Suggestions are welcome. I own many more Goblin cards which can fit in this deck, but didn't bother listing here, for simplicity's sake. Like I know most people run a similar deck with AEther Vials, but I need those in my Sliver deck and I always liked Food Chain Goblin, anyway. :)
Permalink
Suggestions are welcome, but as was mentioned, this deck is mostly retired, so I don't see myself spending much money on it.
Might as well drop some Rings, Moxes and Lotuses, while you're at it...
I like it. I have a Modern G/W Aggro deck and was looking for fresh ideas for it. I'm glad to see it can still hold its ground in Standard play!
You mean something like this?http://www.mtgvault.com/panik8/decks/immolating-wall-of-blood/
Oh, I changed the name, so link probably didn't work, check it out... http://www.mtgvault.com/panik8/decks/channeled-souleating/...it's just a silly deck, and I bet the combos wouldn't come out right most of the time, but when they do... BOOM!
Yeah, definetely keep red in, I took in out so I didn't just copy your idea, but that's certainly not saying your idea isn't good! :)I went for more creatures on my take, so burning inquiry didn't make much sense, but in your deck, it does.
You know what, someone mentioned Channel also working incredibly well with Children of Korlis, and I happen to have a Channel deck. It's banned, obviously, and playing it will result in me getting punched in the face, but still, I merged both deck ideas into one mean undying killing machine.Check it out! http://www.mtgvault.com/panik8/decks/channel/
I like it, nice work!
Yeah, I ended up taking it to a completely different direction. I'm still tinkering it, but it's now mono-white and I like to think it's more versatile, but it's all on paper and in my head. Although I'm still around the $25 budget, so I might just order or proxy the cards I'm missing and see how it goes.
Nevermind the part where I took Megrim out for being too similar to Liliana's Caress, that was just silly, it's pretty much how the deck "works".
I agree about Apostle's Blessing, but I don't get your comment on Enlightened Tutor.You "lose" a card, but gain so much reliability/consistency. Consider this deck pretty much relies on a single card to win (Immolating Souleater). You want to make sure you draw that card in your opening hand, without having to mulligan down to 3 cards... That said, I'd also take the Tutor out, but only for the sake of making this deck Modern-legal, but I already mentioned that. :)Ritual of Restoration, Rebuff the Wicked, Intervention Pact and Angel's Grace also look like they'd be very good in this deck.
I actually disagree, I completely misread it, so it's mostly my fault. I just wanted to reproduce my Channel deck in Modern format so bad... :)I mean, top-right corner always indicates mana-cost, and no where on the card does it imply that {X} can be paid with life. In fact, it clearly states that player must pay life as an additional cost. Compare it with Toxic Deluge, for example (the only other Modern "as an additional cost, pay X life" example I could find, actually), its mana cost is {2}{B}.Then again, I agree with the part where at this point in time, we (or Wizards) can't expect everyone to know how to play every card from every era, especially with similar rules or cards being worded differently, and so many synergies that often seem counter-intuitive, and sometimes even completely paradoxal, yet legal (or not).That's what I love about MTG, too. It's a game of logic, where most (reasonable) players will be able to argue, discuss and even negotiate the rules, in case of a disagreement, and without a judge sitting by to resolve it "officially".Great exchanging with you!
Nope, Jessie's right. According to rulings..."2013-04-15 You must pay both X life and {X}{B}. For example, if you want each other player to lose 2 life when Bond of Agony resolves, you must pay {2}{B} and 2 life."
Doh! I misread Bond of Agony... :( Thanks!
@Zaklax: Yup, that's also how I interpreted that, when I posted it, earlier, but the 2 rules I posted today, straight from the rule book are even clearer, in my opinion, and don't leave much to be assumed. I really think this works, and will keep thinking so until a judge rules otherwise...~~~ EDITED OUT, after Jessie's comment, idea was too good to be true. ~~~
Well, I get Gladiatorw07f's (and everyone-else-who-monetioned-it's) point, in that, technically, there could be a difference between "loss of life" and "spending life as Phyrexian Mana/to activate any ability". I personally disagree with that opinion, but until someone provides a reliable source indicating if this combo works or not, anyone's guess is just as good as mine.That being said, I'll refer everyone to the following rules, straight from the Holy Bible of MTG."118.8. If an effect says that a player can’t lose life, that player can’t make an exchange such that the player’s life total would become lower; in that case, the exchange won’t happen. In addition, a cost that involves having that player pay life can’t be paid."In this case, the rules do seem to treat "paying life as a cost" the same way as any other kind of life loss. That said, this particular rule obviously doesn't apply here, but it tends to indicate that this combo would work. Logically, if life can't be used to pay a cost because an effect prevents life loss, then an effect that would return life loss should treat life used to pay a cost as life lost.Also, there's this rule, which actually seems to directly apply, here, see the last sentence..."118.4. If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if his or her life total is greater than or equal to the amount of the payment. If a player pays life, the payment is subtracted from his or her life total; in other words, the player loses that much life."Again, I'm no judge, just because I interpret rules one way, doesn't make it so, but the wording of the last sentence seems pretty clear to me, then again, maybe they didn't have this card in mind when they wrote that rule...(Edit: For the record, I'm not a "I want to be right." kind of guy. I'll be very happy whether I'm proven right or wrong, I'm just the kind of guy who likes to verify and debate things. I'm pretty sure if this combo was used against me, I'd be biased against it... :P)
@d77: I'd think so, but like I said, I'm not a judge. Zaklax13 seems to indicate he tested it on Magic Online and it worked there, so all signs point to yes.
@grizz: Read the card. It's not about preventing life loss, it's about gaining life equal to the amount of life lost that turn. Life loss isn't prevented. Life is gained based on amount of life lost. Further, Gatherer's "Rulings" states that..."The life you gain is based on the total of all changes where your life total went down during the turn, not the net downward change. So if you lose 5 life, gain 3 life, and then lose 2 more life before activating this ability, the ability causes you gain 7 life, not 4."...which tends to indicate that someone playing this deck, with 2 CoK in play could pump the Souleater once (say for 18 life...), sac a first CoK, pump the Souleater again (for another 18 life...), then sac the second CoK, not for 18, but for 36 life back, effectively bringing the player to 38 life (assuming 20 life total to begin with...) and the Souleater to +18/+0.Then again, I'm no judge.
It would probably work great. I generally find it too slow, but if your opponent(s) never have cards to play, "slow" becomes irrelevant. There are so many options for a deck like that, it's up to you to decide how you want to play it, I guess. I'll try to build my own take on it and report back.Edit: Here it is.http://www.mtgvault.com/panik8/decks/discard-to-win/I ended up going mono-black. And I took out cards that were too similar, like Liliana's Caress / Megrim. I ended up with a pretty solid 25$ multiplayer modern discard deck, I think.
21-40 of 108 items