The Argument for a Mystic Sanctuary Ban
Modern forum
Posted on Dec. 7, 2020, 8:32 a.m. by gatotempo
Hi, all. Most people who have played modern in the last few months have probably been sanctuary-locked or played a sanctuary-lock deck. I'm going to prove that it needs to be banned by comparing it to other cards that were too powerful to print. Earlier in magic's history, a tournament was held called "the duelist invitational." The winner of this tournament got to design a card that Wizards would print. Two cards that various winners designed but were too broken to print: a land that could sacrifice for to counter a spell and a Cancel that gave its owner the option to put it on top of their library. Granted, this was in 2009, but in Amonkhet, when they printed utility lands, wotc refused to have the blue land counterspell, and instead had it mill. To add on to this, a recursive counterspell has never been printed, simply because it would be too annoying. Mystic sanctuary also is potentially better, when compared, to a counter land, since it can be fetched by 4 different cards, of which can be played at four copies each. So why does Mystic Sanctuary remain legal?
I’ve been a little out of the meta recently but from what I’ve experienced in the past I don’t think sanctuary would need a ban. It is not truly repeatable use unless you are bouncing your own lands every turn which would be bad or you are fetching for a new one every turn which would allow you to do it up to 4 turns in a row. 4 turns in a row of Cancel is definitely nothing to sneeze at though so let’s consider that scenario. In said scenario you are not putting the card directly in hand, rather to top of library. This means that you are not gaining card advantage so much as you are making sure you draw a counter spell each turn. Also great but far less oppressive than a cheap repeatable counter truly would be. For comparison to the cards that were “too busted” to be printed, the counter land would be able to be used the turn you play it (unless it came into play tapped which wouldn’t be as bad but would need to cost more than 3 due to the tax on versatility of a land counter spell combo) this requires you to wait a turn or have an instant speed draw in order to use it in respond to a spell with it. As for the Cancel that put itself on top of deck, while that is the effect of this scenario there is more set up in the fact that it requires fetch lands to consistently pull off, takes up your land drop for the turn, and is limited to 4 uses in practice.
If the returned card is something like Cryptic Command where you are getting additional value out of the counter then this gets significantly better but I don’t see this as ban worthy unless other decks start having troubles dealing with it and at least from a cursory glance at mtg top 8 there are plenty of other decks that are able to compete with it.
December 7, 2020 1:25 p.m.
wallisface says... #4
So the sanctuary lock with Cryptic Command is a real threat - though more often than not its just a way for the control player to demonstrate that they’ve won to the opponent when the game’s effectively over anyway.
I think sanctuary will only see a ban if control becomes a bigger part of the meta, and people start abusing it far more than they are now (thinking Terminus feels rude). I do think the card will see a ban at somepoint as it does create design restrictions going forwards, and while not overpowered, does create boring gamestates.
My reservations over it getting banned anytime soon stems from there just being other cards out there wizards seem to be keeping a closer eye on at the moment
December 7, 2020 2:51 p.m.
Flooremoji says... #5
A big part of what makes sanctuary so good (imo) is that these decks
1: Get to draw so many extra cards because of planeswalker cards that the card 'disadvantage' (not really, it's more like scrying a good card to the top of your deck with upside) is negated and you get the card back immediently and still draw relevant cards (sometimes just more lands, for more mana or fetches to find more sanctuaries, but also removal and more counterspells. Basically, you already have card quantity, and adding this land gives you card quality).
2: Already had up to eight uses of Cryptic Command because of Snapcaster Mage (already a incredible ammount of CC uses if you ask me) and they also get to play 4 Archmage's Charm as another incredibly flexible counterspell. This land setting up for an additional 4 uses of CC (now up to 12, and this is not counting the cryptic lock which isn't usually worth it unless you have won) means that once control decks have "set up" they can cryptic command almost every relevant spell in your deck without having to give up card slots for the extra four counterspells. Not to mention that the extra counterspells you just added to your deck don't have to be counterspeells.
December 7, 2020 3:57 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #6
"To add on to this, a recursive counterspell has never been printed, simply because it would be too annoying."
Mono-U Tron and Spell Burst would like to have a word with you.
December 7, 2020 10:41 p.m.
wallisface I have had many games as an infect player, where, against a control deck, I am cryptic locked on turn 5, and I cannot resolve a lurrus or even a pump spell, which could have one the game. By the time inkmoth nexus could threaten to win, tef5 has ulted and exiled it. The fact that control decks have a "win in the first four turns or concede" land is when it feels like sanctuary is pushing the limits of the format.
December 8, 2020 1:33 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #8
It’s worse than that actually. Because cryptic command says “return target permanent to its owners hand” you effectively get INFINITE cryptic commands, by bouncing the sanctuary as your second choice.
I haven’t played much modern lately, formats been real stale IMO. But I do agree it needs a ban.
December 9, 2020 11:09 a.m.
Flooremoji says... #9
Daveslab2022: Yhea, I guess I agree with Wallisface: More often than not its just a way for the control player to demonstrate that they’ve won to the opponent when the game’s effectively over anyway. A counterspell that returns itself to the top of your deck and prevents you from developing is not very good at getting you back in the game, I think you lose out on a ton of the power of Cryptic if you can't draw new cards and choose more of the flexible modes: It's hardly infinite cryptic command because you can't choose tap draw or counter draw, or any of it's other flexible modes because it's using everything to return itself and counter a spell/tap a board. It certainly has it's place and there are times where a cryptic lock is just the thing you need (esp. with planeswalkers which let you draw new cards and get closer to ultimating under a cryptic lock), but usually I would prefer using CC as CC, since there are so many ways to recast it you can wait a while just reusing cryptics for their full value then go for the lock once the game is functionally over.
Reznorboy says... #2
All I can say for sure is that Wizards makes weird decisions and logic isn't really their realm of expertise.
December 7, 2020 10:20 a.m.