MTG Salvation

You might want to consider elixir of immortality, it's almost strictly better. The 2 mana activation cost should not be a problem and is far outweighed by the ability to use the card more than once. Plus, bonus lifegain.

Have you playtested seismic assault over molten vortex? The triple red mana cost might be a bit difficult but the ability being free is a huge bonus.

Your mana base is probably tight as it is but have you considered gods' eye, gate to the reikai? It's another way to get value out of having to sac your on permanent. I would cut the quicksand for it, I think you already have enough in the way of removal as it is that you don't need it.

I'd say ask yourself why you want to homebrew in the first place? Do you necessarily expect it to win all the time and become a breakaway top tier deck, or do you just ant to do okay in tournaments and have fun winning occasionally knowing you did so with an original deck? I would also advise trying to think outside the parameters of your deck idea. Sometimes I get so concentrated on one direction to take an idea that I ignore other possibilities which might be better, even if they were not what I originally wanted. Don't be afraid to drastically alter the deck if need be.

I don't think Feast really fits the black color pie. Black generally doesn't do direct damage like red's burn spells. Black hits an opponents life points with life loss not direct damage and it's creature destroy spells either destroy the creature outright like Doom Blade does, or they affect the creature's toughness like Dismember does.

I like Friendly Introduction, seems a good U/G combo.

You can eliminate the "target permanent" from the second clause. It's extraneous as you can't fight a noncreature permanent in the first place, just have it read "Target creature you control fights target creature."

This brings up an interesting point in how you want the card worded though. As it is now, your spell has two different targeting clauses and nothing is forcing you to have the permanent that became a creature to also be the one being fought. In other words right now I can turn a permanent into creature A and then have creatures B and C fight each other. Is this something you wanted? If not you can change the second clause to "Target creature you control fights that creature." This brings up another question as well, as worded now you could technically have your own two creatures fight each other, do you want to allow this or do you want only your creature and only an opponents creature fighting? And what about in a multiplayer game, do you want the card to be able to force two opponents creatures to fight and get rid of the restriction of "target creature you control"? I've checked the gatherer and there does not seem to be a total consistency in the fight mechanic. Some of the cards have no restrictions while others specifically restrict the fight to target creature you control and target creature you don't control. So it really depends on how versatile you want your card.

Quote from rangerwickett »

Now if they also print the card below, I'll know someone hacked me.

Would definitely see play, and quite powerful. Too easy to trigger off fetchlands, painlands, shocklands, thoughtseize, etc.

When every card cantrips you will likely find yourself manaflooded so I would cut down a bit from 24 lands, maybe test it at 21 lands first.

I like overrun as a finisher for you. Overbeing will have to wait a turn to attack and will just eat a removal spell, accomplishing nothing for you. You want your finisher to end the game for you, overbeing won't do that even if you do get a chance to attack with it.

Sideboard could include negates and dispels against wrath effects, but you're kinda screwed against volcanic fallout. You might win game 1 when you're opponent has no idea what you're doing, but I just don't see you winning the match with this deck.

Quote from jdisawesomesauce

Still lost the game but it felt like an awesome play, generating an acidic slime tutors from library for 1 blue.

Lol, EDH is the only format where shenanigans like this happen.

Mana and lands are not the same thing. Lands produce mana, a llanowar elf produces mana, a sol ring produces mana etc. You add mana to your mana pool by tapping one of these sources. Mana short empties your pool of this mana.

Quote from Illusionist

Back to the original situation. What if the player casting Beacon of Tomorrows has a Scornful Egotist in play that he attacks with every turn and two other cards in hand, and the other player has a tapped Thragtusk and an untapped Fog Bank that blocks every turn is it still considered slow play?

It would be considered slow play for the active player. The onus for advancing the game state is on the active player, which means the defending player can block all day long but the active player must do something different or get penalized.

I have so many loose lands that I don't bother opening them anymore. Any new lands with cool art that I want I just pick up from booster drafts at the store.

If you're doing nothing to advance the game state than that's considered slow play/stalling. Taking an indeterminate number of turns and not doing anything with them is not considered advancing the game state. But that doesn't seem like the answer you want to hear so w/e.

Your example from the PTQ is completely different from the question you posed.

cyclonic rift in blue , still acts like a mass wrath

mesmeric orb seems like the kind of thing you're looking for.

The + and - abilities are static abilities, they don't trigger at all.

Avacyn Pilgrim would remain alive on the field.