SpippyTheInsane

can we report this? if there's a mod out there, ban him.

Favorite Card: Grindclock. I know its primitive and commona nd everything, but decking out my friends who have Jace the Mind Sculptors, Koth of the Hammers, and Elspeths all fit conveniently into custom purchased 200-300 dollar decks is an absolute treat :) I still remember how a good friend of mine spent 160 bucks on a custom Red deck after getting 2 Koths in a booster box. He went undefeated 9 games in a row before he challenged me. I used my Proliferate deck id never battle tested and that i made using only card i got out of like 10 boosters. He couldnt even come close to keeping my life down thanks to eternity vessel and elixirs of immortality and in a matter of 3 turns after getting my Grindclock out, his deck was GONE. Best feeling in the world :D

okay i like the concept, but honestly I dont really see you surviving terribly long just off of fogs. eventually you'r gonna get smacked. My suggestion: Slow them down even more... with Lightmine Field. Either that or throw in a board clearer like Wrath of God. Hopefully these would help you stall out even longer for Helix Pinnacle to trigger. But thats just my suggestion :)

I run a tourny legal mostly Scars deck very similar to this that's a blast to play too. Its a lot slower than this one and I love the Lux Cannon. Nice job :)

Question: Does Racthet Bomb with no charge counters on it destroy all the tokens of your opponent since they are permanents with no mana cost?

it depends on the dual land. Some literally say as their card type "Swamp forest" or whatever. If your land doesnt say that, you cant fetch it. Go through your lands to make sure :)

Yay Raise the Alrm is beast. I concur with this fellow ^

My only problem with this deck is that you focus so heavily on a single creature being indestructilbe. Unfortunately there are a LOT of other bad things that can happen to a creature: Exile, Pacifism, Rust Tick, etc... Its really hard to comment on a deck like this that takes like 10 cards to pull out a single creature which can be nullified by a single card. Now obviously you could say "Well I have lots of control so if they try to touch my Collosus Ill just counter them." Unfortunately you have to use at least 4 mana to use Shape Anew and can probably only counter 1 to 2 things from then on. Even if you get lucky and the other person is tapped out, Collosus still has summoning sickness and they have their own full turn and ALL of their land to deal with it again while you're still tapped =/ I really like the idea behind it; I just think its a little bit of a one-trick pony. Sorry :(

funny story actually: Okay so a friend of mine (a VERY smart kid) and I once got in an argument that literally lasted 4 DAYS NONSTOP over a single card: Book Burning. His argument: Unless a player has Book Burning (like in possession or something?!?! WTF?!?!), it triggers both effects. My argument, "You're an idiot. Learn to use commas." I was in fact correct BUT after going back the next day after convincing him finally, we both realized something very crucial. Wizards used a very poor word: "has". While the intent of the card is actually quite clear, the actual English behind it is not. You see, when most things offer a choice between options they would use the words: chooses, chooses to, opts to, etc... to indicate that the player is actually making the choice. Now if I said that unless a person HAS someone else punch them in the face, blah blah blah... I am still giving them the choice, but the effect is not the one who is threatening the circumstances. AKA: The person would have to physically MAKE the other person punch them, not CHOOSE what to do. In my mind, this is still the same way Book Burning is actually doing. Unless a player finds a way to miraculously have Book Burning target them and deal 6 damage to them (through some ridiculous targeting, misdirecting and utter nonsense), they mill. So Book Burning in my opinion should not even have a clause. it should just be "Target player mills 6 cards (or whatever)."

lol yeah that confused me for a sec lol. Again sorry for my stubborness and well done Ninjawesome. But i stand by what i said before about recipes :) Oh and Surewhynot, you're very good at rules... would you mind stopping by my Help with Rules deck (its not actually a deck) and either verifying or arguing with the other post there lol?

despite breaking all rules of English (which this wholeheartedly does), Charbelcher does in fact do as Ninjawesome says it does. I am sorry for any harshness towards any other players and/or this deck and its creator in my interpretation of the card. In my defense, English grammar and logical fallacies dictate this card would do nothing. BUT Wizards has seen fit to keep it poorly worded and incorrect and simply implement otherwise unneccesary rules so as to do what they intended it to do. I love Wizards to death, but honestly, cards like this REALLY frustrate me when they could have avoided confusion by simply trying harder =/

Goblin Charbelcher
{4}
Artifact
{3}, {T}: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a
land card. Goblin Charbelcher deals damage equal to the number of
nonland cards revealed this way to target creature or player. If the
revealed land card was a Mountain, Goblin Charbelcher deals double that
damage instead. Put the revealed cards on the bottom of your library in
any order.

And the relevant rules are:

413.2b The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions
in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these
actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of
earlier text (for example, "Destroy target creature. It can't be
regenerated" or "Counter target spell. If you do, put it on top of its
owner's library instead of into its owner's graveyard." ) Don't just
apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases-read the
whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

103.3. If an instruction requires taking an impossible action, it's
ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if
it doesn't, there's no effect.)

416.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as
much as possible.
Example: If a player is holding only one card, an effect that reads
"Discard two cards" causes him or her to discard only that card. If an
effect moves cards out of the library (as opposed to drawing), it moves
as many as possible.

And according to level 4 judge Rune Horvik (as can be seen at
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp [...] ily/rh92):

A: If you don't have any lands in your library you reveal all the cards
left in the library, then the Charbelcher deals 1 damage for each
revealed card. Then you put all the cards back, in whatever order you
want.

Even if one part of an effect fails, the other parts will try to do as
much as possible. Revealing the land is just a stop condition, it's not
a requirement to deal damage (it doesn't say "if you reveal a land..." ).

okay I looked this up and have found out i am incorrect in fact. my apologies. here is the official ruling:

no because the effect never reaches the next part. it distinctly contains 2 parts. Do part A until condition B, then do thing C. you don't get to do C if A never finds B. =/ Sorry bro but this deck has a significant flaw.

Brianww while that is a good point to throw in another single land, you dont have a guaranteed kill yet. That land can be anywhere and you would deal between 0 and 53. And if you DONT get a big number, you just burned thru some of your neccessary cards to do it again. Then you have to rebuild your combo and try again, with an even smaller library I might add, and hope for the best.

The deck is a nice idea but is INCREDIBLY unstable and unpredictable =/

WHOAH. Charbelcher's effect is DIRECTLY triggered WHEN YOU REVEAL A LAND CARD. With no land in your deck, you reveal your deck without the effect ending and the effect is still running. It is an infinite loop that requires you to reveal until you reveal a land. It doesnt say, if you run out of cards do the damage anyways. This combo should not work, and the "many" people you have beaten with it have been seriously duped.

Soooo Im gonna agree with the "This deck is boring" comments. Im kinda sick of seeing the Mox artifacts being abused with ridiculous combinations that win in a miniscule timeframe. Honestly, MTG is not about building a recipe to win that a brainless monkey could play. Literally, your deck has an instruction manual O_o MTG is about playing and having fun with friends. Yes it can be competitive, but, in my opinion, the game should be about the player, not the deck. That being said, this deck seems incredibly effective at utilizing this Checklist and mox abuse, so I will in fact "like" it even though I dont actually enjoy it.

yeah took me about 13 turns to get both in starting hand :/

holy Jesus you want him to get 6 Jace's in a 60 card deck? Literally 10% is Jace and you can only have 1 at a time anyways... Otherwise your suggestiosn are good :) lol

Marrow-Gnawer is a must. Remove 1 relentless rats for it

but i do have to say i enjoy your use of the sun titans and low mana soldiers. that at least is well thought out :)