It's quite difficult to use this card repeatedly, protect it from getting exiled from your graveyard, and also do things to stop yourself from getting whittled down by damage from creatures and other sources without already winning the game.
It's not a game winning card alone, though I suppose its a very powerful effect for a card that does not directly affect the board.
it's good in control and combo meta.
useless in battlecruiser meta and weak to it.
Not always. A guy in my group plays lots of fatties. He also plays TnN in every deck. With avenger and craterhoof. In every deck. I play cap in more than a few decks. Can you guess which 3 cards and whose library I often go after?
Sad Sac is great, but I don't play much black, so...
You know, after the hissy fit Wizards had about leaks, they could at least build the hype up a little better on day 2 of spoilers.
Prerequisite: have cards worth showing off
But the leaks! The leaks killed the hype!
I see now why we had to have expeditions and colorless shenanigans: because the actual set looks really bad. The mechanics. The power level. Counters again for white? Is that the only design space they can use for that color?
Why not: [i]Adversary[i] whenever a creature enters play under an opponents control, all allies gain/get ~~~~.
Convince everyone to not play with him. That or proxy a 60 card unrestricted Vintage storm list and tell him you don't respect the deck construction rules.
That's vicious. But a good way to get the point across, lol.
If your group is agreeing to use the official ban list, he needs to abide by that to play with you. There's enough degenerate plays left(see: contamination, anything with Palinchron, etc.). I'm not a big fan of telling people what they can and can't play, but the banned list is one time I do.
He sounds like a real class act, though, who wants to show off his cards. I expect much hemming, hawing, and name-calling when you relay this information to him.
I do like the proxied vintage storm idea though. I'd put them on basic lands and bring a sharpie with me so when he complains you can wave to the marker and say "You can have an awesome deck like mine, too. Markers and basic lands are available to everyone!".
Scroll rack. A lot of times with Narset I have what I need in my hand and need it to be cast off her for free.
If your meta is competitive enough, land destruction. Armageddon, etc. I actually play a lot of walkers in my build too.
What do you want do to with her? One shot the table? Extra turns and combat steps it is.
A few counters for board wipes or a lot of ramp to keep up with them is also something to plan for. Modal counters are best, since you can get value off of them with Narset if she hits them.
Evasion also helps her a lot. Rogues Passage, whispersilk cloak. Of course some haste enablers as well because once you play her, you've got the big target no matter what anyone else does. In fact, you may get the hate just revealing you're playing her so be ready for it. Board wipes can help until you hit 6 mana too.
What's your budget? Playgroup/meta(cutthroat, not infinite combos, etc.)
I mean the first auto include is the dreaded Prophet of Kruphix. Then there's always tooth and nail. Avenger of Zendikar. I can go on and on. Are you trying to build combos with momir or UG goodstuff? Oracle of Mul Daya is always good.
Yeah, wort can be super nasty. And you can play it so many ways, in one deck. You need dudes to conspire, so there's beatdown, she's a wicked combo engine on her own, and with LD and plow under effects, she's control as well.
Off-topic: I have never seen stunted growth before. Thank you, thank you, thank you for showing me this card. Going right into the Bobo enraged deck I just built. That has wort in the 99
The first time I ever play with someone I'll usually play my BUG control. I'll tutor immediately for praetor's grasp or jester's cap and use it just to look through their deck and see what kind of game we're playing. If it looks casual/low power/"fair"/wacky/etc., I just grab a land or even fail to find and then play my bears and pretend like I don't really have anything and switch decks the next game. If I see some crazy shenanigans, all bets are off.
When I say fair, I'm not saying anything legal in edh should be off-limits, but it's a phrase we use in my area for power level. Prophet of Kruphix is unfair. Tides pout tyrant/aluren/man o war are unfair. TnN with good fattie-fair. TnN with mike/trike-unfair.
I like unfair cards. I love unfair cards. I play a lot of them together in some decks. I just don't like being blindsided by them when I'm playing a deck that has nowhere near the power to compete with them.
With the proliferation of fast mana in the Multiplayer banlist (Sol Ring, Ancient Tomb, Mana Crypt, etc.) it must be considered very easy to godhand one's way to victory almost regardless of the deck you're using. I suppose Duel banlist allows for tighter, more skillful play.
Fast mana is nice, but the table full of people with answers to your combo/plan of attack is vastly increased. It sucks being the one guy out of four who doesn't start with "land, sol ring, go", but I've won more than my fair share of games in that situatuion.
Put it this way, in one v. One I have to worry about just one person with two-three blue sources untapped. In multi I have to worry about 3. The same goes for path/disenchant/etc. I also have to play a political game on top of the regular game. In 1v1, I don't care if you're upset about my wrath. In multiplayer I have to consider it. You also have to deal with things like Kingmaker decks.
The real reason for less multiplayer results, IMO, is less tournaments are reported or officially played with it. Ultra-competitive players tend to hate losing to politics. There's also the collusion aspect. Running a multiplayer tourney you have to worry about 3 buddies being seated with one stranger, making him archenemy and giving him no real odds/chance at winning.
The big sell is this idea lets the player that leaves, exit the game at leisure, but does its best to allow things already in motion to resolve as expected or salvage something that normally cannot be undone. It retains just enough info to cover most relevant plays to offset the most common cases of game state damage scooping can cause. Really the only thing it doesn't cover are static effects (like a trinisphere)...and an argument could be made to proxy those for the turn as well.
"Things already in motion". Just say "My Derevi triggers", and stop acting like you want this because you care about everyone else. You lost and EDH Tournament(competitive play), so now you want a rule that affects this (made for casual play) format.
Again, having a player and permanents still in play requires decisions. Decisions that should not be glossed over or ignored so you can get your Derevi triggers. You cannot make a static player who cannot respond or make choices in the game.
Storm cauldron can be brutal vs mana hungry decks. Red's many chaos enchantments can work well also. Possibility storm can come back to bite you, but it makes every counterspell a gamble. Defense grid is a good punisher for counter heavy decks.
As I told someone else, I think GW with Gaddock Teeg works better to hate on draw/go control, but Boros has access to all the white Bears, so I could see it. Red has several chaos enchantments that can do work, as well as copy spells(fork, reverberate, dual caster Mage). There's also the red x spell with split second that I can't think of.
If a majority of the players do not think locking out the table is appropriate then it is settled. The OP made a thread about this leading me to believe the majority does indeed not find those game states fun.
There is nothing else that needs to be said: the problem is the minority pissing off the majority and getting the majority to bend to the minority's will is not a solution elsewise we wouldn't be here because OP and the rest of the group would have accepted it.
Selectively editing someone's deck to meet your approval is not ok. Be it a majority decision or minority.
There is a difference from your friend playing a mean deck that your table doesn't like, and your friend evolving into a player that builds stronger decks. It is best for everyone to become better players instead of rejecting a friends strong deck because of a few card interactions.
To be honest contamination isn't all that bad in a multi-player format. Once everyone is aware that an opponent runs that sort of thing, most typically include answers to the threat, and it becomes very easy to politic the game into the contamination player being the ArchEnemy.
Perhaps it is time for your table to also build a few "mean" decks to compete with his mono-black thing. Keep what decks you all have, and build yourself a mean one to play with on occasions. Explain that to your friend so he can also build a deck that is comparable to everyones current decks, so he doesnt always play the mono-black one.
If the group isn't interested in shelling out rather important sums of money of Commander (I just spent $250 finishing up my Meren deck) then it is ridiculous to claim that the problem is the group dragging down the player who has improved.
If the player who has improved does not fit in with his current meta then he or she has two choices: adapt to the meta or find a new one. The group decides what it wants, not the one player who is ruining everybody's fun.
The needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few?
Extract is a $0.20 card. Most answers in the format are less than $5. You don't need a $200 card to compete, otherwise Modern and Legacy would be a lot less diverse than they are.
Seriously, stop, do you even read what you type? Yours, as well as everybody whose agreeing with you, is living in magical Christmas land. Great, answers are pennies on the dollar, thanks for telling the world something we already know. The other players should be running answer, NEWS FLASH, thank you captain obvious. Let's say it's Mono-B, Mono-R, Mono-W at the table. Red getting greedy with artifact ramp, and recursion, Mono-B running some artifact staples as well as popular enchantments. The white player has rocks down, but thinks he can get ahead with losing it/them by playing Austere Command, wipes artifact and enchantments. What happens when Contamination comes down then? He had an answer, and used it, but there the other 2 players sit, watching mono-B draw cards, play lands, cast spells. Everybody who defends the "good" cards in these threads always seem like they know A.) when the player is going to get his combo, B.) always have an answer in hand, at instant speed no less, and C.) act like there deck has an infinite supply of said answers. My Mono-B deck runs the Contamination blossom Engine, it's also commanded by XD-TOE, so even if either of those cards get answered, I'll just bring them back anyways. So now my opponent has to have GY hate, Enchantment hate x4 and still build a deck that they can put their signature on. Ok, again, Christmas land. Is rather see a game winning combo that gets us through the game and into the next by winning on the spot, instead of making players take turn after turn, after turn, after turn, after turn, after turn, after turn until an answer is found, or the mono-B guy finally wins the game. If that's the case, I'm pretty much done for the day. It would have sucked all enjoyment out of what should have been a social gathering with friends. I would follow that game up by suggesting baseball, and giving the Mono-B player a whiffle ball bat. He's still playing the game, that's all that matters, right?
Edit: And the worst part about all of these comments stems from your very last sentence. This isn't competetive, this isn't a tournament, this is kitchen-table Magic. And the majority rules when fun is on the line.
To answer your scenario, the mono w player plays his disk or oblivion stone the next turn. There's always an out in theorycrafting. You won't be able to prove anything that way. especially if it's your playgroup and you know he runs contamination, why do you blow up your rocks? You deserved to lose. You played the high risk vs. reward game and you lost. Doesn't mean someone needs to adjust their deck so you can play fast and loose with no worries.
Weird. The place I play at must have changed their name to magical Christmasland because my contamination stays out maybe three whole turns before it gets blown up.
To bad the only similarity between poker and MTG is the cardboard. At no point during any poker game I have ever played was I denied a chance to play said game. Ever. In this instance, without an answer to contamination it prevents the others from playing. Is it so hard to grasp that freaking concept? It's like playing sand-lot baseball and the kid keeps hitting home runs over the fence. Congrats, man, you can hit a ball 500 feet. Your reward is no longer playing for the day. Keep doing it and you won't be invited back. I mean, really, what is there to gain by not removing one card? Bragging rights? How do you brag about that. "Remeber those times we used to play MTG and I'd lock out the table with contamination?" "Yeah man, those were the good old days, we always had so much fun."
You aren't being denied a chance to play magic. You get to take your turn, pass priority and do everything the rules say you can. If you're choosing not to run enchantment removal and some mana rocks, you're choosing not to play. No ones saying you need a moat and a force and... 2$ could probably buy several rocks AND several disenchant effects.
Mana rocks and enchantment removal is pretty standard in most any deck, takes up a few slots and is great for a variety of situations, not just contamination.
But hey, a lot of people seem to agree with you that "Play what I want you to play" is another valid option.
I guess I should have clarified, yes, after first asking him to remove it, and explaining it ruined peoples fun.
But what do you do when he then complains about your xyz card ruining his fun?
I remove it because this is basically Friday Night casual hangout and not a cutthroat anything goes tournament? It's not that hard to change a single card in my deck if the group doesn't like it.
My friends asked me to stop playing Tooth and nail. My response wasn't "lulz, nah, get gud man." It was "okay." I took it out, and I haven't missed it much.
I guess it's just something about me. I don't like editing people's lists and telling them what they can and can't play.
I had a friend playing Karador with a consistent and annoying set of combos. I didn't say "Hey, can you not play pattern of rebirth?" I just built a sweet Anafenza deck. We both get to play the cards we want and have fun going back and forth. If that's "lulz, got gud" so be it, I guess.
Finish foiling out Norin. It's surprisingly hard to find foil versions of bad cards.
Learn how to use puca trade.
Not always. A guy in my group plays lots of fatties. He also plays TnN in every deck. With avenger and craterhoof. In every deck. I play cap in more than a few decks. Can you guess which 3 cards and whose library I often go after?
Sad Sac is great, but I don't play much black, so...
But the leaks! The leaks killed the hype!
I see now why we had to have expeditions and colorless shenanigans: because the actual set looks really bad. The mechanics. The power level. Counters again for white? Is that the only design space they can use for that color?
Why not: [i]Adversary[i] whenever a creature enters play under an opponents control, all allies gain/get ~~~~.
A reverse Rally, I guess.
That's vicious. But a good way to get the point across, lol.
If your group is agreeing to use the official ban list, he needs to abide by that to play with you. There's enough degenerate plays left(see: contamination, anything with Palinchron, etc.). I'm not a big fan of telling people what they can and can't play, but the banned list is one time I do.
He sounds like a real class act, though, who wants to show off his cards. I expect much hemming, hawing, and name-calling when you relay this information to him.
I do like the proxied vintage storm idea though. I'd put them on basic lands and bring a sharpie with me so when he complains you can wave to the marker and say "You can have an awesome deck like mine, too. Markers and basic lands are available to everyone!".
If your meta is competitive enough, land destruction. Armageddon, etc. I actually play a lot of walkers in my build too.
What do you want do to with her? One shot the table? Extra turns and combat steps it is.
A few counters for board wipes or a lot of ramp to keep up with them is also something to plan for. Modal counters are best, since you can get value off of them with Narset if she hits them.
Evasion also helps her a lot. Rogues Passage, whispersilk cloak. Of course some haste enablers as well because once you play her, you've got the big target no matter what anyone else does. In fact, you may get the hate just revealing you're playing her so be ready for it. Board wipes can help until you hit 6 mana too.
I mean the first auto include is the dreaded Prophet of Kruphix. Then there's always tooth and nail. Avenger of Zendikar. I can go on and on. Are you trying to build combos with momir or UG goodstuff? Oracle of Mul Daya is always good.
Yeah, wort can be super nasty. And you can play it so many ways, in one deck. You need dudes to conspire, so there's beatdown, she's a wicked combo engine on her own, and with LD and plow under effects, she's control as well.
Off-topic: I have never seen stunted growth before. Thank you, thank you, thank you for showing me this card. Going right into the Bobo enraged deck I just built. That has wort in the 99
When I say fair, I'm not saying anything legal in edh should be off-limits, but it's a phrase we use in my area for power level. Prophet of Kruphix is unfair. Tides pout tyrant/aluren/man o war are unfair. TnN with good fattie-fair. TnN with mike/trike-unfair.
I like unfair cards. I love unfair cards. I play a lot of them together in some decks. I just don't like being blindsided by them when I'm playing a deck that has nowhere near the power to compete with them.
Fast mana is nice, but the table full of people with answers to your combo/plan of attack is vastly increased. It sucks being the one guy out of four who doesn't start with "land, sol ring, go", but I've won more than my fair share of games in that situatuion.
Put it this way, in one v. One I have to worry about just one person with two-three blue sources untapped. In multi I have to worry about 3. The same goes for path/disenchant/etc. I also have to play a political game on top of the regular game. In 1v1, I don't care if you're upset about my wrath. In multiplayer I have to consider it. You also have to deal with things like Kingmaker decks.
The real reason for less multiplayer results, IMO, is less tournaments are reported or officially played with it. Ultra-competitive players tend to hate losing to politics. There's also the collusion aspect. Running a multiplayer tourney you have to worry about 3 buddies being seated with one stranger, making him archenemy and giving him no real odds/chance at winning.
"Things already in motion". Just say "My Derevi triggers", and stop acting like you want this because you care about everyone else. You lost and EDH Tournament(competitive play), so now you want a rule that affects this (made for casual play) format.
Again, having a player and permanents still in play requires decisions. Decisions that should not be glossed over or ignored so you can get your Derevi triggers. You cannot make a static player who cannot respond or make choices in the game.
As I told someone else, I think GW with Gaddock Teeg works better to hate on draw/go control, but Boros has access to all the white Bears, so I could see it. Red has several chaos enchantments that can do work, as well as copy spells(fork, reverberate, dual caster Mage). There's also the red x spell with split second that I can't think of.
Selectively editing someone's deck to meet your approval is not ok. Be it a majority decision or minority.
To answer your scenario, the mono w player plays his disk or oblivion stone the next turn. There's always an out in theorycrafting. You won't be able to prove anything that way. especially if it's your playgroup and you know he runs contamination, why do you blow up your rocks? You deserved to lose. You played the high risk vs. reward game and you lost. Doesn't mean someone needs to adjust their deck so you can play fast and loose with no worries.
Weird. The place I play at must have changed their name to magical Christmasland because my contamination stays out maybe three whole turns before it gets blown up.
You aren't being denied a chance to play magic. You get to take your turn, pass priority and do everything the rules say you can. If you're choosing not to run enchantment removal and some mana rocks, you're choosing not to play. No ones saying you need a moat and a force and... 2$ could probably buy several rocks AND several disenchant effects.
Mana rocks and enchantment removal is pretty standard in most any deck, takes up a few slots and is great for a variety of situations, not just contamination.
But hey, a lot of people seem to agree with you that "Play what I want you to play" is another valid option.
I guess it's just something about me. I don't like editing people's lists and telling them what they can and can't play.
I had a friend playing Karador with a consistent and annoying set of combos. I didn't say "Hey, can you not play pattern of rebirth?" I just built a sweet Anafenza deck. We both get to play the cards we want and have fun going back and forth. If that's "lulz, got gud" so be it, I guess.