|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Printings View all
|2011 Core Set||Rare|
Combos Browse all
Creature — Leviathan
Islandwalk (This creature is unblockable as long as defending player controls an Island.)
All lands are Islands in addition to their other types.
Creatures without flying or islandwalk can't attack.
Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts
|Have (40)||bradyofportdetroit , Dr.Jackel , Tiddilywinkus , ZombieFood , pskinn01 , maR2307 , DrPopular , YossarianLives , switchkill65 , saj0219 , Antiat , geazykagar , kaikaitanner , miracle , Ellyreia , Dr_Jay , HR19 , Kravian , philktoken8998 , Swamy , Regulus1010 , MoJoMiXuP , , rockleemyhero , CampbellStev , golgarigirl , MattN7498 , jhTheMan99 , xpsychovampx , Caldazar , ironax , NostalgicAce , Wazerwifle , bakeraj4 , , VGJustice , GoldGhost012 , Justinaut , accioali , SpaghettiToastBook|
Stormtide Leviathan Discussion
20 hours ago
I'm brewing a seamonster themed build w her, thought I'd lend my 2c and ask some questions since from your update I surmise you've built and played this.
I don't see a whole lot to provide tokens to sack to Jalira. I count Trading Post, Flayer Husk, Monkey Cage, Thopter Assembly, Reef Worm, and Wurmcoil Engine. Is that really enough? I filled mine with lots of subpar sorceries/instants (aka Tidal Wave) to ensure I only hit a CMC 7+.
I'm looking for an atypical mono-blue commander to try, so overall, how do you like play-style of this type of deck?
2 weeks ago
@RoarMaster: I still find the utilitarian argument diminished somewhat in light of a mechanism that could satisfy multiple needs without forcing you to favor one party to the exclusion of the other.
That mechanism is the playgroup, which is Commander's social aspect. And yes, social is not a point on the casual-competitive continuum. I go into more detail about that in my article, but suffice it to say that the social nature of Commander facilitates play at all points along the casual-competitive continuum because it allows players to choose the experience they want from among the many possible points on that continuum. One playgroup likes playing super casual games with a limit of five rares. Another likes playing with decks that are equivalent to preconstructed decks. A third says "anything goes, even if the rules don't say so," whereas a fourth says "do whatever you like, as long as you follow the letter of the law." Your playgroup's social contract facilitates a multitude of experiences; you just have to decide which one you (as a group) want for the current game. (One important note: in actuality, casualness and competitiveness are not necessarily linked to the quality of the decks being used; they're more accurately applied to characterize what it is that players value in a game, be it whimsical interactions and nonchalance about the outcome of the game [casual] or optimal plays and higher valuation of victory and performance [competitive]. For the sake of simplicity, I'll stick to the common idea that monetary investment in decks is roughly analogous or proportionate to personal investment in outcomes, but I wanted to clarify briefly this one point.)
You therefore misrepresent the nature of the format when you posit that it, in its infancy, was casual, yet not social. True enough, the battlecruiser approach to Magic is distinctly more casual than competitive, but, again, social is not a point on the casual-competitive continuum. Battlecruiser games are no more or less social than those games that end with a combo in five turns or fewer.
Regarding that lattermost point, it's interesting that you consider whether tournament games can be construed as social. Social play does not inherently require that you modify the foundational rules of the format. It means that you agree to a shared expectation of the games you play.
In a casual playgroup, or in a new playgroup, you may indeed be more likely to haggle over house rules and make compromises that diverge from the official baseline. But competitive groups have the same opportunity; that they appear less likely to modify the rules is not an indication that those groups are not bound by a social contract. Playing your banned card in a competitive playgroup that expects to follow the published rules is not fundamentally different from playing your optimized turn-3 Animar, Soul of Elements combo deck in a casual playgroup that would rather be casting Stormtide Leviathans. In either case, the issue is one of a violation of the social contract.
In a tournament, your participation is an implicit agreement to the rules established for that tournament and the valuation of the competitiveness promoted by its player ranking and prize support systems. You could just as easily choose not to participate in the tournament; oftentimes, you can instead have a more casual game with other non-participants.
I'll respond to your analogy by returning to my opening remark: the best way to manage the format is to acknowledge any valid criticisms raised by your constituents while still remaining true to the format's values. It might be that 100 pencil-pushing ninnies yell louder than 20 (or 21) aspiring new-money Manhattanites, but the company's owners should recognize that moving the break room from its current location is not a justifiable change once all arguments (including costs; let's not forget those) are considered. It is impossible to please everyone. Pleasing everyone is therefore not a worthwhile goal. Maintaining the integrity of your company, however, ranks quite favorably among worthwhile goals and should be pursued enthusiastically.
Applying that reasoning to the tuck change, I arrive now, as I did upon its announcement, at the conclusion that tuck is still a valuable and needed (although not strictly necessary) aspect of the game. Your experience playing competitive decks and tuck effects in casual playgroups that would rather that not happen is a violation of the social contract, the burden of which rests squarely on your shoulders. Some people may not care to face a certain card or mechanic, but the format needs to be managed with a keen sense for what is fair and how that may be different from what is liked (at least by certain players). That's why the social nature of the format is so appealing: it allows those individuals to work together to shape their games according to their shared vision.
As far as the feasibility of a multiple-banlist system (I'm opening my response here to include points raised by several other people), I think the most tenable solution would be to maintain a single banlist that more heavily favors openness and facilitates a balanced experience if followed completely. The RC (or WOTC, depending on how much more they subsume) could maybe go so far as to propose recommendations or guidelines to facilitate playgroup discussions about customization through the social contract. Put more generally: "the rules say X, but some players prefer games with Y instead; talk to your playgroup and discuss what would be best for you." Thus, you could create a baseline that respects both casual and competitive needs, but you could also actively encourage players to exercise control over the social contract where possible to create more enjoyable experiences for themselves.
I'll wrap this up by way of offering one more enhancement to the analogy in my previous post: the way my company promulgates a flexible framework is by actively encouraging departments to discuss their needs in a holistic, realistic manner. It's not about choosing not to follow a rule because you don't want to; it's about choosing not to follow a rule because you don't need to. It doesn't actually apply to anything you do, or it does something that another rule already covers in your particular case, or it would be unjustifiably prohibitive to your operations if followed. In any case, it's about the department considering the baseline (a baseline created with a company-wide perspective), considering its needs, and making an informed decision about what is in its best interests.
That's how Commander needs to be managed if it's to live up to the values set forth for it. The rules should create an open, judiciously balanced environment, and the philosophy should encourage players to explore and push the boundaries of that environment.
2 weeks ago
Not really a kraken, but Crush of Tentacles is pretty close. Some other nice biggies are Stormtide Leviathan, Lorthos, the Tidemaker, Kraken of the Straits, Inkwell Leviathan and Colossal Whale. Maybe you should throw in a couple of Harrow and maybe Arbor Elf to give you some ramp so you can play your big bigges.
A friend of mine has this mono-blue stompy deck, where he mana screws the opponent instead of ramping his own mana. He uses Spreading Seas and Boomerang or the mana screw, and Cyclonic Rift no deny the opponent any board presence. Boomerang imprinted om Isochron Scepter can be pretty devastating.
3 weeks ago
Wow, thank you puxing!
If only Flames of the Firebrand was an instant. Burn spells seem to work quite well for me, so thank you for pointing out alternatives!
Agreed, Stormtide Leviathan is amazing. Don't worry, it's not going anywhere!
One other thing I'm looking for is more ways to draw cards, especially as a result of playing a counterspell or something like that, any suggestions?
3 weeks ago
I never liked playing Divination early game when i had a counter up. Think Twice is a bit more expensive in the short run but when you think about it you would only spend unused mana on it.
It is also 2 mana cheaper when you have a goblin out. Also you get 2 drakes instead of 1 when you have talrand out!
Evolving Wilds are also not that good in a 2 colour deck. Izzet Guildgate is far better as it gives you both of your colours at the same speed evolving wilds gives you 1.
Or even better Swiftwater Cliffs for some small lifegain.
I don't know about what you play against with your friends.
A suggestion could be Enigma Drake
The big difference between Spellheart Chimera and Enigma Drake is that Spellheart Chimera has trample but Enigma Drake has 1 more health. This could be the difference between surviving a Searing Spear and dying to it.
Also you better keep playing that kick ass Stormtide Leviathan ;)
1 month ago
I'd add: Armageddon, Ravages of War, Slate of Ancestry, Coastal Piracy, Bident of Thassa, Wanderwine Prophets, Sigil Tracer, Harpoon Sniper, Streambed Aquitects, Empress Galina, Seasinger, Sejiri Merfolk, Ojutai's Command, Rootwater Matriarch, Distant Melody, Azorius Signet, Door of Destinies and Stormtide Leviathan
1 month ago
armillary fixes your land drops, but you have 39 land, donno if youu need that Nature's Lore can get you the duel lands, which is super handy Search for Tomorrow is kinda cute that you can get it going on turn one in the 3 mana spot, Kodama's Reachthe new Spring / Mind card seems pretty handy, turning into a late game draw card rather then peregrination, i recommend Explosive Vegetation or Skyshroud Claim
the signets work pretty well, whatever ones you find i'd shift them in over the 'dragons cost 1 less mana cards' as you find the ramp cards i guess, might even be able to pull out one or two lands for the 2 mana ramp spells
Urban Evolution isn't bad as a draw/ramp card either
for 7 mana, I dont' feel like that guy is doing enough in your deck, you might have one card in your hand it applies to when you cast it, and he doesn't do much else
1 month ago
I like the Talrand in this deck. The Stormtide Leviathan seems a little out of place, even in a control deck. Have you considered Lullmage Mentor? It gives you a more stable board presence while remaining powerful later in the game.