Skip to content
MTGCombos
MenuClose

Share your combos and save your decks.

Join for freeLog in
Magic The Gathering Combos
Search Cards & Combos:

Home     Submit A Combo     Deck Builder     Forums     Picture Guess     Help

You are not logged in [click to login] - [Join For Free!]  





Chron-A-Whoa-A

Hover a card name for a preview. Tap or click an image to zoom, or open its rules below.

ChronozoaEnlarge

Chronozoa

{3}{U}

Creature — Illusion

Planar Chaos

Read rules for Chronozoa
Flying Vanishing 3 (This creature enters with three time counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, sacrifice it.) When this creature dies, if it had no time counters on it, create two tokens that are copies of it.

3/3

Full card details & printings ›

Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 4:54 pm

uncountednose
Posts: 22
Joined: 24-Sep-10


Have Torpor Orb and Vampire out. Play Chronozoa, Orb stops any counters from being put on it. Sacrifice to Vampire, the clones come into play the same way. Endless Chronozoas and a giant Vampire. There are a bunch of alternates to vampire, carrion feeder, fallen angel, flesh eater imp, ashnods altar, blasting station, goblin bombardment, nantuko husk, phyrexian altar, scarland thiranx, vampire aristocrat, viscera seer and phyrexian ghoul is most of them i think. Its kind of weird how many creatures have the machanic "sacrifice a creature +2/+2 until end of turn"

[Edited by uncountednose on 8/Jun/11 at 4:57PM]

[Edited by uncountednose on 8/Jun/11 at 4:58PM]

[Edited by uncountednose on 8/Jun/11 at 4:59PM]

[Edited by uncountednose on 8/Jun/11 at 5:00PM]
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 5:38pm

Twogunkid
Posts: 2610
Joined: 22-Jan-10

Doesn't work. It comes into play with counters. It does not come into play and have counters placed on it. Plus if it had no counters it would split before you could sac it to the bloodthrine. Nice try though
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 6:29pm

uncountednose
Posts: 22
Joined: 24-Sep-10

you may be right on the first point, gonna check but you are definitely wrong on the second. read what vanishing is, it sacrifices when you remove the last counter not when it has no counters. That's the difference between fading and vanishing.

i suspect you may be wrong on the first point also because to my understanding vanishing is a triggered ability and would be targeted by the orb. Everyone and their brother has been blowing up the internets with with phyrexian dreadnaught and its wording is the exact same.

Edit: so looked it up. 603.6 classifies "come into battlefield" abilities (like vanishing) as having a zone change trigger. You can read it yourself but I think it supports my combo being viable. Vanishing is an ability that is triggered by a creature entering the battlefield and would therefore be effected by the orb.


"603.6. Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called “zone-change triggers.” Many abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to. If the object is unable to be found in the zone it went to, the part of the ability attempting to do something to the object will fail to do anything. The ability could be unable to find the object because the object never entered the specified zone, because it left the zone before the ability resolved, or because it is in a zone that is hidden from a player, such as a library or an opponent’s hand. (This rule applies even if the object leaves the zone and returns again before the ability resolves.) The most common zone-change triggers are enters-the-battlefield triggers and leaves-the-battlefield triggers."


[Edited by uncountednose on 8/Jun/11 at 6:39PM]
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 7:00pm

lin sivvi
Posts: 1608
Joined: 14-Jan-10

wow, if the creatures with vanishing don't come into play with any vanishing counters on them than they don't vanish. . .this is why they should have stuck with fading.
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 9:37pm

gericault5
Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

Vanishing is a combination of 3 abilities 1) this permanent enters the battlefield with counters, which is static  2) at the begining of upkeep lose a counter which is triggered 3) when last counter is removed sac it which is triggered.

Since the gains counters ability is static it is not effected by torper orb, the other abilitys are also not affect by the orb because the chronozoa is already in play before they occur.  so torpor orb is usless in this the card you want is melira, sylvok outcast which will prevent the counters from occuring
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 9:52pm

uncountednose
Posts: 22
Joined: 24-Sep-10

Yeah, about Melira:


I might take your whole static ability argument a little more seriously if it wasn't for that clearly wrong suggestion.

I agree that vanishing is 3 separate abilities but I can find nothing specific to support that the first is a static ability. Show me its a static ability and not an ability triggered by a zone-change. I am willing to accept that I could be wrong on this but I suspect I am right and no one has shown any evidence to disprove me. I guess you don't have to prove me wrong but I doubt I am the only person who likes to be right.

[Edited by on 8/Jun/11 at 11:28PM]
Date Posted: Wed Jun/08/11 at 11:45pm

gericault5
Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

I will concide the melira mistake, did it from memory and thought it was counters in general forgot about the -1, however i am correct about the static ability.  compare it to a creature with graft



The reminder text of both abilitys start the same way with the words "This creature (permanent) comes into play with...".  If this was a trigger ability when the creature comes into play the trigger would go on to the stack however before it resolves SBE's would be checked and kill the simic or any creature with graft before the counter comes on.  since this doesn't happen it can't be triggered it has to be static.

A trigger ability starts with the words "when" "whenever" or "at".  Such as the second ability of chronoza which begins with "When chronoza is put into", however the first part of vanishing doesn't begin with one of those words.  Notice how Dreadnought also starts with "when" which is why torpor works with it.
Date Posted: Thu Jun/09/11 at 12:45am

uncountednose
Posts: 22
Joined: 24-Sep-10

First off, the rules are your friends. I can't believe you are trying to have this argument with me and haven't even used them. Until you bust out an actual rule or a judges ruling its just us arguing about nothing. I can show you a rule reference talking about triggered abilities "looking back in time" after the triggering event resolves. That card proves nothing, wizards has to make strange compromises all the time on how things get resolved. That being said you are correct, it is a static ability. You should have posted rule 603.6e instead of that card.

"603.6e Some permanents have text that reads “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield tapped.” Such text is a static ability—not a triggered ability—whose effect occurs as part of the event that puts the permanent onto the battlefield."

Anyways, my mistake. I was running through the rules to quickly and I guess I missed that. I am willing to admit being wrong you just can't come at me with that weak BS. I guess that could be considered insulting but I hope you take it in the spirit is was offered.

[Edited by uncountednose on 9/Jun/11 at 12:49AM]
Date Posted: Thu Jun/09/11 at 6:35am

Dakkon Thued
Posts: 312
Joined: 15-Mar-10

no one was trying to be insulting.  it's a goddamn magic forum.  relax buddy.
Date Posted: Thu Jun/09/11 at 10:03am

Twogunkid
Posts: 2610
Joined: 22-Jan-10

except gericaults a judge
Date Posted: Thu Jun/09/11 at 2:12pm

gericault5
Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

Ex-judge actually had to much going on in my life to fullfill the renewal requirments. Though I maintain my rules advisor status and am unofficially recognized as the judge at my local place.
However, like most judges I don't remember every rule number just the rules themselves. So yes I coukd have taken the time to pull the rule or I could have done like the rules and illustrated an example of the rule. Since I didn't remeber exactly where the rule was I chose the latter. Especially since most people tend to respond better when there is a compare and contrast.
Now I wouldn't call my post weak BS especially since it appears it was developed enough where you began questioning yourself to the point you looked up the rule. And now your more aware of the rules, and the judges job just became a lot easier. So yes it definitly wasn't BS infact I would say my counterpoint was quite successful

[Edited by gericault5 on 9/Jun/11 at 2:23PM]
Date Posted: Thu Jun/09/11 at 4:12pm

darthnefas
Posts: 1081
Joined: 04-Apr-11

It was problems like these that started them using titles for abilities in my opinion.  Before that you could have a tough time making any kind of call and it was based on where you were at when you were playing.  I've seen people lose tournaments with good decks because the rules weren't clear they said an ability worked or didn't work.  For instance I think the Mogg Bomber call was alllll wrong. 

Anyway, I think "something coming into play", like a Nekrataal, is prevented and since the other ability has a name and a couple of parts it doesn't fall under the "something comes into play".  The parenthesis is just an explanation.  That it doesn't fall into that category. 

The other thing I think they should've added is losing because of an infinite combo.  For instance, if the combo doesn't allow you to stop it from constantly repeating then it inadvertently destroys the world and the match is a draw. 
Date Posted: Fri Jun/10/11 at 3:54pm

uncountednose
Posts: 22
Joined: 24-Sep-10

I was speaking of what I said being insulting, not anyone else. Specifically when I called his response weak BS. I'm perfectly relaxed pal.

Anyways, the card was less than convincing, I was actually looking to strengthen my argument because I remembered a couple of things that would do just that. Finding the rule that supported you was just a coincidence.

[Edited by uncountednose on 10/Jun/11 at 3:59PM]