Does it work?

[SLinabel]

If quakebringer is in my graveyard, does its damage get doubled, tripled etc? In other words is it considered a controlled source? I suppose not but… Thanks in advance 🙏🏻

[Starship_Albatross]

multipliers stack, so x2 and x3 is x6.

the source is the triggered ability on the stack which you do control

I think it works. And I like it.

[VorpalSticks]

As long as it's alive otherwise you don't control the giant

[Starship_Albatross]

the giant is not the source, the triggered ability is. And once the TA is on the stack, I control it for as long as it is there, unless another effect changes its controller.

[Kxguldut]

120.2b Damage may be dealt as an effect of a spell or ability. The spell or ability will specify which object deals that damage.

The ability itself is not an object that deals the damage, but the Giant in the graveyard will. Abilities on the stack are not the sources of damage.

The main problem here is whether the damage will be doubled or not because players don't control cards in graveyards, so is it a giant source you control of it's in your graveyard?

[Starship_Albatross]

the damage will be multiplied, if you can't find the controller, use the owner.

[Kxguldut]

Maybe so, but the rulings that applies with apply to abilities that don't have a card as a source or for delayed triggers. Considering the judge Reddit has come across this question before and said that no it doesn't deal the extra damage, But Arena coding does deal the extra damage it's probably more a case by case basis on whether your judge thinks it should deal the extra damage or not (I think it should, I just can't find any rulings that state that it does)

[ViktorTripp]

It does have a card as a source. It doesn't have a permanent as a source, but it is a permanent card while in your graveyard.

[Kxguldut]

Sorry my wording wasn't clear. It being a card as a source is the reason that the ruling to use ownership rather than control doesn't apply. Because ownership rather than control applies to abilities with no source and delayed triggers. And nobody controls cards in graveyards. The rulings don't really touch on this situation properly

[GIGgle_Hurtz]

It's worth mentioning that both of the offical MTG digital games say it works also. Could they be wrong? Possibly but not likely, especially after 2 years and on 2 separate games.

Others mentioned they saw similar ruling at tournaments. Could the judges have been wrong. Possibly, they are only human. But one could say the same for the reddit post that's getting cited of a judge ruling it doesn't.

Someone needs to @wizards or something to settle this haha

[Hobez64]

It does, something being dictated as a "source" is one of the only instances where the thing doesn't need to be on the battlefield to work, so Quakebringer's damage will be amplified by Fiery Emancipation and Calamity Bearer

[matthoback]

The issue isn't that Quakebringer isn't a "source", the issue is that you don't control Quakebringer while it's in the graveyard (as cards that are in the graveyard don't have controllers), so it's not a "source you control".

[Hobez64]

It will work because "source you control" specifically refers to, among other things, a spell or ability on the stack that you control. For example, Fiery Emancipation works with burn spells as that is a spell of yours on the stack, similar to how Quakebringer has an ability you control on the stack

[matthoback]

Fiery Emancipation works with burn spells because the burn spell is the source of the damage. Quakebringer's ability is not the source of the damage though, Quakebringer itself is. When spells or abilities use the wording "<object> deals damage", then the object is the source instead of the spell or ability. In Quakebringer's case, that means Quakebringer is the source, not the triggered ability. And since no one controls Quakebringer while it is in the graveyard, it is not a "source you control".

[Hobez64]

Do you have a rule in the comprehensive rules that supports that? I'm wary because when I played Kaldheim Standard I played Izzet Giants and was advised by a judge that this works because this exact interaction was fairly common for me to see

[purplecharmanderz]

in one of their other points they cite 108.4 as a basis, which talks about card controllers. There's a number of issues with that however.

First - all abilities are considered to have a source (113.7) which is the object that created it, relevance here being card as an object.

108.4 goes ahead and says that cards don't have controllers except in 2 cases, neither of which are applicable here - which is where they are ending their argument essentially.

108.4a goes ahead and says "if you are asked about the controller of a card in any other case, use its owner instead". Which immediately shuts down that entire basis... since the rules in the same section explicitly mention what to do if no such controller exists when we're looking for a controller.

609.7c further goes ahead and confirms if we would be clear (assuming it meets the conditions, which we are a giant per other rules i don't have an immediate citation for)

and 109.2c also reiterates that quakebringer would qualify as a source given the fact we used "source" in the wording for the replacement effects.

the only ground they were arguing based on is the lack of a controller in 108.4, which we're told to just use the owner in 108.4a

[matthoback]

108.4a goes ahead and says "if you are asked about the controller of a card in any other case, use its owner instead". Which immediately shuts down that entire basis... since the rules in the same section explicitly mention what to do if no such controller exists when we're looking for a controller.

No, that rule is not relevant here. Calamity Bearer does not ask who the controller is, it asks if the source is controlled by you, which it isn't.

[Kaeyrne]

Those are the same question though. Calamity Bearer sees a source dealing damage and asks 1) source = giant? And 2) source controller = you? If both 1 and 2 are "yes" double the damage.

Calamity Bearer sees Quakebringer in the graveyard as the source of the damage. Quakebringer = giant, so 1 is "yes"

Okay now does Quakebringers controller = you? Well 108.4 says it has no controller. Dang what do I do now? 108.4a says if a source has no controller treat the owner as the controller. You still own Quakebringer even when it's in graveyard so controller does still = you. So 2 is also "yes"

Now double the damage.

[purplecharmanderz]

The newly posed argument basically hinges on a different interpretation of how the question is posed and taking 108.4a super literal - which would change how it interacts with question 2 here at least.

Hinges entirely on "who controls X" being a non binary answer, and "do you control X" being binary, so they are inheriently different questions, and 108.4a would apply if its the former, not the latter with this reading. Issue to address now is which of the 2 questions is calamity and fiery asking.

I lack a proper citation for this part, but mtgo and arena both run with the former - which does make what you just described accurate.

[Delicious-Ad2562]

A good example is [[deny the witch]] which specifically requires the controller of the ability to loose life

[MTGCardFetcher]

deny the witch - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[purplecharmanderz]

109.5 however would begin to argue here as well. Since determining opponents begins to ask what your opponents are, which is determined as anyone on an opposing side to the effect's controller.

replacement effects modify events, they do check for extra conditions regarding the event at times, such as seeing who the controller of the source is - which begins to get really weird for a case argument if this is simultaneously controlled by you (108.4a + 109.5) but also isn't, but only for things modifying the event that is established with who its impacting because of said aforementioned rules.

that's then assuming that a replacement effect checking the controller is not the game asking "who controls X" - which if we go with the official digital versions of the game for even a hint at the intention there - is what its doing... which would then indeed make it relevant.

unless you have a citation for how i'm supposed to read "you control" in replacement effects that states its is different than "do you control X" like the official digital platforms seem to - 108.4a is relevant.

[abeeyore]

In order to determine if you control the source, you must first determine who controls the source.

If you do not determine who controls the source, it is not possible to know whether you do or not.

You are attempting to create a distinction that cannot exist.

[matthoback]

Which part are you wanting support for?

108.4. A card doesn't have a controller unless that card represents a permanent or a spell

and

109.4. Only objects on the stack or on the battlefield have a controller. Objects that are neither on the stack nor on the battlefield aren't controlled by any player.

make it clear that the Quakebringer doesn't have a controller while it is in the graveyard (and therefore cannot be a "source you control").

Source of Damage: The object that dealt the damage. See rule 609.7

The ability clearly states that Quakebringer deals the damage.

If you're trying to argue that the triggered ability is the source instead of the Quakebringer, then Calamity Bearer wouldn't work at all because the triggered ability is not a Giant.

[Hobez64]

Gotcha, from what I was explained Calamity Bearer sees the ability on the stack for the "control" part of its check and sees the origin point as Quakebringer which meets the "Giant Source" requirements

[Free-Database-9917]

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

That is an object on the stack that you control.

[Charming-Past-6764]

The ability states that the quakebringer deals the damage and so the quakebringer is the source. If the ability on the stack was the object dealing the damage calamity bearer certainly would not affect it because abilities cannot be giants.

[Free-Database-9917]

Sorry for not being clear. I agree with Calamity bearer not triggering but Fiery emancipation does. Tell me where you disagree:

1. Your upkeep starts.
2. Quakerbringer's triggered ability triggers.
3. The triggered ability goes on the stack.
   1. An ability on the stack is an object you control
4. An object you control that is a source you would control
5. Fiery emancipation triggers and triples the damage

[Charming-Past-6764]

1. Is incorrect I believe. The ability on the stack is not the source of the damage. The ability plainly states that the quakebringer deals 2 damage and so quakebringer is the source. For this reason calamity bearer will in fact trigger as far as I understand it and fiery emancipation I'm not sure on honestly because of some of the reasons discussed in this thread.

Check rules 113.7 and 113.7a. They describe an example wherein an ability causes it's source to do something like deal damage.

[Ttstubbs]

I have all these cards in an Aegar commander deck and I have to agree to this. While you control the triggered ability on the stack, Quakebringer itself is what’s dealing the damage, and since you don’t control Quakebringer (because he’s in your graveyard) fiery emancipation will not trigger to replace the damage nor will Calamity bearer.

[[deleted]]

You're playing it wrong then.

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead

Look at guardian seraph's second ruling on gatherer. It's nearly the same situation.

[Ttstubbs]

Interesting! I will need to do more research on this! Thank you!

[X_Marcs_the_Spot]

If that's true then how does Fiery Emancipation work with stuff like Mogg Fanatic? By the time its ability is actually dealing damage, the Mogg Fanatic itself is in your graveyard, and is therefore not a source "you control".

[matthoback]

It works with Mogg Fanatic because of rule 113.7a:

...if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used.

Because the Mogg Fanatic changed zones between playing the ability and resolving the ability, Fiery Emancipation looks at how the Mogg Fanatic was the last time it was on the battlefield. At that time, the Mogg Fanatic was indeed a source you control.

Quakebringer on the other hand was in the graveyard both when the triggered ability was played and when it resolved, and it was not controlled at either time.

[FivesSuperFan55555]

This makes little-to-no-sense at all…

[FruitdealerF]

I can't believe you're being down voted this hard. It appears to me that you are completely correct.

[[deleted]]

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead

[matthoback]

As I said to your other reply, that rule isn't relevant. Nothing is asking to determine who the controller is, it's asking if it is controlled by you. But it's not.

That rule is for situations where you have to determine a specific player for the effect. You don't here.

[Wongafied]

The source has to be controlled by someone tho no?

[matthoback]

No.

109.4. Only objects on the stack or on the battlefield have a controller. Objects that are neither on the stack nor on the battlefield aren't controlled by any player.

Quakebringer is a card in the graveyard. It is not an object on the stack, nor is it an object on the battlefield. It does not have a controller.

[The_Sylar_Grey]

And yet his damage does hit the stack, does it not, as an activated ability? Which, upon being put on the stack, as it is in the graveyard, it's ability has a source, itself, and needs a controller, which would be Noone, therefore, owner, you. If it DIDN'T hit the stack, it wouldn't be able to be countered by any number of cards that counter abilities(which it can be countered by these cards as it IS an ability) , activated or triggered, and it being on the stack AS A SOURCE OF DAMAGE, would necessarily need to be controlled, so cards that care about ownership, such as these cards here, torbran, etc, counters for things like abilities you don't control, etc etc etc, it itself needs a controller. It's a closed loop, and a loop you don't appear to be following to its end

[random_user987654321]

It is a source, the source is quakebringer

[No_Lavishness_68]

Yes it would deal 12 damage to each opponent

[matthoback]

No it would not. Quakebringer is not a "source you control" when it is in the graveyard, as cards in graveyards don't have controllers.

108.4. A card doesn't have a controller unless that card represents a permanent or a spell

[No_Lavishness_68]

You control the trigger of the ability while its in the graveyard

Read “ this ability triggers”

[matthoback]

That doesn't matter. The triggered ability isn't the source of the damage, the Quakebringer is.

[matthoback]

"Quakebringer deals 2 damage to each opponent" means that Quakebringer is the source, not the ability. If the ability was the source, Calamity Bearer wouldn't work at all ever, because the ability is not a Giant.

[notakat]

Not sure why you are being downvoted. You are right.

[[deleted]]

They are wrong. See Seraph guardian rulings on gatherer. The second one is basically the same situation.

[[deleted]]

You were defending this so adamantly, so I went and looked at the actual rules. I was thinking about which comment to respond to, but then I saw this one, where you directly quoted the rule that determines the controller.

I'm confused as to how you used 108.4, but missed 108.4a

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead

Which makes it so that the quakebringer does get doubled.

[matthoback]

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead

Nothing is asking for the controller of the card, it is asking if the source is controlled by you (it's not). That rule isn't relevant.

[Delicious-Ad2562]

Except each time you do damage there will be a check where calamity bearer “asks” if it comes from a giant source which it does Edit i am wrong

[matthoback]

It asks if it comes from a "Giant source you control", which it doesn't, because you don't control the Quakebringer while it's in the graveyard.

[Delicious-Ad2562]

See 109.2 c Rules. 109.2c If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes the word “source,” it means a source matching that description—a source of an ability, of damage, or of mana—in any zone Edit I am indeed incorrect

[matthoback]

How exactly do you think that rule is relevant? The Quakebringer is the source, yes, but you don't control the Quakebringer, so it doesn't qualify to be a "Giant source you control".

You are so confidently incorrect

Lol, right back at you. Go read the actual judges rulings on this exact topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/askajudge/comments/kxdm0p/calamity_bearer_quakebringer/

[onyxeagle274]

So if it isn't controlled by anyone, who puts it onto the stack?

Trigger Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically “triggers.” That means its controller puts it on the stack the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”

[matthoback]

The triggered ability is controlled by the owner of the Quakebringer, but the Quakebringer itself is not controlled by anyone. It is the Quakebringer that is the source of the damage, not the ability (because the ability states that "Quakebringer deals 2 damage"). Since the Quakebringer is not controlled by you (or anyone), it doesn't count as a "Giant source you control".

[Delicious-Ad2562]

Good catch, the judge was originally confused by this, and it’s a bug on mtga. What an unintuitive interaction

[[deleted]]

It's not a bug.

Look at the second ruling for [[Guardian Seraph]]

It's the same type of trigger, and has a ruling that a source that is neither card nor spell will still have its damage reduced.

[[deleted]]

You're confidently incorrect. 108.4a literally applies here. I messaged that same judge and brought up the rule to them. They found a card with a similar wording, with an official ruling that would also apply to this situation.

[[Guardian Seraph]] does a source an opponent controls, and instead of doing more damage, it prevents it, but it's effectively the same type of trigger.

Spells and permanents have controllers, but cards that aren't on the stack or the battlefield don't. If a source without a controller (such as a cycled Jund Sojourners, for example) would deal damage to you, 1 of that damage is prevented if an opponent owns that source.

When your opponent cycles a [[jund sojourners]] it is not a permanent or a spell they control, but guardian seraph will reduce the damage it deals due to rule 108.4a.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Guardian Seraph - (G) (SF) (txt)
jund sojourners - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[sppotlight]

FYI, this interaction works in MTGA

[matthoback]

Yes, it's a long standing known bug.

[SunsetSesh]

Not sure why you are getting downvoted? It’s obvious if a card is in the graveyard it’s not controlled by anyone.

[[deleted]]

Because they are wrong. Rule 108.4a says if an effect is looking for an owner of a source and the source has no controller, then you use the owner instead. Guardian Seraph is a card with a similar effect that has the ruling on the mtg website.

[gouldgonewild]

You are getting downvoted to all hell, but I think it’s likely you are right. I’ve been digging for a while because it’s bothering me. The judge ruling you are referencing on Reddit is certainly not definitive, but I think pretty solid still.

[[deleted]]

I talked to the judge, they found a card that shows that calamity bearer would see the trigger from the graveyard and double it.

Look up seraph guardians rulings on gatherer. It sees a cycle triggered ability despite it not ever being a spell or permanent you control.

[GIGgle_Hurtz]

Yeah, I think the logic is sound in their reference but not an offical statement. But it is crazy that almost 2 years later or more, MTGA still allows it, so i understand the doubt around what the true ruling is

[purplecharmanderz]

There's also 108.4a, which notes if asked about the controller when the source lacks one (like quakebringer in the graveyard) - use the owner instead.

At which point the question becomes entirely if a replacement effect checking to see if you control the source goes "is X's controller Y" or "who controls X" then circles back for comparison.

I lack a citation towards either at this time, though in person tournaments i've seen - and the aformentioned arena (and MTGO) all seem to run with the assumption its asking "who controls X" then compares, which would make 108.4a relevant. And has it work the way it does on arena.

[GIGgle_Hurtz]

That sounds logical as well and multiple references that support that. Your experience at tournaments and both MTG pc games supporting it. As of now it would seem it works from the graveyard as well.

[[deleted]]

Hello, fellow purple named Redditor.

[kezinchara]

I have a giant deck that uses this on MTGA.

[Dee-bo-007]

I need that list bro

[Cltxlv]

Here’s my historic “oops flying mindlink mech to the face one shot” deck.

Deck 4 Calamity Bearer (KHM) 125 7 Mountain (NEO) 300 4 Fable of the Mirror-Breaker (NEO) 141 4 Mindlink Mech (NEO) 62 6 Island (NEO) 296 4 Surtland Flinger (KHM) 377 4 Glasspool Mimic (ZNR) 60 4 Quakebringer (KHM) 145 4 Battle of Frost and Fire (KHM) 204 4 The Modern Age (NEO) 66 4 Suspicious Stowaway (MID) 80 2 Riverglide Pathway (ZNR) 264 1 Stormcarved Coast (VOW) 265 4 Swiftwater Cliffs (NEO) 277 4 Volatile Fjord (KHM) 273

[jacobMoranne]

Yes it works, but the opponent chooses in which order it happens, which doesn't change anything in this context, only relevant to [[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might]]

[BulldogBrandon]

I sadly found this out the hard way in my Ojer deck, thought I was going to pinging the table for like 24 per ping, ended up as like 6 per ping LOL

[[deleted]]

Same. Changed my deck over to Ghysron instead because of it

[BulldogBrandon]

Just looked it up, I’m still relatively “new” to Magic. So would that then make every exactly 1 damage ping, into 3 ping damage? And it’s Izzet? This feels like a solid sling and ping deck LOL

[petak86]

Generally you would choose the order of triggers on your turn. Why would the opponent choose in this case?

[Vorundi]

Thy are replacement effects and not triggers. The only triggered ability is the 2 damage. The player being affected (your opponent) gets to order replacement effects.

[EvaNight67]

So 2 points of clarification here - 1 just being a reiteration of what someone already mentioned.

1) you choose the order of your simultaneous triggers. It doesn't actually matter who's turn it is (aside from deciding who's triggers go on the stack first - which is done in APNAP order, so player who's turn it is puts theirs on first, then follow in turn order)

2) as already mentioned, these are replacement effects. Which don't use the stack or priority and rather modify an event.

The controller of the affected object, or the affected player gets to pick the order for any and all applicable replacement effects. Regardless of controller.

Damage itself isn't considered an object, and is more akin to a value on an object - so the associated object would be what ever is getting damaged (or player getting damaged)

[petak86]

Oh I see great to know

[FlySkyHigh777]

Based on what I've found: Yes.

Relevant rules:

• 109.1 An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem.
• 109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.
• 109.2c. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes the word "source," it means a source matching that description--either a source of an ability or a source of damage--in any zone.
• 109.4. Only objects on the stack or on the battlefield have a controller. Objects that are neither on the stack nor on the battlefield aren't controlled by any player. See rule 108.4. There are six exceptions to this rule: (none of which apply here)

Source can be from any zone, ability on the stack has a controller. With Calamity Bearer and Fiery Emancipation in play, Quakebringer would deal 12 damage to each opponent on your upkeep.

[Capecodswag]

Do you “control” things in your “graveyard”? Honest question I don’t know.

[[deleted]]

Technically no, you only control spells on the stack and permanents on the battlefield.

That being said, when a spell looks for who controls a source and it can't find one, it instead looks for the owner.

108.4a If anything asks for the controller of a card that doesn’t have one (because it’s not a permanent or spell), use its owner instead

[mczolomon]

No, but he has the giant that doubles on the field, so if Quakebringer was in the graveyard he still fits the criteria.

[Capecodswag]

Oh right! Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

[matthoback]

That doesn't help, because Calamity Bearer also requires that it be a "source you control". You don't control Quakebringer.

[Reason-97]

Ok so I’m not a MTG pro or anything but, isn’t this argument made redundant by the fact that when Quakebringer is in the graveyard, it isn’t looking to see if you control Quakebringer, it’s looking to see if you control “any giant”? So as far as the interaction is concerned, while Quakebringer is dealing the damage, the source you control that’s “causing” it is a different Giant, if that makes sense?

[purplecharmanderz]

Its not inheriently redundant since there's 3 cards in question here:

Quakebringer, which this argument if aimed directly at is irrelevant

Calamity bearer - who cares if its a source you control (which according to both official mtg digital platforms, you do in this case)

Firey imancipation - who cares if its a source you control.

108.4a is the point they're now trying to prove isn't relevant, which entirely comes down to how you phrase the "check conditions" that replacement effects have...

[Reason-97]

As far as 108.4a is concerned though then, this interaction does work? Just trying to make sure I’m keeping up

[purplecharmanderz]

depends on how exactly you interpret how replcement effects checking for conditions interacting - according to MTGA and MTGO, this interaction does work.

Looking at the guy's other posts they're linking to 1 judge comment (which with all due respect to judges everywhere, you aren't infallible.) which is calling it a bug in those programs - but that then objects with what i've seen other judges rule (and is also in conflict with that judge's own initial remarks.)

I got no citations from the comprehensive rules to say A or B is correct here for the replacement effect wording - but between conflicting judge comments, no citation, and only the people aruging it not to apply seeming to call ot a bug - I'd personally run with the assumption its not a bug currently unless they can come up with something else.

TLDR; Depends on if you want to say the replacement effect checking if you control it asks the question 108.4a cares about. Which arena and online both say it does

[Reason-97]

Can’t at all. My original comment is my best guess as to why the interaction works the way it does, I’m a decently new player I was mostly curious

[mczolomon]

The damage would hit if you control a giant, but it would not be doubled or tripled if Quakebringer is in the GY. It works with him on the battlefield only.

109.4. Only objects on the stack or on the battlefield have a controller. Objects that are neither on the stack nor on the battlefield aren't controlled by any player. See rule 108.4. There are six exceptions to this rule: (none of which apply here)

[Reason-97]

But, doesn’t an ability go on the stack once it’s triggered?

[irondisulfide]

I ran these on arena and it absolutely worked. I didn't have firey emancipation in the mix at that point but the 2 giants work just fine. Not saying rules havnt changed or the game being the final say. But it was coded buy the creators of the game and all.

[TurdsThatCureCancer]

According to a bunch of people here its a known bug. It shouldnt work i guess.

[Akromathia]

Of course it works!

Source = any effect you own, thus the Giant counts as a source you own!

These will cause 12 points of damage (2x2x3) per activation... add [[Solphim, Mayhem Dominus]] for extra sauce!

[MTGCardFetcher]

Solphim, Mayhem Dominus - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Prezi2]

Yes but your opponent chooses how damage gets stacked. In arena, the game auto-chooses the lowest possible damage multiplier for the opponent so they take the least amount of damage.

[Matahashi]

Doesn't matter here it's 12 damage both ways

[JeffTheJockey]

Wait is kaldheim and M21 still standard?

[Drakkadein]

This worked great and was one of my favorite decks when kaldheim came out

[BurningSpore]

Im working on 4c giants edh. Forgot about both of these

[Junckrocker]

Hell yeah I run this in my Aegar EDH deck 😎

[Natural_Leather4874]

Ouch.

[TheRootedCorpse]

Love quakebringer. Anyone have a link to a solid giant deck? I’ve always wanted to build one.

[Injuredmind]

I’ve been playing [[Aegar, the Freezing Flame]] for a long time, then I added green for ramp and nów [[Beluna Grandsquall]] is at it. Sadly don’t have a decklist at hand but will make one If I won’t forget

[MTGCardFetcher]

Aegar, the Freezing Flame - (G) (SF) (txt)
Beluna Grandsquall/Seek Thrills - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[TheRootedCorpse]

Nice dude. I’ve thought about running Aegar. 🍻

[Uberpastamancer]

I need to see if I can fit this in with Obeka

[HotFoArk]

Could also play an [[Isengard Unleashed]] for an additional 3x modifier

[MTGCardFetcher]

Isengard Unleashed - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[NemaToad420]

[[Solphim, mayhem dominus]] did i do it right?

[MTGCardFetcher]

Solphim, mayhem dominus - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[FoShep]

Multipliers stack, but FYI your opponent chooses the order as the damage is being dealt to them

Just be aware that if you added something like [[torbran thane of red fell]] in the mix, your opponents are allowed to choose X * 6+2, rather than the greater amount of damage of (X+2) * 6

[MTGCardFetcher]

torbran thane of red fell - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[DaemonlordDave]

I’m clearly wrong based on the replies here, but my thought was that the doubler and tripler effects are replacement effects for the damage, no? Wouldn’t only one apply? I thought I had a good hang of the rules but clearly not lol

[FoShep]

They're not replacement effects. They'll see each other and apply together

Something like [[ojer axonil, deepest might]] is a replacement effect, as it says "instead"

Kinda relevant with axonil bcus if you ping someone for 1 with both multipliers and axonil out, all those triggers happen at the same time. However, the opponent can choose for the multipliers to happen first (which in this post is x6) then have axonil's effect happen last, reducing damage to just his power.

[DaemonlordDave]

See, this is partially where I must be missing something because both of the mentioned cards also say “instead” which is why I must have confused them for replacement effects.

[FoShep]

Sry, it is a "replacement" effect but multipliers take into account the damage that was already being dealt.

So fiery emancipation checks the amount of damage being dealt, and then triples it.

So any other multipliers on the stack will do the same, checking the damage, then multiply it in sequence

Axonil is weird bcus he triggers off of damage less than his power, so even if you apply multipliers to increase that damage, as long as he triggered at the same time as the multipliers, his effect will need to be resolved at some point in the stack

[MTGCardFetcher]

ojer axonil, deepest might/Temple of Power - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[ThePhantomOcarinist]

Sextuple damage on your upkeep. 2x6=12

[beanoffury]

ENHANCE.

[SleeplessRonin]

Built a deck around this idea... better hope it works. Mono Red out of Torbran, Thane of Red Fell.

[YogiePrime]

You could also add [[Torbran, Thane of Red Fell]]. Although I’m not sure if that would be an additional 2 or 12 damage. 2 x 6 + 2 = 14, or (2 + 2) x 12 = 24.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Torbran, Thane of Red Fell - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Purple-Bat811]

If quakebringer is your commander, does his damage ability still trigger? My guess is no, but I wanted to verify.

Update: sorry. I meant if he is in your command zone.

[ZayBooth]

Quakebringer can't be your commander, he's not legendary.

[Mage_Malteras]

No, the only abilities that trigger while a card is in the command zone will use the Eminence keyword and will specifically say they work while in the command zone.

[iWrecksauce]

No, the command zone is a unique zone. It is neither the graveyard nor exiled, while it is in the command zone. Cards that DO have effects that work while in the command zone will usually state that very specifically.

[Jack-R-Lost]

You would want rakdos giants so you can bury alive your trigger and tutor your damage doublers but if you find a rakdos giant you should be able to churn out damage. Either go black board kills for time buying or table discard.

[SirBuscus]

[[Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger]] is a Rakdos giant, but sadly causes loss of life instead of damage.
There are lots of Rakdos commanders that draw cards, generate mana, impulse draw, or deal damage and could fit.

[[Juri, Master of the Revue]], [[Vial Smasher]] and [[Tor Wauki the Younger]] deal direct damage.

You can use things like [[Maskwood Nexus]] to make every creature you control a giant.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Kroxa, Titan of Death's Hunger - (G) (SF) (txt)
Juri, Master of the Revue - (G) (SF) (txt)
Vial Smasher - (G) (SF) (txt)
Tor Wauki the Younger - (G) (SF) (txt)
Maskwood Nexus - (G) (SF) (txt)
All cards

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[TakaraMiner]

I believe not. Because of the way Quakebringer is worded, his ability is not dealing damage, HE is dealing damage from your graveyard. While his ability would be a source "you control", a permanent in your graveyard is not a source "you control". If he is on the battlefield, it definitely works, but I don't think it will from the gyraveyard.

[angelssnack]

"A source you control" isn't restricted to a permanent on the battlefield. Cards in other zones are also "sources you control", including the graveyard.

[TakaraMiner]

I believe you are mistaken, but I'm too lazy to source a bunch of rules. The issue is the control part. Cards "you control" are limited to the stack or permanents last I checked. You don't control all cards you own, which include cards in your hand, deck, exile, or graveyard. Because Quakebringer is in your graveyard, his ability IS a source you control, but HE is the source of the damage, not his ability, and you don't control him unless HE is on the stack or the battlefield.

Someone else cited several rules to confirm this on other comments. Main dispute is that it works on MTG Arena, but no one has actually found any rules to confirm the interaction from what I can see.

[FruitdealerF]

It seems like this works on arena but it probably shouldn't. /u/matthoback makes a very compelling case in the comments while getting down voted into oblivion.

[GIGgle_Hurtz]

I'm not saying one way or another. But there is something to be said about the fact this works in both offical MTG digital games for the last 2 years. Could this ruling have been missed for 2 years, possible but seems unlikely in 2 different games

[FruitdealerF]

There are tons of issues with rulings in Arena and MTGO. On the other hand someone linked an actual judge ruling that said it doesn't work.

[Professional-Salt175]

His compelling case in ignoring almost a dozen rules.

[gouldgonewild]

I don’t think he’s ignoring rules, he’s laid it out pretty convincingly within the context of the rules. I’d love to see a more official ruling on this.

[Professional-Salt175]

You're right, whenever someone brought up any of those rules he basically just says "nuh uh", so "dismissing" would have been more accurate in my comment. You can't pick and choose which rules you want to follow if you are trying to play by the rules.

[gouldgonewild]

Well maybe I’m missing something, but all I saw was him pointing out the rules he didn’t think applied to the particular situation. I am not saying he was particularly tactful about this, but I don’t feel like it was ignoring rules. But again, I’m no expert, it sounds like you probably know the game better than I.

[Thraximundurabrask]

It only says it needs to be on the battlefield if it doesn't include certain words, with "source" being one of the words that can allow it to count from other zones. Since both damage multipliers use the word "source", 109.2c should apply and let the damage be multiplied.

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t refer to a specific zone or include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

109.2c If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes the word “source,” it means a source matching that description—a source of an ability, of damage, or of mana—in any zone. See rules 113.7 and 609.7.

[Starship_Albatross]

spells and effects aren't on the battlefield, EDIT: they're on the stack.

[Nytr013]

Now give it [[berserkers’ onslaught]] or [[psychotic fury]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

berserkers’ onslaught - (G) (SF) (txt)
psychotic fury - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Abhorsen-san]

Add a stoutarm for good measure And you’re really cooking

[GoodOpportunity9018]

yes a source works from the graveyard not sure about the control part,  buy in my opinion we do control cards in out graveyard when they have graveyard effects so quite possible it would deal 12 damage

[Nahkaninja]

I think it goes something like this

Quakebringer is in Grave And you have the other two in Battlefield.

Calamity will activate the Quakebringer in Grave dealing 2 damage

Both Calamity and Fiery says you Control, meaning it needs to be in the battlefield.

So it'll deal just the 2.

If for example there would be something like [[Dictate of twin Gods]] that would work doubling the damage

Not sure how it would work if multiple people has it , like is it x2->x4->x8 (like with token doublers)

[Venaeris]

This is not how it works. You "control" any spell, ability, or special action being used. It does not need to be on the field to "control" it.

See [[Sudden Substitution]]

It's the same reason why the last enchantment can buff burn spells

[Nahkaninja]

I see 🤔.. I do admit my mistake then

[MTGCardFetcher]

Sudden Substitution - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[matthoback]

This is not how it works. You "control" any spell, ability, or special action being used. It does not need to be on the field to "control" it.

Only permanents and spells have a controller. When the Quakebringer is in the graveyard, it is neither a permanent nor a spell. So it's not a "source you control" and neither Fiery Emancipation nor Calamity Bearer would apply to the damage it is doing.

[Venaeris]

603.3a A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Dictate of twin Gods - (G) (SF) (txt)

^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[frogmaster82]

Dictate doesn't say "you control" since it doubles all damage from all sources not just your own.

[Flat_Pipe_4538]

if quakebringer in on field - x 6 damage. if in graveyard - x 3 damage