The WOTC forums were my home from practically the first day I stepped onto the internet some 14 years ago until a couple years back when they finally killed all they could. If you weren't there for the first 7 or so years of its existence, it was a great place. Posting was copious and around-the-clock, activities were many and varied, the moderation was interactive and clever and lead all sorts of creative endeavors, and you really got this sense of love from both the community and the management. It's been slowly falling apart since those initial 7 years. The next 7 were rife with forum change-overs, inset panic by management to be just like social media, moderation reform that started by unceremoniously kicking out their foreign staff and ending with the completely stripping of mod personalities into tiny little form letters that said little and meant even less. It's truly become a horrible place and it's hard to imagine that it was ever great. Which it was!
I've personally never felt that much was gained from the continued mudslinging that happens between the different forums. I always wanted to do inter-community activities, but rarely found the time. (Though I did host a tournament between WOTC, MTGS, and NGA that was fairly fun while it lasted.) I don't frequent MTGS as much as I have in the past, mostly because the YMTC crowd from WOTC was my crowd, and now they're mostly all over on NGA.
It saddens me that WOTC couldn't find the means to reverse the damage they started in 2008. I suppose if they really wanted to do that, the best means might be wiping the slate clean and starting over from scratch. Because every forum transfer/reboot from 2008 on was poorly designed and ill-conceived. I think they were confused about a vision for the future and a need to preserve the past, and never found a way to marry the two save by self-immolation.
I didn't consider your post rude. You provided sincere reasoning and stats to back up your position. Let's just say I'm not ready to give up the dream of this combo just yet.
As for results: I've mostly played against a bunch of casual decks, which is hardly the best evidence, but I've played against a few tiered decks. Remember that I built this version on a budget and am now looking to spruce it up. To start, the mana is indeed a problem. Because of the combo nature, I think starting from 4 Mana Confluence is probably the way to go. I built it to just disregard the first turn, and I think that might remain the standard, but being slowed until turn 3 is such a nightmare.
Because of the combo nature, the deck has had real issues the few times I've played against UBx control. A countered Assault Formation just ruins the deck at times. Gx Devotion has also been a struggle, with them being able to flood the board beyond any ability to sneak by.
Where the deck has succeeded is in stalling early assaults with its huge defenders and in comboing past midrange decks. Because it doesn't take a lot of bodies to get rolling, the deck can win easily out of nowhere.
There are tons of classic issues, of course, and I should at least read through more of this thread for further ideas. The key will be in finding ways to make both enchantments good with the creatures in the deck. I originally leaned heavily toward Formation, but that doesn't have to be the case, I think.
Anyway, it's a casual dream that's been winning a lot (though against lesser decks) and any help it making it work would be appreciated. I'm not looking to play another Formation deck; not yet, at least.
EDIT: Thinking about it more, this combo would really have to veer away from the 0/X creatures in order to work organically. I've had time to assemble it against bad decks, but there have been plenty of games where I have an Ascendancy and attacking just isn't worthwhile. So perhaps X/X+1 bodies are just better for my needs.
How does the deck perform against flyers? Cause I don't see anything besides banishing light to deal with it.
Well, the only flyers that matter much in the format are dragons, Mantis Rider, and Ashcloud Phoenix. The general plan is to combo out before their fliers kill you, but Crater Elemental has taken out a large number of Mantis Riders in the games I've played. It hasn't been a huge concern, really; when I'm dying to Dragons, its because they're a control deck that's taken control.
@Rush_Clasic
I like your idea but i think is a bit too greedy run a 4 color.
If we consider the optimal manabase we need (more or less):
13 G/W/R sources for a T2 play
16 B sources for a T5 Sidisi
So, as you can see, we need many many sources. If we add Courser of Kruphix we also need 19G.
Your deck runs the following sources (considering Evolving Wilds as "fetchs", 0.8 each): B 14 R 8 G 13 W 13
So you may have some problem with R mana and some little problem casting Sidisi, Undead Vizier on T5.
If we consider the CIPT lands we lose tempo half of the times (12/24 lands)
Add some fetchs can reduce the tempo loss but increase the life loss and decrease our possibilities against aggressive decks.
It definitely is a greedy build, color-wise. I've taken out the Banishing Lights and added two more lands recently to make things a bit more consistent. I was worried about flooding out in earlier builds, but the extra bits of card advantage added since the early builds help with that. The deck probably wants some small number of Mana Confluence as well.
Your numbers are a bit off. The only turn-two plays that matter in the deck are green and white; red has nothing until turn 3. I'd also consider the Caryatids around 0.5 a non-green color; they've been the most important component to fixing the mana-problems. So, I agree that the heavily devoted single-color cards (Sidisi, Undead Vizier, Courser of Kruphix, etc.) have a difficult time existing in this deck since the focus is on a 4-color spread. But I also think the mana is mostly doable without them. (Sidisi has been good for me as late-game insurance, but it also doesn't exactly have great exploit support.)
So, long Story short:
Is really needed a 4th color in this build?
In my opinion we can run a tricolor deck with enough consistency but add a 4th color for a cute sinergy is a bit too much. Mardu Ascendancy in this deck is just a win-a-more card. because it is useless alone and good only if we are already in a good position.
This just hasn't been the case in my testing. Ascendancy has slammed the door on games that were stalemates. It's produced quick combo kills. I realize that there's some awkwardness to it, that there's something to be gained by just playing more straight-forward threats. But this has been working out WELL. It is weaker to control since there's so much reliance on the combo. That's something that needs to be addressed. And Ascendancy does have weaknesses outside of the combo. All things I think that can be addressed. Regardless, the deck has been showing off in my testing and I think there's possibility for it to at least be an interesting fringe option. There's the possibility that it wants its own thread, but this feels like a better place to start.
I'm definitely not saying that the combo is guaranteed to be competitive. But it's shown some promise.
I threw a version of this together a week ago to try out the Assault/Ascendancy combo. (Hence why what you see is so budgeted.) That combo is bonkers! Obviously the mana is screwy, but this is the most fun I've had in standard in a long time. I've only run it through other casual decks on MTGO, but it feels like something good is at work. I'd probably rearrange the basics and Wilds into proper fetches, maybe rearrange the mana-base for Courser of Kruphix if possible. Muckdraggers has been surprisingly good, but it can probably just be Tasigur instead. Kin-Tree has been a very useful second option for putting pressure on the opponent. Mastery hasn't actually been relevant in any of my matches yet, but the casual queues aren't exactly loaded with optimal control decks. The idea is to have a mana-sink/creature producer in case you (a) need to go wide with Assault and/or (b) need bodies to trigger Ascendancy. (They aren't tokens, so it all works out.)
Anyway, I realize this is a budget list (I'm working on making it not so, now that I know it works) and that it's a bizarre approach (and colorful as a luau), but it's both fun and powerful. Try it out.
The answer seems to be based on part of rule 613.2:
Within layers 1-6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.6). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a layer. (See rule 613.7.)
Since the card's second and third effects are dependent on the top being revealed in order to have its effect, it needs to wait for that part to be applied in order to have its effect.
Except that dependency is strictly defined in the rules:
613.7a An effect is said to “depend on” another if (a) it’s applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) as the other effect (see rules 613.1 and 613.3); (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to; and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from characteristic-defining abilities. Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the other effect.
And nothing about the layer system indicates that the reveal ability gets applied anywhere during layering. I thought dependency would work this out, but looking closer, it doesn't seem to.
Mul Daya Channelers doesn't affect a player, does it? It just affects a zone.
EDIT: I think this is relevant.
611.3. A continuous effect may be generated by the static ability of an object.
611.3a A continuous effect generated by a static ability isnt locked in; it applies at any given moment to whatever its text indicates.
611.3b The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.
Those rules apply to how continuous effects are continuously "on", but don't suggest in what order they interact. Hence the rule I quoted and the layer system. EDIT: I meant to quote 613.10, no 613.9. It's the same thing, really:
613.10. Some continuous effects affect game rules rather than objects. For example, effects may modify a player’s maximum hand size, or say that a creature must attack this turn if able. These effects are applied after all other continuous effects have been applied. Continuous effects that affect the costs of spells or abilities are applied according to the order specified in rule 601.2e. All other such effects are applied in timestamp order. See also the rules for timestamp order and dependency (rules 613.6 and 613.7).
The layer system is only relevant when determining an object's characteristics. "Is the top card of your library revealed?" is not a characteristic of an object. Therefore, the layer system is not needed.
However, the rule I quoted in the OP states that you determine the characteristics of objects before applying continuous effects that affect players. As Mul Daya Channelers is an object, it will have needed to figure out what abilities are "turned on" before your library is revealed.
Mul Daya Channelers has two abilities that rely on an ability that affects its controller. Those abilities are applied appropriately using the layer system. However, when exactly is the card revealing applied?
613.9. Some continuous effects affect players rather than objects. For example, an effect might give a player protection from red. All such effects are applied in timestamp order after the determination of objects’ characteristics. See also the rules for timestamp order and dependency (rules 613.6 and 613.7).
The above seems to place the card revealing directly after Channelers needs it to work. What am I missing?
Thanks for the thorough answer. I guess my follow-up question is this: if you combined layers 1 and 2 into a single layer and just let dependency sort things out, would anything about the game blow up? I realize that's a broad question, but it seems like the same dependency check system can be used for this.
4 Card Walking Dead
Whenever a non-zombie permanent is put into a player's graveyard from the battlefield, that player puts a 2/2 black Zombie creature token onto the battlefield.
If a change were to be made to how we get formats, I'd like more time for peer review and more involvement from the masses in format creation. If each week's winner got to add a format to a poll, for example, it'd allow for both of those goals to be more readily reached. Popularly voted formats would get discussed and fleshed out before they go up and unliked formats wouldn't get voted on (and could be replaced at the moderator's whim every month or so).
8v1: Same as test deck. (0-6)
8v2: Same as test deck. (0-6)
8v3: I Eureka, put out Emrakul, and steal Dreamsower. Heinsun can Claim the Aura on my turn. If Dreamsower attack, I can Desert it. If Crack gets cast, I can sac Emrakul and start all over long before Dreamswoer can kill me. (6-0)
8v4: Bridge'd. (0-6)
8v5: Same as test deck. Seems like the criteria this week didn't inspire much of a format. (0-6)
8v6: Same as test deck. Glad I don't have to grade a million mirror-matches. (0-6)
8v7: Judgment controls Emrakul. Desert controls Glitterfang. (2-2)
8v9: Emrakul > Form. You get to Daze when you go first to cut off my sweep. (4-1)
8v10: Same as test deck. I should have copy/pasted that phrase by now. (0-6)
8v11: I can't beat O-Ring. (0-6)
8v12: I win on the play because I can steal your Emrakul. On the draw, Daze ties it up. (4-1)
After doing a bit of math, the system where wins are dropped from 3 points to 2 seems to reward tie-fests a bit too much. It was a pretty idea, I think the one Chess uses even, but I don't like the impact it makes after all. This isn't in regards to the system that ranks draws and splits differently. For that... why not just change the way things are counted? Rather than saying "You get a 3 for every game you win", just say "You get a 6 for every match you win." And so on.
I'm just saying that (1) points counting what they actually are has the benefit of being easier to understand and calculate, and (2) that the difference between 3s and 2s has rarely ever mattered in determining a winner since 6s dominate the top deck's performances. Which isn't to say that this is the solution we want.
Another option is to just award 2 for a win instead of 3. I'm sure this has been suggested before, and that people are eager to reward wins as much as possible, thus the 6v2 system. That might also just be a carry over from tournament point structure outside of this forum game. Ultimately, while I understand the desire to reward wins to a greater magnitude than ties, I think it's also unnecessary. The nature of the round robin structure pushes decks that win more ahead of decks that tie a lot. I ultimately don't mind, but I do think this change has more boons than drawbacks.
I've personally never felt that much was gained from the continued mudslinging that happens between the different forums. I always wanted to do inter-community activities, but rarely found the time. (Though I did host a tournament between WOTC, MTGS, and NGA that was fairly fun while it lasted.) I don't frequent MTGS as much as I have in the past, mostly because the YMTC crowd from WOTC was my crowd, and now they're mostly all over on NGA.
It saddens me that WOTC couldn't find the means to reverse the damage they started in 2008. I suppose if they really wanted to do that, the best means might be wiping the slate clean and starting over from scratch. Because every forum transfer/reboot from 2008 on was poorly designed and ill-conceived. I think they were confused about a vision for the future and a need to preserve the past, and never found a way to marry the two save by self-immolation.
Anyway, I'll miss WOTC. Or at least, my WOTC.
As for results: I've mostly played against a bunch of casual decks, which is hardly the best evidence, but I've played against a few tiered decks. Remember that I built this version on a budget and am now looking to spruce it up. To start, the mana is indeed a problem. Because of the combo nature, I think starting from 4 Mana Confluence is probably the way to go. I built it to just disregard the first turn, and I think that might remain the standard, but being slowed until turn 3 is such a nightmare.
Because of the combo nature, the deck has had real issues the few times I've played against UBx control. A countered Assault Formation just ruins the deck at times. Gx Devotion has also been a struggle, with them being able to flood the board beyond any ability to sneak by.
Where the deck has succeeded is in stalling early assaults with its huge defenders and in comboing past midrange decks. Because it doesn't take a lot of bodies to get rolling, the deck can win easily out of nowhere.
There are tons of classic issues, of course, and I should at least read through more of this thread for further ideas. The key will be in finding ways to make both enchantments good with the creatures in the deck. I originally leaned heavily toward Formation, but that doesn't have to be the case, I think.
Anyway, it's a casual dream that's been winning a lot (though against lesser decks) and any help it making it work would be appreciated. I'm not looking to play another Formation deck; not yet, at least.
EDIT: Thinking about it more, this combo would really have to veer away from the 0/X creatures in order to work organically. I've had time to assemble it against bad decks, but there have been plenty of games where I have an Ascendancy and attacking just isn't worthwhile. So perhaps X/X+1 bodies are just better for my needs.
Well, the only flyers that matter much in the format are dragons, Mantis Rider, and Ashcloud Phoenix. The general plan is to combo out before their fliers kill you, but Crater Elemental has taken out a large number of Mantis Riders in the games I've played. It hasn't been a huge concern, really; when I'm dying to Dragons, its because they're a control deck that's taken control.
It definitely is a greedy build, color-wise. I've taken out the Banishing Lights and added two more lands recently to make things a bit more consistent. I was worried about flooding out in earlier builds, but the extra bits of card advantage added since the early builds help with that. The deck probably wants some small number of Mana Confluence as well.
Your numbers are a bit off. The only turn-two plays that matter in the deck are green and white; red has nothing until turn 3. I'd also consider the Caryatids around 0.5 a non-green color; they've been the most important component to fixing the mana-problems. So, I agree that the heavily devoted single-color cards (Sidisi, Undead Vizier, Courser of Kruphix, etc.) have a difficult time existing in this deck since the focus is on a 4-color spread. But I also think the mana is mostly doable without them. (Sidisi has been good for me as late-game insurance, but it also doesn't exactly have great exploit support.)
This just hasn't been the case in my testing. Ascendancy has slammed the door on games that were stalemates. It's produced quick combo kills. I realize that there's some awkwardness to it, that there's something to be gained by just playing more straight-forward threats. But this has been working out WELL. It is weaker to control since there's so much reliance on the combo. That's something that needs to be addressed. And Ascendancy does have weaknesses outside of the combo. All things I think that can be addressed. Regardless, the deck has been showing off in my testing and I think there's possibility for it to at least be an interesting fringe option. There's the possibility that it wants its own thread, but this feels like a better place to start.
I'm definitely not saying that the combo is guaranteed to be competitive. But it's shown some promise.
4 Nyx-Fleece Ram
4 Sylvan Caryatid
4 Crater Elemental
2 Sidisi, Undead Vizier
2 Sibsig Muckdraggers
Other Spells (20)
4 Assault Formation
4 Commune with the Gods
4 Kin-Tree Invocation
2 Mastery of the Unseen
4 Mardu Ascendancy
2 Banishing Light
4 Evolving Wilds
4 Nomad Outpost
4 Sandsteppe Citadel
6 Forest
3 Swamp
2 Plains
1 Mountain
I threw a version of this together a week ago to try out the Assault/Ascendancy combo. (Hence why what you see is so budgeted.) That combo is bonkers! Obviously the mana is screwy, but this is the most fun I've had in standard in a long time. I've only run it through other casual decks on MTGO, but it feels like something good is at work. I'd probably rearrange the basics and Wilds into proper fetches, maybe rearrange the mana-base for Courser of Kruphix if possible. Muckdraggers has been surprisingly good, but it can probably just be Tasigur instead. Kin-Tree has been a very useful second option for putting pressure on the opponent. Mastery hasn't actually been relevant in any of my matches yet, but the casual queues aren't exactly loaded with optimal control decks. The idea is to have a mana-sink/creature producer in case you (a) need to go wide with Assault and/or (b) need bodies to trigger Ascendancy. (They aren't tokens, so it all works out.)
Anyway, I realize this is a budget list (I'm working on making it not so, now that I know it works) and that it's a bizarre approach (and colorful as a luau), but it's both fun and powerful. Try it out.
Except that dependency is strictly defined in the rules:
And nothing about the layer system indicates that the reveal ability gets applied anywhere during layering. I thought dependency would work this out, but looking closer, it doesn't seem to.
Those rules apply to how continuous effects are continuously "on", but don't suggest in what order they interact. Hence the rule I quoted and the layer system. EDIT: I meant to quote 613.10, no 613.9. It's the same thing, really:
However, the rule I quoted in the OP states that you determine the characteristics of objects before applying continuous effects that affect players. As Mul Daya Channelers is an object, it will have needed to figure out what abilities are "turned on" before your library is revealed.
The above seems to place the card revealing directly after Channelers needs it to work. What am I missing?
Why can't Volrath's Shapeshifter work as a copy effect?
4 Card Walking Dead
Whenever a non-zombie permanent is put into a player's graveyard from the battlefield, that player puts a 2/2 black Zombie creature token onto the battlefield.
X | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 |
2 | 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 X 4 0 0 4 | 16
8v2: Same as test deck. (0-6)
8v3: I Eureka, put out Emrakul, and steal Dreamsower. Heinsun can Claim the Aura on my turn. If Dreamsower attack, I can Desert it. If Crack gets cast, I can sac Emrakul and start all over long before Dreamswoer can kill me. (6-0)
8v4: Bridge'd. (0-6)
8v5: Same as test deck. Seems like the criteria this week didn't inspire much of a format. (0-6)
8v6: Same as test deck. Glad I don't have to grade a million mirror-matches. (0-6)
8v7: Judgment controls Emrakul. Desert controls Glitterfang. (2-2)
8v9: Emrakul > Form. You get to Daze when you go first to cut off my sweep. (4-1)
8v10: Same as test deck. I should have copy/pasted that phrase by now. (0-6)
8v11: I can't beat O-Ring. (0-6)
8v12: I win on the play because I can steal your Emrakul. On the draw, Daze ties it up. (4-1)
Another option is to just award 2 for a win instead of 3. I'm sure this has been suggested before, and that people are eager to reward wins as much as possible, thus the 6v2 system. That might also just be a carry over from tournament point structure outside of this forum game. Ultimately, while I understand the desire to reward wins to a greater magnitude than ties, I think it's also unnecessary. The nature of the round robin structure pushes decks that win more ahead of decks that tie a lot. I ultimately don't mind, but I do think this change has more boons than drawbacks.