MTG Salvation

Quote from Pokken »

This thing is really going to be prone to "kill one guy then take a while to win the game" because there's a lot more sorcery speed enchantment removal played in EDH than instant speed, and that's the fundamental difference between this and revel. Also revel costing more and being more demanding to achieve.

I don't know if this is going to be annoying or not but it's more concerning to me than simic ascendancy and stuff like that by virtue of killing one player at instant speed. oddly enough if it said "you win the game" it would be less annoying.

Quote from Onering »

Quote from LouCypher »

Quote from Carthage »

Quote from Lithl »

Quote from Jivanmukta »

Were people terrified of Revel in Riches?

Or Mortal Combat, the most directly-analogous card to this one?

I mean, in my Iname as One deck, I could cast Iname, Death Aspect and immediately dump 20 spirits in my graveyard to win with Mortal Combat. And I've done it before, too. But nobody is clamoring to ban Mortal Combat.

Mortal combat requires setup and then a full turn cycle, whereas besieged can only be answered by instants.

However Mortal Combat also wins the entire game right away which this...doesn't.

That's probably a point in MC's favor honestly. A full turn cycle to win the game means everyone will have incentive to answer it, and if they don't it wins the game. Mirrodin Besieged knocks someone out right away, but then gives everyone else a full round to answer it with the same incentive as MC, meaning that with MC it either gets answered or the player wins, while with Mirrodin Besieged one player is losing unless someone has an instant speed answer, even if it doesn't live through the round. And its that scenario, where it fires off early and just knocks one person out of the game, that worries me. Hatred is similarly capable of doing this, but is less likely to be used this way, as it comes with a significant cost (you pay enough life to make you an easy target for the rest of the table in order to one hit kill with it) and its best used to either take out someone you cannot deal with otherwise or to finish off the final player, as without spell recursion its a trick you can only do once. Mirridon B lets you go for the early kill with the further payoff of killing off more players if it sticks, so you are encouraged to play it earlier, and more often, than Hatred.

Its not extraordinarily powerful, and it does take set up, but the set up it requires isn't much, and it has a high potential for just ruining people's nights (ending the game quickly with a combo is worse at ruining nights than just taking one guy out quickly, as with the former you can start a new game, while with the latter one just doesn't get to play for a couple hours). Its not as bad an offender as CV (it doesn't combo with your commander, it is easier to interact with, and it requires more setup), but its worse than MC (setup is easier, it has the potential to just grief one player, shorter window of interaction). MC is a card that shouldn't be banned because its niche and requires too much work to make work, while CV is a card that should stay banned because its too easy to pull off and is an easy addition to any 5 color deck that actually has a 5 color commander. Mirrodin Besieged being in the middle means that I don't know yet if it will end up being problematic, just that it has the potential to be. Its certainly an example of things you shouldn't be doing in commander, but perhaps its inconsistent enough that it won't prove to be as bad as its potential. It also has an alternate fair use, which helps its case for staying unbanned. All cards like this should be watchlisted, now that it exists, but being watchlisted obviously doesn't mean its getting banned.

Quote from Jivanmukta »

Quote from ilovesaprolings »

Sigh, Aethurflux Reservoir proves that wotc still have hard times designing cards with commander in mind. First the 13-life tree, now this.

Assume all cards are not bugs but features.

Quote from Taleran »

You have the timing wrong, the original Spell Resolves second

Quote from Droptimal »

A simple thing that needs to be grasped when people engage in this argument is that EDH is a cutthroat game. Outside of games built with specific mechanics to state otherwise, there is one simple rule that makes cutthroat games work: All player's efforts are an attempt to win the game. Cutthroat is unfortunately bound by social contract to be functional in this capacity, but without this golden rule the very concept of the game falls apart. King making, match fixing, influencing the outcome of later games via behavior, etc... are all breaches of the social contract that make all cutthroat games function. The idea of cutthroat is that you are out numbered and the use of politicking and betrayal are a necessary aspect to achieve victory and all moves are intended to take 1st in the end. Scooping holds no ethical or functional purpose in how the game plays and only has a place within the idea that you cannot hold a player captive who wishes to no longer play. There is no justification of scooping as a viable tactic. That is a maliciously false and immature opinion that needs to not be humored. Arguments of scooping need to be tailored to the practical issues of imprisoning a player who wishes to leave and how to address it without harming game state.