MTG Salvation

I'm not sure about the card.. It sounds like something like Tooth and Nail, or something like Protean Hulk.
It can be used for broken nonsense, but it also has a lot of fair uses. It would definitely go in one or two of my decks.

Quote from SnowPlaneFan »

That being said, given that there are like 10 million+ MTG players, several million of whom are adults, and with people of course having a wide variety of different personal tastes from one another, I'm surprised that people are surprised that a Little Mermaid/Hansel & Gretel/targeted-at-kindergarten-aged-children type of vibe/flavor wouldn't be what ALL MTG fans are personally into or really resonate with.

The prince actually broke the heart of the little mermaid, leaving her alone as a human being.
Her sisters than give her an enchanted knife with which she has to kill the prince in his sleep so she can become a mermaid again.
She refuses, kills herself and becomes an air elemental.

Do you think WOTC will follow Disney or Grimm for the origin of their stories?
This isn't just fairytales, this is medieval folklore.

Cindarella killed the stepmother.
Sleeping Beauty was raped in her sleep by a prince that already married someone else and awoke because the babies were kicking.
Remember the queen from Snow White? Look up how she died. (Had to dance in heated metal shoes until she died)

Actual fairytales are more grim and dark than the entire Innistrad block.
Our folklore is more than just "kindergarten" material.

It doesn't require combat damage, just damage.. So go wild!

But this will surely go into my Azami EDH.

I support it for wishes, etc.

The ability just won't work in EDH.

But with Ur-Dragon it still ends up being a "5 mana 6/5 flying, everything has haste" dragon.
Which is good enough for me to play it.

Well, it's quite easy and straightforward: It made me lots of mana.

I used it on the guy playing with Ur-Dragon.
Both because his big dragons were the biggest threat to me and because he could make the best use of the mana itself.
Norin, without a trace of fear, kept charging into the dragons!

I even used Pandemonium and Flametongue Kavu to hurt an Ur-Dragon and then Norin got the kill. Twice in one game
He is now known as Norin the Dragonslayer.

Nor for Ixalan! That set is entertaining.
It's mostly because I think a pirate-theme is more fun than Goblins.
Rowdy Crew could be a good inclusion, it's really strong and nets some cards. The problem is with it being random.
Conqueror's Galleon shouldn't be that hard to flip and with Squee in the deck this could become: 2, T: Draw a card.
Thaumatic Compass also peeks my interest.

Quote from Pokken »

Turn 5? Yes, those decks are known for playing their spells on curve C'mon. Do you think that type of argument fools anyone?

I'm guessing you would defend tooth and nail by saying "well turn 9 win the game seems okay!"

It's not like 'playing all the good mana rocks' is a serious cost in EDH. I've seen t2 and t3 paradox engines on a fairly regular basis and it ends the game most of the time, and even when answered it's so easy to recur as to be comical. There's even a general specifically geared to enable this.

This sort of line of argument is pretty funny, kind of like the old "Prophet of Kruphix decks had to play a bunch of ETB value creatures everyone was already playing anyway to really take advantage of it, so it was totally fair" and "Primeval titan decks had to play all the really good lands to take advantage of it."

I defend Tooth and Nail by saying that if I want to win by combo I have easier ways to achieve that; there is nothing wrong with throwing two creatures into play. If you cannot handle two creatures you should re-evaluate your deckbuilding.

All those arguments work the same for Omniscience, and that card has never been an issue in EDH.

Kruphix wasn't banned because of ETB-creatures and Primeval Titan wasn't banned because it tutored two good lands.
Titan was banned because it got played, tutored two lands into play, got cloned, killed, stolen, ressurected and then cloned again.

I disagree with the first post of this thread.

Especially the first point rubs me the wrong way: "I believe a mix between the duel commander and multiplayer rules and ban list can make for a complete format."
The exact opposite would be true.
If we want to keep this format healthy we definitely need to make bigger splits.
It's like putting professional Formula-1 drivers into a Go-Kart day for 12 year olds: People will end up getting hurt.

It might hurt for a short moment but we really need to split the people that want a fair and competitive format and the people that just want to do stupid stuff and have fun.
For some short time the competitive players will be hurt since they won't find any opponents, but in the long run everyone will be happier since their opponent and the games they play will be exactly what they want it to be.

Quote from Taleran »

A lot of peoples answer to this will be an ancient document from a website that isn't posted along with Official Commander product that I would wager most people who play the game have never read or heard of.

Could you be any more condescending?

Like it or not, it's still the "official" philosophy.
And besides that it is still the way most people play the game.

Your way isn't better and you are not a better player, you seem unable to understand that simple thing.

They think it's fun and either play in a group that accepts this or they don't care about the fun the opponents have.

That last thing is quite important and something I always ask myself: Will the opponent be annoyed playing agains this?
Because I know that if I upset players too much with cut-throat decks they won't play against me and I want to avoid that.

With Stax the answer, like often, lies in the middle.
Die-hard stax is just mean and shouldn't be brought along unless the group knows and accepts this.
On the other hand you also shouldn't just play 5/5's in the deck without anything else.
I've seen players losing hard just because they hardly had removal or wipes; they thought it was a good idea to just play 'cool' creatures. With that attitude you will lose.

https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/multiplayer-commander-decklists/571213-sidisi-brood-tyrant-zombie-horde-and-shenanigans-3

This is a super comprehensive write-up on Sidisi, Brood Tyrant. He has 3 different decks and suggestions from the last few sets, definitely the place I would start if I was building SBT.

Quote from lyonhaert »

Quote from Kangodo »

Gift of Doom is cute and although morph doesn't go to the stack, attaching the aura to Sidisi does; so it can be responded to.

Guess again

Indeed, Kangodo is correct. You have to have priority, of course, but morph doesn't use the stack and this card's attachment "As this is turned face up..." is a replacement effect.

702.36e
Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116). To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost would be if it were face up, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. (If the permanent wouldn’t have a morph cost if it were face up, it can’t be turned face up this way.) The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. Any abilities relating to the permanent entering the battlefield don’t trigger when it’s turned face up and don’t have any effect, because the permanent has already entered the battlefield.

614.1e
Effects that read “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . . ,” are replacement effects.

Hm, that's good to know... Unfortunately, it still suffers from being a noncreature spell And I don't think it's that warranted to protect Sidisi when it's so easy to get her into play.

It sounds like you know best so you are probably not open to sugestions. But in a 99 deck the ods of drawing both ghost flame and all is dust is very low. Ghost flame is 2/2 on its own. But all is dust is terrible without ghost flame. All is dust is one of the cards I would hope to draw against this deck because it is so good against it. Even the few times you happen to draw them both it is stil very risky to cast it. Exile efects of bounce effects in response and you loose your board. There are many similar cards to all is dust that synegises so well with your commander, it is much better to play them.

Your darksteel forge has the same probabilaty problem, and it is terrible on its own.

What does ghost flame do on it's own. You have it under protection. What does the 3 regenerations slivers stop that your hivelord does not stop? Keep the one that is mana free, ditch the two others.

Are there many counterspell heavy decks? Root sliver is often a 2/2 for 4. You also have expedition map and could put in cavern of souls.

Your deck should also survive an armagedon very easaly, you have different sources of mana.

Quote from Taleran »

That isn't true though. I know you don't believe this or agree with it but it isn't true speaking as someone who plays combo. Also ignoring what is in my posts to make claims that only a select few anti combo diehards in this thread believe has gotten very tiresome.

Also making the claim that archenemy forms in Commander only due to Combo and not when 1 person in the game gets a lot of advantage or a board is disingenuous

Combos tend to win from empty board. You have to keep killing the combo player even when they have nothing on the board, because it's still a boardstate that they can win from. It creates really silly gameplay.

Archenemy forming when someone has an advantageous board position is completely different and you know it.

When you have a combo you can cast, you can sit back and typically ignore what's happening, because the amount of mana and turns it takes for any other strategy to win is so much higher. You can run all the same utility cards they are running, but your way of winning the game is just flat out better by a ridiculous margin due to the nature of commander. Unless your opponents are also playing win conditions that are just as strong, which are exclusively combos themselves, you have a massive advantage in the worst way. That's why everyone has to gang up and kill the combo players, and having to play like that sucks a lot of the fun out of the game.

Quote from OneRingToGruulThemAll »

The best games I've played have all been with and against high-powered decks. Throwing bulk rares around because they have large numbers in the upper and lower right corners is bad Magic - where's the interaction? This format's card pool is better than legacy's; the decks should be powered appropriately.

I think that this represents a huge misconception about "casual" players. We aren't throwing around bulk rares and a rarely playing "bad Magic". It's just different. This is a format where Cyclonic Rift, Consecrated Sphinx, and Doubling Season are all potentially awesome (hardly "bulk rares"), but they would be unplayable in Legacy. However if we wanted to play Legacy, then we would play Legacy and we could have a format that is appropriately balanced by the presence of four Force of Will in almost every deck. Insisting that everyone who plays EDH should be playing 100-card Legacy Highlander is just extremely narrow-minded.

And yes, I know there are other people who insist that people who play hyper-competitively are "doing it wrong" but that is just as narrow-minded. Deriding how other people play EDH makes no sense to me. I say "to each their own", go find like-minded people, and have fun.

I personally just stopped attending edh when the players became too obsessed with winning instead of having a fun game and talking.

It's substantially more expensive to play competitively like that AND the game is just worse, like how vintage format produces some of the worst gameplay magic has to offer.

There really isn't a solution other than to find like minded players, which is often a continuous search because as collections grow most people refuse to power down decks, only have them get stronger.

Quote from OneRingToGruulThemAll »

That "we'll keep going without you" happens to me a lot. Like, y'all tried ramping into dragons instead of interacting at all... not my fault I was able to
take infinite turns on turn 4. Normally those players are the type to complain about the "spirit of the format" (tf even is that) and so on.

Your deck will probably beat their deck 100% of the time.

Just leave the table. You weren't playing a game in the first place, they had no way to affect the outcome.

Quote from Taleran »

It is almost as if a multiplayer game in which everyone is working for the same goal that only one person can have is inherently political.

When you try to influence the decisions of others (especially into disadvantaging someone else despite being a valid target) you get killed. I retaliate in commander. Someone, doing something, will inevitably inconvenience me and I'll retaliate. I like having reasons to make certain moves in-game. I don't tolerate convincing or playing table politics. People who tell others how to play out their moves rather than allow them to think and make their own misplays or do things their own unique way draw my ire in a game, but that's not from malice - one must attack or target someone… so nice to have criteria on who to start with.

Basically, I break things down into a few categories. Note these are just guidelines for avoiding complaints; do whatever you want, though consider bringing a range of decks with respect to power and speed.

• Let people play their decks.
• Don't play a strategy that most decks can't interact with.
• Don't consume more than your fair share of play time.

Let people play their decks.
Don't run any strong resource-denial type cards like mass land destruction or mass discard. Boardwipes are better and people will eventually adapt to not playing all their threats at once. I wouldn't suggest pulling punches if you can win immediately, but avoid decks that will do so very early on. I find even taxing type cards will result in lack of action. I would suggest avoiding cards like Ghostly Prison in any white deck just because the deck is white and I want to see the use of Rhystic Study shamed.

Don't play a strategy that most decks can't interact with.
This really depends on the exact matchups you're playing, but a deck light on boardwipes just isn't to have a fun time vs sliver decks. On some level, it's not your fault if your opponents aren't playing enough removal, but the right kind of removal also matters. It will just make for a better game when players can reasonably expect to interact with their opponents' decks. An enchantment-heavy deck is just not going to provide that experience for certain opposing color combinations. Rakdos might be able to deal with 1-2 enchantments over the course of a game, but the matchup just isn't going to be fun for them so consider switching decks. If the game is large, they may be able to rely on the help of others to interact with your deck.

Along the same line, Instant/Sorcery threats that can only be stopped by countermagic are just going to be unsatisfying game enders some percentage of the time since only a single color really has any way to interact with them.

1-shot kills / combo kills that come out by surprise have the same effect. 1-shot infect kills or infinite combo engines that just end the game leave players with no ability to react or respond and are just anticlimatic. Whether you survive to the next turn should be easily predictable based on what is on board such that tapping out isn't a huge liability.

Basically, I think the ideally, whatever threats are involved should allow players the chance to untap, draw, and try to fight back rather than the only course of action is to push a deck to be the most efficient it can be and always keep instant speed removal open at all times. While this is competitively correct, I don't think players should be punished for not building their decks that way.

Don't consume more than your fair share of play time.
Taking extra turns is really the main culprit here, but I've seen it happen with Yidris fairly often. Seedborn Muse in Tasigur while strong, will greatly drain the available play time with all the decisions that need to be made. People at your table have a finite amount of play time. Try to respect that by not hogging that time. Don't play Expropriate. Just don't.



Ultimately the play group is the main factor here and you should just use human judgment with what you do. If everyone in your playgroup is playing competitively tuned decks, if you like doing that too, go for it. If your deck is blowing everyone else out of the water, consider building something at their power level or finding other players at yours. There are a lot of other finer detailed things one could get into but I think these broad points are good guidelines that can cover a lot.

Quote from umtiger »

When it comes to this discussion, I'm at a 1 with the OP.

Saying tutoring leads to repetitive games...why stop there?

Consider the following:

1. Do free Mulligans lead to repetitive games? Why Should players be guaranteed playable good hands? Especially since the multiplayer aspect allows for comebacks ALL THE TIME. I'm always weary of that, I make sure and finish the job when someone's low because comebacks are a threat and awesome when they occur. They occur more often when mulligan rules are strict. Lax mulligan rules reward poor deck building. Or even worse, allow players to "game" the mulligan rule.

2. Ubiquitous ramp leads to repetitive games just the same. And I'm not talking about the explosive, broken ramp that too many people whine about-- personally, sol ring and mana crypt aren't bannable to me. Rampant growth, cultivate, explosive vegetation...allow players to cast all spells every game all the time. Let's be honest about the General meta at almost every group, aggro is absent. Players do nothing other than ramp for the first four turns. That's boring to me when all early game is about setting up to skip the mid-game and hop right into the end-game. Lack of aggro to punish this predictable play pattern.

3. Having a commander in the command zone kinda makes things repetitive also. Partner and all the commander tax abilities (e.g. Prossh) make it even worse. I hate two things in edh #1 people playing theft effects on my permanents and disrespecting my stuff and #2 commander set generals. they are absolutely the most annoying generals to play against.

4. And finally, if your opponent is tutoring for the same thing all the time...guess what? It means that you are doing the same thing all the time.

Not sure how much of this is sarcasm or rhetorical but I will bite.

1. Free mulligans are helpful because magic isn't fun if you don't get to play the game, even if it's just in the beginning of the game. If you draw a hand with no lands or one land, and have to pass 4 turns before you can cast any spells while you watch your friends play their decks, it isn't a fun experience. Casual mulligans ensure the consistency of everyone being able to play spells. However, even without casual free mulligans, players are virtually guaranteed a playable hand after one or two traditional mulligans (I personally like to play with 1 to 2 free mulligans).

2. Rampant Growth and Explosive Vegetation can be countered just like Birds of Paradise is susceptible to Swords To Plowshares. Preventing players from ramping can be a great tempo play. Players should not feel entitled to ramp, and often times one of the best ways to beat a mono green ramp deck is to stifle ramp or use land destruction towards the beginning of the game. Mana rocks like Sol Ring and Coldsteel Heart are also vulnerable to removal.

It also isn't true that players only ramp for the first 4 turns. I have a reanimator deck with a looter subtheme (see signature if you are curious) that frequently plays cards like Merfolk Looter, Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, Thought Courier and Careful Study in the beginning of the game. I have a Rhonas the Indomitable deck that runs zero land ramp effects (no shuffling) and while it does run a few mana dorks, the beginning of the game focuses on getting out creatures with a power of 4 of greater within the first 4 turns of the game (also see my signature) .

3. Having a commander in the command zone is the primary point of the format. You play a commander and 99 cards to go with that card (often these cards support the commander). Commander tax abilities or abilities that can't be interacted with (i.e. Oloro) are powerful and ensure some form of consistency, but they do not result in the same card being played every game or the same card winning a game consistently.

4. I don't understand this point. If I play a three different decks and none of them run tutors, but my opponent runs a mono black deck and tutors for Mike and Trike combo each game (suppose sometimes I am able to stop her and sometimes I am not), how does that mean that I'm doing the same thing all the time?