I've heard on the #edh IRC channel on Efnet that there's talk of banning Recurring Nightmare. Can we get some discussion about this? I haven't seen it abused in games yet, but I was certainly planning on putting one in the Zur deck I'm building.

Here's the Oracle for those who need it:
name: Recurring Nightmare
cost: 2B
type: Enchantment
Sacrifice a creature, Return Recurring Nightmare to its owner's hand: Return target creature card from your graveyard to play. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery.
Set: Exodus Rare
Price: 4.94

Arguments for banning:
Repeatable effect
Somewhat hard to deal with

Arguments against:
Answers exist (counter spells, removal spells to remove whatever the sacrificed creature will be before the Nightmare resolves, enchantment removal, etc. If they pass priority, the ability can only be played at sorcery speed, so no responding to a run of the mill disenchant.)

Let's look at the edh banning criteria

I'm not sure if the argument for banning applies here or not. I don't think its power level is significantly higher than it would be in Legacy. Actually it's probably less since in a multiplayer format somebody is more likely to have an answer.

Magictraders.com has the average price of one of these at $5.

Not the case, the interpretation is quite clear.

In my mind it doesn't meet the criteria, but as I said I've not actually seen it played. Can somebody with more experience chime in?

And of course, right after I post this I find the thread in Banned List discussions is already talking about it. Sorry, I initially figured that a thread whose last discussion was back in January wouldn't be talking about such a hot issue.

Last I heard, the Rules Committee was looking at either banning Recurring Nightmare or Kokusho, the Evening Star to diversify the metagame. Dunno what happened there - that thread sort of died off - maybe that will pick up here.
I've only had a chance to get together and play twice since participating in those discussions, in Princeton, right before I moved to Florida. In the four or so multiplayer games we squeezed into those two meetings, Recurring Nightmare made no appearances, though it was in the Seq'Quar deck I used one game (that deck needs a LOT more lands, Simon). However, One game of 2HG I was playing my Ghost Council of Orzhova deck, and with my general in play, my partner and I were at single digit life, the combat situation is very locked up on the ground, nothing in the air, my general is in play, his general is Hoarde of Notions, he has Crib Swap in his grave and a Concordant Crossroads in play under someone else's control.
Rather than play the Netherborn Phalanx in my hand with a creature-choked board, I transmte it for Kokusho, Jim plays Hoarde, Crib Swaps someone's general that could have traded with Ghost council, and we swing for 9 on the ground and 5 in the air. Post combat I sac Kokusho to my general, he comes back into play, and we're at decent life again, while several other teams are on the brink of losing. Next turn I rip Grim tutor, and since Concordant crossroads is still in play, I point out to Jim that I can GT for Coffin Queen, activate her, get Kokusho, swing with him, sac hm to the general and kill at least one team and leave the other on the brink. But he comes up with a better play: he crib swips two fliers, one of which is a General (general costs are way up there this late in the game, while I GT for Desolation Angel and play her with the kicker. Float more mana, drop more chump blockers, swing with hasty fatties, kill one team, watch concessions so we can get to next game - we have a big army, some chumps, are at a huge life total after a 2 HG Kokusho nuke and a ton of Ghost Council triggers, and played an armageddon effect. The Black Dragon is nuts with Coffin Queen, Lifeline, Dawn of the Dead+Sac Outlet, you name it.

I was speaking with Genomancer last FNM and he told me that it was banned.

There's talk of banning Kokusho, as well. EDH by it's very nature is a multiplayer format and the loss of life and the gaining of life is very one sided.



The problem with many of these arguments is that they aren't taking the rules of the game into account. Sacrificing the creature and returning RN to your hand are a part of the COST of the effect. The opposing players cannot remove the creature sacrificed and cannot disenchant RN to prevent the effect. Before you get priority to cast that Disenchant, RN is already in the players hand. Before you get to Terminate the creature, the creature is already in the graveyard. This makes Recurring Nightmare problematic. Even if you have spells with, say, Split second, so what? The cost has already been paid. You would need something that counters activated abilities and those are few and far between in most decks.

Yea, you can counter it, but not all colors (ie. players) have access to those types of spells and abilities.

The fact that the effect is repeatable via returning to the players hand busts this card wide open as is abused everytime it's in play (or isn't!).

The only reason to play this card is that it is abusable! And that alone is enough reason to ban it.

Uh... most of the cards that are played are abusable. You want to say that it is always abused.

i run this card in my sek'kuar dek and i don't see it as being banable yea it's powerful but it's not that powerful every color has a way to deal with the graveyard (artifacts) plus you need a creature in play and a creature in the graveyard.. if you have one creature in play and decide to play recur someone can kill your creature while your recur in on the stack because it isn't in play yet same reason you can counterspell recur...personaly i think the only people whinning about banning this card either A: don't have one or B: can never beat a deck running one...make your deck better and this won't be a problem.. in group games recur isn't much of a problem cause everyone at the table pack some kind of graveyard hate or creature hate....problematic yes, abusable yes, but it is also beatable by every color.... my sugestion is keep it unbanned and build better decks...

I do agree.

If a card must be banned, it's kokusho. The more player around the table, the crazier it is.

and if I remember well:

See, and while you're entitled to be naive, you're still naive.

You cannot "kill your creature while recur is on the stack" as the creature was sacrificed as part of the COST. It's already in the graveyard.

You don't have to own one to know this card is hardcore and once you play it its easy to determine just how hardcore this card is. Tell me, who's whining? It sounds like people with your argument are just too selfish to relinquish a format killing card in the name of some arbitrary amount of perceived power trip they get by ruining fun, competitive games into one-sided goldfishing.

I own many RN and while, yea, I'd like to play them, it's just not friendly to a multiplayer game as a larger scale. If I played RN around every new player we invite to play at FNM every week and just played all the hijinks I could, this game would never spread and I'd probably end up with a punch to the face.

If we based everything on generalizations the way you do (ie. "in group games recur isn't much of a problem cause everyone at the table pack some kind of graveyard hate or creature hate") this game would never spread the way it has.

Most of my decks have black in them and I don't feel like it's much of a design constraint to NOT put Recurring Nightmare into EVERY deck. It's black - it can do the same thing as Recurring Nightmare without having to use Recurring Nightmare. Just use your brain a little more and you might find some more fun in cards you normally wouldn't think about without ruining everyone elses.

I beg your pardon, but I do understand the rules. That's why I specifically wrote the post the way that I did. You can play removal spells to remove the creature(s) that would be sacrificed in response to the Recurring Nightmare itself, while it's still on the stack. Since you seem confused by Sek'kaur's post, note that we are talking about while the spell is on the stack, not the ability. After that it is sitting around in play with nothing to sacrifice and as soon as the player passes priority it can be disenchanted. Difficult to do? Yes. But nearly every color has some form of removal (except for green I suppose). And if you say that it's bannable because not every deck runs counterspells, then why are we unbanning Beacon of Immortality? The other night a player in our group took down three people with a False Cure+Beacon of Immortality combo in a single turn. The only possible answer to it? Counterspells. There are many many cards where the only answer is a counter spell.

Also, I might add that there are other answers in pretty much any color. Red can burn down the creatures to be sacrificed before the nightmare comes into play, black can cause the Nightmare to be discarded or can remove the creature to be returned from the graveyard, blue can counter it, white can can remove the returning creature from the graveyard, and green... well, ok green is hard to come up with an answer, but what else is new?

Put me in the camp of "if we need to ban one make it Kokusho."

RN is only really broken with Kokusho (though has plenty of other nice combos) Kokusho's power goes up dramatically in a mutiplayer game.

That said I have a Japanese Kokusho in the mail so I say keep them both



Bawh? Geno can you notice this thread and comment on that?

1. Its power level in multiplayer EDH is signficantly higher than both what's expected for its mana cost AND it's power level in other formats (due to different rules or game sizes). [Examples include Panoptic Mirror and Biorythm]

Kokusho is no more "broken" in EDH than any other multiplayer format - cards of its ilk are worded that way so they are potent in multiplayer. Also, Kokusho is ONLY a creature - the usual way our games go is play Kokusho, someone RFG's it and they never get the trigger (we have already banned RN). While Kokusho meets the first half of the banning criteria, it probably does not meet the second half - it is good no matter what format it is in (especially multiplayers where the ability gets to reach full effect).

RN itself is so far above the curve of anything remotely similar to it, it is purely ludicrous. However, looking at the banning criteria, neither of these cards can be banned in the official elder rules. The other two criteria (2 it's dollar cost is prohibitive for most players and the card usually detracts from the playing experience of everyone in the game [The Power 8]. 3 it belongs to a class of cards which can't be consistantly interpreted by all players [Silver bordered cards, dexterity cards]) clearly do not apply. Therefore, the first point is the only one under which these could be banned

The fact that both of these cards are significantly higher than what is expected at their mana costs is without question. However, both of them are equally as powerful in other formats (looking more towards casual games than tournament decks). By banning either one of them in the official rules would create for an inconsistency in the application of them. Why stop at these cards then? Karakas is clearly ridiculous in Highlander formats of any sort. Mind's Eye is more powerful in a slow, multiplayer, highlander format than any other. By banning either Kokusho or RN, the banning criteria as it stands would no longer apply. While I myself dislike playing against RN, I also dislike playing against Armageddon effects and Wrath effects (hence my aggro deck is built to recover quickly from them).

Sorry for making such a long post (it sort of just kept coming, and after fully developing my own argument I discovered neither should be banned, after having prepared to say ban RN).

i didn't realize i didn't clearly state when the spell was cast.. i have been playing MTG since 95 and i play both casual and tournaments on a regular basis.. i don't like to be called naive because it wasn't clear... everyone knows the lame rule that you can still use it.. i was talking about killing creatures before recur hits the table... i term it whinning because this card is not "broken" powerful yes but not bannable.. how many 4-8 player games have you ever played where not one deck could ever stop recur sillyness.. if thats how your games go thats where i say you should build better decks.. and hey mathew if your going to quote me and call me naive at least get the whole quote..
you seemed to miss the whole NOT IN PLAY YET... you cannot sac a creature to recur if it's NOT IN PLAY YET.....STILL ON THE STACK... never once did i mention the ability on the stack....

Recurring Nightmare is a broken card. Period. Anyone who played in T2 9 years ago should realize this. The card is so far above the curve in regards to reanimation spells that it's ridiculous. The card is ridiculously swingy, and if it resolves, you're probably going to win; you'll at least get yourself into an overwhelmingly favorable board position.

Oh, and if you think that Nightmare can only be abused with Kokusho, you're not thinking clearly. Any of the "untap X lands when ~this~ comes into play" creatures are just as bad, and Eternal Witness is right there also.

I think it should probably be banned, because it's just way too one-sided and definitely not fun for anyone but the person playing it. I am a 100% dyed-in-the-wool Savra EDH player, and I played Survival/Nightmare in Standard and Extended back when it was legal, so I definitely know what I am talking about.

Just my thoughts.

Yeah there is also Fastbond, Sol Ring, and many other stupidly broken cards in the format that in non EDH formats are MUCH more powerful than Nightmare.

Talk about how it is bad for EDH not that you played it nine years ago.

Exactly. Due to this fact, it can NOT be banned under criteria one, as a card must meet both halves of that requirement (signficantly higher than BOTH what's expected for its mana cost (yes, it qualifies here) AND it's power level in other formats (no, it does not meet this)). If the rules are to be uniformly applied, RN can not be banned (good luck arguing for points two or three of banning criteria) as it does not meet the first criteria as it stands.