EDH/Commander General

Sheldon Memery found to be centuries old lich feeding off spite; removed from Rules Committee.

File: Ishkanah%2C+Grafwidow+%5BEMN%5D.jpg (29KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 223x311px

>needed a shitty casual deck
>didnt want to spend more than 50$ on one
>find out spider is super cheap
>allready own some cards
anything im missing that I NEED?
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/670584#paper

What does Ruric Thar need? I might go with the "fuck you no matter what" approach.
I stuck Harsh Mentor in there somewhere. I think I might put in Zo-Zu.

File: 18921879_1560267273991977_5829779044666217760_n.jpg (55KB, 540x697px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 540x697px

all right guys i'm sorting through my magic cards, how do you sort yours? I'm currently just sperating them by color but my friend says his uncle seperates his fuckhuge collection by set, which i may do once i get enough boxes.

File: 1496908069089.jpg (97KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 300x300px

>>53749602
>friend refuses to run ANY spells in the deck
>try and tell him that no one is forcing you to play those spells
>no wheels, no ramp, nothing but creatures
>he always wonders why he cant win

Admit energy was a mistake and ban marvel and unban Emmy.

Also, anyone got some sweet tech for Jund midrange for commander? My commander is the card draw insect

File: BRYAN.jpg (31KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 223x310px

>>53749613
>Implying Mass Land Destruction Tribal isn't fun

>>53749641
Is he running Ruric Thar? Yes? then he needs more utility creatus. No? Why the fuck is he not running Ruric Thar.

>>53749641
Your friend goes hard.
I have 6 or so non-creatures. Pulse of Murasa and anything worth getting blasted for.
>Armed and Dangerous
Does he at least bloodrush his commander?

>>53749578
Right off the bat I'll tell you putting it in tappedout will get you more responses.

>>53749602
99 permanents + Primal Surge is fun

File: insurrection.jpg (24KB, 210x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 210x300px

What cards do you consider Red's goodstuffs? I mean all the other colors have their obvious autoincludes, Demonic Tutor, Enlightened Tutor, Cyclonic Rift, Rhystic Study... I can only think of pic related, but even that is kinda costly at 8cmc.

>>53749613
By set is the easiest way to organize, as u just pop a new section for every new product u open up as they get released. Sorting ur initial collection is the hard part to this. My current collection is sorted by color, rarity, and standard and non-standard.

File: stunned dictator.jpg (28KB, 354x313px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 354x313px

>>53749711

>>53749716
Chaos Warp, Vandalblast, Wheels, Insurrection, Blasphemous Act, Cheeky-Kiki, Zealous Conscripts

Those can probably go in just about any red deck though I personally avoid Cheeky-Kiki like the plague.

File: 17022106_779211778894490_7578216694910341133_n.jpg (8KB, 295x268px)

8KB, 295x268px

>>53749711
now that's a spicy meatball

>>53749716
Blasphemous act. Traitor cards may kill the occasional person by stealing their tron but won't usually win you anything.

Kiki-jiki, Godo Bandit Warlord, Hoarding Dragon, Krenko mob boss, Fire Servant, Worldgorger Dragon. Magus of the moon, Blood moon.

Chaos Warp, fork/reverberate/reiterate

and all the one sided mass haste enablers and uncounterable X burns.

File: 1496638319988.gif (176KB, 312x322px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 312x322px

>>53749716
wheel of fate
wheel of fortune
magus of the wheel
magus of the moon
blood mood
price of glory
chaos warp
vandal blast
reverberate
Possibility Storm

Artifact/Enchantment recursion in mono-blue?

Does anyone have any fun cards to include in a Gitrog deck? Nothing broken necessarily, just fun.

>>53749827
>Blood mood
My girlfriend has that.

>>53749711
>If putting any of those permanent cards onto the battlefield causes abilities to trigger, those abilities will wait to go on the stack until Primal Surge has finished resolving. Starting with the active player, each player puts his or her abilities on the stack in any order.
I guess Zo-Zu wouldn't work very well then

File: Ram.png (569KB, 1220x912px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1220x912px

>>53749827
>Possibility Storm

>>53749854
Sunstone

>>53749871
I like it, but then I'd need 45 Snow Covered Lands

>>53749888
Costs, like, thirty bucks. You probably already shelled out for a Crucible of Worlds.

Is paradox engine ban worthy?

>>53749939
Actually no. I pulled one back in tenth edition and just kept it all this time.

>>53749945
Sol Ring and Mana Crypt are much more banworthy, especially since they're what makes Paradox Engine degenerate in the first place

>>53749613
In a couple 2" D-ring binders and a bunch of boxes.

Color and alphabetically. WUBRG, then multi-color, then artifacts, then non-basic lands. I also throw in full art lands after the non-basics according to age and collectors number. Yes it's autistic but it lets me show off my favorite cards while protecting them and it provides a catalog of my entire collection. The rest go into boxes that are sorted in the same manner. When I make/tune decks I'll use the binders to find stuff that I think will work well and then pull it from the boxes. Only exception is if it's a card I only have one of, then I put a proxy into it's sleeve in the deck. If required, I'll pull it from the binder but since I only play EDH most people don't give a shit. At worst they just want to know if I actually own the card or not.

I have considered sorting by sets, but that would just be a massive pain in the ass when I'm looking for one specific card and I don't know which set it's from. Or it's a card in multiple sets, making it pointless to have it multiple times in my limited space.

>>53749655
I have to agree that energy is a dumb mechanic.

I would also say that Emrakul should be unbanned for EDH. There is no reason to ban it that cannot be applied to other eldrazi.

>>53749396
>What do hope to hear from the announcements this week?
Abolishing the RL

>>53749985
>I would also say that Emrakul should be unbanned for EDH. There is no reason to ban it that cannot be applied to other eldrazi.
Infinite turn combos?

>>53749945
No. It's incredibly vulnerable, and if it's in a deck built around abusing it (see: storm) the deck would run fine without it. That's the sign of a bad ban - doesn't hurt degenerate decks, but ruins any other uses.

>>53749854
Worm Harvest

File: 1496553572620.jpg (55KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x447px

>>53749939
>Mfw excited as fuck for M35 cause potential crucible reprint due to number crunching
>Mfw I can finally grab 5 of, 4 for memedern and 1 for my 'dat boi' deck at reasonable prices
>Mfw its just damping matrix that filled in the crucible slot

>>53749699
why

>>53749945
As a rule of courtesy, we don't discuss the ban list here unless a change has happened and we're forced to discuss it. Remember, this edition of the general is the "Less Shitposting And Autistic Arguments" edition.

>>53749966
Lucky. Still, it's not that expensive, comparatively, to pick up Snow lands in Gitfrog.

>>53750015
Mm3*

>>53750032
Because the layout doesn't look like garbage and most posters are aware of how to navigate it and where the relevant deck analytics are.

>>53750060
you sound like a faggot

>>53749578
Arachnogenesis?

>>53750032
Because Tappedout is a lot more convenient for viewing cards, looking at mana curve and color distribution, and even to take decks apart and try out your own substitutions. Goldfish just displays the price more conveniently.

>>53750063
Alright. Have fun getting help with your deck.

>>53749939
>>53750043
Fuck it. I just placed an order from Card Kingdom for 15 each snow covered forests and swamps.

>>53750084
>>53750060
ive seen people use goldfish all the time

>>53750001
Which can be done with how many other things?

Which can be stopped by how much other shit?

Seriously, old Emrakul isn't much of a threat. It, and the other old eldrazi, are mostly useful as fatties and a counter to mill decks.

File: 1485904138154.jpg (47KB, 311x520px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 311x520px

>>53749997
>Wizards doesn't remove the RL
>However, they do print thousands more for direct purchasing through wizards
>Third party sellers faces when

>>53750128
And if you actually paid attention you'd know that they were more likely to get help using tappedout.

File: Lili.png (118KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 223x311px

Thinking about building pic related. What kind of deck would work best with her? Right now I think I might build around her +2 and add effects like megrim and a few zombies for flavor

File: file.png (145KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 223x311px

>>53749578
i'm not sure how you don't have pic related but here's some other suggestions.
>Swarmyard: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=114913

>cryptic gateway is pretty spicy http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=39701

>descendant's path: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=276498

>pack's disdain:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=153165

>steely resolve:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=40130

>stoneforge masterwork:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Oath+of+the+Gatewatch/Stoneforge+Masterwork#online

also you could use beastmaster ascension. since you're in a token deck and you have green you could use the overrun type effect.

>>53750211
okay thank you

>>53750211
oh yeah i checked the prices for ya too, i don't know how much of your budget you have left after the initial list but the most expensive of these is steely resolve at under 5 bucks.

>>53750261
Yeah man, lemme know how it does once you finally test run it.

>>53750188
Some anon posted a neat budget list for her - pretty only standard card were used. Sadly I didn't save the link. Maybe he is still lurking tho

>>53750188
Attrition, discard and/or stax based. You can even accomplish this with Liliana flavoured cards and a zombie subtheme.

>>53750183
Can never happen, tragically. They'd have to abolish the list in order to print more copies of said cards

Should I build a Marrow-Gnawer deck? He looks fun. Like a slightly slower, mono-b Krenko with a fucking sweet evasion keyword

>>53749396
>What do hope to hear from the announcements this week?

RL abolishment. But we all know that won't happen. Realistically: a set printed in old frames. Perhaps iconic masters?

>>53749396
I just hope that they won't announce anything that would fuck up the entire franchise. I believe I read something about a Magic movie and a Magic MMORPG. Stuff like that has the potential to destroy the game from within. Maybe this is part of a major campaign and they want to develop new target groups and make the game accesible for other demographics. They could alter the lore and simplify the gameplay. My biggest nightmare is that we end up with some kind of shitty real version of hearthstone with pink haired gnomes on every artwork, because very young and female players supposedly like them, and facebook codes on every card.

>>53750183
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the restricted list is fucking retarded but I'd rather see the occasional power card helping to pad set numbers than buying one from a vendor. Mostly because I figure that WotC will run out of new cards eventually, so they'll be forced to reprint or die. Better if they reprinted more of the older stuff to pad out numbers.

>>53750188
I want to throw her in one of my decks. Planeswalkers are just so damn useful. But yeah, I'd probably focus on recursion with her. Throw in a lot of zombies too, maybe a coat of arms if you can spam enough of them.

I'm just not sold on the idea of her as a general.

>>53750423
If you want to see how Gnawer plays, see Ghoulcaller Gisa, but with rats instead of zombies.

File: en_aATh4M5QxM.png (180KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 265x370px

Have you ever played pauper commander?

>>53750461
There's definitely an MMO in the works but I'm not sure about the movie.

>>53750261
also consider some cheap sac outlets like ashnod's altar, altar of dementia, and sadistic hypnotist.
hypnotist isn't a spider but he can sac your spider tokens and demolish hands.

File: Pauper.jpg (30KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 223x310px

>>53750515
My roomie boohoos because he doesn't like "purposefully handicapping himself or not being able to make big plays"

>>53750494
Hey that's neato too

Why is Death Baron so expensive

File: MAD.png (112KB, 831x646px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 831x646px

Before this thread is over, here is your threadly reminder that the only people that have a problem with "tactical scoop"

are people that don't understand the concept of MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction.

File: strands2.jpg (32KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 223x310px

>>53750188
building her as pure discard is most likely a bit too heavy on the themes, especially since her transformation is pretty difficult in a deck like that

if you want my advice, go for sac & recur with a discard focus. use creatures like fleshbag maraduer, merciless executioner and slum reaper and shriekmaw to both activate liliana and to kill your opponents' stuff, then recur those creatures and stuff like mindslaver to further drive your advantage. you can also use liliana's discard to get your big fatties into the graveyard, which is nice since you can reanimate them later.

you should also put in a lot of draw to counteract your own discard, but that goes for just about any monoblack deck

so basically: just a pretty typical monoblack reanimator, but focus on hand hate

i wouldn't bother with megrim effects. your deck will be trying to do too many things at the same time and will be worse for it.

the only exception is some very useful megrim effects, like Waste Not and maybe Sangromancer and so on

>>53750597
go away

>>53750515
One of my friends made a shitty commander deck from bulk and didn't have any rares.
If I hated myself I could make Nagao, Bound by Honor an uncommon commander.

>>53750593
But pauper commander is incredibly boring. Might as well play with intro packs for the same power level and consistency

>>53750855
>I need to play Legacy-level cards to keep me entertained
>I need consistency in a 100 card singleton format

You might be playing the wrong format.

>>53750953
No, I'm playing the right format: EDH not pauper commander.
I don't think casting divination and having no boardwipes makes for a fun time. You can't even have proper levels of jank in pauper. I'd say to each his own, but you're complaining that you can't make others play your abomination of a format.

Is there a good commander youtuber out there? Or magic in general for that matter?

>>53751129
i have not researched the subject at all but i'd say nope

>>53750597
Go away, you don't understand MAD.

>>53751129
Why?

File: Screenshot_20170611-181001_1.jpg (95KB, 1078x811px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1078x811px

>>53750188
>Alesha reanimator
>drop little Lili
>flips, people discard
>gets shot down
>bring it back
>flip it, people discard
>eventually get the emblem
>people scoop

>>53750157
>Which can be done with how many other things?
How many of those things are sitting in your command zone?
>Which can be stopped by how much other shit?
Not that much, considering that Emmy triggers on cast.
>Seriously, old Emrakul isn't much of a threat. It, and the other old eldrazi, are mostly useful as fatties and a counter to mill decks.
Other Eldrazi are at least possible to hit with StP.

>>53750597
Tactical scoop is retarded because the only strategy it hoses is "combat damage value", therefore limiting variety in the format because all it does is make people shy away from it. Anybody practicing "tactical scoop" is a little bitch that can't handle a loss fairly in a casual game.

File: qXxUwkA.jpg (682KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 2448x3264px

>>53751129
magic man sam makes interesting stuff
everyone else feels like
>le wolf on wall street
>vlogs about card shop
>reviews
>top 10 CRAZZZY CARDSSS
>WTF IS WIZARDS DOINGGGG

also
avoid rudy fags at all costhes a hack

File: memecenter_smug_pepe.jpg (110KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x800px

>>53751295
>that tfw when the all is dust i bought half a year ago has more than doubled its value
>be literally an investor now

>>53751324
Why the fuck did All is Dust climb up so much anyway? Is Modern becoming even more of a Tron circlejerk?

>>53751293
>deliberately lose
>can't handle losing

You only ate that cake because you have no appetite!!???!!!

>>53751129
The Command Zone is decent and their EDH play videos are entertaining. Good editing, competent play, and a good mix of casual and competitive stuff gets used. They also don't take 2 hours to finish one round like Commander Versus.

>>53751324
Holy shit, I bought that thing for like $7 as a wipe for Slobad a while back

What the hell happened

>>53751402
Tron is still used consistently and keeps getting new pieces every odd set or so.

>>53751413
>can't handle a loss fairly
"waah you're out to kill me this'll teach you for playing aggro instead of a masturbatory combo circlejerk like me!!!!!!111"

>>53751437
Obviously, I'm wondering about the price spike of All is Dust though. And about the Memory Jar spike when we're talking about these.

>>53751413
>>deliberately lose
They were going to lose anyway so they acted like a spiteful bitch about it. A "tactical" scoop is in no way useful to the one doing it and it only makes it look like you're just being a sore loser who can't stand that he lost.

>>53751257
>muh commander
What kind of fucking idiot would allow that to happen? I get nuked for playing Kaalia. You should get nuked twice as hard if you're running Emrakul (or any eldrazi) as your general.

>not much to stop it
If it's in the 99, Sadistic Sacrament will exile it never to return. If you can board wipe before their combo goes off, it dies.

>muh spot removal StP
That is the stupidest fucking excuse. That's like bitching about how Progenitus can't be hit by StP.

And lets throw the cherry on the cake. The only card I can think of off the top of my head that would allow you to bounce Emrakul for multiple turns would be Cloudstone Curio. Which would require casting another creature in addition to Emrakul every "turn" in order to bounce Emrakul back to your hand. It could be an issue if Emrakul is the wincon for a blue deck, otherwise it's irrelevant as you would just need to counter the creature being summoned to trigger Cloudstone.

Now if there is another colorless card that will let you return stuff to your hand, I wouldn't mind knowing that. Could be useful for my Kaalia deck.

>>53751293
>>53751413
>>53751440
Fuck off.

>>53751460
"No."

>>53750649
Sounds pretty good.
I was looking at edhrec and that seems like one of the more common ways to build her

>>53751460
Ancestral Statue, but it's only one use.

>>53751460
>Now if there is another colorless card that will let you return stuff to your hand
Obelisk of Undoing. Costly, but that's the price for colorless.

File: ID_YellowBandedPoisonDartFrog_1200x490.jpg (231KB, 1200x490px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1200x490px

>>53751458
The poison isn't in any way useful to the frog because it doesn't do anything unless the frog is going to be eaten anyway.

>>53751460
erratic portal

>>53751539
>muh frog analogy
You're using an out-of-game mechanic to screw the other player, which is just about the pettiest and most bitchy thing you can do in the format. End of.

>>53750015
>Not being excited about the crucible reprint in the core set they reintroduce within the next 18 years

>>53749827
Possibility storm in Riku of two reflections is crazy good

>>53751509
Still easy as shit to prevent the "infinite turns" combo. Either cancel the card or the spell to bring it back onto the battle field.

>>53751515
>>53751547
Slightly more difficult since you can repeat it. Same basic solution though. While Emrakul itself is tough, protecting it and the pieces to let you combo for infinite turns is next to impossible. Especially if you run Emrakul as the general. Since infinite turn combos are the only special objection I've seen to removing Emrakul from the banlist, I'm still not seeing a good argument for Emrakul to be on it while various pieces of other infinite turn combos aren't.

Off the top of my head, the only way to really pull it off would be Emrakul in the 99 and then running wUG general in order to protect all of your shit. G for mana, W to protect your pieces, and U to cancel removal of various sorts (notably artifact). Which would be pretty complicated. Honestly if you are willing to put that much effort and manage to get lucky enough to pull it off, I wouldn't even be mad if your combo resolved.

>>53751619
G gives you access to Temur Sabretooth and creature tutors. Good luck getting that Sadistic Sacrament in your starting hand.

>>53751586
>end of
wew that settles it

>You're using an out-of-game mechanic to screw the other player,
out-of-game mechanic is an oxymoron.

> which is just about the pettiest and most bitchy thing you can do in the format.
It's equally petty to act entitled to something when the rules don't give it to you and and the rules are the default, so I don't see how this point helps you.

>>53751657
Exactly what I was getting at. However >>53751257 suggested that having Emrakul in the command zone was relevant. I was pointing out that the only real way I could see Emrakul being used for infinite turns was by having it in the 99.

Which, if Emrakul is in the 99, there is a lot more it is vulnerable too. Someone makes you discard your hand while Emrakul is in it? Welp, there it goes. Now you need to tutor or get lucky. Which requires time. Someone mills you? Sure it doesn't do much since Emrakul went to the graveyard, but you're in the same situation as before. Need to tutor or get lucky with the draw. All of this is taking time. Precious time until you get killed off.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying that I think it's hard enough to do an infinite turn combo (with the exception of excellent luck that cannot be relied upon) with Emrakul that said combo is not a good enough reason to ban it.

>>53751784
That kind of reasoning can be used for half the banlist. You can make a person discard Prime Time or exile it with an Extract, does it make it fair to play against it?

>>53749396
STOP PUTTING THE DISCORD IN THE OP

>>53752533
If you mean Primeval Titan, yes. There is nothing wrong with it.

>>53752757
Prime Time should just have a caveat that it can't be run in decks containing blue.

>>53752694
Cry more faggot. Your tears sustain us in the discord.

When someone scoops, the rest of the players still in the game come up with a mutualy reasonable way of solving combat damage triggers, spells still on the stack, and amount of players matters cards. Usualy this involves acting as if he did not scoop and playing out what might happen just prior to the player killing event. If mr. spite scooper has anything to say about it he is polity reminded that he is no longer in the game.

>>53752841
Well yeah, many things can be solved through make belief.

>Hey, you know, cards X, Y, and Z are pretty busted, maybe they should be banned?
>Nooooo!!! They're only broken if you don't play Kamigawa Spirit Tribal!!! I love playing protean hulk to get my waxmane baku into play!!!!!
>Well, there are about 12,000 cards in Magic the Gathering, surely you could just let the blatantly overpowered ones be banned
>B-but I really want to play with
>this
>specific
>card
Why do autists like Sheldon fixate on playing overpowered cards "fairly," instead of just getting rid of them and choosing something more reasonable instead?

>>53752841
Ending the game
Typically, the game ends when one player wins and the others lose. The most common way to lose the game is to have one's life points reduced to zero, causing the other player to win. However, there are several other options how one might lose or win.

A game might also end with a draw. A drawn game is a game where the game ends and there is no winner.

Conceding is, of course, always an option.[1] To concede a game is forfeiting a game of Magic: The Gathering, often due to the belief that one will soon or ultimately lose. This can happen during competitive tournament play, when a player may forfeit so he or she can play other games during his or her match in the time allotted. Conceding a game immediately causes that player to leave that game and lose that game.

Alternate-win cards may introduce new ways of ending the game.

The rest is outlined in the comprehensive rules.

>>53752799
Can't speak for the EDH version, but someone has tried.
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/primetime-vigor/

All I'm seeing here is your standard mana-ramp-to-dump-huge-shit that is pretty much the same shit I played against when I stopped playing standard (I stopped right after M11 dropped, which was when Primeval titan was first around). It's annoying but it isn't the end of the world.

>>53752858
>but card [X] makes is so hard for me to play craw wurm!
>I know, we should ban it!
>Good idea, then everyone can play their craw wurm!
>It'll be so much fun won't it?
I can play this retarded strawman game too faggot.

>>53752904
But your argument has no credence. The Rules Committee doesn't adhere to whatever stupid bullshit just dribbled off your keyboard and into this thread.

Use a little critical thinking before posting next time, you mouthbreathing retard.

>>53752865
And we're saying the rules are not designed for multiplayer and should be changed so that autists like you stop throwing hissy fits that you might ever lose on another person's terms.

>>53752904
All I know is that Painter's Servant shouldn't be banned.
>MUH Iona lock

Yeah, they either needed to play a mono white commander that costs 9 or had to get both cards out of their 99 to get the lock. Who fucking cares? And the Grindstone combo is a joke in commander too.

>>53752974

8. Multiplayer Rules
800. General
801. Limited Range of Influence Option
802. Attack Multiple Players Option
803. Attack Left and Attack Right Options
804. Deploy Creatures Option
805. Shared Team Turns Option
806. Free-for-All Variant
807. Grand Melee Variant
808. Team vs. Team Variant
809. Emperor Variant
810. Two-Headed Giant Variant
811. Alternating Teams Variant

You could say the rules aren't designed for multiplayer, but you would be wrong.

File: deckbuilding.png (175KB, 1600x600px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1600x600px

>>53749613
>having win conditions

File: i28ZVhR.jpg (350KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 2048x1536px

>>53752974

>playing the game normally is considered a "hissy fit"

>>53753003
Literally hasty patches that have half the thought of any other rule put into them. If there was no rule against damaging another player's cards you would defend that as well.
>>53753033
>taking actions with no possible counterplay because you can't stand losing is "playing the game normally"

>>53751454
Eldrazi are popular in modern

>>53753026
Shahrazad being illegal in commander goes against my core beliefs.

>>53752980
Pretty much. Grindstone is killed by anyone running an eldrazi in their deck and letting an Iona lock resolve just shows how fucking stupid you are. Only possible exception to the Iona lock is if you're playing 1v1, which there is probably still an out. I know I cast and keep Nevinyrral's Disk out at all times just in case someone wants to pull that sort of fuckery.

Seriously, I could do this shit with any of my decks.

>>53753121
Conceding the game because you're about to lose is probably the most common way to lose in Magic though.

>>53749613
make your own /edhg/ and keep it edh related.

>>53750426

It would actually be super cool if Iconic Masters was printed using the old style frames. And we'd get things like old frame Planeswalkers and such.

File: file.png (341KB, 550x702px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 550x702px

>>53753198
oh for fuck's sake

>>53753170
And the fact that situations exist in which conceding has a direct negative effect on players still in the game is a flaw in the game rules.

>>53753121
>taking actions with no possible counterplay
Not everything needs counterplay. You can't stop your opponent from taking a mulligan for example.

>because you can't stand losing
Who said they can't handle losing? How in the fuck does intentionally losing because you don't like losing make sense?

File: panic stricken.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>>53749613
>tfw only started playing in Theros
>don't have enough cards from older sets to sort them that way

>>53751129
Magic man sam has some good stuff although it's a bit unconvential how he does his deck techs and stuff. His videos are super comfy though.
Command zone is also good but get shit on here for either being too casual or too competitive because people complain about everything.
They play more competitively and their budgets are usually what most people wouldn't consider budget. like when most people think budget they think under 5 or 10 but the command zone considered under 25 budget which is fair for mtg.

File: file.png (157KB, 236x331px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 236x331px

>>53753210
anon please i can only get so erect

>>53753242
And an opponent taking a mulligan does not cause a loss. Do you not understand the concept of spite? Because "If I can't win, neither can you," is the definition of spite.

File: scoopdapoopnew.jpg (60KB, 633x519px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 633x519px

>>53753238
According to what, your feelings?

That is my issue with the whole scoop discussion. It's a recreation of the reddit atheism shitstorms where one side is trying to smugly reason the other side out a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

>>53753145
Why is Shahrazad banned? I thought that was the sort of jank sheldon and co love?

>>53753293
Because it's banned in Vintage. It would be at most an annoyance in EDH. In 60 card with 4 copies it was the ultimate cancer. No card in Magic's history comes close.

>>53753286
The idea behind conceding is to say "I lose and leave the game." The fact that there are situations where it becomes "We lose and I leave the game," is quite obviously a problem.

>>53753293
Because it's an absolute chore to resolve. Even better is that some idiot memester will try to copy it as many times as possible anyway just to be "XD randumb"

>>53753384
>Hive Mind+Shahrazad
I've never been so erect.

>>53753384
I'm not saying it shouldn't be banned, just that I was surprised to learn it was given that sheldon and co. seem to be a group of idiot memesters.

File: nomercy.jpg (33KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 223x310px

>>53753280
>Do you not understand the concept of spite?
This card is very spiteful. I assume you don't have a problem with it.

>"If I can't win, neither can you," is the definition of spite.
You don't necessarily lose your ability to win the game if somebody tactiscoops. The game state just changes in some ways, and if one of those things prevents you from winning the game, then your game plan has an inherent flaw where you are giving some amount of control away to another player.

If you give a player control over what happens to you directly after you attack them, how does it make sense to expect them to cooperate with you? They may very well decide to do so, such as an archenemy situation. Either way, it's not up to you.

It's really hard to not just reiterate that it's the ru-rus, but if you ignore the attacking players fee-fees, nothing else is left.

>>53753357
>The idea behind conceding is to say "I lose and leave the game." The fact that there are situations where it becomes "We lose and I leave the game," is quite obviously a problem.

In what fucking situation is that the literal truth?

What conceivable combination of cards could possibly cause a player to LOSE THE GAME because a person they attacked conceded before the combat damage step? Remembering that whatever resources that player devoted towards attacking that player are spent either way?

This really sounds like you're massively inflating a problem that extremely minor and would never alter who wins or loses, maybe once in 1000 games at most.

>>53753280
>"If I can't win, neither can you," is the definition of spite.

It's also a very good strategy. Enormous part of Commander is about making other players not want to kill you.

>>53753486
He must be talking about some shitty deck that relies on combat damage triggers to not immediately die to the other players.

>>53753422
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>53753425
Well, they already seem to be like idiot memesters, incompetent ones as well.
I just assume it's banned because it's banned everywhere else as well and they realize that the card is just stupid and pointlessly prolongs the game to an extremely unfun extent.
It just accomplishes too little for the time it takes to completely resolve

why don't you all do this general a favour and tactically scoop out of this thread?

File: memecenter_happy_pepe.jpg (25KB, 480x424px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x424px

>>53753471
>playing this card against the nekusar player

>>53753486
From reading these arguments in this thread and the past one(s), it seems like it bothers people that one can scoop at "instant" speed. Which means that scooping can interrupt combos, prevent things like lifelink resolving, and there may or may not be other examples. I can see why scooping at instant speed could cause some issues in a multiplayer setting. I could very well have misunderstood the whole discourse though, so please correct me if I have anything wrong.

File: 132.jpg (77KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 312x445px

>>53750515
Absolutely. I have 5 pauper decks currently. Unfortunatly I rarely get any takers when I ask about playing. I find there are plenty of fun things you can do with commons, but people seem to only want to turn expensive cardboard sideways. Pic related is my red talrand voltron commander.

>>53749613
Like this:
>Set
>Rarity
>Colour {W, U, B, R, G, Colourless, Artifact, Multicoloured, Lands}

>>53750423
Marrow-Gnawer was the first deck I built, and I still have a lot of fun playing it
Here's my list
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/hour-of-rats/

>three player game
>can Mindslaver player 2, kill player 3, then kill player 2 when turn comes around
>player 2 scoops

>give Aetherflux Resevoir lifelink to win
>first target scoops

>playing Gonti or Sen Triplets
>scooped whenever I can play an impactful spell

>>53753504
How the fuck is scooping a good strategy? It's not really good, since it absolutely doesn't help you to win

>>53753715
Yep, that certainly is what happens when your wincon relies on other players/their cards. There's a reason why none of the "steal your shit" commanders are considered great.

>>53753357
>The idea behind conceding is to say "I lose and leave the game." The fact that there are situations where it becomes "We lose and I leave the game," is quite obviously a problem.
First of all I have to thank you for being the first poster in three threads to come up with a plausible reason to address the matter of conceding. The criminalized conceding thing has been mainly supported by namecalling up until now.

Rather than get all philosophical, I would like to ask two key points about why conceding might be a problem.

#1) In what situation does conceding literally kill another player? You would require some convoluted setup where a player has negative life and has a platinum angel with control magic on it. Even in this situation, do you really think it's fair that the angels controller remain in the game as long as possible purely for the sake of keeping another player alive? Assume this is NOT a team game or anything like that.

Bonus question) How is depending on another player's platinum angel different from depending on them being present for the sake of lifelink, feast and famine, etc.?

#2) Magic is at its core based on logic that attempts to be as consistent as possible. How in the world would you attempt to resolve what happens when a player leaves the game, if they were not technically allowed to leave at any time? Do you create imaginary tokens that represent every in-game object that player owned, but they aren't really tokens?

The problem with magic is that its not subjective, so a subjective game of make-believe is out of place.

File: tmp_27614-1494636689730_1494644335600188594671.jpg (38KB, 345x311px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 345x311px

>>53753599
>aethersnatching this as the nekusar player

>>53753599
More like using Michiko Konda instead. Much more delicious. Especially if the guy is running Forced Fruition, like casting a card and then responding to the sac triggers with an instant to make the guy sac 7, 14 or more permanents

>>53751129
I watch Jolt539 and find his videos pretty good for some causal play.

File: Hall of Gemstone_MI.jpg (60KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 312x445px

>play monogreen in a table with 2 4-colour decks and one 5 colour deck
>cast Hall of Gemstone
>opponent bursts into literal treats because they're too dumb to run removal

>>53753971
>runs the worst blood moon in magic
>wrecks 4 color kiddos
Props anon for next leveling those scrubs.

>>53753795
You're right, a situation in which a concession leads directly to a loss is unlikely, but as I tried to make the point >>53753715 there are actually plenty of situations where a player's concession can be pinpointed as the cause of another player's loss. As to how to deal with it, I don't know. I'm not good at writing internally consistent rules, and because of the case by case basis of these situations I can't think of any wording.

I hate to evoke the all dreaded Sheldor, but Magic in general and EDH in particular are social situations, and sometimes you might need to sit still and bear with it not to spoil everyone's fun. Maybe that's how it should be done, give a one/two/five minute warning to concession, an acknowledgment that your board doesn't exist in a vacuum but also that you'd prefer to leave.

>>53753971
Enchant World needs to come back. Way better card type concept than "Planeswalker."

>>53753971
God I fucking love Hall of Gemstone.

>>53754006
>Worst Blood Moon

I would rather have Blood Moon dropped against me desu. Then again I really love running a higher amount of basics than I probably should.

>>53754084
I dropped a T2 Blood Moon on a Progenitus player. It was orgasmic.

>>53753971
What makes this card sneakily amazing is that it turns most instants into sorceries for 3 mana.

>>53749716
I know that this card is absolutely fair, especially at the cost of 8 fucking mana with three red symbols i it, but I absolutely despise seeing people use this to pull a win out of their asses. It's not necessarily that there was a serious turnaround, it's simply that you can pull an automatic victory with literally nothing that punishes all players who dare having a board state at all, as well as players who didn't. That guy over there with 30+ goblins, Krenko, a Goblin anthem, and something else, as well as the other dude who has a Mikaeus, a number of soldiers, some punchy creature, and an angel, followed lastly by the other guy with a bunch of spirits or elementals out just to keep his safe less-punchable from the army of tokens and nontokens on everybody's field, and the fourth player, who has zero board presence and has rightfully been ignored because killing him would be piss easy, casts this card and instant wins unless someone either counters the spell or casts a board wipe at instant speed. It just feels gross winning like that, and it's aggravating losing to it. Even sac outlets like Ashnod's Altar only matter if every player has one.

>>53752841
Please contain your autism to your hugbox meta. This general is not a dumping ground.

>>53754009

Why can't the playgroup just accept that conceding happens? Take >>53753715
for example

>three player game
>can Mindslaver player 2, kill player 3, then kill player 2 when turn comes around
>player 2 scoops
In this situation, the mindslaver has merely killed a player. Nothing about the game is ruined or stops working. It just means that you either need to use the mindslaver knowing it will be countered by game rules, or hold onto it until you have a better plan.

>give Aetherflux Resevoir lifelink to win
>first target scoops
In this situation, you just need technically need 101 life to combo off and win. 51 just isn't good enough.

>playing Gonti or Sen Triplets
>scooped whenever I can play an impactful spell
If casting your four-mana ghonti effectively destroys a player, then the conceding player is granting an enormous amount of power to you, and frankly expecting special treatment on top of that is acting spoiled.


I don't see any of these situations as bugs any more than they are features. This just so happens to be technically how the game works. It really does result in a "gotcha!" situation if somebody doesn't understand the technicality, but commander and magic or a castle of technicalities and gotcha. In none of these scenarios is the game objectively ruined.

>>53754167
What's funny is that Insurrection is absolutely unplayable in my playgroup. Everyone loves spellslinging, combo and value decks much more than creature decks. The only way I could get proper value out of it is if I had a sac outlet out.

>>53754197
My playgroup is some of the most vicious and brutal aggro balls you can imagine. While it's to be expected that someone MIGHT have an Insurrection in their decks, they usually get focused first because nobody wants them to steal their huge things, as well as the fact that if the whole table knows that there's a chance that their winning board presence can literally be turned on them, we're explicitly more inclined to kill the guy who has a win button far moreso than the other guy with a 256/256 Thromok that can be blocked by Glissa or 300 tokens that can be eaten by a Massacre Wurm.

How do you guys feel about Chalice of the Void in EDH? I got a foil one, but not sure how it'll fit in my Titania deck.

>>53753776
>I'm only going to play one game with these people and never again.
>If I do play with the same people, they will all have amnesia of all the previous games we played together and the actions which took place in them.

Does every single person triggered by scooping not understand politics? Do you just play silently with these people and REEE on here when you get targeted or don't agree with someone's threat assessment?

File: Image.png (135KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 223x310px

>THREAD QUESTION

>What do hope to hear from the announcements this week?
Demon tribal

>>53754167
Your biggest error in this scenario was ignoring the fucker that had nothing going on. Commander is a format where a single resolved spell can take you from peasant to god king. Always prey on the weak unless you think you can get a truce with them (and even then the person has to be someone that honors their word). Worst case scenario, the guy really did have nothing and you just put him out of his misery early.

>>53754167
As the power level of a meta increases, so does the need to win out of nowhere. You can't depend on a board existing for more than one turn even in the most casual metas if players care to stock a few board wipes.

I feel for you man. I honestly don't like that a lot of things are very hard to interact with if you're not playing blue. Honestly, my idea of a gentleman's agreement is "You don't play cards that can only be beaten by counterspell, I don't attempt to consistently aggro you out of the game before you can cast it."

In my meta, it's not much of a problem because when decks are built with the mindset that immediately high impact wincons are inherently more effective than slowly building a board, insurrection just often doesn't have the targets it needs to win. That and we have a few copies of sac outlets, instant interaction, homeward paths, and fort cards.

>>53754185
Because conceding is supposed to be an "I lose" (and you could argue a "You win" but either way) button. The fact that you can use it as an "I lose and so do you" button is a distortion of the purpose of a concession. I think it's also a problem because a concession in my mind should be your way of saying "I don't care, let's move on," and tactical/spite scooping is a way of lingering in the game past your time.

>>53754240
It's pretty bad unless your opponent is playing a very specific deck and you want to fuck them over, like a Shu Yun spellslinger voltron deck. Most 60 card decks curve out at 3, 4 at most. EDH decks usually curve out at 6 or 7, making Chalice extremely unreliable.

>>53754185
>until you have a better plan
What better plan? If every player is scooping to avoid the consequences of getting hit by a Mindslaver, you can just use it to kill every player on the board. Hell, go as far as using it to pick apart whoever seems like the time to scoop to "deny" and recur it to use on those who would stick around. Finnicky scoopfags deserve to die to every example of them trying to dodge around granting another player resources.

>>53754325
I was thinking Chalice on 3 would be good enough. Like a lot of value on at 3 mana, but you're probably right.

>>53751460
>tactical scoop guy plays Kaalia
It all makes sense now

>>53753293
A) Who is this Sheldon y'all keep talking about? I first assumed it was just Big Bang Theory references, which I've never watched the show so I didn't expect to get them. But it's been mentioned too many times for me to think "Sheldon" is referencing a tv show.

B) As other anons have pointed out, it's a time wasting cancer that just absolutely fucks the whole game. You're already going to be playing for a hour or two. Having some shitstick play Shahrazad will just double that time, at minimum.

>>53753486
No shit, so why don't you fucking mongloids stop replying to obvious trolls? We already sperged all over this shit in the last thread.

>>53754084
I'd probably disagree. It depends on your mana setup. While most of my lands aren't basic, that's only because most of my lands are either fetches or fetch-able. Like Blood Crypt. Counts as a Swamp and a Mountain, so I can use Swamp or Mountain fetches to get it. But when you remove the fetches and "fetch-able but non-basic" then most of my lands are basic. I rarely have issues.

>>53754167
>all those dudes
Does no one run board wipes? No one I play with can manage to get more than 10 critters at most before a board wipe hits. Besides, you should be paying attention to everyone.

>>53754354
I'm not supporting tactical scoop you fucking retard. I want people to stop talking about it because we already had a whole fucking thread on the subject. Are you so fucking retarded you cannot understand that I was responding to both sides with that?

File: Captivating Glance.jpg (58KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 312x445px

So, I'm pondering making a Zedruu deck, and this card seems very fun. As long as you have at least three players, you can steal the biggest, baddest dude on the board, as well as play some delightful politics.

>>53754457
That could be really hilarious if someone was playing with their top card revealed or you could look at their top cards before clashing.

>>53754300
Because conceding is supposed to be an "I lose" (and you could argue a "You win" but either way) button. The fact that you can use it as an "I lose and so do you" button is a distortion of the purpose of a concession.
That just brings us back to the control magic/platinum angel argument. Conceding never literally kills a player unless game mechanics and player decisions cause it to do so. In that case, the concession was never a "you lose" button by itself.

> I think it's also a problem because a concession in my mind should be your way of saying "I don't care, let's move on," and tactical/spite scooping is a way of lingering in the game past your time. Lifelink and feast and famine triggers are ALSO postmortem influences. In fact, not wanting to play kingmaker is a key part to why I sometimes concede a game I have clearly lost.

This is an inherent feature of a multiplayer game. By being present, I inherently affect the game, and my continued pretense or sudden absence is going be relevant to the game either way. I contaminated the game from the moment I sat down and shuffled, and nothing can change that.

Really though, If you are about to die in a game and you sit through it with a smile because you want to see what happens, more power to you. I've done it before. On the other hand, I've flat out told people that attacking me for lethal with feast and famine is not going to work and that they need a different plan. The situation does not need to be moralized, and if it is, the game has a very clear default stance.

>>53754413
How are those MLP sleeves treating you?

>>53749716
Just out of curiousity I decided to check gatherer's ruling for insurrection. I am a little confused by the rule post from 2004 that says

"You untap all creatures, control all creatures, and give all creatures Haste."

From that wording it almost seems like the card is saying the player gives the creatures haste, not the card effect. I know it probably dosn't change anything, just a little odd considering how literal magic usually is taken in order to find edge cases in the wording to abuse.

>>53754338
>What better plan? If every player is scooping to avoid the consequences of getting hit by a Mindslaver, you can just use it to kill every player on the board.
That's a good observation. Maybe instead of always conceding whenever it would cause a shred of disruption, or inventing new rules for imaginary playhouse magic where conceding isn't allowed, the player could try asking themselves
A: Does that mindslaver targeting me make the game unwinnable for me if it resolves?
B: Does the target of my mindslaver have a reason to believe they will still be in the game after it resolves?

Just imagine you're being targeted by mindslaver when you have zuran orb in play and no way to get rid of it. The game is pretty much over for you at that point. On the other hand, the mindslaver player should know this and treat the mindslaver as a way to kill that player.

God forbid we have to think about the game instead of crying every time something doesn't go your way.

>>53754651
Scooping is literally crying that the game isn't going your way.

File: Low Tier God.png (403KB, 1592x420px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1592x420px

>>53754651
If you have a Zuran Orb in play, then you are rightfully leaving the game because of your inability to come back. You might as well be dead in this case. Most people aren't arguing this, as your autistic mind seems unable to process. If you got Mindslavered because you had just enough power on your board to kill another player, but that player with Mindslaver also had enough resources in hand to kill you, but you knew that since you had zero cards in hand and that you can't just turn your dude sideways and beat the Mindslaver player, so you feel the need to "tactically" exit the game to give the other guy a helping hand, you're being a faggot. Of course it's in the rules, it's also rude as all shit and nobody is going to like you in coming games knowing you pull shit like this.

Anecdotal information, but we used to have some retard who would regularly come to our LGS with a really poorly made deck that just so happened to have MLD out the ass "just in case". If he ever started losing, or if anybody had a huge board presence, he'd just cast Armageddon, scoop, and shuffle while all players would struggle to build back up to where they were. After a short while, we would consistently kill him out of games until he never came back to the LGS. The primary issue here isn't legality, it's that doing shit that's clearly just throwing a hissy fit because someone else is winning will piss others off, and you are retarded to assume that shit is acceptable just because it's in rules made for 60-card duel MTG.

>>53754167
>Not realizing that giant boards are a liability, not an asset


Your fault for having 30 creatures and not having won the game

>>53754703
No, it's literally, and I mean LITERALLY conceding. There isn't any emotion intrinsically attached to it. It's a fact that it's part of the game, and you are free to consider it whenever you are making your choice of who to mind slaver or when. Considering the game already has a very clear stance on what happens when a player concedes and when a player may concede, the person who has a problem with conceding is the one that has a problem, emotional or otherwise.

>>53750035
Fuck off retard. Where do you think you are?

File: 2ec833886989139367ec5a4326ab0c49.jpg (10KB, 236x182px)

10KB, 236x182px

>>53754781
Ok, I'll read your post and try to give you a thoughtful repl-
> as your autistic mind seems unable to process
Bait.

>Anecdotal information, but we used to have some retard who would regularly come to our LGS with a really poorly made deck that just so happened to have MLD out the ass "just in case".

I think that situation is very different from the "mindslaver double kill" situation, but rather than clear the air, you seem to just want more bait. Let's see if making inflammatory posts about this can kill a third thread in a row.

>>53754810
Pseudo-tactical concession is almost explicitly motivated by an emotion against whoever is going to finish you off, precisely because in most cases described in most of these threads, you are literally in the process of dying when you decide that rather than just letting that player hit/burn/whatever you to death, you feel some drive to remove their trigger or whatever else from happening. If someone hits you for 200 damage that just so happened to come from a player who had a lifelink anthem out, if you are pretty much going to die the second that the damage connects, you aren't "conceding" at this point, you are literally doing this with either spite for your attacker, or a hopeful helping hand to the other players in mind. Quite literally Scorched Earth mentality, which is meaningless in a casual game where your scoop could honestly have dragged the game out even further. Even if you presume the lingering possibility of another player reconsidering attacking or burning you excessively because it might just get scoop-fogged, they're still going to kill you, they'll just point the rest of their damage at the rest of the board knowing you're on your way to give them a """tactical""" middle finger on the way out.

>>53749613

I used to do it by colour, but realized that I needed to do it by set when looking for specific cards. The collection of a set won't grow as much as a colour, so it'll be more manageable. I usually keep sets to their boxes, and then sort it by colour, and rarity within colour.

Takes a while at first but it's easy to keep up with once you start.

>>53754949

>Even if you presume the lingering possibility of another player reconsidering attacking or burning you excessively because it might just get scoop-fogged, they're still going to kill you, they'll just point the rest of their damage at the rest of the board knowing you're on your way to give them a """tactical""" middle finger on the way out.

This is only the case if you choose to take the concession personally, rather than treat it as a game mechanic, which as a matter of fact it is. Take >>53754185 for example.

The possibility of concession in those examples is just another game mechanic. There are MANY game mechanics that can punish a player for taking lethal action. For example, what if instead of scooping against a 50 power true conviction craterhoof attack, I simply cast naturalize targeting your true conviction? In either case, a game mechanic influenced by the attacking player's decision made the difference.

Now the naturalize could very well be a scorched earth tactic itself. Now if the player does cast that naturalize, should the attacking player then take it personally? The answer IMO is completely arbitrary. At that point the attacked player is in a kingmaker situation by no fault of their own, the exact same situation he would be in without the naturalize anyway by default magic mechanics.

The real question is, why does the lifelinking player take a completely arbitrary decision personally, and why doesn't the attacking player recognize that his actions are forcing the attacked player to decide the outcome of the game, then consider if he has a better line of play.

Any multiplayer game is going to have arbitrary decisions. If I can only do 40 damage and every player on the table is an exactly equal threat, my actions are going to be completely subjective. That's why projecting personal feelings onto anybody that makes a decision you don't like is asinine.

>>53754959
What do you use for storage? Right now I just have a bunch of fatpack boxes

File: IMG_2437.png (632KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 640x1136px

>>53749396
In a mono green Edh deck can Selvala produce the colorless mana with her ability necessary to play pic related?

>All these tards arguing about nothing
Scooping is fine, if you're a little bitch about it, just rewind and replay as if the player scooped before exiling everything on the stack. Either way is fine and makes almost no impact in 99% of games. Why are y'all getting your pants in a wad? Honestly, how many times has this happened in a meaningful way? Are you mad if I scoop 3 turns early after I realize I'm in topdeck mode and you have a solid board? Are you mad when I scoop on my own turn without giving you the chance to do whatever? Bitches, the lot of you.

>>53755489
No. Run a bunch of mana rocks if you need it.

>>53755489
No. She only produces colored mana.

>>53755220

Rares/mythics I have in a giftbox, commons/uncommons go in these long cardboard boxes my LGS sells for like a buck. They fit snugly in, so it's perfect.

File: livingplane.hq.jpg (34KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 312x445px

Why is this allowed?

File: RootMaze.jpg (37KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 223x310px

>>53755663
Forget that, why is this allowed?

>>53755663
Just for Elesh Norn. Same with Kormus Bell.

Can someone please explain to me how "spitescooping" is in any way tactical?

I am literally not getting it.

>>53755798
Player A has a handful of cards but no mana to cast them.
Player B has an empty board with low life.
Player C has a strong enough board to kill Player A.

Player A swings at Player B with something carrying Sword of Feast and Famine. It will inflict lethal damage, Player B will die, A will untap all his lands, and have enough mana to deal with C.
Instead B concedes. F and F never connects, A never untaps, and dies to C next turn.

The tactics come in when B says to A "If you swing at me, I'll concede, and C will kill you to win." A doesn't have a choice now but to try something else, rather than killing B.

>>53753486
>Infinite Mana, BSZ targeting myself, draw my deck, Think Twice, BSZ you, shuffles in-
>Nuh-uh, I scoop! BSZ is exiled!

File: Image.jpg (29KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 223x310px

>>53754167
Friendo, I have just the thing for you.

>>53755844
I get the idea, I understand it and all. But thats some childish ass shit.

>>53755844
Solution: resolve the stack as though they had not conceded.
>>53755897
Solution: kick/ban the man child from the play group

>>53755897
Zenith wouldn't be exiled, it would just be countered so it wouldn't get shuffled.

>>53755798
The idea is that if you are willing to concede in order to prevent another player from taking advantage of you or your cards, they have to consider that when they make their play. The easiest example is attacking one player for lethal while you have a sword of feast and famine and then using their untapped lands to burn the remaining player for game.

The apparent paradox here is that the player being attacked by the sword can't possibly increase their chances of winning by, well, intentionally losing. However, because the attacked player has the option to concede, this means that the play being made by the attacking player does not actually win them the game and therefore they need to choose a different plan. If the new plan does not involve immediately killing the player that would concede, then the player who is willing to concede has effectively made it so that in order for the sword player to win, the other player has to live for one more turn.

It's essentially a way of using game mechanics to act like a rattlesnake, or in this situation more like a bee. The counterplay to this tactic is to find a way to win the game without benefiting from your opponent, to bluff the defending player into conceding prematurely so that you spend fewer resources to kill them, or to bluff the defending player by leading them to believe that their play will not win them the game, when that is exactly what would happen.

>>53755963
Stop pushing your autistic house rules. No one wants to play them.

>>53755897
Alternative Solution: Burn a slot on Call To Mind (or two slots on Mystic Retrieval/Runic Repetition if you've got the colors) (see: >>53755983)

>>53755936

It's basic strategy. It would be more childish to ignore the reality of the situation.

>>53755963
Solution: there is no problem. The rulebook handles what happens when a player loses the game. Moralizing a board game is immature.

>>53756029
Stop being autistic and we wouldn't have to push them.

*counters your ramp*

>>53755844
Ok, but if I decide to call your bluff (maybe I think you are holding on to instant speed life gain you would rather use with your vizkopa guildmage out or something)

What happens then, because your concession is no longer tactical. If I do decide to call your (possible) bluff and swing at you, I can't take back the swing when I find out you really have nothing. Scooping at this point accomplishes nothing but being spiteful.

File: CopyArtifact.jpg (32KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 223x310px

>>53756105
It was a hologram...

>>53756018
See >>53756163

After you have declared attackers, scooping is nothing but spiteful. He can't take back the swing when he calls your bluff to see if you have something else (maybe something like reins of power, which would kill him if you got to hold on to it instead of using it to save your skin).

Man, about half of the posters here would be fucking pissed if they ever had to take an economics class. Our society is basically built on incentives. A lot of situations come down to a table with a couple of outcomes on it. The computer you're typing on, the coke you are drinking, and the society where you aren't killed by an axe raider are sure as fuck not built on your personal feelings.

>>53753781
>>53753471
The problem with this mentality is that it pushes people away from playing wincons like (non-infinite) combat because it's safer to play noninteractive wincons. I personally think these strategies are already gimped enough without tactical scooping making them even worse. I'm not gonna tell you your playgroup/playstyle is badwrongfun, that's just not how I want to play EDH.
>That's just an Appeal to Emotion! Fee-Fees! It's tactical!
Sure, and I hope those who favor tactical scooping find a playgroup of like minded individuals, that's what EDH is about.

>>53755215
MTGO glitches are also "just mechanics", it doesn't make them less irritating for the victim, and telling them "That's just the way it works" isn't going to change their minds.

>>53751417
They edit too much, I just want to see then play the game not be spoonfed

>>53756235
I hate people like you. You and the MADfag both, your excuse is "Yeah, people are dicks, that's how it works." You're admitting that it's an offensive thing to do, then claiming that you're just following the system. Or maybe you could just not be an all consuming prick and I'll do the same.

>>53751539
>Yfw the poison is used so it dissuades predators from eating them
>Tfw the analogy turns around and now people just don't play with you because you're cancer

File: 1495163236790.png (199KB, 1800x1578px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1800x1578px

>>53756293

>>53756235
>Life isn't fair
First magic is a simulation of Nuclear war, and now it's a representation of our entire society. Holy shit, I just wanted to play a card game

>>53756234
Bee stings are spiteful because they end up killing the bee, but they also help the bee survive. The paradox is that if the bee isn't willing to die, the bee's stinger doesn't help it survive.

Some frogs have poisonous skin. The frog will most likely be dead or dying whenever a predator ingests the poison, so the poison is purely spiteful. However, the frog doesn't have to be eaten or poison an attacker as long as it carries poison and is not attacked.

It's absolutely spiteful, but not in a personal sense. You wouldn't take it personally if a player cast ghostly prison, would you?

>>53756315
How can it not be in a personal sense? You're saying "Hey, you, I am not allowing you to win." Yeah, I'm going to take that personally. You conceded and I lost. Had you not conceded I would have won. You took an action with no benefit to yourself and a detriment to me. And if you'd do it to anyone that means you're a spiteful person.

File: 1493082734801-1.png (202KB, 400x1446px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 400x1446px

>>53756309

>>53756315
>Bee stings are spiteful because they end up killing the bee

Bees only die when stinging large mammals, stuff with skin and flesh that traps the stinger. They're perfectly fine stinging insects and such. They don't do it out of spite, they do it because they're using something in a way it didn't develop for.

>>53756315
I don't play Magic with frogs or bees. I don't think they could hold the cards.

>>53756315
>>53756367
>Bees only die when stinging because they're misusing something and end up sacrificing themselves for no personal gain

So it actually is the perfect metaphor for spite scooping.

>>53756352
If you flip the script around and I DON'T concede, then I'm handing the win over to you and and giving that same detriment to your other opponent. Whatever I do, somebody is going to be worse off. In that situation, I'm forced into the archetypal kingmaker situation.

If you do realize this, then you would know that the moment you make that attack, I'm going to have to make an arbitrary decision, maybe one I don't even WANT to make. It's absolutely not fair to blame me for the outcome of that, and it would be a double standard if you accept that I'm not to blame for the outcome, but only if YOU are the one that is chosen to win.

Rewind to the turn where you decide to make the attack. Now that you know the above, and that a lethal attack on me tosses the outcome of the game in my hands, maybe you should look for a line of play that doesn't make the outcome of the game arbitrary, instead of blaming me for the conclusion.

File: 1479695660614.png (2MB, 1209x1828px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1209x1828px

>>53756310
I have literally never seen anyone spite concede. These guys just play with/are a bunch of autists.

File: 1471042925954.jpg (36KB, 482x427px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 482x427px

>mindslaver the group hug player with 50+ in his hand
>i cant do anything with them

>>53756403
Sort of. People don't attack bees because of their stingers. Even thought the stinger kills the bee, the bee ends up not having to use it. However, if the bee refuses to use it, the stinger offers no protection. On the surface, it's a paradox, but the solution is that the bee HAS to sting, and the attacker has to respect the sting.

Rattlesnaking is the equivalent for this when the player in question isn't facing down lethal, but is rather trying to provide a deterrent for attacking. I don't want to have to block your creature with my wasteland scorpion, but because I'm willing to lose my scorpion, I do not lose my scorpion.

>>53756433
>I'm going to have to make an arbitrary decision, maybe one I don't even WANT to make
No you're not. Scooping is an action that diverts the normal flow of the game. You stop play, scoop up your cards, and flip me off. Or you sit there, I hit you, and it's done.

>maybe you should look for a line of play that doesn't make the outcome of the game arbitrary, instead of blaming me for the conclusion.
There isn't one. In this scenario, there isn't one. My only hope to win the game is for you to lose and not surrender. No MAD comparison, no nothing. I have five health, no mana, and Player 3 with 20 power of creatures on the board. Now that you know the above you know that there's no other choice. You don't know what I have in hand, whether it will save me, or give me the win, but scooping with certainty denies me the win. Do you still scoop?

Spoiler: Of course you do, because this is a game for adults. You're not allowed to just relax and let it play out.

>>53755663
>>53755702
Because the banlist is mostly bullshit.
Lets talk about the fucking banlist instead of this spitescoop bullshit. IIRC, Protean Hulk was recently removed from the ban list. Or at least something starting with a P. Thoughts?

File: propaganda.jpg (28KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 223x310px

Is this card too spiteful? I want to play it but I'm afraid people won't invite me to future games because its too vindictive. I'm autistic so if somebody gets mad that they don't have enough mana to kill me and fireball the other player to death I won't be able to tell. Please no bully.

>>53756538
Compared to other stax cards propaganda is incredibly tame. You're fine

File: sol_ring_by_aeoncleanse-d5idcg1.jpg (579KB, 744x1039px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 744x1039px

>>53756533
EDH banlist is a joke DESU.

>>53756533
Protean Hulk is interesting. Hardcasting Hulk isn't really that much of a problem. It's seven mana, which can come out relatively early, but it's a barrier, and it comes out as a vanilla 6/6 that needs to die to do anything. When it does die it's a pretty big swing, but nothing insurmountable.

What it does is open up dozens of new options for combo decks. Karador loves it. GUx loves it. Saffi is a slut for that fucking thing. Cheating Hulk into play or building around it allows for insane possibilities.

The most interesting thing is that in their justification of Hulk's unban, the RC said (paraphrased), "Hulk isn't a problem because there are lots of answers for creatures." Yet in the same changes, Leovold was banned. Why? Leovold was undoubtedly an oppressive card, a hate bear in the 99 and a death sentence in the command zone. He almost certainly deserved to be banned. But he's no harder to deal with than Hulk. What's the difference between "answering Leo" and "answering Hulk" that means Leo gets the ban and Hulk doesn't?

>>53756530
>No you're not. Scooping is an action that diverts the normal flow of the game. You stop play, scoop up your cards, and flip me off. Or you sit there, I hit you, and it's done.
I beg you to not make this appeal. If my options are scooping and not scooping, then I absolutely have to make a decision. Not making a decision is itself a decision. To this end, we have recreated the trolley problem, except one person is on each track. Getting into the difference between causing something to happen and allowing it to happen is a philosophical mess that is going to end up killing more threads.

You keep on trying to make this personal by mindlessly adding imagery about flipping people off, but that's meaningless fluff. At the core of it, either you will die, or he will die, and I'm the decider. Furthermore, it's a fucking board game. If the game state has degenerated to the point where I could make my decision based on a coin flip and it wouldn't matter, then you shouldn't take it personally.

>There isn't one. In this scenario, there isn't one. My only hope to win the game is for you to lose and not surrender. No MAD comparison, no nothing. I have five health, no mana, and Player 3 with 20 power of creatures on the board. Now that you know the above you know that there's no other choice. You don't know what I have in hand, whether it will save me, or give me the win, but scooping with certainty denies me the win. Do you still scoop?
It's pretty much arbitrary. I'm forced to decide the game. And you know what? It really doesn't matter. It's not like the winner is going to get a celebrity blowjob or anything. Knowing nothing else, I would flip a coin, use it as an opportunity to take the more smug of the two other players down a notch in a good natured fashion, or just make a joke.

>Spoiler: Of course you do, because this is a game for adults. You're not allowed to just relax and let it play out.
Relaxation is being fine with things not going your way.

>>53756315
Woah there, hold up, because it sounds like you don't understand the analogy you are making. All of these analogies only work with repeated exposure.

So, lets keep the bee analogy going. One thing we should get straight right away is that you are smarter than a bee. This means, there is no reason to "sting" (spitescoop) someone that you will never see again. It does not protect your honey (ability to win future games) at all. They won't know you are serious about scooping til you actually do it, anything else is a bluff to be called. They do not have any more interactions with you after this, so scooping just to prove to them you will do it in the future accomplishes nothing but being petty and spiteful.

Now let's talk about scooping against people you will see again every time you play, your playgroup. Let's say you threaten to "tactically scoop" there, and the offending player says
>"that's fine, if you do I will go after you every single game from now on first. I will always aim to kill you and make decks that will counter your decks."

This is no less spiteful than what you are doing. It's tactical. It's the spitting image of MAD. You are smarter than a bee so the best thing you can do to protect your honey (ability to win future games) is now to not scoop.

So "tactical scoopers" I have to ask, is the only reason you scoop because nobody has gone full MAD on you? If you threaten to scoop against me and I mention the above, do you still scoop?

If you do, then I don't think you can pretend you are a "tactical scooper" anymore. You are just a spite scooper.

File: Trolley_problem.png (29KB, 1200x410px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1200x410px

>>53756656
Forgot pic. It's not perfect because in a game with three remaining players, it's really a situation where one single player gets killed by default, but I may divert to another player.

>>53749396
>get stuck in a game with 3 mono blue counterspell deck (barall, barall, pw teferri)
>run mono green uncounterable goodstuff
>proceed to force myself upon the puny wizards and their parlor tricks

File: 1497158230210.jpg (204KB, 900x973px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 900x973px

>>53756697
>Play xenagos beat em up against 3 mono blue players
>I cant resolve/do anything all game. Even my raging ravine was reality shifted
>Think I finally baited out all their counterspells and play tooth and nail
>They all start panicking and asking who has a counterspell
>One of them was just joking and had one the whole time
>They all start high fiving one another

>>53756652
And what about Braids or Emmrakul? Also creatures, also answerable. I'm agreeing with you didn't they used to have "banned as a commander" what happened to that?

>>53756656
And now here's the question that I've yet to hear an answer for. The default seems to be to talk about mulligans, which are irrelevant to the situation. If the scooper allows the hit to connect, the other players can have responses. They have cards in their hand to counter, or to divert damage, or whatever else you can think of. There are plenty of cards in Magic. Rather than a trolley, imagine juggling dynamite with your friends. Eventually the dynamite will explode and kill all but one of you. You pass the dynamite around in circles, no one willing to end up with the dynamite, even if it means that their friends will have to take it. Eventually you're tossed a stick about to explode, and one not quite there. You are dead. But you still have one stick of dynamite to toss. You can throw it to another person, who may have time to pass it on again. Instead you glue it to the leg of the person who threw you the final stick, dooming him to explosion with no chance of salvation.

Basically, choke on a dick you autist.

>>53756538
Huh, I could see a lot of fun pairing that with Ghostly Prison.

>>53756642
Please for the love of all that is holy, tell me that is a real card and how to get it. I have Sol Ring already but having Sol Ring as the One Ring would be fucking awesome.

>>53756652
>Hulk v Leo
I agree. That is absolute bullshit. It's like I was saying earlier about old Emrakul, most creatures aren't a threat and are easy to get rid of. Hell, most locks require someone to be spectacularly stupid or lucky. Even the effects of creatures usually isn't a massive issue. If you can't counter the creature, you can usually fuck with the support that makes it scary.

It reminds me of when I found out that Bloodbraid Elf was banned in modern. Makes no fucking sense unless the whole point is to kill Jund as it was around 2010. When Jund and Mythic Bant were basically the only decks that mattered in standard.

>>53756749
As I implied earlier, I already pointed out why old Emrakul isn't some god-tier card that will instantly hand you victory. A combo requires idiots or such a superior board position that it is irrelevant as to what the combo is. On the other hand, using it as a non-combo wincon (or just a fatty) still makes it easy as shit to remove and recover from.

I can't remember Braids effect off the top of my head, but I can guarantee it's in a similar situation.

>Banned as commander
Technically nothing is officially banned. The "ban list" is a "we recommend you ban these things". AFAIK the only time we had a "banned as general" list was before EDH was picked up by WotC and turned into commander. And even at that time, there was only two or three. IIRC Bosh, the Iron Golem, Memnarch, and Karn were all "banned". That said, it also stated that if the rest of your group was cool with it, you could have Bosh count as Red and Memnarch count as Blue.

>>53751129
Mtgorzo

>>53756669
>Now let's talk about scooping against people you will see again every time you play, your playgroup. Let's say you threaten to "tactically scoop" there, and the offending player says
>>"that's fine, if you do I will go after you every single game from now on first. I will always aim to kill you and make decks that will counter your decks."

I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. If I say "you're going to have to try to find another way to win this turn because I'm not letting you have that feast and famine trigger." that is one comment in one turn of the game in a situation that is not premeditated at all. A multiplayer game is going to be filled with individual threats, offers, bluffs, and deceptions, all up until the last turn of the game.

Trying to go full Taken 3 on another player is dishonestly playing the game because you're taking a 1v1v1v1 game and trying to transform it into a 1v1 game with a 1v1 suicide bomber subplot. This is unfair to every player at the table that was expecting a free for all.

Another reason the comparison is invalid is because if a player is deciding whether or not you get your feast and famine trigger, they are also deciding the fate of the OTHER players. NOT scooping could just as easily be an act of kingmaking. So you end up making a huge threat to somebody as if they just shit in your shoes when in reality you just won the shit-in-shoes lottery and there was no way for everybody to walk home clean.

Ok, so lets get past the ridiculousness of this Bin Laden roleplay and try to justify it by saying you're just trying to convince me to not scoop out of fear of future actions. All you have done is invited the OTHER player whos fate I'm deciding to do the same thing. That means if both of you follow through, the resulting next game is me playing a normal game like nothing happened, two crazed kamikazes coming at me as if it would anger me in the slightest, and a confused fourth player easily cleaning up.

File: 1460306019721.jpg (35KB, 599x521px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 599x521px

I'm trying to get my stubborn friend into EDH, so I need a deck to talk him into buying. I know he'll spend $10k beefing it up once he's hooked, but it's gotta be budget to start.

He plays a lot of modern, mostly BGx decks or those annoying WG decks with Voice of Resurgence or that asshole that sacs lands to tutor up more of them.

What commander can I get him hooked with?

>>53756794
>Technically nothing is officially banned.
How do I explain this to my autistic friends.

>>53756841
Gitrog Monster. It can't play Knight of the Reliquary but he might like it. Karador with value creatures like Voice of Resurgance and KotR could be be a good option too and includes all 3 colors you mentioned.

>>53756749
The RC claims that if they had banned as commander they'd ban any commander with a hint of unfairness. It's true. As of writing this our God Overlord Sheldon has banned half the cards in Magic.

Emrakul probably deserves to be banned entirely. She's just got way too much going for her. As does Griselbrand. In a forty life format, instantly trading one for one life for cards is hard to beat, and Griselbrand resolving would almost certainly spell the end of the game. Nobody clamors for the unbanning of Yawgmoth's Bargain, they should feel the same about Yawgmoth's Bargain on a massive flying lifelink stick. Braids, Erayo, and Rofellos certainly deserve bans as commanders. Braids especially. Well tuned Braids Stax got her out turn two at the latest, and made it extremely difficult to play. Rofellos should be banned entirely. In green, and as an elf, tutoring him into your hand and casting him is absurdly easy, after which he provides enough ramp to never worry about mana again. I can't speak on Erayo. I've never seen her played.

>>53756740
If you're playing against a shitload of control players you need prowling serpopard and "target creature gains hexproof until end of turn

>>53756841
Saffi Eriksdotter. She's an easy combo deck that he'll undoubtedly turn into Karador eventually, without all too much trouble.

File: 1414630916676.jpg (63KB, 395x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 395x450px

>>53756854
Son of a fuck, he even mentioned liking the Frog. Good idea anon. Any other recommendations with different playstyles? Something good with recursion would also fit his playstyle maybe.

>>53756752
If you want a question answered, it really helps to ask it. I'd love to try to read between the lines and make a good faith effort, but your last line leads me to believe any attempt at interpretation is just a trap for you to play the strawman card.

File: 1485498938148.jpg (38KB, 283x273px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 283x273px

>>53756886
>>53756889
Wow, I posted too soon. Fantastic idea, thanks. You guys are on fire tonight.

>>53756804
Is that you orzo? You haven't put up a video in a month

>>53749578
What exactly do you do with Ishkana?

File: d79.jpg (14KB, 282x178px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 282x178px

>>53756931

>>53756851
Well since they are autistic, simply point out the technicality. They should be able to pick up on it.

>>53756841
What is his playstyle? IE, does he prefer aggro, control, or what? That will be the major deciding factor rather than what colors he's using.

For example, I started out with mono-black control in standard. It was fun, but I found I did best with a R/x aggro deck. I could only make B work in EDH as a supplement to the R or some other color.

>>53756857
A) Who the fuck is "Sheldon"
B) Old Emrakul is fine. I've already explained that you just need to git gud and how to git gud.
C) While card draw is strong and good, Griselbrand will simply make it easier to kill your opponents. Unless they have mad lifegain.

I also have no issue with Yawgmoth's Bargain.

Honestly, all I'm seeing here is REEEEEEEEEEEEE'ing over people being too fucking retarded to realize what is a threat that needs to be nuked NOW. Not next turn, not when it's convenient. NOW.

Seriously, you have enough fucking brains to realize that Yawgmoth's Bargain is a threat, so why didn't you counter or destroy it? Why didn't you kill off their permanents so it was useless? Are you so fucking stupid as to not run enchant removal? Really you don't need a fuck ton. Just have a couple and save them for when someone plays a piece of a game breaking combo or similar. Ditto for artifact removal and creature removal. Run some other shit so you can push your graveyard back into your library. The old eldrazi are excellent for this and Elixir of Immortality does a good job too. I'd recommend running both. Unless the other people you're playing with are equally retarded, the biggest threat will get focused on and nuked, so their gamebreaking shit is irrelevant.

>>53749837
Best answer is probably Academy Ruins if you got the dosh.

Buried Ruin, Reconstruction and Rootwater Diver do the job adequately. Saprazzan Bailiff if you're feeling spicy.
Myr Retriever, Workshop Assistant and Junk Diver are nice for this too. If you're running a lot of artifact creatures, Scrap Trawler or maybe even Myr Reservoir can come through.
Also check out my deck, leave a comment
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/09-06-17-stop-hitting-yourself/

>>53756829
>I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. If I say "you're going to have to try to find another way to win this turn because I'm not letting you have that feast and famine trigger." that is one comment in one turn of the game in a situation that is not premeditated at all.

I feel like you ignored some of the logic in my posts(which is a bit understandable, there are a lot of people responding, some of them are just shitflinging), namely that if the offending player attacks you thinking that your bluffing just so you can hold onto an answer for longer. That player does not know if you are bluffing until after he has declared attackers and found you have nothing. So I ask again, why are you scooping in that scenario. You have already lost, he attacked you already, he can't take it back now that he knows you don't have a Reigns of Power or whatever in hand. The only reason that you can have beyond spite is impact in future games. Which is no different than "my taken 3 bullshit".

I am not going to include other players in this, because I have never in my life seen a "will of the council" style scoop where the spitescooper asks everyone at the table if he should spite scoop and determine if they should do it or not. You have no fucking idea what are in the other players hands. Maybe they want the guy to gain 400 life because they want to break his back with Reverse the Sands or some shit. You don't know. Don't act like you are playing kingmaker, because there is no way you could possibly have that information.

As for what happens if multiple players give you the "Taken 3" threat. You are fucked either way. You get the same choice to call their bluff the same way the guy that swung in on you when you promised to scoop. If you want to make decisions that can only possibly effect you in future games though, you can't claim a moral high ground at all when they do the same.

Does anyone by chance have a five color spirit tribal deck I could get a link to as a reference?

>>53757034
Sheldon Menery, public face of the RC. You're an idiot. If you go down to two life and win you've won. Your life total doesn't matter at that point. Ad Nauseam is stupid powerful. Resolving it and not winning is a sign that you're bad and built your deck wrong. Ad Nauseam but digging further for cheaper isn't healthy for the game. And "dies to removal" is the example of not actually a weakness. Yeah, it dies to removal. If you have removal you haven't won, you've stalled. If you don't you've lost.

>>53757034
Removing Bargain doesn't do shit unless it's Krosan Grip. It hits the field, you remove it, they activate it thirty times and win. Hope you have counters and split/second, or an instant speed Pithing Needle/Phyrexian Revoker.

>>53757090
>If you go down to two life and win you've won. Your life total doesn't matter at that point. Ad Nauseam is stupid powerful. Resolving it and not winning is a sign that you're bad and built your deck wrong. Ad Nauseam but digging further for cheaper isn't healthy for the game. And "dies to removal" is the example of not actually a weakness. Yeah, it dies to removal. If you have removal you haven't won, you've stalled. If you don't you've lost.

You've just described the entirety of EDH. If Ad Nauseam is so powerful, why the fuck would you let anyone resolve it? Why the fuck would anyone else playing with you allow it to be resolved? Seriously, how fucking retarded are you to not grasp this? Basic tactics time. Your enemy casts spell X that will help them win the game. If you, and the other players, allow it to resolve then spell X will have an effect on the board. You or the other players can remove it at a later date, which will delay the plans that involve spell X. During this time, you or the other players can push out your own good shit and, depending on board state, secure victory.

Seriously, how fucking hard is this to understand? It's like y'all only ever think of shit in a vacuum, where other players are just and abstract that will never do anything to interfere.

>>53757159
>implying they have 30 life to burn
>implying no one else will help to counter it
>implying no one can do 10+ damage to kill them
>implying Bargain can be brought back
>implying so much shit that your eyes must be brown with the level of bullshit you are implying

>>53757058
>So I ask again, why are you scooping in that scenario. You have already lost, he attacked you already, he can't take it back now that he knows you don't have a Reigns of Power or whatever in hand. The only reason that you can have beyond spite is impact in future games. Which is no different than "my taken 3 bullshit".
Good question! The answer comes back to the trolley problem. By letting you have your lifelink or your sword trigger, I am helping you to win the game. If I scoop, then I am helping your remaining opponent win the game. Whether I scoop or not scoop, one player is going to be helped, the other is going to be hurt. Therefore, the question of "why scoop?" becomes the same question as "why not scoop?" The situation doesn't even exactly require that one or both players gets hurt or helped, because advantages are relative. As long as a player has something to gain from me being in the game, there will be a power shift. So we have absolutely established that I'm forced to influence the game in some manner if we go by basic mtg mechanics. Follow me so far? From my perspective, the intuitive answer when forced to choose is "don't help the player that just killed me," but is that logical?

From your perspective, you know what line of plays you have available. Some of them depend on using another player, some might not. From my perspective, your only line that I know is the one you took. Lets say there are two kinds of lines you can take, the desperation line of depending on me choosing help you, or lines that don't rely on me, but have a drawback, such as being a turn slower. Let's call them the desperation play and the slow play. Naturally, I want you to make the slow play because that lets me possibly see another card and have a chance to win. If you make the desperation play, I don't know if the slow play was not available, or if you were just trying to take me out.

(continued)

>>53757160
Because we don't live in magical fairyland where we know they've got AN and have two blue to float and a counterspell. Maybe if you wish really hard you'll always have the answer in your hand.
>>53757178
>implying they can't get it out T3/4
>implying you can do 10+ damage on their turn
>it can

I never ran Krosan Grip until recently. The first time I got to cast it I used it to target a Vedalken Orrery. The guy who controlled it goes "Okay, in response I'll cast.... fuck." I think I like this card.

Someone recommend me a new commander to try. something either really fun, cool, different , or flavorful.
I was considering nin the pain artist but what are some other suggestions

>>53757226
Maralen.

>>53757200
In the trolley problem if you do not pull the lever then you are not responsible for what happens though. If there are 3 people on one track, and three people on another? You pull the lever and you just murdered 3 people. You are describing inaction as a choice equal to action. This is false.

>>53757207
We also don't live in a magical fairly land where you will have your game winning combo in hand and ready to fuck everyone over. Hypocritical retard.

Also
>implying you can do 10+ damage on their turn
Doesn't need to be all on their turn and it doesn't need to be from only one player. Here we go with your "operating in a vacuum" bullshit where you pretend there isn't other players because it isn't convenient to you bitching about how strong a card is.

Seriously, even in a small group SOMEONE should have an answer. If no one does, that means you got lucky. Either no one was able to have something in hand to answer or they weren't playing the right stuff to answer you. So all you did was get lucky in one game, which is about as reliable as flipping a quarter, at best.

>>53757200
(continued)

The long and short of it is that if scooping relatively hurts one player, but not scooping also relatively hurts one player, the two decisions are basically equal. Therefore, I need to choose the one that influences the game in the way that most benefits me. The attacking player should know this, and therefore choose the slow play as possible, as the desperation play just causes them to lose the game.

If you make the desperation play because you didn't have a slow play available, that's not your fault, but I still have to choose the other player to win. Otherwise, you could go for the desperation play even when the slow play was available and expect me to give you the win earlier.

The most important thing I feel the need to emphasize is because player positions are relative, helping one player means hurting another and vice-versa. Just by sitting down to play commander, you know 3/4 players are going to die. It's not like my actions are going to make more or less people happy. It just so happens that trying to use me both simultaneously forces me to be the one that hands out the prize, while simultaneously giving me easy reasons to make that decision.

(bonus tangent) If losing a commander game was such an awful thing, and causing people to lose was so bad, wouldn't playing multiplayer at all be illogical because three people would lose and only one would win? It's a net loss in happiness unless you admit that "spite" in a multiplayer game isn't personal.

>>53757226
What have you already used? It'd be pointless if we just recommended the same generals. Also, what playstyle do you prefer? IE Aggro, control, etc.

>>53757260
>In the trolley problem if you do not pull the lever then you are not responsible for what happens though. If there are 3 people on one track, and three people on another? You pull the lever and you just murdered 3 people.
I'm using the trolley problem to present a situation where three players remain in a game, and two of them are on rails. The default option is letting one player die, but I can change who dies by scooping.


>You are describing inaction as a choice equal to action. This is false.
Woah hoah HOH. I'm sorry friend, but if we can't just accept that inaction is a form of action in this kind of situation, I am going to have to end this conversation and just start posting bait. The debate surrounding utilitarian ethics will derail a thread on its own.

>have prossh deck and sheoldred stax style deck
>looking for new deck to make preferably green and white
How is rhoon?
He looks fun, can you go hard with him or does the cost associated with his ability kind of hinder him?

My group has no banlist and all have crazy powerful decks. Im running stuff like tinker tolarian academy and black lotus in my daggson deck.

>>53757273
I need one card. I'm in black, aka the land of a thousand tutors. I need to resolve a single spell to win. Not to have a win on the next turn. To win. If I include blue, green, or both, I can even run recursion galore. You can claim "git gud" all you want. Fast combo beats control, because it takes so little to go off while the control player attempts to stop three other decks at once.

>>53757414
This is where the whole concept of "threat assessment" comes into play. If it takes even the slightest slips for you to gain a dominate position and the other players do not have a Plan B to deal with it, you're playing with idiots or you got lucky.

File: IMG_1364.png (361KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1920x1080px

>>53757410
>tfw they will never ban both darksteels and unban tinker

>>53757300
First of all, the choices aren't equal, like I said here >>53757260
Second of all, if you decide to make a choice based on how it will impact future games, I am able to do the same. I can go "taken 3" on you. It is no more spiteful than your act of scooping, it's tactical and it's MAD.

For your bonus tangent, if losing isn't a bad thing, then going "taken 3" isn't a bad thing.

>>53757321
my current decks are
>Brion
>zedruu
>Olivia vampire tribal
> atraxa super friends
> breya
>yidris

I'd say I'm looking for more of a control deck since I don't really have any control focused decks

>>53757386
>every thread some autist defends scooping to spite a player a viable play
>for some reason he never considers that he is just being a bitter loser
Tell yourself all the excuses you need to.
I bet you also play blue.

>>53757457
What the fuck is wrong with Mr. Colossus.
He's anti-mill win-con that's not even annihilator.
Blightsteel just wants a little slip through, or an open into wonder.

File: PointyNose.png (135KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 223x311px

http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/11-06-17-mizzix/
Need some help getting rid of cards in my Mizzix deck. I think some good choices are Charmbreaker Devils, Dragon mage and Melek. But I'm afraid of going super light on creatures. I also want to get the most out of buyback to eventually draw out a lot of my deck or protect Mizzix and then try to storm off.

>>53757518
Too few ways to deal with one that gets cheesed into play turn 1-2

>>53757548
Well I run Darksteel in Jhoira.
So people can watch him descend from spacetime. And it's an affinity cancer deck anyways.

File: curioushomunculus.full.jpg (96KB, 240x345px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 240x345px

>>53757542
pick me instead of shitty devils

>>53749716
R A D I A T E

>>53757457
Wait, which Darksteel and Tinker? I don't think either of those are "banned".

>>53757619
Tinker's banned as shit.

>>53757630
I had to google it but you are right. Tinker is "banned". Probably one of the few cards that deserves it.

Still wondering which "darksteel" was meant by >>53757457

New thread

>>53757651
>>53757651

File: spitescoop.png (23KB, 1046x718px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1046x718px

>>53757481

First off all, please just concede the point about action versus inaction. There is a shitty little invisionfree forum there is a 900 page thread just filled with kids bickering about deontology. There is unlimited bait on the subject and it's just outside the scope of this thread.

The thing isn't about future games, it's about a decision I have to make right then and there, and no matter which I choose the same number of players are going to win or lose. For the record, can we establish I'm not the MAD troll poster?

The whole vengeance deck thing doesn't make any sense because the other competing player can make the same threat. If both of you are sane, neither of you make good on it. If one of you makes good on it, then the game becomes two separate 1v1s. If both of you go for it, the game becomes comical.

besides, going taken3 would be very painful. 4u. fite me.

>>53757662
My guess is Darksteel Colossus and his little brother Blightsteel Colossus, who can dunk people instantly. Most all of the black reanimator tech is legal.

>>53757676
>50 posts too early

>>53757386
For point one, what does that mean when only 2 people would be left in the game, instead of 3? Your brand of ethics fails you and I am curious as to if you think spitescooping is morally justifiable if there are only 2 players left after your loss. Furthermore, what if you being killed by one players gives them the resources they need to take down a single, much stronger player, when working together with the other survivors? A threat neither of them could handle individually. Since you do not have access to perfect information, you cannot make this decision either. To put in terms someone who likes the trolley dilemma will understand, imagine that on one side of the rails is a guy who will cure cancer later that day, and on the other side is a serial killer that will claim 6 more victims before the day is out. You don't know which is the correct choice, and claiming that you do to win an argument on the internet would be poor form, so let's keep the trolley argument out of this.

As for your second point, I agree that it could derail the whole thread (part of why I was asking for even numbers of people on the rails, throws utilitarianism out the window). With even sides ( or maybe a complete lack of information about the people on the rails) the difference between inaction and action is your culpability, and nothing more.

>>53757733
People have been doing the past few threads this early, no need to migrate to the new thread until you have to.

>>53757226
Horobi Death's Wail is actually hella sick

>>53757389
You can go pretty hard with Roon, but Brago is probably just an upgrade for a bounce house

>>53757034
>Unless they have mad lifegain.

Like a flying 7/7 with Lifelink maybe?

>>53756315
Biologist here, Bees actually aren't spiteful, they can sting other insects just fine and survive. Our monkey hide is just too flexible so their stingers get tangled and tear out.

File: 1493478181127.jpg (247KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1280x1440px

>>53757034
He's definitely a midrange player with some combo tenancies, but prefers "fair decks".
>>53753422
mfw

>>53757739
Could you stop being a little bitch about people using game mechanics to their fullest?

File: 1496452776336.png (51KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 200x200px

>>53756931
have an army of spiders and not be too overpowerd in a casual setting
i want to run people down with spiders

>>53754240
Sell it for maximum memedern hype bucks, buy cards that are better in EDH.

i wanna get into this format but its so intimidating theres so many cards how did u get started?

>>53756931
Self mill to hit delerium, flicker ishie or recast a bunch for a lot of spiders, lots of removal and ramp, some non token spiders.

Win through pillowforting behind 15 or so spiders and slowly draining opponents of life with her ability

File: edh_fun.png (27KB, 920x467px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 920x467px

>>53758553
Well how much prior experience do you have with magic?

Honestly, as long as you go in explaining that you may need to ask what a few cards do, you'll be fine. There are some cards that are staples, that is, (nearly) every deck wants to use sol ring. Every blue deck wants cyclonic rift, every green deck wants beast within. Go to EDHREC and look at the most played cards for popular decks to get an idea. You'll be seeing cards like skullclamp show up often.

And honestly, I play with a few guys who have been playing since ye olden times, and even they need a refresher with alot of the older archaic artifacts.

Just build a simple, consistent deck and play some games. Understand that you will NOT WIN. it's OK. Especially when you're new, and that's OK! Just have fun learning new archetypes and staples, playing politics. Remember your table manners and be a good sport,and I promise you smooth sailing ahead.

Glad to welcome you to the family!

>>53758553
What kind of deck are you interested in?

Id be more than happy to suggest some commanders thatd fit the helm.

Tokens? Enchantments? Voltron? Mill? Hatebears? Stax? Stasis? Control? Spellslinger, superfriends? Tribal?

Must be exciting to build your first edh deck!

>>53757589
Will we ever get a legendary homunculous?

Truly the greatest creature type

>>53754512
Conceding is supposed to be "i am out of the game now".

>>53756794
Take me down to the chrismasland plaza with always a doomblade in hand and 2 free mana

>>53758855
>>53758911
Cheers for the replies

I've not got that much experience, played very casually in extremely sporadic bursts for a long time but I'm looking to start playing a bit more. I like the idea of a format that doesn't get phased out; looked into pauper and ended up making an affinity deck as I happened have a handful of the cards from way back when I first started but it doesn't seem like it's super active locally.

Not sure what sort of deck I'd like to make yet, though I've always really liked artifacts in terms of the art etc. prob cause the first deck I bought was a Fifth Dawn (I think?) premade Sunburst one. Are there any good decent EDH archetypes that use a lot of artifacts?

I'll just lurk around here for a bit and get a feel for what sorts of cards get a lot of play. Also not looking to spend tooooo much £££ but still would like to make something good enough to take to a shop and be at least a bit competitive.

>Just build a simple, consistent deck

What are ways that you're able to make a deck consistent when it's all single cards?

>/tg/ EDH General Discord
https://discord.gg/UE9Vqzu

>/tg/ EDH General Discord
https://discord.gg/UE9Vqzu

>/tg/ EDH General Discord
https://discord.gg/UE9Vqzu