Combos Browse all Suggest
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
|Commander: Rule 0||Legal|
Council's dilemma — Starting with you, each player votes for time or money. For each time vote, take an extra turn after this one. For each money vote, choose a permanent owned by the voter and gain control of it. Exile Expropriate.
1 month ago
Enter the Infinite. I can't imagine my Woah, where did THAT come from??? Jodah deck without it. Other suggestions are Worst Fears, Expropriate, Chromatic Orrery, Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur, Bringer of the Black Dawn, and Rhystic Study, to name a few.
You can check out my deck for more ideas, although I'm working on a budget so you have more freedom than I do in terms of cards you can add.
Good luck =)
3 months ago
4 months ago
Well, if you're getting lands onto the battlefield as a main strategy anyways, packing a few large spells that are known closers (Torment of Hailfire and Expropriate come to mind, but you definitely don't have to use those exact cards, since they're expensive, but you get the idea) are a solid backup. Landfall-type strategies is another natural fit, with Scute Swarm, Avenger of Zendikar and Field of the Dead as example closers.
The biggest trick with gates is that they're nonbasic, so a lot of the traditional ramp and landfall-enabling, like fetchlands, doesn't work on them. So I feel the deck would be leaning heavily into drawing a lot of cards (something all three of your colors are really good at), and then getting extra land drops per turn with Azusa, Lost but Seeking- effects. You could even lean into self-mill (which black and blue excell at), and then recur lands with World Shaper, Ramunap Excavator, and Splendid Reclamation. That, however, is risky again from the graveyard-removal angle.
Some of the other posters mentioned a voltron angle for the commander, and I definitely see that as a possibility too! I just wanted to lay out some other options.
4 months ago
So there's a competitive combo version of Jeleva and then there is fun Jeleva. I'm going to make suggestions based off what I think of as being more leaning towards the fun. The general idea I have in my head is to get some high cost spells exiled and cast them for free off her trigger. I haven't played much spellslinger pretty much ever but here's what I dug up. Not sure what your budget is though.
I'd also get some more protection for Jeleva. As each time she dies and is cast again you'll lose access to everything previously exiled. Not the worst thing but it can be nice to hit a few of the spells before having to recast her. Lightning Greaves, Whispersilk Cloak, Clout of the Dominus.
Do you have a clear vision of how the deck wins? Regardless the deck looks fun!
5 months ago
Oh, look at these new commander cards which I've definently never seen before.
Beamtwon Bullies: Surprised it isn't just an optional at-opponent-upkeep-trigger
Tivit: idk why this so expensive, or why it doesn't draw instead of investigate at that cost. IMO there's not enough voting cards to make this fun. Also, for cards like Tyrant's Choice, if everyone else votes for something else, you'll lose even with the extra vote.
Bess: heh, weenie commander. Kinda wish it worked for 0/1s too. Has the dreaded "one or more" templating, without the redeeming "that many" addage, so you'll have to stagger token creations to make her big efficiently. Note that it's just base p/t, so you're still free to add other anthem effects
Turf War: I like the design a lot, but it's a bit expensive for the hoops you got to jump trough. Obviously the dream is to boop everyone at the same time to ramp yourself by three. Hope you got some pillow fort!
Rain of Riches: Prosper is having a bit of a field day
Mezzio Mugger: a bit too expensive to either hardcast OR Blitz imo
Smuggler's Share: each end step? And not just the opponent who's turn it is? Oh my.
Lethal Scheme: Not too bad, in a mono-black zombie deck you could cast this for free with convoke
In Too Deep: Meh, I like Aura removal for disabling commanders, this just adds another commander tax
Jailbreak: ANY kind of permanent
Aerial Extortionist: more white card advantage, quite cute, if a little expensive for how fragile it is
Grand Cresendo: Alright! Never mind the tokens, finally mono-white gets an anti-wrath Instant for two mana
Excess: I like rewards for go-wide combat, even if you can still just Dockside for similar results
Seize the Spotlight: Aggresively costed red mini-Expropriate, kinda! Quite powerful for late game mehthinks
Cute that escape, extort and cipher all made a cameo here
5 months ago
really cool deck idea!
do you know Expropriate? that's a classic blue payoff spell
6 months ago
Gleeock I haven't gotten in a multiplayer game with randoms for years now, I've never played cEDH, and I don't actually have a regular group at the moment (frustration and sadness), so I'm probably out of touch with actual multiplayer reality.
All the same, though, I have a couple of responses. "[T]he only other valid player threw a tantrum & left the game" is not good play. But I take special exception to the tantrum. If, hypothetically, the other player said "I'm afraid I have no chance at winning, I concede. Good game, and well played," would that still be an issue? I understand that the game flow can be radically changed by who's present and available. However, I see the following: conceding gracefully is respectful and legal. Conceding with a tantrum is disrespectful, but legal. Refusing to vote on Expropriate, then continuing to play, is disrespectful and illegal. And 104.3a very much says a player can dip out of it all: "A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. That player loses the game."
But the legality of concession isn't really the issue here. The issue is "when is quitting the game right to do?" Instead of directly answering, I'd like to add some supplemental questions, based on this thread and my own thoughts.
Is it fair play to concede in response to being attacked? If Gahiji, Honored One Beatdown attacks Tobias Andrion with a Titanic Ultimatum and enough creatures to defeat Tobias, can Tobias concede immediately to avoid the lifelink damage? Does the answer change whether Gahiji is dominating the match at 300 life + board vs. barely hanging on at 4 life and built up a Fervored board this turn?
Is it fair play to concede if a player can reasonably expect to be unable to proceed, if an opponent is relying on their presence? If Sen Triplets Stax has stripped all artifact removal from The Lady of the Mountain's deck through Sadistic Sacrament and has taken control of nearly all of The Lady's permanents, can The Lady concede on the grounds that she reasonably believes she can't win, even though it would cost Triplets some key blockers?
Is it fair play to concede a game if it forces another player into a line of action? Marisi, Breaker of the Coil Combat Control goads Jedit Ojanen into attacking. During Jedit's first main phase, before Jedit attacks, Barktooth Warbeard gets a critical removal spell countered and decides this game is unwinnable. Is Barktooth free to gracefully and respectfully concede, forcing Jedit to attack the remaining available player?
I don't claim to have objectively correct answers to these questions, but I think they add some needed nuance to the central question of when someone can concede to another person's detriment.
Obviously, conceding shouldn't be done yelling and tableflipping. But assuming a modicum of decency, I think conceding should be available at any time, within the agreement of the group. It can be difficult to determine whether conceding is done tactically, spitefully, or simply to cut losses, and having a pre-match conversation can settle these issues, so that's a point I strongly agree with. In a more competitive setting, I guess leave it to the judges to explain pre-tournament and adjucate as needed? That's outside of my expertise.
6 months ago
I understand the mentality of not wanting to play out the game of Monopoly when the other player has the board completely... In a game that does not swing as wildly as MtG does & not even wanting to be the player to force someone to stay. I think it is; not seeing the forest for the trees, to feel that you have no chance in a multiplayer game where anything can happen.
legendofa It makes a lot of difference if they lose by concession because they can't see the forest for the trees staring at their hand in a vacuum, alot of difference with alot of strategies that are being endorsed more & more. I've had a field of goaded permanents turn around & swing at me next turn because the only other valid target player threw a tantrum & left the game, this is in a game where one board wipe would change the complexion of the game completely.
& losing often isn't fun; casual, competitive, etc. The game involve(s) multiple subjective unfun aspects: it doesn't give people license to essentially dip out of it all. That is akin to deciding you just aren't voting on the resolving Expropriate because it ain't that fun to you.
No, it is not an issue in my regular playgroup. It is more of an issue with randoms, who I don't think are understanding on the rationale of why they may be called out on it... I think some people legitimately don't understand the disadvantage it creates & they feel like it's "what's it to you?" situation.
I feel that this should be at the forefront of all these other contentious "social contract" discussions, such as: MLD, stax, draw-go-counter, T0, combo, etc... If it was talked about more I think there may be some more social conscientiousness with it & the situations where it is right.