Robber of the Rich
Creature — Human Archer Rogue
Whenever Robber of the Rich attacks, if defending player has more cards in hand than you, exile the top card of their library. During any turn you attacked with a Rogue, you may cast that card and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any colour to cast that spell.
Combos Browse all
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
|Commander: Rule 0||Legal|
Latest Decks as Commander
Robber of the Rich Discussion
1 month ago
modern is a fast format. Your current list reads more like a midrange list than an aggro one. This is fine, but i believe you should keep steering towards that path of midrange-value-plats, and not worry so much about trying to finish the game quickly (stuff like Knight of the Ebon Legion and Robber of the Rich feel off here)
you have faaar too many 1-ofs and 2-ofs in the deck, which is going to make your hands and draws super inconsistent. I’d suggest getting playsets of all the important pieces you want to see in most games
i’m worried you’ve made the deck too awkward for Dragon's Rage Channeler (and Unholy Heat) to get online. I’d suggest getting the full playset of Mishra's Bauble, dropping your creature count a little, and having a roughly-even ratio of instants to sorcery cards.
you’re super close to being able to run Lurrus of the Dream-Den, and the 4 cards you have that are currently preventing you from running him don’t look particularly important, so i’d suggest making some changes to get him as a companion
7 months ago
7 months ago
DragonOfTheWest that's a good point about the rogue attack thing. I wanted to include a reference to Robber of the Rich but yeah if I'm running low on space I should probably just cut it. Thanks for the help.
8 months ago
You could do Grixis rogues. You can keep cards like Soaring Thought-Thief and Thieves' Guild Enforcer , but add cards like Robber of the Rich , Rankle, Master of Pranks , and Zagras, Thief of Heartbeats .
9 months ago
epicPlain you are correct, Robber of the Rich does not allow you to cast the lands. This is evident if you play MTG Arena. As for being balanced, it is pretty balanced. It is very good, but not totally broken in any way. (Kind of annoying though.)
9 months ago
Robber of the Rich has won me so many games by just exiling three lands in a row off the top of my opponent's library, while he was missing land drops with 2 lands in play. The card's amazing.
9 months ago
Thanks for the link!
How do you dump your hand? It's not so easy imo and, furthermore, having more cards means having more options. It's not a handicap - it's an additional advantage of Robber of the Rich imo.
9 months ago
Thanks for all the comments, please forgive me for having posted this in the wrong place. I was not aware of that. I will try to find the Q&A section.
Also - I'm just wondering - cards are not balanced as such in MTG (since Arabian Nights I would say, or maybe never were)? The only balance nowadays could be between the colours or some sets of cards imo.
Here some thoughts on the development of the game imo: - When I was playing (back in the mid to late 90s), there many players dropping out already. The initial idea of Richard Garfield according to sources that I found (unfotunately, I don't remember where I read about it) was to make rare cards more specific in use and common universal. That was amazing! Also, the idea was that players should create the best combination of cards (meta play) and (once that was found - if possible - and yet very unlikely, due to the amount of possible combinations) then in the second step, try to win by playing better than the opponent. Of course, it's a card game, so the luck factor will always be very important and I still believe that it is good for the fun factor.
Nonetheless, when a card like Robber of the Rich has so benefits, then there must be a balancing downside. The only one I see is the attacking condition. Since the card is not legendary (or unique - as am more used to it), that even makes it possible to "mill" the deck by directly exiling the cards. Again, the card is stronger than any other card in any respect imaginable imo.
Because I play blue very often, I don't think that it's a problem but red aggro seems to be very popular nowadays (I'm back in MTG for about 3 days now...so I will eventually change my oppinion on that but it seems very difficult to beat red aggro from what the STANDARD set looks like - again, imo). Hence, the colors are probably not balanced and one must play red to be competitive. Otherwise, one must add specific cards that take up slots and slows down interesting stiles or combos.
To sum up, I was used to choose any card in MTG and the strength came from the combo - so...there was no such thing as a bad card. In the current STANDARD format that seems to remain true - BUT - there are cards which are better than others, and I find that a bit problematic and not satisfying from a "veteran"-come back experience.
Please let me know what the new generation of players thinks about this. I'm wondering.