Please login to comment

I think you probably want to be on the high side of Joe_Ken_'s 26 to 32 range. Krenko depends on having other creatures and having those creatures in play. As such, you will want to make sure you have a high creature density to take advantage of his token generation ability.

If I may make some unsolicited advice, I suggest changing Krenko to Purphoros, God of the Forge , who is an all-around superior commander for Goblins. With Krenko, you have to build a board, maintain that board, and then still attack to win. That's all very difficult to do in a multiplayer setting.

Purphoros, on the other hand, burns everyone when a creature enters under your control. You don't have to maintain your board, and, while you can swing to win, you have another way to whittle down your opponents while you prepare for your victory. Purphoros also has a nice little mana sink that can allow you to pump your (likely numerous) creatures.

March 22, 2019 1:15 p.m.

Said on Is my Combo ......


This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

March 22, 2019 11:59 a.m.

Said on Is my Combo ......


No problem. Also, for future reference, if you have questions about rules, there is a rules Q&A section of this site with some very helpful players lurking to promptly answer any questions you might have. That section has some added functionalities, such as linking the rule questions to the card’s individual page, which can be helpful for future users.

Further, the “Modern Forum” is for discussion of the format, not deck help.

Even though this has a rules question, I’ve decided to move it over to Modern Deck Help, rather than Rules Q&A, as you are also asking for deck advise.

March 22, 2019 11:59 a.m.

Said on Is my Combo ......


Every part of this works.

You can always choose to pay for , unless the card specifically states otherwise.

There is also no prohibition on putting charge counters on Astral Cornucopia after it enters the battlefield, so you will be able to add them with Coretapper .

Finally, abilities that do not require can be activated even if the permanent is tapped. So, with Coretapper , you can tap it to put a charge counter on Astral Cornucopia , then sacrifice it to add two additional charge counters, so you have a total of three charge counters on the Astral Cornucopia that you paid for.

March 22, 2019 11:47 a.m.

Please remember to link your cards using double brackets

[[riddlemaster sphinx]]

Riddlemaster Sphinx ; In Bolas's Clutches ; Drag Under .

There is a difference between control and ownership of a card.

Control is who controls the permanent or spell on the stack; ownership is the player from whose deck the card came (or who brought the card in from outside the game, if something like Glittering Wish was used).

In this case, you own Riddlemaster Sphinx and control it. Your opponent gains control of the Sphinx using In Bolas's Clutches clutches, but they do not gain ownership of it. So, when it is returned to its owners' hand, that will always* be you regardless of whether or not you control it at the time.

(*Caveat: There exist some very old cards that allow changes in ownership to occur. These cards are not legal in any format and may actually violate local gambling laws. So, in effect, you will always be the owner of the cards in your deck.)

March 21, 2019 3:30 p.m. Edited.

Said on ZendikariWol...


Agree to disagree; personally, I find assorted nuances in their motivations for any given action, particularly when their motivations are evaluated within the greater confines of their character. But, that's the wonderful thing about art--everyone takes something different from it.

March 21, 2019 3:11 p.m.

Said on ZendikariWol...


Side note, when posting on your own wall, it's generally a good idea to tag the user your responding to--unlike decks or threads, you don't auto-follow walls, so the person you are talking to will not receive a notification unless there is a tag.

Moving on, with the understanding there is more to come on the topic, I think it is a bit simple to say their motivations are because one is "kind" and the other is "obsessed"; to find the complexity of the characters, you have to take the analysis a bit deeper and look at why the characters are kind/obsessive.

For Valjean, he starts the play as a broken man. He did something for someone else in the past and it burned him badly (even then, it is implied he grew up as a hard person-"turn your heart into stone; this is all I have lived for, this is all I have known"). As the play opens, he is a resentful man ("never forget the years, the waste; nor forgive them, for what they've done. They are the guilty, every one").

He is rejected by society due to his criminal background, and continues to suffer though he has served his time ("you broke the law, it's there for people to see, why should you get the same as honest men like me? . . . and now I know how freedom feels the jailer always at your heels, it is the law.")

Come to the Bishop's house, and he receives his first act of kindness in years; an act he repays with theft. The Bishop, however, continues to be kind. Valjean has an entire song where he asks "sweet Jesus, what have I done" and contemplates the possibility of going down the path of good.

So, he decides to turn his life around--not because he is a fundamentally nice guy, but rather the opposite; because he is a flawed person who has been shown another path.

And it is path he struggles on. He turns a blind eye to Fantine's suffering; when she dies, he dedicates his life to her daughter, Cosette. He seriously considers allowing another man take the fall for him (Song: Who am I?). He realizes his plan to flee to America was selfish and did not consider Cosette's needs, so he goes to watch over Marius.

Ultimately, Valjean's character is not just "a nice guy"--he's "a man, no worse than any man" who keeps making mistakes and pays penitence for them in the best way he can.

I went over this a bit earlier, but Javert's character is also very human.

The law was his salvation, and one he clearly feels a debt of gratitude for. Just as the bishop's act of kindness raised Valjean out of bad conditions, Javert was able to rise from low birth to a respected officer of the law. Naturally, he feels he owes the law, and harbours feelings that if he could rise out of miserable conditions by being a law-abiding citizen, anyone can do the same.

Combine that with his belief people do not change. The reasons behind the belief are not overtly stated in the play, but we can presume them fairly easily. He was not broken by the miserable situation of his birth; he as a police officer, involved with paroling prisoners, likely saw countless persons revert to their old behavior post-release.

In Valjean he sees a con man and a liar; a man who built a fortune and conned his way into becoming mayor of a town. A man who assaulted him, knocking him unconscious before fleeing. Javert, with good reason, is distrustful of Valjean.

At the end, Valjean's act of kindness saving Javert mirrors the Bishop's act saving Valjean. Javert is given the same choice--do you continue to be the person you once were, or do you try to become a new person?

Unlike Valjean, Javert can't do make that choice. He knows in his heart the man he used to be was deeply flawed. However he also cannot bring himself to change, as that would be to admit his flaws and that his flaws likely resulted in the unjust persecution of countless individuals. So, rather than decide, he takes a middle path; a direct foil to Valjean's choice to metaphysically kill himself and be born anew ("Jean Valjean is nothing now, another story must begin.").

March 21, 2019 2:05 p.m.

As this question has been resolved for a couple days, I have gone ahead and chosen an accepted answer. In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button on a responsive post once you have no further follow-up questions.

March 21, 2019 1:04 p.m.

As this question has been resolved for a couple days, I have gone ahead and chosen an accepted answer. In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button on a responsive post once you have no further follow-up questions.

March 21, 2019 1:03 p.m.

Said on What is the ......


As this question has been resolved for a couple days, I have gone ahead and chosen an accepted answer. In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button on a responsive post once you have no further follow-up questions.

March 21, 2019 1:02 p.m.

As this question has been resolved for a couple days, I have gone ahead and chosen an accepted answer. In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button on a responsive post once you have no further follow-up questions.

March 21, 2019 1:02 p.m.

Said on ZendikariWol...


I'm going to respond to your post about Les Mis, but figured here would be a better place than the planeswalker thread. I'm also going to lock the entire thing behind a spoiler block for the benefit of anyone browsing the recent comments who does not want to scroll past a long diatribe about musical theatre.

First, hope you enjoyed the show. It's easily my favourite musical, and I've probably seen it more times than is necessary (seven; though a few of those were in rapid succession, as my brother had a part in the play so I went a couple times). The entire musical's score is also my go-to "driving late at night and need something I can belt all the words to to keep me awake" playlest, so I've listened to it dozens of times. I think it's fair to say I am a bit of a superfan

I will disagree that Valjean and Javert are not well-developed. Just looking at the play (I read the book at far too young of an age, so I don't think my memory of it is to be trusted), there's a lot behind those two characters.

Javert, for example, is a man who was born in squalled conditions but rose to a position of authority. This is line that's pretty easy to miss. It's in the scene where Valjean and Javert meet after Fantine's death, and both of them are singing at the same time. It's usually staged so Valjean's voice rises above Javerts, so Javert's confession that he was "born inside a jail" is not what the listener initially focuses on.

It is, however, a critical piece of information to Javert's character, and provides a strong motivation for his actions. He's a person who was born to the dregs of society, which fuels his contempt for the lawless. He himself was able to rise above his station because of the opportunities afforded him by entering law enforcement--so the law was, effectively, his salvation. This provides a justification for his fanatical devotion to law, god, and country, adding a believable element to his character.

In the very same song, he sings about how men cannot change--fitting for someone so fanatically devoted to his cause. This belief fuels his distrust of Valjean, and his dedication to bringing down Valjean. After all, despite seeing the outward appearance of Valjean as a changed man, Javert can't physically bring himself to admit Valjean has changed, as it would call the fundamental principle of his moral code, as well as his fundamental understanding of himself into question.

But, eventually Javert has an epiphany--Valjean saves his life, by allowing Javert to escape. This shatters the inspector's entire worldview, and ultimately ends with him returning the favour for Valjean. Realizing his own moral code is compromised, he begins to question his entire world view. He is given a choice--change himself, or resist; he chooses to resist in the only way he can--killing himself.

Likewise, Valjean is a fairly nuanced character. At his core, he is the ideal Christian--someone who believes in doing what is "good." But, throughout the play, he consistently does "bad" acts. Just to run through a few:

  • Before the play begins, he steals bread for his sister.
  • He breaks his parole because he wants to start a new life.
  • He takes up a false identity and builds a factory/becomes mayor of a town (though he is genuinely oblivious to the actual goings on of his factory).
  • He knocks a police inspector unconscious so he can go save Fantine's daughter. In that confrontation, he promises to surrender in three days--a surrender he does not do.
  • He joins a revolution, not because he believes in its causes, but because he wants to help ensure his daughter's love survives.
  • He constantly hides the truth from Cosette, even though he is constantly uprooting Cosette's life due to their running from the law and Cosette's asking. It is not until after he is dead that he permits Cosette to learn the truth.

While his moral code is pretty straightforward, the complexity of his character comes from how he implements said code. He lies, even to his adopted daughter, and even goes so far as to fight for a cause he does not believe in, all because it fits with his personal understanding of morality.

March 21, 2019 12:05 p.m.

Dango - I appreciate the compliment, but I want to make sure ZendikariWol gets credit as due. While it only takes one person to have an argument, it takes two to have a discussion. As someone who argues professionally and in extremely contentious situations, it is rather refreshing to use some of my down time to have a friendly debate on a topic I find interesting.

March 21, 2019 10:39 a.m.

Edit: Double post.

March 21, 2019 9:59 a.m. Edited.

ZendikariWol - While I agree the effect of old Nissa's intolerance is something often found in White, that does not mean old Nissa was a White character.

Motivation is more important than effect. The characters you listed are all motivated by a mono-White ideal--a strict, unflinching adherence to a morality beyond themselves. Nissa does not personally ascribe to a White morality; her guiding principle is nature. That puts her firmly in mono-Green, even if there is some resemblance to White in her manifestation of her mono-Green principles.

I would also argue one of your own examples proves your point that you can't have realistic mono-coloured people incorrect.

One of the core plots of Les Mis is the conflict between Javert and Jean Valjean. Interestingly enough, both these characters are pretty firmly rooted in mono-White ideals. Javert is motivated by his understanding of morality--it's a harsh understanding, where law and God are not to be questioned. Likewise, Valjean, post his experience with the Bishop, is defined by his own understanding of morality--his is a much kinder one, where the most important things are helping your fellow man.

At the end Javert has a twist in his motivations. He allows Valjean to escape because he realizes Valjean's understanding of God and morality might be the correct one. He cannot reconcile this fact with his own moral history and kills himself as a result.

This is still a very mono-White character development, as it is focused on the character changing his fundamental understanding of morality greater than the self.

Ultimately, this central conflict is between two very White characters, perfectly encapsulating how much complexity the individual colours can have.

March 21, 2019 9:58 a.m. Edited.


I disagree that fleshed our characters can’t be monocoloured. Having traits from a colour is not enough to make that colour part of your colour identity - your colour identity is set by the traits that are fundamental your character.

So, as a counterpoint, I offer a mono-Green character who was fairly complicated and realistic - Nissa, prior to Wizards retconning her character and making her retroactively more boring.

Old Nissa was effectively a racist with a deep-seeded loathing for anything that was not of Zendikar or comport with her idea of what Zendikar should be. Her racism was based entirely in mono-Green naturalistic ideals, as opposed to Black’s selfishness or White’s groupthink. While she might touch on other colours, her identity was consumed by this particular take on Green.

As she developed as a character, her love of Zendikar could morph into a love of nature generally, and a desire to protect the people of each plane, as opposed to just Zendikar. That is still very mono-Green. A love of nature is the core of her principals; and her desire to protect people stems from their place in nature, as opposed to White’s love of society. That’s a pretty solid character arc, all without leaving mono-Green.

But, instead of using Nissa to explore Green’s subtleties, she has been relegated to generic Druid figure. I am hoping her rage-quitting the Gatewatch signals a return to her racist Zendikar First ways, but am ever-doubtful.

All that is to say, there are enough nuisances in the individual colours to structure individual, realistic, and complex characters. A failure to do so lies not with the colours themselves, but with a lack of creative vision.

March 21, 2019 8:43 a.m.

Please stop posting threads that are nothing more than advertisements for a different website.

March 20, 2019 8:41 a.m.

ZendikariWol - Multiple authors alone does not account for the mediocrity of Magic's story and character development. While it certainty makes writing and consistency harder, those are not insurmountable problems. Take any TV show--each episode is generally written by a different author, yet the showrunner can still coordinate and ensure a singular, unified vision.

I would argue the problems with Magic's story lie deeper and are twofold. First, there is a lack of unified vision. This ties in with the multiple authors problem, but I feel the fault falls upon whoever is in charge of the story's overseer. The overseer has the option of working with multiple authors on a singular, complex story; he or she just consistently fail to do so. The second issue is the quality of the writing itself, which tends to be mediocre-at-best.

I think those are both solvable problems, the issue is whether Wizards is willing to do so. I suspect not, as the written stories likely do not result in significant monetization.

Tying this all back to the purpose of the thread, I expect another disappointing installment in Magic's story. I suspect the writers will not be able to handle that many Planeswalkers, and many will be relegated to brief cameos. I, of course, would love to be proven wrong; but Wizards' writing department does not exactly have my confidence.

March 19, 2019 10:01 a.m.

I do not have any direct experience with the Planeswalker decks themselves, but, looking at the card list and what I have heard others say, they are all relatively commensurate with one one another in terms of power. Doing a brief skim of them, I did not see one that screamed "this would be more powerful than the others if you combined two copies."

The problem you're going to run into is not just that the Planeswalker decks are not consistent--it's that they have some actively terrible cards in them. For example, all of the Planeswalkers themselves are unplayable, and each deck usually has two additional cards that are unplayable without that Planeswalker (a tutor and something which receives a bonus).

That said, it is probably the safest way to build a standard-legal deck using only the options you presented. If you buy packs, while you likely will receive a couple powerful cards worth building around, there's no guarantee you'll have enough cards in the bomb's colours to make a viable deck.

Good luck! Let us know which deck you choose, or, if you are having trouble choosing, which you want help deciding between.

March 18, 2019 11:42 a.m.


Pinball Wizard - Karona, False God EDH

Commander / EDH cdkime


240 Card Modern Battle of Wits

Modern cdkime


Mr. Smith Goes to Ravnica

Modern cdkime


Finished Decks 30
Prototype Decks 26
Drafts 0
Playing since Seventh Edition
Points 4431
Avg. deck rating 20.75
T/O Rank 11
Helper Rank 16
Good Card Suggestions 307
Last activity 1 day
Joined 2 years