Kragma Warcaller

Kragma Warcaller

Creature — Minotaur Warrior

Minotaur Creatures you control have haste.

Whenever a Minotaur you control attacks, it gets +2/+0 until end of turn.

Browse Alters View at Gatherer


Have (0)
Want (1) Ghanbury

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Theros (THS) Uncommon

Combos Browse all


Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
Noble Legal
Hero Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Modern Legal
Highlander Legal
Penny Dreadful Legal
Block Constructed Legal
2019-10-04 Legal
Pioneer Legal
MTGO Legal
Leviathan Legal
Legacy Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Latest Decks as Commander

Kragma Warcaller Discussion

TypicalTimmy on Card creation challenge

1 month ago

I just realized a small error. So I worded Traumoka, Primal Growth in a similar way to how Kragma Warcaller is written; By wording it as "X you control have", it encompasses itself - saving design space. Compare this to Neheb, the Worthy who not only has first strike printed on the card, but then it says other Minotaur also have it. This is redundant as it could have merely said "Minotaur you control have first strike", giving himself it by default.

Anyway, the point is I did it this way with Traumoka, Primal Growth so that ALL Dinosaurs you control get +1/+1 and trample, INCLUDING Traumoka.

So where am I going with this? Well, I made him a 7/8. This ability makes him an 8/9, which might be too strong.

So if I wanted a 7/8 body, he would need to be printed as a 6/7 so that he gives himself +1/+1 up to 7/8.

So what are your thoughts? Should he be a 7/8 after the +1/+1 (meaning I messed up the statline) or is he better off at an 8/9 after the ability?

TypicalTimmy on Ability challenge

3 months ago

Okay, back. Bare in mind I purposely ignored this thread for like a week, so I wouldn't see anything preemptively. Yes I popped in to acknowledge ZendikariWol's post on the previous page, but that was just so I wouldn't accidently overlook it as it was on another page at the very bottom. So I have zero prior knowledge on what's being made here. I see, as I read the replies, that there is some back and forth regarding some ideas. I'm not actually reading those, either. The reason is, I don't want to be influenced. I'm reading the name of the user, and if I already read a post from them, I skip all other posts they have made. I feel that's the best way to move forward.

  • ZendikariWol: Affiliate to X is an interesting idea. Basically, it allows tribal synergy with creatures who are not part of that tribe. To be honest, this feels like an unset mechanic - or at least could originate in an unset. I don't mean that in a bad way, either! It's actually quite funny to think of something like a Bear being affilated to Hounds, with the flavor text "D'awww, who's a good boy??" and the bear is being scratched on the head or sitting on someone's lap. It has a nice whimsical feel to it. Explored in another set, I think it'd be solid for Tarkir. You could have Humans be Affiliated with Dragons, drawing tribal synergy between the two. Honestly, the sky's the limit with an ability like this. As long as the set has a tribal theme, it would work. Take, for example, Eldrain. You could have a strong Affiliation with Knights in that one. I'm not honestly sure how big it could go, but it definitely has potential.

  • Boza: Honestly, your mechanic concerns me. It sounds like a hard wincon and requires a ton of setup and, by design, has LOTS of interaction between players, but unfortunately the reality is that once you get 10+ Gold tokens, you just have to self-Wrath. Once you have like one permanent with Affiliate, you automatically win the game. For example, if you are sitting at 12 Gold tokens, you can wipe the board clean and drop a single 1cmc or 2cmc spell with Affiliate. You'll end up creating 1 more token and now you have 13 with 1 permanent with Affiliate, thus winning the game. It really is a cool mechanic, but the wincon feels a bit strong.

Ya done did me do math, Boza. I went back to make sure I had the correct grasp of your concept. The first card you'd cast with Affiliate would see you control no PERMANENTS with it and thus get a big fat 0 Gold tokens. The second one would see 1. The third would see 2. The fourth would see 3.

So, how many does it take?

  • First: 0
  • Second: 1
  • Third: +2 = 3
  • Fourth: +3 = 7
  • Fifth: +4 = 11
  • Wrath, cast sixth and win

Wait, it checks the whole game - not just your boardstate. So if your opponent has cast 5 permanents with Affiliate, you merely have to cast the sixth and you'd win. Now, you'd control only one permanent with it, but you'd control a total of 11 Gold tokens. So you can literally just wait and snap a win out from someone by casting a single spell.

  • dbpunk: Feels like a functional reprint of Soulbond, only stronger since it can be any permanent and not just another creature. I'm interested in seeing where this could go, for example if someone is affiliated with an equipment or if a manadork is affiliated with a land? I feel like the design space is effectively limitless, but I must admit that worries me that it can become so big, that the abilities overall would become rather thin. For example, how many creatures can be affiliated with enchantments, effectively? It's certainly an interesting take on an old mechanic. Probably best for a Commander Precon set where you have a Commander with multiple types, such as a Legendary Artifact Enchantment Creature or something bonkers like that. But again, I can't speculate on the Precon design.

  • Woiteck: I am extremely happy you specifically mentioned it being for a multiplayer game. I was about to say, what happens when two opponents in a Standard match each have one out?? Uhh, gg? Lol but, this does raise the issue of, what happens when the LAST two players in a round of EDH have one of these out? It's an interesting design though. You can't harm them, and for that you benefit whenever they do. Sort of like a Smothering Tithe but to the max. Could be super fun and janky in a Group Hug deck, or perhaps even a strange Prison deck where you lock players out from interacting with you, and now you benefit anytime they interact with anyone else. I feel like this is some Big Brain decking. Probably some kind of 4c Commander idea. It's definitely interesting. You'd want to spread your resources around, though. If you pile them all onto one player and that player drops out of the game, your entire boardstate effectively became meaningless. However, if you spread the love, you now can't interact with anyone. That creates a lot of problems; You can't focus too much on one person, but you can't focus on everyone. And if you focus on two players and not the third, it will make that opponent feel like you are "going after" them since they are the only one you can interact with. Overall, it's a cool idea, but I'm concerned about how it would play out.

  • Tzefick: Did you make a submission? I'm not seeing any from you. Did you just pop in here to comment on other users? If so, that's okay. I'm just making sure that I'm not missing something.

This is really hard, but I feel perhaps it's on me because "affiliate" is a very difficult word to capture on a playing card. Affiliate means to officially attach or connect (verb) or when a person or organization is attached to another (noun).

For example, if I set up a meeting so that I might affiliate with the sales department, we are actively engaging in conversations and meetings to become better inter-connected. Likewise, if my company reaches out to a distributor in order to steamline shipping, our two companies are now affiliated together.

This is something everyone captured to some extent or another. So in terms of achieving what the core root of the word means, everyone represented it well. However, and it's on no part anyone's fault, that concept is extremely hard to represent in a card game medium. You are "representing a social meta-construct with physical design space". That is not an easy task.

So I am going to judge the winner, not based on whose design is the coolest or most unique, but on how well it can fit into a Commander Precon.

I feel like everyone's design fits best into Commander Precons. I say this because you have (excluding lands) something like 65 cards to work with. That's a lot of design space. If you tried to fit Affiliate into a Standard set, you'd have maybe 12 - 20 cards? And with our recent bout of single-block sets, you might only have like 7.

So if in 2021 Affiliate was one of the core themes in the set of Commander Precons, how does each one fare? That's how I am basing my rankings. I think that is the most fair way of doing things.

Now, before I continue, I'd like to say I am officially going back to read the rest of the thread. I am doing this because, after coming to a decision on each design as listed above, I'd like to see what each user who had something to say... well, says. I am doing this because while I have my personal opinion on the matter, I feel their individual voices deserve to be heard. Perhaps I will see something I overlooked, which would be unfair to ignore that information.

ZendikariWol: As I said, I am basing my decision on a Commander Precon set. That gives all four participants an equal chance to have the maximum number of cards in a theoretical deck. This means the deck can be specifically honed from the start to see what it might be capable of. Your idea of affiliating with creatures to give them additional subtypes comes of as both humorous and interesting. I'll admit, it does have the drawback of potentially going too wide. If you have a Goblin affiliated as an Elf, but you have like two cards that care about Elves, that Goblin is effectively meaningless. I feel like the best way to build this kind of a deck is using a dual-tribal theme. I have a deck on here somewhere that does exactly that; Every single creature (and token) are BOTH Elf and Warrior. I wanted to challenge myself, so I made it. It isn't any good, but it exists. Now this obviously has the inherent problem of "Why not just give the creature that subtype?"

Well, from a flavor perspective, it makes no sense. There is no such thing as a Jellyfish Hydra. Wait.

The charm it brings is amazing, but I can't put you here based on that alone. It functionally must represent something and make sense. For that, it's the ability to interact and pull synergy from others. It would be unfair of me to assume what your Commander in the Precon might look like, so I won't. I'd have to do that for everyone else, and then you get too derailed. I could also speculate on what the deck might look like, but again that would be unfair as then I'd have to do that for everyone else.

So purely based on the mechanical function, I have to ask this:

  • Does it work? Yes. Synergy being pulled across tribes works well. Tribal synergy is always a strong contender for matches, and we have seen several times where Precons use this.
  • Does it offer drawbacks? Yes. You'd need cards of specific types in order to interact with. For example, if you have someone Affiliate with Dragon, you'd need something that cares about Dragons, such as Crucible of Fire. If you don't have that out, the Affiliate with Dragons does literally nothing.
  • Does it backfire? No, actually. Not really. Even if you lack the synergy at that moment, the creature itself is still useful as is. This is the type of mechanic where the more you have, the better it becomes. This means judging it in a vacuum of one card does not paint the whole picture. Again, this is why I am basing my decision on theoretical Precons.

Woiteck: Your idea seem like it can become an issue at any point in the game, purely because you sadly lock yourself out of it. If you are up against 3 opponents, you have three options:

  • Choose 1 to lock yourself out of and go after two players, but once that player leaves the game your cards become moot
  • Choose 2 to lock yourself out of and have the 3rd player upset that you are "attacking them" (Since that's literally the only player you can attack or interact with)
  • Choose 3 and lock yourself entirely out of the game. Now you're drawing and getting +1/+1 counters and doing cool stuff, and you literally can't do anything.

The interactions are awesome, and I love this exchange. This sort of "politics matter" vibe is great, which is why I put you higher on the list. But, I just can't get past the fact you can literally stonewall yourself at any point of the game. The fact it backfires so dramatically stopped me from putting you higher on the list.

dbpunk: I am interested in seeing more examples of how this could work, but I feel like overall the condition doesn't really make the ability viable. Affiliating with another permanent for a +1/+1 bonus, or getting a keyword ability, kind of seems ... I don't really know how to word it without coming off rude, and that makes me feel terrible. Like, if a card costs a little more mana so it can be Affiliated with, perhaps an Enchantment so it gets +2/+0 or something, why not just give it +2/+0 in another way, such as like how Kragma Warcaller does. I'm just trying to see how this could work in a deck and I'm not really seeing it. I feel like you'd need either a ton of interactions, which could become confusing and players can lose sight of what's interacting with what (Again, just like my Hunt ability) or that you'd be so focused on interacting with one permanent or type of permanent that you'd cut out a lot of potential. It sort of reminds me of Outlast, where the bonus is applied if a +1/+1 counter is on them. It's easy to remember because the creature is marked with a counter and you merely have to see who has Outlast to see what bonuses are applied. This version makes you constantly double-check and remember by yourself. Again, just like my Hunt ability. So while it is interesting, I feel like it can get out of hand very quickly and players will lose focus or not remember. Or worse, the permanent it was Affiliated with is removed and the player still applies the bonus, by mistake or on purpose.

Boza: The aspect of stealing a game from someone because you cast a single spell is something I have a hard time with. Not just with this idea, but any card. That's why I dislike Craterhoof Behemoth. I don't feel like a player should "win the game" merely because they cast a single spell. The counterargument here is that it is upon the opponent to interact with the game and prevent that player from winning, and I understand. I don't mind the idea of blowing up permanents so less Gold counters are used, or using the Affiliate mechanic to ramp into some serious big spells. My issue is having a player work toward a goal, and their opponent casts a single spell and wins "by default". Having said this, I must give you props though. I made my Hunt mechanic, fully acknowledging it's a worse version of Fight, but I built it the way I wanted to because that's how I enjoyed it. So I'm not faulting you for your design - it really is an interesting way to force interaction and keep pace. I'm simply concerned that games can be stolen too easily. Now, I did say that I'd rate these based on a Commander Precon. That's true, but this kind of has a problem as well. I worked out it only takes six spells to win the game. So, if the Precon has too little, such as 8 or 9, the win condition might be too difficult to reach. If there's too many, such as 17 - 20, it might be too easy. Finding that sweet spot seems like it could be painstaking and, even if you hit it, there is no real guarantee you'd even draw enough to use. It just feels like there are too many things to step over to get it to work consistently, without backfiring. This feels like it's honestly more of a "ramp" mechanic, in that you cast a bunch of cards with Affiliate to generate a ton of Gold tokens so you have open mana for better spells. In that regards, well done you win. But because you stapled a win condition onto it, I need to consider that half of the equation as well. Since the clear goal is to get 10 more Gold tokens than the number of permanents you have with Affiliate, this means you can't actually use those tokens. So as a purely ramp-motivated design, it's fantastic. But as a wincon, it's too difficult and problematic in my opinion. Then again, so are many of them. Alternate wincons are hard to design and balance appropriately. I feel like if a Precon was built to actually win with this, it'd win too easily and thus become a problem in that regards as well.

TLDR - Balancing issues make it hard to figure out.

I honestly feel genuinely terrible with this. I feel like everyone struggled overly hard. I'm really sorry. Writing this post made me feel like a piece of shit because everyone put a lot of thought and time and effort into it, but at the end of the day it was just a very bad word.

I chose Affiliate as the word because I thought it'd be challenging. I never anticipated it'd be so much of a problem.

Kudos to everyone who managed to fight through it like a champ. Again, sorry the word was so difficult. :(

TypicalTimmy on User Introductions

3 months ago

Guess I'll kick things off, unless I get ninja'd lol.

  • Favorite Formats: Modern, EDH, trying to get into Pauper, Two-headed Giant. I also have a strong passion for Oathbreaker and Archenemy, despite not being "official formats". Out of all of them, I'd say Oathbreaker is perhaps my favorite with Archenemy being my second favorite.

  • Favorite Deck: Oh man, there's too many to choose from. I'd have to say my #1 favorite deck in Modern is my Rakdos Minotaur deck. It's lost to the aether somewhere on this site, but it's a Midrange Minotaur Tribal deck jam-packed with like ~18 instant-speed removal spells. Believe it or not, I went up against a tournament winning Elf deck and smashed it to pieces. My opponent made the fatal flaw of sinking everything he had into Ezuri, Renegade Leader. After he tapped everything and put it all on the stack, I came in with a Terminate and killed it. With nothing but some 1/1s and 2/2s on the field, he reluctantly passed. I had only four Minotaur on the field against an army of Elves. I had Rageblood Shaman, Felhide Petrifier, Neheb, the Worthy and Kragma Warcaller. This looks like it's merely 8 power on the field, but with all abilities adding up it's actually a total of 27 power. With Trample. And Deathtouch. And First strike. And Haste. So, he obviously did not block nearly enough and I won. Even if he had, I have Savage Beating in the deck for a reason ;).

As for EDH, my current favorite deck is my Lathliss' Brood deck. This thing is just a powerhouse of fun. The deck's description needs to be updated, but as of now the deck list itself is complete. I find it works very well the way it is. And yes, it can win on turn 6. Not take out one opponent. I mean take out all three of them, on turn 6.

As for Oathbreaker, by large my favorite deck is my exceptionally broken Kiora's Eternity - Dual Infinity, and Beyond!!. Being able to literally produce both infinite mana and infinite turns, on turn 4, is astounding. I'll need to fit Nyxbloom Ancient into the mix now ;) Because if you're going to Min-Max a deck, you gotta do it properly ;D

  • Favorite Color: - It's fast, it's powerful, and it doesn't care about you or your feelings. Second is green, followed by black, than white, than blue. Sorry blue players, but I don't have the time nor the patience to be responsive. If I am sitting there with zero cards in my hand and everything is turned sideways, I'm a very happy Timmy. :3

  • Favorite Guild: RAKDOS - also Gruul. If I am feeling midrangey, I play Rakdos. If I'm feeling stompy, I play Gruul. Oddly enough I have a very strong affinity for Orzhov. I think it's just a nice step into a different style. I love playing with life totals and all. Again, zero love for blue. Sowwie not sowwie.

  • Favorite Shard: Okay, so you're going to hate me for saying this but it's... Esper. I KNOW RIGHT?! For some reason, I absolutely LOVE how Esper playes. It's... I don't know. I think it's because since I am pulled into three colors, I need to manage resources better. I can't dedicate an entire deck to just smashing face or blowing stuff up. I could, but I think that having a third color pushes me out of my comfort zone and I find genuine solace in Esper's manipulation of the entire game. I know, it's very weird. This is the one and only time I play blue. Sometimes I'll try for something like Izzet or Temur, but the only one I find comes natural is Esper.

  • Favorite Wedge: I've always held a strong passion for Mardu, but I can never seem to make it work. One of these days I will, and it'll be my next passion project. Until then, Mardu, you're a love on the other side of the world. I think what I love the most about Mardu is, as weird as it will sound, it's not Jund. You'd think Jund is just Rakdos and Gruul combined, but in reality the way it plays, it's more Golgari and Gruul combined. I'm not really into graveyard interactions, and so I feel I can't play Jund properly. I always feel out of my element stepping into a Jund deck. But Mardu is so straight forward; Turn sideways and wrath.

  • Card that best represents you: I think, out of all of Magic, there is one card that truly sings to me and it's Xenagos, the Reveler. First of all, I love Planeswalkers. Secondly, I love Gruul. Thirdly, I love Theros. But also the abilities. +1 for stupid amounts of mana to sink into stupid amounts of spells and abilities? Thank you yes please. Then a free hasty boi for 0? Sure why the heck not?? That last -7 is great, too! It's effectively See the Unwritten on a stick but better! :D

  • Hobbies Outside of Magic: Work. Work. Work. Play with my cat. Sleep. Also work. I work a lot. I just accepted a position as a production supervisor for a company coming to America. I can't get into specifics here, but effectively what's going on is this is a Danish company that has been in business for 30+ years. They are opening up shop in America and built their very first plant last year in the town next to mine. They are in the process of building an entire nation-wide Division, and have asked me to be a production supervisor. I'm 30 years old. So if I work toward retirement goals, that's 35+ years with this company, literally on the ground floor of aggressive expansion. Nowhere to go but up.

  • Tell us about your life outside of TappedOut: As I just stated, I work a lot of hours. Currently about 50 - 60 a week. Thank God I'm hourly, right?? Haha but joking aside, I also support my disabled mother. My dad passed in 2007, we lost our house in the crash of 2008, and my mom was diagnosed with Lupus in 2010. Lupus is a disease where your immune system attacks your body. It starts with your joints, but it spreads to organs and the nervous system. Unfortunately there is no cure that we know of today. The best course is to put her on medication to suppress the immune system, which means she is constantly sick and battling illness. She almost passed away in 2017 when a simple head cold turned into bronchitis and then pneumonia. The virus moved into her kidneys where it caused massive damage and shut them down. She was in the ICU for literally a full three weeks, and her vitals crashed twice. She is doing much better now, but unfortunately Lupus will only make her health worse. It's sort of like Hospice. The unfortunate reality is that if she doesn't pass from something in the meantime, such as a car accident, Lupus will take her life. It may be 10 or 20 years from now, but it will happen. I believe she has started the early stages of alzheimer's / dementia as it spreads to and attacks her brain. She will "remember" conversations that never happened, she will forget things almost immediately, and she will hear sounds or see flashes of light that aren't there. She is 54 years old. So, the vast majority of my life is going to work, then coming home to take care of her. I was at Walgreens buying her medication when I posted this thread, and now I'm at home about to start cleaning as I type this reply. Such is my life.

  • How did you come up with your username? I actually had an account before this one, under the username MinotaurtheMatador, named after my favorite tribe; Minotaurs. I made a second account named Catalog9000, which I used as an online database for the cards I had. As my collection grew, the whole "cataloging" thing came harder to do and I consolidated both accounts into one. Once I upgraded, I switched to TypicalTimmy, because that's who I am as a player. I get excited over big stupid cards and I love to play big stupid creatures. You know how Pelakka Wurm was a pushed bulk rare in Core 2019 and everyone hated it? I ran a playset of it in two different decks. ;)

  • What first appealed to you about Magic? I'm honestly not sure. I actually hated Magic at first. Thought it was a stupid waste of time. Then again, I was an edgelord in high school, so go figure. What appeals to me now is the creative force behind deck building. I love the challenge of taking cards nobody uses and making it work. So yes, I play fringe decks. I love that this actually equates to an edge, because nobody knows what your deck will do since nobody plays it lol.

  • Why is Magic important to you now? The game isn't so much as important to me as the community. I come onto TappedOut because it's like going onto Facebook. I have friends here, I can talk about cool ideas, I can express concerns, I can offer advice. I may not be the best user, nor the most experienced. Heck, I'm probably not even in the top half. But I play the game in a way others don't (fringe), which means I can see potential in cards that many others will overlook. It might not be the best advice, but it's certainly something many users have taken into consideration and used.

  • What are your thoughts on the current metagame (any format)? I haven't kept up with metas in so long that I can't even tell you, anymore. I'm sorry.

  • Are there any cards or strategies you feel overcentralize the metagame? Since I can't answer the prior, I can't answer this either. Again, I apologize.

  • How do you deal with a dominant new deck, card, and/or player in your pod? 3/3. Can't answer. Sowwie.

  • What is your approach to deckbuilding? For Modern, I look for about 3 - 5 cards that all interact extremely well together and run a gambit of 2 - 4 copies in a deck. Synergy above all else. In EDH, I look for up to three "types" of cards and comprise a list of around 20 of each, then hone from there. For example, in my Lathliss, Dragon Queen I have three basic functions: Ramp & cost reduction, Dragons, Burn. Each one works on their own, but they work together to create a tremendous force to reckon with. I use the Commander as a tool to kick the deck into overdrive, not as a crutch the deck must be centered around. If she's not out, it's okay I'm still pitching 4/4s and 5/5s with strong abilities and evasion in the air. If she is out, hot damn.

  • Share with us some of your favorite decks by others on TappedOut you feel are underappreciated/underrated. I'll have to get back to this, sorry.

  • Are there any future releases you’re looking forward to? Why or why not? IKORIA & THE COMMANDER SET

SpaghettiKnife on Mad Cow Disease

5 months ago

I'm sure they will, they were a big tribe in the original Theros block, with support like Rageblood Shaman , Ragemonger , and Kragma Warcaller , they've just never received the quality low CMC drops that an aggro-centric tribe needs to be legitimately competitive, with all the good minotaurs being 3+ CMC.

5dollarMTG on The Stampe of the Cows

8 months ago

Don't forget Felhide Petrifier , Neheb, the Worthy , and Kragma Warcaller - three of the best reasons to play minotaurs.

hungry000 on Mogis' Marauders

1 year ago

The 3 Gnarled Scarhide (they'd die) and a Butcher's Glee . If the deck was made more Heartless Summoning-focused I'd also cut the rest of the Butcher's Glee and 2 Titan's Strength (or any 3 other spells) to make room for the rest of the Kragma Warcaller s and Ragemonger s, since they're what let the deck go crazy with Summoning. It could also be worth experimenting with cutting 1 or 2 lands, Summoning + Ragemonger will give you discounts and 20 is enough to get you to 4 lands on curve around 60% of the time (probably the max amount of mana you'd need with Summoning).

hungry000 on converting an old deck into ...

1 year ago

Here's an example Heartless Summoning deck you could look at if you decided to go that route: Mad Cows

I wouldn't play the Neheb, the Eternal s or Mogis, but otherwise it's a good reference for what you can add to your deck to make it more competitive. The cards I'd say are most important are the 4 Rageblood Shaman , 4 Ragemonger , 3 Felhide Petrifier , some amount of Neheb, the Worthy , 4 Kragma Warcaller , and Heartless Summoning of course. It's also worth investing in Lightning Bolt if you can afford it. The rest you can fill in with what you like.

dbpunk on Ya ya ya! I am Lorde Tribal!

1 year ago

I love this deck.

Skirk Prospector , Elvish Archdruid , Kragma Warcaller for more fun lords. Also Intruder Alarm , Mana Echoes and Elvish Archdruid have some fun tricks together, especially when combined with something that produces tokens when a creature enters, but I'm not suggesting those right away since I don't know your budget.

Load more