Fog

Fog

Instant

Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn.

Browse Alters
Set Price Alerts Price Chart

EMA

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Mystery Booster (MYS1) Common
Eternal Masters (EMA) Common
Magic 2014 (M14) Common
Magic 2013 (M13) Common
2012 Core Set (M12) Common
Masters Edition IV (ME4) Common
2011 Core Set (M11) Common
Archenemy (ARC) Common
2010 Core Set (M10) Common
Seventh Edition (7ED) Common
Beatdown Box Set (BTD) Common
Classic Sixth Edition (6ED) Common
Fifth Edition (5ED) Common
Mirage (MIR) Common
Fourth Edition (4ED) Common
4th Edition Foreign Black Border (4EDFBB) Common
Revised Edition (3ED) Common
Revised Foreign Black Border (3EDFBB) Common
Unlimited Edition (2ED) Common
Collector's Edition (CED) Common
International Collector's Edition (CEI) Common
Limited Edition Beta (LEB) Common
Limited Edition Alpha (LEA) Common

Combos Browse all

Legality

Format Legality
Leviathan Legal
Legacy Legal
Pauper EDH Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal
Pioneer Legal
Vintage Legal
Limited Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Block Constructed Legal
2019-10-04 Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Modern Legal
Pauper Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Unformat Legal
Oldschool 93/94 Legal
Tiny Leaders Legal
Highlander Legal

Latest Decks as Commander

Fog Discussion

StopShot on Counteracting large hexproof creatures.

1 week ago

The subject of this thread revolves around dealing with and counteracting against the commanders: Uril, the Miststalker, Sigarda, Host of Herons, Dragonlord Ojutai, Lazav, Dimir Mastermind, Thrun, the Last Troll as well as commanders that consistently or typically give themselves hexproof through various equipments/auras.

While it may not be the most prevalent strategy these types of commanders can be annoying to deal with. I'd like to create a discussion on what are the best ways to deal with these commanders. Given how niche these commanders can be, running cards that exclusively dedicate themselves to their removal may be detrimental to draw into when playing a game where none of your opponents run them. Therefore cards that can both combat massive hexproof creatures as well as still being useful to have if none of your opponents are playing with big hexproof creatures should be taken into consideration when deciding what is the "best" or "most practical" solution to combating hexproof strategies.

The first cards that come to mind are Arcane Lighthouse, Detection Tower, Bonds of Mortality, Shadowspear and Glaring Spotlight. These cards entirely dedicate themselves to combating hexproof strategies, and while this may be a detriment when used against non-hexproof strategies, these cards do lend themselves some extra utility. Arcane Lighthouse and Detection Tower can be seeded into your manabase so at worst they're just a Wastes however they can be more inefficient in comparison. Given that both are lands, tapping them costs you an extra mana resource effectively making their abilities cost to activate. Not only that, but they have no effect at stripping indestructible which can be a common keyboard which may be used alongside most hexproof strategies. Cards like Bonds of Mortality and Shadowspear cost only one to activate and they can bypass indestructible, however given they're not lands you have to dedicate a nonland slot in your deck to accommodate either of them which means taking out a card that may better synergize with your deck's main strategy in their place. They also lend themselves targets for counter spells and given hexproof decks contain white and/or green, artifact/enchantment removal will pose a high potential risk. This is all not to mention you still need to provide a removal spell in tandem with these cards in order to remove the threat.

Another solution is board wipes. Cards such as Wrath of God, Damnation, Day of Judgment, Supreme Verdict, Blasphemous Act, etc. Mass creature removal is incredibly strong given that its always relevant in most metas making it a highly flexible solution that isn't too narrow to rely upon. It's biggest drawback however is if the massive hexproof creature that needs to be dealt with has indestructible, totem armor or Gift of Immortality. Even a card such as Toxic Deluge can be a risk as you may have to pay a huge amount of life if the creature is incredibly big. Cyclonic Rift is another effective card. One thing to note about boardwipes are they affect the whole table which makes them also more likelier to be countered than by effects that impact a single individual.

A more narrow solution would be through damage prevention effects such as Story Circle, Forcefield, Runed Halo, Rune of Protection: White, etc. Given each card never "targets" they can be used to infinitely "Fog" a problem creature that you can't put up with. These effects are more narrow than boardwipes but broader than hexproof removal. Cards like these still run into problems with artifact/enchantment removal and they don't run enticing side effects such as drawing a card upon entering the battlefield like Bonds of Mortality or giving a creature lifelink and trample like Shadowspear, however you won't need to exhaust your removal spells to keep the large creature(s) either. In more broader metas such as combo, stax and prison, these effects may not be as useful however. More broader variants of these protection cards exist as Ensnaring Bridge, Divine Presence, Peacekeeper and Meekstone though these cards may make multiple opponents unhappy enough to remove them than the more narrower options.

The last effect used to combat large hexproof creatures is sacrifice effects such as: Fleshbag Marauder, Innocent Blood, Vona's Hunger, Liliana's Triumph, Doomfall etc. These effects can bypass not only hexproof but also indestructible, regenerate and totem armor. Their drawback lies in if the player with the large hexproof creature has any other creatures to sacrifice in their place. Because of this caveat this effect isn't too strong unless ran in multiples which can be difficult to commit to in a 100-card format. Instead selective sacrifice effects may be the best way to devote to this solution with cards like: Crackling Doom, Soul Shatter, Slaughter the Strong, Council's Judgment, Renounce the Guilds and Wing Shards. While these cards won't always guarantee the large hexproof creature will be removed, they provide a stronger case than not compared to most traditional sacrifice removal.

Lastly there are counter spells to remove hexproof creatures. While they may be the best all purpose solution they can be rendered ineffective if a Cavern of Souls or some other can not be countered effect is in place. With exception to Withering Boon, the biggest downside to counter spells are they are entirely exclusive to blue meaning other color combinations without blue do not have this option available.

Which method do you rely on to stop massive hexproof creatures? Is there a card or solution set not listed here that you use? If you happen to play EDH decks with big massive hexproof creatures, which effects annoy/counter you the most?

Apollo_Paladin on ElfLand

2 weeks ago

Initial Thoughts:

  • 2 mana for 1 Card Draw is not bad at all for Green, but unless you've got a way to return and/or recur Elvish Visionary in some way, it's not a massive benefit. I'm much more a fan of things like Vanquisher's Banner, Sylvan Messenger, and/or Regal Force since in each case you're dealing with more than 1 single draw (which especially if you're having reliability issues already; is just a roll of the dice).

  • I would definitely recommend factoring in 4x Priest of Titania. They're a little pricier than I normally like to purchase singles at, but it's not like they're ridiculous either (common rarity helps). There is simply no better (or cheaper dollar-wise) way to generate mana early-on in Elf Decks unless you're prepared to drop 50-100 dollars per single on something(s) ridiculous.

  • It looks like Ambush Commander could find a nice home here since you appear to use actual Lands more than my Elf build does. He'd add some additional synergy to the Elvish Pioneer/Sylvan Advocate theme you've focused on.

  • I can't seem to find a single Elf Deck that wouldn't benefit from Vitalize. It's instant speed, cheap cost, and just combos beautifully with so many different Elf Abilities.

  • I definitely feel that all 4 of your Overrun can be replaced with something better. Between both the mana cost as well as an identical (repeatable) ability on Ezuri, Renegade Leader, there's far better options here. Even something like Wirewood Pride could be a decent replacement...not only is it instant-speed to be used on either offense or defense, but its low cost means you can land early attacks in faster (I prefer to play it after blockers have already been declared and they've let some seemingly worthless 1/1 through).

  • I don't see a reason to use Druid's Deliverance here at all...not ton of Token generation going on here except from the 4x Elvish Promenade...and even then you're only paying 1 mana to Populate a 1/1 token. If you had better Tokens you could use Populate on, that'd be one thing but since it doesn't work on Non-Token creatures I think you could just as easily use Fog or something similar to save yourself a mana to cast.

psionictemplar on Echo of Eons

3 weeks ago

There is a big part of the casual in me that wants to figure a way for you to get Omniscience in here. From there, combo as much as your heart desires. I don't really have a good way to suggest going about that yet though.

What I had considered to do this if you were wondering. (Nothing grand so far.)

  1. Lotus Field and Twiddle type cards for a big mana turn.

  2. Lost Auramancers to put Omniscience directly into play.

  3. Enduring Ideal, but this wouldn't work because you couldn't cast any more spells after.

I guess the auramancer plan could work for a casual game with things like Holy Day/Fog to keep you alive. Nine Lives could be worth considering if you wanted to try this path.

MagicMarc on What is the Greatest Number …

3 weeks ago

DemonDragonJ; During that same tournament; someone cast the equivalent of Fog on me as I went infinite with the giants. So I ended my turn with thousands of the pact triggers waiting to kill me. My opponent took his turn, drew, and knocked,(ended his turn). Boom! I died.

But I loved playing the deck. It was very Izzet with the win explosively or die explosively gameplay.

Unlife on Maximum Non-Winning Fun

1 month ago

Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis has all the colors tht could be helpful to other players. Run things like Primal Vigor, Mana Flare, Rites of Flourishing, Dictate of Kruphix, Veteran Explorer, Temple Bell to help people. Then support yourself with things like Fog, Leyline of Sanctity, Runed Halo, Angel's Grace so you survive longer to keep your effects alive. Maybe some counter magic just so you can keep things like Disenchant from hitting your support elements

SynergyBuild on Oko in cEDH settings

1 month ago

RambIe "Win more", when I used it at least (not speaking for anyone else that uses it) means to me the types of cards like Overrun after you already had lethal on field. They are cards that don't need to be run, because when they are good you are already winning.

"Lose less" is another term meant to describe cards like Fog in a situation where it saves you a turn, but you do nothing with that turn and die the next turn. It stalls defeat, but doesn't change the situation.

A card that is great, but only when you are winning, or can stall, but only when you are losing are not good cards, and because it's hard to block creatures from 3 opponents, walkers have a disadvantage in EDH, making the thought that Oko protects itself from opposing creatures (one of the hallmarks of the card in formats like Standard and Modern, and even currently running through legacy) almost faulty, and while it being at 5 loyalty helps, often because it doesn't give direct card advantage, many deck will just beat it.

That's not saying I don't run and love the card, but I'd still pick Drake over Oko if I had to pick! I don't run Karn, Ashiok, or Narset often either. Oko is probably the toughest of them all, but my metagame is a lot of decks with Oakhame Adversary, Tymna the Weaver, partner decks, etc. that can deal with all sorts of walkers.

Yuriko is never really a big deal, as it's such an easy deck to whiff and die to itself. Our metagame is really just Kenriths, partner decks, Najeela (soo much najeela that just easy kills a walker), etc. that mean that slower Oko style plays are the more untenable variants.

Still, even on MTGO, while I would run both I'd still rather Drake, it's just a cleaner card overall, and more efficient, and easier to tutor, etc.

I also agree with RambIe, that Oko, Thief of Crowns is a bit in a strange color combo for him to be run.

BTW: I compare him more to Dack Fayden, Teferi, Time Raveler, and Grasp of Fate than to Gilded Drake. A 3 mana, sorcery speed, interaction piece that either hits multiple cards, or has additional value makes more sense to me to compare. Dack Fayden used to be everywhere, and slowly ran out of the metagame (still is in Kess, Dissident Mage, but the -2 is less used) and it just less useful given the metagame's more creature-based evolution.

Flooremoji on Pattern Recognition #163 - Provoke …

1 month ago

Small error: Fog and Mark of Asylum need to be switched when refering to what prevents fighting :)

Interesting article!

SynergyBuild on Proper Channels to deal with …

1 month ago

Currently, me and DeinoStinkus have been in a feud that has corrupted the ecosystem of ~3 forum posts, and hurt dialogue throughout the forum community. For this I apologize, as I am obviously at some blame here.

For an explanation of the discussion, I will use exact quoted comments as to not cause any issue with the interpretation.

The links to the main pages where this discussion will be below, and all but a few comments have been edited since, mostly due to rules clarification, dealing only slightly with the discussion, all edits that I know of will be discussed as well:

Forum posts:

https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/kitchen-table/attempt-for-a-new-format/?page=1

https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/kitchen-table/spellchaser-revisited/?page=1

https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/commander/why-are-some-commander-staples-so-expensive/?page=1

Decklists:

Simic Land Control (Bant Field Spellchaser)

Spellchaser - Rituals and Loam

The above 5 links are where the majority of the pages where the discussion which later turned to a feud took place. Additionally checking individual's pages involved would be valuable.

On Attempt for an new format, the first link and where it began, GoblinElectromancer was starting an interesting format where only instants, sorceries, and lands were allowed, 30 starting life, and 75 main deck starting size (15 sideboard additionally). There is a banlist as well at Spellchaser Banlist, and on it, at the time of making this post (8/2/2020) Mental Misstep and Force of Will aren't on that banlist.

At the time, it was just a cool looking format, and I wanted to know how many cards could be run, I asked, GoblinElectromancer answered that it was 4, shadow63 stated: "So burn or mill or tokens?"

This implying those being decks that could be run, that was all. While this may seem obvious these words were later twisted, and stated afterwards that the twisted version was verbatim, so for exact clarification, shadow63 didn't say "So only burn or mill or tokens?" or "You either run burn, mill, or tokens, right?"

This will be important later.

Now originally it didn't have a banlist or name, so I posted: [GoblinElectromancer's Format] - Synergy as a quick list I thought was fun for the format, but as a banlist was added and a name for the format (Spellchaser) was made, the format was much more easily played competitively in theory, rather than just an idea.

DeinoStinkus finally joins in the conversation, posting his own list, a tokens build. StopShot as well joins in just talking about the banlist, all at the time I am running numbers through a geometric calculator and judging the best engines the format can run, wincons, etc. As the format can be homogonized in the card pool way more than is expected. Miscast is just a better Mana Leak, Negate is a better Counterspell, etc.

Knowing this, the larget deck size hurting mill, the fact removal for walkers, artifacts (except artifact lands ig), etc. could make the format much easier to solve, and so I made a base for solving it as best as possible, listed a ton of builds, tuned and refined them, found a UG build was the best I could test.

I make two posts on the solve, one on the best cards and the other on the decks. I then post the Simic Land Control (Bant Field Spellchaser) deck, which is a UG list running some white for Celestial Colonnades.

I then get a comment on it from DeinoStinkus that he though Misstep and Force were banned, however as stated above, they weren't, and aren't as of 8/2/2020. Again, could be an honest mistake, but it shines a light on what happens next, as it appears he didn't read well into the topic that he discussed.

I tell him that they aren't banned, and send him a link to the banlist.

4 days later he posts a 'new archetype' of AEther Snap and Dark Depths he calls "Snap Lage," which he claimed he made, despite Wizards posting the combo as a recommendation when the card was previewed (bottom of http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/343), as well as many players discussing both ever since they both existed. Again, maybe an honest mistake, but even I had previously discussed it, and felt slighted here.

Not personally a fan of people taking credit for things they didn't do, maybe just me.

2 days later, Spellchaser Revisited was posted by DeinoStinkus, laying out an post meant to discuss the format. The post was edited, as it originally spreaded misinformation on GoblinElectromancer's format, stating that there was a 70 card main deck requirement, rather than a 75 card one, again, perhaps an honest mistake, however with the pattern discussed it means he is posting repeatedly on misinformation about the format.

The line: "You either run burn, mill, or tokens, right (The exact words of shadow63)?" was in the post, however clearly makes shadow63 appear much more foolish in assuming that the only decks could be those, while he actually stated (as discussed above) "So burn or mill or tokens?"

This both means that he didn't say those exact words, as stated in the post, but that those words don't even mean the same thing. This is lying, to prove a point that no one was arguing with (the fact that the format had a large variety of possible decks), and coupled with the misinformation from before it appears to me to be the start of an issue.

The post continues saying I made the Thespian's Stage/Dark Depths combo (I obviously didn't and never claimed to), stating he reacjed the AEther Snap/Dark Depths combo again, to me implying he created it, which again, he didn't, Wizards playtesters did before the public knew the card even existed.

He lists a bunch of "power cards" after mentioning my comments explaining the format well from the original post. This mirrors my comment on that original post explaining the key cards of the format, however adding a variety of strange includes clearly forgetting the cards of the format and the restrictions (Fatal Push/Overrun/Fog were mentioned despite the format having no creatures, outside of tokens, and Startled Awake  Flip/Persistent Nightmare). This again, could be an honest mistake, or could additionally be just misinformation, which is incredibly telling at this point.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt on all of this just makes him incompetent, rather than malicious, however his use of twisting shadow63's words despite saying they were exact words seems to contradict this.

I make a post, the first one to arguable start drama, as though he wronged people no one at this point had responded to his post on the forum. I explain my distaste for the misuse of Shadow's words, the misinformation, and the strange irrelevant cards he put into the 'power cards' section.

I then end it with a comment attempting to explain the format has a lot more to it than either of us had previously discussed. I instead wanted to allow people to enjoy the format that GoblinElectromancer had made and that DeinoStinkus misinformed people about, so I commented many ideas I had been testing, from Lotus Storm to Intuition based Dark Depths builds.

He made the comment in response:

"Um... you're accusing me of things I did not do. I didn't say you and I were the only people who made decks, and I put the cards on the list that I did for a reason. Fog can save games from Lage. I'm honestly regretting mentioning you, as you are being kind of angry and disrespectful."

Again, my post, as it is all text, and was rather factual, wasn't a charged statement, but as I understand that people can take intention from context clues I might not have intended, I apologized if I had any upset emotions spread, however due to him denying these factual accusations, I at that point had become upset. I stated that, and explained why if the Dark Depths token was the use of Lage, Unsummon, which isn't even a great card in the format, could do much better.

I at this point go more into context as to my accusation that he had misquoted shadow63, used it to make him seem idiotic, despite him being a great deckbuilder (Go check him out, he does modern and casual decks, as well as lots of tribal stuff, which I personally enjoy!).

The the following post we get much more context as to what DeinoStinkus's goal was:

_"Okay. I wasn't misquoting shadow, and I wasn't implying he was a bad deck builder. I was just adding some stuff for drama. Burn, mill, and tokens are technically still the archetypes.

I'm going to ban you now, and it'd be beneficial for you just to forget about me and move on (not from Spellchaser, but let's just let this dispute be over)."_


Let's break down what was just said, he admitted to lying about what shadow63 stated for drama, as he added stuff for an effect to the 'narrative' he was pushing (the narrative being that people assumed this format was solved with 3 possible decks and no diversity), he then stated that he would ban me, which he never did, because he'd rather continue the drama, which he already stated was his goal.

We know he makes threats he doesn't back up, likes drama, and admits to lying specifically to start it.


Mild discussion ensues as I had cleaned some clothes, and when I came back I was honestly so done with this person that I just posted

"Ban me? Wow I am so scared that a toxic, drama searching liar is trying to ban me from their forum that only I and the person you lied about cared about enough to even comment on :eyeroll:"

At this point I understand that this is a problem on my end, I did just egg him on, and that isn't my best move. He continues with the weak threats:

"Oh okay I can do better"

And after all of that, people start to join in on the comments about this guy, Daveslab2022 comments:


_DeinoStinkus lmao dude. You’re going to get upset because he called you out, CORRECTLY, I might add. I’ve never played or even heard of the format, but you said Fog is a good card, SynergyBuild explained very succinctly why you are wrong and you just get upset.

Then after all of that you have the audacity to say “I added some stuff for drama.” Wtf does that even mean? And then you say “all this for a card game.”

It’s not about the card game, lol, it’s about your behavior while discussing the game. You admitted you were already trolling by saying you added stuff “for drama.”_


Now this comment is important, as it shows where DeinoStinkus most likely realized he was either wrong or at least not right in the public consensus. His response was, in my own opinion, the worst one so far, bringing in TypicalTimmy for no apparent reason but to pressure Timmy into defending him.

"I wasn't trolling, I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just wanted to discuss a format I find interesting. And it wasn't the stuff he called me out on that I was angry about, as I openly stated that I wad wrong about those things, it was his aggressive attitude. He thinks I'm trying to be rude to other users and I'm not, I'm discussing a history of a new format, trying to get it more popular so people can have a fun time playing it. I love the community here at Tappedout and I wouldn't try to troll it. I'm not even the kind of person who would troll. TypicalTimmy can verify, sorry for bringing him into this."


Brief sidenote onto their relationship, DeinoStinkus had just recently sent TypicalTimmy some kind messages regarding how he looked up to Timmy as a deckbuilder, they otherwise didn't have a large repertoire of conversations I could find.

I know that TypicalTimmy was both touched by this and it was honestly a really kind moment that I wish was sincere, however this small act of kindness that could blossom to a friendship immediately gets used as a tool to have backup from a well-known member of the community being brought in to change the course of discussion toward DeinoStinkus.


I was disgusted. I didn't know why he would say such a thing, and commented:

_"Go ahead fam, I'm really sick of spending time with chill people on a forum, people that I like, that know what they are talking about, made a really cool though[t] experiment of a format, I get to test it, and then some nobody trolls and ruins it for the rest of us, lies, misquoted, misreads rulings, misreads bans, and harasses me and other people.

I know TypicalTimmy, we are good friends, and he is an excellent deck builder you sucked up to just to use as backup to pretend you aren't a troll. Disgusting. He was really happy when you just looked up to him, now that I know it was to use his status in the community to prop up your own I am in utter disdain of you."_

And, because he now knows I personally know Timmy, he realizes that bringing him into the conversation wasn't the best idea, or that is what it seems to me, as he then posts, (completely contradicting the fact he attempted to bring someone else into the conversation in his last comment):

"I really just don't want to argue. This is just stupid. Remember that we are here to have fun discussing a card game that we all enjoy, not to argue. Debate, perhaps, but this argument is no longer healthy or intelligent for either of us."

So now our good friend DeinoStinkus is here to tell me what is healthy for me and what is intelligent, while repeatedly spreading misinformation, lies, and dragging his small acts of kindness toward kind strangers through the mud. TypicalTimmy hasn't commented yet (I doubt he is only at this point.)

Daveslab2022 brings up DeinoStinkus and me actually dueling on Untap.in, and he promptly made excuses and eventually the we evaded the conversation on that tab, him most likely because I let him pretend to have the moral high ground and 'be the bigger man,' and I because I respect the format and don't want to cause drama over what GoblinElectromancer thought up.

I then followed up jokingly, however on DeinoStinkus's decklist: Spellchaser - Rituals and Loam, where he commented and stated he got a turn 5 win, (in playtesting with a Dark Depths win, not stating that at the time), and I jokingly commented:

_"What deck did you fight against? Did they cast Fog an suddenly win?

Also, nice job winning a game, who did you fight, I'd love to play against them! @GoblinElectromancer, see, people are playing the format a lot, ofc, right?"_

This was an obvious jab at his remark stating that Fog was an efficient answer to Dark Depths, and he replied that he playtested, and I should stop. At this point, I had my fun, and didn't expect this guy to change, but I didn't want him to go around without at least apologizing, I sincerely comment that, and he replies:

"GoblinElectromancer I am truly sorry for the mess we've made if your format. I hope we can all peacefully correspond in the future to discuss the format."

On the surface, this may seem like the apology I had asked for, however I had asked for an apology to all of my friends and myself, not only GoblinElectromancer, and he didn't just apologize, he claimed we apologized, despite me at this point not messing up the format, simply messing with him. I tell him

_"@DeinoStinkus, do you want to apologize to me and my friends, or just say "we've" made a mess "if {@GoblinElectromancer's} format"

Speak for yourself, I didn't start this."_

He now states that I am playing the blame game, despite him apologizing for me, and me never speaking for him, as well as claiming I am at blame for the lies and misinformation, which hurt GoblinElectromancer's format. Mild banter on spelling ensues, and it end with him saying he will no longer comment and I let him know that is fair.

In this some sidenotes:

  • He claims I am someone who needs to be angry, assuming I was at that point, and not just disappointed in him.

  • He says that he was calm and civil.

  • He claims I am misinterpreting his words and actions.

  • He stated that he was stating facts.

Again, at this point he already changed the 70 cards in the main deck to 75, apologized to GoblinElectromancer (despite that apology being snide and malicious), and later will even claim he made mistakes, so him stating that he only stated facts is just another lie to the tallys.


Now originally, this was all that occurred, and despite this all seeming plenty enough to block and report someone, he was someone interested in the community. I assumed they were some kid that made false threats, lied repeatedly, and misinformed many people, and was incredibly defensive and manipulative, however seemed genuinely interested in the community, so I wasn't okay with dismissing them entirely, despite them wronging me, as they only messed up some of the forums involving the thought-experiment format.


Until today. Now, Caerwyn and RambIe are two interesting users of the side, Caerwyn being a moderator and an incredible deckbuilder and knowledgable person on the topics of metagames, etc. and RambIe being a rogue deckbuilder who aims to break the norms surrounding the deck-sharing site based often on small tweaks to otherwise commonly built archetypes. He goes against the 'netdecking' attitude of the community. In all honesty, I've had my disagreements with them on the site, but are friended with them both and have had ample chats with them as they are incredible people.

On the why-are-some-commander-staples-so-expensive RambIe made a post explaining his reasoning as to why the format staples are so expensive, exactly as the title implies would question the readers. He goes over Supply and Demand a bit, and then makes a post relating to his style of going against the grain and thinks "everyone should stop trying to be like everyone else and do there own thing in there own way."

Later on Caerwyn replies in a way that I thought was out of character, however if you would want to read more on it, the link is at the top of this post.

The overall outcome was that it seemed like drama would ensue, jaymc1130 posts about how he believes Caerwyn is in the wrong, I post a comment trying to rationalize both people's general conflicting ideas, and post on Jay's, Caerwyn's, and Rambie's pages what I thought could reduce the friction caused, and attempt to rectify it before massive drama ensues, especially with a moderator involved. jaymc1130 discusses with me our opinions, and we chat for a bit.

Then RambIe makes it clear to me and everyone else that I didn't explain his rational properly, and messed up, I, obviously not knowing how they feel, immediately regrets speaking for them, as that isn't my place, and I am not a moderator who is able to take prevalence in this conversation which I was not a part of. I should have left it to the both of them, and immediately apologized to RambIe for messing up on him, and completely agreed I was in the wrong.

This bit of drama was honestly mild, RambIe hasn't yet replied to me, and Caerwyn hasn't replied at all, personally, as long as I can continue a good relationship with them, I am happy, but if either or both of them wish to no longer communicate with me I am perfectly okay with that outcome, it is what I deserve, and I have come to terms with that. I didn't start this drama however, and though in my comment to Caerwyn I misinterpreted a separate comment RambIe had made to me, I never intentionally lied to misinformed anyone. This can be a clear tally under my column for bad behavior.


Today, using this drama and my apology, DeinoStinkus makes his inevitable return. He posts on RambIe's wall that I was backpedaling (I was, as I was wrong, and when you are wrong you apologize and take back your incorrect opinion/statement), and then does exactly what he did to TypicalTimmy to RambIe, telling him "I think you're a respectable dude. You're not afraid to state unpopular opinions, and you're resilient and stand up for yourself."

Again, we have seen this style of Deino looking up to someone who can deal with his problem because they are a well-known member, this time someone who specifically I messed up on and apologized profusely to, after he dismissed my apology to RambIe, despite it being to someone other than him, DeinoStinkus has to make it about him.

On the forum page where the RambIe&Caerwyn drama took place, no one has responded on it to the drama (except for one post on GhostChieftan and a small sidenote mentioning GhostChieftan's post by King_marchesa), keeping the drama off the post, and though other people have messaged me and others involved about explaining the situation, on our individual pages, DeinoStinkus decides to throw my name around again, (remember I wasn't a major part of this drama, and took back all I had said on the topic to each affected user), stating to jaymc1130 that "Synergy did the same to me at this forum, where he used my forum post where I said I looked up to TypicalTimmy to try to make me feel bad about myself."


Take a step back now, he is now saying I tried to make him feel bad about himself for looking up to TypicalTimmy. When did I say that again? And when did I say that jaymc1130 should feel bad about himself for anything?

I did say I wasn't sure if his comment could start the drama more than end it, but I never said he should feel bad, in fact, I posted on jaymc1130's personal page not to worry, that I love the initiative, thank you, and I admitted at the last post to having misread the posts. None of that was to make jaymc1130 feel bad about himself.

Later jaymc1130 replies that DeinoStinkus made similar mistakes to Caerwyn, and DeinoStinkus made as many mistakes as all humans do, honestly a touching comment, which of course DeinoStinkus replies to by saying he "just can't stand people being snarky or condescending in the forums."

jaymc1130 replies kindly on DeinoStinkus's page, and proves is a friggin saint.


This immediately broke a bunch of predetermined rules set up by DeinoStinkus on not bringing it up, on supposedly never lying, and on only stating facts. Tally it up. Here we go again.

I posted: _"DeinoStinkus are you still on that? Dude you literally asked TypicalTimmy to vouch for you, after lying about everyone, after everyone told you that they didn't appreciate you doing that, after you lied about the rules, then you tried to take the moral high ground and said we shouldn't talk about it and even said you were 'done speaking on the topic.'

You are now out here trying to say I did jaymc1130 wrong, when I already told him I messed up and apologized. Shut up dude, no one cares about you. You lied on GoblinElectromancer's rules, lied about shadow63's comments attempting to make him look stupid, and constantly was arguing. I screwed up when trying to fix a situation I didn't start here, you screwed up starting a situation with lies and deception, trying to bring people from this topic onto that. Go step on a lego brick, this is tiring at this point, you lied again after saying you wouldn't bring it up because you were 'such a great person'.

I'm still sorry to RambIe, and sorry to Caerwyn too because I spoke for both of them when it wasn't my place. No one is sorry for calling you out for being a troll."_

This was sincere, at this point, despite him bringing people in, TypicalTimmy didn't take sides, and everyone else wasn't taking DeinoStinkus's attempt to hijack my apology to RambIe, Caerwyn's drama, and especially everything involving GoblinElectromancer's format.

DeinoStinkus replies, with some key information: "Everyone meaning Daves lab who has essentially forgotten the whole thing and moved on? I didn't lie about shadow's comments, I quoted him verbatim. I apologized already for making him sound naiive [er.], and he already said he didn't care about the topic. We already stopped our spat, I was just saying "I was there too". I apologize for bringing this old thing back up, if Synergy has anything else to yell at me about I would like him to please do it on my wall."


So, apparently, from the Spellchaser drama, he forgot GoblinElectromancer and me and only remembered screwing over Daveslab2022's little joke about us dueling by making up excuses. He can supposedly playtest on T/O to get a turn 5 win with Lage, but can't use Untap.in on whatever device he is on, if you didn't remember.

He then states again that he didn't lie about shadow63's comment. I beg of you to read comment 6 on Spellchaser Revisited (https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/kitchen-table/spellchaser-revisited/) and the posts in question for clarification on why this is absolutely a lie. He then states I am yelling at him, etc.


At this point, you'd imagine it can't get more annoying. However TypicalTimmy asks everyone to stop picking on DeinoStinkus, because he has received a fair amount of disagreement from the community. Honestly I don't disagree with this, however I also don't want anyone to continue lying about other people and get away with it as perfectly fine for the community. It doesn't breed a good attitude.

As DeinoStinkus told me to speak on his page, I did so. I explain my issues, and he says he will use the 'silent treatment,' and snarkily states it 'worked pretty well last time.'

Ironic from someone who can't stand people being snarky on the forums. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

After that, I assumed things would remain normal, no one would side with him, people would be annoyed, and the next time he felt like bringing it up to try to change the outcome he'd do so. However after he stated he wouldn't discuss it this time, something interesting happened. Chromium_Overseer actually sided with him, now I am not upset at him, due to the time that it would take to read all of this context and check individual pages for the ordering, etc. a lot of why people like me are so dismissive of him is because of how aggressive and rude he was at the start, but if you don't know the order it could look like he was just overly defensive after the community teamed up on him.

That's why I am making this post. I chatted some with Chromium_Overseer who, despite siding with DeinoStinkus (he states also TypicalTimmy's side, but he hasn't picked one to my knowledge), seems like a good person who just wants a good community, though I don't know them well enough to say.

Overall, that's my issue. At this point he has repeatedly lied, admitted it, repeatedly misinformed users, admitted it, then on both accounts backpedaled saying he didn't admit it, claimed I backpedaled, claimed we shouldn't bring it up, then repeatedly brought it up again, and has been a toxic member of the community committing libel repeatedly on this forum.

I don't know who to go to report him, as blocking him doesn't stop him from slandering my name on multiple forum posts and using the confusing drama to trick people like Chromium_Overseer into siding with him. I have had enough, and don't want to ruin the forums he continuously brings me up in by simply defending myself.


What are the proper reporting channels for this behavior?

Any ideas on how to deal with this situation?

If I misinterpreted the situation, can that misinterpretation be brought up so I can more accurately deal with the drama?

EDIT: Itallics and breaks for proper flow.

Load more