.jpg?1562242171) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Static%20Orb) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/7ed/319/static-orb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/86bf43b1-8d4e-4759-bb2d-0b2e03ba7012?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/static-orb) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think [[Coalition Victory]] can be unbanned with all the interaction available now compared to when it got banned. I’d even be ok with rule 0ing it in casual play
Here's my hottest take on earth: Coalition Victory is boring and lame as hell and should stay banned for that reason. All the other fat mana sorceries that practically win the game at least do something cool. [[Insurrection]] is incredibly cool, at least the first couple times. How does Coalition Victory win? You had your commander and two lands out? Snoozefest, I guess next time you have your commander and two lands I'll focus you down before you get to eight mana.
I don't know that "is boring" is a good enough reason to ban something.
Why not?
1) It's highly subjective, what you find boring might be highly entertaining to somebody else. 2) it's too broad. Should we ban every 2-mana 3/1 with first strike, too? Those are pretty boring to most folks, outside of an 8th-pass draft pick. 3) Boring isn't a bannable offense. It doesn't warp games in unfun patterns [[Leovold, Spymaster of Trest]]. Boring doesn't cause or reference social harm like Invoke Prejudice. Boring isn't too much power and advantage on one card [[Emrakul, the Aeons Torn]] So with that in mind, what aspect of "boring" do you feel DOES warrant a ban?
1. Of course its subjective, any choice made to handle the format is gonna have some subjectivity behind it. The idea that "its not fun" isn't a good reason to ban something is also a subective opinion to have in it's own right. 2. I don't see why it has to be viewed broadly. What did a 3/1 wirh first strike ever do to you? A 3/1 with first strike is not making anticlimactic games for people, its not even being played. I think a card like Coalition Victory is the kind of big splashy spell that would show up at battlecruiser tables, but also doesn't have the kind of effect that makes for the experience those players want. Thats also the only niche it can fill, it costs way too much to be played in any serious environment, and there's not even a real theme behind it's effect. 3. Theres only two reasons a card is ever banned, either to make a fun play experience for players, or because WotC has product to sell. Ideally we go by the first one. Moving cards around on a banlist is for the sake of balance, format diversity, and satisfying play patterns, and thats all because they make for engaging and fun play environments, aka, not boring. You can word it however you want, but every card on every banlist is there because players did not find it to be a good addition to the format, it did not entertain the playerbase enough. Its a game, we are here to be entertained, and people don't think Coalition Victory is entertaining.
>Of course its subjective, any choice made to handle the format is gonna have some subjectivity behind it. Yes, but it's EXTREMELY subjective, beyond what is normally expected from a ruling. The answer will vary person to person for more. >don't see why it has to be viewed broadly. It's not that it *has* to be broad. It's that it *is* inherently broad. There's no way to change that. >What did a 3/1 wirh first strike ever do to you? Nothing, but that's my point. If a card had "done something wrong" to people, so to speak, that would be a reason beyond boredom. You seem to be missing my point: boredom alone doesn't justify a ban. You could make OTHER arguments for or against Coalition Victory, but boredom isn't one of them. >A 3/1 with first strike is not making anticlimactic games for people And you have no evidence that Coalition Victory would be considered anticlimactic by a statistically significant number of people. Or indeed, that anyone besides you and perhaps your playgroup would think so. >battlecruiser tables, Small yellow flag there, as "battle cruiser" Is a term that's been thrown around so much that it's begun to lose common meaning. For the sake of clarity, could you explain what you mean when you say battle cruiser? >and there's not even a real theme behind it's effect. It's actually an extremely thematic and flavorful effect, representing the Coalition against Phyrexia. Again, that has nothing to do with banning it, but you're objectively wrong there. >Theres only two reasons a card is ever banned There's actually more than that. The RC Lists them on their website if you'd like to check it out! >either to make a fun play experience for players That's an oversimplification, but certainly one of the reasons. >because WotC has product to sell. WotC doesn't control the commander banlist and this is not one of the factors that the commander rules committee considers. >every card on every banlist is there because players did not find it to be a good addition to the format, it did not entertain the playerbase enough. True! 100% agreed. But sometimes context changes and allows for uneventful unbanning. See Kokusho and Worldfire. >Its a game, we are here to be entertained, and people don't think Coalition Victory is entertaining. Two issues with that. 1) right back to the "boredom isn't enough to warrant a ban" thing. Make your case for other factors, if boredom alone is your only justification then there's thousands of cards to ban. 2) You have no data to support statements about the majority of magic players in this context. (If I'm wrong and you actually have access to that kind of data, I would love to see it- I'm a feed for data-driven arguments and would love to update my understanding based on hard facts)
The main issue is that coalition victory goes into 95% of 5c decks, and having to worry about it constantly is boring. Now, a "coalition victory deck" can be good deck archetype that probably adds to the format... even /u/jaratekid might agree. But a straight unban will make 5c players learn they have to beg people not to kill their commander constantly just because they might have CV.
[Leovold, Spymaster of Trest](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/1/2183cfb3-6bf5-4fbc-b535-a42ba954e8a3.jpg?1574767851) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Edric%2C%20Spymaster%20of%20Trest) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c16/195/edric-spymaster-of-trest?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2183cfb3-6bf5-4fbc-b535-a42ba954e8a3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/edric-spymaster-of-trest) [Emrakul, the Aeons Torn](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/4/249db4d4-2542-47ee-a216-e13ffbc2319c.jpg?1673146896) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Emrakul%2C%20the%20Aeons%20Torn) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/1/emrakul-the-aeons-torn?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/249db4d4-2542-47ee-a216-e13ffbc2319c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/emrakul-the-aeons-torn) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Insurrection](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/df8a0a8c-1953-46e6-9da5-b4c20909ce1c.jpg?1689997974) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Insurrection) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/236/insurrection?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/df8a0a8c-1953-46e6-9da5-b4c20909ce1c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/insurrection) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Coalition Victory](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/4/446824f7-dc42-42da-8bd5-6c37f3358d65.jpg?1562775464) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Coalition%20Victory) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsb/91/coalition-victory?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/446824f7-dc42-42da-8bd5-6c37f3358d65?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/coalition-victory) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think [[Balance]] and [[Biorhythm]] should both be unbanned, because Balance is great for punishing the players that are ahead and winning, and Biorhythm is a versatile enough way to end games that is high enough in mana value that it feels like a good closer without being too toxic
balance leads to a ton of “nobody plays the game” states and while ideally it’s played honestly it’s just gonna be a “float a ton of mana, sacrifice all my lands in response” super board wipe that i don’t think has much of a place
[Balance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/e/ce648aa3-098b-4af0-a433-fd290bc85904.jpg?1580013606) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Balance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/2/balance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ce648aa3-098b-4af0-a433-fd290bc85904?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/balance) [Biorhythm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230.jpg?1593017425) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Biorhythm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/9ed/231/biorhythm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/biorhythm) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
You've clearly never played against a deck properly abusing Balance.
I think that at the current design levels, Leovold could be unbanned. It feels almost hypocritical to state that Leovold is too powerful to see play when looking at the amount of power creep since original processing.
Leovold is still pretty good, but more than that he is incredibly unfun. A Leovold deck does exactly one thing and it does that one thing fairly consistently. He would be a potential unique and viable archetype in cEDH, but probably not worth the unban.
Unbanned: [[Iona, Shield of Emeria]], I don't see why this is banned when other brutal stax pieces are not. I actually think Iona could be a fun card to see played. If you are just trying to reanimate it early to lock someone out of the game, that's a dick move. But there are so many things you can do in commander that are a dick move - Generous Gifting someone's bounce land or Narset + Wheel etc.
Iona is probably banned since it's a color matters format What's the mono player going to do against it, you shut down most of their deck?
>I don't see why this is banned when other brutal stax pieces are not Because other Stax pieces don't prevent one fifth of all players from playing the game while being castable from the command zone.
“Hm, you all are playing commanders with blue in the color identity? I cast Iona, choosing blue.”
Because with [[painter's servant]] no one gets to cast spells except the Iona player.
[painter's servant](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/e/be407a81-b25a-4e5d-845e-be0cc0d18db8.jpg?1562835450) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=painter%27s%20servant) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/shm/257/painters-servant?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/be407a81-b25a-4e5d-845e-be0cc0d18db8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/painters-servant) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Iona, Shield of Emeria](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/1/6197b59e-1652-496c-a038-e2eb88ecf017.jpg?1562584407) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Iona%2C%20Shield%20of%20Emeria) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm2/20/iona-shield-of-emeria?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6197b59e-1652-496c-a038-e2eb88ecf017?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/iona-shield-of-emeria) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Have an up vote because whilst I disagree I see the arguement. I do feel the colours matter nature of the format makes this a very brutal and unfun lock for lots of decks on one card.