So because I'm apparently a degenerate asshat, my first thought upon seeing Master of Cruelties was "Wow, a perfect fit for my Kaalia of the Vast EDH deck!"
Then I started to wonder about the Master's limitation about only being able to attack alone. If I attack with Kaalia, can I place the Master in play and attacking using Kaalia's triggered ability? I suspect that the Master's restriction only checks to make sure he is the only creature attacking when attacks are declared, but by the time Kaalia's ability resolves, the declaration of attack has already occurred.
So does this mean that the Master can come into play attacking alongside Kaalia, then reduce the opponent's life total to 1 as soon as blocks are declared (assuming no one blocks the Master), and then Kaalia can finish the opponent off with normal combat damage?
Yep. Master of Cruelties has a Guiltfeeder type effect. It doesn't care that it's been put in attacking or that it wasn't declared to attack only that it is and it isn't blocked.
For the comp rulebook i believe it's 509.4g that deals with this type of wording.
Right, that much makes sense. What I'm after is whether or not I can put the Master in play via Kaalia's ability to circumvent his "can only attack alone" restriction. Thanks for answering, though!
I would not have thought that was how this works, but it's a good thing to know. And here I assumed that all Demons/dragons/angels they printed from now on wouldn't work well with Kaalia. Kaalia is pretty darn good even with this new death bullet in the mix, yeesh. And yes Kaalia will kill just with her 2 damage because the "not blocked" trigger will have resolved before damage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
Right, that much makes sense. What I'm after is whether or not I can put the Master in play via Kaalia's ability to circumvent his "can only attack alone" restriction. Thanks for answering, though!
The "can't attack" is short for "cannot be declared as an attacker in the 'declare attacker' step" Since Kaalia's ability resolves after attackers are declared, you never declared the creature put into play as an attacker and as such, it is not an invalid attack.
The "can't attack" is short for "cannot be declared as an attacker in the 'declare attacker' step" Since Kaalia's ability resolves after attackers are declared, you never declared the creature put into play as an attacker and as such, it is not an invalid attack.
That's the answer I was looking for. Kaalia just got a new BFF.
I was astonished to hear that his ability works when he's put into play attacking. I believe the rules, but that "whenever this attacks and isn't blocked" triggers when "whenever this attacks" doesn't, seems highly unituitive.
While writing this, it seems that "whenever this attacks and isn't blocked" is not some sort of delayed trigger but triggers at the moment blockers are declared, when the creature is not blocked. Makes sense. But could be rephrased as "whenever this isn't blocked while attacking".
I am also surprised this works. Damm that I'd not fun at all. I would have thought it was like other on attack triggers. Even more reason to tuck Kaalia
Holy crap this is just bonkers I was on the fence on whether or not to build a kaalia deck but this is the nail in the coffin! I'm building it the deck can only get more and more powerful because at least half the demon,dragons or angels are kick Ass that are printed these days
Like Ganneyev said, you can totally put MoC into play attacking with Kaalia... BUT...
MoCs last ability (the sets the players life to 1) trigger will NOT happen...
Rule 508.4
508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a defending player controls it's attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it's attacking). Such creatures are "attacking" but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never "attacked."
This means that MoC is attacking, but never "attacked", thus meaning that his last ability not trigger.
If you believe I'm wrong, I might have overlooked something. Just show me what ruling it is. But from what I can see it will not trigger.
If you believe I'm wrong, I might have overlooked something. Just show me what ruling it is. But from what I can see it will not trigger.
It does trigger. "Attacks and Isn't Blocked" actually has its own Glossary entry in the Comprehensive Rules, and the definition given there clears this up:
Quote from CR Glossary »
Attacks and Isn’t Blocked
An ability that triggers when a creature “attacks and isn’t blocked” triggers when the creature becomes an unblocked attacking creature. See rule 509.1h.
I too am a Kaalia player and i just want a ruleing on the damage when MoC comes in. . . . When MoC comes in and isn't blocked it reduces target opponents life total to 1 (that being known), but when damage collision comes in (because MoC wasn't blocked and that triggered from not being blocked and there life was reduced to 1) would Kaalia's damage be game, set, and match or is the damage from collision irrelevant?
Master of Cruelties triggers during the declare blockers step, so that's when the trigger will resolve. When the game gets around to the combat damage step the defending player will be at 1 life and any damage he takes will reduce his life accordingly. Taking 2 damage from Kaalia will put him at -1, causing him to lose the game.
Like Ganneyev said, you can totally put MoC into play attacking with Kaalia... BUT...
MoCs last ability (the sets the players life to 1) trigger will NOT happen...
Rule 508.4
This means that MoC is attacking, but never "attacked", thus meaning that his last ability not trigger.
If you believe I'm wrong, I might have overlooked something. Just show me what ruling it is. But from what I can see it will not trigger.
This is handled in a separate rule (at least as of 16-Aug-2013). The appropriate rule to handle this situation is 509.4g:
509.4g An ability that reads “Whenever [this creature] attacks and isn’t blocked, . . .” triggers if no
creatures are declared as blockers for that creature. It will trigger even if the creature was never
declared as an attacker (for example, if it entered the battlefield attacking). It won’t trigger if the
attacking creature is blocked and then all its blockers are removed from combat.
I also immediatly thought this combo would be amazing. It's even broken : you can win on turn 5 (4 if you manage to give kaalia haste - with Fervor for example) and I don't really think it's the spirit of EDH. This is a fun format and if you manage to set up the combo it basically removes all the fun from it :/ tbh I think it should be banned for this simple reason. EDH ain't competitive, and if you play with this combo in mind if think you're an ass-howl
There is a lot more degenerate stuff then this combo. Sorin Markov and serra ascendant are played by asshats everywhere.
There is a lot more degenerate stuff then this combo. Sorin Markov and serra ascendant are played by asshats everywhere.
Neither of those are turn 5 (or 4, or even 3) kills in which one of the combo pieces is your general (meaning: pretty much always in your hand regardless).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Someday, I will own all of the dragons. All of them. 43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
I also immediatly thought this combo would be amazing. It's even broken : you can win on turn 5 (4 if you manage to give kaalia haste - with Fervor for example) and I don't really think it's the spirit of EDH. This is a fun format and if you manage to set up the combo it basically removes all the fun from it :/ tbh I think it should be banned for this simple reason. EDH ain't competitive, and if you play with this combo in mind if think you're an ass-howl
and please tell us the odds of that hand happening every game? They arent high. Thats for sure. EWven with tutors like Vampriric and Demonic, It still wont be common enough to be that degenerate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
EDH: UBRNicol Bolas and Friends UB Grimgrin, Zombie Lord UW Bruna, Light of Lockdown G Omnath, Mana Mana GR Borborgomos, Get off my Land! UWG Derevi, Flickering your taps WBU Oloro, Artifact Beatdown? R Marton Stromgald, the Glass Cannon Standard: BG Relentless Trolls Modern: WB Life Gaining Tokens RWG Zoo Midrange U Tron Legacy: URGBW Manaless Dredge Casual: BW Gideon's Empire UR Titan Wildfrie BU Crypt Ghast
I also immediatly thought this combo would be amazing. It's even broken : you can win on turn 5 (4 if you manage to give kaalia haste - with Fervor for example) and I don't really think it's the spirit of EDH. This is a fun format and if you manage to set up the combo it basically removes all the fun from it :/ tbh I think it should be banned for this simple reason. EDH ain't competitive, and if you play with this combo in mind if think you're an ass-howl
I believe this only kills one person instantly which is nice if someone is getting a great start and you know they have an insane deck. Also both creatures can be removed/bounced/destroyed before any one actually dies. Its all fine since most of the other creatures she can drop would be more unfair such as avacyn angel of hope
*Sigh* People need to stop clamoring for the banhammer when a card is overly powerful due to synergy in Commander.
Is it "easy" to assemble? Yes, given the number of tutors available.
Does it go against the spirt of EDH/Commander? Yes- if your idea of Commander is in line with Sheldon's original description (ends the game immediately for a player, promotes effectively playing solitaire with yourself)
Should it be banned? No, instead you should be using one of the most important tools of Commander (and one that is oft-overlooked apparently): the social contract. It's pretty easy to fix the Kaalia problem with Master- if someone pulls out this little nonsense and it irks you too bad, just quit the game, and don't play with them again until things have changed.
We all have our own beliefs and mindsets of what Commander should be. For some, it's playing the best cards in the colors they chose. For others, it's about assembling the most degenerate thing possible. Others are pulled to playing big creatures and big spells.
I'm in the last category, and I won't be playing with anyone who puts Master into play with Kaalia (though I'm personally fine with them just casting him). But if that same Kaalia player ends up with a group that celebrates such plays, then more power to them.
Sorry for the long rant; I know it doesn't pertain to the rules question. But I'm so tired of the first answer to a card in Commander being "zomg! ban it down!" just because people either forget the social contract or aren't willing to stand up to those that playing a different game than they want to.
*Sigh* People need to stop clamoring for the banhammer when a card is overly powerful due to synergy in Commander.
Is it "easy" to assemble? Yes, given the number of tutors available.
Does it go against the spirt of EDH/Commander? Yes- if your idea of Commander is in line with Sheldon's original description (ends the game immediately for a player, promotes effectively playing solitaire with yourself)
Should it be banned? No, instead you should be using one of the most important tools of Commander (and one that is oft-overlooked apparently): the social contract. It's pretty easy to fix the Kaalia problem with Master- if someone pulls out this little nonsense and it irks you too bad, just quit the game, and don't play with them again until things have changed.
We all have our own beliefs and mindsets of what Commander should be. For some, it's playing the best cards in the colors they chose. For others, it's about assembling the most degenerate thing possible. Others are pulled to playing big creatures and big spells.
I'm in the last category, and I won't be playing with anyone who puts Master into play with Kaalia (though I'm personally fine with them just casting him). But if that same Kaalia player ends up with a group that celebrates such plays, then more power to them.
Sorry for the long rant; I know it doesn't pertain to the rules question. But I'm so tired of the first answer to a card in Commander being "zomg! ban it down!" just because people either forget the social contract or aren't willing to stand up to those that playing a different game than they want to.
There is also a thing called removal spells. I hear those are good in any format including EDH. Try to have one ready. I play Ghave and thats what I tell people that complain about my combo shenanigans, it can be stopped with a well placed removal spell. Its usually the elf ball player that doesnt run any removal hardly. So I guess its only fun for him when he masses up and kills players lol.
I keep seeing, here... 'OMG! Turn 3/4!'
This is about the chanciest thing I could imagine happening, but...Guys--
Turn 1: Plains, Sol Ring, tap Sol Ring for Lightning Greaves.
Turn 2: Shadowblood Ridge, tap Sol Ring and feed 1 into Shadowblood Ridge, tapping it. Tap the Plains. Play Kaalia of the Vast. Attach the Lightning Greaves to Kaalia of the Vast, and attack with her, dropping Master of Cruelties into play, attacking. Win, unless they played a mana-elf, or the like.
...and yet, even with this possibility, it shouldn't necessarily be banned for being broken or unbeatable, because it isn't... Even in this extreme un-likelihood, there are responses. Having a mana-dork to block with delays it two turns at least (unless they have a Lightning Bolt/Gut Shot/etc.), forcing Master of Cruelties to attack alone the next turn, if you haven't played another blocker, and delaying Kaalia's damage until the turn after. and then, beyond that there are options like Swords to Plowshares, a Lightning Bolt of your own, or even Rapid Hybridization.
This-all being said, I'll bow down to the person that actually manages to pull that off, and kill someone with this on turn two.
Sorry for being off-topic, was feeling bothered by this. Please excuse.
Thanks!
--Michael
doesn't work as seen from http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=368981
"Master of Cruelties isn't forced to attack, but if it does, it must do so alone. If you control another creature with an ability that says it must attack if able, that creature must attack and Master of Cruelties won't be able to." Meaning that if Kaalia were to attack and put him on the battlefield, Kaalia attacks a non-existent target and Master of Cruelties does his fancy stuff. If you have cards like Avatar of Slaughter or Curse of the Nightly Hunt, when you put down, MOC does nothing
As explained multiple times already in this thread (which is getting rather old), yes it works.
"Attack" means "to be declared as an attacker at the beginning of the Declare Attackers step". This is not what Kaalia of the Vast's ability does, so it gets around the restriction on Master of Cruelties.
Then I started to wonder about the Master's limitation about only being able to attack alone. If I attack with Kaalia, can I place the Master in play and attacking using Kaalia's triggered ability? I suspect that the Master's restriction only checks to make sure he is the only creature attacking when attacks are declared, but by the time Kaalia's ability resolves, the declaration of attack has already occurred.
So does this mean that the Master can come into play attacking alongside Kaalia, then reduce the opponent's life total to 1 as soon as blocks are declared (assuming no one blocks the Master), and then Kaalia can finish the opponent off with normal combat damage?
If so, that's pretty effing mean.
EVOLVE ALL THE THINGS!!!
Right, that much makes sense. What I'm after is whether or not I can put the Master in play via Kaalia's ability to circumvent his "can only attack alone" restriction. Thanks for answering, though!
EVOLVE ALL THE THINGS!!!
Feel free to tell me yours!
The "can't attack" is short for "cannot be declared as an attacker in the 'declare attacker' step" Since Kaalia's ability resolves after attackers are declared, you never declared the creature put into play as an attacker and as such, it is not an invalid attack.
That's the answer I was looking for. Kaalia just got a new BFF.
EVOLVE ALL THE THINGS!!!
While writing this, it seems that "whenever this attacks and isn't blocked" is not some sort of delayed trigger but triggers at the moment blockers are declared, when the creature is not blocked. Makes sense. But could be rephrased as "whenever this isn't blocked while attacking".
|One Red Mountain - A adventure in MTG Trading|
MoCs last ability (the sets the players life to 1) trigger will NOT happen...
Rule 508.4
This means that MoC is attacking, but never "attacked", thus meaning that his last ability not trigger.
If you believe I'm wrong, I might have overlooked something. Just show me what ruling it is. But from what I can see it will not trigger.
It does trigger. "Attacks and Isn't Blocked" actually has its own Glossary entry in the Comprehensive Rules, and the definition given there clears this up:
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
This is handled in a separate rule (at least as of 16-Aug-2013). The appropriate rule to handle this situation is 509.4g:
509.4g An ability that reads “Whenever [this creature] attacks and isn’t blocked, . . .” triggers if no
creatures are declared as blockers for that creature. It will trigger even if the creature was never
declared as an attacker (for example, if it entered the battlefield attacking). It won’t trigger if the
attacking creature is blocked and then all its blockers are removed from combat.
- Wahooka
There is a lot more degenerate stuff then this combo. Sorin Markov and serra ascendant are played by asshats everywhere.
Neither of those are turn 5 (or 4, or even 3) kills in which one of the combo pieces is your general (meaning: pretty much always in your hand regardless).
43/111, approximately 39% complete. Over a third done.
(calling it now; there will be a cycle of Legendary dual lands with Basic Land types in Theros block)
... AAAAAAAAND I was wrong
The Attention Deficit Guy URGU
and please tell us the odds of that hand happening every game? They arent high. Thats for sure. EWven with tutors like Vampriric and Demonic, It still wont be common enough to be that degenerate.
UBR Nicol Bolas and Friends
UB Grimgrin, Zombie Lord
UW Bruna, Light of Lockdown
G Omnath, Mana Mana
GR Borborgomos, Get off my Land!
UWG Derevi, Flickering your taps
WBU Oloro, Artifact Beatdown?
R Marton Stromgald, the Glass Cannon
Standard:
BG Relentless Trolls
Modern:
WB Life Gaining Tokens
RWG Zoo Midrange
U Tron
Legacy:
URGBW Manaless Dredge
Casual:
BW Gideon's Empire
UR Titan Wildfrie
BU Crypt Ghast
I believe this only kills one person instantly which is nice if someone is getting a great start and you know they have an insane deck. Also both creatures can be removed/bounced/destroyed before any one actually dies. Its all fine since most of the other creatures she can drop would be more unfair such as avacyn angel of hope
Is it "easy" to assemble? Yes, given the number of tutors available.
Does it go against the spirt of EDH/Commander? Yes- if your idea of Commander is in line with Sheldon's original description (ends the game immediately for a player, promotes effectively playing solitaire with yourself)
Should it be banned? No, instead you should be using one of the most important tools of Commander (and one that is oft-overlooked apparently): the social contract. It's pretty easy to fix the Kaalia problem with Master- if someone pulls out this little nonsense and it irks you too bad, just quit the game, and don't play with them again until things have changed.
We all have our own beliefs and mindsets of what Commander should be. For some, it's playing the best cards in the colors they chose. For others, it's about assembling the most degenerate thing possible. Others are pulled to playing big creatures and big spells.
I'm in the last category, and I won't be playing with anyone who puts Master into play with Kaalia (though I'm personally fine with them just casting him). But if that same Kaalia player ends up with a group that celebrates such plays, then more power to them.
Sorry for the long rant; I know it doesn't pertain to the rules question. But I'm so tired of the first answer to a card in Commander being "zomg! ban it down!" just because people either forget the social contract or aren't willing to stand up to those that playing a different game than they want to.
There is also a thing called removal spells. I hear those are good in any format including EDH. Try to have one ready. I play Ghave and thats what I tell people that complain about my combo shenanigans, it can be stopped with a well placed removal spell. Its usually the elf ball player that doesnt run any removal hardly. So I guess its only fun for him when he masses up and kills players lol.
This is about the chanciest thing I could imagine happening, but...Guys--
Turn 1: Plains, Sol Ring, tap Sol Ring for Lightning Greaves.
Turn 2: Shadowblood Ridge, tap Sol Ring and feed 1 into Shadowblood Ridge, tapping it. Tap the Plains. Play Kaalia of the Vast. Attach the Lightning Greaves to Kaalia of the Vast, and attack with her, dropping Master of Cruelties into play, attacking. Win, unless they played a mana-elf, or the like.
...and yet, even with this possibility, it shouldn't necessarily be banned for being broken or unbeatable, because it isn't... Even in this extreme un-likelihood, there are responses. Having a mana-dork to block with delays it two turns at least (unless they have a Lightning Bolt/Gut Shot/etc.), forcing Master of Cruelties to attack alone the next turn, if you haven't played another blocker, and delaying Kaalia's damage until the turn after. and then, beyond that there are options like Swords to Plowshares, a Lightning Bolt of your own, or even Rapid Hybridization.
This-all being said, I'll bow down to the person that actually manages to pull that off, and kill someone with this on turn two.
Sorry for being off-topic, was feeling bothered by this. Please excuse.
Thanks!
--Michael
"Master of Cruelties isn't forced to attack, but if it does, it must do so alone. If you control another creature with an ability that says it must attack if able, that creature must attack and Master of Cruelties won't be able to." Meaning that if Kaalia were to attack and put him on the battlefield, Kaalia attacks a non-existent target and Master of Cruelties does his fancy stuff. If you have cards like Avatar of Slaughter or Curse of the Nightly Hunt, when you put down, MOC does nothing
"Attack" means "to be declared as an attacker at the beginning of the Declare Attackers step". This is not what Kaalia of the Vast's ability does, so it gets around the restriction on Master of Cruelties.
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
"Splinter Twin." "Path to Exile." "Dispel." "Dispel." *Flips Table*