Does running both Celestial Kirin and Ugin's Conjurant put me in bracket 4?

[u/Swagzilla92]

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.

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/Fit_Garbage2083]

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.

[u/EnjoyerOfBeans → u/Fit_Garbage2083]

Why even bother with rule 0? Do you let every other player at the table inspect your deck before the game to check what bracket it is?

Just don't cast it for X=0. No discussion needs to happen.

[u/Kanin_usagi → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

But then I can’t make an entire thread on Reddit about my inability to play a game a certain way without total social paralysis

[u/Michyrr → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

The discussion needs to happen because if you do cast the Conjurant, someone could easily notice that it can combo with the commander to become MLD, and take issue with you having potential MLD in the deck without having brought it up prior.
The point of brackets is to set expectations. If a <b4 player discovers that you're able to blow up everyone's lands, you've violated said expectations and now you look untrustworthy. Their (possibly subconscious) line of thought is likely to go "If EnjoyerOfBeans was trying to smuggle MLD into the game, they probably has other illegal shit in their deck too. EOB is now my archenemy."

[u/ironwolf1 → u/Michyrr]

If you see someone specifically avoid using a card for MLD and decide to get mad at them because there was the possibility that they could've used it for MLD even though you just saw them choose not to, you might be a bit too lacking in social skills for a game like Commander.

[u/Michyrr → u/ironwolf1]

They still can use it for that. You can cast a card more than once if you have recursion or self-bounce. It doesn't get exiled after it leaves the stack. -_-

[u/ironwolf1 → u/Michyrr]

It’s still silly to be getting mad about something that hasn’t happened. If they cast it for 0 and say “now I destroy all your lands”, that’s the time to get mad about no pregame convo. Otherwise, you’re boxing ghosts.

[u/Plastic_Blood1782 → u/Michyrr]

Ok, so if they get upset, just say "ok I won't use it for MLD, sorry" and move on

[u/Stock_Shoe_3199 → u/Michyrr]

If someone was upset about a combo that could happen but didn't, I wouldn't want to play with that person. It's tiring to try and please everyone, not to mention impossible. 

[u/AbominableSandwich → u/Stock_Shoe_3199]

If I ran 10 game changers in my deck, would I be bracket three if I didn't draw them in a game? Would people have a right to be upset if I claimed I was bracket 3 because I didn't cast them?

[u/preptime → u/AbominableSandwich]

If someone had 10 game changers in their deck and left them in and intentionally didn't cast them, they are actively handicapping themselves.

I don't see why that would be an issue in a lower bracket game. My assumption in that moment is that is the only deck they had and they didn't want to mess around and remove cards just to play a lower bracket game.

[u/EnjoyerOfBeans → u/AbominableSandwich]

Not drawing them and not casting them when drawn is completely different and you know it. Yes I don't care at all if you put 10 useless cards in your deck that you'll never cast. 

[u/AbominableSandwich → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

How exactly is it different? The point I'm making is about misrepresenting what your deck is capable of. Lying is lying, even if it's a lie of omission. While my example was obviously more extreme, the same basic principles apply.

[u/EnjoyerOfBeans → u/AbominableSandwich]

So if I didn't understand that these 2 cards can even be used to cause mass land destruction, then your first instinct when you see me resolve this card at X>0 is to accuse me of lying, then insist I remove the card from my deck or waste everyone's time forever with rule 0 discussions about a play pattern that I never intend to use? That's actually insane.

How about you call out people when they try to resolve mass land destruction instead of demanding you're informed of every edge case that will never actually matter? 

If you somehow see this card in my hand, ask me "you know you can use this at X=0 to destroy lands, right?" and I'll tell you "yes, but I won't use it this way". That's all that needs to happen.

[u/AbominableSandwich → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

Dude, chill, that's quite the strawman you've constructed. If you claimed to be in bracket 3, cast a spell that destroyed all lands, and claimed ignorance of how your own cards work, I might be suspicious of your reading comprehension. I probably wouldn't do much more than that. If you claimed that it was ok because you didn't know, or insisted on doing it anyways, then I would call you out. If it really was a simple mistake on your part I would just assume you were an idiot, but no harm no foul.

[u/EnjoyerOfBeans → u/AbominableSandwich]

I specifically said if I cast it for X>0, I keep saying this is a non problem as long as someone doesn't actually use it for X=0. 

You seem to agree with me but at the same time you say you'd think someone was lying about their bracket if this card was revealed/played at X>0 and they didn't communicate about this interaction in rule 0. So i'm telling you - you would assume someone to be lying about their bracket if they didn't understand that this hits lands at X=0, which really isn't unreasonable for inexperienced players to miss. It seems like this is just very unnecessary and the only thing that matters is how the card is used, no?

Yeah, if someone casts it for 0, tell them "you actually can't do that in bracket 3", that's obviously not a problem.

[u/The_Bygone_King → u/Stock_Shoe_3199]

Having the chance to potentially combo off is the worst of every possible world because you've got an inconsistent deck that leaves a huge impression on others when it pops off.

Inconsistency is the worst deck building mistake because your deck will always be perceived by your opponents in its strongest state while the deck's performance is still limited to random popoffs or durdling.

You'll find that if you drop the combo altogether you may just end up winning more games because the deck seems "less threatening" despite being more consistent.

[u/LordHuntington → u/Michyrr]

this is deranged mental gymnastics.

[u/SmoothTank9999 → u/LordHuntington]

It would be like a vegetarian complaining that there's beef stock in my cupboard which means I COULD have put it in the soup they saw me make without beef stock.

[u/_a_random_dude_ → u/SmoothTank9999]

The other day I was playing against an asshole that had a sharpie in his backpack. He could've easily started signing and marking my cards.

Sure, he didn't do it (this time), but he really needed to bring it up before we played.

[u/Tuss36 → u/Michyrr]

Exactly. Being transparent gets everyone on the same page. Even more casual descriptions of your deck of "I have a combo in this deck but it's nothing too crazy" can be misconstrued very easily. Best to be upfront about potential issues like this, rather than trying to skip past a 15 second explanation just to get to the game.

[u/NefariousBrew → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

Does the X actually affect the cmc? I thought it counted as 0 no matter how much mana you paid.

[u/Absolutionis → u/NefariousBrew]

X (as a mana cost) is zero in all places except for the stack.

Kirin cares about spells cast and it sees the X for what you paid for it.

[u/Main_Instruction_489 → u/[deleted]]

It cares about the amount paid if it's an x spell then the cmc is whatever you paid for x while on the stack everywhere else its cmc is 0

[u/Altocornet0211 → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

No i don't want to play against your B5 vivi deck i just want to throw dinos down and have them fight dragons

[u/deworde → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

Numerous ways in which that could come up mid-game before you cast it, all of which make you look sus as hell. Better to talk it out first 

[u/EnjoyerOfBeans → u/deworde]

Wdym "look sus as hell"? If I cast it at 0 then you'll know I did. It's not some secret, it's not something I can get away with. I might not even know that it works like that. Seriously why would you ever have an issue with this unless someone actually tried to resolve it at 0?

[u/deworde → u/EnjoyerOfBeans]

Someone sees it in your hand when the other card is on the board. Or sees both of them out, and assumes at some point you'll return Ugin's to your hand to blow up the board.

You're basically representing Land Destruction on board for the rest of the game.

[u/magpye1983 → u/Fit_Garbage2083]

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.

[u/Zimata → u/magpye1983]

Well the may is that you can choose to pay more than 0 on the X

[u/magpye1983 → u/Zimata]

OOOOH! yeah, of course. Just rule 0 a “X can’t be 0” would be fine.

[u/22bebo → u/magpye1983]

Technically I think I'd just say "If I have Kirin out I will not play the Conjurant for 0." Playing the Conjurant for 0 without the Kirin in play seems unlikely to be problematic.

[u/joedela → u/22bebo]

I'd say just exclude lands. Having mass token removal could prove useful in the game.

[u/zsobo21 → u/joedela]

That would make this combo mass token removal for “free” (if Kirin is on board) without the downside of losing your lands.

[u/mrenglish22 → u/magpye1983]

If you are gonna rule 0 just change it to nonland instead

[u/nhal → u/mrenglish22]

one of the rule 0 implies that you will not go for a specific line of play, the other changing the text of a card, they 're not quite the same.

[u/joedela → u/nhal]

But your eliminating viable lines of play to get prevent one undesirable. Why not just eliminate the undesirable play and leave the others available?

[u/nhal → u/joedela]

because I like to play magic the gathering with rules as written.

[u/joedela → u/nhal]

But you're not doing that either, you're creating a rule that says a player can't do something they are allowed to do by the rules of the game.

I understand not wanting to allow mass land removal, but the rules of the game don't prevent that. Rule 0 is a gentleman's agreement, not a rule.

[u/magpye1983 → u/nhal]

So this doesn’t need a rule 0 conversation then, because rules as written, the intention of the deck matters when deciding which bracket it is.

[u/nhal → u/magpye1983]

We agree to disagree, have fun with your games.

[u/agtk → u/Zimata]

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."

[u/Vawned → u/agtk]

Play Mindslaver, control OP, cast Conjurant for 0, ban OP for playing a deck a bracket higher.

[u/DmonsterJeesh → u/Zimata]

Iiuc, the converted mana cost doesn't take into account x costs, regardless of how much you actually paid, so it would still be 0 for the purposes of Celestial Kirin.

That said, Rule 0 takes priority over that, too.

[u/realizedvolatility → u/DmonsterJeesh]

This is incorrect, X is only considered 0 everywhere but the stack. On the stack its mana value would be what you paid into X

[u/DmonsterJeesh → u/realizedvolatility]

I hadn't read the oracle text, and had defaulted to translating it as "etb", mb

[u/Zimata → u/DmonsterJeesh]

X spells are weird. Their mana value changes depending on what you cast them for

[u/DmonsterJeesh → u/Zimata]

The mana value of X is always 0, except when it's on the stack, which is why I was confused.

[u/Zimata → u/DmonsterJeesh]

Yes it is

[u/Fit_Garbage2083 → u/magpye1983]

Well, the rule 0 talk will be "I never cast anything that will end up blowing up all the lands"

[u/chrisrazor → u/magpye1983]

You'd rule that OP can destroy all other 0-cost permanents and leave lands untouched?? I'd vigorously oppose that.

[u/magpye1983 → u/chrisrazor]

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 → u/magpye1983]

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.

[u/Sensei_Ochiba → u/chrisrazor]

Yeah I absolutely agree. If you want to shake hands that on OPs honor they won't cast Conjurant for 0 while Kirin is out, that's a perfectly fine rule 0. If you want to explicitly just change what the card functionally does? No. You can't have a Celestial Kirin that can blow up tokens and ornithopters but not lands, that's... That's just not how the card works.

[u/North_Shake_934 → u/Sensei_Ochiba]

Why can't you do that? It's not a tournament. As long as everybody agree, why would it be an issue? How is that different for companion going from play from exile to pay 3 to put in hand? Because WOTC sanctioned it? You can rule 0 banned card, why can't you rule 0 changing how a card work. I rule 0 removing the win clause on mechanized production all the time.

[u/ImmortalDreamer → u/North_Shake_934]

Make your own card game if you want to make up how cards work. Otherwise, they fuction as printed.

[u/North_Shake_934 → u/ImmortalDreamer]

They don't all function as printed. (companion for example)
We give WOTC the responsibility/power to set up the rules because we're not going to reinvent the wheel every game and they employed great game designer but in this case, if he want to play ugin's conjurant but don't want it to become Mass land denial due to bracket concern, why not rule 0 the change?
I feel the goal of edh is to have fun and allowing this change lead to better game.

[u/ImmortalDreamer → u/North_Shake_934]

Because this game should be one that most people can pick up and know how things work by reading the card. I will give you companions, they were a mistake and, imo, we really need to stop doing backflips to make them work and not be broken.

[u/Sensei_Ochiba → u/North_Shake_934]

I mean, you can do whatever the pod you're with at the time is willing to agree upon, you could play with 200 cards and say basic lands tap for all colors. The game rules cops won't break down your door and neither will I. But I won't ever agree to functionally changing what a card does, I'd walk away from that pod.

Companion is different not because Wizards was involved, but because it was a rule change, not a card change. If the words on the cards are just suggestions you might as well just proxy up custom cards. There's communities out there for that, if it's what you're into.

[u/DumatRising → u/Sensei_Ochiba]

Sadly companion isn't the only cards that don't do what's written on them. Wotc has errated cards before that. Most erratas are formating errata such as removing bury from the rules text, but there are functional erratas to some cards. Not often, almost all older cards, though technically the most recent functional errata was the last lorwyn set. Though most functional erratas are to preserve the intention of the card. (Like adding the dinosaur type to old cards that were obviously dinosaurs when the first Ixalan came out)

[u/mrenglish22 → u/chrisrazor]

Honestly I think not having "nonland" on kirin was a design mistake in the literal sense. Just that it got left off unintentionally.

[u/chrisrazor → u/mrenglish22]

Nah, I assume when it was printed - and likely for many years after - there just weren't any 0 cost spirits.

[u/mrenglish22 → u/chrisrazor]

Sure, but nowadays they try to put things on cards to keep this sort of thing from happening.

[u/chrisrazor → u/mrenglish22]

It may have been felt at the time that if you were willing to jump through the necessary hoops (eg turn an Ornithoper into a Spirit, somehow cast [[Evermind]]) you should be rewarded with an Armageddon.

[u/mtgcf → u/chrisrazor]

Evermind - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/TheZacDaniel → u/Fit_Garbage2083]

I second this. I love Liliana, Dreadhorde General. But her ultimate ability is literally mass denial so I will never activate it. Intentionality and effectiveness > technicality

[u/shapsation]

Just don’t cast it for 0?

[u/Swagzilla92 → u/shapsation]

That's what I thought.

[u/Ungestuem → u/Swagzilla92]

First time you Draw it: "I think I cast it for 0, Just for fun."

[u/SpiceTrader56 → u/Ungestuem]

[u/22bebo → u/Ungestuem]

The twist? They do it turn one before they have their commander out.

[u/itisburgers → u/Ungestuem]

resolves a 0 mana spell on turn 1

[u/NittanyScout → u/itisburgers]

Isnt that how legacy is so powerful?

[u/itisburgers → u/NittanyScout]

You're probably thinking vintage. I can't think of mana 0 cost spells you'd want to be casting T1 in legacy.

[u/leyawn → u/itisburgers]

Chalice, Lotus Petal, Mishra's Bauble, Mox Opal, etc

[u/ColonelError → u/leyawn]

LED, so you can Echo and destroy your opponents Mulligan.

[u/itisburgers → u/leyawn]

Yeah but those cards are (or were) in modern, I wouldn't attribute legacies power to them. 

[u/leyawn → u/itisburgers]

I mean that’s a different point from what you originally said, just pointing out there’s plenty of 0 cost spells in legacy for T1. I also forgot LED

[u/itisburgers → u/leyawn]

LED i acquiesce, but 0 mana cards that are powerful in Modern are not what makes Legacy powerful.

[u/mrenglish22 → u/leyawn]

Everyone forgets Soul spike and Burning Shoal

[u/larrod25 → u/shapsation]

Isn’t the CMC still 0, even if he puts mana into X as the casting cost?

[u/SachetAway → u/larrod25]

The MV of X on a card (ie, in hand, gy, battlefield, etc) is always zero. 

The MV of X on a spell (ie on the stack) is whatever you set X to for casting. 

So if something cares about the mana value of creatures Conjurant will always be 0, if something cares about the mana value of spells, it will be whatever amount you put into X. 

[u/superkp → u/SachetAway]

but CMC and MV are different, I thought?

[u/SachetAway → u/superkp]

No, cmc is just the older term for mana value. 

[u/UnicornLock → u/larrod25]

An X's CMC on the stack is the chosen value.

[u/Totodile_ → u/larrod25]

No and I don't know why you're upvoted for saying this

[u/larrod25 → u/Totodile_]

I asked a question. I was wrong. Other users corrected me, and we all learned.

[u/bomban → u/[deleted]]

Not on the stack, which is where the kirin cares.

[u/Penumbra_Penguin → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/argent_adept → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/SconeforgeMystic]

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.

[u/EarlobeGreyTea]

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.

[u/LoneSabre → u/EarlobeGreyTea]

I don’t think you even need to bring it up. By the time it comes up they’ve already played the card for X > 0 and by that point who is going to care?

[u/deworde → u/LoneSabre]

People really not seeing the world where this gets discarded or peeked and the discussion happens when you have to pretend it wouldn't happen, huh.

Also, plenty of ways to have this on the board and people to assume you're running it as a way to bounce mass land destruction.

[u/LoneSabre → u/deworde]

If that discussion happens organically it happens. I’m just saying you don’t need to bring it up before every game if you are acting in good faith.

At a bracket 3 table, people should have no reason to believe that you’re going to jump through hoops to use MLD. It’s not like seeing someone mill over an Armageddon, which can only be in the deck for one reason.

[u/deworde → u/LoneSabre]

  If that discussion happens organically it happens.

I just think organically mid-game is worse for the you and the table, because it looks like you were trying to get away with something, rather than being open about it. Also, the solution if someone says "no, that's not okay" at the start is to swap in a plains.

[u/LoneSabre → u/deworde]

Specifically for this combo I don’t think it would be a big deal. If somebody thinks you were trying to get away with something you just need to let them know that you would never choose X=0. If my opponent attempted to choose X=0 I would not let them. Pick another number, this is B3, picking X=0 is cheating.

The possibility that someone else might think you’re a bad faith actor because there’s a possibility that you could choose to break the rules is just not a big deal to me. You know you’re not going to cheat. It’s not reasonable to accuse your opponents of wanting to cheat. It’s like telling someone not to cheat before the game starts because they’re the banker in monopoly. That’s implied.

[u/Sesom]

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.

[u/mak6453 → u/Sesom]

Wow I just realized it's almost winter. I've got to say some goodbyes to my pod sooner than I expected. It's so true that only the good die young. Shame it can't be helped.

[u/Halinn → u/mak6453]

I hope they'll not be too griefstruck about your death. You should leave a note telling them to play a game on your casket.

[u/controlxj → u/mak6453]

Winter is coming.

[u/DrKittenshark → u/Sesom]

This is a good point.

[u/Techhead7890 → u/Sesom]

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)?

[u/CaptainTeemo01 → u/Techhead7890]

It's just a meme, IIRC it comes from some yearbook quote that went viral a few years back

[u/Techhead7890 → u/CaptainTeemo01]

Thanks, appreciate it because my googlefu wasn't working today.

Edit to add: the "will not survive the winter" part is likely a variation on this https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/67w0u1/your_bloodline_is_weak/

[u/Rchmage → u/Sesom]

Don’t say stuff like this, morons will think it’s serious.

[u/zodia4 → u/Rchmage]

If anyone takes it serious they are from weak stock and will likely die during the winter, preventing you from having to deal with them for much longer.

[u/Luxalpa]

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.

[u/Milskidasith → u/Luxalpa]

Putting MLD in Bracket 4 is their way of enforcing the social ban on mass land destruction, because it's a terribly weak strategy that just makes the game less fun, but they don't want to (and mostly can't) create a rule that makes MLD impossible to enact. So they say it's automatically bracket 4 so you can only play it in places it's massively too slow to be worth trying.

[u/GlorySeer → u/Milskidasith]

[u/volx757 → u/Milskidasith]

B4 Kaalia decks and stuff like that can absolutely make efficient use of mass land destruction 

[u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo → u/Luxalpa]

The bigger problem is that people treat brackets as absolutes that replace rule 0 conversations rather than using them for their intended purpose as the starting point for rule 0 conversations.

[u/niiiveous]

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

[u/mtgcf → u/niiiveous]

Natural Affinity - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Eragon_the_Huntsman]

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

[u/AvatarofBro]

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.

[u/Aiconic]

Why you’d want to play board wipe tribal in anything except b4 though is beyond me

[u/volx757 → u/Aiconic]

Board wipe tribal sounds like a super weak B2 strategy. Such a deck could never hang in B4

[u/AlexanderLeezy → u/Aiconic]

Had to scroll way too far down to find this comment, utterly baffling choice for a commander outside of games where you and your pod have already agreed you're just making each other miserable for the hell of it.

[u/mtgcf → u/[deleted]]

Shining Shoal - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Televangelis → u/[deleted]]

Shining Shoal won't do mass land denial, no? https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/269864-shoals-and-cmc

[u/dusty_cupboards]

i’ve run this deck forever. it’s okay!

[u/Swagzilla92 → u/dusty_cupboards]

How do you typically win with it?

[u/dusty_cupboards → u/Swagzilla92]

usually i blow up all the lands.

https://moxfield.com/decks/XWCPfGNdu0SKWRTK2H4QvQ

[u/djus-boks → u/dusty_cupboards]

i love this deck so much, i think i’ve taken inspiration from your list in the past!

[u/beef_horfun67]

Huh?

Oh

OH

OH NO

[u/Vydsu]

Technically yes, but in reality as long as you never actually do the MLD combo (and I mean NEVER) it's fine

[u/neoslith]

Intent is more important than potential. Are you planning to use this to MLD?

[u/dkysh]

The first time an opponent casts [[Guff Rewrites History]], [[Transforming Flourish]], or, god forbid, [[Zoyowa's Justice]], is gonna be fun.

[u/mtgcf → u/dkysh]

All cards
Guff Rewrites History - (G) (SF) (txt)
Transforming Flourish - (G) (SF) (txt)
Zoyowa's Justice - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Karnitis]

So as others have said, as long as you don't cast it for 0, most people probably won't even think about "what if he had cast it for zero?"

All I'll add is... MLD or not, I hope you're playing B3 because people will not like multiple-boardwipes-a-turn in B2 lol

[u/mastyrwerk]

So long as you don’t, then it isn’t. But if you do, it totally is.

[u/Akuuntus]

Brackets are about intention. If you don't actually use it for land destruction, the there's no issue.

[u/MoarOatmeal]

Notably, [[Omarthis, Ghostfire Initiate]] is another flexible spirit you may want to consider. Just don’t cast these guys for X = 0 and you’ll be fine.

[u/mtgcf → u/MoarOatmeal]

Omarthis, Ghostfire Initiate - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/mrfoxman]

If you tell your opoonents ahead of time you have it in the deck, but you'll never cast it for zero, you're fine imo

[u/suprunown]

I thought lands are not considered to have a casting cost, because they are played, not cast? So the Kirin would not be able to hit hands?

[u/Brainless1988 → u/suprunown]

Lands have a cmc of 0. It's true that you play them as a special game action instead of casting them, but that doesn't change the fact that they still have no casting cost and thus have a cmc of 0. Celestial Kirin's ability to destroy lands is a known thing.

[u/StillWatt → u/Brainless1988]

MV*

[u/Brainless1988 → u/StillWatt]

They're the same thing. One is just the older term.

[u/triforce777]

Letter of the law yes but the bracket system is explicitly about vibes so if you intend to never cast the Conjurant for X=0 then its not a bracket 4 deck. If someone calls you out for it then you don't want to play with them anyway, especially if you aren't running anything that would protect your lands from it

[u/kimmsterr]

Bracket 4 is when you blow up all of your own lands

[u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth]

That is kind of funny.

[u/HilariousMax]

Rule 0: I'm adding "nonland" before permanents to Celestial Kirin. This way I can tag mv0 permanents but it's not MLD. We square?

[u/matt3n8]

Literally just say "Before we start, I have a 2 card combo that could technically destroy all land. If it would come up, I'll point it out and we'll just pretend it says non-land permanent instead, we cool with that?". And problem solved. Commander is casual, especially below bracket 4. If people have an issue with that, find a different pod because those people are obviously not going to be fun people to play a game with.

[u/Knarz97]

No.

[u/doktarlooney]

This is why I fucking hate the bracket system.

No, your deck isnt automatically in the "games should only last until around turns 5-7" range just because you want to play mass land denial.

Switching from power levels to the bracket system made things so much worse holy fuck.

[u/Zoom3877]

Technically, yes. But, if you're running it for other reasons and you let the table know beforehand that you don't intend to ever cast it at 0, then I'd be good with you joining a Bracket 3 pod with me in it.

[u/FlashKillerX]

The idea is that casting the conjurant for X=0 would destroy all lands. Rules as written, any card or interaction which destroys all lands or otherwise mass denies lands and mana generation puts you in bracket 4

[u/kiefy_budz]

I had to think long and hard before I realized this is land destruction

[u/ZombifiedRacoon]

You also destroy your own lands as well, so you'd just be resetting the game and giving you miniscule advantage based on your hand. Unless you roll teferis protection. 

[u/Lithium187]

You're fine. Unless you loaded up with tutors and other powerful cards theres nothing to worry about.

The bracket system is flawed because it doesnt take into account consistency it just says "oh you have these game changer cards? Bracket 4/5." Like no, I have a 1/99 chance of getting said card.

[u/Xyx0rz]

I'd say it's not whether you hypothetically could do it but whether you actually do it.

[u/Selenic24]

Damn I've never seen that combo before - kinda sick. Makes me want to make a B4 prison deck, though I'd probably be taking it apart after one 3-hour long game lmao

[u/Krosis97]

I mean, celestial kirin in itself is a horrible thing to see someone play, and its going to get removed a lot.

Same reason I don't play reaper king, destroying permanents so easily in a commander is going to draw lots of hate.

[u/CloggedNose]

But what if someone mindslaver you and then they do it. WHAT THEN

[u/BangBangBananas]

No.

[u/jnkangel → u/[deleted]]

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 

[u/Swagzilla92 → u/[deleted]]

Doesn't that seem kind of silly. When I think of bracket 4, I don't think of something this janky.

[u/Psychatog02 → u/Swagzilla92]

You can also just let them know in advance that you're not planning to run it to destroy lands.

[u/Fun-Cook-5309 → u/Swagzilla92]

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.

[u/Fun-Cook-5309]

If that's in your deck, talk to your pod and promise never to cast it at X=0.

[u/Aedeyssa]

I'm still learning the rules myself, but don't Xs in mana costs count as 0 for CMC? Wouldn't this just always target 0-cost permanents regardless of the mana spent into Conjurant?

[u/Brainless1988 → u/Aedeyssa]

X is 0 everywhere, except on the stack. On the stack, X is whatever value you are paying and counts towards cmc.

[u/Aedeyssa → u/Brainless1988]

Oh, okay! So if I were to cast a [[Fireball]] for X=3 and have [[Shark Typhoon]], I'd get a 4/4 shark? Or is CMC and mana value different?

[u/Brainless1988 → u/Aedeyssa]

X=3 would give you the 4/4 shark. CMC is the old term for MV. They are the same thing, my brain just defaults to what I first learned.

Also, because X=0 everywhere but the stack, you could use a [[Micromancer]] to tutor the Fireball into your hand.

[u/mtgcf → u/Brainless1988]

Micromancer - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Aedeyssa → u/Brainless1988]

Very cool! Thank you so much! ❤️

[u/mtgcf → u/Aedeyssa]

Fireball - (G) (SF) (txt)
Shark Typhoon - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/followthegospel]

Beyond the obvious part that you’ve already acknowledged (just don’t do it + talk to your playgroup), some of these “yes” comments are viewing the bracket system restrictions as a checklist where if you’ve hit any of the bullet points you’ve ascended a tier, rather than seeing the brackets as a sum of their parts.

Even if you did cast this as MLD, if your deck isn’t hitting the other “players expect” bullets then you aren’t really bracket 4. Because if you did play with a bracket 4 group instead then you’d have a 0% win rate and a bad time. As another exaggerated example, a one off Armageddon in a janky B1, all Rob Alexander artwork deck similarly doesn’t make it B4. It just reveals the limits of trying to introduce strict technicalities to a social game with tens of thousands of cards as variables.

[u/Adriftyschwifty]

I am a long time believer that mass land denial is incredibly healthy and should be treated the same as any other board wipe. Think about how much more potent landfall is in lower brackets just because no one can do anything with half of your engine. Run it, tell them it's there, and if they don't like it, that's their problem

[u/Background-Cod-2394]

MLD with more steps is still MLD right?

[u/dethlord66]

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. 

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/dethlord66]

It literally is objectively bracket 4 because it is objectively mass land denial.

[u/dethlord66 → u/kRobot_Legit]

Remove the commander, counter the spell that objectively stops it

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/dethlord66]

Do you think the bracket 3 rule is "no mass land denial unless it can be countered"?

[u/dethlord66 → u/kRobot_Legit]

All they have to do is not cast it for 0 you pedant

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/dethlord66]

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.

[u/dethlord66 → u/kRobot_Legit]

Except it doesn't say destroy all lands. Just because it has the capacity to doesn't mean it is. 

[u/kRobot_Legit → u/dethlord66]

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.

[u/dethlord66 → u/kRobot_Legit]

Good glad you came around. I'll give you last word since you seem to need that in your life. Good luck with things

[u/Flergun → u/dethlord66]

I love how your snotty comment getting the last word is snarking on the other guy apparently needing the last word.

It's a great meta joke.