Funny, thats what I said when they introduced "The Stack"
As someone whos been playing since Unlimited (Id say Beta, but I only had 2 starter decks, 5 Packs and no friends at that time) Its fine. I like these changes. Why? Makes the game easier for new players to understand without reading a 500 page boring rule book. Or being explained complicated, doesn't make much sense in the real world rules. (Lets face it, the stack while good, is not intuitive)
I for one, welcome our new rules.
Easy to pick up rules == More players == More FNM wins == Better for the game.
Theres a reason UNO is more popular than magic.
Why do people keep saying this? The combat rules DO NOT make the game easier to understand, NOT AT ALL. The stack is still there everyone, you still have to teach new people how to use the stack, how to respond to spells, and how to not get blown out by it. Now, instead of teaching them that the stack is the end all of magic effects, you have to teach them about this special case scenario too and how all of the new clunky rules work. I've taught this game to a lot people (very easily past the 20's) and I've never had a problem teaching them about the stack and combat damage. If you actually try to teach someone about the stack first and start with sorceries and creatures and then work your way up to instants and abilities it is a very easy concept to understand. So, I'll say this once again, THE NEW RULES DO NOT MAKE TEACHING MAGIC EASIER, THE STACK STILL EXISTS.
When chess rules were changed from their Medieval rules to their modern rules, they totally ruined the rooks. Back in the day, it was the only figure that could move an unlimited number of spaces. The bishop could also no longer jump over another figure (but could move a number of spaces different than 3). The queen could also now move more than one space and pawns could move two spaces from their starting position. A move called "castling" was invented which allowed noobs to hide their king easier than before.
The rules were totally dumbed down back then and any idiot can play chess nowadays, obviously. Most of the good players quit playing and turned to more intelligent games with rules that they still found chalenging and could separate them from lesser players. One of these games was Rithmomachy, which remains to this day in its original and undiminished form, enjoying a devoted following of numerous people from all over the world.
lol wat? chess is still considered one of the most difficult game universally accepted that not many people play. you can say medival chess rule has dumbed down to the modern rule, but do you know how hard chess is because there are so many combination of moves in all kinds of situation? the modern rule may be easier to grasp than the medival rules, but it certainly doesn't make chess easy.
and no, idiots don't play chess, they play checkers.
Why do people keep saying this? The combat rules DO NOT make the game easier to understand, NOT AT ALL. The stack is still there everyone, you still have to teach new people how to use the stack, how to respond to spells, and how to not get blown out by it. Now, instead of teaching them that the stack is the end all of magic effects, you have to teach them about this special case scenario too and how all of the new clunky rules work.
Yes, the stack still exists, but now the only occasion in which damage exists as a separate object on the stack from anything else has been removed.
I can't count how many players have come into the Rulings forum thinking that when a Lightning Bolt resolves, it puts 3 damage on the stack, because they see combat damage existing on the stack and can't understand why this doesn't happen at any other time in the game.
I don't see this change as a hindrance to teaching the game at all.
Basically, the new rules cause alot of new problems that i don't really believe that WotC have anticipated...
I think a fair number of the issues that are coming up are due to:
1)People not fully comprehending what was described in the article
2)People not having the proper context for these changes due to an inaccurate/incomplete understanding of the current rules
But any time any rules change there are bound to be unforeseen effects; the total number of rules and card interactions is so massive now that it's impossible to take every one into account.
This doesn't make the stack any easier or harder to follow. We're just missing a couple steps. That being said, I hate the new rule change. I enjoy the combat tricks everyone mentions about, and rule nerfing is not fun.
But there are enough rants about the combat stack, so I'll just mention how displeased I am with the mana burn change instead. I don't see how mana burn is a difficult concept to learn. Just remember, don't be wasteful. Isn't that pretty much what it's all about?
In multiplayer games, Upwelling is a potential trap. Players can gamble it all and add a bunch of mana to the pool without any way to drain it, or add tiny bits in anticipation of playing something on their next turn, or don't add anything at all if mana burn is that bad. I'm predicting it too easy to use Bloom Tender and Doubling Cube. Great mana ramping yeah, but you wanted to make sure you were producing mana in check, because otherwise you'll be penalized for producing way too much. It's a very simple concept with very simple planning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing since Invasion, stopped at Scourge. Returned briefly during BoK's introduction of ninjas. Finally back into magic during Shadowmoor/Eventide.
Currently Running Bant Control and a homebrew Blightning Echoes for Type 2.
Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change is bad. The combat changes are an example of the latter.
While it does diminish the effectiveness of a few archetypes (namely "Goblins" off the top of my head) it makes more sense flavorwise and mechanics wise.. I'm sure you've spent hours and hours of testing and hundreds of games to prove your point.. the fact is it is clunky for all players to understand all the facets of the stack. I'm sorry you hate changes.. a mogg fanatic should never deal two damage.. you shouldn't be able to react after something gets lethal damage.. I think it makes the game stronger.. not simplified.. as you still have opportunities for "tricks" before damage.. which outside of silly bouncing and sac effects you would do before damage regardless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
I think staring down a Chameleon Colossus and knowing for sure that it will be an extra +2/+2 instead of sitting there with the person's lands untapped WONDERING if they will doesn't make it any worse a game. In fact, it might make some people better players because they won't "forget" to pump.
No-one ever pumped CC in response to combat damage. The last chance to pump it and have it deal 8 was always in the declare blockers step, and that hasn't changed.
The hardest part about getting people to play by these new rules is going to be explaining them to people who didn't understand the old ones :-/...
If I still played Magic, this is when I would quit. Or better yet, I would go to tournaments (regionals, states, PTQ's, etc) and play "old-fashioned" in protest of these changes (when they go into effect).
Honestly, possibly one of the greatest aspects to the game is it's flexibility: it can be as complex or simple as you want it to be. Decks can be full of well-planned tricks and set-off great combos and have endless possibilities. Decks can also be as simple and straight-forward as you want them to be. With these rules, the former will practically cease to exist, or at least greatly decrease in strategic possibilities. Also, is this basically a huge "F--- You" to Vintage/Legacy?
I was going to add some quotes, but there are just too many. First of all I'd like to say I've played some matches now with the new rules and for all of you out there that are getting ready to throw your decks in the fire, I say to you HOLD UP!!! It's really not that much different, okay yes mana burn isn't a worry anymore but unless you where playing a deck that focused on forcing a mana burn on your opponent..does it really matter. How many times have we see Nassif, LSV, or Saito burn themselves? It just doesn't happen, so it is not that big of a deal. Then the one every one is losing it over is combat damage no longer using the stack. So, yes, there are creatures that are going to take a hit from this and yes you will have to learn to manuevere creatures on the block phase of combat. Does this take some depth out of the game? Sure, a bit but it really isn't what most of you are making it out to be. This is still Magic the game all of us love, it's still the best card game out there, and even though the rules at the moment are rocking the boat it'll pass. Few people truly embrace change, even if you fancy yourself to be free thinking, changing something you love is bothersome. Just learn the new rules and keep building crazy combo decks, keep building rush decks that do 10-15 damage on turn 3 or 4. Adapted to it don't quit, just because they've thrown it in a new package...take it out play the game it's really not that different.
Upkeep
Draw
mainphase 1
declare attackers
declare blockers *do something here*
combat damage
mainphase 2
end of turn
I think it was stupid to get rid of stacking combat damage but whatever, I can live with it. However!, I see 0 reason flavour or complicated rulesish wise why they needed to have combat order. It is neither flavourful OR intuitive. A much simpler way would be to just say:
1) I attack with creature 1 (a 3/3).
2) I block with my 2/2 and 2/3.
3) In the declare blockers step, the attacking play commits and says: I'll do 3 to the 2/3 and 0 to the 2/2, or any combination henceforth. priority is passed to both players to apply regeneration effects, prevent effects, predamage pump etc. Once priority is passed by both with no effects the damage immediately resolves.
4) creatures die.
This system seems a lot more intuitive as a warrior attacking two other creatures being commanded by a planeswalker would follow such commands as 'swing at both of them' or 'only attack the left one'. While it makes flavourful sense, it also prevents the bounce/sac combat tricks that understandably don't make any sense to new players/flavour players.
The second the term 'stack' is removed from damage, and all your doing is just commiting to how much damage you'll want to do, it makes complete intuitive and flavourful sense.
3) In the declare blockers step, the attacking play commits and says: I'll do 3 to the 2/3 and 0 to the 2/2, or any combination henceforth. priority is passed to both players to apply regeneration effects, prevent effects, predamage pump etc. Once priority is passed by both with no effects the damage immediately resolves.
The problem here is that you're not giving the blocking player any window at all to increase the amount of combat damage his creatures will do after they're declared as blockers... if damage assignment is part of declaring blockers I have to play stuff like firebreathing abilities before I've even declared the blocker. I don't think that's any better than what will be happening with M10.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Discussion in the Vintage forum right now is strongly leaning in the direction of "these rule changes aren't relevant to the format."
Except in the case of the Wishes, Research/Development, etc., which can no longer get RFG'd cards removed by YawgWill, etc. That's a pretty significant change.
The problem here is that you're not giving the blocking player any window at all to increase the amount of combat damage his creatures will do after they're declared as blockers... if damage assignment is part of declaring blockers I have to play stuff like firebreathing abilities before I've even declared the blocker. I don't think that's any better than what will be happening with M10.
What? By giving both players priority after blockers have been declared and how much damage has been 'locked in' the active player gets priority to pump/do whatever. If the amount of damage changes, the player ADDS the bonus to what is already there and thus can't use tricks to change around where they are doing damage too (but can split the additional damage).
I seem to have hit edit instead of quote on your previous post and removed part of it. My apologies.
To respond to what's left:
Are you actually proposing that damage get "locked in" but that this can change after the fact? That seems to me to be more confusing than either the current system OR the new one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Except in the case of the Wishes, Research/Development, etc., which can no longer get RFG'd cards removed by YawgWill, etc. That's a pretty significant change.
Nobody plays Yawgmoth's Win and then doesn't win that turn. That's why it's called Yawgmoth's Win.
Wishes aren't played much in Vintage, aside from the singleton Cunnish Wish here and there. And people play them to get cards from the sideboard, not Exiled cards.
Funny, thats what I said when they introduced "The Stack"
As someone whos been playing since Unlimited (Id say Beta, but I only had 2 starter decks, 5 Packs and no friends at that time) Its fine. I like these changes. Why? Makes the game easier for new players to understand without reading a 500 page boring rule book. Or being explained complicated, doesn't make much sense in the real world rules. (Lets face it, the stack while good, is not intuitive)
I for one, welcome our new rules.
Easy to pick up rules == More players == More FNM wins == Better for the game.
Theres a reason UNO is more popular than magic.
That is the most worthless logic ever. Simple games do not keep players for long. Sure, you're going to get more players INTO the game, but with such straightforward and easy gameplay are you going to keep them coming back every week for a tournament?
There's a reason there aren't $40,000 UNO tournaments.
these new changes are not so hot. when i first got into magic, i ran mono red samurai, (crapfest) and thoght it was ok, then my buddy wanted to show me his decks, he busted out a super broken affinity (meaning 4 dotv) that was the moment when i decided to give up my party life to get better at this game., a few months ago, now that im a decent player, as an hommage, i shelled out about 170 to make my own build of affinity as an homage to him, and every thing i worked for, now all my dirty trick are useless.
im not going to quit playing, but i like to go to institutes for t he criminally insane, and i convince people that maro the voice in thier head, and a 9mm is all it takes to make the voices stop. hopfully my plan works.
I'm kind of curious on how the combat rules will relate to Banding and the En-Kor damage redirection abilities.
I'm thinking they both might become much more powerful, but more than likely, they may get very watered-down, especially since part of the reason for the new rules was to reduce the complexity of combat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
In other news, crazy nitwits playing dress-up have also convicted the Hamburglar, the Cookie Crisp Crook, and the Frito Bandito of sundry snack-related thefts.
Seriously, what about this strikes you as remotely worthy of discussion?
in order to deal lethal damage with the shade, yes.
You could, however, still pump it after damage is assigned in order to save it from dying.
Okay, that I wasn't sure of. Like if it a 1/1 blocks it, will it now die regardless of pumping, unless you do it first...I only glanced at the new rules and didn't know just how dumbed down they were going.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-
I've been in and out of involvement with Magic since 1997. Every time I think I'm out, I get pulled back in.
So wait, do you have to pump up a Nantuko Shade now before someone blocks it?
No. You attack. Players can do stuff. They Block. Players can do stuff. Damage is dealt.
So, you attack with a 1/1 Shade. They block with a 2/2 Grizzly Bear. You pump the shade with BB, and then the Bears die assuming that is all that happens.
Okay, that I wasn't sure of. Like if it a 1/1 blocks it, will it now die regardless of pumping, unless you do it first...I only glanced at the new rules and didn't know just how dumbed down they were going.
"Dumbed down" is a bit of a stretch to me. The rules actually make sense and they haven't made any real difference in the testing I have done. Do I think the changes were necessary? No. Do I think the game is better or worse? No. I've been playing for 15 years now and have seen bigger things come down the pike that made way way less sense.
All I am saying is just give it a shot and don't assume that WotC is trying to alienate its players. Believe it or not, they actually like you.
Except that it has nothing to do with when the ability is played. The only thing it's stopping you from doing is blocking, saccing for the life and killing your opponent's creature.
Boo hoo, you haven't 3-for-1'd someone, only 2-for-1'd them?
Thats actually a 1 for 1. If you just chump block and gain life its a 0 for 1. Do you even know what the X for 1 terminology means?
People seem to have this idea that all of these abilities are no longer relevant in the combat step. They are, they just interact with your opponent in a less fundamentally antisocial way. They don't obliterate the possibility of tactical blocking.
"antisocial way"? Complex combat interaction is antisocial? Good one. And yes, they do get rid of a LOT of tactical blocking, by definition. A lot of creatures just became awful chump blockers so you're simply not going to play them as much and tactical chump blocking will basically disappear. Good players only chump block if there's a possibility of lethal damage that will kill them or if they have a trick that can make the chump trade.
I'd sum it up as: the combat step will now be less about objective card quality, and more about tactical play on the ground. Surely this could reasonably be construed as beneficial?
completely wrong, thats why it won't be construed as beneficial. This change does not increase tactical options at all, only decrease them, by definition, since you're closing a window of opportunity for tactics but not opening any new ones.
Why do people keep saying this? The combat rules DO NOT make the game easier to understand, NOT AT ALL. The stack is still there everyone, you still have to teach new people how to use the stack, how to respond to spells, and how to not get blown out by it. Now, instead of teaching them that the stack is the end all of magic effects, you have to teach them about this special case scenario too and how all of the new clunky rules work. I've taught this game to a lot people (very easily past the 20's) and I've never had a problem teaching them about the stack and combat damage. If you actually try to teach someone about the stack first and start with sorceries and creatures and then work your way up to instants and abilities it is a very easy concept to understand. So, I'll say this once again, THE NEW RULES DO NOT MAKE TEACHING MAGIC EASIER, THE STACK STILL EXISTS.
-Mimeoplasm GUB
-Chainer B
does uno even consider a TCG?
lol wat? chess is still considered one of the most difficult game universally accepted that not many people play. you can say medival chess rule has dumbed down to the modern rule, but do you know how hard chess is because there are so many combination of moves in all kinds of situation? the modern rule may be easier to grasp than the medival rules, but it certainly doesn't make chess easy.
and no, idiots don't play chess, they play checkers.
Like anime? My AnimeList Profile: zero_99
You can find me on MODO ID: 07Ghost
Yes, the stack still exists, but now the only occasion in which damage exists as a separate object on the stack from anything else has been removed.
I can't count how many players have come into the Rulings forum thinking that when a Lightning Bolt resolves, it puts 3 damage on the stack, because they see combat damage existing on the stack and can't understand why this doesn't happen at any other time in the game.
I don't see this change as a hindrance to teaching the game at all.
I think a fair number of the issues that are coming up are due to:
1)People not fully comprehending what was described in the article
2)People not having the proper context for these changes due to an inaccurate/incomplete understanding of the current rules
But any time any rules change there are bound to be unforeseen effects; the total number of rules and card interactions is so massive now that it's impossible to take every one into account.
But there are enough rants about the combat stack, so I'll just mention how displeased I am with the mana burn change instead. I don't see how mana burn is a difficult concept to learn. Just remember, don't be wasteful. Isn't that pretty much what it's all about?
In multiplayer games, Upwelling is a potential trap. Players can gamble it all and add a bunch of mana to the pool without any way to drain it, or add tiny bits in anticipation of playing something on their next turn, or don't add anything at all if mana burn is that bad. I'm predicting it too easy to use Bloom Tender and Doubling Cube. Great mana ramping yeah, but you wanted to make sure you were producing mana in check, because otherwise you'll be penalized for producing way too much. It's a very simple concept with very simple planning.
Currently Running Bant Control and a homebrew Blightning Echoes for Type 2.
Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change is bad. The combat changes are an example of the latter.
While it does diminish the effectiveness of a few archetypes (namely "Goblins" off the top of my head) it makes more sense flavorwise and mechanics wise.. I'm sure you've spent hours and hours of testing and hundreds of games to prove your point.. the fact is it is clunky for all players to understand all the facets of the stack. I'm sorry you hate changes.. a mogg fanatic should never deal two damage.. you shouldn't be able to react after something gets lethal damage.. I think it makes the game stronger.. not simplified.. as you still have opportunities for "tricks" before damage.. which outside of silly bouncing and sac effects you would do before damage regardless.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
Almost any perceived problem on the player's end is related to the quote in my sig.
(Also known as Xenphire)
No-one ever pumped CC in response to combat damage. The last chance to pump it and have it deal 8 was always in the declare blockers step, and that hasn't changed.
The hardest part about getting people to play by these new rules is going to be explaining them to people who didn't understand the old ones :-/...
Honestly, possibly one of the greatest aspects to the game is it's flexibility: it can be as complex or simple as you want it to be. Decks can be full of well-planned tricks and set-off great combos and have endless possibilities. Decks can also be as simple and straight-forward as you want them to be. With these rules, the former will practically cease to exist, or at least greatly decrease in strategic possibilities. Also, is this basically a huge "F--- You" to Vintage/Legacy?
ex-Moderator
Legacy love.
Upkeep
Draw
mainphase 1
declare attackers
declare blockers *do something here*
combat damage
mainphase 2
end of turn
Looks the same to me.
Discussion in the Vintage forum right now is strongly leaning in the direction of "these rule changes aren't relevant to the format."
1) I attack with creature 1 (a 3/3).
2) I block with my 2/2 and 2/3.
3) In the declare blockers step, the attacking play commits and says: I'll do 3 to the 2/3 and 0 to the 2/2, or any combination henceforth. priority is passed to both players to apply regeneration effects, prevent effects, predamage pump etc. Once priority is passed by both with no effects the damage immediately resolves.
4) creatures die.
This system seems a lot more intuitive as a warrior attacking two other creatures being commanded by a planeswalker would follow such commands as 'swing at both of them' or 'only attack the left one'. While it makes flavourful sense, it also prevents the bounce/sac combat tricks that understandably don't make any sense to new players/flavour players.
The second the term 'stack' is removed from damage, and all your doing is just commiting to how much damage you'll want to do, it makes complete intuitive and flavourful sense.
Just what I think they sould have done.
The problem here is that you're not giving the blocking player any window at all to increase the amount of combat damage his creatures will do after they're declared as blockers... if damage assignment is part of declaring blockers I have to play stuff like firebreathing abilities before I've even declared the blocker. I don't think that's any better than what will be happening with M10.
Except in the case of the Wishes, Research/Development, etc., which can no longer get RFG'd cards removed by YawgWill, etc. That's a pretty significant change.
What? By giving both players priority after blockers have been declared and how much damage has been 'locked in' the active player gets priority to pump/do whatever. If the amount of damage changes, the player ADDS the bonus to what is already there and thus can't use tricks to change around where they are doing damage too (but can split the additional damage).
To respond to what's left:
Are you actually proposing that damage get "locked in" but that this can change after the fact? That seems to me to be more confusing than either the current system OR the new one.
Nobody plays Yawgmoth's Win and then doesn't win that turn. That's why it's called Yawgmoth's Win.
Wishes aren't played much in Vintage, aside from the singleton Cunnish Wish here and there. And people play them to get cards from the sideboard, not Exiled cards.
That is the most worthless logic ever. Simple games do not keep players for long. Sure, you're going to get more players INTO the game, but with such straightforward and easy gameplay are you going to keep them coming back every week for a tournament?
There's a reason there aren't $40,000 UNO tournaments.
im not going to quit playing, but i like to go to institutes for t he criminally insane, and i convince people that maro the voice in thier head, and a 9mm is all it takes to make the voices stop. hopfully my plan works.
I'm thinking they both might become much more powerful, but more than likely, they may get very watered-down, especially since part of the reason for the new rules was to reduce the complexity of combat.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
I've been in and out of involvement with Magic since 1997. Every time I think I'm out, I get pulled back in.
You could, however, still pump it after damage is assigned in order to save it from dying.
BW(G) Junkblade - Legacy
BW Vial Deadguy - Legacy
UWR Geist - Modern
UR(B) Delver - Modern
W(G) Death & Taxes - Modern
Oona, Queen of the Fae - EDH
Okay, that I wasn't sure of. Like if it a 1/1 blocks it, will it now die regardless of pumping, unless you do it first...I only glanced at the new rules and didn't know just how dumbed down they were going.
I've been in and out of involvement with Magic since 1997. Every time I think I'm out, I get pulled back in.
No. You attack. Players can do stuff. They Block. Players can do stuff. Damage is dealt.
So, you attack with a 1/1 Shade. They block with a 2/2 Grizzly Bear. You pump the shade with BB, and then the Bears die assuming that is all that happens.
"Dumbed down" is a bit of a stretch to me. The rules actually make sense and they haven't made any real difference in the testing I have done. Do I think the changes were necessary? No. Do I think the game is better or worse? No. I've been playing for 15 years now and have seen bigger things come down the pike that made way way less sense.
All I am saying is just give it a shot and don't assume that WotC is trying to alienate its players. Believe it or not, they actually like you.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Thats actually a 1 for 1. If you just chump block and gain life its a 0 for 1. Do you even know what the X for 1 terminology means?
"antisocial way"? Complex combat interaction is antisocial? Good one. And yes, they do get rid of a LOT of tactical blocking, by definition. A lot of creatures just became awful chump blockers so you're simply not going to play them as much and tactical chump blocking will basically disappear. Good players only chump block if there's a possibility of lethal damage that will kill them or if they have a trick that can make the chump trade.
completely wrong, thats why it won't be construed as beneficial. This change does not increase tactical options at all, only decrease them, by definition, since you're closing a window of opportunity for tactics but not opening any new ones.
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades