How do we feel about this card?

Personally I'm deeply concerned by Overwhelming Splendor. It seems to go against the social contract of Commander by locking a player out of the game:

• It disables their commander (unless it's Oloro in the command zone).
• It disables any game plan they might have unless it doesn't need creatures.
• It disables many answers to itself since creature-based removal can no longer operate from that player (Acidic Slime, Banisher Priest)
• It's a "can't" card that shuts down options rather than a card that adds new fun to the game.
• It's a major prison card that doesn't end the game or finish the player off quickly so their lockout can at least end one way or another -- if anything, the other players will likely leave them alone and focus on each other because the Splendored player is no longer a significant threat.

A friend told me earlier this week about a game they had this played on them, and they were unable to do anything meaningful for ~45 minutes until the game ended. Their game state became "draw Krosan Grip or Wave of Vitriol, or do nothing." They had creature-based removal available -- in fact, they ended the game with Acidic Slime and Caustic Caterpillar in their hand -- but couldn't use it with Splendor active on them.

(Those "there and not defeated yet but can't do anything" gameplay states are what make me not want to play games like Risk, so I really hope I never have to see a Splendor played at an EDH game I'm in.)

What do you think though? Is it workable? Should it be banned or is it OK (or OK enough)?

If Iona is fine in the format, an eight mana Humility is fine.

There's nothing wrong with it.

It's similar to Humility which is fine. It's double the cost so as to focus on a single player. Not too bad.

Yes it can suck - but if it shows up more, then you metagame and increase the # of answers to it you have (ie, swap your acidic slime for a non-creature answer such as creeping mold, etc.)

I wouldn't play it. Not because it's bad but because, and let me first start by saying that this is completely opinion based, it is an un-fun card. I shuffle up to play cards. Not to sit and watch everyone else have a good time. I believe my opponents feel the same and I don't want to put them into an un-fun situation. It's the same reason I don't play Iona, which I believe is a spot on comparison. I also don't run stax or non-interactive combo decks.

That's a shaky definition of "fine", although comparison to Iona is rather appropriate, because they have similar uses/results - typically used to make one player effectively out of the game. This is a card for jerks. The only reason to play it is a desire to be a jerk. As such, while it doesn't really need to be banned, it's a clear example of cards you shouldn't be playing if you actually want to make the game enjoyable.


Well put.

I agree with that pretty strongly.

I think there's a couple of differences from Iona:

First, visibility. Iona's the commander so we can see we're facing an Iona deck before the game begins. If we're not comfortable playing against an Iona deck, we can respond at the very beginning, before any time has been spent: "I don't want to play against Iona. Do you mind taking out one of your other decks, or swapping her out for another legendary?" If we are comfortable playing against her, her player ought to be conscious they've at least painted a big X on their forehead.

Second, threat level and the players banding together against that threat. Iona creates a different attitude entirely among the players compared to Overwhelming Splendor. Iona is an ever-present threat that can come back and happen to anyone, so players feel pressure to destroy her player ASAP, like if someone came to the table with an Infect deck. The two players who share a colour might feel especially nervous as prime targets. If any player gets hit, unaffected or less-affected players have a "that could have been me -- that could still be me!" feeling. This means players are working together against a common threat, and any player imprisoned by it has allies willing to do things that will free them.

Overwhelming Splendor doesn't come back(*). Once it's used it'll never affect anyone else. The un-Splendored players can breath a sigh of relief ("phew, they used up one of their strongest cards and I'm glad it wasn't me") and continue on. Those players don't feel a burning need to remove the Splendor, its caster, or its victim from the game. The victim has no new allies as a result of Overwhelming Splendor, there is no common enemy at the table, there's nobody willing to help free them from this prison but themselves.

(* The exception is if the deck has a big theme of flickering or returning enchantments from their graveyard, in which case Splendor is still as threatening as Iona.)

Humility: This one isn't visible, but it does at least affect everyone, which means like with Iona, everyone's working together to destroy it. The exception might be its player, since they've got Humility in their game plan for some reason, but at least they're also hit by it and just have weenie creatures (probably).

As a point of reference, if losing your commander feels bad...


... so too would losing your commander and every other creature (they're all just ability-less vanilla 1/1 weenies now) with nobody having any need to help you.

I very much disagree with this point, which you seem to have based your analysis on - you're comparing Iona as a commander to an enchantment in the 99, when you very much should be comparing Iona in the 99 to the enchantment in the 99. Because Iona isn't a very common commander and because multi-color decks can often abuse her much more effectively than simply having her as a commander, by cheating her out early and having access to much more effective recursion / blink strategies.

Being in the 99 renders the visibility point moot. Iona is different in that she potentially impacts everyone, but it's also often possible to focus her disproportionally on one player, either because that player is mono-color or because you deny that player a color that your other opponents aren't using. So the overall effect, though not identical, is similar in its application - to hose a player out of actually playing, without actually killing them.

Iona should have been banned ages ago, and this card can go with it as far as I'm concerned, along with Solemnity, the 3 mana Iona for counters based decks. The less cancerous garbage in the format the better.

... and Stony Silence? which kicks artifact decks around? And what about Tranquil Grove for enchantment decks?

I understand comparing Iona & Overwhelming Splendor. But Solemnity? Sure, it kicks counter decks hard -- but it doesn't stop them from playing the game. These are vastly different effects.

Whereas I tend to have at least one "griefy" deck in the stable at any given time, and both Overwhelming Splendor and Solemnity appeal to my style of play. Solemnity is the more interesting of the two, given it has potential to advance certain of your game states as well as disrupting those of others. I don't play the more nasty decks often, but they're the ones I enjoy playing with (and against) the most. The ability to play through and overcome disruption is an important skill in play and in deckbuilding.

You're right about that actually, I somehow totally skipped over Iona in the 99 as part of comparing them. Iona in the 99 vs Overwhelming Splendor in the 99 are far more similar. Gives me some more to think about.

"Players can't get counters.
Counters can't be put on artifacts, creatures, enchantments, or lands."

that is basically exactly what it says. If i build to a theme, and most of my answers adhere to that theme except for a few, you get screwed. All it does is ensure I'm required to dedicate a bunch of slots to enchantment based exile and ignore my theme because some random asshole might put it in their deck just to grief people.

So your concern is that having to include the removal that you should already be running is too onerous? I have a deck that wins solely through life gain. Cards that say "players can't gain life" are death sentences, as are Platinum Angel-type effects. I have included several spells that exile artifacts and enchantments because while neither effect is particularly common, I need answers for that Nekusar deck that runs Everlasting Tormentand Havoc Festival. What I'm trying to say is a deck builder must be aware of such hoser cards when they construct a deck and have a plan to work around them. You seem to feel that instead of adjusting your deck to your opponents' answers, it is reasonable to simply ask your opponents not to play certain answers. There's a strange sense of entitlement there.

How does it stop you from playing the game? Your lands still tap for mana, you can still cast spells -- your spells & creatures may not be as effective anymore (like an infect creature is pretty darn useless for most typical things a creature can do with Solemnity in play.)

How is it stopping you from playing? You're making a claim and then supporting it by making your claim again. Perhaps if you actually took the time to explain yourself (and try to refrain from hyperbole) then perhaps you may find that some other people here agree with you.
What the hell enchantment removal has a counter theme?

Also -- yes, sometimes you just have to have a few cards that abandon your theme in order to shore up some potential weaknesses. Or you accept that weakness and push your theme harder.

I'd like to point out that "cannot gain counters" doesn't mean "cannot change its power/toughness". There's a lot of cards that increase and decrease pt without bestowing counters.