2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Living End
    Why couldn't this be 3CMC? That retrace would've been nice against control.

    https://www.mtgsalvation.com/cards/modern-horizons/36472-throes-of-chaos

    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    New Enemy colored lands....https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/810218-mothership-spoilers-5-21-enemy-canopy-lands

    Maybe a place in the Jund builds.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    Containment priest isn't even good against us. If that is their answer I'm happy, it's like the people that bring in Grafdigger's Cage

    If it's on the field LE takes care of it. If they got it in the yard then we have fairies to remove it and additional answers in the board.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    Has anyone tried the London mulligan rules with the deck? Local store is doing a test run tournament.

    Seems like we will benefit (sculpt hand and put LE on bottom) but Phoenix and Dredge seem to benefit more.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    Quote from protoaddict »
    The real question I have becomes if it happens enough to outnumber the times you'll get stuck with the tap land early and it will cost you a turn.



    I think you answered your own question. When I first picked up the deck I didn't have the optimal manabase, I tried a temple of malice over a missing blackcleave cliffs and switched to a sulfurous springs because the temple wrecked havoc. Any ETBT land in an opener where you don't see 4+ lands and go into hard cast your guys mode is an almost certain loss against most modern decks.

    It also makes any ETBT one lander a mulligan. Not that playable one landers are that common but it probably works out to a few percentage points over a large tournament or a modern league.

    Quote from FReNCH_ToaST »
    Heads up MTGO players, new update broke Ricochet Trap. The spell now always costs 4.


    Great. MTGO is a hot mess.

    They still haven't fixed sphinxes tutelage which invalidates one of my other decks
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Harmonious Liason
    Quote from genini2 »
    If you want to avoid the issues that come with tapping (like for Gideon) and still limit walkers to once per turn cycle you can use counter.
    "Whenever a player activates an ability of a planeswalker add a depletion counter to that permanent. Permanent's with depletion counters cannot activate their abilities. At the beginning of each players upkeep remove all depletion counters from each permanent they control."


    It's such a niche interaction that I'm not going to worry about it. There are only three Gideons in the 720+ cube with that ability.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Harmonious Liason
    Quote from genini2 »
    Just copy Teferi, Temporal Archmage's emblem. Also I don't understand why they need to tap. Planeswalker inherently have the can only be activated once per turn rule if that is what you are going for.


    I completely forgot about Teferi's emblem, I will copy that. The issue I was trying to avoid Mondu covers below. The rule that says once per turn is the same rules that restricts activation to your turn. I think Teferi's Emblem and the tapping lines accomplish what I was going for - basically a once per turn cycle instant speed activation (barring shenanigans)

    Quote from mondu_the_fat »


    Tapping means you can't activate it during your turn, and then again during an opponent's turn.


    Exactly, and seeing as these are planned for cube I can control the effects that break the card. (Namely, untapping* and Ral). Ral Zarek shouldn't be too much of an issue because there is only three generals that allow the four color combination (two are WURBG). *Paradox Engine is the only card that comes to mind currently that could really be abused, otherwise I do have Pestermite and Deceiver Exarch.

    Final Version

    Harmonious Obelisk 1WUB
    Enchantment {M}

    Players may activate loyalty abilities of planeswalkers they control on any player’s turn any time they could cast an instant.
    Whenever a player activates a Planeswalker's loyalty ability, tap it.
    Players cannot activate the loyalty abilities of tapped Planeswalkers.

    "Give more of yourself" - Runed inscription on Obelisk

    Thanks everyone!

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Harmonious Liason
    Harmonious Obelisk 1WUB
    Enchantment {R}

    Loyalty abilities gain flash.
    Whenever you activate a Planeswalker's loyalty ability, tap it.
    Players cannot activate the loyalty abilities of tapped Planeswalkers or Planeswalkers with abilities on the stack.

    "Give more of yourself" - Runed inscription on Obelisk

    I'm creating some custom cards for a Commander Cube. Just wondering if there are any unseen rules implications to the above card.

    Does the wording "Loyalty abilities gain flash" effectively circumvent 606.3 like I want, ("A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent they control any time they have priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of their turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn."), or does the language have to be a little bit more specific: Something like "Loyalty abilities can be activated whenever a player has priority"

    Things I've noticed:
    It makes any Gideon Animate abilities bad. Gideon Jura
    Ajani Vengeant +1 and similar effects "shut-down" a planeswalker
    Something like Gigadrowse can force an opponent to use their Planeswalker during their upkeep (or any time you choose) or lose the ability to use the Planeswalker that turn cycle (unless they have a way to untap it).
    Cards like Burst of Energy read "activate a loyalty ability of target Planeswalker".
    Ral Zarek goes infinite with himself. - I'd have to decide if I want that interaction

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Living End
    Quote from osteomancer »
    spoiler season and it seems there is no addition to this deck.
    i wonder if this is usable in this deck? surveil is kinda nice to have but i wonder if its necessary.


    Ari Lax was talking about this card on Twitter when it was spoiled. It will be interesting to test. The upside can potentially put 10+ power in the graveyard and draw you a cycler.

    Might be a bust, might be decent.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    Depending on the build I sometime bring them in for Grixis Pyromancer (they get me out of Snap-bolt-snap range) or other aggressive decks where 4 life is buying a turn or two for me to stabilize and or win, Death's Shadow decks come to mind.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Living End
    Quote from protoaddict »
    I have been gone from this thread and deck for a bit, as the last few sets did not really bring much to the table for our list. Now that preview season is here, can we talk about how excited I am for Molderhulk (and really most of the golgari stuff in this set)and the possibilities contained within. Anyone formulate any thoughts around this? I do not think it is unreasonable to pull this off turn 3 and return a fetch from the yard to have mana ready.


    I wanted to call it a win more but it's not even that. If you have the creatures to cast this you haven't LE'd so it would just get LE'd away. If you haven't LE'd then your probably looking for a cascader, which means you'd rather see a cycler to dig than a land. If you draw this after LE'ing than your not going to have the cost reduction and the land isn't as usefull.

    I'm waiting for people to recommend Assassin's Trophy over Beast Within with a straight face. That or Mausoleum Secrets, saying that it searches for a cascader with 3+ creatures in the grave.

    Spoiler season outside of a cycling set can be trying at times.
    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on Zada, Hedron Grinder, Arcbond and Chandra's Ignition
    I have:
    5 Creatures:
    Zada, Hedron Grinder
    Siege-Gang Commander
    3x 1/1 Goblin Token

    I have cast Arcbond targeting Zada. I then cast Chandra's Ignition targeting Zada. How much damage is dealt to my opponents and their creatures? Does it depend on how I stack the triggers, if so does the following scenario correctly maximize the damage?

    I'm thinking if I stack from top-bottom: Seige-gang ignition, Goblin Ignitions, Zada Ignition I'll end up dealing dealing damage like so:

    The Seige-Gang copy of CI resolves. 2 Damage, four - 2 damage Arcbond triggers go on stack. My tokens die.
    First copy of Arcbound resolves. 2 damage, two - 2 damage Arcbound triggers go on stack. S-G & Zada Die.
    First of two Arcbound resolves. 2 Damage.
    Second of Two Arcbound resolve. 2 Damage.
    Second of orginal Arcbond trigger. 2 damage.
    Third of orginal Arcbond trigger. 2 damage.
    Final Arcbond Trigger. 2 damage.
    The First token's copy of CI resolves. 1 damage.
    The Second " . 1 dmg.
    The third ". 1 dmg
    Zada copy of CI resolves. 3 dmg.

    Result: 20 damage to each opponents creature (unless they die first) and my opponents. I take 12 damage and my creatures are all dead.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Living End
    Thanks for the refresh Ken. May you never draw a Living End you needed to cascade into.

    Posted in: Combo
  • posted a message on [Primer] Ironworks Combo
    But again, even in that very specific situation how is Replicator better? If you see Leyline and Stony you're already on the Antiquities/Grid alternate win plan. I can't see a situation where it isn't win-more. I'll echo dudemanthing, it does nothing without trawler and is almost uncastable without KCI, spitting out 2/2's just isn't strong enough until you're already winning or would be anyways with the retriever you are dropping to play it.

    Posted in: Modern Archives - Proven
  • posted a message on [Primer] Ironworks Combo
    Mishra's Self-replicator seems like a win-more to me. If you have a trawler and a KCI it's hard to fizzle at that point - retriever won't fizzle and costs 3 less. What situation is Replicator better? I don't see it doing anything until you are winning.

    The loop really isn't that confusing, just sac extra artifacts during the pay costs part of a spell/ability activation and stack triggers correctly, now if it reduces the number of clicks on MTGO you might have an argument. That's the reasoning for including Aetherflux Reservoir. I don't think it will or be worth including a 5cmc card to do so.
    Posted in: Modern Archives - Proven
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.