You remove each time counter from each suspended card separately. The first one will be cast and resolve before you get to remove the counter from the second one.
702.61a Suspend is a keyword that represents three abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with suspend is in a player’s hand. The second and third are triggered abilities that function in the exile zone. “Suspend N—[cost]” means “If you could begin to cast this card by putting it onto the stack from your hand, you may pay [cost] and exile it with N time counters on it. This action doesn’t use the stack,” and “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card is suspended, remove a time counter from it,” and “When the last time counter is removed from this card, if it’s exiled, play it without paying its mana cost if able. If you can’t, it remains exiled. If you cast a creature spell this way, it gains haste until you lose control of the spell or the permanent it becomes.”
Triggered abilities use the stack. When your upkeep begins, the "remove a time counter" triggered abilities of each Suspended card you own trigger. You put those triggers on the stack in any order you choose. Then you pass, your opponent pass, and the one trigger currently on the top of the stack resolves.
If it removes the last counter of that suspended card, the "cast" triggered ability of that card triggers and also goes to the stack. As it ends up on the stack above the remaining "remove" triggers of your other suspend cards, this "cast" trigger will also resolve first, casting that card as a spell while the other cards are still suspended.
Casting a spell put is on the stack, where again it will be above the remaining "remove" triggers and will therefore get to resolve while the others are still suspended.
-
- Macabre
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 7 months, and 23 days
Last active Sat, Oct, 2 2021 13:52:18
- 2 Followers
- 787 Total Posts
- 107 Thanks
1
My main point of disappointed in the video is due to the amount of time he spends advertising. 16 minutes is not a short video, and it doesn't actually start until 5 minutes in, and has another 60 seconds of outro. With the quality of information he talks about in the video it makes me wonder just how much research he invested. There are obviously better "worse" options as we've all talked about here. It feels like a generic video he needed to post just to keep his numbers going.
My second main point of disappointment is the absolute lack of commentary on the potential of using sub-optimal commanders for a more fun environment and experience. A video like that can nudge a newer player into the "must play optimal 100% of the time" headspace, and limit experimental and more fun designs lest they become judged by peers.
Another comment that needed to be made was the actual use of a commander to a decks function. One of my first competitive decks ran sivitri scarzam in a time sieve combo. The deck didn't need a commander, just a color identity, yet my playgroup still talks about how strong Sivitri can be. While not overly important, it is worth noting that a commander can be completely useless trash but a deck can still dominate.
1
I don't actually like the idea of forcing a tribe on her. A very long time ago I ran her for tribal wurms but it just ended up being 5color good-stuff with 30ish generic creatures, and I lost interest very quickly. The thematic variant although has been one of my favorite decks to play for more than a year now.
4
If this is such an issue for you, have you talked to the people you play with about it? Chatting on forums is good for generic information but we have zero knowledge of your playgroup.
Comparing competitive cards to deck function is really just a weak topic. I feel like a relatable scenario for this entire thread would be someone playing their modern deck in a legacy tournament and then immediately complaining about an opponent suggesting force of will to them when they're playing logic knot.
If you feel like you're being expected to play more powerful cards, then do or don't. You can choose who and what you play.
3
From your statements here (and from previous topics) it really sounds like you are choosing to make the format worse for yourself.
1
Just making sure we all know the example card in this topic isn't legal in standard.
To the topic - I think this card specifically is intended to be just another bulk draft utility card. It came in the same set as seasoned pyromancer, tectonic reformation, thundering djinn, and even a Kess reprint.
It just so happens to be good utility in Zada. Another recent new card thrill of possibility is strictly better than wild guess and tormenting voice. It was most likely made as a fair replacement for faithless looting in modern. Yet it immediately fit in two different storm decks I run in edh as 'yard filler.
I do understand the idea behind this topic. I already mentioned tectonic reformation above - that card has little use in draft and questionable use in other formats. But it's a new auto-include in most mono-red edh decks.
1
I think it's best to not focus on his etb, and instead use him when you need to clean up the board a little or apply pressure in the air. He's one of the better "generically good" black+red legendaries available, mainly for how players react to you not casting him when you could and potentially causing them to hold back valuable creatures. I think adding something like vedalken orrery would be ideal just so you can lord him over opponents heads a bit longer.
1
The fun part about boulders is that they fit in other ultimate guard products. I have a few of the 2x 100 card tower things that came with pull out shelves and the boulders in place of the shelves. Adds another layer and helps keep more expensive decks away from the masses when playing in public areas. 4 boulders also fit in that long ultimate guard product that becomes a singular case, which is the lot I typically take out with me on edh nights when I don't need vint/leg/modern stuff.
I do have 12x older edh decks that are all triple sleeved. I've found the best way to store these are in these antique wooden candle boxes with sliding lids. I had one from my childhood that I think was some kind of holdiay specialty nut gift box thing. Over the years I've been able to find 3 duplicates on Ebay by searching for "wood candle box" and scrolling to infinite. These are ideal for long term storage since I can control the pressure on the cards, the humidity in and near them, and they are fairly water tight around the base. They are absolutely terrible for casual play tho since it's like pulling slippery thick sleeves strait out of a fatpack.
1
My playgroup isn't cedh, and while we do have competitive decks, iona isn't good enough for any of them. Our deck strength average is around a 6 and iona would never be good enough at our table. It truly is a medium-to-bad trap card. It's a learning experience that is eventually unsleeved and forgotten about. But hey this is what they think is a ban-worthy card.
This argument about running colorless answers is a joke. all is dust, ugin, the spirit dragon, perilous vault, and oblivion stone are better cards than iona. Others like duplicant and spine may even be synergistic for the deck, because most artifact decks I've seen run those too. If you're not already playing those, then either your meta is too quick and there isn't an iona, your meta is too weak and there still isn't an iona, or your choosing to not play obviously good cards that can answer any number of threats.
I love when modern bans occur because there are solid reasoning and you can actually follow the thought process as to why something was banned. For example bridge was just banned to tone down hogaack. Doesn't kill the deck, does affect dredge to the point that it's not overshadowed by hogaack, and the degenerate potential turn-1 wins from neoform were left alone because development looked at the % of players actually using the deck and its performance. Not the complaints but the performance.
Now then we have edh bans where painter was unbanned by someone who complains about combos in edh, and build-around cards like engine are banned when if he really understood how those decks worked then he could have just banned dramatic reversal - a card that only exists in the format to be abused.
Maybe he was just terrified that people would break urza (and to a lesser extent golos, tireless pilgrim) with engine. I'm so glad that infinite mana commanders can't be broken still in this format with other combos that cost less mana investment and card density to start up.
1
Panoptic mirror should have been unbanned a long time ago. We are in an age of God-Eternal Kefnet + turn spells, The mana cost and time investment on panoptic mirror is a joke compared to what is possible now.
My complaint is mainly how engine was banned over more obvious cards.
Slamming paradox engine doesn't just win the game. It requires resolving a 5cmc artifact, an already existing large density of mana tapping effects, spells to cast, and some sort of card advantage to actually work. Sometimes these elements can be combined.
Dramatic scepter has a much smaller mana investment and startup cost, and the parts can be used early if needed for other effects.
If paradox engine is the focus of the deck an it's delt with, then the deck will likely fail since such a large % of it is dedicated space for the engine parts. If a part of dramatic scepter is delt with then the deck has room to build some other wincon.
If these people actually wanted to stop the degenerate combos that use these effects then they could just get rid of Thrasios.
Currently my group is talking about just making our own house banlist because it's clear to us that this official banlist is limited by the exposure of those who run it. I don't think our group is compatible in any way with menery.
1
With the artifact tutors blue has, this turns off all creature based decks extremely quick. So if there is such a consistent anti-creature deck possible, isn't the answer to just play more degenerate combos?
So why is iona banned again?