Combos Browse all Suggest
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
|Commander: Rule 0||Legal|
, , Sacrifice Jester's Cap: Search target player's library for three cards and exile them. Then that player shuffles their library.
3 weeks ago
Interesting deck, but I think it needs more protection against graveyard-hate. Especially a card like Krosan Grip is key as it doesn't allow activation of graveyard hate as a response to you killing some graveyard-hate (so it will neutralize stuff like Tormod's Crypt and Soul-Guide Lantern). You can also use a Elixir of Immortality as a reaction to someone casting a graveyard-hate spell, or you can pick out specific graveyard hate spells from someone's deck with a card like Jester's Cap.
8 months ago
9 months ago
10 months ago
If chaos warp counts as enchantment removal for red, Scour from Existence and Introduction to Annihilation are colorless creatuere removal, so Iona doesn't need a ban. You and the RC are simply ignoring those cards which apparently aren't worth running to deal with a card that they say Single-handedly shuts down the entire deck.
I ignored the part where she can be a commander because she's trash as a commander. It doesn't matter that she can be your commander. She is a lot less oppressive as a commander because then she has to be hardcast. That's why i was ignoring it. It's ridiculous. There's also plenty of enchantment and just general recurrence to bring leyline back.
On top of that, Mycosynth doesn't go away after you kill her. She can come back and will still have no effect. There's plenty of artifact recurral so you can get nevinnyrals or O-stone back. Or put a counter on your o-stone so o-stone doesnt die. Eventually you will tax iona out of existence. She's very expensive when she's a commander, unlike the potentially free leyline. Blow up their rocks and she can't hit the field. After an o-stone, you say she's coming back, but o stone kills their rocks too, so is she actually?
If "it causes an unfun time" is reason to ban something, then stax, land destruction, Grand arbiter augustin the 4th, and sen triplets should be banned too.
Also, at no point did i say that leyline locked me out from playing the game or winning. The deck was more than capable of winning with leyline out. Just like a mono-colored deck is more than capable of winning with iona out. Leyline just locked me out of playing the deck with its main strategy, in the same way as Iona does.
Your argument seems to be "Mono red has answers to Leyline and RIP, therefore, they aren't a problem." So I am saying "Mono-colored has answers to Iona, therefore, she is not a problem." I ask a question, you answer, I show why that answer is no good. Thats how a socratic dialogue works.
I essentially asked "what is "banworthy" that makes iona banned?" and then, when someone gave me a response, I showed why that was no good pointing out counterexamples which would also be banworthy. This is like when meno gave socrates a definition for virtue that was "rule over human beings", which meant it would be virtuous for slaves to rule over their masters, something which meno knew he couldn't justify. In these situations, you give an answer, I give a counterexample, and then you have to justify the counterexamples in a way which does not also justify the example. If you can't, you have to cede that your response is invalid or the conversation is over because you're not rational.
The whole "like a toddler" thing gets you banned from the thread. This is a game. The rules of games are supposed to be enforced fairly. In boxing, for instance, you can't add weight to your gloves because that lets you hit harder. So one boxer uses weighted handwraps and tapes a small heavy steel plated lead disk to his palms to add weight to his hands. The other boxer sees this, calls it out to the ref, and the ref does nothing because "that's weight in the glove, not a weighted glove". So the guy returns to his corner, dumps sand in his gloves for weight and tapes them up so it doesn't run out, and then gets DQ'd. Then he says "this is bullshit, the rules aren't being applied fairly/evenly." They would be absolutely right. I'm doing that. That's not childish. That is clearly delineating the rules, sticking to them, and expecting others to stick to them. Contrast this with what you and the committee are doing by just saying, "no that's different because 'Reasons'." But not being able to give a good reason. To the child, you could explain "no you got your toy taken away because you misbehaved. Your friend did not misbehave, so he should not have his toy taken away." This is not the situation with Iona and Leyline. A better "child with a toy" analogy would be two children who get into a fight but only one child being punished by having his toy taken away. Leyline can do the same things as iona, so if one gets banned for the things it can do, both should be banned. If the argument is that leyline doesn't need a ban because there are responses to it, well, there are responses to Iona too, so Iona does not need a ban.
The only valid reason is the painter's servant unbanning. Thats it. You're wrong for saying anything else, and so was the rules committee. You're contributing nothing to the discussion. The people parroting "Because painter's servant was unbanned." Are doing more for the conversation than you because at least they can justify their comment.
Fritzn I feel that. I kind of did the same thing in reverse. I started running Jester's Cap with copy effects and just banned RIP and Leyline myself, along with everyone else's wincons until they said they'd stop running RIP and Leyline if I took out cap. I like that idea, but i'd like it more in the opposite direction, where there is a small banlist and players are free to add to it in the form of a "house banlist".
fadelightningmm I've chaos warped a leyline only for the person to topdeck leyline and put it right back out. I haven't run it since they changed the rules around it so it doesn't shuffle commanders away anymore. It burned me too many times to be considered valid, and shuffling commanders away was the only thing it really had going for it after that. That was around the time they released Scour from Existence and thats just better so i slotted that in instead, but I understand what you're saying. There's still the argument that if i can do that, then the mono-colored player can use Scour or Introduction to Annihilation to deal with iona, but i guess that's different because "reasons". Enchanter's Bane also isn't really removal. That's like calling Smokestack removal. It can remove stuff, sure, but it might not be any time soon.
I agree completely with it being because of Painter's Servant. I like that answer, since it's the only one that makes sense. I just wish they would have said that instead something that also justifies banning so many other cards. The effect, the rule change would be no different, but i wouldn't mind it.
Thanks, man! Me too.
10 months ago
1 year ago
Last_Laugh: Sorry for the late response to the suggestion! Sac outlets like Altar of Dementia are good in almost any deck. For most creature-based Muldrotha decks, sac outlets are a godsend that allow you to sacrifice your creatures so you may replay them. For my deck though, I have fewer creatures than standard for Muldrotha decks, and of the creatures I do have, perhaps the only creature I would ever need or want to sacrifice with Altar of Dementia is Eternal Witness. All other creatures are designed to stick around or can sacrifice themselves. Altar has two applications outside of just sacrificing creatures: milling and protection against exile effects. In my experience, exile isn't so common that it warrants running Altar, and the mill effect can be hard to take advantage of (it requires Muldrotha to be on the field) and has better alternatives.
I like the combo you found with it though! I might add it to my "Potential Combos". For now at least though, I'm trying to avoid infinite combos in the deck; I personally have more fun without them.
As for Gravebreaker Lamia, I talked about it in one of my previous comments but I find it too limited for the five mana investment: not being able to replay it every turn makes me much rather run Sidisi, Undead Vizier. Also, I already have several tutors in the deck that I think are better in most circumstances. It's a great card in general though!
Amyas: Thanks for your suggestions! I love finding new cards that I didn't even realize existed and these two fit the bill. The only reason I might not run them though is that they seem too slow for what I'm going for. Jester's Cap simply doesn't do enough for 6 mana and is most useful against combo decks, but against those I would want something lower costed. Personally I find that Ashiok, Dream Render and Opposition Agent accomplish a similar task by just not allowing your opponents to tutor for powerful cards at all. They only cost 3 mana and hurt all of my opponents at once. Praetor's Grasp is also a good card with a similar effect. It only exiles one card and isn't replayable, but the flexibility in being able to tutor something for yourself as well makes it pretty good.
Jester's Mask seems a bit better, instant speed hand disruption is always nice, but the fact that it enters tapped is a deal breaker for me. Again, it's just too slow for my meta. It seems like a fun politics card though! If you like this card and also run sac outlets, you might also consider running Mindslicer. It hurts all of your opponents and you can still play your own cards with Muldrotha.
1 year ago
I often use them as punishment for people messing with my board state and it deters a lot of removal.
1 year ago
Interesting deck, but it seems like you have far too few win conditions, or at least efficient win conditions while far too much control. Of a sort.
Nephalia Drownyard only works if you have infinite turns and gets shut off if opponents are running shuffle titans (which you could exile with Jester's Cap or many other cards but you see my point. Darksteel Reactor isn't a good win condition either, considering you only have 6 counterspells. One non-creature based artifact removal kills that and it's unlikely that you've drawn a counterspell or kept it. You do have a land that gets it back but your opponents have still reset your win condition.
40 lands is still excessive tho, you could comfortably drop that to 37. Competitive decks run like 34.
And while you have 7 mana rocks, Chromatic Orrery is a horrifyingly bad card for this deck. Extremely expensive cmc, you have so much card draw that the activated ability should never be relevant. There's so much card draw that you should be able to mana fix just fine with your good mana base so the mana fixing ability is also never relevant.
It really just feels while your deck wants to make sure that your opponents don't have win conditions, your own win conditions are pretty weak. This stalls out the game and tends to make people really annoyed at you.
Also, you're an Oloro, Ageless Ascetic deck and you running basically no lifegain. At the very least that should be a bit more prominent just for easy draw.
I do not understand your budget either. Is your deck proxied or is this just a theoretical/Cockatrice deck? Because you have both a The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale a Moat but you're also running a Scour from Existence It's totally fine if you have, I'm just curious.
Otherwise this deck stuffs decks that want to go for a specific combo, never really seen that before.
Seems fun, don't take my criticism personally, I've done my best to make it objective.
Have a wonderful day.