Wheel of Misfortune 2R
Sorcery
Each player secretly chooses a number. Then reveal those numbers. Wheel of Misfortune deals damage equal to the greatest chosen number to each player that chose it. Then, each player who didn't choose the smallest number discards their hands, then draws seven cards.
Let's say I propose this: I tell everyone I have this in my hand, then we make an agreement that everyone who doesn't want to Wheel chooses -1 and everyone else chooses 0. Anyone who breaks the agreement upon resolution of the spell forfeits the game. Is there any reason this shouldn't work from a rules perspective? If one were to literally rules lawyer this, my states allowed for legally binding verbal contracts, and Wizards has issued a statement before that the law supersedes the rules of Magic.
Correct, you could file this in civil court as a violation of a verbal agreement. After the hundreds of dollars you've spent filing this claim in court, hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lawyers to assist you in this, and your playgroup's knowledge that you are willing to go to litigation over a card game with presumably zero stakes, you have to decide if it was all worth it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I'll concede that colorless decks on a budget may get some use out of it, that's a good point. Would still absolutely run every sword first given the option.
So you put a Sword of Feast and Famine on your commander, and they Swords your commander. Way to go.
Making any mono-colored commander extremely hard to get rid of or block makes for an excellent card in decks that want to equip their commander.
So you attempt to equip your commander with plate and they swords it. Way to go.
The floor on this card is the same as the floor on swords: You get nothing.
The ceiling, and the average case even, on a sword is much MUCH MUCH higher.
How did they Swords my equipped mono-black commander?
Unless you're saying Swords in response to equip, in which case every equipment ever is terrible because you can always respond to the equip, making it pointless.
Once the card is equipped, I'd wager players would be much happier with "Protection from 4+ colors" than "Do this kind of decent thing only if you manage to land damage and protection from 2 specific colors".
On a different note, this exact conversation is why people need to have what type of Magic they play somewhere on their profile. If you play CEDH, and therefore 99.999999999999% of all cards printed will never see any play whatsoever because it doesn't combo kill the board on Turn 5 with Force of Will to back it up, then cards like this are terrible. So are the swords. And every equipment ever made except for maybe Skullclamp.
Absolutely could not disagree more.
Your position that this is "Protection from 4+ colors" is ONLY relevant in 0-1 color decks. On average this is protection from 2-3 colors and no other value which is, objectively, dramatically less useful than protection from 2 colors AND getting two triggers worth of value off a sword. If the triggers weren't bonkers good on swords, they wouldn't be as popular as they are, so its really suspect to remove them from the equation.
But your quote above claims that you would still rather run the swords in mono-color and colorless decks, and that players should only stoop to playing this card if they can't afford the swords. That's the issue I have with your statement.
On the topic of the swords, I never see any of them in EDH. The only equipment I see that isn't in a Voltron deck is Lightning Greaves, Swiftfoot Boots, Skullclamp, Cranial Plating, and occasionally Whispersilk Cloak.
According to EDHRec, the highest played Sword is Feast and Famine at 10th most played equipment, played in 4% of all decks. Fire and Ice is 16th. Light and Shadow is 21st. The two most played are Greaves (29% of decks) and Boots (21%). Notice that creature protection is what sees play.
While this card won't be nearly as good in 3-5 color commanders, it is a top tier protection choice for mono-color or colorless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I'll concede that colorless decks on a budget may get some use out of it, that's a good point. Would still absolutely run every sword first given the option.
So you put a Sword of Feast and Famine on your commander, and they Swords your commander. Way to go.
Making any mono-colored commander extremely hard to get rid of or block makes for an excellent card in decks that want to equip their commander.
So you attempt to equip your commander with plate and they swords it. Way to go.
The floor on this card is the same as the floor on swords: You get nothing.
The ceiling, and the average case even, on a sword is much MUCH MUCH higher.
How did they Swords my equipped mono-black commander?
Unless you're saying Swords in response to equip, in which case every equipment ever is terrible because you can always respond to the equip, making it pointless.
Once the card is equipped, I'd wager players would be much happier with "Protection from 4+ colors" than "Do this kind of decent thing only if you manage to land damage and protection from 2 specific colors".
On a different note, this exact conversation is why people need to have what type of Magic they play somewhere on their profile. If you play CEDH, and therefore 99.999999999999% of all cards printed will never see any play whatsoever because it doesn't combo kill the board on Turn 5 with Force of Will to back it up, then cards like this are terrible. So are the swords. And every equipment ever made except for maybe Skullclamp.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I'll concede that colorless decks on a budget may get some use out of it, that's a good point. Would still absolutely run every sword first given the option.
So you put a Sword of Feast and Famine on your commander, and they Swords your commander. Way to go.
Making any mono-colored commander extremely hard to get rid of or block makes for an excellent card in decks that want to equip their commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
But that's barely. I wouldn't want to take anything out of any deck and making it less synergistic just for the chance of one out of twenty games I get to show off and then get reamed by the table.
Honestly, this card throws out subtlety in the hopes that no one can stop you. It's still a good card, but not the Commander destroyer, #1 card of all time some are making it out to be.
i disagree. if your deck leans on the commander in any way then using this will always be improvement. of course the degree of improvement depends on the deck and power level of the meta but even if you use in decks from casual end of the spectrum it will still be very good since decks at that power level tend to not have that much low cmc interaction to punish you. and on the competitive end of the spectrum... well people play gemstone cavern for a reason, casting 4cmc commander t1 is something people will want to do.
what i don't like is the play patterns it incentivizes - as you pointed out it strengthens all-in strategies and makes games more draw dependent. which is an unnecessary development for any format. but yes, the sky is not falling.
Gemstone Cavern isn't restricted Mana.
If your commander is integral to your strategy, why the hell would you want it on the board as fast as possible, just to eat removal? I would not want my commander in any deck t1 unless I could win t1, because all that is gonna do is make it cost 2 more when I can actually cast it again, and cost me a card slot where I could've had something useful on the board instead of Jeweled Lotus.
You're boldly assuming each opponent will have removal turn 1, but the mana to cast that removal on turn 1 as well. Path or Swords might do it, but most removal is CMC 2 or higher.
Turn 1 Grand Arbiter turns the game on its head. Turn 1 Liliana, Heretical Healer + Flip is also very possible and very powerful.
Other mana rocks do exist, so why wouldn't people have the mana for them on turn one, since we're already talking about having JL in hand on turn one? Everyone in favor of this is talking about best case scenario, with no expectation of any actual response from your opponents, in order to get out incredibly abusive things turn 1 like GAAIV, and declaring JL a good card because it can do that. And then I'm the one boldly assuming things. Jesus.
Path, StP, FoW/FoN the commander, Lightning Bolt gets a bunch of them, Darksteel Mutation/Lignify, Dark Ritual into Oath Of Liliana, Oubliette or Plaguecrafter (non-GAAIV), the list can go on and on. And these are cards that people already run across the board.
JL is going to be a niche card. relegated to a handful of decks when this all shakes out. Najeela, GAAIV, new Jhoira or Sai, Muldrotha (maybe), a few others. It's not a must-include in most decks by any means, because most of the time either there's no real advantage to having your commander out right away or you're just not playing that competitively to begin with.
And late game, if you actually need this to handle the commander tax, you're probably already in a bad spot anyhow.
There are 11369 creatures in the game. All of them die to removal. That doesn't mean the creature is bad.
This is especially true if you force someone to commit 2 or 3 cards just to get rid of 1.
And while JL will not be in the opening hand every time, when it does is when the real problems arise. For many commanders, this creates a larger gap than Mana Crypt/Sol Ring/Mana Vault, which are highly controversial cards in the format as well. I am willing to bet there are going to be a lot more times where JL shows up Turn 1 or 2 and wrecks a game than times where it is drawn turn 9 and does literally nothing. I've heard that argument for Sol Ring too many times t count.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
All this exactly.
Thats about the best god hand your talking about.
You just happen to have land, jeweled lotus, multiple free artifacts and multiple 1 mana or free counters in your hand.
Well good for you
And you're assuming the absolute worst possible case every single game. You're assuming that every other player A: Runs 1 mana removal and B: Has the mana to cast that one mana removal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
the fact that you might not use this card does not invalidate the fact that using it would make the deck better.
But that's barely. I wouldn't want to take anything out of any deck and making it less synergistic just for the chance of one out of twenty games I get to show off and then get reamed by the table.
Honestly, this card throws out subtlety in the hopes that no one can stop you. It's still a good card, but not the Commander destroyer, #1 card of all time some are making it out to be.
i disagree. if your deck leans on the commander in any way then using this will always be improvement. of course the degree of improvement depends on the deck and power level of the meta but even if you use in decks from casual end of the spectrum it will still be very good since decks at that power level tend to not have that much low cmc interaction to punish you. and on the competitive end of the spectrum... well people play gemstone cavern for a reason, casting 4cmc commander t1 is something people will want to do.
what i don't like is the play patterns it incentivizes - as you pointed out it strengthens all-in strategies and makes games more draw dependent. which is an unnecessary development for any format. but yes, the sky is not falling.
Gemstone Cavern isn't restricted Mana.
If your commander is integral to your strategy, why the hell would you want it on the board as fast as possible, just to eat removal? I would not want my commander in any deck t1 unless I could win t1, because all that is gonna do is make it cost 2 more when I can actually cast it again, and cost me a card slot where I could've had something useful on the board instead of Jeweled Lotus.
You're boldly assuming each opponent will have removal turn 1, but the mana to cast that removal on turn 1 as well. Path or Swords might do it, but most removal is CMC 2 or higher.
Turn 1 Grand Arbiter turns the game on its head. Turn 1 Liliana, Heretical Healer + Flip is also very possible and very powerful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Funny enough, Tormod COMBOS with Tormod's Crypt. With both out end of turn exile the 10 cards in your gy. Next turn swing and win. Or wait, it triggers once for each time things leave your gy, even if it's more then one card doesn't it?
No. The "One or More" clause means that no matter how many leave on each instance, you'll only get one trigger.
He's still very good regardless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
So, since her release, Liliana, Heretical Healer has been my 100% 1v1 ultra tryhard list. Based around powerful discard effects and creatures that sac themselves for value to ultimate my commander as soon as possible.
But the issue is that I haven't played her in months. She folds in multiplayer due to the best effects only hitting one player (Hymn to Tourach, Mind Twist, Mind Shatter), and Bitterblossom/Contamination tends to piss off tables. And even in 1v1 my playgroup wants nothing to do with her because of how tryhard and tuned the list is, and how the gameplan really doesn't make the game fun for either of us.
So I need ideas on how to make her a more fun commander overall, with multiplayer in mind but with abilities in 1v1. I was thinking sacrifice creature value, or creature control value lists. So I would like some ideas on how to make her work with a more "75%" idea in mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
He's stronger than all planes-walkers
I'm not saying he should be unbeatable. Just not so vaguely dismissed into "but that egg though..." and woops hereeeeee's Ugin.
I digress, it is what it is. Still one of the strongest cards in the set.
I mean, he also lost in a 1v1 fight with Ajani of all people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Ghosts she freed (Ethereal Absolution) secretly were Ravnica's defense forces, and after facing some economic problems after freeing all debt slaves, Kaya just decided to rise up the taxes - and it caused massive upheavals and more casualties, weakening the plane overall right before the invasion (Smothering Tithe). Enough?
Because its wrong to free slaves and let the free pay their share of the upkeep instead? Timing might have been really, really bad, but the act itself doesn't sound that way.
Actually, the dead who are, as you refer to "enslaved", are people who owe debts to the guild and are under contractual obligation to work off their debt even in undeath. This debt is because the undead person in question took out loans and credit and couldn't pay it off in life.
Yes, because the Orzhov give out loans that people can't possibly pay off to turn them into slaves even after death. They were not the good guys, at all. Making slaves of people because they needed money (which is being controlled by the Orzhov to begin with) isn't something people should be defending. Bolas uses good intentions against Kaya and Tesya, but that's one of Bolas' things.
Never said they are the good guys, but they actually do look after the community they fostered and help families who partake in the guild's actions. Also what you said is an exaggeration of the guild. Its kind of like blaming real world banks because you took out a loan and don't have a means to pay it back. That just lole those banks, if you know how to work with the guild in a beneficial manner, you can actually excel in life and unlife. The people who can't pay off loans tend to be the same people who were in a bad spot to begin with.
That unlike the Pre-Decamillennial Celebration Selsenya, you actually knew what you were in for if you worked with the guild. Its common knowledge for the denizens of Ravnica that the Orzhov guild is corrupt.
The Orzhov loaned out to the most desperate with contract terms that were so tied up in legal mess that no one but the Advokist could hope to understand them. They were loan sharks, pure and simple.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
1) She has flaws. She is short-sighting, vain, and self-absorbed.
2) A key for a Mary Sue is that they cannot lose in any situation. She loses. She loses more than she wins, actually.
3) A key for a Mary Sue is that either everyone loves them, or if someone doesn't they are shown to be completely wrong to do so. Nissa hates her. Chandra dislikes her. Most of Innistrad hates her. Sorin dislikes her. Only Jace and Gideon are kind of on her side.
Stop using the term for situations that it doesn't apply.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Correct, you could file this in civil court as a violation of a verbal agreement. After the hundreds of dollars you've spent filing this claim in court, hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lawyers to assist you in this, and your playgroup's knowledge that you are willing to go to litigation over a card game with presumably zero stakes, you have to decide if it was all worth it.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
But your quote above claims that you would still rather run the swords in mono-color and colorless decks, and that players should only stoop to playing this card if they can't afford the swords. That's the issue I have with your statement.
On the topic of the swords, I never see any of them in EDH. The only equipment I see that isn't in a Voltron deck is Lightning Greaves, Swiftfoot Boots, Skullclamp, Cranial Plating, and occasionally Whispersilk Cloak.
According to EDHRec, the highest played Sword is Feast and Famine at 10th most played equipment, played in 4% of all decks. Fire and Ice is 16th. Light and Shadow is 21st. The two most played are Greaves (29% of decks) and Boots (21%). Notice that creature protection is what sees play.
While this card won't be nearly as good in 3-5 color commanders, it is a top tier protection choice for mono-color or colorless.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
How did they Swords my equipped mono-black commander?
Unless you're saying Swords in response to equip, in which case every equipment ever is terrible because you can always respond to the equip, making it pointless.
Once the card is equipped, I'd wager players would be much happier with "Protection from 4+ colors" than "Do this kind of decent thing only if you manage to land damage and protection from 2 specific colors".
On a different note, this exact conversation is why people need to have what type of Magic they play somewhere on their profile. If you play CEDH, and therefore 99.999999999999% of all cards printed will never see any play whatsoever because it doesn't combo kill the board on Turn 5 with Force of Will to back it up, then cards like this are terrible. So are the swords. And every equipment ever made except for maybe Skullclamp.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
So you put a Sword of Feast and Famine on your commander, and they Swords your commander. Way to go.
Making any mono-colored commander extremely hard to get rid of or block makes for an excellent card in decks that want to equip their commander.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
There are 11369 creatures in the game. All of them die to removal. That doesn't mean the creature is bad.
This is especially true if you force someone to commit 2 or 3 cards just to get rid of 1.
And while JL will not be in the opening hand every time, when it does is when the real problems arise. For many commanders, this creates a larger gap than Mana Crypt/Sol Ring/Mana Vault, which are highly controversial cards in the format as well. I am willing to bet there are going to be a lot more times where JL shows up Turn 1 or 2 and wrecks a game than times where it is drawn turn 9 and does literally nothing. I've heard that argument for Sol Ring too many times t count.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
And you're assuming the absolute worst possible case every single game. You're assuming that every other player A: Runs 1 mana removal and B: Has the mana to cast that one mana removal.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You're boldly assuming each opponent will have removal turn 1, but the mana to cast that removal on turn 1 as well. Path or Swords might do it, but most removal is CMC 2 or higher.
Turn 1 Grand Arbiter turns the game on its head. Turn 1 Liliana, Heretical Healer + Flip is also very possible and very powerful.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I believe it is black only, but I wanted to double check.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
No. The "One or More" clause means that no matter how many leave on each instance, you'll only get one trigger.
He's still very good regardless.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
But the issue is that I haven't played her in months. She folds in multiplayer due to the best effects only hitting one player (Hymn to Tourach, Mind Twist, Mind Shatter), and Bitterblossom/Contamination tends to piss off tables. And even in 1v1 my playgroup wants nothing to do with her because of how tryhard and tuned the list is, and how the gameplan really doesn't make the game fun for either of us.
So I need ideas on how to make her a more fun commander overall, with multiplayer in mind but with abilities in 1v1. I was thinking sacrifice creature value, or creature control value lists. So I would like some ideas on how to make her work with a more "75%" idea in mind.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Too late. Edgewalker is up to $35 minimum on TCG Player.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I mean, he also lost in a 1v1 fight with Ajani of all people.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
The Orzhov loaned out to the most desperate with contract terms that were so tied up in legal mess that no one but the Advokist could hope to understand them. They were loan sharks, pure and simple.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
1) She has flaws. She is short-sighting, vain, and self-absorbed.
2) A key for a Mary Sue is that they cannot lose in any situation. She loses. She loses more than she wins, actually.
3) A key for a Mary Sue is that either everyone loves them, or if someone doesn't they are shown to be completely wrong to do so. Nissa hates her. Chandra dislikes her. Most of Innistrad hates her. Sorin dislikes her. Only Jace and Gideon are kind of on her side.
Stop using the term for situations that it doesn't apply.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."