Persist + Melira = Immortal creatures

Home Submit A Combo Deck Builder Forums Picture Guess Help

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

Forum Overview >> Combos

Combo Name: Persist + Melira = Immortal creatures

Submitted By: Pynix

Card Name

Type

Cost

P/T

Editions (ordered by release)

Murderous Redcap

Creature - Goblin Assassin

2(B/R)(B/R)

2/2

Scarland Thrinax

Creature - Lizard

BRG

2 / 2

Melira, Sylvok Outcast

Legendary Creature - Human Scout

2/2

Estimated Combo Cost: $2.16

Date Posted: Wed Jun/15/11 at 10:10 am

Pynix

Posts: 9
Joined: 01-Feb-11

Well the basic combo is that Melira with any of your persist creatures would make them immortal. Put a Scarland Thrinax in there and you have your sac engine. This combo produces an infinite damage combo and can kill your opponent on turn four given that you have Melira and Scarland out already by turn four. Play Murderous Redcap or Kitchen Finks, and you are producing potentially infinite damage/life.
I mean it's whatever you want.
Persist creatures + Melira (+ cauldron of souls)= Immortal creatures.

Date Posted: Wed Jun/15/11 at 10:50am

darthnefas

Posts: 1081
Joined: 04-Apr-11

The other day I was thinking, wouldn't it be cool to have a good Redcap combo?

Viola!

Date Posted: Thu Jun/16/11 at 6:56am

pardon

Posts: 24
Joined: 07-Jun-11

wont work the creature enters the battle field with the -1-1 melira wont remove the counter

Date Posted: Sat Jun/18/11 at 10:42pm

gericault5

Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

your right melira won't remove the counters, however her static ability does prevent them from being put on in the first place.

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 3:43am

taru_ninja

Posts: 2
Joined: 21-Jul-11

I dont really understand y cards that specifally say the card enters with -1/-1 counters on it are effected by elira. My buddy says it because they dont get the counter till after they are in play, but doesnt that go against the specific wording on the card. I understand the combo is accpted by alot of people, but to me by the wording of the cards the counters arent placed on them they are a part of the spell. Can anyone explain why it doesnt happen when the card says, instead it happens at another time which allows elira to affect it?

[Edited by taru_ninja on 21/Jul/11 at 3:45AM]

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 8:08am

darthnefas

Posts: 1081
Joined: 04-Apr-11

I think the problem is people get caught up in is wordings. They see come into play and see it as a part of the wording that they can affect and in reality it should be considered separate.

Persist is an ability, so its effects should be incorporated together. So instead of saying a -1/-1 counter it should just say -1/-1, but Magic is trying to appeal to everyone and make it simple/stupid and for that they're getting side-swiped. I highly doubt the design team had that in mind when they made it, but the design team doesn't make the rules. Same as the rule that said adding a +1/+1 counter removes a -1/-1 counter. I would tell the person who made that to his face that is a stupid idea.

So she is made to prevent the Infect effect (which is broken enough) and in reality there's no way to word that so she's branching out for no reason.

Its one of the reasons I stopped playing, when you make a tournament winning deck and some weak deck builder makes a stupid combo that doesn't make sense and the rules guy says it works and you face him first round and that's your day.

[Edited by darthnefas on 21/Jul/11 at 8:12AM]

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 9:51am

gericault5

Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

Darth is right that you can't always take the wording on the card at face value. As more abilitys and cards are introduced rulesa change but they don't reprint cards. The ruling that states cards entering play with counters are considered to have the counters put there was introduced with melira.
Though it does make sense when you think about it. You can't have a counter on something that doesn't exist so the permanent had to be there first

[Edited by gericault5 on 21/Jul/11 at 10:02AM]

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 12:53pm

Zark-the-Damned

Posts: 523
Joined: 24-Feb-10

geri - I thought the rule was actually introduced with Tatterkite - conveniently enough, in the same block as Persist :) (OK, it was just for that card, then they expanded it when Melira was printed...)

Darth - the -1/-1 counter from Persist is far, far more sensible than trying to write up a bunch of clunky wording to explain that the creature has a permanent change to it's power and toughness and if it has had this change applied it cannot use Persist again.

By using the counter, WOTC has streamlined the mechanic to use a lot simpler wording AND gotten around the memory factor ('wait... did that guy persist several turns ago?'), plus added the potential for other effects that can remove or replace these counters to allow you to use Persist again. On the flipside, if you have an effect which places -1/-1 counters on the creature (e.g. Scar or Contagion Clasp), you can prevent the persist shenanigans.

Taru - It works because Melira sets up a state based effect which affects creatures as they are entering the battlefield, to stop the counters being added. (in addition to stopping the counters hitting your in play critters)

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 2:06pm

darthnefas

Posts: 1081
Joined: 04-Apr-11

Zark-the-Damned, you need to read my post more thoroughly, but since you said that and directed it at me I need to respond, so if they streamlined an ability and called it persist (then why do they fill up every card with this area after the ability?) Talk about clutter!

It's the same difference. You dumb down the card to a simple ability and the idiots complain and say, hey can you write what each ability does on the card too? So now we've added all the writing and a new word for the writing!

So then why bother writting persist then? It's easy, because that ability has certain things that happen together that can't be effected seperately.

And why can't a creature come into play with a +1/+1 counter already on it? We play a game that says, "the card text rules has precedence" and then someone says, "well that ability doesn't work until it comes into play." If the card says it then that's what happens.

But it's players who want their combo to work and they'll find any way to make it work, when in reality it's just trying to skirt the rules so they can win. BTW, I don't think it's true in the above combo because you really have to ask because of the way the rules are written and that's where the problem lies.

In reality these are just growing pains. We had the same problems with mono and poly artifacts and this will work itself out as well.

[Edited by darthnefas on 21/Jul/11 at 2:07PM]

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 4:58pm

Zark-the-Damned

Posts: 523
Joined: 24-Feb-10

Darth - I did read your post quite carefully. You were complaining that Persist uses -1/-1 counters instead of tracking a generic -1/-1 effect, and that it had unintended consequences.

I'm pretty sure the design team knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the ability, and intentionally made it use counters to allow shenanigans with counter manipulation. Why else would cards like Scar and Fate Manipulation be in the same set?

If they had used a system like you suggest, you would end up needing to track the creatures which had come back into play with Persist anyway, so why not use counters? Remember that games of Magic can go on for a long time and feature changes to control of creatures and all sorts of other weird interactions which make 'memory' effects tough to track, which is why they don't print them any more.

The text inside () is called REMINDER text - it's role is to explain to players what a new ability does (and in core sets to explain to new players what basic abilities do). It would be required regardless of how they worded Persist, so I'm not sure where you're going with that statement...

Also, there are many creatures which enter the battlefield with +1/+1 counters already on them. Probably too many to mention here. Ivy Elemental is a good example, as are the Modular and Sunburst creatures from Mirrodin block.

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 5:08pm

Turbine

Posts: 10194
Joined: 26-Oct-09

Melira = no -1/-1 counters

Perist = return with -1/-1 counters

Sacrifice engine = FTW!

Discussion over.

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 5:10pm

Zark-the-Damned

Posts: 523
Joined: 24-Feb-10

On this point I agree with Turbine :D

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 5:54pm

taru_ninja

Posts: 2
Joined: 21-Jul-11

See but that the part i dont get, persist doesnt say return than put on, says returns with. As such melira says cant be placed on, doesnt say cant have them already. Since the wording on persist says its on there before the battlefeild, the question how does melira remove it? Everyone says the same thing but like i said it doesnt follow the card it follows what someone else wants..... This combo is a pathetic attempt to abuse something that shouldnt exsist.

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 5:55pm

Torto

Posts: 148
Joined: 25-Jun-11

I don't know exactly how this works... but i expect my opinion can help with something:
The Persist ability says that the creature MUST return to play with a -1/-1 counter on it, so as Melira don't let the creature to have a counter on it, i think the Murderous Redcap becomes an illegal target, that results in the cancellation of the Persist, making the Murderous stay in the graveyard as the abilities resolves.
But, as i said, i'm not certain of this... only reflecting....

Date Posted: Thu Jul/21/11 at 6:34pm

gericault5

Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

The fact of the matter is sometimes the game doesn't make sense, take the old mogg fanatic shenagins what sense did it make that a creature can kill another when it was already dead. But thats how it was.

Melira wasn't designed to work with persist she was designed to work with infect, flavor wise, you can't be/get sick when melira was around. the rule governing her was created to go with that, she was the hope for mirroden. it just happens to break persist in half.

Now I mentioned the rule, so here it is

121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being �placed� on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it�s on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).

She doesn't remove the counter she prevents it from happening. She prevents the creature from being infected. So the redcap comes back strong and healthy (ie without the counter)