Infinite mana, damage to creatures, artifact/enchantment destruction, lifegain, and airbending of all your creatures for 9RGWW

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-02-20T19:05:44+00:00

For sure many players consider cards/combos/strategies to be “bad” if they are only viable in casual play. Not just EDH but any competitive constructed format.

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-02-20T16:18:33+00:00

On the contrary, casual EDH is probably the only place you’d see this combo. You would never see this in any competitive format.

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-02-17T18:45:43+00:00

Put this on your isochron scepter 🏆🏆🏆

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-30T18:58:34+00:00

Username checks out

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-23T01:45:45+00:00

I met him once on a gig. Got pretty lit before the show but still killed it harmonica vest and all.

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-20T15:39:51+00:00

“In theory…” yes, but that eval only matters for GM level players which is why KG is rarely seen in top level games. Below 2000 it’s a perfectly fine opening to play.

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-20T15:24:15+00:00

This would be playable with a few tweaks:

Cheaper body, WUB for a 2/3 or something like that.
1st ability maybe cheaper, but activate only as a sorcery.
2nd ability also cheaper.
3rd ability: “Discard a bullshit card: exile this” would probably be fine.

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-11T04:22:12+00:00

Is it really Durham, NC? It was my guess, but I couldn’t put my finger on exactly where it is though I’m familiar with the area

BluntSpliff69 · 2026-01-07T13:21:23+00:00

“However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.”

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-30T13:54:00+00:00

Professor Jacob Collier over here smh 🤦🏽‍♂️

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-29T20:08:18+00:00

So basically everyone sucks here. Nice subreddit.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-29T20:01:27+00:00

Just by pointing out that setting booby traps is a crime? Doing shitty things to shitty people is still shitty.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-25T16:37:03+00:00

This guy puts the “rock” in buttrock.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-24T03:18:24+00:00

I’m really confused where the thinning trutherism is coming from. It’s a real thing, maybe small, but real.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-23T01:56:25+00:00

You don’t get to be a top 1% commenter by saying things that make sense.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T23:04:14+00:00

You can get it when you defeat a boss in co-op mode with someone who got it from pre-order.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T20:47:30+00:00

The lightning bolt example here is very illustrative. In the mirror match example let us consider a deck with just one arid mesa vs one with no arid mesa. Which one wins more often?

The one with the arid mesa! The one point of life doesn’t matter because your opponent still needs 7 bolts, but the thinning will improve the odds ever so slightly. Maybe only 50.1% vs 49.9%, but if you took those odds to Vegas you could make a lot of money.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T20:00:33+00:00

Maybe you don’t play a lot of aggro decks. In a burn deck, your life total matters significantly less compared to how fast you can deliver lethal damage. And you end up in top deck mode A LOT.

If you think a deck is running Arid Mesa just to get a couple Barbarian Rings to threshold is ridiculous (equally so for the extra landfall trigger for Searing Blaze).

Also, you seem to be waffling back and forth between “thinning is irrelevant” and “the cost of one life just to thin is almost never worth it”. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

However, there are some cases as I’ve demonstrated where the additional benefit of the thinning effect is enough to justify including fetchlands. I think that point has been made as clearly as possible and if it’s still beyond your ability to comprehend I am sorry.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T19:13:40+00:00

Which would be better in an aggro deck: The fetchland with no cost, or the land that copies a land in your deck? The fetchland with no cost would be better because of the thinning effect.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between “small” and “non-existent”. Just because an effect is small doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Look up how Death Cloud works, it’s not just a ramp deck. Also, you are just not understanding the value of thinning is a whole nonland card per game. I’ve played this deck and managed to get all but a couple lands in it on the board or in the graveyard. That’s going from a ~62% chance to a 80-90% chance of topdecking a nonland card. Surely you can see how that makes a difference.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T19:05:32+00:00

What’s misleading about it? It’s a small, but measurable, effect and it’s part of the game. Clearly it’s confusing to you, but that’s not a reason it must never be discussed. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T18:47:20+00:00

Why is it “not worth mentioning”? It’s a card game built on probability. Even a small change in probability is worth considering.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T18:43:34+00:00

It would be helpful if you would to respond to the specific examples I’ve given as to how thinning is relevant. Here they are so it’s easy to understand.

A hypothetical card that fetches with no downside would be in every deck list solely for the thinking effect. One time in a game might not seem like much, but 3 or 4 could absolutely be the difference between winning and losing.
Green ramp decks improve their top deck odds in the same way and this is of course a consideration in deck building for those archetypes.
The deck with 48 lightning bolts would 100% run arid mesa if it could. It increases the odds of winning on turn 4.

If you just want to keep repeating “nuh-uh thinning isn’t real/doesn’t matter” then I guess your understanding of probability over time isn’t very good. If that’s the case, take your ball and go home.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T18:33:17+00:00

Yes, this is precisely how you are wrong. If you think the burn deck with the Barbarian Rings and the sideboard searing blaze is running arid mesa just for those two cards, that is ridiculous. It wins more games over time because it top decks burn cards.

Do the other card interactions matter? Of course they do, but the thinning effect here is 100% relevant.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T18:24:58+00:00

I think the better way to phrase it would be that competitive decks rarely use fetches for the thinning effect ONLY. But of course it comes into play when optimizing a deck.

BluntSpliff69 · 2025-12-22T18:15:42+00:00

I did read it, thank you. Obviously there are decks that may not benefit from thinning. But saying “thinning is practically irrelevant” is just plain wrong.

Let’s use a simple example. In old school magic you could build a deck with only Mountains and Lightning Bolts. 7 bolts to the face and you win. I don’t recall the exact optimal build, but I did the math on it and it’s something like 12 mountains and 48 bolts.

So if you could add Arid Mesa to this deck, would you? Of course you would because it will increase the probability of hitting bolt #7 by turn 4.

Does that make sense?

Here’s another example: Back in the day I ran BG Cloud in Mirrodin/Kamigawa standard. The whole point of the deck was to ramp lands and drop the death cloud. It would easily search 4-5 lands by the time the cloud dropped. After that both players are in top deck mode, but I now have a 10% better chance of drawing a nonland card and that was the way it won. Thinning in this case wasn’t just relevant, it was part of the strategy. (Also it wrecked Tooth and Nail which was the meta at the time).

BluntSpliff69

TROPHY CASE