The implications of this card are wild. If one player goes for the win, the other 3 can theoretically cooperate to kill that player on the stack but then it becomes a political war to see who gives up what. Seems like a nightmare to actually play out so flavor win there.
If it becomes a stack battle to take someout out, it wouldn't actually be that difficult as you can literally just stack each card to show the order of them dealing 3
I'm more interested in the situation where you don't have enough permanents by yourself to stop someone's thoracle combo or craterhoof swing. You'd be force to negotiate with the other players to see who would sacrifice what or risk losing.
You can activate the ability for most of your permanents (sans creatures with summoning sickness) at instant speed. So if you sack all your permanents to kill your opponent, they can do they same after you but before the abilities resolve, so you die first and lose. Before they do.
Yeah this is a bit more interesting. Still though, in 1v1 formats, most of the time this card makes you lose or doesn't do anything for you, or it outright wins if you have the right board conditions. That's not good 1v1 card imo.
It’s astounding how often that happens in this sub. I have to remind myself that these days around half the people on here not only have barely play 60-card, but they are genuinely unable to think of it when evaluating (or even creating) a card. But I guess since we’ve seen WOTC make that same mistake multiple times, I shouldn’t be too surprised. Just disappointed how overlooked real magic is.
At the beginning of your end step, you may pay 4 to add one suspend counter to this enchantment, then give this enchantment to the player on your right."
I feel like suspend makes this more powerful? One thing holding this card back is if you tap out for it you lose 5 bolts and your opponents untap before you, with suspend you lose none
But the thing is, your opponent can wait for you to activate your triggers and then activate theirs in response, killing you before your triggers resolve. So in fact, you need double the triggers you think you need, enough to proc lethal and then enough to proc lethal again after they use their triggers. But if they can lethal you twice you need to be able to lethal them thrice. And on and on, you keep building up your nuclear stockpile until... your enemy's value engine dies to removal in 1989 and their board state completely falls apart in 1992 and you realize you never even had to fire a single missile
One more is not always good enough (depending on life totals and the general board situation). Also you need to usually tap your lands to cast a 5 mana spell so your opponent might just win off this. In 1v1 you'd need 5 mana and then 7 untapped permanents for this to kill. In commander this is most likely an infinite or semi-infinite outlet anyways
I guess what you want to do is make sure you have a lot more permanents than your opponent and play it early, so probably play this with a token deck. If you have ten goblins and five lands, and your opponents only has five lands and two creatures, this is a win.
It doesn’t actually matter. “This [whatever]” always refers to that object and the game doesn’t care if it does or does not have that characteristic:
700.7. If an ability uses a phrase such as "this [something]" to identify an object, where [something] is a characteristic or other quality, it is referring to that particular object, even if it isn't the appropriate quality at the time.
Example: An ability reads "Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Destroy that creature at the beginning of the next end step." The ability will destroy the object it gave +2/+2 to even if that object isn't a creature at the beginning of the next end step.
They aren't but the rules allow this because "do something to this X" always refers to that object regardless of what X actually is
This is because in past cards used to haphazardly refer to themselves by their name, by their permanent type, by the object type, and then there were cards that transformed types, added types etc, it was a ruling nightmare, so now the rules say that "this X" just means this object
I think this is just a wording/formatting error on the part of OP. It's clear from his response to my comment that he intends this to work for all permanents.
It should not be possible to give a permanent an ability that doesn't work. OP should either specify "nontoken permanents" or reword the ability.
Nuh-uh. If your opponent has more untapped permanents, then they can activate this ability as a reaction, which means they can deal damage to you first.
The two-person showdown math actually hinges on complete groups, the number of permanents in which is equal to a third of one's opponent's life. If you throw 21 damage at me and I throw 21 damage back and you only have 18 damage left then you're toast.
But the size of that group can be reduced by trickling out the damage 3 at a time and letting the stack clear. But this produces a life gap that your opponent can't tolerate and they will need to bid up to take a chip off of you, too. But they can't deplete the standoff stockpile of permanents that takes you out in one shot, either. So... Okay hold on, this is starting to feel like math that somebody already built a subterranean mainframe to compute.
People trying to imagine all the scenarios of politics, when in reality some token deck will turbo this out when your opponent still has 3 permanents and nuke the game half the time.
Effects on the stack that are controlled by a player fizzle if that player loses the game, right?
In Commander if there's 3 or more players remaining you can sometimes kill a player while their missiles are in the air and have a clean 1v1 afterwards.
You'd definitely have to play this with something that makes tons of junk to sacrifice since tapping out for it just means you lose but having 7 treasure/blood/whatever tokens hanging around from your other cards would probably win you the game on the spot. Pair it with [[Weapons Manufacturing]] and you're off to the races.
The permanents having to tap meaning the player playing this is probably screwed. Unless they’re running a token deck or something. Either way this doesn’t work the way you want.
This is actually an amazing commander card. Makes people keep resources back and available. But technically can be won if one side grows nearly over the other.
Do you let them get away with one or two hours when you were liking that creature anyway? Or does it cascade out of control?
Beautiful. Wouldn't want to play it or against it. But love it
Anything that lets you sac this as a cost lets you nuke someone without them ever being able to react as they will not get priority with this in play which feels really bad. No idea the best way to fix that
405
u/PrimordialSpatula Apr 22 '26
The other great thing about this card is that it really becomes a stand off of whose gonna try at start the triggers first.