|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|Urza's Saga (USG)||Rare|
|Promo set for Gatherer (PSG)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
: Add to your mana pool for each creature you control.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
Gaea's Cradle Discussion
5 days ago
Also which generals you thought would be a better option in the 3 commander I listed?
5 days ago
Without knowing your budget and builds, it's hard to say. Obviously Gaea's Cradle fits nicely in about any mono green deck, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth the price tag. Wirewood Lodge is good if you're running elves and it can make an infinite mana combo with Argothian Elder and any way of producing multiple mana from a single land. Mosswort Bridge can be pretty solid in most green decks and it's pretty cheap, so you'll probably want that I guess?
1 week ago
+1 Upvote from me!
1 week ago
I saw that you added the cycling lands, but then removed Life from the Loam. That is a mistake. You can return the cycle lands and have draw two on a stick. I can understand the other dredgers since you aren’t going for a fast kill, but the loam package seems to fit the speed you are playing at. With Underrealm Lich ,for two mana, you are looking at six cards and doing this on other players turns. It also makes it easy to return Cabal Coffers and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, which make your win a lot easier. Also, if you are going to play Razaketh, the Foulblooded you should partner him up with his buddy Life / Death. It fits into exactly what you are doing. It allows you to return razaketh, setup the winning turn, and even gives you a mini Bitter Ordeal bomb. Interesting deck. Had a similar idea, except it was a bit more expensive because it required Gaea's Cradle Yawgmoth's Will and Earthcraft. If you want to take the razaketh line further Songs of the Damned might allow you to combo the turn you assembled razaketh and Life / Death.
2 weeks ago
So I am new to cEDH and decided to build a Yisan deck that is semi-budget (aka about $100 over what I already own, and luckily I own a good number of the expensive core cards: Ancient Tomb, Cavern of Souls, Craterhoof Behemoth, Dryad Arbor, Gaea's Cradle, Natural Order, Seedborn Muse, Staff of Domination, Strip Mine, and the 4 fetches.
I got here due to your reddit primer and I'm trying to fuse together your budget/non-budget builds since mine will be somewhere in the middle. I have 2 questions:
Should I even bother with the stax package if I can only afford to pick 1-2 pieces due to budget ... or should I just focus on getting the solid creature/enchantment core? Is there a critical density of stax that you need for any pieces to be worth it or is a 1-by-1 acquisition a fine upgrade strategy?
Also, just looking at this list and the verse chain ... would Elderscale Wurm or Regal Force be a better fit at 7 to either better interact with some combo decks or draw loads of cards before you're about to go off with craterhoof? Excuse the ignorance since I haven't played this yet, but what is the justification of Hornet Queen over any other 7cmc? It just doesn't seem to be that great of a card and since both of those other 7cmc guys are more budget friendly, I'm assuming there's a reason for running it that I'm just missing.
Thanks for all the work on this and the primer!
2 weeks ago
Boza, while I have agreed with much of your previous comments, the last one I disagree with.
To claim in EDH that if a card doesn't aid your main avenue for victory, that it doesn't belong is stupid on a basic level.
Take the new Assassin's Trophy. Why have many decks switched from Abrupt Decay to it, and others stayed? Well, this is simple, and doesn't have to aid with the main avenue for victory. The arguement is normally versatility, vs hitting something harder. f you are trying to kill a Food Chain, Abrupt Decay will not give them a land, can't be countered, and is otherwise the same. A much better removal spell, when it is applicable, but against a Captain Sisay, Paradox Engine, or Gaea's Cradle, it can't hit it at all.
This doesn't have to do with the victory avenue, mana, type of card, and only sort of, kind of has to do with opportunity cost, which is a super far stretch for this kind of replacement/addition to a deck.
So, if the previous comment it what you consider for adding or removing cards, how would you possibly justify either replacing the other in your decks?
2 weeks ago
Thanks for your detailed response! I will definitely try some of your suggested cards and see how it does. I liked the idea of using living plane as a deterrent--it seems just evil, but funny.
A couple of questions:
Budget Priorities: I have to do some swapping for the ABR Duals, Gaea's Cradle, and Living Plane. I was wondering how to prioritize acquiring these pricier cards. My thinking was 1. Gaea's Cradle (currently using Hinterland Harbor)> 2. Living Plane (currently using Nature's Revolt) > 3. ABR Duals ( I put in Bountiful Promenade, Sea of Clouds, Botanical Sanctum)
Tutoring choices: I found Edric, Spymaster of Trest to be an amazing choice (so much so I am considering Bident of Thassa), but what do you typically find yourself tutoring for when searching for creatures.
2 weeks ago
Now my stance on land destruction is that of scarcity. Certain lands may needs to be dealt with and for that I wholeheartedly enjoy the Wasteland- and Tectonic Edge-esque type of lands. The choice is to blow up your land with your opponent's land so you're likely only doing it if that trade is favorable to you. For instance if your opponent has a Gaea's Cradle then you will easily trade your Wasteland for their Cradle unless they cannot utilize it at all. In that situation I say it's a tech choice. You include Wasteland to get rid of annoying or greedy lands.
Cards like Stone Rain are a lot worse (for the game) in my eyes because you don't trade resources. You trade a card versus your opponent's land. There's no limit to how many Stone Rains or similar you can play, given you have the mana and cards for it while lands are usually locked to once a turn.
I am mainly a multiplayer (Commander) player and therefore single-target land destruction is not really something people can efficiently run because they have multiple opponents. However land destruction in those formats are usually attributed to continuous land destruction, like that on Numot, the Devastator or mass land destruction, like that of Armageddon. Both types have attributes in common; they affect their opponents far more than they affect the player.
Land destruction is not really an integrated part of Magic's repertoire and therefore there exists very few cards that deal with that situation and in even fewer colors - white being the one that has most effects that hinder their loss of lands, through cards like Sacred Ground or Faith's Reward or Teferi's Protection. Because there's little counterplay to land destruction, I find that those who do use it are disproportionately capitalizing on a gameplay with limited or weak counterplay.
If Wizards printed an Artifact that said the exact same as Sacred Ground AND replaced itself for a semi-small cost of 3-4 CMC, then I figure land destruction would take a heavy toll on its effectiveness. Add an instant in black that makes your lands or even non-creature permanents indestructible and hexproof and retaliate if an ability or spell would destroy your lands, do so against the controller of that ability or spell.
Wizards will unlikely do this as those would be a primary direct countertool to land destruction which as said before is not an integrated part of Magic. The existence of such cards are not to be utilized in their own rights but rather to remove/keep away land destruction as a viable option. However if land destruction would ever become a more integrated part of Magic, counterplay would need to follow. And to be honest, most of such effects I figure would be either too hamstring on counterplaying land destruction that their uses for anything else is rather limited or useless, or they manipulate lands in a way that is otherwise unhealthy whether for direct resource manipulation or they provide those greedy lands (Gaea's Cradle Cabal Coffers UrzaTron) too much protection that those tech cards you have a few of to dispose of those greedy lands, suddenly ain't cutting it.
There's so little recursion of lands from the graveyard and they are such an integrated part of being able to play the game that land destruction on a scale that becomes a lock/hindrance to play the game and not a technical countertool is not fun for the receiving party.
Imagine if creature removal didn't exist. Auras and equipment would become so broken. Or they would take into effect that nothing could really stop them and be made useless.
It's a fine line between providing win conditions or advantageous effects and appropriate countermeasures and I think land destruction is a REALLY crappy one to balance out. And for that I am thankful that Wizards largely have avoided land destruction as a viable tactic.