Leovold, Emissary of Trest

Legendary Creature — Elf

Each opponent can't draw more than one card each turn.

Whenever you or a permanent you control becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, you may draw a card.

View at Gatherer Browse Alters

Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts

Card Kingdom

$ $249.99 Foil


Recent Decks

DCMD 8 / 10
LEG 4 / 0
HL 0 / 4
Load more

Leovold, Emissary of Trest Discussion

falverin on Waiting for the Storm to Pass

2 days ago

You probably know this, but Leovold, Emissary of Trest is banned... unless your play group doesn't care about the ban list; otherwise, great deck!

Podma101 on Street Hustle

1 week ago

Given that you normally only have Nekusar around for a single turn on a good day, I have always stayed away from too many permanent that without him or similar effect, they turn against you. Forced Fruition is one of the worst offenders in my opinion. Without pain, you are allowing people to see their entire deck, when you are already wheeling them too. It does enable mill victory, but I'd be afraid of them getting more cards for free.

A few suggestions I can make:

Library of Leng - makes all wheels optional for you, plus incite hand size for one mana? Too good.

Sigil of Sleep - on Nekusar it turns him into Cyclonic Rift with a wheel.

Helm of the Ghastlord - this is a less popular card due to being an aura at 4 that won't win the game. However, this transforms Nekusar into Leovold, Emissary of Trest. You get to play a banned card, more or less.

Get rid of Day's Undoing. Unless you can cast it NOT on your turn, that last phrase will remove Nekusar's damage from the stack. Trade it for a Time Reversal or one of its more expensive cousins.

That's what I got for now! Super hard to critique on a small phone

KALE434 on Operation Ground and Pound

1 week ago

cyclonemetal I agree with you that it is too narrow, but in my case where there are: 2 Nekusar, the Mindrazer decks, 1 Mizzix of the Izmagnus deck, 1 Memnarch deck and 3 Maelstrom Wanderer decks. Also there use to be 3 Leovold, Emissary of Trest decks until he got the axe. So yeah, I agree with ya on how Boil is a little dumb but some times its a blow out and its cute. I don't really see it that often in my hand where it would be useless in my meta. But most of the time its there just for a good Sunforger target, anyways thanks for asking!

-Logician on 1-Card Deck Destruction (Anti-Combo)

2 weeks ago

Well you can remove Leovold, Emissary of Trest from the list.

iAzire on In light of the recent ...

2 weeks ago

MagicalHacker Yes my rant about Counterspells was sarcastic but I honestly don't see the difference when you're talking about the bans you suggested. Banning Ramp and Tutors seems like banning Counterspells to me. You talked about making the format more "fun" and what's less fun than getting your spells countered?

I have to say that my opinion hasn't changed regarding the banlist. I have always said that I believe the banlist should only be for Competitive players. We shouldn't make bans based off of Casual players because Casual players are more likely to follow their own version of a banlist or disregard it completely.

This has been my personal experience. Casual players will play banned cards, have other selective bans, etc. It is only the Competitive players that are required to follow the banlist. Tournament play will follow the banlist, Competitive players will build their deck on the banlist because that's what they play for. Casual Commander players in my experience just do whatever they want.

To give you examples, Prophet of Kruphix was banned because of its effect on Casual play. Recently Leovold, Emissary of Trest was banned because of its effect on Casual play. Neither of those cards were problematic in Competitive, yet they are banned for everyone now.

I bring this up because every Casual group I have played with has said, "Please don't play that deck anymore" "No infinite combos" etc. They outline their own rules before playing.

Competitive players are REQUIRED to follow the banlist, yet Casual players dictate the banlist. What sense does this make?

MagicalHacker on In light of the recent ...

2 weeks ago

To everyone,

I would like to remind you that such a banlist would also unban quite a few cards. Unbanning these cards would mean that now players could do new things that were unavailable to players because, with the prevalence of hyper efficient tutors and ramp, those were considered oppressive cards by the RC.

The following is a list of those cards:

Coalition Victory
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Leovold, Emissary of Trest
Painter's Servant
Panoptic Mirror
Primeval Titan
Prophet of Kruphix
Recurring Nightmare
Sway of the Stars
Sundering Titan
Sylvan Primordial

If you think any of these fall into one of my mentioned categories, or if you think I should create a new category in my proposed banlist because of any of these cards, let me know.

robbnoble, you say that taking away the best ramp makes the big, clunky creatures no longer viable. But should they remain unbanned and be abused for other purposes that can quickly lock out a game? In fact, there are many, many other cards that ramp. So it's not even true that banning the best ramp makes them no longer viable.

You say that playing against similar-strength decks is easy. If you go to a convention or some gathering and want to sit down to play a game of commander with 3 strangers, how exactly would you plan to ensure that everyone is playing a similar strength of deck as you? To me, that seems like a logistical nightmare. Since 99% of people want to win with their deck, everyone would play down their deck, no?

I believe a banlist is like a speed limit on the road. Yes, for many people, it sucks. But for everyone, it is a safety measure that the world would be a worse place without.

enpc and robbnoble, I agree that there are many different ideas of what commander should be like. So between the divide between the cEDH players and the more casual players, one group is going to have to adopt the "change the banlist to fit your playgroup" model. Which group would have an easier doing that? I believe it is much easier to take cards off a banlist in a group than it is to add them. Allow me to explain:

  1. If a player is doing something undesirable to a playgroup with a card, they will feel singled out if the group motions to ban that card. Why is it that I can't do X, but that guy can do Y. Banning cards based on experience will only lead to banning players.

  2. If a playgroup thinks a particular banned card could be alright, then they can unban it. In fact, they can adopt a position that its only unbanned for a certain amount of time, after which it will be banned again. This allows them to see if they want to permanently unban it in their group.

Not only is 2 more effective and more possible, it's also better for a playgroup's growth. As if that were not good enough, it also means that players won't be surprised with an encounter with stronger decks unless they have agreed to it beforehand.

enpc, You believe that without fast mana and hyper-efficient tutors, that the best decks will be sultai/bant control/goodstuff decks, but I just can't see that being the case. Currently, aggro decks cannot compete with the control/combo decks in general, and losing fast mana and tutors would hurt aggro less than control/combo. What I see happening is that aggro decks become more viable in the format, probably close to a balance with control and combo decks.

robbnoble, you ask why anyone should ruin a format for someone else when it's not necessary. That is exactly my point! What ruins a format more: a player building a deck only to have it get consistently beaten by strangers who spent lots of money to beat them with strategies that contradict the inherent design restrictions or a player who is in a group of players who all wish to play at a stronger level but for some reason don't actually motion to do so? I think the choice is obvious.

Chandrian, more than believing a banlist can facilitate a high occurence of fun games, I believe that a lack of a banlist (or a poor one) can ensure a higher percentage of unfun games for the majority of players.

You say that people have different perspectives on commander, and because of that, no banlist will ensure games will always be fun for everyone. Take a look at the games that were unbalanced that you've played, and tell me what you think the reasons for the lack of fun were. Were they not a combination of deck value discrepancies, hyper-consistency due to efficient tutoring, destroying each opponent's ability to produce mana, and/or the production of obscene amounts very early on in the games?

I agree that politics matter, but not when there's a Stasis lock out on turn 2. That's why I believe my proposed banlist would empower politics to matter in more games.

Epochalyptik, I completely agree with your first point. However, what would be stopping you from discussing with your playgroup to remove the cards from the banlist that your group would like to play with? According to my experience in multiple LGS stores over years, I have found that people wanting to have a highly competitive experience to be a minority. Should the majority of players be subjected to a banlist that doesn't represent their views? Also, for those that would then be unrepresented in the banlist choices, would it not be easier for them to unbanned cards than it would be for a playgroup to ban cards?

I would argue that saying the solution of resolving power differences with individuals is best in such a situation is a symptom of poor banlist management. If the banlist were better, those discussions would not be necessary.

Well, I did also include cheap ramp in the banlist, but I can respond to your final statement with regards to efficient removal. Nothing about the design of the format deals with removal. However, the format does have aspects of its design related to consistency. These aspects are exactly why tutoring is unique in its effect compared to cheap ramp and efficient removal; tutoring becomes much more powerful in a format where it can easily circumvent the only/biggest design restriction.

Chandrian on In light of the recent ...

2 weeks ago

I will only talk about multiplayer, because I don't play 1v1.

To me EDH is a casual format, yes I understand that there are people trying to break some commanders/cards/strategies in cEDH, but that's something else.

To me the goal of commander is to play with the cards you have, next time I'll play with my friends I'll suggest the "no banlist" option. Since we're all casual players that don't own the most broken/expensive cards this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Once someone starts building a "fully optimised" commander deck... well you can point out what's too powerfull for the playgroup and if they don't adapt... well you're not forced to play with them.

So what I mean is playgroups should decide on their own banlists.

What now when you play against people you don't know? What are the rules then? Well, I'd still go for a no-banlist approach. Why? Because it's multiplayer free for all. This means that if someone is getting too much ahead he/she will be a target for the rest of the table. I see people bitch about ramping in EDH... well don't play a battlecruiser format if you don't want people to ramp. I see people say Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Leovold, Emissary of Trest are too oppressive... well, Leovold is a normal creature, there's tons of hate against those at instant speed. And Emrakul? Well, either you can ramp to 15 mana, which isn't THAT easy to do (without going infinite) so I don't see a problem OR you get to infinite mana, but once people go infinite they usually win anyway, so once again I don't see a problem. If you play against decks you don't know, you should run answers to about everything you can and if you run enough answers (and the other players do as well) nothing should be too oppressive that it warrants a ban.

MagicalHacker on MTGO Commander changes

2 weeks ago

On the whole, I really like this banlist. Sure there are cards that are on it that I wish weren't on it (Back to Basics to punish multicolored decks, Humility to punish goodstuff decks), but there are lots of cards that are on it that I am glad are on it (literally all of the fast mana, Necropotence, Doomsday, Sensei's Divining Top, etc.) that will help the format. In addition, I wish the list also had Panoptic Mirror which goes infinite with any of the many Time Warp effects, Upheaval which easily turns a game one-sided, Captain Sisay to match all the other commanders that tutor, among others, but I'm glad they removed some of the tamer cards from the list, like Coalition Victory and Worldfire.

If you are curious on what the changes are from the paper commander banlist, I've examined the lists and here are the differences the MTGO banlist made to the official paper banlist:

Added (25):

Removed (9):

Load more

Latest Commander