Era of invention is not an artifact deck, it is a polimorph deck. Era of inventions lets you have many targets so you are not vunerable to removal in response.
You can not have searched that well, because I gave you a link with a deck seth made. That deck is legal in modern. It is probably not very competetive, but to awnser your question 'are there any other energy comboes in modern' literarly all standar combo decks are modern combo decks. They are just much worsecompared to other modern comboes. Anyway, if we take seth's combo deck about infinet activations of aetherworks marvel, that is the second combo energy deck.
I did watch both of Seth's videos but he said the deck didnt fire off dependently. After his second review, I concluded it was not a deck i want to buy into.
But your post has been very informative. Thanks. Maybe i will build an artificer deck due to Era of innovation
I understand your 'combo', I do not understand your question. The awnser is 'no', as statet above, but without a better question this is a hitchhikers guide through the galaxy senario.
I googled a few combo articles on the internet and is a subscriber of Seth's videos. The results seems to conclude that only the combo i mentioned uses energy.
I want a list of modern combo using energy as its enabler regardless if its good or bad. (HR_19 understood my direction.)
Maybe as you seems to be competitive, you can provide the best 5 combos using energy?
I seek your help in gathering all Modern combo using energy (Kaladesh)
Is (Decoction Module / Panharmonicon * 3) + Whirler Virtuoso the only energy Modern combo?
I am building a Modern deck based on the theme of "energy" (Kaladesh). I need your help to confirm that the above combo is the only infinite combo using energy.
Is (Decoction Module / Panharmonicon * 3) + Whirler Virtuoso the only energy Modern combo?
I am building a Modern deck based on the theme of "energy" (Kaladesh). I need your help to confirm that the above combo is the only infinite combo using energy.
But why should anyone get into frontier now, if prices are going to rise anyway, and have to hope wizards turn it into a "real" format, instead of just playing modern, which sees support in form of masters sets (even if its just minimal support).
Because they want a lower powered format.
Because they want a slower format.
Because they dont have modern staples, and may have a 'Standard' deck that is no longer valid.
There are plenty of reasons. Cost however, should never have been the primary reason because any critical thinking about the format would have come to the conclusion that prices will rise. :]
That describes Pauper which also provides a very low price wall and high supply.
Seriously, are you all overthinking into Frontier too much?
Its your money. Its your decision to play Frontier or not.
(1) Give it a try. Like it, continue on. Dont like it, stop playing. Simple!
Relative to Tiny Leaders, why bother relating Frontier to Tiny Leaders? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to Modern, why bother relating Frontier to Modern? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to Standard, why bother relating Frontier to Standard? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to card prices, why bother relating Frontier to card prices? Refer to Point 1.
This thread feels like "3 blind men describing an elephant".
I wish to submit a suggestion for SCG "Advanced Search".
For the field "Sets", please implement the previous set system.
Eg. Separate the sets into their block levels or groups and then descending order, starting with the most recent Standard sets.
I want to play Commander. I don't need many of the high-value cards but it's ridiculous that cards can double in price overnight because someone decides to buy them out. That is not how a game is supposed to work.
I agreed with you being that WotC allowed this financial aspect of MtG to run amok with lack of reprints and reprint sets(Masters series). But you need to realize that in the real world, MtG is as such, a money-hungry game! The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will mitigate these issues into nothingness. Focus on what you can do for yourself. If one day, all these feedback will to be considered and prices fell within your budget, just buy the cards. No point running around with a bright smile and a $50,000 deck.
Mmm.. I feel nothing and isnt affect by the recent mtgfinancial events. Why? Its because I do not use any of the Reserved List cards.
Maybe if you cannot afford RL cards? Do not buy.
Feels entitled to playing Legacy in your player groups but cannot afford them? Proxy.
Feels entitled to playing Legacy sanctioned events? Pay for overpriced cards and grind through many more events for value.
Adapt? Nothing is holding you back but your own stubbornness.
I, personally speaking, have been on here less and less due to the fact that Magic in general is on a bit of a downhill IMO. Prices and set quality have dettered me from spending and playing as much as I used to.
Regardless of the successes/failures of MtG, MTGS still provide the current happenings within the MtG community free-of-charge! Just like reading a good novel.
810. Two-Headed Giant Variant
810.7b Any one-shot effect that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the effect chooses which one the spell or ability refers to at the time the effect is applied. The same is true for any one-shot effect that refers to the "attacking player".
Any characteristic-defining ability that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the object with the characteristic-defining ability chooses which one the ability refers to at the time the nonactive players become defending players.
All other cases in which the “defending player” is referred to actually refer to both defending players.
If the reference involves a positive comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls an Island) or a relative comparison (such as asking whether you control more creatures than the defending player), it gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if either defending player in the comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually. If the reference involves a negative comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls no black permanents), it also gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if performing the analogous positive comparison would return a “no” answer. The same is true for all other cases that refer to the “attacking player.”
1) What is an one-shot effect? Please give an example.
2) What is a characteristic-defining ability? Please give an example.
3) Will the triggered ability of Silumgar, the Drifting Death affect both defending players in a 2-headed giant game?
4) If a card asks whether the defending player controls an Island in a 2-headed giant game, as long as either defending player does, the answer is 'yes'?
I dont understand this Era of Innovation deck you speak of.
As you may have already assumed, I am not competitive and does not track the decks in tournaments.
I did watch both of Seth's videos but he said the deck didnt fire off dependently. After his second review, I concluded it was not a deck i want to buy into.
But your post has been very informative. Thanks. Maybe i will build an artificer deck due to Era of innovation
I googled a few combo articles on the internet and is a subscriber of Seth's videos. The results seems to conclude that only the combo i mentioned uses energy.
I want a list of modern combo using energy as its enabler regardless if its good or bad. (HR_19 understood my direction.)
Maybe as you seems to be competitive, you can provide the best 5 combos using energy?
Is (Decoction Module / Panharmonicon * 3) + Whirler Virtuoso the only energy Modern combo?
I am building a Modern deck based on the theme of "energy" (Kaladesh). I need your help to confirm that the above combo is the only infinite combo using energy.
Thank you for helping.
I am building a Modern deck based on the theme of "energy" (Kaladesh). I need your help to confirm that the above combo is the only infinite combo using energy.
Thank you for helping.
That describes Pauper which also provides a very low price wall and high supply.
Its your money. Its your decision to play Frontier or not.
(1) Give it a try. Like it, continue on. Dont like it, stop playing. Simple!
Relative to Tiny Leaders, why bother relating Frontier to Tiny Leaders? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to Modern, why bother relating Frontier to Modern? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to Standard, why bother relating Frontier to Standard? Refer to Point 1.
Relative to card prices, why bother relating Frontier to card prices? Refer to Point 1.
This thread feels like "3 blind men describing an elephant".
So whose ruling is correct?
Arcbond
What happens when Player A blocks with a Dragon Egg and cast Arcbond, targetting it and Player B's attacking creature deals 10 damage to it?
I wish to submit a suggestion for SCG "Advanced Search".
For the field "Sets", please implement the previous set system.
Eg. Separate the sets into their block levels or groups and then descending order, starting with the most recent Standard sets.
I agreed with you being that WotC allowed this financial aspect of MtG to run amok with lack of reprints and reprint sets(Masters series). But you need to realize that in the real world, MtG is as such, a money-hungry game! The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will mitigate these issues into nothingness. Focus on what you can do for yourself. If one day, all these feedback will to be considered and prices fell within your budget, just buy the cards. No point running around with a bright smile and a $50,000 deck.
Maybe if you cannot afford RL cards? Do not buy.
Feels entitled to playing Legacy in your player groups but cannot afford them? Proxy.
Feels entitled to playing Legacy sanctioned events? Pay for overpriced cards and grind through many more events for value.
Adapt? Nothing is holding you back but your own stubbornness.
Regardless of the successes/failures of MtG, MTGS still provide the current happenings within the MtG community free-of-charge! Just like reading a good novel.
810.7b Any one-shot effect that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the effect chooses which one the spell or ability refers to at the time the effect is applied. The same is true for any one-shot effect that refers to the "attacking player".
Any characteristic-defining ability that refers to the "defending player" refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. The controller of the object with the characteristic-defining ability chooses which one the ability refers to at the time the nonactive players become defending players.
All other cases in which the “defending player” is referred to actually refer to both defending players.
If the reference involves a positive comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls an Island) or a relative comparison (such as asking whether you control more creatures than the defending player), it gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if either defending player in the comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually. If the reference involves a negative comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls no black permanents), it also gets only one answer. This answer is “yes” if performing the analogous positive comparison would return a “no” answer. The same is true for all other cases that refer to the “attacking player.”
Silumgar, the Drifting Death
1) What is an one-shot effect? Please give an example.
2) What is a characteristic-defining ability? Please give an example.
3) Will the triggered ability of Silumgar, the Drifting Death affect both defending players in a 2-headed giant game?
4) If a card asks whether the defending player controls an Island in a 2-headed giant game, as long as either defending player does, the answer is 'yes'?