At first I wasn't sure about this one since discarding is not something I like to do. On the other hand, a 3/3 flyer with no downside for 3cmc is always useful and the ability can be a backup plan. The River kelpie combo convinced me though, thats an awesome find
There are also some upsides to the ability even if Marchesa is also in play; casting a Mulldrifter for its evoke cost, nets you 3 cards eot for 3 mana. Orrrrr having Sidisi, Undead Vizier exploit itself; discard 1, tutor 2! (that does work right?)
The sidisi one works, the mulldrifter one doesn't. When you evoke it is immediately sacrificed when it is put into play. Olivia's trigger is a when so it is put on the stack when mulldrifter enters play but by the time it would get a chance to resolve mulldrifter is already dead.
Anyway fine, I see your points, I'm definitely convinced to try her.
The sidisi one works, the mulldrifter one doesn't. When you evoke it is immediately sacrificed when it is put into play. Olivia's trigger is a when so it is put on the stack when mulldrifter enters play but by the time it would get a chance to resolve mulldrifter is already dead.
Anyway fine, I see your points, I'm definitely convinced to try her.
Are you sure? I thought so too but the following line from the rulings page made me think otherwise:
Playing a creature by paying its evoke cost will result in two comes-into-play abilities: The sacrifice ability from evoke, and whatever other ability the creature has. The creature's controller chooses in what order to put them on the stack. Both abilities can be responded to as normal.source
So I thought the new Olivia created the third trigger also allowed to be put on the stack in a chosen order, meaning you could end up with:
Draw 2 -> Place counter + give haste -> Sac
[Edit:] Thinking about it, this means the next time I decide to cast Mulldrifter for it's evoke cost and something like Carrion Feeder is in play, I might as well respond to the evoke sac trigger to at least give Feeder a +1/+1 counter too.
[Edit2:] Off topic, but if correct that means evoke is some nice tech with Confusion in the Ranks
The sidisi one works, the mulldrifter one doesn't. When you evoke it is immediately sacrificed when it is put into play. Olivia's trigger is a when so it is put on the stack when mulldrifter enters play but by the time it would get a chance to resolve mulldrifter is already dead.
Anyway fine, I see your points, I'm definitely convinced to try her.
Are you sure? I thought so too but the following line from the rulings page made me think otherwise:
Playing a creature by paying its evoke cost will result in two comes-into-play abilities: The sacrifice ability from evoke, and whatever other ability the creature has. The creature's controller chooses in what order to put them on the stack. Both abilities can be responded to as normal.source
So I thought the new Olivia created the third trigger also allowed to be put on the stack in a chosen order, meaning you could end up with:
Draw 2 -> Place counter + give haste -> Sac
[Edit:] Thinking about it, this means the next time I decide to cast Mulldrifter for it's evoke cost and something like Carrion Feeder is in play, I might as well respond to the evoke sac trigger to at least give Feeder a +1/+1 counter too.
[Edit2:] Off topic, but if correct that means evoke is some nice tech with Confusion in the Ranks
Holy crap, that's really broken. I always thought it worked like Flash. Why would they make it a triggered ability? Apparently I need to start evoking mulldrifter a LOT more. You're totally right, it works exactly as you are saying.
About Olivia, I think she's pretty good. Sometimes whe may be pretty "bleh" but often the ability can be used to protect a key card I guess. And if you have another haste effect you don't need to use her ability for that.
So I thought the new Olivia created the third trigger also allowed to be put on the stack in a chosen order, meaning you could end up with:
Draw 2 -> Place counter + give haste -> Sac
Judge here, confirming that his works.
[Edit:] Thinking about it, this means the next time I decide to cast Mulldrifter for it's evoke cost and something like Carrion Feeder is in play, I might as well respond to the evoke sac trigger to at least give Feeder a +1/+1 counter too.
This works too.
[Edit2:] Off topic, but if correct that means evoke is some nice tech with Confusion in the Ranks
This works not, or probably not the way you want it to, because of the rules about exchanging stuff. You only exchange things if both things are on the battlefield at the time the spell/ability resolves. This is also in the Gatherer rulings of Confusion in the Ranks.
And if you trade first, you don't sacrifice the creature after that, because you can only sacrifice permanents that you control and the evoked creature would be under your opponents control at that point.
I don't see why Confusion in the Ranks doesn't work while Olivia does.
Couldn't the stack for Confusion be: Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Confusion trigger from bottom to top? In this case, I'd think you could swap creatures due to Confusion (since it's clearly on the battlefield right now), draw your cards, and the last ability will fizzle since you can't sacrifice a creature you don't control.
I don't see how that stack is different from Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Olivia trigger.
I don't see why Confusion in the Ranks doesn't work while Olivia does.
Couldn't the stack for Confusion be: Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Confusion trigger from bottom to top? In this case, I'd think you could swap creatures due to Confusion (since it's clearly on the battlefield right now), draw your cards, and the last ability will fizzle since you can't sacrifice a creature you don't control.
I don't see how that stack is different from Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Olivia trigger.
Agree with this point of view, I also don't see why Mulldrifter wouldn't be on the battlefield if you stack the trigger in the aforementioned way. (Also found this post)
In addition to that, looking at the rulings on evoke:
702.73a Evoke represents two abilities: a static ability that functions in any zone from which the card with evoke can be cast and a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Evoke [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “When this permanent enters the battlefield, if its evoke cost was paid, its controller sacrifices it.” Paying a card’s evoke cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
So if the exchange takes place, it also looks like the new controller still has to sac it.
I don't know for sure since I'm far from a judge myself but just curious on how these situations work out. But then again I don't think anyone runs a Confusion in the Ranks in his Marchesa deck so this might not be the right place to discuss such stuff
Gonna be honest, always thought evoke sacrifice was part of the cost of it hitting the field, no clue i could respond to it myself. Definitely awesome knowledge there.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
This is one of the major things that makes Marchesa formidable to have options for constant field advantage is huge. There plenty of games where if im able to sac my whole field in response to a cyclonic rift folks just scoop
I don't see why Confusion in the Ranks doesn't work while Olivia does.
Couldn't the stack for Confusion be: Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Confusion trigger from bottom to top? In this case, I'd think you could swap creatures due to Confusion (since it's clearly on the battlefield right now), draw your cards, and the last ability will fizzle since you can't sacrifice a creature you don't control.
I don't see how that stack is different from Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Olivia trigger.
Agree with this point of view, I also don't see why Mulldrifter wouldn't be on the battlefield if you stack the trigger in the aforementioned way. (Also found this post)
In addition to that, looking at the rulings on evoke:
702.73a Evoke represents two abilities: a static ability that functions in any zone from which the card with evoke can be cast and a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Evoke [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “When this permanent enters the battlefield, if its evoke cost was paid, its controller sacrifices it.” Paying a card’s evoke cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
So if the exchange takes place, it also looks like the new controller still has to sac it.
I don't know for sure since I'm far from a judge myself but just curious on how these situations work out. But then again I don't think anyone runs a Confusion in the Ranks in his Marchesa deck so this might not be the right place to discuss such stuff
I stand corrected on it not being sacrificed. I didn't know that it said "controller", and donating it to another player would allow it to remember its characteristics such that it would know it was Evoked.
Depending on how the triggers get stacked (and you choose how they get stacked if they're your triggers), Confusion in the Ranks does work with Evoke if you put the Confusion on the stack above the Evoke sacrifice. Because of the rules of Evoke, they will be forced to sacrifice what you gave them and you get to steal something.
Gonna be honest, always thought evoke sacrifice was part of the cost of it hitting the field, no clue i could respond to it myself. Definitely awesome knowledge there.
Right?! Biggest news of the day right here. Makes me want to think about other evoke cards. Should we reconsider Ingot Chewer over other artifact removal? Even Shriekmaw looks better now.
Sorry, I didnt' know about the "it's controller" part for evoke and didn't take that into account, that is an unusual wording. I should double check next time before posting. So, have fun abusing Confusion in the Ranks even more!
yeah, evoke with this card is very very powerful one of the many reasons unspeakable symbol is so powerful in the deck. that said i have always found tuktuk scrapper to just be easier for artifact removal than ingot chewer. you want to avoid getting TOO cute with the deck or you end up mucking up the works.
Chewer definitely isnt better then scrapper, who is heavily tutorable. Shriekmaw I think isn't as good because of tutoring as well, I'll take a venser any day.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I like him. A lot. Relevant ability, cheap and tutorable, very aggressive, and a non-human wizard. Will leave opponent in a very tough place - do I use removal I was saving for marchesa or leave this guy around? Cause at some point he will start raking in value all by himself and win us the game if left around too long. It's a lot like what we were doing with Sage of Hours except this guy needs no other help to start raking in value, he can do it all on his own. Plus he's a 3/1 wizard for 2!
I like him. A lot. Relevant ability, cheap and tutorable, very aggressive, and a non-human wizard. Will leave opponent in a very tough place - do I use removal I was saving for marchesa or leave this guy around? Cause at some point he will start raking in value all by himself and win us the game if left around too long. It's a lot like what we were doing with Sage of Hours except this guy needs no other help to start raking in value, he can do it all on his own. Plus he's a 3/1 wizard for 2!
I like him. A lot. Relevant ability, cheap and tutorable, very aggressive, and a non-human wizard. Will leave opponent in a very tough place - do I use removal I was saving for marchesa or leave this guy around? Cause at some point he will start raking in value all by himself and win us the game if left around too long. It's a lot like what we were doing with Sage of Hours except this guy needs no other help to start raking in value, he can do it all on his own. Plus he's a 3/1 wizard for 2!
Idk dude, how often is the table hellhent?
I mean if I'm not winning then at some point I probably will be. I burn through cards like crazy in this deck. If I can get any draw engine going for even a short amount of time I am usually well on my way to victory. So if I've done that then I don't really need his cards and if I haven't then he's exactly what I need cause I will be running low. And it really doesn't have to be the whole table, as long as one person is hellbent this guy is valuetown, multiple people hellbent would be ridiculous.
He's a cheap, aggressive wizard that really needs no other support and can drive serious value in his own right. That's exactly what I'm looking for in my creatures, they need to fit the "marchesa-creature mold" and be able to drive game-winning value by themselves. They should get much better with all the support we have in this deck but they should still be a potential threat without any of it.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
asylum visitor is a card i could see in a specific type of marchesa deck. it is good with cards likemindslicer or oona's blackguard. basically if you can reasonably and consistently keep cards out of their hands. mostly i see this as a not good option. too cute, hardly relevant.
Maybe better for duals? The table is likely to share taking the hits to deny you the CA which will in turn potentially turn off your dethrone triggers.
That would be especially fun in larger multiplayer games; when it's your turn again you've replaced your whole hand with tutored cards
GEzuriG
WURaffUW
WBAyliBW
GOmnathG
URMizzixRU
The sidisi one works, the mulldrifter one doesn't. When you evoke it is immediately sacrificed when it is put into play. Olivia's trigger is a when so it is put on the stack when mulldrifter enters play but by the time it would get a chance to resolve mulldrifter is already dead.
Anyway fine, I see your points, I'm definitely convinced to try her.
Are you sure? I thought so too but the following line from the rulings page made me think otherwise:
Playing a creature by paying its evoke cost will result in two comes-into-play abilities: The sacrifice ability from evoke, and whatever other ability the creature has. The creature's controller chooses in what order to put them on the stack. Both abilities can be responded to as normal. source
So I thought the new Olivia created the third trigger also allowed to be put on the stack in a chosen order, meaning you could end up with:
Draw 2 -> Place counter + give haste -> Sac
[Edit:] Thinking about it, this means the next time I decide to cast Mulldrifter for it's evoke cost and something like Carrion Feeder is in play, I might as well respond to the evoke sac trigger to at least give Feeder a +1/+1 counter too.
[Edit2:] Off topic, but if correct that means evoke is some nice tech with Confusion in the Ranks
GEzuriG
WURaffUW
WBAyliBW
GOmnathG
URMizzixRU
Holy crap, that's really broken. I always thought it worked like Flash. Why would they make it a triggered ability? Apparently I need to start evoking mulldrifter a LOT more. You're totally right, it works exactly as you are saying.
Judge here, confirming that his works.
This works too.
This works not, or probably not the way you want it to, because of the rules about exchanging stuff. You only exchange things if both things are on the battlefield at the time the spell/ability resolves. This is also in the Gatherer rulings of Confusion in the Ranks.
And if you trade first, you don't sacrifice the creature after that, because you can only sacrifice permanents that you control and the evoked creature would be under your opponents control at that point.
Couldn't the stack for Confusion be: Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Confusion trigger from bottom to top? In this case, I'd think you could swap creatures due to Confusion (since it's clearly on the battlefield right now), draw your cards, and the last ability will fizzle since you can't sacrifice a creature you don't control.
I don't see how that stack is different from Sac Mulldrifter -> Draw cards -> Olivia trigger.
Agree with this point of view, I also don't see why Mulldrifter wouldn't be on the battlefield if you stack the trigger in the aforementioned way. (Also found this post)
In addition to that, looking at the rulings on evoke:
702.73a Evoke represents two abilities: a static ability that functions in any zone from which the card with evoke can be cast and a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Evoke [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “When this permanent enters the battlefield, if its evoke cost was paid, its controller sacrifices it.” Paying a card’s evoke cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
So if the exchange takes place, it also looks like the new controller still has to sac it.
I don't know for sure since I'm far from a judge myself but just curious on how these situations work out. But then again I don't think anyone runs a Confusion in the Ranks in his Marchesa deck so this might not be the right place to discuss such stuff
GEzuriG
WURaffUW
WBAyliBW
GOmnathG
URMizzixRU
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
RGWMayael the AnimaRGW
UBRMarchesa, the Black RoseUBR
Modern Decks
RGWNaya BurnRGW
I stand corrected on it not being sacrificed. I didn't know that it said "controller", and donating it to another player would allow it to remember its characteristics such that it would know it was Evoked.
So, I did a google search: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/268637-evoke-into-confusion
Depending on how the triggers get stacked (and you choose how they get stacked if they're your triggers), Confusion in the Ranks does work with Evoke if you put the Confusion on the stack above the Evoke sacrifice. Because of the rules of Evoke, they will be forced to sacrifice what you gave them and you get to steal something.
Right?! Biggest news of the day right here. Makes me want to think about other evoke cards. Should we reconsider Ingot Chewer over other artifact removal? Even Shriekmaw looks better now.
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I like him. A lot. Relevant ability, cheap and tutorable, very aggressive, and a non-human wizard. Will leave opponent in a very tough place - do I use removal I was saving for marchesa or leave this guy around? Cause at some point he will start raking in value all by himself and win us the game if left around too long. It's a lot like what we were doing with Sage of Hours except this guy needs no other help to start raking in value, he can do it all on his own. Plus he's a 3/1 wizard for 2!
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
I mean if I'm not winning then at some point I probably will be. I burn through cards like crazy in this deck. If I can get any draw engine going for even a short amount of time I am usually well on my way to victory. So if I've done that then I don't really need his cards and if I haven't then he's exactly what I need cause I will be running low. And it really doesn't have to be the whole table, as long as one person is hellbent this guy is valuetown, multiple people hellbent would be ridiculous.
He's a cheap, aggressive wizard that really needs no other support and can drive serious value in his own right. That's exactly what I'm looking for in my creatures, they need to fit the "marchesa-creature mold" and be able to drive game-winning value by themselves. They should get much better with all the support we have in this deck but they should still be a potential threat without any of it.
Re: Asylum Visitor - it's probably too cute, but he partners nicely w/ Mindslicer
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
Thank you
The link in my sig is up to date, though the landbase isn't optimal (no duals/fetch).
GEzuriG
WURaffUW
WBAyliBW
GOmnathG
URMizzixRU
http://www.magicspoiler.com/mtg-spoiler/sin-prodder/
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)