Okay so I hope I don't step on someone's toes for this, but I'm at a loss.
So I have two questions, 1 isn't this card a 3 CMC? 1 colorless and 2 white or black, and the same goes for all other cards is the colorless a part of the CMC? 2 question; the text during each of your turns? confuse me a lot, so can I cast Shepherd of the Flock the adventure part on my enemy's turns? So if he cast a Blood Curdle on my Keeper of Fablesso that should go on the stack and passes to me isn't then my TURN? or just phase? or something???
1. Yes, this card has a CMC of 3. It doesn't affect its own ability to be your companion, as it doesn't start in your deck, but you can't run any more copies of Lurrus if you have it as your companion.
2. You can't cast the spell part of adventures using Lurrus of the Dream-Den because it only casts permanent spells. That adventures are printed on creature cards is irrelevant because their spell parts are instants and sorceries, which Lurrus doesn't work with.
The "Each of your turns" restriction means you can only cast a permanent spell during your own turn, not you opponent's turn.
I'm glad they didn't put panoramas into Khans or Ikoria. I hated those clunky things in Alara.
Anyhow, the Tarkir names make no sense as panoramas, being names of organizations. If you want to use the most recognizable wedge names on panoramas, then don't call them panoramas.
Not super crazy about the prospect of putting four uncastable cards in what is otherwise an aggro deck, especially since Bomat Courier is the only way to get them out of your hand. Not having any sort of burn also makes this a lot less scary than some of the other red aggro decks in the format.
I'm sorry, but is this claim backed up by any actual rule? Cause I've just quoted a rule that actually says the opposite. Perhaps there is another rule I'm missing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, and I'm fine discussing that! But I'm not inclined to blindly follow claims that aren't back-up by any rule.
This might be difficult to hear, but Comprehensive Rules, despite its grandiose name, vast amounts of text, and regular upkeep, simply isn't built to handle every single specific card interaction in the game. Specific card interactions can be a blind spot for certain card interactions, and that's why there's another rule: what the judge says, goes. Judges may be wrong, as they are human, but the comp rules simply can't intercede in every quibble over card interactions. Those judge rulings may be written down, in which they become [O] rulings, such as this one:
2/1/2014
While you control an Archetype, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells and abilities that would give the specified ability to creatures your opponents control aren’t created. For example, if you control Archetype of Courage, a spell cast by an opponent that gives creatures they control first strike wouldn’t cause the creatures to have first strike, even if later in the turn Archetype of Courage left the battlefield. (If the spell has additional effects, such as raising the power of the creatures, those effects will apply as normal.)
Now, this particular [O] ruling does not, as you have said, answer your precise question regarding static abilities, so I encourage you to seek out a judge ruling on this subject from a judge community. However, the text I have bolded here indicates that the response I expect from the judge will be that the lord will still give +1/+1, extrapolating from the spell interaction.
I apologize that it might be frustrating for you to ask for hard rulings on the subject and get a direction to find a judge who may very well give you the same response as us, but that's the space most of the game's card-to-card rules interactions live in.
Yes, that works, and it's actually quite simple. See, the trigger that puts the God Eternal into your library is optional, so you can just leave it in the graveyard if it dies, in addition to the usual discard and mill. Then, you can indeed put it into your library when Whip's trigger exiles it.
Broadly speaking, a cycling deck can go one of two ways. The first is based on small creatures that love you see you cycle cards - Hollow One, Flourishing Fox, and Valiant Rescuer here, Flameblade Adept if you choose to go red, Cunning Survivor in blue, Shadowstorm Vizier in Esper or Grixis. You play some combination of these creatures in combination with cheap cyclers that double as powerful combat tricks to play an aggro or tempo game.
The second is a slower, control-focused list. Here Yidaro becomes more viable, and filling your graveyard over a longer time makes Zenith Flare more deadly. The control version gets Sweltering Suns and/or Archfiend of Ifnir as board clears and Drake Haven and Ominous Seas as payoffs. You can even go combo with New Perspectives or Unpredictable Cyclone. One benefit of the control-based cycling idea is that it gets away with more cycling lands that ETB tapped.
Most judges are pretty good. I've been to a lot of events and I trust that the few times people will try something they have a good chance of being caught.
But just to note, of course you CAN cheat. I've never said you can't. But there are always ways to cheat, and new ways with almost every set. I would say the most sketchy standard environment for shady plays was Khans of Tarkir with both manifest and morph at the same time. There was a lot of room for abuse, yet it all worked out. I'm just an optimist.
You could not abuse/cheat with morph/manifests with very little effort. In fact the rules required you to clearly mark which one is which.
With all companions except Lutri you can verify if opponent is not cheating as soon as offending card is put on the stack (or earlier if you have ways to reveal hidden information eg Duress). But with the otter you cannot do this in all situations. Opponent can still cast rule-breaking spell and you have no way of verifying if it breaks companion restriction.
Consider the following scenario: opponent casts Impact Tremors, casts Release to the Wind, casts Lutri. Wins the game. At no point you had a chance to verify that opponent did not cheat by having multiple copies of those cards while opponent could increase the probability of assembling them.
So right now in formats that could be interested in playing that card instead of UR having the best companion it has none. Good job. :/
I think the point being made in this thread is that cheating Lutri's deckbuilding has little difference from cheating EDH deckbuilding rules or running five copies of your best card in regular 60 card constructed. Either way, the cheater can, theoretically, make in-game choices that hide the cheat, but the ease in which that can be revealed makes deckbuilding cheats unappetizing to all but the dumbest of cheaters. Even without a full deck check, anything that the opponent does that gives them information will the reveal the illegal deckbuilding and get the cheater DQ'd in a competitive setting and ostracized in a casual one. Any type of peek, discard, or mill will do this, and then there are cards that let a player search their opponent's deck like Surgical Extraction.
To reiterate, cheating in deckbuilding has existed as long as there have been deckbuilding rules, has always been able to benefit cheaters, and has always been incredibly transparent because of how many ways opponents have to expose the cheaters. The companions do not change this.
This deck's strategy seems to be a bit unfocused. Flourishing Fox, Valiant Rescuer, and Hollow One give the deck an aggro bent to it in which you want to stack lots of cycles on efficient creatures. On the other hand, you have something like Yidaro, Wandering Monster, who wants to be in a deck slow enough to see him four times in a game, Censor, which works best if you leave mana open on turns you'd like to play threats, and Go for Blood, which looks terrible in constructed. Zirda places no restrains on instants and sorceries, so you'd be better off using those slots for cards you'd actually like to play rather than just bin.
Regardless of version, the main question here is how attached you are to the idea of playing taksie-backsies with your modular creature/enchantment mechanic. Is the norm here that most creatures with the mechanic will be non-creatures as long as they've been cast for their alternative cost (V1), or is their non-creature status always meant to be temporary (V2)? V2 arguably has more design space for vanilla creatures with the mechanic, but there is a certain elegance to the idea of a demon that can be a Phyrexian Arena without the added baggage of turning back to a creature. V2 makes it a little harder to do creatures that are better as non-creatures, such as a 1/1 creature that draws you a card every turn. V2's wording makes it feel like you're obligated to put a realize ability on it, but your draw engine would be much safer as a non-creature enchantment.
I really do not like your execution of V3. The fact that you kept the creature type on them and made Realize into a static ability that makes them not a creature and also an activated ability that turns them back to a creature is plain ugly to me. It overcomplicates a very simple mechanic, which should just be non-creature enchantments with a keyworded animation ability. If you want creature subtypes, make them the tribal card type or incorporate it into the ability with something like "Realize Wolf".
Cunning Nightbonder is another great card, for sideboard imo. Even with a 3feri in game, if a rattlechains is in play, all our spirits will be non-counterable thanks to flash, even itself could not be countered.
Read Rattlechains and Cunning Nightbonder again. Rattlechains doesn't actually grant flash, just lets you cast Spirits "as if" they had it, and Nightbonder only cares about cards that actually have the keyword. Compare to the wording on Mutual Destruction, which actually gives itself the keyword. The only creatures in this deck that will receive the cost reduction are Rattlechains, Spell Queller, and Nebelgast Herald; and Spectral Sailor wouldn't be able to be countered in addition to those three.
I will say this, other than the Tricycle lands in foil, the one other thing I’m interested in Ikoria are the +1/+1 punch out counters. I could use about +60 of those.
They'll be the same quality as the Amonkhet ones. Good for limited, but won't stand up to repeated use in constructed. That's a shame because I can't imagine how the keyword counters would be usable in paper without a counter with printed text.
I would evaluate your shock and fetch variants very differently. The thing about colorless mana is that it's a fake color, so you can't evaluate it as equal. Colorless mana is going to be inferior to colored mana in every scenario except when colorless casting cost mana symbols are involved, which is a narrow and set-based mechanic. As such, I would not rate Siltstream on the same level as a shockland because it isn't a true dual. It might be worth decreasing the life payment to one, in light of this being weaker than shocks.
Fetchlands are another issue. They are strong enough to be played in otherwise multicolored decks due to the strength of thinning, and, as such, the power loss to the preexisting ten is minimal. Whether repeated shuffling is good for the game is not is another matter, related to shocks but unrelated to this.
Your third design is harder to evaluate. At first blush, five (effectively six) mana is a prohibitive cost, but the kinds of decks that would play this can reach that mana easily, and usually need to go higher. Putting +2 ramp on a land is also very strong.
Yes. That ability would still be on the stack, and therefore be a legal target for resonator. Any new object on the stack is going to resolve first, so your opponent can have Altisaur fight something else before the sacrifice trigger resolves.
Mairsil's reappearance in card form absolutely can be a coincidence because Commander products are a dumping ground for neglected legendary figures, the vast majority of whom are irrelevant to contemporary sets.
While its value probably won't spike, I disagree with your assessment of Bygone Bishop. It has applications outside of clue-based decks; for example, it makes every creature that Collected Company decks hardcast replace themselves. If any sort of white weenie crops up (human or spirit tribal?), Bishop would give the deck crucial staying power in the mid and late games.
1. Yes, this card has a CMC of 3. It doesn't affect its own ability to be your companion, as it doesn't start in your deck, but you can't run any more copies of Lurrus if you have it as your companion.
2. You can't cast the spell part of adventures using Lurrus of the Dream-Den because it only casts permanent spells. That adventures are printed on creature cards is irrelevant because their spell parts are instants and sorceries, which Lurrus doesn't work with.
The "Each of your turns" restriction means you can only cast a permanent spell during your own turn, not you opponent's turn.
Anyhow, the Tarkir names make no sense as panoramas, being names of organizations. If you want to use the most recognizable wedge names on panoramas, then don't call them panoramas.
This might be difficult to hear, but Comprehensive Rules, despite its grandiose name, vast amounts of text, and regular upkeep, simply isn't built to handle every single specific card interaction in the game. Specific card interactions can be a blind spot for certain card interactions, and that's why there's another rule: what the judge says, goes. Judges may be wrong, as they are human, but the comp rules simply can't intercede in every quibble over card interactions. Those judge rulings may be written down, in which they become [O] rulings, such as this one:
2/1/2014
While you control an Archetype, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells and abilities that would give the specified ability to creatures your opponents control aren’t created. For example, if you control Archetype of Courage, a spell cast by an opponent that gives creatures they control first strike wouldn’t cause the creatures to have first strike, even if later in the turn Archetype of Courage left the battlefield. (If the spell has additional effects, such as raising the power of the creatures, those effects will apply as normal.)
Now, this particular [O] ruling does not, as you have said, answer your precise question regarding static abilities, so I encourage you to seek out a judge ruling on this subject from a judge community. However, the text I have bolded here indicates that the response I expect from the judge will be that the lord will still give +1/+1, extrapolating from the spell interaction.
I apologize that it might be frustrating for you to ask for hard rulings on the subject and get a direction to find a judge who may very well give you the same response as us, but that's the space most of the game's card-to-card rules interactions live in.
The second is a slower, control-focused list. Here Yidaro becomes more viable, and filling your graveyard over a longer time makes Zenith Flare more deadly. The control version gets Sweltering Suns and/or Archfiend of Ifnir as board clears and Drake Haven and Ominous Seas as payoffs. You can even go combo with New Perspectives or Unpredictable Cyclone. One benefit of the control-based cycling idea is that it gets away with more cycling lands that ETB tapped.
I think the point being made in this thread is that cheating Lutri's deckbuilding has little difference from cheating EDH deckbuilding rules or running five copies of your best card in regular 60 card constructed. Either way, the cheater can, theoretically, make in-game choices that hide the cheat, but the ease in which that can be revealed makes deckbuilding cheats unappetizing to all but the dumbest of cheaters. Even without a full deck check, anything that the opponent does that gives them information will the reveal the illegal deckbuilding and get the cheater DQ'd in a competitive setting and ostracized in a casual one. Any type of peek, discard, or mill will do this, and then there are cards that let a player search their opponent's deck like Surgical Extraction.
To reiterate, cheating in deckbuilding has existed as long as there have been deckbuilding rules, has always been able to benefit cheaters, and has always been incredibly transparent because of how many ways opponents have to expose the cheaters. The companions do not change this.
What does Tainted Pact have to do with Brawl bannings?
I really do not like your execution of V3. The fact that you kept the creature type on them and made Realize into a static ability that makes them not a creature and also an activated ability that turns them back to a creature is plain ugly to me. It overcomplicates a very simple mechanic, which should just be non-creature enchantments with a keyworded animation ability. If you want creature subtypes, make them the tribal card type or incorporate it into the ability with something like "Realize Wolf".
Read Rattlechains and Cunning Nightbonder again. Rattlechains doesn't actually grant flash, just lets you cast Spirits "as if" they had it, and Nightbonder only cares about cards that actually have the keyword. Compare to the wording on Mutual Destruction, which actually gives itself the keyword. The only creatures in this deck that will receive the cost reduction are Rattlechains, Spell Queller, and Nebelgast Herald; and Spectral Sailor wouldn't be able to be countered in addition to those three.
They'll be the same quality as the Amonkhet ones. Good for limited, but won't stand up to repeated use in constructed. That's a shame because I can't imagine how the keyword counters would be usable in paper without a counter with printed text.
What would you use your apostles for if you ran this as a companion?
Fetchlands are another issue. They are strong enough to be played in otherwise multicolored decks due to the strength of thinning, and, as such, the power loss to the preexisting ten is minimal. Whether repeated shuffling is good for the game is not is another matter, related to shocks but unrelated to this.
Your third design is harder to evaluate. At first blush, five (effectively six) mana is a prohibitive cost, but the kinds of decks that would play this can reach that mana easily, and usually need to go higher. Putting +2 ramp on a land is also very strong.