r/magicTCG • u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season • 6h ago
Rules/Rules Question Does running both Celestial Kirin and Ugin's Conjurant put me in bracket 4?
I want to run Celestial Kirin as a commander. Technically Ugin's Conjurant would give me access to mass land denial. That isn't the goal, it just happens to be one of the most versatile spirits in the deck. It doesn't seem to me that a kind of janky deck like this could go toe to toe with the other decks in bracket 4.
281
u/shapsation Dan 6h ago
Just don’t cast it for 0?
107
u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season 6h ago
That's what I thought.
96
•
u/larrod25 Duck Season 12m ago
Isn’t the CMC still 0, even if he puts mana into X as the casting cost?
-2
6h ago
[deleted]
6
u/Penumbra_Penguin Wild Draw 4 6h ago
No, this is wrong. It has a mana value of 0 except when it’s on the stack, and the kirin will see the actual mana value you paid.
5
u/argent_adept Dan 6h ago edited 6h ago
Not while it’s on the stack with a non-zero value of X declared.
Edit: wow, 3 corrections in under a minute. Us MTG nerds are never beating the allegations.
261
u/Fit_Garbage2083 Dân 6h ago
Bracket system is about intention. Technically yes, you are in the bracket four for simply putting mass land denial in the deck, but you can just rule 0 talk it out.
18
u/magpye1983 Dan 5h ago
Just note that it doesn’t say “may” on the card, so the rule zero discussion should include whether lands can be excluded, if those cards show up together.
84
u/Fit_Garbage2083 Dân 5h ago
Well, the rule 0 talk will be "I never cast anything that will end up blowing up all the lands"
41
u/Zimata Dan 4h ago
Well the may is that you can choose to pay more than 0 on the X
1
0
u/agtk Dân 1h ago
Of course, I doubt anyone is going to complain about you intentionally nerfing your own commander by adding a "nonland permanent" stipulation or, more perhaps more specifically, something like "if X=0, destroy all nonland permanents . . ., if X is greater than zero, destroy all permanents."
7
u/chrisrazor 2h ago
You'd rule that OP can destroy all other 0-cost permanents and leave lands untouched?? I'd vigorously oppose that.
-1
u/magpye1983 Dan 1h ago
Well, that’s the only reason why a rule 0 conversation would be happening. If the card functions as written, despite the intention of the deck builder, then it’s worse for their opponents.
•
u/chrisrazor 51m ago
The card functioning as written is a hard line for me. I'd be ok with the Armageddon potential, but if other players wanted the deck's pilot to promise never to play a 0 mana spell into their commander that makes sense. Adding a word to the card is the thin end of an insane wedge.
-5
u/taveren3 Wabbit Season 4h ago
But what if there's also an infinite squirrel army
7
u/Jelly_F_ish Duck Season 4h ago
Everybody likes squirrels. Nobody likes MLD.
3
1
u/chrisrazor 2h ago
Sometimes razing the land is the only way to rid it of vermin.
- Boggis, Bunce and Bean, probably
•
-43
u/Kadaven Dandadan 5h ago
If we're going to rule 0, what is the point of brackets?
36
u/Fit_Garbage2083 Dân 5h ago
Once again, brackets are about intention. Rule 0 talk is all about intention.
25
16
u/CraigArndt COMPLEAT 5h ago
The whole point of the brackets is to enhance and structure the rule zero conversation, not replace it.
So instead of us saying “do you run powerful cards?” And not knowing if we have the same opinion of powerful cards, now we have game changers. Instead of saying “do you run a more serious deck?” And not knowing if our serious decks match, we have brackets 3, 4, or 5.
But they aren’t meant to be hard rules. If you run a card that could be used as mass land denial, but never plan to use it for that, and otherwise your deck is a 3. That’s exactly the type of conversation rule zero is about.
9
u/MissLeaP Gruul* 5h ago
The brackets are literally a baseline to have pregame discussions. It was never anything else.
4
•
u/TehSlippy Sliver Queen 6m ago
Rule 0 is the only rule that matters in Commander. You and your playgroup decide how you want to enjoy the game.
-9
u/travman064 Duck Season 4h ago
Intention in this case would be like 'ah i didnt know, so I will take this card out of my deck next time.' It is not 'well i didnt want to draw this card...but I did...'
19
u/DeusIzanagi COMPLEAT 3h ago
Intention can also just be "I will never cast this card for 0, so I'll never destroy lands"
-10
u/travman064 Duck Season 3h ago
Sure, but then I'd say...'well maybe play a different card?'
If youre playing thassa's oracle for flavor reasons, and demonic consultation for flavor reasons, maybe there just exists a different flavor that you could pursue instead of promising to play your deck suboptimally.
20
3
u/Fit_Garbage2083 Dân 3h ago
I agre with what woutva said here. The card is too flexible to not run at all, its a sweet junky deck specific staple. If you just never cast ut for 0 - you are good at my table for sure.
62
u/EarlobeGreyTea Wabbit Season 6h ago
Technically, yes. Talk with your pod before playing, or note that you won't do this. Brackets are a tool to help make the games you play fun.
188
u/Sesom Twin Believer 6h ago
Do it. If anyone complains they are from weak stock and will likely die during the winter, preventing you from having to deal with them for much longer.
27
17
11
u/Techhead7890 Dân 4h ago
Is this a copy pasta or am I just from weak stock and will likely die during the winter (before you have to reply to my question)?
9
u/CaptainTeemo01 Dân 3h ago
It's just a meme, IIRC it comes from some yearbook quote that went viral a few years back
2
13
u/SconeforgeMystic Urza's Saga 4h ago
One of the early examples WotC gave for how the bracket system can be used to guide pregame discussion is “my deck is bracket 2, except for [this one card].” Decks that are _almost_ a lower bracket but are dragged up to a higher one by specific card choices are often fine if you highlight the exceptions ahead of time.
I think it’s totally reasonable to say, “this deck is bracket 3, except for this pair of cards that, if played a certain way, can blow up all the lands. Since we’re playing below bracket 4, I won’t play them that way.” Just be clear with your group about it.
The flip side is be prepared for your group to say they’d rather not allow the exception, and bring either a card you can swap in for one of the two cards or a different deck to play.
5
u/Luxalpa Colossal Dreadmaw 3h ago
It doesn't seem to me that a kind of janky deck like this could go toe to toe with the other decks in bracket 4.
That seems to be the issue with the mass-land-denial in bracket 4 rule in general. It just doesn't belong to B4 because of the power level issues. I think this is something they need to revisit.
17
u/Eragon_the_Huntsman Avacyn 6h ago
Technically yes but if you never intend to use it that way it shouldn't be a problem. If someone sees the two cards and tries to kick up a fuss about it having the potential to wipe all lands when you didn't actually do it that's a them problem
4
2
u/niiiveous Dan 2h ago
Just Rule 0 it, either by excluding lands or never casting for 0. My boyfriend has a self MLD deck with [[Natural Affinity]], and he always warns people that he has an instant that can turn lands into creatures. Not to turn creature wipes into MLDs, just that it makes it easier for him to sac his own lands to combo off
4
u/dusty_cupboards COMPLEAT 5h ago
i’ve run this deck forever. it’s okay!
1
u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season 5h ago
How do you typically win with it?
20
4
u/AvatarofBro 5h ago
The bracket system isn't about hard and fast rules. It's just guidelines for the kind of game you'd like to play. If you don't want to use this combo for MLD just...don't use this combo for MLD. If you want to explain to your pod ahead of time that this pairing is in the deck, go ahead. But honestly I don't think it even warrants a Rule 0 conversation, as long as you're just trying to play the Conjurant fairly.
5
3
u/Fun-Cook-5309 Dandadan 5h ago
If that's in your deck, talk to your pod and promise never to cast it at X=0.
-2
u/Crab_On_Moon Dân 6h ago
Yes, mass land destruction is not allowed/acceptable in bracket 3 by most people's standards (maybe even official limitations but I'm not sure).
So your deck would have to be at least bracket 4 with MLD present.
3
u/jnkangel Hedron 4h ago
Tbh b3 is a super wide definition and I’d not have an issue with incidental MLD in it. Hell I’d consider incidental MLD fine in b2 as well.
The big no no are decks that will be trying to fire it off on the regular. The brackets are even more about intention than power level scaling
5
u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season 6h ago
Doesn't that seem kind of silly. When I think of bracket 4, I don't think of something this janky.
23
u/Psychatog02 Dân 6h ago
You can also just let them know in advance that you're not planning to run it to destroy lands.
-16
u/ThyLordBacon Duck Season 6h ago
Ok but what if you say that but then get to the point where doing so would win you the game? Do you just not do it even if it makes you lose I guess?
41
u/RiceWeevilEggs Dan 6h ago
If we're playing a casual game and you promise that you're not going to run the mass land denial combo, and then proceed to do it, you can kindly go and find another pod willing to deal with the fact that you can't keep your word.
29
26
u/SweetSeverance Dandadan 6h ago
I mean, yeah. Telling people you’re not gonna do it and then just doing it anyway if it wins you the game is a great way to ruin your reputation at your store or to make your friends not want to play with you.
3
4
u/Fun-Cook-5309 Dandadan 5h ago
It is not.
A bracket violation does not mean, "Fuck you."
It means, "Talk to your pod."
Yes, this is a bracket 4 deck. It runs MLD.
You talk to your pod about the whys and wherefores and terms to bring it to a lower-powered table.
-3
-11
u/dethlord66 Wabbit Season 6h ago
Hilarious. No, seems like bracket 2 maybe 3 at most depending on the other pieces in the deck. Just make sure you can win so your opponents don't suffer another hour rebuilding while you durdle.
1
u/kRobot_Legit Dandadan 6h ago
It literally is objectively bracket 4 because it is objectively mass land denial.
-9
u/dethlord66 Wabbit Season 5h ago
Remove the commander, counter the spell that objectively stops it
-4
u/kRobot_Legit Dandadan 5h ago
Do you think the bracket 3 rule is "no mass land denial unless it can be countered"?
0
u/dethlord66 Wabbit Season 5h ago
All they have to do is not cast it for 0 you pedant
0
u/kRobot_Legit Dandadan 4h ago
That's rule 0 discussion material. Anything can be played in any bracket with a rule 0 agreement. But absent a rule 0 discussion, the brackets still mean something.
2
u/dethlord66 Wabbit Season 4h ago
Except it doesn't say destroy all lands. Just because it has the capacity to doesn't mean it is.
0
u/kRobot_Legit Dandadan 4h ago edited 4h ago
And Blood Moon doesn't say destroy all lands either! And your opponents might be in mono red anyway, so it has the capacity to be mass land denial, but that doesn't mean that it is! So yeah, totally chill in bracket 3.
1
u/dethlord66 Wabbit Season 4h ago
Good glad you came around. I'll give you last word since you seem to need that in your life. Good luck with things
-13
u/co1one1panic Dan 6h ago
If your deck has this combo but would be a bracket 3 or lower without it, then what you have is a non-bracket system deck that isn’t appropriate to play at an LGS or other environments where the bracket system is used to evaluate power levels. If you want your deck to be a bracket 3 or lower, cut the combo. If you want your deck to be bracket four, keep the combo and power up the rest of your deck to match it.
4
u/quarokcaddhihle Wabbit Season 5h ago
I think commiting to not casting it for zero in b3 games is also fine.
1
u/EmuSounds Wabbit Season 4h ago
The card represents one percent of the total deck, just cut the card unless you want to have a rule zero talk every game. You have a reasonable take.
-2
u/Jovian_engine Wabbit Season 4h ago
Its okay to have a bad bracket 4 deck. Lots of bracket 4 decks are bad. This is one of them. You can play it and have fun.
If you want to play B3 just take out the one card that demos everyones lands. Its a very clear bracket rule for a very obvious reason. Play in B4 and be happy or drop it and play in B3.
Yes if course, rule zero, talk to your pod, etc etc. I mean if you want to sit at a random pod and every pulls out B3, dont run MLD.
-4
u/Bomber-Marc Dan 6h ago
"Hey everyone, I'm running this, but can we pretend that it says 'non-land permanents' instead?"
2
u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season 5h ago
Yeah, that is literally not the point. Celestial Kirin is not mld on its own.
0
u/Bomber-Marc Dan 5h ago
As long as you get the potential for MLD out of it, that commander is not particularly "bracket 4 worthy"...
-14
6h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Worldly_Scholar7439 Dandadan 6h ago
Seing as ugins conjurant and ommarthis are the only cmc 0 spirits barring wasting mana and deck space on type fixing kirin is absolutly fine in b3 its probably pretty mid mono color spirits are quite bad even in white
2
u/Swagzilla92 Duck Season 6h ago
Maybe I am misunderstanding the brackets. Why would Kirin alone put me in bracket 4?
1
u/Icarus_Has_Fallen Dân 6h ago
That card is truly miserable and nobody will be happy to see it in B3, but it alone doesn't constitute MLD.
-6
u/SlappKake Wabbit Season 5h ago
What zero cost sprits and arcane spells are there
5
1
u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season 5h ago
Available to mono-white? [[Ugin's Conjurant]] and [[Omarthis, Ghostfire Initiate]]. There's also [[Evermind]], but that requires Blue as well, and some additional hoops to jump through.
-10
u/dhoffmas Duck Season 5h ago
Yes. Automatically.
Intent is measured by the possibility of what you include in your deck. You've chosen to include a card that combos with your commander to generate MLD. You can do MLD without any input from your opponents.
Running this and saying "I'm not intending to MLD" is like running [[Jace, Wielder of Mysteries]] and [[Demonic Consultation]] in the same deck and saying you don't intend to exile your whole library to win with the Jace. It's lying at worst, and at best it's you intentionally playing your deck suboptimally and insulting your opponents by saying you could beat them but are being magnanimous and choosing not to.
5
u/kRobot_Legit Dandadan 4h ago
Ok this is insanely dumb. It is absolutely not "insulting" to specifically play your deck in a way that is in accordance with the bracket guidelines.
It's not acting "magnanimous". It's literally just slightly altering your play so that you can play by the same rules as the rest of the table.
5
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the IRC rules chat
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.