Purphoros and Mono red
Posted on May 10, 2017, 9:01 p.m. by thewyzman
I've recently acquired the following cards and seek to potentially grant them a spot, but I need your help in determining (1) If they're worth a spot, and (2) What they can replace in the list; Bonus points for backing up your opinion! Without further ado: Impact Resonance, Siege-Gang Commander, Zo-Zu the Punisher, Skirk Prospector, Pillage, Wildfire, Krenko, Mob Boss, Rakka Mar, Norin the Wary, and Ruby Medallion. Any discussion is appreciated, I'm a frequent and regular user of the site, so my replies are often quick.
Commander / EDH*
SCORE: 1 | 15 COMMENTS | 374 VIEWS
Of those listed, Pillage, Wildfire, Zo-Zu the Punisher can safely be left out. If you're light on board wipes then you can run Impact Resonance. Norin is especially nasty with Genesis Chamber. Skirk Prospector and Krenko are very key pieces for ramp and damage. An unanswered Krenko is gg with Purph online and the Prospector can cheat in all sorts of things early. The others are token producers which are all dandy with Purphoros
May 10, 2017 9:23 p.m.
I would definitely play Norin and Krenko, as well as Skirk Prospector (altough you have very few goblins imo).
Wildfire depends on how you play and against what you usually play. I play Purphoros myself and I don't use Wildfire because I usually don't recover easily from mass removal there (I try to be faster than the first boardwipe) while a friend plays Norin as commander with Purphoros in the deck - Wildfire is usually extremely effective when he casts it mostly because losing the four lands hurts very much. We all play with a lot of artifact power though, which makes red mass land destruction very good because you can easily get rid of the opponent's mana artifacts in that colour before a Wildfire. You don't even play Sol Ring, Mana Crypt and Chrome Mox so you don't get such a big advantage by destroying artifacts AND lands.
May 11, 2017 4:35 a.m.
You realize Impact Resonance is only ever going to deal 2 damage based of off Purphoros's trigger, right? It doesn't add up the separate triggers...
May 11, 2017 4:55 p.m.
Are you sure about that? It states this turn, not at one time, so makes me think it can be cumulative.
May 11, 2017 7:44 p.m.
It also says "greatest amount of damage dealt by a source to a permanent or player," as in, the specific, singular instance of damage dealt that was the greatest. The "this turn" is just there to establish the time-frame the effect is looking as (could also say "this game," "this phase," or "this step," although those are less common).
BUT, since I can't find anything in the comp. rules or Gatherer rulings that specifically deals with this, I will get a second opinion and get back to you.
May 12, 2017 2:30 a.m.
sonnet666 Impact resonance Counts the total amount of damage dealt by one source to a single target during that turn until the moment when it is cast. It works with purphoros, but it only Counts the (highest) total damage he dealt to one Player, not all Players combined.
"11/7/2014: Impact Resonance looks at the entire turn to see the greatest amount of damage dealt from a single source to a single permanent or player. For example, if the only damage dealt during the turn was Earthquake, which dealt 5 damage to each of four creatures and two players, then X is 5."
May 12, 2017 2:43 a.m.
This is the problem with contradictory answers:
If anything, all that is clarifying it that it doesn't combine the damage it dealt all players and permanents into a single total.
May 12, 2017 2:49 a.m.
The important part is "looks at the entire turn to see the greatest amount of damage dealt from a single source to a single permanent or player", which implies that it doesn't have to be in one go, just over the defined time span and from one source to one (the same) target. Unless purphoros leaves and enters the battlefield again, he's still the same source.
May 12, 2017 3:07 a.m.
Also, the only answer in that thread doesn't provide any argumentation as for why the amount of damage would be counted only per resolved ability when the card explicitly states that it has to be checked how much a single source dealt to a single target.
May 12, 2017 3:31 a.m.
Also, it's a good rule of thumb to never read too much into the implication of the phrasing of a card. There are a lot of keywords in MTG that have defined rules characteristics or connotations within the rules, and quite often they run counter to the typical English subtext. I'm certain based on how other cards are phrased that the "this turn" at the end was put there to define the timeframe that the game is looking at, not to total up damage. It possible that it works the way you claim, I still don't think it does, but if so it's likely more of an oversight than the intention for the card.
We'll see. If there's not a good answer in the Q&A I'll post the question to AskAJudge on Tumblr.
May 12, 2017 4:44 a.m.
I come to that conclusion because the term "source" always refers to a spell or permanent, not to an ability. If the card was meant to limit the DMG to what one spell or ability could deal, it would have been worded "by a spell or ability" and not "source". It's a relatively new cards so I suppose the wording is correct and intentional. Only on older cards the term "source" was used in a broader sense.