Hello all, was wondering how this interaction would work and I guess more broadly how Madness and Discard use the stack.
Say I have a hand with Faithless Looting, Call to the Netherworld, and Tombstalker and I cast the Looting, draw 2, then discard the Call to the Netherworld and Tombstalker... can I use the madness ability on Call to the Netherworld to return Tombstalker to my hand immediately?
The confusing part to me is that when I use madness abilities on MTGO it makes it seem, visually at least, like you have to cast the card while it's discarding is still on the stack, and if you miss that window of opportunity then it goes from exile to the graveyard and you lose your shot to cast it. So if I cast the card as it's being discarded does that go on top of the discarding in the stack? Because if that's the case then the Tombstalker wouldn't be in the graveyard yet when Call to the Netherworld tries to resolve and couldn't be a target. But then that doesn't make sense either because if I was able to cast it with it's madness cost then it would have to have been discarded, meaning Tombstalker was also discarded at the same time and would have to be in the graveyard. Seems like a paradox to me so I'm sure I'm messing something up. Please help
Has anyone talked about this new card Slaughter the Strong coming out in Rivals? I think it has some really strong sideboard potential in multiple D&T builds.
It's a cheap and powerful board wipe against anything with big bodies or crazy boards that will almost never affect us as much as our opponent. Kills Death's Shadow and Gurmag Angler in that matchup, kills a ton of stuff in any Living End deck, takes care of a lot of the bigger threats from Tron, and we will almost always be able to keep most of our own creatures and at least will be able to pick the ones we want most. Basically any two of our most important bears, or a single Thought-Knot Seer or even Vial in a Flickerwisp to save a second Seer at the cost of the Wisp itself. I guess you can't run Reality Smasher but that's the only real limitation this puts on your deck I can think of.
I could be totally wrong but to me this just seems like something that will always affect certain opponents a ton and us very little. I'll definitely be experimenting with it soon.
It still gives you something to do on turn 1 like Inspector, survives a removal that doesn't exile it, and can pilot the Copter whether it's still human or a spirit! The clue is obviously super nice but so is looting with copter so maybe that's a wash? I guess the biggest downside is that without Copter it's a super dead card whereas Inspector always gives you a clue.
Huntmaster's new art really demonstrates my views about card art and it's relationship to world building and non-legendary creatures in Magic and why ultimately the gender of a creature doesn't matter and should change without issue, I really really dig it.
I've always liked thinking of the art on non-legendary creatures as being just a single example of what that kind of creature could be in a broader sense, but never necessarily the creature depicted in the image. A Huntmaster of the Fells isn't THAT guy in that card image, a Huntmaster of the Fells is an archetype that expresses itself on the plane of Innistrad and happens over and over again throughout the population. Of course the art will have to be a depiction of a single person, because it would be way too difficult to make every card have a unique image. The art is just a starting point for the player's imagination to extrapolate what that creature is and does in that world, using not only the art but the flavor text and what the card actually does to assemble a complete creature that tells you something about the world. I LOVE it when new art for an existing card uses this approach and chooses to depict a different individual but still the same idea and role. Of course this Huntmaster isn't the same one as the original, the original was just some arbitrary individual version of a Huntmaster which exists in a society with a whole bunch of other Huntmasters traipsing around with different hairs and genders and qualities that really have nothing to do with being a Huntmaster and ultimately wouldn't result in a functionally different card. Dude on the original card wasn't a particularly important one to begin with, otherwise he'd be legendary and his name would be like Carl and you'd only get to play one of him on a battlefield at a time. This new art gives us more information about what this kind of creature can be in Innistrad and personally makes my imagination feel good and stuff.
By contrast the new art for Delver is amazing, but doesn't really tell us anything new about the creature and it's role in the plane. I feel like it's pretty safe to assume this is the actual same dude from the original card, unless he's from some Innistrad version of Buddhist Monks or something where everyone fashions themselves in a really specific way for spiritual reasons. With this new art we still only get a single example of what a Delver of Secrets can be and look like, when presumably it's a thing that just exists and has the potential to happen over and over again, resulting in 8 Delver board-states being possible. This feels a little like one artist saying "I could do that better" or something. Or who knows, maybe a card that iconic came with a Wizards mandate saying it has to be samesies.
I like your perspective. I have two takeaways from your post.
1. From this point forward, whenever I play my Huntmaster of the Fells (male) in a game I will refer to him as Carl; because that's hilarious to me. "I summon...CARL OF THE FELLS!"
That's all I really wanted, to make CARL OF THE FELLS a thing.
Huntmaster's new art really demonstrates my views about card art and it's relationship to world building and non-legendary creatures in Magic and why ultimately the gender of a creature doesn't matter and should change without issue, I really really dig it.
I've always liked thinking of the art on non-legendary creatures as being just a single example of what that kind of creature could be in a broader sense, but never necessarily the creature depicted in the image. A Huntmaster of the Fells isn't THAT guy in that card image, a Huntmaster of the Fells is an archetype that expresses itself on the plane of Innistrad and happens over and over again throughout the population. Of course the art will have to be a depiction of a single person, because it would be way too difficult to make every card have a unique image. The art is just a starting point for the player's imagination to extrapolate what that creature is and does in that world, using not only the art but the flavor text and what the card actually does to assemble a complete creature that tells you something about the world. I LOVE it when new art for an existing card uses this approach and chooses to depict a different individual but still the same idea and role. Of course this Huntmaster isn't the same one as the original, the original was just some arbitrary individual version of a Huntmaster which exists in a society with a whole bunch of other Huntmasters traipsing around with different hairs and genders and qualities that really have nothing to do with being a Huntmaster and ultimately wouldn't result in a functionally different card. Dude on the original card wasn't a particularly important one to begin with, otherwise he'd be legendary and his name would be like Carl and you'd only get to play one of him on a battlefield at a time. This new art gives us more information about what this kind of creature can be in Innistrad and personally makes my imagination feel good and stuff.
By contrast the new art for Delver is amazing, but doesn't really tell us anything new about the creature and it's role in the plane. I feel like it's pretty safe to assume this is the actual same dude from the original card, unless he's from some Innistrad version of Buddhist Monks or something where everyone fashions themselves in a really specific way for spiritual reasons. With this new art we still only get a single example of what a Delver of Secrets can be and look like, when presumably it's a thing that just exists and has the potential to happen over and over again, resulting in 8 Delver board-states being possible. This feels a little like one artist saying "I could do that better" or something. Or who knows, maybe a card that iconic came with a Wizards mandate saying it has to be samesies.
Does anyone have an opinion on adding a single copy of Rest in Peace to the Mainboard of BW Eldrazi Taxes?
My thinking is that RIP is just strong against SO many decks at the top of the format right now, particularly Storm and Grixis Shadow and any deck running Snapcasters or Gearhulks, while also having zero impact on your own strategy and actually adding value to your Wasteland Stranglers! I guess the concession is that it'll be a little embarrasing the times you draw it against Tron or something, but that's not an especially rough matchup anyway for E&T.
I dunno maybe I'm just sick to death of losing to Storm all the time... but I think this might not be the most crazy idea in the current meta. Let me know what you guys think
Sorry for two Qs in such short order... but does Prismatic Strands grant actual Protection or is it different because the card and oracle read Prevent instead of saying explicitly Protection? I'm asking to find out if Prismatic Strands choosing the color of an op's blockers makes blocking impossible, or if it makes blocking possible but without any damage happening to the creature with Strand's Prevention affect. Thanks!
Hi all, I looked at the oracle text for all of these cards and can't find an answer anywhere so I'm hoping someone here can help.
When playing with Tireless Tribe and Inside Out, I'm confused as to how the pump works after power/toughness switch and then how damage can be responded to using the pump ability... basically 2 Qs:
* Does discarding a card to Tireless Tribe before or after casting Inside Out affect which stat gets pumped? Like should the sequence be to discard 5 cards making Tribe 1/21 - THEN cast Inside Out? Or should you cast Inside Out to make sure it resolves then start discarding, if you want to ultimately make a 21/1 Tribe?
* If the sequencing does matter, can you pump Tribe in response to a burn spell AFTER casting Inside Out, thus raising it's new 1 toughness to survive? For example: enter combat - cast Shadow Rift on Tireless Tribe - declare Tireless Tribe attacking - before damage discard 5 cards making Tireless Tribe 1/21 - cast Inside Out, Tribe is now 21/1 - op casts lightning bolt targetting Tribe - respond to bolt with discard 1 card to make Tribe 21/5 - Tribe survives bolt taking 3 damage
Would this work? Or is the only effective way to survive burn spells on Tribe by countering or protection?
I'm looking into using Glory-Bound Initiate in a BW Eldrazi and Taxes deck and was wondering if a flickering effect either from Flickerwisp or Eldrazi Displacer would cause it to untap on the next turn when exerted.
I feel like the Wisp would return it untapped and hence unexerted... but because of the language in exert saying "during your next untap step", which I'm wondering means it's dependent on just being my next turn and not on the creature leaving the battlefield or whatever, I'm way less confident in whether the Displacer's effect would essentially un-exert it because it does return it to the battlefield tapped.
So would it untap next untap phase because when it was flickered it lost all of it's extra statuses, or would it still remain tapped for one additional turn because Exert only checks that it is my next untap phase and it doesn't care what happened to the Initiate as long as he happens to still be tapped?
I feel like the dude would be value in this style of deck as basically a persistently attacking 4/4 lifelink for CMC2, especially against burn or some matchup where the pace and life gain would be strong.
I run an Orzhov Aristocrats deck on MTGO and had something resolve in a way that made me realize I don't totally understand Protection or Triggering...
My board had a bunch of creatures including Blood Artist and Cartel Aristocrat when my opponent cast Damnation... so I started to sac' out my board before it could resolve, using Cartel Aristocrat's ability and triggering a bunch of drains with my Blood Artist, but at the end of my stack of triggers I set Cartel's ability to be Protection from Black... but she still died to Damnation? Was this a MTGO error or is that just how it works? Also if I hadn't made Artist my final sac', draining for 1 to itself dying, could I have left it and Cartel on the board and gotten 2 drain instead? Or does something about Damnation not activate the drain ability? I can't tell because it only wiped Cartel off the board with no Artist's around. My deck also runs a Geralf's Messenger and I'm wondering if Undying constitutes regenerating as mentioned on Damnation.
How does this work? Like if I sac'ed a transformed Shambling Vent does it leave the field as a creature and a land? Or does it just turn back into a land? I'm trying to find out if it can represent a renewable sac outlet for an Aristocrats deck. Thanks!
Thanks you the response! My only remaining question is after the Wall deals its 2 damage to the 2 creatures killing them, how many additional creatures is it allowed to block using the block multiple effect? Can he block 6 because he can just absorb 1 from each of them or will he be dealt full damage from each in order and then die whenever he dies?
So for example if after those 2x 3/3s are killed with first strike/ deathtouch say there are 5 1/1s and 1 2/2 remaining in the whole attack wave... Can I assign him to block all 6 of them and then die preventing all damage from getting to me, by just saying he uses one toughness on each, killing all of the 1/1s and blocking but not killing the 2/2? Or can the attacker order them in such a way that the 2/2 attacks first, THEN 4 1/1s, killing my dude, leaving a remaining 1/1 who gets through?
Hi all! I'm working on a Deathtouch Pauper deck and have some questions about a potential combo I think might work in an Orzhov or Abzan build...
So if I played a Wall of Glare and enchanted with a Touch of Moonglove giving it Deathtouch and 1 power, when Wall-o-Glare blocks does it deal that one damage back to the creature it blocks or not because it is a defender? My guess is that it can as long as it's technically blocking and not attacking, but then do I decide how that damage is dealt among attackers or is that based on the attacking players choice of damage order? Lets say x2 3/3 whatevers attack and I block both with the enchanted Wall. Do I kill one of them with one power of Deathtouch damage and then survive after blocking the extra 3 damage? Or do I trade with one and the other survives? Sorry I'm sure this is super creature combat 101 stuff.
Then my other question and kind of the theme for my deck: what if it also had First Strike? Say my wall has the Touch of Moonglove and also a Cartouche of Solidarity... now it's a 2/6 Defender with Deathtouch, First Strike, and can block multiples... I'm guessing I can take out two of the attackers with 1 damage each, but then how many additional can he block before dying? Do I choose which attackers to kill? Does my choice of those targets influence how much damage my Wall will have to deal with?
Sorry such a long post, thanks if you made it to the end and double thanks if you feel like responding
Hi all! First post ever so sorry if I break any rules or decorum or something...
I have a Q about the rules about sacrificing a creature using another creatures free activated ability for an effect when there are other creatures on the field that get other benefits from sacrificing a creature.
For example: if I have a Viscera Seer , Bloodthrone Vampire , and Bontu the Glorified on the field and I use Bontu to sac' a card other than these 3, like a squirrel or something I dunno, I get that I receive his triggered ability of draining 1 and scy 1 and that I pay the 1B to do that, but do I also get a scry from the Seer and a pump from the Bloodthrone? Does it matter that these are free abilities that have requirements I have met? What if they also cost mana but I was able to pay for that as well? Like If instead of Bloodthrone if I had a Kalastria Highborn and I paid B after paying for Bontu's ability could I also drain for 2 more?
I'm sure this is like "The Stack 101"... but I'm having a hard time balancing all of these actions and their orders in my head. Any help would be so great
Say I have a hand with Faithless Looting, Call to the Netherworld, and Tombstalker and I cast the Looting, draw 2, then discard the Call to the Netherworld and Tombstalker... can I use the madness ability on Call to the Netherworld to return Tombstalker to my hand immediately?
The confusing part to me is that when I use madness abilities on MTGO it makes it seem, visually at least, like you have to cast the card while it's discarding is still on the stack, and if you miss that window of opportunity then it goes from exile to the graveyard and you lose your shot to cast it. So if I cast the card as it's being discarded does that go on top of the discarding in the stack? Because if that's the case then the Tombstalker wouldn't be in the graveyard yet when Call to the Netherworld tries to resolve and couldn't be a target. But then that doesn't make sense either because if I was able to cast it with it's madness cost then it would have to have been discarded, meaning Tombstalker was also discarded at the same time and would have to be in the graveyard. Seems like a paradox to me so I'm sure I'm messing something up. Please help
It's a cheap and powerful board wipe against anything with big bodies or crazy boards that will almost never affect us as much as our opponent. Kills Death's Shadow and Gurmag Angler in that matchup, kills a ton of stuff in any Living End deck, takes care of a lot of the bigger threats from Tron, and we will almost always be able to keep most of our own creatures and at least will be able to pick the ones we want most. Basically any two of our most important bears, or a single Thought-Knot Seer or even Vial in a Flickerwisp to save a second Seer at the cost of the Wisp itself. I guess you can't run Reality Smasher but that's the only real limitation this puts on your deck I can think of.
I could be totally wrong but to me this just seems like something that will always affect certain opponents a ton and us very little. I'll definitely be experimenting with it soon.
It still gives you something to do on turn 1 like Inspector, survives a removal that doesn't exile it, and can pilot the Copter whether it's still human or a spirit! The clue is obviously super nice but so is looting with copter so maybe that's a wash? I guess the biggest downside is that without Copter it's a super dead card whereas Inspector always gives you a clue.
That's all I really wanted, to make CARL OF THE FELLS a thing.
I've always liked thinking of the art on non-legendary creatures as being just a single example of what that kind of creature could be in a broader sense, but never necessarily the creature depicted in the image. A Huntmaster of the Fells isn't THAT guy in that card image, a Huntmaster of the Fells is an archetype that expresses itself on the plane of Innistrad and happens over and over again throughout the population. Of course the art will have to be a depiction of a single person, because it would be way too difficult to make every card have a unique image. The art is just a starting point for the player's imagination to extrapolate what that creature is and does in that world, using not only the art but the flavor text and what the card actually does to assemble a complete creature that tells you something about the world. I LOVE it when new art for an existing card uses this approach and chooses to depict a different individual but still the same idea and role. Of course this Huntmaster isn't the same one as the original, the original was just some arbitrary individual version of a Huntmaster which exists in a society with a whole bunch of other Huntmasters traipsing around with different hairs and genders and qualities that really have nothing to do with being a Huntmaster and ultimately wouldn't result in a functionally different card. Dude on the original card wasn't a particularly important one to begin with, otherwise he'd be legendary and his name would be like Carl and you'd only get to play one of him on a battlefield at a time. This new art gives us more information about what this kind of creature can be in Innistrad and personally makes my imagination feel good and stuff.
By contrast the new art for Delver is amazing, but doesn't really tell us anything new about the creature and it's role in the plane. I feel like it's pretty safe to assume this is the actual same dude from the original card, unless he's from some Innistrad version of Buddhist Monks or something where everyone fashions themselves in a really specific way for spiritual reasons. With this new art we still only get a single example of what a Delver of Secrets can be and look like, when presumably it's a thing that just exists and has the potential to happen over and over again, resulting in 8 Delver board-states being possible. This feels a little like one artist saying "I could do that better" or something. Or who knows, maybe a card that iconic came with a Wizards mandate saying it has to be samesies.
My thinking is that RIP is just strong against SO many decks at the top of the format right now, particularly Storm and Grixis Shadow and any deck running Snapcasters or Gearhulks, while also having zero impact on your own strategy and actually adding value to your Wasteland Stranglers! I guess the concession is that it'll be a little embarrasing the times you draw it against Tron or something, but that's not an especially rough matchup anyway for E&T.
I dunno maybe I'm just sick to death of losing to Storm all the time... but I think this might not be the most crazy idea in the current meta. Let me know what you guys think
When playing with Tireless Tribe and Inside Out, I'm confused as to how the pump works after power/toughness switch and then how damage can be responded to using the pump ability... basically 2 Qs:
* Does discarding a card to Tireless Tribe before or after casting Inside Out affect which stat gets pumped? Like should the sequence be to discard 5 cards making Tribe 1/21 - THEN cast Inside Out? Or should you cast Inside Out to make sure it resolves then start discarding, if you want to ultimately make a 21/1 Tribe?
* If the sequencing does matter, can you pump Tribe in response to a burn spell AFTER casting Inside Out, thus raising it's new 1 toughness to survive? For example: enter combat - cast Shadow Rift on Tireless Tribe - declare Tireless Tribe attacking - before damage discard 5 cards making Tireless Tribe 1/21 - cast Inside Out, Tribe is now 21/1 - op casts lightning bolt targetting Tribe - respond to bolt with discard 1 card to make Tribe 21/5 - Tribe survives bolt taking 3 damage
Would this work? Or is the only effective way to survive burn spells on Tribe by countering or protection?
I feel like the Wisp would return it untapped and hence unexerted... but because of the language in exert saying "during your next untap step", which I'm wondering means it's dependent on just being my next turn and not on the creature leaving the battlefield or whatever, I'm way less confident in whether the Displacer's effect would essentially un-exert it because it does return it to the battlefield tapped.
So would it untap next untap phase because when it was flickered it lost all of it's extra statuses, or would it still remain tapped for one additional turn because Exert only checks that it is my next untap phase and it doesn't care what happened to the Initiate as long as he happens to still be tapped?
I feel like the dude would be value in this style of deck as basically a persistently attacking 4/4 lifelink for CMC2, especially against burn or some matchup where the pace and life gain would be strong.
My board had a bunch of creatures including Blood Artist and Cartel Aristocrat when my opponent cast Damnation... so I started to sac' out my board before it could resolve, using Cartel Aristocrat's ability and triggering a bunch of drains with my Blood Artist, but at the end of my stack of triggers I set Cartel's ability to be Protection from Black... but she still died to Damnation? Was this a MTGO error or is that just how it works? Also if I hadn't made Artist my final sac', draining for 1 to itself dying, could I have left it and Cartel on the board and gotten 2 drain instead? Or does something about Damnation not activate the drain ability? I can't tell because it only wiped Cartel off the board with no Artist's around. My deck also runs a Geralf's Messenger and I'm wondering if Undying constitutes regenerating as mentioned on Damnation.
Thanks all
So for example if after those 2x 3/3s are killed with first strike/ deathtouch say there are 5 1/1s and 1 2/2 remaining in the whole attack wave... Can I assign him to block all 6 of them and then die preventing all damage from getting to me, by just saying he uses one toughness on each, killing all of the 1/1s and blocking but not killing the 2/2? Or can the attacker order them in such a way that the 2/2 attacks first, THEN 4 1/1s, killing my dude, leaving a remaining 1/1 who gets through?
So if I played a Wall of Glare and enchanted with a Touch of Moonglove giving it Deathtouch and 1 power, when Wall-o-Glare blocks does it deal that one damage back to the creature it blocks or not because it is a defender? My guess is that it can as long as it's technically blocking and not attacking, but then do I decide how that damage is dealt among attackers or is that based on the attacking players choice of damage order? Lets say x2 3/3 whatevers attack and I block both with the enchanted Wall. Do I kill one of them with one power of Deathtouch damage and then survive after blocking the extra 3 damage? Or do I trade with one and the other survives? Sorry I'm sure this is super creature combat 101 stuff.
Then my other question and kind of the theme for my deck: what if it also had First Strike? Say my wall has the Touch of Moonglove and also a Cartouche of Solidarity... now it's a 2/6 Defender with Deathtouch, First Strike, and can block multiples... I'm guessing I can take out two of the attackers with 1 damage each, but then how many additional can he block before dying? Do I choose which attackers to kill? Does my choice of those targets influence how much damage my Wall will have to deal with?
Sorry such a long post, thanks if you made it to the end and double thanks if you feel like responding
I have a Q about the rules about sacrificing a creature using another creatures free activated ability for an effect when there are other creatures on the field that get other benefits from sacrificing a creature.
For example: if I have a Viscera Seer , Bloodthrone Vampire , and Bontu the Glorified on the field and I use Bontu to sac' a card other than these 3, like a squirrel or something I dunno, I get that I receive his triggered ability of draining 1 and scy 1 and that I pay the 1 B to do that, but do I also get a scry from the Seer and a pump from the Bloodthrone? Does it matter that these are free abilities that have requirements I have met? What if they also cost mana but I was able to pay for that as well? Like If instead of Bloodthrone if I had a Kalastria Highborn and I paid B after paying for Bontu's ability could I also drain for 2 more?
I'm sure this is like "The Stack 101"... but I'm having a hard time balancing all of these actions and their orders in my head. Any help would be so great